This post from former MPLS mayor RT Rybak was shared by a friend of mine, and I found it interesting that such hyper partisan, TDS sufferers would take this approach.
"Gretchen Whitmer would mop the floor with Donald Trump in a debate about abortion rights. Kamala Harris would eviscerate him for killing immigration reform. Pete Buttigieg, Gavin Newsom and Amy Klobuchar would make an incredible case about what Democrats have done to protect the climate, end child poverty, improve our schools and so much more."
What Rybak seems to be saying is that each of these democrats could debate Trump on one issue and win. That's great. But...
Whitmer presides over a state where one fairly major city has had undrinkable water since 2014 and Whitmer has not solved this one problem. Strangely a debate about abortion on demand isn't going to move the needle in a general election. The majority of the public does not agree with the DFL position of abortion anywhere, anytime, at taxpayer expense, so I'm not sure how a debate on a subject where the majority disagree will help her beat Trump.
Given the fact that Harris is the "Border Czar" and has accomplished virtually zero to improve the border crisis, I'm not sure this is the slam dunk Ryback thinks it is. Of course, Harris has some things Trump could counter with. Her sleeping her way up the political ladder, sending large numbers of black people to jail for minor crimes, being the descendant of slave owners, and not black... Oh, and Harris has a habit of saying really stupid things.
Pete Buttigege, has an enviable track record of extensive parental leave, ignoring major transportation accidents, and wasting 7.5 billion to build 7 public charging stations.
Newsome is presiding over a state that features people shitting and using drugs on the streets of major cities, has huge budget problems, and is one of the states with the largest population declines in the country. He's got his own sex scandals, and his public hypocrisy during COVID would be fodder for awesome ads.
Klobuchar lost badly during her run for president in 2020, has zero charisma, a mediocre record as a senator, and is not a great public speaker.
"Trump would be no match for any of these, or many other Democrats, who could step in right now and win the election."
I'll note that Ryback didn't even mention Biden's one primary challenger in this election cycle in his list, pretends like it's a minor issue to replace the primary wnnler at the drop of a hat, and that none of his options has any significant negatives.
"Compare that to the disastrous debate you just saw. Those clips will be with us endlessly through November. The American people have spoken clearly that they don’t want a choice between Trump and Biden."
It seems as though we just went through these things called primary elections, where America was given the opportunity to "speak" (at least part of America), and they spoke. America gave us these two as the winners of the primaries. The GOP had at least two strong options, while the DFL had one weak option. America spoke already. The fact the DFL primary voters went all in on Biden and the party didn't bother to offer a worthy option shouldn't be ignored.
"They don’t have to because we have a stable of great candidates who could, not only get elected President, but make a compelling case about why other Democrats should get elected in critical races for Senate, the House and across the country."
Yet this "stable of great candidates" didn't even bother to challenge Biden in the primaries. I wonder why?
"President Biden got us out of COVID and an economic collapse, and passed extraordinary legislation."
The COVID economic downturn had already ended before Biden took office, yet Biden pumped billions of dollars of government spending out which made inflation worse, the employment situation isn't a rosy as Biden would like to pretend (way more part time than full time jobs), inflation is nowhere near what it was when Biden took office (which he's repeatedly lied about), doubled down on Trump's COVID policies, and barely passed any legislation. Most of this legislation hasn't even done much of anything yet.
"He deserves tremendous praise. But a Presidential election is not the Academy Awards where you are rewarded for what you did. Elections are about the future and Democrats have an inspirational message that is not being told..."
What is this mysterious "inspiring message"? Apparently Ryback's next sentence will tell us...
"while a convicted felon who tried to steal the election and end our democracy looks like he could win."
Well, that IS an inspiring message. Fearmongering at it's best. FYI, Biden is incompetent to stand trial for the felonies he committed.
"Not a single thing about that will change unless we—all of us—demand we change our messenger."
This is actually True. So that's something.
"Taking the tough, immediate action we need to win this election is not about whether people like President Biden, or think he has done a good job. It’s like baseball: the pitcher should get credit for six great innings but when they start giving up home runs and the World Series is on the line, sometimes you call in a reliever. The context has simply changed and a lot more than the World Series is on the line. It is absolutely not too late to pick a new candidate."
I'm not disagreeing with his premise, but the notion that Biden was a strong, amazing, candidate mere months ago and was such a good candidate that the DFL didn't bother to offer anyone to challenge him in the primaries seems strange. The fact that Biden was cognitively lacking has been apparent for years, yet it wasn't a problem until now, strange.
"Hold two forums for candidates who meet a threshold, do a straw poll and the delegates pick. A convention that right now almost no one would turn on, would turn into “must see TV” with Democrats trying to top each other on making the most compelling case."
Interesting thought. Tell everyone who voted for Biden in the primaries that their votes don't count and that the elites of the DFL are going to fix the mistakes of the population who voted for Biden in the primaries.
"A four day informercial on why to vote for Democrats. Having been a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee I can say it is unlikely this would happen without a huge push from the public—you and me—right now. Our elected officials, are staying shockingly silent in public, especially considering how many of them acknowledge privately that this has to happen. They fear political retribution but they should really fear that if we lose this election because they didn’t have the guts to do what they know needs to be done, holy hell and history will come down on them like an anvil."
If only there was a process already in place that could have prevented this, a time tested process that would have allowed this alleged stable of awesome candidates to have let the voters choose who was going to be the DFL candidate for president. If only the DFL hadn't set things up for Biden to slide through the primaries unchallenged and cast Biden as the absolute best possible candidate.
"They need to be pushed—hard and immediately- to act, and know how many people support them if they do. Call their offices, circulate this or write your own but speak up now. Worrying about this with each other in private won’t get this done. Imagine the Republican convention if a change was made: If we had a new candidate they would lose the only talking point they have and, instead, have to spend four days trying to actually say what they are for. Now that would be must see TV."
I do actually agree that both parties have been absolutely dreadful at campaigning on anything but trashing the other guys and I would love a GOP convention where they laid out a vision for the future of the US. What he leaves out is that the DFL strategy (as he's already shown us) is to do to Trump exactly what he doesn't want to happen with Biden. We all know what the DFL strategy in the general election will be, "Orange man bad." (now that Joe is orange that might be a problem), "Convicted felon.", "He's going to get rid of democracy.", "Kings", und so weiter. There is no chance that the DFL will campaign on anything but attacking Trump.
Y'all made your bed, you know what happens next.
330,000,000 people in the US, @ 200,000,000 meet the basic requirements to run for office, and these two are the absolute best we have.
FYI, there is one candidate in this election cycle who is casting a specific, detailed vision for the future, and it's not Biden.
This notion that the DFL should get a do over because they were too blind to see that their power hungry president and his wife don't want to let go of their position, regardless of the mental acuity of Biden.
92 comments:
His entire screed is fantasy. It's typical of the left, to pretend their incompetents are doing great things and we are just too stupid to realize them. The one nice thing Dems have done is lowered the bar for center-right people to step over, if they'd only go right to the people who need to hear how badly the Dems have been for them before they vote for them all over again. Trump's done some of that by venturing to the Bronx and other such Dem friendly places. Need more of that by all candidates.
Here's a post idea for you: Since you desire a plan for the future, what would you design for the GOP that goes beyond the basics which remain essential, such as lower taxes, fewer regulations, stronger military, secure borders, greatly reduced spending, less crime, etc.? For example, if a candidate campaigns on "getting the economy going again", what more than less spending, taxes and regulations should be expressed to the people by him? It seems their plan remains the same in a general sense and still a good one as far as it goes.
The fact that Biden was cognitively lacking has been apparent for years, yet it wasn't a problem until now, strange.
You are free to hold this unsupported opinion, as someone who does not know Biden, nor are familiar with his medical and health records or is an expert in any way whatsoever. But your non-expert opinion is meaningless, insofar as it goes.
Biden has always dealt with a speech impediment, but reasonable people don't penalize or unfairly judge people over such minor nonsense. Biden MAY (it's not known and you certainly don't know) be dealing with age-related impairments and maybe, perhaps, entering into early stages of age-related disabilities. But that you - someone who doesn't know him and is not an expert - may have thought it's problematic is not especially compelling.
On the other hand, reasonable people across the board ARE beginning to wonder if Biden is approaching the point when his age is an actual impediment. We're not saying that it is certainly so (as you appear to be willing to do... even while you don't recognize the more obvious impairments of the man you continue to vote for), reasonable people are raising it as a concern. As is reasonable, given the known data.
But what you think of as a "fact," in your ignorance and lack of awareness of the specifics, is rather meaningless.
Facts are important. What the uninformed think of as "facts," when they haven't been demonstrated, are much less important.
If reasonable people - Biden and Democrat supporters included - are beginning to express concern that it's time for Biden to step aside, then that's something that should be certainly considered. But when Trump voters and supporters raise it as a partisan attack, that's not as significant... especially when they refuse to admit the obvious unfitness for office the person they support/vote for has.
If, at this late stage, reasonable people across the board think that we're faced with a deviant unfit for office (Trump) and a good man whose age and health are making him currently not a qualified candidate (Biden) then it's reasonable to select someone else.
What's the problem with that?
It is that. It's an acknowledgement that the entire DFL failed miserably in jumping on the Bidenwagon, and that they need to fix their mistake while not taking responsibility for it in the first place.
I agree that the DFL is increasingly hostile to anyone who's not far to the left of center. The GOP needs to figure out how to appeal to those that the DFL is alienating.
I'm pretty sure I've done posts like that before. Fortunately, I'm not running for office and my individual opinions on those things aren't that meaningful.
It seems strange that you seem to prefer undefined generalities to specifics.
"Biden has always dealt with a speech impediment, but reasonable people don't penalize or unfairly judge people over such minor nonsense."
The problem with the "stuttering" excuse is that Biden's problem isn't stuttering. As we saw recently, as long as he's reading from a prompter and is insulated from questions, he can appear to be fine. Of course, lapsing into gibberish, or rambling incoherently isn't stuttering, it's something else.
"Biden MAY (it's not known and you certainly don't know) be dealing with age-related impairments and maybe, perhaps, entering into early stages of age-related disabilities. But that you - someone who doesn't know him and is not an expert - may have thought it's problematic is not especially compelling."
My opinions aren't the point. It's the fact that the MSM, the DFL operative class, the DFL donor class, the special prosecutor, and the DFL governors are all pretty united on the narrative that Biden isn't mentally capable of being president. The fact that they're too cowardly to call for a 25th amendment solution is a whole other deal. "He's too mentally impaired to be president in 2025, but he's perfectly fine right now."
"On the other hand, reasonable people across the board ARE beginning to wonder if Biden is approaching the point when his age is an actual impediment. We're not saying that it is certainly so (as you appear to be willing to do... even while you don't recognize the more obvious impairments of the man you continue to vote for), reasonable people are raising it as a concern. As is reasonable, given the known data."
That's a fanciful hunch and runs counter to what's all over the MSM, but if living in a fantasy world is your thing enjoy it.
I think that Dan has failed once again to actually read the post. He seems to thank that the words quoted and in bold are my words and NOT the words of RT Ryback. That's the only conclusion I can draw.
It's an acknowledgement that the entire DFL failed miserably in jumping on the Bidenwagon, and that they need to fix their mistake while not taking responsibility for it in the first place.
OR is it the case that no one knows when someone will enter their decline in their last decades and, not knowing, we opted for grace and support for our elders and, when/as it becomes clear/ IF it becomes clear that Biden is declining, then we release him from the responsibility of the presidency.
You see, we don't presume to be able to tell our elders when precisely they're no longer able to do their job until it becomes clear. Is there something wrong with that respect for our elders and that blow against ageism? Perhaps, but I don't know what it is.
In reality, we don't know when or how fast any of us will start to decline in our elder years and it seems the better part of grace and human rights to give some leeway.
But perhaps you have some infallible method of determining when someone is objectively not able to do their job. If so, by all means, share your secret with us. If not, though, then perhaps humility and grace will allow you to acknowledge that none of us can precisely say when someone is "too far" in decline to make these sorts of hard decisions for them.
You want specifics? Given the data that the increase for the onset of dementia is ~80 years old, lets make an age of 76 as a cut off for running for office. Given the data that incumbency gives some advantage to an election, let's set term limits for Congress like we do for the president. Those are some specifics.
You want more: Let's say you can't make unproven allegations about a political opponent in a commercial. That's a specific. Free speech does not include slander, it's a reasonable specific.
Join me on these points?
Of course, lapsing into gibberish, or rambling incoherently isn't stuttering, it's something else.
1. You're literally no expert on how stuttering shows up.
2. Trump has been spouting gibberish for over a decade now, and is doing so increasingly. And yet, you only have concerns about the man with a known stuttering history, and not the man with the known narcissism and corruption.
Why is that?
"If reasonable people - Biden and Democrat supporters included - are beginning to express concern that it's time for Biden to step aside, then that's something that should be certainly considered."
You mean the same "reasonable people" that supported, campaigned for, and voted for Biden just a few short months ago? The "reasonable people" who touted Biden as the very best option for a DFL victory in Nov? They all did a 180 based on one debate that was rigged in his favor?
"But when Trump voters and supporters raise it as a partisan attack, that's not as significant... especially when they refuse to admit the obvious unfitness for office the person they support/vote for has."
What an interesting double standard. The DFL candidates that have run against Trump are free to make up all sorts of false crap to accuse Trump of, but Trump supporters can't point out the obvious. Hell, Trump and his supporters don't have to do anything but let Biden ramble. That strategy worked for Trump the other night just fine. Let the MSM and DFL harp on how unfit Biden is, and the GOP/Trump supporters can just stand by and watch the DFL self destruct.
"If, at this late stage, reasonable people across the board think that we're faced with a deviant unfit for office (Trump) and a good man whose age and health are making him currently not a qualified candidate (Biden) then it's reasonable to select someone else."
By all means, go against the will of the people who engaged in the democratic practice of voting in the primaries.
"What's the problem with that?"
1. State law may prevent the changing of a candidate on the ballots.
2. The fake mail in ballots are already printed and filled out with Biden's name.
3. It's literally disenfranchising everyone who participated in the democratic process we call primary elections.
4. It's literally overturning the will of the people who participated.
5. It may or may not be legal.
6. The DFL doesn't have a replacement who's not burdened with significant negatives, as I pointed out.
I suspect that Dan would happily vote for Newsome, even though he shares many of the attributes Dan despises in Trump, just because he's a slavish DFL partisan.
Biden isn't mentally capable of being president. The fact that they're too cowardly to call for a 25th amendment solution is a whole other deal. "He's too mentally impaired to be president in 2025, but he's perfectly fine right now."
This would make more sense if you would acknowledge that Trump, for at least a decade now, has been too mentally impaired to be president. That you only raise concerns when it's a Democrat is part of the problem.
You can see that Democrats have been raising concern for quite a while now about our own candidate, but the GOP has rallied around their pervert prince and his mental and intelligence deficiencies for almost a decade now.
And that's the difference between the modern GOP and Democrats. Between me and you. IF it's shown that Biden is not capable for the office, I will call for him to step down. In the meantime, you continue to vote for your pervert prince, IN SPITE of his mental failures.
1. Neither are you.
2. That you can't differentiate someone misspeaking from what Biden has been doing for years is not my problem.
I do so love you making excuses for Joe. You'll accept all sorts of immorality and corruption as long as the DFL is beside the name on the ballot.
No, I literally do not "accept all sorts of immorality and corruption" as long as they are a Democrat. You'll have to remember that I refused to vote for B Clinton while you DID vote for your pervert king.
And that's the difference between you and I. I don't make excuses. Your pervert is beyond the pale. Biden, on the other hand, is an imperfect man who may be brought down by the infirmity of age, but he's no deviant and conman like the pervert you continue to literally defend and vote for.
Look, just admit it. Trump is just the deviant and idiot and conman he appears to be. You should NEVER have voted for him and your defense of the pervert king was wrong. Biden is a flawed man, but nothing like your pervert that you voted for and you were wrong to do it.
Admit it and be better and move on.
Or don't. That's on you and history and God will judge you for your choices.
Frankly, when I see past clips of Biden speaking, I can't say that I've ever noticed any "stuttering" beyond what is common for most people...is saying things like "um" or "uh" constitutes stuttering. What Joe's been doing for quite some time is well beyond that.
But more importantly, Dan pretends he was fit for the office at some point, when watching this guy's speeches and comments going back decades clearly shows a stupid person who shouldn't even have been in Congress at all.
In the meantime, Trump's four years proved his fitness for the job, even without it having been perfect (because as we know, no one expects perfect from any candidate). He's actually gotten positive and beneficial things done for all Americans. It's foolish to compare the single terms of each guy, because Biden's term simply can't compare to Trump's. Biden's term can't compare to his former boss, and THAT guy's two terms weren't as good as Trump's one.
Dan's a liar and a hater, because...you know...embrace grace!
And here's another thing: Dan likes to berate Trump for his rational, logical and truthful disdain for the leftist media, and this debate has exposed them as the disdainful pack of lying Democrat operatives they are. And that's on just this one issue.
Oh...and by the way...conservatives have the same concerns for Mitch McConnell. He's exhibited similar signs that he's...uh...past his prime. But he's never been stupid like Biden has his entire career. Just ask Barry, who said to never underestimate Joe's ability to f**k things up. I know Barry's a liar, too. But was he lying about Joe? That was before he ran for prez in 2020. His dementia now doesn't mitigate his stupidity prior to its onset.
"You'll have to remember that I refused to vote for B Clinton while you DID vote for your pervert king."
You'll have to remember that you are making a claim about which I have no firsthand knowledge, and the you have no ability to prove. So, at best you are now claiming that you didn't vote for Bill Clinton because you think it'll help you. Given the fact that Hillary enabled, facilitated, and was in charge of attacking Bill's "bimbos", and has a record of corruption all her own my opinion still stands. Of course, you voted for Biden and will do so again despite his corruption.
"You should NEVER have voted for him"
Given the reality that both Trump and Biden have a long history of similar behavior, I fail to see your point. I took the only option available to vote against Hillary and Biden, I accept the reality.
"and your defense of the pervert king was wrong."
You keep repeating this lie as if repeating it makes it True. I've never defended Trump's perversions. I have pointed out when Trump has been falsely accused (by Hillary and Biden) of various things, pointed out when he's been right despite the lies told about him, and have/will do so for any president regardless of party.
"Biden is a flawed man, but nothing like your pervert that you voted for and you were wrong to do it."
Yes, all of Biden's lies and corruption have happened while he held elected office. Biden has enriched himself to the tune of tens/hundreds of millions through unknown means and attempted to hide his wealth. What was it that Truman said on the topic of politicians who get rich in office?
"Admit it and be better and move on."
Sure, I was faced with voting for one of two incredibly bad candidates and I voted for the one who's political views were more aligned with my own. Just like every other election I've voted in.
"Or don't. That's on you and history and God will judge you for your choices."
History isn't sentient and doesn't judge. I have no fear of standing before YHWH's judgement because Jesus work on the cross has rendered me positionally righteous and forgiven.
"This would make more sense if you would acknowledge that Trump, for at least a decade now, has been too mentally impaired to be president. That you only raise concerns when it's a Democrat is part of the problem."
Why would I acknowledge something that simply is not True? I've only raised concerns about a president's mental fitness once since I was able to vote. It has nothing to do with party affiliation, and everything to do with what I see with my own two eyes. Your desperation to remove Trump by any means necessary is impressive. FYI, maybe you didn't realize this, but almost everything in the original post about Biden's incapacity to serve as president is a quote from a longtime DFL leader whose served on the DNC. The topic of this post and others is the fact that the DFL and the MSM have almost totally turned on Biden and are almost totally unified in wanting him out as the candidate. This isn't me being partisan, it's me quoting and highlighting what the DFL and MSM are saying.
"You can see that Democrats have been raising concern for quite a while now about our own candidate, but the GOP has rallied around their pervert prince and his mental and intelligence deficiencies for almost a decade now."
Well, the DFL has been in panic mode about Biden for the last 10 days sing the debate. Before that the narrative was that he was "sharp as a tack" and fully engaged in everything. The DFL and MSM have been hiding/lying about Biden's fitness for months if not years. IF the DFL was worried about this "quite a while ago", why did they spend the entire first 5 months of 2024 touting him and supporting him in the primaries? If the DFL was "raising concern" why did all of these people endorse his 2024 candidacy? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joe_Biden_2024_presidential_campaign_primary_endorsements)
"And that's the difference between the modern GOP and Democrats. Between me and you. IF it's shown that Biden is not capable for the office, I will call for him to step down. In the meantime, you continue to vote for your pervert prince, IN SPITE of his mental failures."
Look, if you want to live in a fantasy world where you and everyone else in the DFL wasn't touting Biden's fitness for office from January-April during the primaries, go ahead. If you want to pretend like this realization about Biden's mental fitness existed in the DFL before the debate, go ahead.
The DFL had the opportunity to replace Biden through the primary process. The DFL ran RFK out of the party because they thought he'd be successful against Biden, and managed only ONE primary challenger to Biden who was and still is a virtual unknown. Y'all had the chance less then 6 months ago to fix this problem, AND very likely win the 2024 election. Y'all chose this guy and this path. Stop blaming others.
Art,
Biden's stutter hasn't been an issue in his public speaking for years. Look at the video of him brutally attacking Clarence Thomas or advocating for the 1994 crime bill which incarcerated vast numbers of blacks. What we've seen recently, the trailing off at the end of a sentence, the gibberish, the vacant stare, needing people to lead him 15 feet off of a stage, etc isn't stuttering. The stuttering thing is just another attempt to divert attention from the reality of Biden's age.
While I certainly have problems with Trump, I have little question about his current mental and physical condition. Clearly the GOP has and will raise issues about those like McConnell who are clearly experiencing decline.
To be fair to all of them, I get it. Power is addictive. The attention, respect, and power is hard to let go of. They simply can't break their addiction to the power and money that comes with the position. It makes total sense, and explains so much of why our government is so screwed up.
The idea that Trump is suffering from any mental impairment of lack of intelligence is not mistake in perception. It's a blatant and willfully told lie. Dan's fine with lying, as he's the true pervert king around here, given his own many perversions of truth and facts.
If we take their character flaws off the table, I can still say without hesitation and with full confidence that Trump had shown himself to be far more fit for the office of president even prior to 2016. He took a relatively small amount of money and built a multi-billion dollar empire, proving he knows how to get things done. He employed people and gained the favor of many from both parties. Then, he took these qualities and ran for office, providing for millions the non-politician business man option they sought. He then did great work, doing things others said he couldn't get done, like moving our embassy from Tel Aviv to the Israel's capitol of Jerusalem...like brokering peace deals between Israel and arab neighbors while telling them they didn't need to wait on the "palestinians" to get it done...like getting us out of dangerous and costly deals like the Iran Nuke deal and the Paris Climate accords...like cutting taxes and regulations, as well as supporting pipelines, all of which led to increases in revenues to the federal government, more jobs, higher wages, etc. Somehow, the stupid like Trabue dares to question his fitness, intelligence and ability for the job his choice...which he insisted was a better man more qualified without any evidence to so much as hint as such a laughable thing...has proven himself to be totally lacking any of these essentials.
While I certainly have problems with Trump, I have little question about his current mental and physical condition.
And that is a large part of the problem. Trump is objectively stupid - or at the very least, intentionally talks like an uneducated person with no serious interest in education.
Trump is objectively, demonstrably something like sociopathic or a malignant narcissist. Those of us who have dealt with such people in our professional and personal lives recognize all the signs. Or, at the very least, he acts and speaks as one with serious mental and moral deficiencies. IF he were the Democratic candidate, you all would hate him for all the obvious reasons we recognize his illness and idiocy. In ANY previous decades, the GOP would have rejected him as unfit for office.
Tell me I'm not correct. You can't be that delusional. OF COURSE, the GOP of the past would have not even begun to accept Trump as a viable candidate.
Trump is a fatally flawed candidate such that many reasonable conservatives recognize it and nearly all conservatives in the past would have recognized it. Mental health experts recognize it. Historians - across the political spectrum - recognize it. Political scholars - across the political spectrum - recognize it.
Trump's primary "genius" is in getting normally relatively decent, normal conservatives to think that he is an acceptable option such that you all are willing to vote for him. In spite of his fatal flaws. He has managed to convince you of idiotic lies about "stolen elections" and "weaponized justice departments" and "the media is the enemy of the people" and "your fellow citizens who are more rational than you are demonic and enemies of the state." He's scared you into believing the false and irrational as a potential option.
More's the pity.
Yes, Power IS addictive, you can see it in your pervert king.
Oh, and on the "pervert king..." I think you misunderstand. I think you think I'm saying that because he is an atrociously sexist womanizer and immoral/amoral about his sexual "conquests"/abuses... that THIS is why I'm referring to him as a pervert king. I'm not. I mean, that's part of it, his assault on women and moral decency as it relates to women, but that's not even the main part. He is perverted in his sick lust for wealth, his sick lust for hedonism and gold toilets, his sick lust for power at all costs, his sick willingness to abuse the system for his own advantage. He is perverted in that he is entirely amoral, devoid of human decency in all areas of his life as he's demonstrated with his words and actions and policies. If he were the Democrat candidate, you would agree. But you've been sold a lie that this pervert (not just "sexual") is someone that could rationally be voted for. He should never have been a serious candidate. That's on the modern GOP and their willingness to be played by a pervert conman.
He is perverted, for a recent example, in his willingness not just to attack fellow conservatives who are more traditionally conservative than him, but in his STATED willingness to literally weaponize the justice system. His repeated calls to "lock them up..." anytime he's confronted with a decent political rival, even in his own party, even when they're more obviously demonstrably conservative than he is. He is threatening Liz Cheney with court martial and promising to use the legal system to prosecute Cheney, Biden and other political opponents EVEN THOUGH they have of course not committed any crimes.
This from your obviously criminal - convicted criminal - deviant, sick, perverted president that you willingly voted for. They use the false claim of "weaponized justice system" to fearmonger the useful idiots WHILE at the same time, PROMISING to do just that.
And you all fall for it.
You are not this obtuse, Craig. Marshal may be stupid and gullible enough to be fearmongered by a conman, but you are not this idiotic, Craig. And yet...
Genuine questions hoping for a genuine answers:
1. IF many/most in the progressive/moderate realm are thinking that Biden is losing his ability to lead and we ask him to step down for that reason, can you acknowledge that this is a reasonable and moral position to take?
2. Is there nothing wrong in recognizing, at this point, Oh, maybe he's no longer qualified/fit to do the job? Will you criticize us for not recognizing it sooner, even though the reality that age-related problems - including dementia - are not easily identified at any one point, especially in the early stages of decline?
3. Related question: Have you had the real-world opportunity to deal, first-hand, with a person close to you moving into a stage of less-competency?
4. Do you honestly NOT think that Trump has been rationally/morally/cognitively seriously impaired from at least 2016?
4a. If not, why not, when so many experts, historians, conservatives, scholars have recognized it as an obvious given?
"1. IF many/most in the progressive/moderate realm are thinking that Biden is losing his ability to lead and we ask him to step down for that reason, can you acknowledge that this is a reasonable and moral position to take?"
I can agree that asking Biden to step down is a pragmatic, possibly "reasonable" position to take. However, given that the entire focus of the DFL for the past year has been to push Biden as the single most qualified DFL candidate and the single best option against Trump, I'd suggest that it's disingenuous to pretend that this is about anything other then correcting a mistake.
"2. Is there nothing wrong in recognizing, at this point, Oh, maybe he's no longer qualified/fit to do the job? Will you criticize us for not recognizing it sooner, even though the reality that age-related problems - including dementia - are not easily identified at any one point, especially in the early stages of decline?"
No. At this point, I can't see why anyone would conclude otherwise. The problem is that as recently as spring of 2024 (mere months ago) Biden was the only viable DFL candidate in the primaries and was being touted as the best and only person to beat Trump. I don't have a problem with the conclusion, but with the timing.
"3. Related question: Have you had the real-world opportunity to deal, first-hand, with a person close to you moving into a stage of less-competency?"
Multiple times.
"4. Do you honestly NOT think that Trump has been rationally/morally/cognitively seriously impaired from at least 2016?"
I've always had problems with Trump's morals or lack thereof, and see no connection between his moral choices, and his cognitive abilities. I've seen nothing that indicates Trump has experienced cognitive decline since 2020.
"4a. If not, why not, when so many experts, historians, conservatives, scholars have recognized it as an obvious given?"
I see no reason to dignify the above appeal to (anonymous) authority (a logical fallacy) with an answer.
The quick pivot to "but, the other guy" is expected, but impressive.
"He is perverted, for a recent example, in his willingness not just to attack fellow conservatives who are more traditionally conservative than him,"
You mean to run against others in a party primary? To do what every single politician does in a primary?
"but in his STATED willingness to literally weaponize the justice system. His repeated calls to "lock them up..." anytime he's confronted with a decent political rival, even in his own party, even when they're more obviously demonstrably conservative than he is. He is threatening Liz Cheney with court martial and promising to use the legal system to prosecute Cheney, Biden and other political opponents EVEN THOUGH they have of course not committed any crimes."
Given the fact that the Biden administration is literally doing this as we speak renders this bit a bullshit, pretty hollow.
"You are not this obtuse, Craig. Marshal may be stupid and gullible enough to be fearmongered by a conman, but you are not this idiotic, Craig. And yet..."
Unlike you, I'm not being "fearmongered". I'm faced with a choice between two rich, old, white guys who both have multiple serious flaws. One of those rich, old, white guys is going to implement policies with which I (mostly) agree, while the other is going to implement policies with which I (mostly) do not agree. For some strange reason, I'll most likely not vote for the one who's policies I don't agree with.
BTW, it seems like you still don't understand the point of this post. If you need it explained, let me know.
"And that is a large part of the problem. Trump is objectively stupid - or at the very least, intentionally talks like an uneducated person with no serious interest in education."
Those are two entirely different things. The first is an objective claim, which you should be able to easily prove. The second is because Trump is running as a populist and chooses to speak in a manner that (he believes) is relatable. Biden does the same things when he lies about his upbringing or trots out any if his false anecdotes. Hillary did the same thing when she adopted her fake black dialect in front of black crowds.
"Tell me I'm not correct. You can't be that delusional. OF COURSE, the GOP of the past would have not even begun to accept Trump as a viable candidate."
When you delve into the realm of fantasy like this, there's no way to know.
"Trump is a fatally flawed candidate such that many reasonable conservatives recognize it and nearly all conservatives in the past would have recognized it. Mental health experts recognize it. Historians - across the political spectrum - recognize it. Political scholars - across the political spectrum - recognize it."
Same old bullshit. When faced with the fact that the MSM and the DFL are turning on Biden, attacking Trump is your only option.
"Trump's primary "genius" is in getting normally relatively decent, normal conservatives"
Well, at least Trump has one "genius". This from someone who's been demonizing conservatives sing the Bush administration is pretty damn funny.
"More's the pity."
The "pity" is that the DFL chose not to find a reasonable, centrist, populist candidate to run against Trump. The "pity" is that the DFL spent months touting Biden as the best possible, even only, candidate who could beat Trump (while ignoring his obvious flaws) and now decides to throw Biden under the bus after the primaries. Biden hasn't changed since the primary season started. Had y'all run a strong challenger to Biden, and actually had Biden debate during the primaries, he'd have shown his inability to speak extemporaneously in time for y'all to have fixed your problem.
"Yes, Power IS addictive, you can see it in your pervert king."
I see it in Jill Biden.
Given how you've just chosen to regurgitate your threadbare attacks on Trump, I remain convinced that you really have no clue what this post is actually about.
"You mean to run against others in a party primary? To do what every single politician does in a primary?"
No. That's not what I mean. Normal candidates run against other candidates and delineate why their policies are better than their opponents., and why they'd be a better leader than their opponents. That's what the best politicians do.
It's not uncommon for that differentiation to dip down into insults about the political opponent... not ideal but not uncommon.
That's not what Trump is doing. He's accusing, for instance, Liz Cheney of treason and calling for her to be tried, convicted and executed.
That is chilling. That is beyond the bounds of propriety. That's what's wrong with Trump and the Maga. It's not acceptable to call the press and the other party to be treasonous, enemies of the state, or otherwise literally demonize their political opponents.
You surely can't be okay with this.
Dan
https://x.com/i/status/1810447461816979870
The embedded video is Jake Tapper from CNN, who is obviously a real journalist working for a real journalism outlet. Definitely not a right wing mouthpiece.
"NEW: CNN's Jake Tapper, who apparently never realized Biden had cognitive issues before the debate, reads an incoherent Biden quote word for word on live TV.
Brutal.
"The reality is that the Democratic elites are mostly late to acknowledge these age inability issues compared to the rest of the public. The elites have been forced to reckon with it."
Then Jake read this direct quote from Biden as an example of what the problem might be.
"The fact of the matter is how can you assure you're going to be out on, you know, on your way to go, you know, work tomorrow Age, age wasn't, you know, the idea that I'm too old."
This is what y'all elected for your presidential candidate.
"No. That's not what I mean. Normal candidates run against other candidates and delineate why their policies are better than their opponents., and why they'd be a better leader than their opponents. That's what the best politicians do."
Yes, except when the party they represent rigs the primaries to exclude certain candidates (Bernie, RFK), and simply anoints the incumbent with no challenges, no debates, nothing but staged campaign events.
"It's not uncommon for that differentiation to dip down into insults about the political opponent... not ideal but not uncommon."
It's been going on since the early 1800's, it's pretty much the norm to some degree or another. Of course, in this election, the insults and desire to throw Genocide Joe under the bus is coming from his supposed allies in the DFL and the MSM. Hell, Trump hardly said a word in the debate and y'all are in panic.
"That's not what Trump is doing. He's accusing, for instance, Liz Cheney of treason and calling for her to be tried, convicted and executed."
It's strange that somehow Trump making statements on social media when he is not currently holding elective office is a harbinger of the end of the world, but Biden prosecuting and jailing those who oppose his policies is business as usual. If consistency is a goal, then you can't condemn Trump for discussing trying people for what he believes are crimes (That's what he appears to be calling for is using the existing legal process), and Biden actually doing what you fear Trump might do.
"That is chilling. That is beyond the bounds of propriety. That's what's wrong with Trump and the Maga. It's not acceptable to call the press and the other party to be treasonous, enemies of the state, or otherwise literally demonize their political opponents."
Do you not read what the left is saying about Trump? The he'll be the "end of our democracy", and the like. Hell Trump had a larger fine for reasonably accurately assessing the value of real estate he owns, then Boeing did for actions that resulted in people dying. Biden's the one who's sentenced trespassers to years in jail, sentenced an old woman to die in prison because she prayed in the wrong place, not to mention colluding with prosecutors to manufacture felonies out of a misdemeanor and for pushing the corrupt ATL trial.
Look, it's wrong no matter who does it or threatens to do it. But right now we have one guy threatening and one guy actually doing.
"You surely can't be okay with this."
Absolutely noticing I've said, written, thought, or imagined could possibly lead you to think that I support using the power of the DOJ against one's political rivals. You play your little semantic game to imply that I somehow am, while you literally say nothing while Biden does what you claim to fear.
Absolutely noticing I've said, written, thought, or imagined could possibly lead you to think that I support using the power of the DOJ against one's political rivals. You play your little semantic game to imply that I somehow am, while you literally say nothing while Biden does what you claim to fear.
Trump is the one promising/suggesting that he will use the DOJ to persecute/execute political enemies. NOT Biden. Biden has made it clear that the DOJ is its own entity obligated to pursue justice as they see fit.
Biden has nothing to do with Trump's criminal convictions in NYC. That's Trump's own doing. No one else's.
You're being delusional and demonizing a clearly good/decent (if imperfect) man in defense of an obviously amoral, perverted corrupt man.
Shame on you. Be a better human.
As to "using the DOJ against one's political rivals," YOU are the one voting for the man who promises to do so, voting for the man who has routinely led his useful idiots in shouting "Lock her up" and promising to execute even GOP conservatives (Cheney) who interfere with Trump's abuse of power.
YOU are the one who thinks such a man is someone you HAVE voted for and will CONTINUE to vote for. That's all on you, not me, not the Democrats.
Be better.
"Marshal may be stupid and gullible enough to be fearmongered by a conman..."
This kinda crap always makes me laugh...as if we're not sitting here reading the words that Dan typed out and submitted for publishing.
Dan ignores all the nasty things said about Trump without legitimate, intelligent basis and pretends it's Trump who's "chilling" in the legitimate complaints he has about the Dems, RINOs, the leftist press and others of that moronic, deceitful ilk. Talk about being conned! Is anyone more conned than Dan? Hard to believe. But then, I talk with a lot of buffoons like him and it amazes me just how many there are to buy into the same nonsense Dan believes.
As to those Trump believes have acted in a treasonous manner...and really, that could be most anyone of the above listed groups of Trump-haters...in what way is it "chilling" that anyone in addition to Trump, would call for their arrest, trial and execution if found guilty of treason...or whatever penalty for their specific crime is? To pretend that the Dems in general (including their wackjob supporters like Dan) haven't acted in ways detrimental to our national well being is just a straight up lie...which is why Dan so pretends. Because he's a liar. The progressives have been acting contrary to both American and Christian principles for quite some time. It's only gotten so blatant as it is now since the Obama years. Dan's good with that and to lie about the "danger" someone like Trump...or any other truly center-right individual...poses is all we can expect from those who have no real notion about how to serve this nation best.
Absolutely noticing I've said, written, thought, or imagined could possibly lead you to think that I support using the power of the DOJ against one's political rivals
I can't remember if I pointed this out, but you've TWICE voted for a man (and probably will vote for him a third time) who routinely uses language like "lock her up" and otherwise suggesting his political opponents are traitorous enemies of the people who should at best be locked up and at worst, executed or killed in a violent overthrow. That is precisely the language that makes the guy YOU vote for (and make no mistakes - you ARE voting for Trump) has used which makes him unfit for office.
Our side noting, "When Trump promises to use the DOJ and his power to imprison and execute his political rivals IS un-democratic, dangerous and un-American" is noting the very real problem of your pervert king you keep voting for. We're not "demonizing" him, we're noting what he is saying is deadly dangerous because it is, according to even people from your own party.
The two things are not the same. But I don't think you understand that, do you?
"Trump is the one promising/suggesting that he will use the DOJ to persecute/execute political enemies. NOT Biden. Biden has made it clear that the DOJ is its own entity obligated to pursue justice as they see fit."
Trump is "suggesting", Biden is actually doing what you fear Trump might do. Fearmonger.
"Biden has nothing to do with Trump's criminal convictions in NYC. That's Trump's own doing. No one else's."
No, the high level Biden DOJ officials who just coincidentally are on the legal teams in NY and ATL have nothing to do with Biden. The DOJ is part of the executive branch of government, which Biden runs, but Biden has nothing to do with the DOJ's involvement with prosecuting his chief political rival.
"You're being delusional and demonizing a clearly good/decent (if imperfect) man in defense of an obviously amoral, perverted corrupt man."
Unfortunately this particular fantasy is simply that. A fantasy.
"As to "using the DOJ against one's political rivals," YOU are the one voting for the man who promises to do so, voting for the man who has routinely led his useful idiots in shouting "Lock her up" and promising to execute even GOP conservatives (Cheney) who interfere with Trump's abuse of power."
You are the one voting for a president who is actually doing what you fear Trump might do. FYI, you just literally repeated yourself as if this is a separate point.
"YOU are the one who thinks such a man is someone you HAVE voted for and will CONTINUE to vote for. That's all on you, not me, not the Democrats."
You do realize that when you say things like this, when you make shit up and insist that your made up shit is what I "am" or "do", you just look like an idiot who's projecting their prejudices, preconceptions, and biases on others.
"I can't remember if I pointed this out, but you've TWICE voted for a man (and probably will vote for him a third time) who routinely uses language like "lock her up" and otherwise suggesting his political opponents are traitorous enemies of the people who should at best be locked up and at worst, executed or killed in a violent overthrow. That is precisely the language that makes the guy YOU vote for (and make no mistakes - you ARE voting for Trump) has used which makes him unfit for office."
This is now the third time in two consecutive comments, written within a hour of each other, that you've said virtually the same thing. It's probably the third of fourth time, minimum, that you've said this in the past several days. If your short term memory is so bad that you can't remember what you wrote over the last few days, let alone an hour ago, maybe you need to get some medical help or something. The fact that your fearmongering fantasies ("a violent overthrow") are given free reign only makes me more concerned for your mental health. Add that to the fact that your response has little or nothing to do with the quote your connect it to, and I'm not sure what to think about your ability to read, understand and remember.
"Our side noting, "When Trump promises to use the DOJ and his power to imprison and execute his political rivals IS un-democratic, dangerous and un-American" is noting the very real problem of your pervert king you keep voting for. We're not "demonizing" him, we're noting what he is saying is deadly dangerous because it is, according to even people from your own party."
You've now said virtually the exact same thing at least 4 times in two consecutive comments as if you think that repeating yourself this much somehow magically becomes something different with each repetition. You are supporting Biden doing what you fear Trump might do. You're simply repeating the fearmongering bullshit spewed those who share your hyper partisan hunches.
"The two things are not the same. But I don't think you understand that, do you?"
Repeating the same thing 5 times in two consecutive comments. I can't help but wonder if you are aware of your problem with repetition. I do understand that Trump "threatening: to do in reality what Biden is actually doing in reality are two different things. I also understand that Trump was president before, he used this same sort of rhetoric before, yet he never actually followed through on that rhetoric. For someone who spends so much time hiding behind things being hyperbole, the fact that you don't recognize it when certain people engage in it raises additional concerns for your vaunted Reasoning skills.
Dan is doing no more than projecting...which is another form of lying, which Dan does routinely in one way or another.
Hillary Clinton committed crimes, whether they went to the mat to convict her of them or not. Comey's investigation confirmed she was negligent in the handling of classified documents and despite his ignorance/stupidity/lying (whichever it was factually), intention is not required to find one guilty legally and thus, whatever punishment this crime requires is justified and Trump is justified in suggesting she should be locked up. Her willful destruction of official emails is another issue for which punishment should have be implemented against her. And of course, her scheme to invent false dossiers to allege wrongdoing by Trump also justifies severe legal retribution.
I've been looking for details about Trump's call for a military tribunal for Liz Cheney and thus far have failed to come up with anything referencing "execution", though a guilty verdict for treason traditionally results in such a sentence. The source I was using was a lefty source which sought to soft pedal the situation in favor of Cheney and against Trump, so I would have expected something having to do with execution among that crap. They referenced Truth Social, though mostly in response to Trump postings there, and then Cheney's response. Dan would like that and likely get a tingle in his lady parts because Cheney insisted Trump's posts stood as more evidence of his unfitness for office. What a joke! She proved herself unfit for public service by her reprehensible actions on the J6 committee.
There was a bit about Molly Hemingway having been "debunked" in writing that Cheney withheld evidence which could have helped Trump...that having to do with the offer of National Guard troops for security on J6...but it seems an after the fact "debunking" which doesn't invalid what Hemingway wrote at the time she wrote it. In any case, we now know much more about all which was withheld from both the public and the committee hearing participants as well. This is part and parcel of the one-sided nature of this kangaroo court...one of about a dozen so far...which is, if not treasonous, certainly illegal by normal standards. To suggest that those involved be punished for that clown show is not something honest people would oppose immorally, as justice would require at the very least a correction of all which resulted from that heinous sham.
The Truth Social posts of Trump, on the other hand, were less than the pearl clutching outrage Dan expresses, but simply a justified response to the deceptive actions of the Trump-haters and the spineless. When Trump spoke of arresting/jailing those like Pence and other weak sisters, he said as more just than the arrest of Bannon, and those like him, who were also political persecuted mostly for daring to be pro-Trump in any way.
Dan either lies about who is most guilty of using the justice system to persecute political opponents, or he's just too stupid. Either works for me, as he is so clearly a solid blend of both liar, ignoramus and intellectual vapid.
One other issue which indicts the already well known low character of Dan is his constant reference to Biden as somehow a "good and decent" man. This guy has been a scumbag his entire career, if not life. Think of just how stupid one has to be to praise this low-life to any extent, and worse, to cast a vote to put this vile individual in any position of authority! Throughout his career he's been the liar Dan so desperately needs Trump to be. This POS continued to accuse an innocent man who had the unfortunate luck to have a dumbshit run a stop sign which led to her own death and that of he child. For years Biden insisted the trucker was driving drunk when it was his wife's mistake which killed her. And Dan wants to say this guy is "good and decent"? He's never been fit for public service. He's never been honest. He's never proven he's intelligent. But since he runs against Trump, he's golden. That's the character of Dan, who can't even bring himself to compare policies between the two, to speak of the track record of either. Dan's a liar and a scumbag. Period.
Art,
Based on what I know about the US government email policies, I can guarantee that Hillary violated federal law with her email storage. She was never prosecuted, let alone convicted, but that doesn't mean she was innocent.
Likewise, Biden has engaged in conduct the the special counsel acknowledged reached the level of criminal charges, but found that Biden was incapable of standing trial.
Dan's problem is that he concludes that those on his side who haven't been charged with their crimes are automatically innocent, while concluding that Trump is automatically guilty before the appeals process is complete.
Obviously, and unbiased look at Biden cannot conclude that he's a "good and decent man". He may not be as bad as Bill Clinton or various Kennedys, but at a very minimum he's been a serial liar while serving in public office for decades. I doubt we'll ever know the extent of his financial corruption that's hidden behind various LLCs and numbered accounts. But it's clear that he can't account for his massive wealth through any legal means.
Which brings me back to my proposal about automatic immunity for presidents.
Your partisan blindness is astounding. You look to other presidents to compare what the alleged lack of goodness in decency in Biden (in your warped imagination) and the two you come up with were Kennedy and Clinton... When THE SINGLE most deviant and corrupt and entirely amoral idiot is the one you've voted for... TWICE?
I can point out the reality but I can't make you see it. But truly, you gentleman present with a severe actual case of Biden Derangement Syndrome and ignore the beam in your ballot box while complaining about the speck of Biden's alleged problems.
One day, you fellas will have to apologize to Biden, to Cheney, to all decent, reasonable citizens of the world for your chosen blindness. Just remember that I tried to tell you with an incredible amount of respectful patience.
Could you restate that proposal again, please? I haven't the time to search for it at present.
Essentially that there would be some level of automatic immunity for presidents that would be clearly defined and apply to all presidents. Nothing terribly shocking, but it would remove the ability of a successor to prosecute a prior president.
Good Lord. Y'all just are longing for a king or dictator, aren't you?
Y'all also behind the anti-Christian "PROJECT 2025!!!"?
Dan
The alternative is that each president automatically issues a blanket pardon for their successor. I think that, for the most part, that prosecution a former president doesn't help our system or the office.
"Good Lord. Y'all just are longing for a king or dictator, aren't you?"
No, but you're clearly living in a fantasy world.
"Y'all also behind the anti-Christian "PROJECT 2025!!!"?"
No, I have nothing to do with either the actual "Project 2025", or with the MSM/Letfy caricature of "Project 2025". There are some items that seem worthy of consideration, there are some that are less so. From what I've seen I can only conclude that your "anti-Christian" idiocy is just more fearmongering.
Given that it's not coming from the Trump campaign, nor is it any sort of official document, I haven't paid much attention to it. The hysteria on the left and in the MSM, seems based on a lack of information or intentional ignorance.
The alternative is that each president automatically issues a blanket pardon for their successor. I think that, for the most part, that prosecution a former president doesn't help our system or the office.
I can't tell you how horrible an idea that this is from a free republic point of view. Presidents SHOULD be worried about their actions and have some sense of gravitas when it comes to actions, especially actions that normally would be criminal. Reagan, for instance, SHOULD have worried about being held accountable for war crimes when it came to many of his actions in Latin America. Maybe he wouldn't have been so willing to take actions that led to the death and harm of so many in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc.
WHY is this notion of giving absolute power for presidents to be above the law a good idea??
It's insane.
IF our constitution currently allows for presidents to be above the law, then we NEED to change our constitution. I, for one, agree with the experts who say of course presidents are not above the law.
This is not a low-grade of insanity from where I stand.
Given that "PROJECT 2025!!!!" has a high likelihood of being implemented by the perverts in the Trump administration if he's elected (I mean, it IS his people largely behind it, along with the folks at the "Heritage Foundation..." Why WOULDN'T they implement it?), I'd suggest you pay more attention to what is being done by your people in your name. Conservative Christians and their spin-offs, "christian" "nationalists" are a serious threat to actual Christianity and a free nation.
We're not going back to "the good old days" of the oppressive 1950s EVEN IF those deviants in the heritage foundation threaten a civil war if we refuse to comply with their demands. We do not WANT radical fundamentalist "christian" extremists to take over the infrastructure and policies of our nation. Literally, to hell with that (not that I believe in the fundamentalist myth/propaganda of a literal hell...)
Also, why are none of these extremists in charge at "PROJECT 2025!!!!!" listed in wikipedia? Research there names and there's NOTHING about them except their own little blurbs on PROJECT 2025!!!! Their credentials (at least for the top three white dudes) are all "Served in Trump's administration..." and given the unprecedented level of corruption in Trump's literal swamp, that's a huge red flag. Sorry, except for the top TWO white guys at PROJECT 2025!!!!. The third guy "troup hemenway" doesn't even have a bio on THEIR OWN website. Although, a little research confirms that, what? ! Yes, even little troup was formerly with the pervert king's administration.
What in the name of all that is holy, good and rational will cause you to wake up and start to wonder about the deviants you're associating with?
Why are all three of these white rightwing extremists a complete blank on google searches?
Hell, if you google little anonymous Dan Trabue you get all kinds of hits... and I'm no one!
Extremely suspicious.
Check it out yourself. The top leadership at PRRJCT 2025!!!!!! are
Paul Dans
Spencer Chretien
Troup Calhoun Hemenway
Try to find ANY information out there about them. Their bios or anything. At least the latter two attended conservative "baptist" Hillsdale College.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hillsdale-college-1776-curriculum-k12-education-conservative-rcna93397
Who are these white guys, beyond obvious Trumpites and conservative "christian" extremists..?
Some information about PRKCJECTKK 2025!!!!!!!:
“We are in the process of the second American revolution,
which will remain bloodless
if the left allows it to be,”
~Heritage Foundation Kevin Roberts
Project 2025 proposes that the entire federal bureaucracy, including independent agencies such as the Department of Justice, be placed under direct presidential control - a controversial idea known as “unitary executive theory”...
Other proposals include eliminating visa categories for crime and human trafficking victims, increasing fees on immigrants and allowing fast-tracked applications for migrants who pay a premium...
it proposes withdrawing the abortion pill mifepristone from the market, and using existing but little-enforced laws to stop the drug being sent through the post.
The document suggests that the department of Health and Human Services should "maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family."...
It proposes to eliminate a long list of terms from all laws and federal regulations, including “sexual orientation", “gender equality”, "abortion" and “reproductive rights”.
Project 2025 aims to end diversity, equity and inclusion programs in schools and government departments as part of what it describes as a wider crackdown on "woke" ideology...
Heritage is also creating a database of conservative loyalists to fill government positions.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do
One has to wonder what those who refuse to bow to The Heritage Foundation and PRCCKLLJET 2025!!!!!'s demands will face. One has to wonder why they think it's okay to enforce by law the will of a minority of religious extremists' opinions on the rest of the nation. One has to wonder if everyone will have to receive the Mark of the Beast on their hands and foreheads to be members in good standing of PRKKJCKKKT2025!!!! overlords?
From P25!!!!'s website and in their own words:
The actions of liberal politicians in Washington have created a desperate need and unique opportunity for conservatives to start undoing the damage the Left has wrought and build a better country for all Americans in 2025.
It is not enough for conservatives to win elections. If we are going to rescue the country from the grip of the radical Left, we need both a governing agenda and the right people in place, ready to carry this agenda out on day one of the next conservative administration.
When they say "the actions of liberal politicians," they're referencing the actions of fellow citizens of the US who dare to be more progressive-minded than these conservative religious extremists. But the reality is that these conservative religious extremists and their policies represent a minority of the citizens of the US. On what grounds would this minority seek to overrule what a plurality or majority of the nation wants to do? What makes their citizenship count for more, other than, "We think we can get away with it... with forcing our will on the rest of the nation... because WE know that WE are right and GOD IS ON OUR SIDE (TM)!!"?
The majority of the nation supports basic human rights for women, where they can be self-determining in all ways, including making their own medical decisions, including those medical decisions about pregnancies.
Will you support P25!!!! in overruling women's rights and self-determination when they don't have the support of most of the nation?
The majority of the nation supports LGBTQ people being openly who they are and openly having their own right to self-determination on marriage and having children and other basic human rights.
Will you support P25!!!! in overruling LGBTQ folk's rights and self-determination when they don't have the support of most of the nation?
The majority of the nation recognizes the reality of human impacts upon climate change and we are feeling the literal heat of past policies that promoted devastating climate change.
Will you support P25!!!! in overruling the rights and self-determination of the majority of citizens on climate change policies when they don't have the support of most of the nation?
How far will you go to support these religious extremists and can you acknowledge that IF you don't have the support of the majority, maybe you all shouldn't force your religious opinions on others?
The project is the effort of a broad coalition of conservative organizations that have come together to ensure a successful administration begins in January 2025. With the right conservative policy recommendations and properly vetted and trained personnel to implement them, we will take back our government.
What if they don't have the support of We, the People? Should they "take back" what they want selfishly and to hell with the majority of the nation?
Will you support them when they start imprisoning women who dared disagree with their extremist religious opinions about those women's own bodies and health care?
Will you support them when they try to force LGBTQ folks to go into hiding/go underground?
They came for the Jews and I said nothing, for I was not a Jew... Will that be you?
I'm curious, fellas. Will you all be glad if Biden steps down and Harris or another Democrat takes his place? Harris is not "criminal," in any way that you two fantasize that Biden is "criminal." She certainly isn't a felon the way your pervert is.
Does it scare you boys a bit that a black woman might defeat your pervert king?
Thanks, Craig. I think the SCOTUS ruling simply affirmed what was already in place and that it's still sufficient. There will always be an element of subjectivity in determining whether or not a specific action falls under the heading of "official act". I think defining criteria too specifically will only complicate things. And of course, if Dems weren't so quick and willing to Trump's actions were illicit, simply because they're so desperate to rid themselves of him once and for all, this wouldn't have come before SCOTUS in the first place.
I would oppose a blanket pardon by successive presidents...not one which is automatic...because some president might justly deserve prosecution for an action which doesn't fall with the aforesaid parameters..."high crimes, misdemeanors or treason". It's difficult to run a country honestly with so many dishonest Dems and spineless Repubs, but I don't want to complicate things. I'll just vote intelligently and keep my powder dry.
I don't understand from where these progs get this "dictator" or "king" crap. Given how much more Dan's preferences indulge in such behavior, it's pretty hysterically hypocritical.
And I'm not so Dan-ish to believe that Dan actually read...much less studied...Project 2025. I've begun to myself, and find it reasonable so far. I've little doubt the entire thing will be. But as is so common among progs...because they're liars all...the mere assertion that Project 2025 is problematic in any way is enough to make it so. No evidence is required. We have more evidence Dan is a pervert than is Trump, but because Dan asserts that Trump is a pervert, it's a fact. No evidence required.
"I can't tell you how horrible an idea that this is from a Dan Trabue point of view."
I don't care about your personal hunches about what is or is not a bad idea. For now, at least, it is still OK for me to have and express my opinions on my blog. Obviously my opinion would not eliminate the threat of impeachment. It WOULD eliminate the escalation of what we're seeing now.
"WHY is this notion of giving absolute power for presidents to be above the law a good idea??"
Since I have nowhere suggested that presidents be given "absolute power", the only insane thing is you claiming that I have.
"Given that "PROJECT 2025!!!!" has a high likelihood of being implemented by the perverts in the Trump administration if he's elected (I mean, it IS his people largely behind it, along with the folks at the "Heritage Foundation..." Why WOULDN'T they implement it?), I'd suggest you pay more attention to what is being done by your people in your name. Conservative Christians and their spin-offs, "christian" "nationalists" are a serious threat to actual Christianity and a free nation."
Look, more fearmongering. First it's the vast hordes of "right wing terrorists", then Q-Anon, now this. Your need for things to irrationally fear is impressive.
"We're not going back to "the good old days" of the oppressive 1950s EVEN IF those deviants in the heritage foundation threaten a civil war if we refuse to comply with their demands. We do not WANT radical fundamentalist "christian" extremists to take over the infrastructure and policies of our nation. Literally, to hell with that (not that I believe in the fundamentalist myth/propaganda of a literal hell...)"
When you make shit up to heighten your fear mongering, it really does make you look insane.
"One has to wonder what those who refuse to bow to The Heritage Foundation and PRCCKLLJET 2025!!!!!'s demands will face. One has to wonder why they think it's okay to enforce by law the will of a minority of religious extremists' opinions on the rest of the nation. One has to wonder if everyone will have to receive the Mark of the Beast on their hands and foreheads to be members in good standing of PRKKJCKKKT2025!!!! overlords?"
It's really strange that you don't know what the term "propose/proposal" means. The fact that you have this irrational fear that some extra governmental group will magically impose it's will on the US makes you literally sound paranoid. The very fact that you think that Trump is a "religious extremist" demonstrates your insanity.
"When they say "the actions of liberal politicians," they're referencing the actions of fellow citizens of the US who dare to be more progressive-minded than these conservative religious extremists."
It's kind of, well exactly, like when you wail about how the "right wing extremists" are going to "take over" and "impose their" "religious extremist" views on everyone. Apparently, your problem is with millions of US citizens who are more conservative that you personally organizing to advocate for their conservative positions.
"But the reality is that these conservative religious extremists and their policies represent a minority of the citizens of the US."
You literally have no idea how much support any of these individual proposals might or might not have if voted on.
"On what grounds would this minority seek to overrule what a plurality or majority of the nation wants to do?"
Who says that this is their evil plot? Aren't they simply putting forth a set of policy proposals that you personally disagree with and the you personally would like to prevent from even being considered?
"What makes their citizenship count for more, other than, "We think we can get away with it... with forcing our will on the rest of the nation... because WE know that WE are right and GOD IS ON OUR SIDE (TM)!!"?"
Nothing. Where precisely has ANYONE actually said what you claim they said?
"The majority of the nation supports basic human rights for women, where they can be self-determining in all ways, including making their own medical decisions, including those medical decisions about pregnancies."
This statement isn't exactly True. The majority does not support unlimited, unregulated, abortion at any point during pregnancy paid for by tax dollars. The majority support a European style ban on abortions after 10-20ish weeks.
"Will you support P25!!!! in overruling women's rights and self-determination when they don't have the support of most of the nation?"
No. I respect the fearmongering game that felt the need to add unnecessary !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to make things even scarier.
"The majority of the nation supports LGBTQ people being openly who they are and openly having their own right to self-determination on marriage and having children and other basic human rights."
If you say so.
"Will you support P25!!!! in overruling LGBTQ folk's rights and self-determination when they don't have the support of most of the nation?"
Will you ever stop asking virtually the same idiotic questions over and over and over again in the same comment? See above.
"The majority of the nation recognizes the reality of human impacts upon climate change and we are feeling the literal heat of past policies that promoted devastating climate change."
If you say so, I guess we should ignore the poor track record of the predictive elements or the global warming alarmists, and any evidence that runs counter to what the global warming folks tell us is 100% correct. We should just submit, give up a few freedoms, and slide back to the 1800's.
"Will you support P25!!!! in overruling the rights and self-determination of the majority of citizens on climate change policies when they don't have the support of most of the nation?"
See the two previous answers.
"How far will you go to support these religious extremists and can you acknowledge that IF you don't have the support of the majority, maybe you all shouldn't force your religious opinions on others?"
The commitment to fearmongering is truly impressive, I applaud your strong efforts in spreading the fear you feel. I guess you are so scared of being wrong that you would prefer to simply shut down any voices that disagree with your Narrative and prevent discussion or voting on anything that you personally find scary.
"What if they don't have the support of We, the People? Should they "take back" what they want selfishly and to hell with the majority of the nation?"
Then they'll fail. Nut I do appreciate the level of fearmongering that assumes that "take back" can only be construed as some sort of violent revolution. Hell, is the left the only political side that gets to claim "By any means necessary."? No, although if you'd waited for my answer to the first time you asked a variation of this question, you wouldn't have needed to ask it so many more times.
"Will you support them when they start imprisoning women who dared disagree with their extremist religious opinions about those women's own bodies and health care?"
I don't plan to, but the fearmongering is impressive.
"Will you support them when they try to force LGBTQ folks to go into hiding/go underground?"
See above.
"They came for the Jews and I said nothing, for I was not a Jew... Will that be you?"
Again with the fearmongering.
The Biden DOJ just sentenced an old women to essentially life in prison for praying in the wrong place, will you opposed the jailing of Christians for exercising their faith?
"I'm curious, fellas. Will you all be glad if Biden steps down and Harris or another Democrat takes his place?"
Not particularly.
1. As someone who's primary goal is to see Biden defeated. Biden staying in the race as continuing to look senile is a pretty good way to accomplish that goal.
2. I desperately want to see Vivek (metaphorically) eviscerate Harris in a VP debate. It would be epic.
3. It would be amusing to see the party who's current fearmongering of "the end of democracy" actually resort to ending the democratic process of choosing their nominee.
4. Seeing one's opposition party in this level of disarray and infighting between the end of the primaries and the general is a gift not to be ignored.
"Harris is not "criminal," in any way that you two fantasize that Biden is "criminal." She certainly isn't a felon the way your pervert is."
So. The fact that you seem to think that the Biden web of LLC's and bank accounts with no discernible source for the millions therein can in no way be the result of criminal activity, just highlights your hyper partisan positions.
But again, I'd welcome a Harris-Trump campaign.
Where I think your fear deludes you is into thinking that this is all about the individual candidates. You've deluded yourself to think that we absolutely love everything about Trump and that we support every single thing he's ever said or done. You've likewise deluded yourself into thinking that we hate Biden for Biden (likewise Harris). You've chosen to ignore the reality that as conservatives we are going to support the more conservative candidate against the more liberal candidate without regard to the individual candidates.
"Does it scare you boys a bit that a black woman might defeat your pervert king?"
Not as much as it scares you that your fears about Trump might not be validated by the electorate. If I have any "fear", it is that we'll have 4 more years of the same kind of shitty economy, unregulated immigration, and shitty policies.
The problem with your construct is that I don't fear any of this. I'm choosing to take comfort in a sovereign God. My identity and hope are not in human political institutions, but in YHWH the one who spoke all of creation into existence, and who promises that there is more to our existence that who wins elections.
"Thanks, Craig. I think the SCOTUS ruling simply affirmed what was already in place and that it's still sufficient. There will always be an element of subjectivity in determining whether or not a specific action falls under the heading of "official act". I think defining criteria too specifically will only complicate things. And of course, if Dems weren't so quick and willing to Trump's actions were illicit, simply because they're so desperate to rid themselves of him once and for all, this wouldn't have come before SCOTUS in the first place."
That may be. I'm simply expressing an opinion on an option that seems like it could be possible.
"I would oppose a blanket pardon by successive presidents...not one which is automatic...because some president might justly deserve prosecution for an action which doesn't fall with the aforesaid parameters..."high crimes, misdemeanors or treason"."
If a president had engaged in any of those types of actions, and wasn't impeached, then what good comes from continuing to go after them after they've left office?
"It's difficult to run a country honestly with so many dishonest Dems and spineless Repubs, but I don't want to complicate things. I'll just vote intelligently and keep my powder dry."
You do you.
"I don't understand from where these progs get this "dictator" or "king" crap. Given how much more Dan's preferences indulge in such behavior, it's pretty hysterically hypocritical."
I know exactly where it comes from. Fear. Fear that he's wrong about his grasp of what "the majority" believe. Fear that his side won't get to dictate and impose things on the rest of us. Fear of being wrong or that his identity will be diminished if his side loses.
"And I'm not so Dan-ish to believe that Dan actually read...much less studied...Project 2025."
I'd suspect that he's read summaries of 2025 from left wing "news" sources and simply assumes that those accurately reflect the actual source material.
"I've begun to myself, and find it reasonable so far. I've little doubt the entire thing will be."
As with anything, I've seen some things that are good and some less good. What I realize, as opposed to Dan, is that for any of these things to become law that there will be compromise. Therefore, it makes sense to start at a point that seems "extreme" to those who'll oppose it anyway, because anything that actually gets implemented will be watered down.
"But as is so common among progs...because they're liars all...the mere assertion that Project 2025 is problematic in any way is enough to make it so. No evidence is required. We have more evidence Dan is a pervert than is Trump, but because Dan asserts that Trump is a pervert, it's a fact. No evidence required."
The problem is that they needed something new to monger fear about and this is just the fear du jour. He has to repeat lies because he doesn't know any other way to push back against any ideological position that he isn't committed to in a hyper partisan way. It's not about Truth, it's about crushing your political opponents and preventing those opponents from even getting a fair hearing on the merits of any individual proposal.
FOR EXAMPLE, Dan mentioned the notion that the executive branch has complete control over the departments that make up the executive branch. That notion would allow the president to, under his current authority, make significant changes to budgets/staffing/etc of the departments under the executive branch. It's really not a shocking or revolutionary idea, Vivek campaigned on this very thing. What's scary to Dan and the dems is that they could lose their control of the bureaucracy if a conservative president used their existing authority. They know that so much of their agenda is implemented through the unelected bureaucrats (through public employee unions) that they will fight to protect the status quo. Virtually everyone knows that by any objective measure the DOEd has accomplished nothing and we'd get a much better ROI by block granting a fraction of the DOEd budget back to school districts and letting them innovate. But the APL knows that their vision for education can't compete like that, and that if student success is the criteria that no one would choose their version. So we're stuck with a bloated federal education bureaucracy that provides literally nothing of value to students, but does give thousands of liberals big salaries. Of course losing that big rice bowl causes fear, or course being proven wrong or irrelevant, causes fear. That's why they fearmonger.
"Your partisan blindness is astounding. You look to other presidents to compare what the alleged lack of goodness in decency in Biden (in your warped imagination) and the two you come up with were Kennedy and Clinton... When THE SINGLE most deviant and corrupt and entirely amoral idiot is the one you've voted for... TWICE?"
It's always gratifying to see how committed you are to being wrong and how strongly you hang onto things you conjure up from thin air. My comparison of the Kennedys, Clinton, etc is more about pointing out that the DFL has a long history of electing vile human beings to the presidency. Biden may or may not be up to their levels of degeneracy, but he's just one more in a string that goes back to FDR. (in the modernish era).
Your confusion about how and why I voted, even after I have pointed out your error multiple times, can only be chalked up to ignorance or hubris, I can't tell which.
"I can point out the reality but I can't make you see it. But truly, you gentleman present with a severe actual case of Biden Derangement Syndrome and ignore the beam in your ballot box while complaining about the speck of Biden's alleged problems."
This level of derangement and fantasy is impressive, to be so divorced from reality and so blinded by partisanship and Trump hatred is quite impressive in the level of it all. The fact that you ignore that my opposition to Biden is based on specific acts and policies that Biden has engaged in only speaks to your commitment to your Narrative over the Truth.
"One day, you fellas will have to apologize to Biden, to Cheney, to all decent, reasonable citizens of the world for your chosen blindness. Just remember that I tried to tell you with an incredible amount of respectful patience."
Just like you'll have to apologize to all the conservatives you've lied about? I don't think so. The fact that you think that continuing to repeat bullshit that you've conjured up out of thin air is "respectful" or "patient" seriously makes me question your sanity.
This notion that you can't defend Biden so all you have is to attack everyone else is not healthy.
The very fact that Dan is so desperate to change the subject of this post away from the DFL throwing Biden under the bus, pulling the rug out from under the millions of voters who voted for Biden in the primaries, the lengths that the DFL went to to prevent any serious primary challengers to Biden, and Biden having to focus on fighting off attacks from the DFL really tells me everything I need to know.
The fact that Dan supports Biden's absurd levels of support for Putin (crap Zelinsky, sorry) and the level of corruption that has siphoned vast sums of money into the Ukrainian elites, tells me that he has little problem with corruption and fiscal irresponsibility as long as its someone on his side.
My comparison of the Kennedys, Clinton, etc is more about pointing out that the DFL has a long history of electing vile human beings to the presidency.
Again, with the partisan blindness. The Democrats have elected two of the most moral, decent and intelligent families to the Whitehouse in Jimmy/Rose Carter and Barack/Michelle Obama. None of the modern GOP families compare at all. You might be able to make the case that Bush, Jr was a moral, relatively decent man, but not so much for the rest of the GOP history. Each GOP administration has had WAY more corruption, crimes and criminal indictments associated with them than all of the Democrats put together.
Yes, Bill Clinton was smarmy and sexist and probably a harasser/user of women. That's why he didn't ever get my vote. But his administration was at least intelligent, as is Hillary Clinton (who is not Bill and can't be held accountable for Bill's philandering, much as you try to demonize and attack her). As to the Bidens, they too, are reasonably good people. I don't think Joe is as intelligent as Carter or Obama, but not many people are. Joe shows no sign of the crass sexism and misogyny of the Reagans, Bush 1 or your pervert prince.
That's what I'm saying: That you focus on the relatively saintly Democrat presidents and try to smear them, when you ignore the unintelligent and morally questionable (at best) to morally awful behaviors of the GOP administrations, it betrays your partisan blindness.
from the DFL throwing Biden under the bus, pulling the rug out from under the millions of voters who voted for Biden in the primaries
There's literally nothing wrong with a party whose candidate gets ill or unable to do the job to decide to switch candidates. Our democratic system has room for making this happen AS IS RATIONAL and morally good.
We don't want, as a nation, to be stuck with two candidates who are not able to do the job - due to age as might be the case with Biden or general incompetence, corruption and depravity, as IS the case with Trump.
YOU all can and SHOULD do the same thing. Just because Trump abuses the system as it exists to defeat a field of weak GOP candidates - when he is clearly unfit for office AND A CONVICTED FELON - does not mean you all must stick with him.
As to your "but he's not REALLY convicted..." ploy, grow up.
If Biden was convicted of a crime, you would crow that he's a felon. And rightly so. HELL, you choose to attack him AS IF HE's been convicted of a crime even when he hasn't.
That is the difference between the modern GOP and the rest of rational people. We will not abide an obviously unfit, criminal candidate. You all will. You will likely vote for a convicted felon and think that's reasonable.
It wouldn't happen with the Democrats and no amount of "lock him up! Lock her up! Try them for TREASON!" chanting will change that.
"Again, with the partisan blindness. The Democrats have elected two of the most moral, decent and intelligent families to the Whitehouse in Jimmy/Rose Carter and Barack/Michelle Obama. None of the modern GOP families compare at all. You might be able to make the case that Bush, Jr was a moral, relatively decent man, but not so much for the rest of the GOP history. Each GOP administration has had WAY more corruption, crimes and criminal indictments associated with them than all of the Democrats put together."
When you allegedly are responding to what I've said, then just make shit up, you just undermine your credibility. FDR was involved in an affair for much of his Presidency, and many suspect that he went to Warm Springs to die with her rather than Eleanor. Both John and Ted Kennedy have a long and colorful history of drugs, affairs, sexual harassment, manslaughter and the like. Clinton literally paid off his rape victim at a press conference, had a whole section of his campaign dedicated to attacking his accusers, and committed sexual harassment in office. My point is that you painting Biden as some sort or saint is buullshit and the evidence has been around for a while.
Obviously Nixon had problems, but Ford, and both Bush presidents were normal, decent people. It's not about partisanship on my side, it's about the hypocrisy of you acting like the DFL hasn't elected unsavory characters.
"Yes, Bill Clinton was smarmy and sexist and probably a harasser/user of women. That's why he didn't ever get my vote. But his administration was at least intelligent, as is Hillary Clinton (who is not Bill and can't be held accountable for Bill's philandering, much as you try to demonize and attack her). As to the Bidens, they too, are reasonably good people. I don't think Joe is as intelligent as Carter or Obama, but not many people are. Joe shows no sign of the crass sexism and misogyny of the Reagans, Bush 1 or your pervert prince."
Again, your use of others to ignore or minimize the behavior of Biden seems bizarre. FYI, Hillary was in charge of demonizing Bill's accusers and had ethical/moral issues all her own. I'm not pretending like Hillary was responsible for what Bill did, but that she is responsible for enabling Bill to get away with his behavior and for demonizing women who credibly accused Bill.
"That's what I'm saying: That you focus on the relatively saintly Democrat presidents and try to smear them, when you ignore the unintelligent and morally questionable (at best) to morally awful behaviors of the GOP administrations, it betrays your partisan blindness."
Except I'm NOT "focusing" on the allegedly "saintly" democrats. I'm focusing on the actions of Biden, on his well documented history of lying about all sorts of things including his resume, his plagiarism, and the mysterious millions he's managed to accumulate with no records of the sources. The anonymous $64,000,000 dark money gift in the 2020 elections as well.
I'm focused on your double standard the fact that you willingly accept things in Biden that you'd criticize in GOP candidates. I'm focusing on your desperate attempt to hijack this thread away from the fact that Biden's current worst enemies are in his own party, only to focus on regurgitating your regular bullshit.
I'm just enjoying how your "saintly" guy managed to get away with being charged with felonies because he wasn't competent to stand trial, lies every chance he gets, can't remember who he's introducing, and is being attacked by YOUR SIDE, while you keep spewing bullshit.
"There's literally nothing wrong with a party whose candidate gets ill or unable to do the job to decide to switch candidates. Our democratic system has room for making this happen AS IS RATIONAL and morally good."
1. The implication in this is that somehow, magically, all of a sudden, Biden got "ill" and his abilities have materially changed since January of 2024.
2. The fact that this might be "necessary" (despite that fact that millions voted for him mere months ago), does not mean that it doesn't invalidate the millions of people who voted for Biden.
3. As we're seeing, this might not be True. It's entirely possible that this will drag out long enough that anyone other than Biden might not appear on ballots in some states.
4. Biden hasn't changed since January 2024, the rest of the DFL elites and the donor class have changed their minds.
5. To call this objectively "morally good" is a bizarre leap of logic from a subjective moral code.
"We don't want, as a nation, to be stuck with two candidates who are not able to do the job - due to age as might be the case with Biden or general incompetence, corruption and depravity, as IS the case with Trump."
Then why did the DFL kick RFK out of their party? Why did the DFL fail to run one serious, legitimate primary challenger to Biden? Why did the DFL tell people that Biden was the best and only candidate who could beat Trump? If Trump is really as bad as you say, couldn't almost ANY DFL candidate have beaten Trump?
"YOU all can and SHOULD do the same thing. Just because Trump abuses the system as it exists to defeat a field of weak GOP candidates - when he is clearly unfit for office AND A CONVICTED FELON - does not mean you all must stick with him."
Yes, I understand that allowing the voices of the voting public to determine who the candidate for an election should be by voting in primary elections should be overturned as often as possible because some rich, white, liberal elitist says so.
"As to your "but he's not REALLY convicted..." ploy, grow up."
Well, since I've never once said "but he's not REALLY convicted...", the only ploy is you choosing to lie about what I have actually said. The fact is that being a felon appealing a conviction is not legally disqualifying for a presidential candidate. The fact that one misdemeanor was magically conjured into a bunch of felonies years after the act in question, clearly has no bearing.
"If Biden was convicted of a crime, you would crow that he's a felon. And rightly so. HELL, you choose to attack him AS IF HE's been convicted of a crime even when he hasn't."
Again with you assuming that you get to decide what I would do as if you somehow know me better than I know myself. No, I choose to point out the he avoided felony charges because he was incapable of standing trial, and that we have evidence of what appears to be millions of dollars that he attempted to hide and no source for those funds. I am suggesting that if he were GOP that you'd be demanding investigation, but you stay silent because of your hyper partisanship. The reality is that Biden could choose to be transparent and divulge the sources of these funds, and the $64,000,000 dark money contribution, but he chooses opacity instead of transparency.
"That is the difference between the modern GOP and the rest of rational people. We will not abide an obviously unfit, criminal candidate. You all will. You will likely vote for a convicted felon and think that's reasonable."
Again you choose to lie about things when you've been told what's True.
"It wouldn't happen with the Democrats and no amount of "lock him up! Lock her up! Try them for TREASON!" chanting will change that."
That's quite a claim from the supporter of the guy who's using the legal system to interfere with an election.
"Also, why are none of these extremists in charge at "PROJECT 2025!!!!!" listed in wikipedia?"
One, Wikipedia is hardly an unbiased, neutral source. Two, who cares? Three, how is a policy paper from a group of peopel who are NOT currently in a position to impliment their policies, and that Trump has not endorsed relevant in a thread about the DFL throwing Biden under the bus?
"Research there names and there's NOTHING about them except their own little blurbs on PROJECT 2025!!!! Their credentials (at least for the top three white dudes) are all "Served in Trump's administration..." and given the unprecedented level of corruption in Trump's literal swamp, that's a huge red flag. Sorry, except for the top TWO white guys at PROJECT 2025!!!!. The third guy "troup hemenway" doesn't even have a bio on THEIR OWN website. Although, a little research confirms that, what? ! Yes, even little troup was formerly with the pervert king's administration."
Wow, that's impressive magic you have there. You went from bitching that these people are all incognito to bitching that some of them held some role in Trump's past administration. But don't let me stop the fearmongering/off topic bullshit.
"What in the name of all that is holy, good and rational will cause you to wake up and start to wonder about the deviants you're associating with?"
I associate with "deviants" daily. If I didn't associate with "deviants" I would be unable to make a living, buy things I need, buy things I want, have friends, literally live my life. The fact that you think that you don't associate with "deviants" daily is your problem, not mine. I just acknowledge that "all have sinned", and that it's not my job to stop "deviants". It's my job to love and glorify YHWH as best I can and to share the Gospel with all of the other "deviants". It's certainly not my job to impose my will on those who I find "deviant" because they hold different political views than I do.
"Why are all three of these white rightwing extremists a complete blank on google searches?"
If you literally can't find out one single thing about thses invisible people, how do you know for certain that they are "right wing extremists" or that they even exist? Maybe it's just something generated by AI.
"Hell, if you google little anonymous Dan Trabue you get all kinds of hits... and I'm no one!"
Well, you got the last right, even though your words and actions would seem to call into question whether or not you believe it.
"Extremely suspicious."
Extremely convenient for your latest fearmongering. Q-anon, you fear mongered for months about and nothing. "Right wing terrorists" wreaking death and destruction on the US, nothing. This, nothing so far. But keep living in fear and mongering that fear to others.
"Try to find ANY information out there about them. Their bios or anything. At least the latter two attended conservative "baptist" Hillsdale College."
You keep saying that you can't find "ANY information" about these people, then you somehow find information. Maybe stop the fearmongering bullshit.
"Who are these white guys, beyond obvious Trumpites and conservative "christian" extremists..?"
It's strange that George Soros has been publicly engaged in buying the District Attorney positions in jurisdictions across the county, and you stay completely silent about than, tens of millions on DFL dark money to various DFL races also silence. Yet a group puts out a policy paper that Trump already said he doesn't agree with, mainly because Trump isn't particularly conservative on a lot of these issues. and you're off on another fearmongering jubilee that'll turn out as nothing. All the while ignoring the chaos in the DFL, and the topic of this post.
How is continually referring to these men you can't find "ANY information" about as "white guys" accurate and/or not racist?
If you know their race, then your "ANY information" claim is bullshit. If you're primarily defining then by the skin color, then you're racist.
Neither of those options is a surprise.
I associate with "deviants" daily. If I didn't associate with "deviants" I would be unable to make a living, buy things I need, buy things I want, have friends, literally live my life. The fact that you think that you don't associate with "deviants" daily is your problem, not mine.
As you hopefully can tell from the context, when I reference "deviants," I'm not speaking of normal everyday people with their normal everyday failures and flaws common to humanity. Perhaps that's what YOU mean by it, but it's not what I mean by it.
I'm referencing those humans like Trump with deeply flawed morality bases whose deviancy from morality is expressed in ways that cause harm, destroy, tear down.
I deal with a wide swath of humanity, including dear beloved community members with mental illnesses that are harmful to themselves and would be potentially harmful for others if they had the opportunity. And then the rest of humanity who are flawed and imperfect but not deviant in the sense of actively causing harm to others.
I'm not speaking of normal folks like that.
I'm speaking about those in positions of power and privilege who can use, misuse and abuse that power and privilege to deprive others of human rights.
P25 repeatedly uses language that speaks of rolling back hard-won protections for LGBTQ folks, for instance. This line of policy would increase the potential and likelihood that LGBTQ folks would be harmed and not have a way of seeking redress at the federal level. Removing human rights protections IS a way of doing harm. Removing medical options for abortions and removing access to medication for people IS a way of doing harm. Doing so against their will and the best advice of medical experts IS a way of doing harm and denying human rights.
That sort of deviancy. The harmful kind.
Again with all of these matters - the conservative male who doesn't want to marry a guy is FREE to not marry a guy... The conservative male who doesn't want to have an abortion is free to make up his own mind about that... We are not trying to force our will on others, that would be a violation of human rights and a harm. We're just saying that you all don't get to decide for everyone else. When you're deciding for everyone else, then you're engaging in harm.
These are the sorts of deviants you are associating with and giving defense for.
f you know their race, then your "ANY information" claim is bullshit. If you're primarily defining then by the skin color, then you're racist.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperbole
Good Lord, how do you get through life daily? Do you understand the concept of textual clues? As in, when Dan says, "There isn't ANY information out there about these people" and then Dan cites their race and school, then Dan is clearly not speaking literally there. He's making a point that there is a dearth of information about these white conservative men who literally want to make policy that would potentially cause harm AND who have a strong lead into the presidency IF their pervert prince is elected.
Yet another reason to vote against Trump.
And yes, I know that on paper, Trump has (lied and) said he knows nothing about P2025. But at the same time he distanced himself from them (theoretically), he wished them luck.
Given that we know what a terrible, frequent liar Trump is AND given that these are literally his people, we regular citizens who don't want the high priesthood to make laws for us have reason to be concerned. For my part, I don't think Trump gives a damn about abortion one way or another or about LGBTQ folks or immigrants one way or another... it's just part of his con to appeal to his marks to win them over and since he has demonstrated that he is amoral, he'll just do what he can do to pleasure himself. It's kind of his schtick.
More's the pity that you lack reading comprehension skills or you might recognize this.
"As you hopefully can tell from the context, when I reference "deviants," I'm not speaking of normal everyday people with their normal everyday failures and flaws common to humanity. Perhaps that's what YOU mean by it, but it's not what I mean by it."
I know exactly what you mean by "deviant", you mean Trump. You also clearly missed my point of responding to your ridiculous assertion is a somewhat ridiculous manner. You've clearly established some personal hunches about what deviancy is, what makes someone you oppose politically a deviant, then applied your personal and subjective hunches to only one person or one small class of people. This notion of establishing some sort of superiority in your mind only makes you look small. Of course, your "normal everyday...flaws" are people who are deviating from something. We're all deviants. You just seem to think that you can establish some sort of norm to judge others by.
"I'm referencing those humans like Trump with deeply flawed morality bases whose deviancy from morality is expressed in ways that cause harm, destroy, tear down."
So, much like you with your constant attacks on others, incessant vitriol, and repeated claims about everyone but you being "immoral". FYI, I can only see that responding to your idiocy in a sarcastic manner as the best option. Otherwise I legitimize your obsession with ignoring the topic of the post.
"I deal with a wide swath of humanity, including dear beloved community members with mental illnesses that are harmful to themselves and would be potentially harmful for others if they had the opportunity. And then the rest of humanity who are flawed and imperfect but not deviant in the sense of actively causing harm to others."
Ohhhhhhhhhh, the "I'm so wonderful because I deal with all sorts of people, look at how I boast about the "wide swath of humanity" I "deal with", I'm so proud of myself canard. Not a very common canard, but an excellent choice.
The difference between us, is that I choose to acknowledge that I'm not above anyone else and that I don't condescend to lower myself to "deal with" deviants. I'm just like everyone else.
"I'm speaking about those in positions of power and privilege who can use, misuse and abuse that power and privilege to deprive others of human rights."
As if repeating yourself, and beating a dead horse for another paragraph or two won't make you look even more condescending. The problem is you only ever direct your hatred and vitriol at those "in positions of power and privilege who can use, misuse and abuse that power and privilege to deprive others of human rights.", when they disagree with you politically or if they're one of the demographic groups that are immune from your criticism.
"P25 repeatedly uses language..."
Thank the lord you finally ditched the fearmongering !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Until P25 actually represents legislation or a specific official policy that is proposed for implementation, I don't care what lies you choose to believe about it. It's a theoretical policy paper from a group of people exercising their 1st amendment right to free speech. Furthermore, if you can't stay on the actual topic of this post, why would you bother with your mongering of fear where it is clearly off topic and unwanted?
"That sort of deviancy. The harmful kind."
Impressive. You've fear mongered some new bogyman to be afraid of and you've even convinced yourself that them expressing their opinions is actually causing harm. Given your callousness toward leftists and demographic groups you favor causing actual harm, I'll not waste time in your fantasy world of pretend harm.
"When you're deciding for everyone else, then you're engaging in harm."
Strange how this notion only works one direction in your hyper partisan mind.
"These are the sorts of deviants you are associating with and giving defense for."
As all of humanity is deviant, yes I do associate with all sorts of deviants.
Dan,
Just so you know, the more time and effort you spend desperately trying to drag this thread away from the actual topic, the more unseriously I'm going to take your attempts to do so. Don;t be offended when I treat your off topic, idiotic, fearmongering with the disdain it deserves. You've jumped from fearmongering about one conspiracy theory to another and none of them have actually panned out in real life.
But you do you, just don't expect to be taken seriously.
"Good Lord, how do you get through life daily?"
By not being an insufferable ass like you.
"Do you understand the concept of textual clues?"
You mean the "textural clues" that secretly tell me to ignore what you actually wrote, and to make all sorts of random assumptions about what you might have meant but didn't say?
"As in, when Dan says, "There isn't ANY information out there about these people" and then Dan cites their race and school, then Dan is clearly not speaking literally there."
Or Dan (love the referring to yourself in the third person it makes you sound even more pompous that you do already) could just say what he means. Dan could choose not to hide behind "hyperbole" when he's caught doing something stupid. Dan could also choose not to claim that when others use hyperbole, that Dan really knows that those others are not using hyperbole. Or Dan could choose humility. Yet Dan chooses more off topic bluster.
"He's making a point that there is a dearth of information about these white conservative men who literally want to make policy that would potentially cause harm AND who have a strong lead into the presidency IF their pervert prince is elected."
Well, Dan may have "meant to say" "there is a dearth of information...", unfortunately he chose NOT to say what he claims he "meant" to say and Dan gets very unhappy when other make assumptions about what he "meant" to say. Maybe the answer to for Dan to just say what Dan means so Dan isn't forced to get defensive when he looks like an idiot. Maybe Dan could choose not to jump to the most negative possible conclusion about those Dan disagrees with. But those are Dan's choices that only Dan can make.
"Yet another reason to vote against Trump."
I have no need for more reasons to vote against Trump, fortunately I have more reasons to vote against Biden.
"And yes, I know that on paper, Trump has (lied and) said he knows nothing about P2025. But at the same time he distanced himself from them (theoretically), he wished them luck."
SO, you know for a certainty that Trump was lying when he distanced himself from P2025 and that Trump secretly will implement every jot and tittle of P2025 through executive fiat if he's elected. This ability you have to know for certain when others are lying is very impressive, is it witchcraft? You might not be aware of this, but sometimes people will wish others "luck", but do so in a way that is not positive.
FOR example. Y'all want to trot Biden out and pretend that he's perfectly capable of performing every requirement of the job of POTUS for the next 4+ years and having people believe that, goo luck with that.
Y'all want to tell black Trump supporters that they're wrong or not black enough, good luck with that.
"Given that we know what a terrible, frequent liar Trump is"
As is Biden.
"...AND given that these are literally his people, we regular citizens who don't want the high priesthood to make laws for us have reason to be concerned."
Well since this "high priesthood" bullshit is just one more example of you fearmongering without any actual evidence, I'm more concerned with you living in so much fear.
"For my part, I don't think Trump gives a damn about abortion one way or another"
I've said this repeatedly. Even if he engaged in a political quid pro quo on abortion, he held up his end of the deal. It's called keeping campaign promises.
"or about LGBTQ folks"
If anything Trump was one of the most pro LGBT GOP presidents in recent history.
"or immigrants one way or another"
No Trump does seem to genuinely care about immigration and that it be done in a way that puts the US national interest first before any other interests. I'm also convinced that given the Biden open up the borders and let 'em all through, that ANY dimunation of the virtually unrestricted, virtually unfettered open borders policy of the last few years feels horrible. The problem is that y'all don't see a middle ground.
"... it's just part of his con to appeal to his marks to win them over and since he has demonstrated that he is amoral, he'll just do what he can do to pleasure himself. It's kind of his schtick."
That's pretty much how running for office works. Every candidate has a shtick that they do to appeal to their base, while doing as little as possible to solve the problems because then they'll be unneeded. The problem is that Trump actually put policies in place that benefited all sorts of people and groups. The economy was great for until COVID, yet somehow he managed to end the COVID "recession" before he left office. He's done nothing to "pleasure himself" that I can recall while in office. But if fear keeps you motivated, then keep mongering it. Just do it someplace where it's not off topic.
"More's the pity that you lack reading comprehension skills or you might recognize this."
Ahhhhhhhhhh the "Dan is always perfect in his communication skills and it's just that y'all are idiots." canard.
Maybe if Dan would just speak plainly and stop trying to flaunt how clever he is, and stop wasting space on the off topic fearmongering, it's be a better choice for Dan to make for Dan's self.
The difference between us, is that I choose to acknowledge that I'm not above anyone else and that I don't condescend to lower myself to "deal with" deviants.
As you know, the word, deviant, literally just means one who deviates from a norm. But "Deviant" is a word that has often/historically been used to malign and marginalize the poor and people who were already marginalized. The "gay deviants" those "transgender deviants," the "loose women deviants," etc, etc. It is a word that has often been used by white men in power to solidify their power by keeping other people (the "deviants") down.
I'm just trying to set the record straight (so to speak). People who merely have sexual orientations (gay, straight or otherwise) and sexual attractions are NOT deviant, they are the norm. The abuse of this word to oppress people has historically caused harm.
I'm pointing out that the actual deviants (in a negative, harmful sense) are the ones who abuse power and deny human rights to others based upon their religious or other philosophies. With the norm, in this case, being Those who are not oppressors. Because that is normative language/ideas we can appreciate and generally agree with.
Except the oppressors. They will continue to try to enforce their deviancy against the will of the people because they/you know best what OTHERS should do.
That is what I'm opposed to. I invite you to join us who are opposed to criminalizing or marginalizing abortion/medical decisions/sexual orientation or just basic human rights.
I think those who do this work are the ones who should be taken seriously, not the ones opposed to that work.
Once again, back on topic. I look forward to a Trump/Harris debate, or any other non democratically chosen seat filler y'all conjure up.
I really want to watch a Vivek/Harris VP debate, that would be some amazing television.
In short, I don't care who or how y'all stumble toward a final candidate (FYI, I'm not sure that letting donors pick the candidate is a great look, but good luck with that). One guy is going to win and one guys is not. No matter who wins the other side will finally be forced to stop playing this idiotic game where it's somebody's "turn" to run and actually get rid of these two and let the rest of us move on.
Look, is it fair to say that you view all of humanity as "deviants," including yourself?
I, on the other hand, view all of humanity welcome to the Beloved Community, including the worst of us. I believe people can choose to not be part of the Beloved Community, but they can't step outside the love of God and the love of the welcoming beloved community.
I'm guessing you may not approve of that view of humanity, but you tell me.
I'm guessing that you view all of us to be vile sinners, depraved and actually intent on evil, on doing the wrong, on rejecting and rebelling against God and the good. Is that correct?
Whereas I believe that all of humanity is created in the image of God, with That of God within them. I believe that God loves us all, even the ones engaging in causing harm. I believe we are created just a little lower than God... created to understand and DO good works, to be kind and gracious, loving and forgiving. You may or may not agree with that, you can tell me.
But that is MY starting point - that humanity is created in the image of God with that of God in them, including an understanding of goodness and kindness. Whereas your starting point is that all of humanity is depraved and intent on evil. Is that correct?
Given that (IF I'm understand you correctly), then it makes some sense that you may not understand me because you don't agree with, accept or understand my worldview. I, on the other hand, DO understand the conservative worldview, as I was raised in it. But I do not agree with it any more nor do I think it makes rational, moral or biblical sense.
I look forward to a Trump/Harris debate, or any other non democratically chosen seat filler y'all conjure up.
Here, we agree. Harris would destroy Trump. His incoherence, sexism,racism and lack of reasonable standards or a sense of morality would be all the more apparent in that kind of debate.
Are you thinking Vivek will be the VP choice? We'll see. I agree that Vivek appears quite intelligent, but that may be a drawback for the idiot Trump.
"As you know, the word, deviant, literally just means one who deviates from a norm. But "Deviant" is a word that has often/historically been used to malign and marginalize the poor and people who were already marginalized. The "gay deviants" those "transgender deviants," the "loose women deviants," etc, etc. It is a word that has often been used by white men in power to solidify their power by keeping other people (the "deviants") down."
Oh goody, Dan is going to spend more time trying to justify his condescending attitude and why Dan is always right. Weeeeeee, more fun. FYI, that's excitedly the sense in which I'm using the term deviant. I'm not creating some secret special use of the word just to apply to Trump.
"I'm just trying to set the record straight (so to speak). People who merely have sexual orientations (gay, straight or otherwise) and sexual attractions are NOT deviant, they are the norm. The abuse of this word to oppress people has historically caused harm."
Wow, by throwing out this irrelevant, ridiculous, and off topic bullshit that has absolutely zero relationship to anything outside of your own tiny brain.
"I'm pointing out that the actual deviants (in a negative, harmful sense) are the ones who abuse power and deny human rights to others based upon their religious or other philosophies. With the norm, in this case, being Those who are not oppressors. Because that is normative language/ideas we can appreciate and generally agree with."
Because beating a dead horse by repeating yourself for the third or fourth time will finally fix everything except your monomaniacal obsession with not staying on the topic of this post.
"Except the oppressors. They will continue to try to enforce their deviancy against the will of the people because they/you know best what OTHERS should do."
Why that whole "knowing what others should do" sounds a lot like Dan.
"That is what I'm opposed to. I invite you to join us who are opposed to criminalizing or marginalizing abortion/medical decisions/sexual orientation or just basic human rights."
Don't know how this has any relation to the topic of this post, honestly stopped caring about this self aggrandizing idiocy a while ago, but remain impressed with your monomaniacal determination to talk about anything other than the topic of the post.
"I think those who do this work are the ones who should be taken seriously, not the ones opposed to that work."
Again with the off topic stupidity, as if anyone cares what you think or needs you to tell us what we should do.
"Dan is always perfect in his communication skills and it's just that y'all are idiots." canard.
Come on. Tell me, true. You REALLY thought when I said that these guys were white conservatives who worked for Trump that I truly meant literally "nothing" can be found online about them?
What I said, at the same time as saying their bios were on P25's website, was
"Why are all three of these white rightwing extremists a complete blank on google searches?"
Did you REALLY think that I meant that nothing was available? IF you think that, then how do you think I knew their schools and work with Trump?
You almost certainly did not think what you're suggesting. You appear to be willingly trying to be obtuse and argumentative. Tell me I'm mistaken and you ACTUALLY thought that I meant there was literally nothing and that I was not engaging in hyperbole?
IF that is true, then why is it the case that you are not demonstrating reading comprehension problems? Do you think reasonable adults would reach that conclusion, given the context of everything I said?
IF that is true, is that not reasonably another sign of your reading comprehension problems?
For my part, I can't imagine that you have THAT much trouble with reading comprehension. I believe in you at least that far.
But you tell me.
"Look, is it fair to say that you view all of humanity as "deviants," including yourself?"
It wouldn't be my first choice of terms, but if one looks at sin as "missing the mark" or deviating from YHWH's plan, then sure.
"I, on the other hand, view all of humanity welcome to the Beloved Community, including the worst of us. I believe people can choose to not be part of the Beloved Community, but they can't step outside the love of God and the love of the welcoming beloved community."
!. This is so far from the topic of the post as to make me question your sanity.
2. The fact that I believe that our status as "deviants" doesn't preclude some sort of salvation just shows how little you pay attention.
"I'm guessing you may not approve of that view of humanity, but you tell me."
I neither approve or disapprove in this context, it's totally off topic and merely a subjective hunch you have.
"I'm guessing that you view all of us to be vile sinners, depraved and actually intent on evil, on doing the wrong, on rejecting and rebelling against God and the good. Is that correct?"
It's irrelevant and off topic. But also wrong, as you usually are when you choose to place Dan's guesses over what I've actually said.
"Whereas I believe that all of humanity is created in the image of God, with That of God within them. I believe that God loves us all, even the ones engaging in causing harm. I believe we are created just a little lower than God... created to understand and DO good works, to be kind and gracious, loving and forgiving. You may or may not agree with that, you can tell me."
I'll tell Dan that is is still off the topic of this post, therefore irrelevant, and that Dan's imperfect, biased, subjective human hunches don't interest me in the least.
"But that is MY starting point - that humanity is created in the image of God with that of God in them, including an understanding of goodness and kindness. Whereas your starting point is that all of humanity is depraved and intent on evil. Is that correct?"
How could I possibly know if your "starting point" is actually your "starting point". I do know it's still off topic for this post.
"Given that (IF I'm understand you correctly), then it makes some sense that you may not understand me because you don't agree with, accept or understand my worldview. I, on the other hand, DO understand the conservative worldview, as I was raised in it. But I do not agree with it any more nor do I think it makes rational, moral or biblical sense."
Clearly you don't understand me correctly when I tell you that your monomaniacal obsession with ridiculous and off topic comments is a problem. Clearly Dan doesn't have a clue about how to stay on the topic when Dan decides to hijack a thread and drag it off topic. Nor does Dan have a clue that me not caring about his subjective, unproven, personal, hunches literally means that I don't care.
I'm not creating some secret special use of the word just to apply to Trump.
So, we can agree that Trump IS a deviant in a whole wide range of ways, right? But then, you sort of minimalize the point when you say EVERYONE is deviant, right?
I mean, if EVERYONE is deviant, then "deviancy" has no literal meaning. Being deviant would be the norm and it would undo itself.
As to going off topic, I'm just responding to your comments and subjective theories, trying to raise reasonable points.
IF everyone is "deviant" (departing from the norm), then no one is deviant, is that what you think?
If so, you realize, I hope, how irrational and incomprehensible and self-defeating this theory of yours is, right?
"Here, we agree. Harris would destroy Trump. His incoherence, sexism,racism and lack of reasonable standards or a sense of morality would be all the more apparent in that kind of debate."
Harris would simply repeat one or two of her catchphrases over and over again and look like Biden when the topic of her years long crusade to imprison young black men is discussed.
"Are you thinking Vivek will be the VP choice?"
I'm of two minds on Vivek as VP. But for the most part I think VP might hurt him from another run for president. However, watching him eviscerate Harris is a debate or two might be worth it.
"We'll see. I agree that Vivek appears quite intelligent, but that may be a drawback for the idiot Trump."
Vivek appears to be, by far the most intelligent and best communicator of anyone in the 2024 primaries on either side. His ability to interact with hecklers and engage them in a real, data based, conversation is something that no one else demonstrated. I think that the fact that Trump brought him into his inner circle and seems to be listening to his is probably a good sign.
The more I think about it, I tend to see Trump's VP as a sacrificial lamb sort of position. I don't see Trump doing much to set up a VP for success in '28 and therefore see no reason to waste De Santis of Vivek this year.
If I knew, I'd be on my way to Vegas to throw down a big bet. One of the few things I like about Trump is his propensity to do the unexpected.
My point is simply that Vivek would destroy Harris in a debate.
"Come on. Tell me, true. You REALLY thought when I said that these guys were white conservatives who worked for Trump that I truly meant literally "nothing" can be found online about them?"
I truly read the exact words Dan used, and I truly applied the most common, obvious meaning to those words and I truly have learned that Dan gets mad when anyone assumes that you mean anything but exactly what you say. You chose to say something other than what Dan claims Dan meant. I literally took you at your word.
"Did you REALLY think that I meant that nothing was available? IF you think that, then how do you think I knew their schools and work with Trump?"
See above. Dan gets mad when people make assumptions about what Dan means, Dan also gets mad when people don't make assumptions about what Dan means. Maybe Dan should stick to saying what Dan means and not assume that others will make the assumptions Dan demands.
"You almost certainly did not think what you're suggesting. You appear to be willingly trying to be obtuse and argumentative. Tell me I'm mistaken and you ACTUALLY thought that I meant there was literally nothing and that I was not engaging in hyperbole?"
Look Dan is getting more and more mad because Dan can't believe that I would have the temerity to suggest that Dan is wrong in Dan's conclusion about what I meant. FYI, Dan can't stay on topic, show humility, or chill out either.
"IF that is true, then why is it the case that you are not demonstrating reading comprehension problems? Do you think reasonable adults would reach that conclusion, given the context of everything I said?"
1. No.
2. It's interesting that Dan expects me to glean context when I am responding to one specific comment, but the context doesn't come until a later comment.
3. See above.
"IF that is true, is that not reasonably another sign of your reading comprehension problems?"
It's not, Dan is insufferably condescending, and it's strange that Dan doesn't consider that Dan not writing to clearly express what Dan actually means might be a problem on Dan's end. FYI, see above.
I tell Dan over and over, then Dan insists that I am wrong and Dan is right about what I mean, say, do, or think.
"So, we can agree that Trump IS a deviant in a whole wide range of ways, right? But then, you sort of minimalize the point when you say EVERYONE is deviant, right?"
Yes. No. But this entire line of bullshit is off topic, but Dan lacks the ability to comprehend this or Dan is so conceited as to want to inflict Dan's subjective standards or everyone.
"I mean, if EVERYONE is deviant, then "deviancy" has no literal meaning. Being deviant would be the norm and it would undo itself."
What an absurd example of circular reasoning. To suggest that if everyone claims that 2+2=5, that it somehow invalidates the reality that there is a standard for 2+2, is ridiculous. But I admire your determination to continue shoveling the off topic bullshit.
"As to going off topic, I'm just responding to your comments and subjective theories, trying to raise reasonable points."
No, because this thread is not and never has been about Trump or the GOP, you took it there and you refuse to keep going further and further afield. The fact that it's taken you lord knows how many repetitions of "it's off topic" before you even bother with a bullshit excuse just demonstrates your monomaniacal obsession with driving the topic wherever you want. Dan summarily deletes people, then lies about it when they go "off topic" at Dan's blog. I let Dan demonstrate his hubris, condescension, monomaniacal determination, and childish stupidity to Dan's little heart's content.
"IF everyone is "deviant" (departing from the norm), then no one is deviant, is that what you think?"
Off topic and answered.
"If so, you realize, I hope, how irrational and incomprehensible and self-defeating this theory of yours is, right?"
I hope you realize that your incessant off topic distractions just make you look more and more ridiculous.
Having a standard of expected behavior is not the same thing as saying that the "norm" is achieving that standard. If you grab 100 people and ask them a question, which they answer incorrectly, that doesn't make their answer magically correct.
The fact that I regularly indulge your obsessive quest to take things off topic, doesn't somehow magically mean that you aren't off topic. I means that either Dan had one tiny kernel of off topic stuff that was worth something, or it means that I'm enjoying screwing with Dan and watching Dan make Dan's self look more and more foolish.
Having a standard of expected behavior is not the same thing as saying that the "norm" is achieving that standard.
So, the standard of expected behavior for most reasonable people in the modern world is, "Do No Harm." The Golden Rule. Treat others as you'd like to be treated.
I want to be treated in such a way that I can be self-determining so long as I'm causing no harm to others. If a person wants to make their own medical decisions that involve abortions, then that person is free to make that decision. If another person wants to make decisions where they never are involved in an abortion for themselves, then that person is free to make that decision. If a person is literally attracted to the same gender (homosexual) and they want to marry and love a person of their choice (and vice versa), then they are free to do so. If a person doesn't "believe" in their personal human opinion, that gay folks shouldn't marry, then THEY are free not to marry a person of the same gender.
In all these matters, the Golden Rule. It's a basic, reasonable, common approach to morality. A STANDARD, if you will. That is the norm.
IF, on the other hand, some guy isn't satisfied to not marry a guy himself, HE wants to decide for everyone else that NO guys get married, that person is deviating from this rational norm. They are deviant, NOT the gay guys merely seeking to marry.
The Golden Rule.
Why is the Golden Rule not the norm, the standard that you're willing to embrace? Or IS it and, if so, will you join with others in opposing religious people (or otherwise) trying to impose their will on others?
What is wrong with that norm? Heck, it's practically biblical and whatnot!
July 11, 2024 at 11:38 AM
"I can't tell you how horrible an idea that this is from a free republic point of view."
If it was actually horrible in any way, it should be quite simple to explain how.
"Presidents SHOULD be worried about their actions and have some sense of gravitas when it comes to actions, especially actions that normally would be criminal."
There's always been such a remedy. This ruling refers to official actions...that which is part and parcel of presidential duties and responsibilities which those like your Dem morons wouldn't like. To prosecute over a difference of opinion, particularly when you lefties don't have actual alternatives which are better, is what the ruling prevents.
"Reagan, for instance, SHOULD have worried about being held accountable for war crimes when it came to many of his actions in Latin America."
Still lying about Reagan and the commie backed Sandinistas, are you? Reagan committed no crimes by supporting those who were being abused by them. Once again we see a lefty blaming the wrong person for harm and death caused by leftists.
"WHY is this notion of giving absolute power for presidents to be above the law a good idea??"
There is no one beyond your party members looking to give presidents absolute power. Go and lie at your own Blog of Lies.
"IF our constitution currently allows for presidents to be above the law, then we NEED to change our constitution."
There's an amendment process to alter the Constitution at any time. But there's nothing in the Constitution which allows presidents to be above the law. The ruling of SCOTUS doesn't make that fiction a reality.
"I, for one, agree with the experts who say of course presidents are not above the law."
Hey, look! Dan's sticking his neck out! What courage!
"Given that "PROJECT 2025!!!!" has a high likelihood of being implemented by the perverts in the Trump administration if he's elected (I mean, it IS his people largely behind it, along with the folks at the "Heritage Foundation..." Why WOULDN'T they implement it?), I'd suggest you pay more attention to what is being done by your people in your name. Conservative Christians and their spin-offs, "christian" "nationalists" are a serious threat to actual Christianity and a free nation."
The most "perverse" member of the Trump administration I can recall would be Rich Grenell. Aside from this one homosexual, there were no cross dressing freaks like there are in Biden's administration. No one promotes mutilating kids to appease their delusions about their sex, or celebrates pervert men dressed in the most whorish manner to read to small children. As such, what's being done by those I support far from perfect, but nowhere near as satanic and disgusting as what you personally celebrate as embracing grace. Conservative Christians are essential to ensuring Christianity is not criminalized and that the nation remains free as it was intended to be.
"We're not going back to "the good old days" of the oppressive 1950s EVEN IF those deviants in the heritage foundation threaten a civil war if we refuse to comply with their demands."
There are no "deviants" in the Heritage Foundation. It's not a progressive group, so of course there are none. And if there was a civil war between good people and those like you, you'd lose quickly, so you might want to speak honestly about what's hoped for by those of the Heritage Foundation and other conservatives.
"We do not WANT radical fundamentalist "christian" extremists to take over the infrastructure and policies of our nation."
Of course you don't. That would be too much like God's Will for you and other perverts to confront. You prefer as little morality and self-restraint as possible so you can pretend you evil is good.
"Literally, to hell with that (not that I believe in the fundamentalist myth/propaganda of a literal hell...)"
Of course you don't. But refusing to accept truth doesn't mean you won't confront truth at some point.
July 11, 2024 at 11:55 AM
"Also, why are none of these extremists in charge at "PROJECT 2025!!!!!" listed in wikipedia?"
Why must they be? Is Wikipedia some necessary site of importance? I don't think so, and it's largely leftist anyway with questionable credibility.
"Research there names and there's NOTHING about them except their own little blurbs on PROJECT 2025!!!!"
No credentials required to have, publish and promote good ideas. Lack of credentials has no bearing on the merits of one's ideas.
"Their credentials (at least for the top three white dudes) are all "Served in Trump's administration..." and given the unprecedented level of corruption in Trump's literal swamp, that's a huge red flag."
What corruption specifically are you referencing? This is a wildly stupid claim with no support. You should delete yourself.
"Sorry, except for the top TWO white guys at PROJECT 2025!!!!."
Dan's racism rears it's perverted and ugly head once again!
"The third guy "troup hemenway" doesn't even have a bio on THEIR OWN website. Although, a little research confirms that, what? ! Yes, even little troup was formerly with the pervert king's administration."
He was with Biden's admin? That's weird.
"What in the name of all that is holy, good and rational will cause you to wake up and start to wonder about the deviants you're associating with?"
You mean Richard Levine? Sam Britton? The Jeff St lesbian grandmothers? Drag Queens? We don't associate with these people.
"Why are all three of these white rightwing extremists a complete blank on google searches?"
To confound lying, perverted progressives from Louisville. Once again we see the term "extremists" attached to people who are devoted to truth, character, morality and virtue. Good people applaud such extremism and aspire to it themselves. You wouldn't know, Dan. You're not at all a good person.
"Hell, if you google little anonymous Dan Trabue you get all kinds of hits... and I'm no one!"
But not the hits you deserve, despite being a no one.
"Extremely suspicious."
Only to those worried their spreading of evil will be stopped.
"Check it out yourself. The top leadership at PRRJCT 2025!!!!!! are
Paul Dans
Spencer Chretien
Troup Calhoun Hemenway
Try to find ANY information out there about them. Their bios or anything. At least the latter two attended conservative "baptist" Hillsdale College."
I found quite a bit. They're mostly those who've been working in politics in some manner or form for some time, often in positions at various conservative "think tank" type organizations.
But what's really going on here with Dan's panty wetting, is not who the people are, but what they're seeking to do with regard to addressing some of the many problems in government, and do so from a conservative perspective, which means that any corrections will be incredibly beneficial for America. Dan and his kind cannot operate effectively in the America founded in the 18th century. Perversion and infanticide is harder to indulge.
"Who are these white guys, beyond obvious Trumpites and conservative "christian" extremists..?"
There Dan goes again with his racism! These "white" guys are good Americans looking to correct the problems the Trabues of the nation have imposed upon us. In other words, they're among the good guys. Dan's among the evil.
July 11, 2024 at 12:24 PM
"One has to wonder what those who refuse to bow to The Heritage Foundation and PRCCKLLJET 2025!!!!!'s demands will face."
Well, perversion and infanticide will be more difficult to promote as normal and good. That's a plus for America right there.
"One has to wonder why they think it's okay to enforce by law the will of a minority of religious extremists' opinions on the rest of the nation."
And again, by your use of the term "extremist", one should not wonder that promoting morality, virtue and character would be problematic for anyone not a pervert like Dan.
"One has to wonder if everyone will have to receive the Mark of the Beast on their hands and foreheads to be members in good standing of PRKKJCKKKT2025!!!! overlords?"
It's not surprising that Dan would suggest such at thing with regard to better, more God-fearing people. In the meantime, Dan supported those who forced jabs and masks in order to be in good standing with his deviant overlords. So there's that.
And what's this crap ---> "PRKKJCKKKT2025!!!!"?? What's with the intentional misspelling and multiple exclamation points? Is pearl clutching Dan getting the vapors again?
July 11, 2024 at 12:35 PM
"When they say "the actions of liberal politicians," they're referencing the actions of fellow citizens of the US who dare to be more progressive-minded than these conservative religious extremists."
It doesn't matter how many stupid people support destructive actions implemented by the morons they elected. Keep in mind how many people supported slavery at one time in the world. Does the support of a majority make bad policy untouchable by moral people? I don't think so. But Dan regards "progressive-minded" in the same dishonest way he labels better people "extremists". The left isn't at all "progressive".
"But the reality is that these conservative religious extremists and their policies represent a minority of the citizens of the US. On what grounds would this minority seek to overrule what a plurality or majority of the nation wants to do?"
Uh...by winning elections, which means a majority supports what they're promoting. That's how it works. If the better people Dan disparages...that's what "embrace grace" means, evidently...are truly a minority, then perverts and deviants like Dan have nothing about which to worry and soil their panties. Minorities don't get elected in this country.
"What makes their citizenship count for more, other than, "We think we can get away with it... with forcing our will on the rest of the nation... because WE know that WE are right and GOD IS ON OUR SIDE (TM)!!"?"
Nice projection from the side which is forcing all manner of perversion onto this nation. Imagine God or Jesus appearing and upon His arrival forces His Will on the whole of us. I can't see a problem with that. Thus, why would I have a problem with anyone who would force God's Will on us...assuming anyone is even suggesting such a thing. Rather, Dan is afraid that goodness and Godliness will indeed prevail, which would impede his ability (as the agent of evil he is) to succeed in further corrupting the culture.
"The majority of the nation supports basic human rights for women, where they can be self-determining in all ways, including making their own medical decisions, including those medical decisions about pregnancies."
Ah! You're talking about murdering the innocent as if it's an unalienable right endowed by God! There's no attempt to deprive anyone of their basic human rights. There's at best, the intention to remove from under the umbrella of that term that which aren't in fact rights at all...like murdering one's own child in utero.
"Will you support P25!!!! in overruling women's rights and self-determination when they don't have the support of most of the nation?"
I support the outlawing of infanticide as perpetrated by the various forms of abortion now legal in this nation. Women have no right to murder their children. EVER!
"The majority of the nation supports LGBTQ people being openly who they are and openly having their own right to self-determination on marriage and having children and other basic human rights."
The rights and welfare of children supersedes any selfish desire by perverts to pretend they're actually normal people entitled to deprive children of either a mother or father. The "right" of perverts to live openly and proudly as perverts does not supersede the right of all others to live without being forced to subordinate their moral beliefs to the demands of said perverts. If good people do not wish to associate with, do business with or pretend to like perverts, that is THEIR self-determination which is deserving of respect as well. Vermin like Dan don't like that truth.
"Will you support P25!!!! in overruling LGBTQ folk's rights and self-determination when they don't have the support of most of the nation?"
As with the women mentioned above, it depends upon what you mean by "rights". This "self-determination" crap is just that...crap. It's just another bludgeon by evil people to force compliance by good people wishing to live freely.
"The majority of the nation recognizes the reality of human impacts upon climate change and we are feeling the literal heat of past policies that promoted devastating climate change."
Another case where a majority supporting stupidity doesn't justify policies enabling that stupidity. The impact of human behavior on climate is next to non-existent and wholly immeasurable. As with immigration policy, lefties should never be allowed to influence climate related policy making. Stupid people only harm the nation.
"Will you support P25!!!! in overruling the rights and self-determination of the majority of citizens on climate change policies when they don't have the support of most of the nation?"
Absolutely. Bad policy must always be overruled, regardless of how many morons support the policy.
"How far will you go to support these religious extremists and can you acknowledge that IF you don't have the support of the majority, maybe you all shouldn't force your religious opinions on others?"
No conservatives seek to force religious beliefs on anyone, so you can stop that lie right now. Those who are offering Project 2025 are not "extremists" in any way but that they are extremely concerned about how those like Dan have f**ked up this nation so badly and are extremely serious about reversing those destructive policies. We need more extremists.
July 11, 2024 at 11:38 AM
"I can't tell you how horrible an idea that this is from a free republic point of view."
If it was actually horrible in any way, it should be quite simple to explain how.
"Presidents SHOULD be worried about their actions and have some sense of gravitas when it comes to actions, especially actions that normally would be criminal."
There's always been such a remedy. This ruling refers to official actions...that which is part and parcel of presidential duties and responsibilities which those like your Dem morons wouldn't like. To prosecute over a difference of opinion, particularly when you lefties don't have actual alternatives which are better, is what the ruling prevents.
"Reagan, for instance, SHOULD have worried about being held accountable for war crimes when it came to many of his actions in Latin America."
Still lying about Reagan and the commie backed Sandinistas, are you? Reagan committed no crimes by supporting those who were being abused by them. Once again we see a lefty blaming the wrong person for harm and death caused by leftists.
"WHY is this notion of giving absolute power for presidents to be above the law a good idea??"
There is no one beyond your party members looking to give presidents absolute power. Go and lie at your own Blog of Lies.
"IF our constitution currently allows for presidents to be above the law, then we NEED to change our constitution."
There's an amendment process to alter the Constitution at any time. But there's nothing in the Constitution which allows presidents to be above the law. The ruling of SCOTUS doesn't make that fiction a reality.
"I, for one, agree with the experts who say of course presidents are not above the law."
Hey, look! Dan's sticking his neck out! What courage!
"Given that "PROJECT 2025!!!!" has a high likelihood of being implemented by the perverts in the Trump administration if he's elected (I mean, it IS his people largely behind it, along with the folks at the "Heritage Foundation..." Why WOULDN'T they implement it?), I'd suggest you pay more attention to what is being done by your people in your name. Conservative Christians and their spin-offs, "christian" "nationalists" are a serious threat to actual Christianity and a free nation."
The most "perverse" member of the Trump administration I can recall would be Rich Grenell. Aside from this one homosexual, there were no cross dressing freaks like there are in Biden's administration. No one promotes mutilating kids to appease their delusions about their sex, or celebrates pervert men dressed in the most whorish manner to read to small children. As such, what's being done by those I support far from perfect, but nowhere near as satanic and disgusting as what you personally celebrate as embracing grace. Conservative Christians are essential to ensuring Christianity is not criminalized and that the nation remains free as it was intended to be.
"We're not going back to "the good old days" of the oppressive 1950s EVEN IF those deviants in the heritage foundation threaten a civil war if we refuse to comply with their demands."
There are no "deviants" in the Heritage Foundation. It's not a progressive group, so of course there are none. And if there was a civil war between good people and those like you, you'd lose quickly, so you might want to speak honestly about what's hoped for by those of the Heritage Foundation and other conservatives.
"We do not WANT radical fundamentalist "christian" extremists to take over the infrastructure and policies of our nation."
Of course you don't. That would be too much like God's Will for you and other perverts to confront. You prefer as little morality and self-restraint as possible so you can pretend you evil is good.
"Literally, to hell with that (not that I believe in the fundamentalist myth/propaganda of a literal hell...)"
Of course you don't. But refusing to accept truth doesn't mean you won't confront truth at some point.
(I may have submitted the same comment twice. That should be OK, because good stuff bears repeating.)
Dan's comment about the Golden rule as the norm is simply more of the same old bullshit. The very basis of his hunch is his unproven contention that the Golden Rule is accepted (as he interprets it) by a vast majority of the world. Until his bullshit hunch can be proven I see no reason to waste time with it.
RE medical decisions. The why limit "medical decisions" at all? You want an unlimited prescription for Fentanyl because of chronic hangnails, sure. You want to amputate perfectly functioning body parts, why not? You want other people to pay for your personal "medical decisions" absolutely.
RE Love and marriage. Why should someone's "personal decision" be given to force of law and mandate that others be subject to that "personal decision"? Why limit "personal decisions" about love and marriage? 5 year olds, sore. Siblings, by my guest. Animals, why not? Inanimate objects. be my guest.
Even if the Golden Rule is an expected behavioral standard, a quick look at the news tells us that it is not "the norm".
Post a Comment