A couple of thoughts on Lame Duck Genocide Joe.
1. There are reports out there that clearly state that P-BO called Biden and told him that he, Kamala, and others had talked and that they would invoke the 25th amendment if Joe didn't remove himself from the race.
If this is True, then how is it possible that Biden is still in office. If Biden is truly incapacitated to the point that the 25th amendment is necessary, then he should step down now.
If Biden is not incapacitated enough to justify his removal under 25A, then how is this not election interference, a coup, bribery, or insurrection? How can P-BO and Harris threaten Biden to drop out, if he's not really that incapacitated?
Further, since Harris stands to benefit from this threat isn't that a conflict of interest or something?
2. Lame Duck Genocide Joe just made headlines for his attempt to destroy the concept of three coequal branches of government. He's come out with some changes to the supreme court that will lessen it's independence. I'll give him credit for realizing that a constitutional amendment is the only possible way to achieve this takeover. However, this is one more of those Biden things where he'll announce some major initiative, then not deliver, but still take credit as if he'd done what he said. For years, the DFL sheep will give Biden credit for doing nothing.
The reality is that this is all for show, as the chances of getting a constitutional amendment passed for this is virtually 0%.
Now, had Biden done this right and suggested implementing these sorts of changes for all three branches of government, he might have been on to something. The notion that SCOTUS should be held to higher standards than the executive and legislative branches seems absurd on it's face.
You've got to give him credit, or at least his puppet masters, for making a big announcement that gets him headlines while accomplishing nothing.
If Biden wants to cap his term then he should do everything necessary to free the US hostages held by Hamas and help remove Hamas from power for good. He won't, but he should.
112 comments:
1. From what I've seen, the Biden administration is working relentlessly with two uncooperative sides to get a hostage release arranged. He can't really force Israel or Hamas to comply with what the world sees as what's best for both sides, can he.
He's come out with some changes to the supreme court that will lessen it's independence.
Or, by the way many people see it, to correct a SCOTUS that has gotten out of control and severely partisan. I think the majority of the nation agrees that the current SCOTUS has become very problematic, thanks to Trump and the GOP (don't forget Mitch cynically and hypocritically blocking Obama from appointing a Justice... the people won't!).
So, I suspect that this is a very clever attempt by Biden that may or may not work, but still clever.
YES, Biden can't make these changes on his own, it would take Congress listening to the will of the people.
NO, the current GOP will not cooperate with any of these sorts of changes.
THUS, if the voters in our nation want to correct the leaning SCOTUS with some now-well-established problems, it's not enough merely to support the Harris ticket, the US would need to vote in Democrats in large enough numbers to fix this existing problem caused by Trump and his extremist judges.
That almost certainly won't happen, but it's a wise positioning of the problems before us, and that, according to polls showing that people do NOT want a president above the law, an unaccountable and sketchy SCOTUS and perhaps right the overly partisan SCOTUS.
Still pretty clever for a "doddering old man..."
1. Well, since "what you've seen" is the final definitive word on what's been done, clearly that's the final word. Given the reality that Israel has been agreeable to (at least) negotiate every proposal that's been offered, and has already negotiated a lopsided deal which saw many more Hamas criminals release than hostages, I'm not sure that you've seen enough. Further, since Israel does not hold any US hostages there is no reason for Biden to negotiate with Israel to release hostages that Hamas holds. Why has the US not charged Hamas with war crimes for blatantly violating the Geneva Conventions?
"He's come out with some changes to the supreme court that will lessen it's independence."
Given the fact that the 3 branches of the federal government were designed to be independent of each other, hence the oft used term "equal branches", this seems to be unconstitutional on it's very face.
"Or, by the way many people see it, to correct a SCOTUS that has gotten out of control and severely partisan. I think the majority of the nation agrees that the current SCOTUS has become very problematic, thanks to Trump and the GOP (don't forget Mitch cynically and hypocritically blocking Obama from appointing a Justice... the people won't!)."
It's strange that the only time that "people" want to unconstitutionally change SCOTUS is when SCOTUS is perceived to have moved to the right.
"So, I suspect that this is a very clever attempt by Biden that may or may not work, but still clever."
If by "clever" you mean proposing something that is unconstitutional and almost guaranteed not to happen in order to get a day or two of headlines, OK. Beyond that, I fail to see what's "clever" about making a big deal out of something that'll never happen. I guess there's a degree of "clever" in his ability to convince people that him "promising" something means that the promise has been achieved, but it's mostly just bullshitting people.
"YES, Biden can't make these changes on his own, it would take Congress listening to the will of the people."
Yet, there is no overwhelming "will of the people".
"NO, the current GOP will not cooperate with any of these sorts of changes."
Probably not as they are unrealistic and unconstitutional.
"THUS, if the voters in our nation want to correct the leaning SCOTUS with some now-well-established problems, it's not enough merely to support the Harris ticket, the US would need to vote in Democrats in large enough numbers to fix this existing problem caused by Trump and his extremist judges."
Except that if you actually look at how the judges voted, it's not just the "Trump judges" that are voting for things y'all don't like. In fact the "Trump judges" have voted against some of the "extreme" rulings while some of the liberal judges have voted for them. But by all means propose a course of action that would force your political philosophy on the country by ignoring the "minority". Good plan.
"That almost certainly won't happen, but it's a wise positioning of the problems before us, and that, according to polls showing that people do NOT want a president above the law, an unaccountable and sketchy SCOTUS and perhaps right the overly partisan SCOTUS."
Well, you're right that this unconstitutional bullshit almost certainly won't happen. But you'll act like this is some big accomplishment anyway.
"Still pretty clever for a "doddering old man...""
Absolutely, convincing folx like you that proposing an unconstitutional takeover of one of the three equal branches of government, months before he's thrown out of office does require a small amount of "clever". The problem is that all too many of the DFL sheep will think that it's "clever" and that Biden actually did something besides put out a press release.
The fact that you blindly go along with imposing restrictions on one branch of government that you don't think should be imposed on all, simply because you don't agree with a few court rulings, isn't a good look for you.
Like all of these extreme tactics, you'll bitch about them until they're used against you.
"f by "clever" you mean proposing something that is unconstitutional and almost guaranteed not to happen..."
What are you talking about? It's not unconstitutional to change the constitution. And that's possible IF we vote out sufficient numbers of GOP obstructionists. All of that is Constitutional.
Dan
Here's the actual news, since you never link to the stories in question...
"Biden’s proposals — a constitutional amendment stripping the president of immunity for crimes committed while in office, term limits for Supreme Court justices, and a binding code of conduct for the high court..."
From CNN and multiple news sources.
The fact is, there's nothing unconstitutional about proposing constitutional changes.
As to the last, the SCOTUS could have prevented this if they didn't reject calls to be transparent and follow rules other judges follow.
Dan
Or, by the way many people see it, to correct a SCOTUS that has gotten out of control and severely partisan.
No, it isn't partisan. This court is trying things by the Constitution--that document that the LEFT and Demokrats hate.,
"What are you talking about? It's not unconstitutional to change the constitution. And that's possible IF we vote out sufficient numbers of GOP obstructionists. All of that is Constitutional."
It is, I'm not sure that having the head of the executive branch driving this attempt to remove the independence of the judicial branch would pass constitutional muster.
"From CNN and multiple news sources."
I'm not sure what you think you've accomplished here, since nothing I said in the post required a news story link, and nothing I said contradicts any of the news stories. But congratulation, you found out about a widely reported story all by yourself without being spoon fed a link from me.
"The fact is, there's nothing unconstitutional about proposing constitutional changes."
Did you actually read what I wrote?
FYI, my constitutional issue is that this is coming from the head of the executive branch and is an attempt to disrupt the equal status of the three branches of government.
As I said, if only Biden would have had the courage to make a proposal that affected all three branches of government, he might have come off as less partisan.
"As to the last, the SCOTUS could have prevented this if they didn't reject calls to be transparent and follow rules other judges follow."
When you make these vague claims without any backup, it's hard to take you seriously.
"The will of the people..." I've heard it said that, for the Left, "democracy" is authoritarianism that they like while "authoritarianism" is democracy they don't like -- it's all populism and demagoguery that threatens to become fascism even when it's advancing the cause of quite popular, moderate, and sensible policies like enforcing the border.
The real question is why did Biden wait to make this proposal? Various folx on the left have been floating ideas of how to neuter SCOTUS for a couple of years, so why is Biden just now coming to the party?
Is it because he's secretly wanted this for years, but it took him this long to come up with something?
Is it because he knows that he's on borrowed time and wants to make himself look visionary?
Does he really think he can cram this through in the next couple of months?
Does he realize that he's officially irrelevant and desperately wants the spotlight as much as he can get it?
Did you actually read what I wrote?
Yes, I was responding to what you wrote when you said, more than once...
It's strange that the only time that "people" want to
unconstitutionally
change SCOTUS is when SCOTUS is perceived to have moved to the right...
If by "clever" you mean proposing something that is
unconstitutional
and almost guaranteed not to happen in order to get a day or two of headlines, OK...
Well, you're right that this
unconstitutional bullshit
almost certainly won't happen...
convincing folx like you that proposing
an unconstitutional takeover
of one of the three equal branches of government, months before he's thrown out of office does require a small amount of "clever"...
Perhaps you can understand that when you invoke alleged "unconstitutional" and alleged "unconstitutional bullshit..." at least four times in a relatively few words, that I took your words to mean that you thought that there was something "unconstitutional" about what Biden was proposing (ie, changes to the Constitution, which IS legal and not unconstitutional)..? I mean, what am I missing? When you cited alleged "unconstitutional" behavior by Biden, I took it to mean you were alleging unconstitutional behavior by Biden.
What DID you mean?
"Yes, I was responding to what you wrote when you said, more than once..."
So you ignored what I said in the original post, got it.
"It's strange that the only time that "people" want to
unconstitutionally
change SCOTUS is when SCOTUS is perceived to have moved to the right..."
Which wouldn't be limited to just this particular Biden scheme, it's more of a general note about folx on the left and their selective outrage at SCOTUS when they don't like the results.
"If by "clever" you mean proposing something that is
unconstitutional
and almost guaranteed not to happen in order to get a day or two of headlines, OK..."
As I clarified, I see constitutional concerns when the head of the executive branch is trying to impose restrictions on the judicial branch, regardless of how.
Well, you're right that this
unconstitutional bullshit
almost certainly won't happen...
convincing folx like you that proposing
an unconstitutional takeover
of one of the three equal branches of government, months before he's thrown out of office does require a small amount of "clever"...
"Perhaps you can understand that when you invoke alleged "unconstitutional" and alleged "unconstitutional bullshit..." at least four times in a relatively few words, that I took your words to mean that you thought that there was something "unconstitutional" about what Biden was proposing (ie, changes to the Constitution, which IS legal and not unconstitutional)..? I mean, what am I missing? When you cited alleged "unconstitutional" behavior by Biden, I took it to mean you were alleging unconstitutional behavior by Biden."
Perhaps had you read what I wrote in the post originally, you might have been curious, instead of judgemental.
But hey, I get it.
What DID you mean?
Bubba...
I've heard it said that, for the Left, "democracy" is authoritarianism that they like while "authoritarianism" is democracy they don't like -- it's all populism and demagoguery that threatens to become fascism even when it's advancing the cause of quite popular, moderate, and sensible policies
Seriously. Do you NOT see the irony of this ridiculous claim? Trump is OPENLY and proudly a populist, not Biden, not the Democrats. Trump is the king of nonsense demagoguery (albeit on a fourth grade level... if I'm being generous.) He literally demagogues ALL the time, non-stop. It's not enough for him to say, "I disagree with this policy..." he resorts to
"laughin' Kamala Harris..."
"Lyin' Joe Biden..."
"Crooked Joe Biden..."
"Sleepy Joe..."
"Low Energy Jeb..."
"Coco Chow..."
"Leakin' James Comey..."
"Ron DeSanctimonious..."
"Birdbrain" Nikki Haley...
and you know I could go on and on.
Not to mention
"The press, the enemy of the people..."
"Fake Tapper..."
"Psycho Joe..."
"Fake News Network..."
"Fake news, fake news..."
"Truly the enemy of the people..."
"Crazed and dishonest..."
And on and on.
If you look in the dictionary under "demagogue," they have a picture of Trump.
You can't be taken seriously with this log sticking out of your eyes, dear brother.
Also, Trump is the one who keeps saying overtly authoritarian sorts of things... praising authoritarian leaders. NOT the Democrats. We stand consistently opposed to autocrats.
Seriously, where is a SINGLE conservative speaker/thinker who has raised a peep about Trump's telling of the "beautiful Christian" (by which he meant, useful idiots) that they "won't have to vote any more..."??
WHAT in the name of Joseph H Stalin was he suggesting there? WHERE is the conservative outrage about that overtly authoritarian-sounding claim he kept making?
As Sam Jackson rightly noted, "Well, but I WANT to vote... that's sort of the point."
Where is a conservative raising even a single concern about that?
What do you "beautiful Christians" have to say in response to that? Some defense of a convicted felon who praises strongmen authoritarians and repeatedly talks like one?
As I clarified, I see constitutional concerns when the head of the executive branch is trying to impose restrictions on the judicial branch, regardless of how.
Even when he's trying to address a real problem through constitutional means?
You think it is a constitutional concern if the nation votes for a constitutional change that would say, "NO! A president is not above the law!"???
HOW?
This makes no rational or constitutional sense. For one, of course, it's literally constitutional if we make a constitutional change.
As has been noted lately a great deal about magapolitics... this is just so strange. And not in a good way.
"Even when he's trying to address a real problem through constitutional means?"
Yes, because he is the head of the executive branch of the government attempting to impose restrictions on the judicial branch. If this had come from a grass roots effort it would be different, but he's literally trying to force SCOTUS to accept the restrictions that he wants. I'd say the same thing if SCOTUS decided that it wanted to push for a constitutional amendment to limit the powers or independence of the executive branch. I get it, you're so enamored with the partisan benefits you perceive, that you haven't thought it through.
"You think it is a constitutional concern if the nation votes for a constitutional change that would say, "NO! A president is not above the law!"???"
Of course, this has nothing to do with SCOTUS or my criticism. He'd also have more credibility if he wasn't singling out certain things. If he was pushing for a blanket policy that applied to all three branches, it'd make more sense.
"HOW?"
Maybe you'll notice that I was specifically dealing with the separation of powers issue, which doesn't apply to this.
"This makes no rational or constitutional sense. For one, of course, it's literally constitutional if we make a constitutional change."
See above.
"As has been noted lately a great deal about magapolitics... this is just so strange. And not in a good way."
Yes, it is strange to see someone on the verge of being booted from office by his own VP and party via the 25th amendment, desperately trying to be relevant by proposing something that'll never happen even though people will act as though he's accomplished something major.
It's funny how the progs regard as "extremist" that which aligns with and adheres to the US Constitution and Scripture.
As much as I dislike Kentucky's own Mitch McConnell, possibly the greatest of his good works was wisely using Dem precedent to prevent what would have been among the worst selections of SCOTUS justices, Merrick Garland. Good gosh, dud we dodge a fatal bullet there! Sadly, O'Bumble and the guy who's ability to f**k things he said should never be underestimated placed other morons on the court nonetheless. Trump's picks weren't perfect, but a far sight better than the three looney lefty ladies.
There's nothing which makes these proposals necessary. The motivations are a mix of leftist self-serving crap. With one they wish as many avenues to continue persecuting a better president than they themselves could ever muster. With the other two they also wish to persecute a branch of government over which they have no control.
Damn! Forgot again! The last was me!
--Art
Now, had Biden done this right and suggested implementing these sorts of changes for all three branches of government, he might have been on to something. The notion that SCOTUS should be held to higher standards than the executive and legislative branches seems absurd
1. Term limits ARE part of the executive branch. By and large, they are opposed by the GOP in Congress, as well as some Democrats. I support them. Thus, it's not something that is a "higher standard" than at least one of the branches.
2. Transparency in terms of gifts given IS required of the other two branches, as well as for other judges. The SCOTUS are the ones claiming some special privilege, not the other way around. You know this, right?
3. Congress and the president DO have binding codes of conducts. SCOTUS does not except what they voluntarily agree to.
Are not familiar with all of this?
by proposing something that'll never happen even though people will act as though he's accomplished something major.
Again, it COULD be major if the people of the US see that ONE party (the Democrats) is supporting of reasonable regulations of the sort that the other two branches have to adhere. IF people see, THIS is what the Democrats want - and the GOP opposes - and it's something that we, the people agree with... well then, maybe we ought to vote out the GOP in sufficient numbers to get Congress to go along with the will of the people.
Setting a clear, reasonable, moral example IS one way of getting things done, of accomplishing something major. Do you disagree?
What tree are you barking up, here?
It ain't nothing.
Reasonable, moral example, taking the high ground, has long been a good way to effect public change.
1. Yes, term limits are imposed on the executive branch, and not on the legislative. However, I was speaking at least as much about the ethics requirements.
2. It's strange that you'd make this claim, as one of the drivers of this whole thing is (at least a partial) list of "gifts" to SCOTUS justices. So it's clearly not as black and white as you paint it. The problem is that this doesn't diminish my point at all. If there is a desire for "ethics" standards then set the same standards for each branch. As we watch people like Pelosi and others getting rich from insider trading, as well as watching people like AOC vastly increase their net worth, it simply seems like ethics reform isn't just for one branch.
3. Which, again, isn't the point.
"Are not familiar with all of this?"
It's irrelevant to the point that I was making, which was that if these sorts of things are going to be imposed then they should be imposed equally on all branches.
"Again, it COULD be major if the people of the US see that ONE party (the Democrats) is supporting of reasonable regulations of the sort that the other two branches have to adhere. IF people see, THIS is what the Democrats want - and the GOP opposes - and it's something that we, the people agree with... well then, maybe we ought to vote out the GOP in sufficient numbers to get Congress to go along with the will of the people."
If only the ignorant unwashed could only see that the DFL is the paragon of all possible virtue and is pure as the driven snow, so they should be thankful that one party wants to impose it's will on everyone else.
"Setting a clear, reasonable, moral example IS one way of getting things done, of accomplishing something major. Do you disagree?"
It's theoretically possible, unfortunately Biden isn't/hasn't done so.
"What tree are you barking up, here?"
None. I'm pointing out that the DFL is hardly free of ethical lapses, especially in the realm of insider trading and taking contributions from companies they regulate. I'm also pointing out that one thing that the left does regularly is to treat the announcement of some policy as if the policy has actually be enacted. People have been giving Biden credit for things (like his promise of total student loan forgiveness) that he hasn't actually done. Likewise, the left likes to give credit for those who'll post a black square or Ukraine flag on their socials, as if they've actually engaged in some significant action. Finally, I'm pointing out that the left had no desire to place these restrictions on SCOTUS when SCOTUS was deciding cases in ways that the left preferred.
As we watch people like Pelosi and others getting rich from insider trading, as well as watching people like AOC vastly increase their net worth, it simply seems like ethics reform isn't just for one branch.
Indeed, there should be. Without a single doubt. This is probably something (I haven't seen the data) that a majority of the citizens would agree upon but Congress may not. We can change that.
The legislative branch DOES have regulations and rulings on what gifts they can and can't receive and from whom. The judicial branch should have the same thing. The legislative branch, I'm pretty sure I've read, does have regulations about transparency regarding any gifts. The judicial branch should be the same.
There should be consistent ethics for all three branches. We need especially to reform the judicial branch which doesn't have the same level of accountability, as Biden rightly notes and as modern news examples of several justices demonstrate.
I'm pointing out that the DFL is hardly free of ethical lapses, especially in the realm of insider trading and taking contributions from companies they regulate.
Indeed, both parties have had people taking advantage of their offices in ways that we should regulate better. Like, for example, the way H Biden took advantage of his family name to get a job he probably wouldn't have, otherwise. Or the way that the Trump family constantly profits off his political and former political position.
We should try to have some limits on that which still respects the individual rights of people who simply are part of a family that happens to be in office. I suspect it's a tricky legal line to tread and maybe we'd be better off pushing for codes which aren't legal but expected and that candidates can affirm they'll strive to uphold.
Of course, if a nephew or cousin named Trump or Biden happen to get better jobs that may or may not have been related to the family name... I just don't see how we can legally penalize them or police it. If we can, I support that.
"Setting a clear, reasonable, moral example IS one way of getting things done, of accomplishing something major. Do you disagree?"
It's theoretically possible, unfortunately Biden isn't/hasn't done so.
Well, that remains to be seen. If any leader starts pushing for their party to be the party of ethical guidelines and consistency, and over time, demonstrate that by voting for (or trying to vote for) policies and procedures which promote ethics... and the OTHER party is the one blocking it, then setting a reasonable moral standard on the topic CAN of course be a way of getting things done, because the choice becomes clearer: Will I vote for the party that is promoting ethics guidelines or the party blocking them?
I think the politician (of either party) takes a stand: Here is my proposal to stop congress members from benefiting from insider trading - or even giving the hint of benefiting from it... then I think that politician will be widely supported on at least that topic.
"Indeed, there should be. Without a single doubt. This is probably something (I haven't seen the data) that a majority of the citizens would agree upon but Congress may not. We can change that."
Which is a primary reason why I mentioned the concept of establishing an overarching ethical standard that would apply to all branches. Yet somehow that triggered a reflex to disagree within you.
"The legislative branch DOES have regulations and rulings on what gifts they can and can't receive and from whom. The judicial branch should have the same thing. The legislative branch, I'm pretty sure I've read, does have regulations about transparency regarding any gifts. The judicial branch should be the same."
That may well be, that is something that could be addressed in some other way that something that has the appearance of being imposed or driven by the leader of the executive, or of being driven by partisanship. This ignores the fact that, given evidence of a justice giving a favorable ruling to someone who's given them a "gift", that SCOTUS justices can be impeached. It also ignores that clearly there is transparency around "gifts" or we wouldn't see news stories on the subject.
"There should be consistent ethics for all three branches. We need especially to reform the judicial branch which doesn't have the same level of accountability, as Biden rightly notes and as modern news examples of several justices demonstrate."
What an interesting way to seem to agree, but to also insist that you are correct that the judicial branch is more in need of ethics reform than any of the others. Which is strange after the recent case of a NJ senator being convicted of "ethical" lapses, and the well documented cases of legislators engaging and profiting from insider trading, not to mention then tens of millions of dollars Biden has squirreled away in LLC's and bank accounts with absolutely zero clue as to the source of those funds.
"Indeed, both parties have had people taking advantage of their offices in ways that we should regulate better. Like, for example, the way H Biden took advantage of his family name to get a job he probably wouldn't have, otherwise. Or the way that the Trump family constantly profits off his political and former political position."
Yet you are hyper focused on SCOTUS absent any actual evidence of actual wrongdoing, while staying silent on the rampant ethical lapses elsewhere. It seems strange that a Biden administration official was traipsing through airports stealing luggage with little or no consequences for his actions. But by all means, lets focus on SCOTUS where there's been no credible allegations of actual wrongdoing.
"We should try to have some limits on that which still respects the individual rights of people who simply are part of a family that happens to be in office. I suspect it's a tricky legal line to tread and maybe we'd be better off pushing for codes which aren't legal but expected and that candidates can affirm they'll strive to uphold."
Well now that you've come around to something closer to my position, you want to talk details. It's interesting, but the reality is that we've seen a pattern of what looks very much like Hunter Biden selling access to and profiting from Joe's positions. So, I'm not sure how you'd thread that needle.
"Of course, if a nephew or cousin named Trump or Biden happen to get better jobs that may or may not have been related to the family name... I just don't see how we can legally penalize them or police it. If we can, I support that."
As long as they haven't sold access to or influence from a relative in office or the office holder didn't benefit, I don't see that as a huge problem.
I'd be more concerned with people who come into office broke, then miraculously become multimillionaires in a couple of years, profit from insider knowledge, or profit from companies that they regulate or enter into public contracts with personally.
"Well, that remains to be seen. If any leader starts pushing for their party to be the party of ethical guidelines and consistency, and over time, demonstrate that by voting for (or trying to vote for) policies and procedures which promote ethics... and the OTHER party is the one blocking it, then setting a reasonable moral standard on the topic CAN of course be a way of getting things done, because the choice becomes clearer: Will I vote for the party that is promoting ethics guidelines or the party blocking them?"
1. The reality is that Biden hasn't DONE anything but make an announcement of something that'll be virtually impossible to do.
2. He's a lame duck, being forced out of office by his own party due to the degradation of his mental capacity, under threat of being removed via the 25A.
3. Since this whole thing is a PR stunt, there is no "party" promoting or blocking any actual specific proposals.
4. You'd vote for the party with a D after the candidates name regardless of what they said about this PR stunt.
"I think the politician (of either party) takes a stand: Here is my proposal to stop congress members from benefiting from insider trading - or even giving the hint of benefiting from it... then I think that politician will be widely supported on at least that topic."
That might make sense.
Or, how about if Biden shows complete transparency. How about if Biden shows us where the millions in the accounts and LLC's came from. What the precise relationship between Joe, Hunter, and Ukraine. The tapes of the special counsel questioning. Tells his DOJ to stop coordinating in the various state prosecutions of Trump. Tells his DOJ to stop fighting for presidential immunity from congressional subpoenas. Apologize for the decades of lies and plagiarism. Then once he's come clean, he can pretend to be standing up as a paragon of ethical virtue.
"how about if Biden shows complete transparency. How about if Biden shows us where the millions in the accounts and LLC's came from..."
Well, I think we DO have a record of Joe and Jill Biden's net worth...
https://www.investopedia.com/joe-biden-net-worth-8655652
Do you have data that says otherwise?
Biden seems to have been transparent about his wealth. Maybe you're thinking of the historically corrupt and opaque, Trump?
Are you going to be consistent and hold Trump to that same level of transparency?
Are you saying Biden's extended family need to disclose their income? Maybe so, but again, not sure of the legality of that.
I do welcome you coming out to demand Trump show the level of transparency that Biden has.
Dan
"Well, I think we DO have a record of Joe and Jill Biden's net worth..."
I didn't see the listing of the LLC's and accounts tied to the Biden's detailed in your link. Maybe you're unaware of the existence of these accounts/LLC's with no explanation of where the money came from.
"Do you have data that says otherwise?"
Literally the link you gave was clear that it is an estimate.
https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-releases-direct-monthly-payments-to-joe-biden-from-hunter-bidens-business-entity%EF%BF%BC/
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/remarks/grassley-johnson-release-bank-records-tying-biden-family-to-ccp-linked-individuals-and-companies
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/bidens-used-web-of-shell-companies-to-conceal-foreign-cash-bank-records-obtained-by-house-gop-reveal/
It's entirely possible that these findings are incorrect, inaccurate, or even fabricated. Unfortunately, the only way to know for sure would be for the Bidens to be completely transparent about their finances and where the money came from. If transparency is your Holy Grail, the let Biden be the example of how it should be done. Again, it's entirely possible that transparency from Biden would demonstrate that this is much ado about nothing. If that's the case, then great. But we'll never know unless Biden chooses to set a moral example.
"Biden seems to have been transparent about his wealth. Maybe you're thinking of the historically corrupt and opaque, Trump?"
Apples and oranges. Trump earned his money by engaging in business activities that can be traced. Where taxes are filed, permits are pulled, P&Ls are completed, and where he provided something tangible which has value. One wonders how politicians who've spent their whole lives in politics manage to amass such vast amounts of money.
"Are you going to be consistent and hold Trump to that same level of transparency?"
1. Biden is the one you are lauding for his courageous position. If someone is to be the example, it should be him.
2. Sure, although as I note Trump's business leaves evidence. If Trump bought a building for X and sold it for Y, we know that from public records. We can determine roughly how much profit was made. But sure, let's see Trump and Biden unpack everything. Full transparency.
"Are you saying Biden's extended family need to disclose their income? Maybe so, but again, not sure of the legality of that."
I'm saying that if Biden family members are involved in enterprises that involve Joe and his elected office, absolutely. If Biden family members are hiding money that was paid for Biden's influence or action, absolutely. If it's Joe's 4th cousin 5 times removed who works a Wal Mart and who doesn't have a $20,000,000 net worth,, not so much.
I appreciate the effort you're willing to go to in order to obfuscate Biden's sources of income that might not be kosher.
"I do welcome you coming out to demand Trump show the level of transparency that Biden has."
As I'm not seeing this level of transparency you claim, I'm not sure what your point is. That you find a web site that trolls public records to guess about the net worth of famous people isn't transparency on Biden's part. It's someone digging through public records.
The point seems to be that you could care less abut Biden being transparent, and setting an example, as you do about finding something to bash Trump about.
I know you imagine that you think, in your own head, that Biden has these super secret LLCs and off shore accounts and an office at Pizza Gate... that he's probably eating children on the side... AND if you could prove any of that, I'd be all for investigating it.
But that tin foil hat-wearing "true believers" imagine these things are happening literally means nothing. IF Biden is guilty of something, present it.
If you're arguing that "he's guilty of not being transparent about these LLCs I imagine he has..." well, that is your imagination, not reality.
Please, let's stick to the known facts.
Present facts to me and we can talk.
In the meantime, your pervert king you keep voting for has an actual conviction and has actually been found liable in a sexual assault case by a jury of his peers.
It would be MUCH easier to take you seriously about Biden's imagined misdeeds that you theorize about IF you would simply denounce your convicted sexual predator.
IF he was actually convicted, would you THEN denounce Trump and refuse to vote for him (oh wait, that's already happened and it wasn't sufficient!)?
IF he was actually guilty of sexual assault, would you still vote for him?
[rolls eyes]
Again, IF and WHEN you point to substantive data that Joe Biden has some illicit gains happening, and when you point to the SOURCE to support your thus-far empty claims, we can talk.
The Comer documents speak of members of Biden's family - but NOT Joe or Jill Biden - having these LLCs.
The facts that we DO know is that Joe Biden loaned his brother money and his brother repaid him $40,000.
Is that illicit? Illegal?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/31/politics/fact-check-evidence-supports-democrats-case-that-joe-biden-made-a-personal-loan-to-his-brother/index.html
Once again, I consistently and always am opposed to overt corruption - it's why Trump could never get my vote even if he were a Democrat. You have no problem with it, insofar as you're still willing to vote for this felon. But your empty assertions with NO support, well, they're just meaningless conspiracy theories.
Provide proof, then we'll talk.
"The Comer documents speak of members of Biden's family - but NOT Joe or Jill Biden - having these LLCs."
Well that's kind of the point, isn't it. When the family members of someone who's been in politics for decades have vast sums of money in vehicles that obscure the source of said money, it makes some sense to ask for some transparency. You seem to be arguing that because the Biden family has accumulated vast amounts of money, with no apparent source and has managed to place it in vehicles that obfuscate the sources, that we should just ignore the whole thing. Because we should have all of the answers before we investigate.
Trump has a long and public history of doing business, being scrutinized, and having a visible source of his income, and you claim that's a problem. The Bidens have vast amounts of money with no source, and you see nothing to be curious about.
Heaven forbid the Biden family members profit from Joe's positions, or that Joe was clever enough to "hide" the money by putting it under the names of family members.
I think that problem is that you want a level of transparency from Trump/conservatives that you don't want from your guys.
"AND if you could prove any of that, I'd be all for investigating it."
I think you are confused about how things work. You don't investigate something that has been proven, you investigate something that looks suspicious in order to prove whether or not it is criminal. By your standard, nothing would ever be investigated. By your standard, every single Trump prosecution should not have happened. FYI, "Pizza Gate" (along with the other conspiracy theories about Trump) was investigated and was found to be bullshit.
"If you're arguing that "he's guilty of not being transparent about these LLCs I imagine he has..." well, that is your imagination, not reality."
No, I'm "arguing" that if you demand transparency from one side, you have to demand equal transparency from the other side. Not make excuses for behavior that seems suspicious.
"In the meantime, your pervert king you keep voting for has an actual conviction and has actually been found liable in a sexual assault case by a jury of his peers."
When you lie about things, it completely undermines the tiny shred of credibility you thought you had. If you're not going to deal in "facts", don't demand that others do what you won't.
"It would be MUCH easier to take you seriously about Biden's imagined misdeeds that you theorize about IF you would simply denounce your convicted sexual predator."
I've denounced Trump's actions many times. The difference is that Trump's actions or claims about his actions have been investigated and most have not been credible enough to move beyond investigation. The one that did move beyond, was only able to "win" at a civil trial which has a much lower burden of proof than a criminal trial. What the trial demonstrated is that there is a 50.0000000000000000000001% chance that Trump did something untoward. The rest of what drives your vitriol is not proven. By your standards expressed above, what's not proven should not be investigated, and should be ignored.
"IF he was actually convicted, would you THEN denounce Trump and refuse to vote for him (oh wait, that's already happened and it wasn't sufficient!)?"
When you demonstrate your ignorance it doesn't really help you.
"IF he was actually guilty of sexual assault, would you still vote for him?"
Since he's not, it's irrelevant.
Craig, what you don't understand is that Biden is such an almost literal saint, the 10% to the Big Guy is hardly anything more than tithing!
Bubba,
How foolish of me. Of course engaging in lying, and selling influence from your decades of holding elected office, while stockpiling classified documents that you had no authority to have/declassify, is not nearly as bad as being a lecherous boor. Heaven forbid that thinking of using public office to get rich is a thing worth investigating.
Dan,
Let's try this.
As a general principle can you agree that those who hold elected office in the federal government, as well as high level appointed officials, should be required to provide an high degree of transparency as regards their income (or other sources of revenue), be prohibited from trading in individual stocks or participating in and financial activities based on "insider information". That this transparency might extend to certain close family members if needed. In the case of someone (like Trump) who operates a privately held business this transparency could be limited to a small group of people without private details being made public.
I've been quite clear that MY position is that we should hold all elected officials (and including positions like the SCOTUS) accountable for being transparent and honest in their dealings, including their financial dealings. So, yes, I'm still saying what I've always said.
I've been quite clear that IF we can legally change or modify rules that would place at least some limits and expectations of family members of those who hold high office, as it relates to profiteering off an elected officials name, we should. If we can't do that legally, then I would want the various branches of gov't to make it a matter of official policy - even if it isn't something that can be legally forced, AND they should be transparent about it.
I've been quite clear that things like tax releases SHOULD be presented by presidential candidates, the way that most presidents have, including the Bidens, and contrary to what Trump did. I still hold that position. Will you join me?
I've been quite clear that presidents should divest themselves of any significant business holdings, contrary to what Trump did, and they should be transparent in all their business dealings while president. Will you join me on that front?
I've been quite clear that rules should be put in place eliminating any options to profit off insider information. I still stand by that and on that point, you and I agree, and probably most of the nation except for perhaps congress.
That this transparency might extend to certain close family members if needed.
So, just to be clear, IF we can legally do this, we should. I'm not sure that it's legal, but to the very furthest we can legally do this, we absolutely should.
And also, just to be clear, I'm saying YES to all your questions and adding clarifying statements (for instance, releasing tax records as a matter of transparency and divestiture, as a matter of transparency).
I just wish Dan would just one time provide evidence of this "overt corruption" perpetrated by Trump while president. Just once. If it's so "overt", it should be a simple thing, but Dan just won't reveal the big secret.
Keep in mind always the fact that Dan is not a serious person with any truly notable degree of intelligence. He's really quite stupid as he is dishonest.
"I just wish Dan would just one time provide evidence of this "overt corruption" perpetrated by Trump while president. Just once. If it's so "overt", it should be a simple thing, but Dan just won't reveal the big secret."
As I see it there are two avenues where Trump could have engaged in "corruption".
Either in his business dealings or in his term as president. Part of the problem is that, as far as we can tell, Trump did not engage in "corruption" as president. (Even if the classified documents deal ends up being found wrong, I'd argue that it was not "corruption".) Is it possible that Trump did some shady or "corrupt" things at some point in his business, sure. But you'd have to judge those actions based on how long ago they were and what the norm was (For example, if the only way to build in NYC was to bribe the building inspectors, is that corruption on Trump's part or the inspectors.). But, those sorts of things are crimes, and absent criminal charges we don't really know. Obviously, availing oneself of things like bankruptcy is not "corrupt". But yes, as usual, specifics would be helpful.
"Keep in mind always the fact that Dan is not a serious person with any truly notable degree of intelligence. He's really quite stupid as he is dishonest."
I try to.
Bubba, trying to be funny, I guess...
what you don't understand is that Biden is such an almost literal saint
Indeed, we are the saints, the beloved community, those who are of Christ.
Saints doesn't mean perfect, though, does it?
And I never said Biden was perfect, did I? Indeed, I never said he was a saint.
What I think may be happening is that the poisonous parts of Calvinism has so infected so many of us that we can't help but view all humans as obviously moral deviants. We are ALL sick and sin, pathetic worms that we are. We are ALL "totally depraved," as Calvinism has it.
And thus, Biden is just as deviant and reprehensible as Trump... maybe worse, according to some conservative religionists.
But the reality is that we can differentiate between levels of imperfection, can't we? (At least I can, and who am I?)
I can recognize the difference between an old guy who boasts and laughs about sexual assault and ogling teen-aged girls and a man who is simply imperfect, prone to mistakes.
This is one of the great failings of maga-types and their defenders. An apparent inability to differentiate between the amorality and truly depraved Trump and a mere imperfect human.
But, I guess, at least we can agree that Kamala Harris has a funny laugh, now that she's black.
Don't worry, beautiful Christians, you won't have to vote or really, even THINK, any more once Trump is elected.
WHERE is your concern for that kind of over-the-top crazy and dangerous language, as opposed to maybe some family members of Biden might perhaps have done some less-than-ethical things. Maybe. At a guess.
"I've been quite clear that MY position is that we should hold all elected officials (and including positions like the SCOTUS) accountable for being transparent and honest in their dealings, including their financial dealings. So, yes, I'm still saying what I've always said."
It's strange that you say it like this, when I can't recall you ever singling out anyone on the left as bad examples. I do recall you making excuses for those on the left when their shenanigans are pointed out.
"I've been quite clear that IF we can legally change or modify rules that would place at least some limits and expectations of family members of those who hold high office, as it relates to profiteering off an elected officials name, we should. If we can't do that legally, then I would want the various branches of gov't to make it a matter of official policy - even if it isn't something that can be legally forced, AND they should be transparent about it."
Again, I've never heard you say this before, but if you say so.
"I've been quite clear that things like tax releases SHOULD be presented by presidential candidates, the way that most presidents have, including the Bidens, and contrary to what Trump did. I still hold that position. Will you join me?"
Not exactly. In the case of someone like Trump, Romney, Kerry, or anyone else who's tax returns might contain sensitive business information, I do not think that they should be required to make public information that might benefit their competitors. I have no problem with them being vetted privately or summarized and not released to the public. Be honest, you could have Trump's tax returns in front of you right now and you wouldn't have a clue how to interpret them.
"I've been quite clear that presidents should divest themselves of any significant business holdings, contrary to what Trump did, and they should be transparent in all their business dealings while president. Will you join me on that front?"
Again, not exactly. I'd say that a president who has a family business shouldn't be forced to completely sever any ties. They should step down from an active role and give that to someone else.
"I've been quite clear that rules should be put in place eliminating any options to profit off insider information. I still stand by that and on that point, you and I agree, and probably most of the nation except for perhaps congress."
Again, I'm glad to hear you be so forthright about it. I've never heard this from you before, but it's good to know.
"That this transparency might extend to certain close family members if needed."
Again, welcome to team transparent.
I just wish Dan would just one time provide evidence of this "overt corruption" perpetrated by Trump while president.
Here's a list of 3,737 bits of corruption from Trump while in office, for starters..>
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/president-trump-legacy-corruption-3700-conflicts-interest/
Those, of course, begin with the notion of divesting himself from his hedonistic wealth and businesses. IF he had done that simple step, some of this corruption could have been prevented. But he didn't do that because he is an overtly, on-the-face-of-it corrupt and self-interested.
He also could have released his tax records as presidents commonly do and as Harris/Biden did. But not Trump. Because he's corrupt.
Then there is his conviction on 34 felonies. THAT is of course, a sign of corruption.
And his fake university scam. Corrupt.
And his fake charities scam. Corrupt.
And his being found liable for sexual assault. Well, that may be morally reprobate than corrupt, but then, his constant attacks upon the woman he sexually assaulted, wouldn't that count as corrupt as well as depraved?
Then there are the indictments.
For the first 234 years of the nation's history, no American president or former president had ever been indicted. That changed in 2023. Over a five-month span, former President Donald Trump was charged in four criminal cases.
Trump has roughly 90 (the number keeps evolving). And again, on 34 of those, he's been found to be a guilty and is a convicted felon.
Then there are his attempts to place himself above the law. THAT IS CORRUPT, and not to mention, dangerous.
Here's another list and to keep it simple, they limited it to TEN bits of corruption:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/24/politics/trump-worst-abuses-of-power/index.html
Would you like to read a scholarly book on the topic of Trump's unique and historic levels of corruption? Here ya go.
https://www.routledge.com/Corruption-and-Illiberal-Politics-in-the-Trump-Era/Goldstein-Drybread/p/book/9780367715878
Then, there is the reality of historians across the political spectrum finding him to be the worst or nearly the worst president in US history, in large parts due to his historic corruption.
I don't know, how long a list do you want?
I mean, the very transactional and "loyalty to Trump first" ideology and approach of Trump's administration is of course very corrupt.
Or the reality that many of Trump's own people have been indicted and arrested? Drain the swamp? You mean, FILL the swamp?
https://www.axios.com/2024/03/07/trump-associates-prison-sentence-crimes-list
More?
https://prospect.org/power/mapping-corruption-donald-trump-executive-branch/
https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/oversight-democrats-release-report-proving-trump-pocketed-millions-from-at-least
https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/president-trumps-worst-offenses/
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/28/12904136/donald-trump-corrupt
Or condemnations from conservatives, speaking to his epic corruption?
https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/mitt-romney-presidential-race-speech/index.html
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/terrible-things-jd-vance-said-about-trump-running-mate
I don't know, I could go all day.
Say When.
"Indeed, we are the saints, the beloved community, those who are of Christ."
Which is making an assumption about who "are of Christ" and Biden.
"Saints doesn't mean perfect, though, does it?"
Nope.
"And I never said Biden was perfect, did I? Indeed, I never said he was a saint."
I can't keep track of anything you've ever said about Biden. I do know that you've been quite clear about believing his character to be exemplary and of the highest quality despite his decades long habit of lying and plagiarism.
"What I think may be happening is that the poisonous parts of Calvinism has so infected so many of us that we can't help but view all humans as obviously moral deviants. We are ALL sick and sin, pathetic worms that we are. We are ALL "totally depraved," as Calvinism has it."
Oh, I understand. When you say "Calvinism" you mean scripture.
"And thus, Biden is just as deviant and reprehensible as Trump... maybe worse, according to some conservative religionists."
In that both (all of us) are sinful, it's safe to say that they are both have equally sinful natures. That nature might show up as different behaviors, but sin is sin.
"But the reality is that we can differentiate between levels of imperfection, can't we? (At least I can, and who am I?)"
You say you can.
"I can recognize the difference between an old guy who boasts and laughs about sexual assault and ogling teen-aged girls and a man who is simply imperfect, prone to mistakes."
It's strange that you think telling the same lie, publicly, for years is just a "mistake". FYI, you mean "boasted" and "laughed", unless you have evidence that this is current behavior on the part of Trump. I'm impressed by your total lack of grace though.
"But, I guess, at least we can agree that Kamala Harris has a funny laugh, now that she's black."
Given that the left and MSM has gone back and forth on her "blackness" for years, and that somehow "black" automatically becomes the defining race of anyone who's mixed, I'm not sure what the point is. She's clearly used her mixed heritage to her advantage over the years, it's pretty much public record. It's amusing to see headlines from the same newspaper at different times touting her as the "First Indian..." and also the "First black...".
"Don't worry, beautiful Christians, you won't have to vote or really, even THINK, any more once Trump is elected."
Because it's the beautifully Christian thing to do when you take something out of context and misrepresent what one of your enemies said.
"WHERE is your concern for that kind of over-the-top crazy and dangerous language, as opposed to maybe some family members of Biden might perhaps have done some less-than-ethical things. Maybe. At a guess."
Unlike you, apparently, we can have concerns about both things simultaneously. But your guesses about us are always wrong, this is just one more.
Dan's going to shoehorn anything possible into his hunches about what's "corrupt", he's going to define things however he needs to to push his narrative.
Truth isn't particularly important.
I'm curious. If/when the misdemeanor act that morphed into 34 "felonies" conviction is overturned, will Dan spend as much time acknowledging that as he does trumpeting the conviction"?
"1. dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.
"the journalist who wants to expose corruption in high places""
Alright, according to the primary dictionary definition of corruption, let's reevaluate.
Again, welcome to team transparent.
Again, I welcome you to join us and do so by beginning to condemn Trump's fraud and corruption and promising never to vote for someone so secretive and corrupt.
Here's hoping you live up to this ideal for transparency by refusing to vote for the NON-Transparent, overtly corrupt Trump, this year.
You're welcome to join us any time.
If/when the misdemeanor act that morphed into 34 "felonies" conviction is overturned, will Dan spend as much time acknowledging that as he does trumpeting the conviction"?
I will gladly note that it's been overturned, of course.
But in the meantime, given that the allegations of Biden and before him, Hillary Clinton being criminal are regularly discovered to be unsupported and more partisan in nature, I wonder when you'll stop suggesting corruption and criminality upon people whose investigations repeatedly turn up nothing?
AND, if Trump's convictions are not overturned, THEN will you condemn him and his felonious nature and apologizing for hoping against hope that he really is innocent and defending him by way of suggesting this was a political prosecution?
He's obviously overtly corrupt and in an historic and impossible to miss manner. How is it you don't see it? I'm guessing partisan loyalty goes a long ways towards blinding people to the obvious. As research has shown.
She's clearly used her mixed heritage to her advantage over the years
What a shameful, racist thing to say. EVEN IF you think those things inside your head, don't say them out loud, son. You're exposing your biases and racist upbringing that is common in the dominant white culture, especially as we were growing up.
Shame. Be better than this.
That a person of color from different heritages gladly celebrates their mixed heritages does not mean they're "using their heritage to their advantage..." As if it were some shameful thing to acknowledge, "You know, I have ancestors from South Asia and ancestors from Jamaica.
Celebrating our rich tapestry of where we're from is just a decent, reasonable human thing to do... AT LEAST in cultures that value our beautiful diversity.
Stop it. Be better.
"When you say "Calvinism" you mean scripture."
No. I mean Calvin's. You fellas are the ones who conflate your opinions with God's Word, not me.
[Rolls eyes. Again.]
Dan
"Again, I welcome you to join us and do so by beginning to condemn Trump's fraud and corruption and promising never to vote for someone so secretive and corrupt."
I've been condemning Trump's actions that are/were fraudulent, corrupt, untoward, vile, and the like since he began his candidacy in 2015. I guess your insistence of misrepresenting what I've actually said blinded you to this reality.
"Here's hoping you live up to this ideal for transparency by refusing to vote for the NON-Transparent, overtly corrupt Trump, this year."
I don't make quite the idol of transparency you do, and until Biden leads by example I see no reason to jump on your partisan bandwagon. Of course, I'm primarily voting to stop the Biden/Harris/P-BO policies from continuing and for the first time in a while my vote might actually count. I'm voting FOR conservative policy and AGAINST liberal policy.
"You're welcome to join us any time."
You keep saying this as if it's something positive. I vote the way I do explicitly because I have no desire to "join" your side of things.
"I will gladly note that it's been overturned, of course."
It's strange how definitive you are when the topic is something you claim you'll do in the future or what you claim to have done in the past. If only you could be this definitive about what you do in the present. Fortunately, you'll have plenty of time to come up with an excuse when/if Trump's conviction is overturned.
"But in the meantime, given that the allegations of Biden and before him, Hillary Clinton being criminal are regularly discovered to be unsupported and more partisan in nature, I wonder when you'll stop suggesting corruption and criminality upon people whose investigations repeatedly turn up nothing?"
Given the fact that the investigations into Hillary turned up campaign finance violations (what Trump was convicted of), proof that she used campaign funds to invent the Steele dossier, Russiagate, etc, and the her violations of email security lapses haven't been investigated. Given that fact that the Biden financial stuff hasn't and won't be investigated, that his classified documents case was investigated but he wasn't charged because he wasn't competent to stand trial, and his decades long trail of lies and plagiarism is well documented, I'm not sure what your point is. Other than to hold the left to a different standard.
"AND, if Trump's convictions are not overturned, THEN will you condemn him and his felonious nature and apologizing for hoping against hope that he really is innocent and defending him by way of suggesting this was a political prosecution?"
It would depend on the circumstances. The problem is that you've misrepresented what I've said about this case and that your hyper partisanship renders you unable to look at the situation without bias. No, I'm not going to apologize for something I didn't say.
"He's obviously overtly corrupt and in an historic and impossible to miss manner. How is it you don't see it? I'm guessing partisan loyalty goes a long ways towards blinding people to the obvious. As research has shown."
Not according to the primary and most relevant dictionary definition. Of course, you must ignore my repeated criticism of Trump for his moral and political failures and flaws since 2015 in order to justify your bullshit.
"What a shameful, racist thing to say. EVEN IF you think those things inside your head, don't say them out loud, son. You're exposing your biases and racist upbringing that is common in the dominant white culture, especially as we were growing up."
When you tell me to not speak the Truth, you've lost any and all credibility. The reality is, and the news stories demonstrate it, the she identifies as whatever race or ethnicity benefits her at any given time and has done so for years. Presuming that she's 50% Indian and 50% black this notion that she's automatically black because it's better for her politically is absurd. Especially when her upbringing was upper middle/upper class, liberal, academic, elite. But hey, y'all played the same game with P-BO so it's just par for the course.
The problem is that the left is where the Kamala is black narrative is being driven from. If y'all are going to make it a big issue, then it seems like it's fair game to at least some extent.
"That a person of color from different heritages gladly celebrates their mixed heritages does not mean they're "using their heritage to their advantage..." As if it were some shameful thing to acknowledge, "You know, I have ancestors from South Asia and ancestors from Jamaica."
If that was what was happening, cool. Unfortunately she's playing (or the DFL is playing for her) the "First black..." when only a few years ago it was "First Indian...". Or when she puts on a ridiculous ghetto accent when speaking to a black audience (again, y'all let Hillary get away with the same thing), but she speaks in her usual voice everywhere else. Personally, if someone spoke to an audience up here and all of a sudden adopted the "Fargo accent", and started saying "Uff Da, Ya Sure, and You Betcha", it would be patronizing and inauthentic bullshit. Put someone who grew up in liberal, academic privilege in front a black audience and they put on a bullshit ghetto accent and y'll eat that shit up.
"Celebrating our rich tapestry of where we're from is just a decent, reasonable human thing to do... AT LEAST in cultures that value our beautiful diversity."
If only that's what y'all did with tokens like P-BO and Harris. Unfortunately, y'all conveniently ignore half of their heritage. Much like 23 and me revealed Pochahontas' claims to Native American heritage to be fraudulent, it'd be interesting to see what Harris' actual ethnic makeup is. Just for accuracy and information.
Just out of curiosity, what percentage of "black" allows one to exclusively or primarily identify as "black"?
"No. I mean Calvin's. You fellas are the ones who conflate your opinions with God's Word, not me."
No, I mean scripture. The fact that you don't like what scripture says about man's condition, or that you can come up with clever excuses to explain away what scripture says doesn't help you here.
What Calvin did was to look at scripture, and aggregate what scripture teaches into 5 principles. I can think of no one who would ever place Calvin above scripture, nor would Calvin's theology have persisted had it not been thoroughly grounded in scripture.
Given what you've said before, I'm doubtful that you could accurately summarize Calvin's positions, especially his position on Man's sinfulness.
The fact that you don't like what scripture says about man's condition, or that you can come up with clever excuses to explain away what scripture says doesn't help you here.
The fact is - the objective, demonstrable obvious to all with an open mind fact - is that "the Bible" doesn't "say" anything. "Scripture" doesn't "say" anything.
The Bible has
1. a range of words and thoughts
2. each of them written and recorded and passed on a variety of humans
3. dealing with a range of ideas and philosophies and sometimes even rules
4. all written by humans in a specific time and setting and set of situations
5. that sometimes have some connections to other teachings within the Bible's pages and sometimes don't have solid connections and sometimes even conflict with other teachings within the Bible
6. and those teachings by and large are nowhere (I'd have to verify, but I'm pretty sure) said to apply to all circumstances, places, people and times.
7. and those teachings are considered "inspired by God" by some of us, but with no definition or explanation from God exactly what that means
8. and GIVEN all that, there is no ONE authoritative spokesperson - no humans or collections of humans - for what the variety of teachings and stories within the Bible mean
THOSE are the facts. Objective. Demonstrable. Observable to all.
Do you disagree?
From that starting place of a brainless and opinion-less inanimate book of books, some humans may read those pages and reach a variety of opinions about teachings, about morality, about God, about science and theology... and many of us do, including the humans who might be defined as Calvinists or Reformed believers. But those opinions ARE the human opinions and interpretations of those humans. They are not authoritative to speak for God and they can not prove their various human theories (theorIES, plural, because there is not agreement even within Reformed Theology on the topic) about the total depravity of humanity.
So, to address your claim, "Scripture" does not "say" anything about the total depravity of humanity. That is a human opinion from a human tradition.
Are there passages that speak to humanity being sinful? Yes.
Are there passages that speak of humanity being created in the image of God, just a little lower than God? Yes.
The teachings in the Bible say a lot of things. Humans can then interpret them the best we can understand, but you don't get to say what "scripture says."
Now, we may sometimes be tempted to shorten the notion of "Many humans have read the Bible and reached a conclusion that might best be summed up as the total depravity of humanity..." to say, "Scripture says," but we must be clear that it is indeed a human theory, not "scripture" speaking.
For that reason, I'm trying to lean away from saying "the Bible says" to something more like, "We have the recorded words ascribed to Jesus that say..." But we should honor and respect the Bible enough and God enough not to presume to speak for "the Bible" or God as if we had the authority to declare it a fact.
Agreed?
Probably not.
But then, you can't prove otherwise because, of course, my points above are all factual and demonstrably objectively so.
Given what you've said before, I'm doubtful that you could accurately summarize Calvin's positions, especially his position on Man's sinfulness.
I've consistently just used the words of calvinists and reformed types to summarize what I used to be taught and believe. Here it is from the boys and gals over at Ligonier, giving their particular spin on it:
"In the Reformed tradition, total depravity does not mean utter depravity. We often use the term total as a synonym for utter or for completely, so the notion of total depravity conjures up the idea that every human being is as bad as that person could possibly be.
You might think of an archfiend of history such as Adolf Hitler and say there was absolutely no redeeming virtue in the man, but I suspect that he had some affection for his mother. As wicked as Hitler was, we can still conceive of ways in which he could have been even more wicked than he actually was.
So the idea of total in total depravity doesn’t mean that
all human beings are as wicked as they can possibly be.
It means that the fall was so serious [they theorize]
that it affects the whole person.
The fallenness that captures and grips our human nature affects our bodies;
that’s why we become ill and die.
It affects our minds and our thinking;
we still have the capacity to think,
but the Bible says the mind has become darkened and weakened.
The will of man is no longer in its pristine state of moral power.
Allowing that there are variations of the notion within Calvinism and Reformed Theories of sin and humanity, but THAT is generally what I mean by what you all mean by total depravity.
Am I wrong to cite them? Do you have a preferred source?
And can you agree that these various theories about humanity and sin and "total depravity of humanity" are indeed human theories, NOT something God has told us.
That is, YES, there is a line in the Bible that says something along the lines of "their minds have been darkened," where Paul is waxing poetic about the human mind literally of the Gentiles (ie, us). But there are also other lines in the Bible speaking of humanity being in the image of God, a little lower than God, created to do good works, etc.
"The Bible" does not tell us how to sort out the various messages found in the Bible.
"The Bible" does not tell us what theories we should hold about humanity and sin.
"The Bible" has passages telling us a wide range of things about humanity and human nature and "missing the mark" and the actual depravity of actual oppressors and those who do harm, specifically and especially to the poor and marginalized.
From those sets of teachings, we humans can then choose to create theories and hold opinions about human nature, but we must be clear that those are human theories.
As is the theories of Calvinist types on human nature and "total depravity."
Where am I mistaken?
Do you have a different notion/theory about "human depravity" than the good folks over at Ligonier?
what percentage of "black" allows one to exclusively or primarily identify as "black"?
I don't know. What percentage of idiotic does it take for someone to be called an idiot or what percentage of racism does it take to say, "That's a racist thing to say..."? A lot? Just a little bit?
"Do you disagree?"
With your subjective hunches and opinions, yes.
"So, to address your claim, "Scripture" does not "say" anything about the total depravity of humanity. That is a human opinion from a human tradition."
When you misrepresent what I've said, in order to construct a straw man to argue against, it's a sign that you have nothing else and are desperate.
"Are there passages that speak to humanity being sinful? Yes."
Yes, but let's not pay attention to the entirety of them or the entirety of what they say.
"Are there passages that speak of humanity being created in the image of God, just a little lower than God? Yes."
I've never seen the "little lower than God" one. Although I'm not sure how any of that somehow disproves the teaching that man is inherently sinful
"Now, we may sometimes be tempted to shorten the notion of "Many humans have read the Bible and reached a conclusion that might best be summed up as the total depravity of humanity..." to say, "Scripture says," but we must be clear that it is indeed a human theory, not "scripture" speaking."
The problem with that fanciful theory is that it ignores the fact that this doctrine is specifically supported by multiple specific passages and it's less an invention than a summary of scripture.
"Agreed?"
You can twist, turn, dodge, and obfuscate all you want. I don't care what you do.
"But then, you can't prove otherwise because, of course, my points above are all factual and demonstrably objectively so."
Comedy isn't your forte, don't give up your day job no matter how funny this is. That you think your subjective hunches are something else is either hilarious or pitiful.
By all means, prove me wrong. I'm saying that the Bible literally does not "say" anything. It literally does not speak or say anything.
Prove that objective reality wrong with something more than your opinion.
Dan
"I've consistently just used the words of calvinists and reformed types to summarize what I used to be taught and believe. Here it is from the boys and gals over at Ligonier, giving their particular spin on it:"
That you've managed to pull random words and phrases out of what others say and string them together in ways to reinforce your prejudices simply makes my point. That you are unable to accurately articulate the doctrine that you revile and are left to copy paste out of context snippets.
"Am I wrong to cite them? Do you have a preferred source?"
Cite who you want. The fact that you can parrot or copy/paste words and phrases isn't impressive.
"And can you agree that these various theories about humanity and sin and "total depravity of humanity" are indeed human theories, NOT something God has told us."
No, rather they are aggregations of what YHWH has told us, supported by multiple, specific, clear scriptural references.
"That is, YES, there is a line in the Bible that says something along the lines of "their minds have been darkened," where Paul is waxing poetic about the human mind literally of the Gentiles (ie, us). But there are also other lines in the Bible speaking of humanity being in the image of God, a little lower than God, created to do good works, etc."
Excellent job if imposing your fantasies on the text. Of course none of those "lines" conflicts with what the Bible says about the sinfulness of mankind, or with the doctrine of total depravity outlined by Calvin
"Where am I mistaken?"
Your mistakes start with you placing your personal, subjective hunches about how scripture should be interpreted in light of your biases, over the simple, direct, plain reading of the text.
"Do you have a different notion/theory about "human depravity" than the good folks over at Ligonier?"
Nope, but that's irrelevant. This is about your misrepresentation of the doctrine.
In case you're not understanding what I'm saying, I'm saying that inanimate, brainless objects don't form opinions or have theories. Books can't hold theories or opinions any more than a rock can.
Objectively so.
Right?
From that starting point, we can allow that authors may offer opinions and theories and that does happen in the Bible. But there is no ONE author in the pages of the Bible who does speak for the rest and clarify, This ONE opinion is the opinion of "the Bible."
What we can say is that Jesus is recorded as saying that he came, for instance, to preach good news to the poor, free the captives, heal the sick. And we can note that Jesus is also recorded as saying he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword.
But, "the Bible" doesn't tell us how to organize or sort out such comments.
Or same for the many passages that speak of humanity being created in the image of God, a little lower than God vs the ones that calvinists cling to about "no one does good," and darkened minds. We can acknowledge the existence of the range of opinions on human nature, but "the Bible" literally does not and cannot "tell us" how to weigh those competing ideas.
Do you imagine/theorize that "the Bible " CAN somehow "tell us" that?
Based on what?
Dan
"I don't know. What percentage of idiotic does it take for someone to be called an idiot or what percentage of racism does it take to say, "That's a racist thing to say..."? A lot? Just a little bit?"
Interesting response. Harris has clearly been referred to as "black", P-BO was also referred to as "black" to give two examples. Neither is "black" by any objective measure, but more accurately multiethnic/racial. So it is factually incorrect to refer to either of them as "black", yet it happens regularly.
The question this raises is why. Of the multiple options of racial/ethnic identity, why identify singularly as "black"? Given that both of the two examples were both raised and educated in communities and schools that would not be considered "black" (Harris did go to an HBCU for undergrad), I fail to see any sense in which they are singularly and exclusively "black".
Why this line of thought/questioning is not "racist" is simple.
Y'all harp on it constantly. "First "black this or that.", Biden was clear than Harris race and sex were two of the primary reasons he picked her. Y'all attack black conservatives for not being black enough, call them "house n######", "uncle Tom" and worse. Biden was clear that blacks who vote for Trump weren't black.
Y'all harp on race, bring it into almost everything, until someone asks a question or pushes back than y'all cry racism. It's the perfect deflector shield, just cry "racism". Mention Hillary and Harris' condescending ghetto dialect, and get called a "racist". If y'all's candidates have to pretend to be something they're not, isn't that a concern?
"By all means, prove me wrong. I'm saying that the Bible literally does not "say" anything. It literally does not speak or say anything."
It's bizarre you regularly use the term "say" in a figurative sense when describing the written word. Because it's a common usage of the word "say". Until now when it benefits you to cling to a woodenly literal absurdly narrow definition of the word "say".
In the future is I use the word "say" in a way that violates your woodenly literal definition, just substitute the word "communicate" or communicates".
FYI, I'm going to apply your new woodenly literal, hyper focused, narrow definition of words to you. If you want to be an asshole about this, fine. Just don't bitch when I apply your standards to you.
"Prove that objective reality wrong with something more than your opinion."
Speaking of Dan's double standards.
How in the world was Dan able to take the topic of this post and degenerate it into a discussion of Calvinism!?!?!?
"Right?"
Well sense "hold" and "contain" mean essentially the same things, it seems safe to say that books hold/contain all sorts of things the author wants to communicate to others.
"Do you imagine/theorize that "the Bible " CAN somehow "tell us" that?"
Given your previous paragraph where you quite clearly tell us definitively what the Bible or Jesus says, why would I be prevented from doing what you have done. The difference is that I tend not to paraphrase a bunch of random, cherry picked verses or snippets of verses and string them together. I prefer to simply quote scripture.
Again, I not the none of your hunches in the above paragraph are inconsistent with the Biblical view of man's sinful nature. Your problem lies is assuming that man is born completely free from sin, is inherently good, and capable of living a sinless life. A hunch which has no scriptural support. All the "good deeds" stuff is completely compatible with "total depravity".
Glenn,
I was just about to point that out. Obviously, I allowed him to do what he normally does and drag the post way off topic. It's kind of his default when he doesn't have anything of substance.
Most of all, unlike Dan, I allow a lot of freedom at my blog and rarely intentionally delete or edit anything in my comments. (Obviously, there is one exception. But only one.) I've concluded that if Dan insists on making himself look dumb, it's not my job to prevent him from doing exactly that. I give him all the rope he'll take, and you know the rest.
Glenn,
I do so appreciate his nit-picky, woodenly literal, hyper focused. ultra specific, definition of the word "say" as his excuse to ignore what the Bible clearly communicates.
Here are the many lies Kamala has told about her "race"
https://patriotpost.us/alexander/108990
Glenn,
As I mentioned to Dan, it's an issue because the DFL and the MSM have made it an issue. If they want to primarily define Harris' by here race/ethnicity they certainly can. But once they do it becomes fair game for everyone. It's simple, if they don't want to talk about her race/ethnicity then stop leading with it.
It's handy for her to be able to morph between identities when it seems beneficial. Personally, if I was black and saw Harris identifying as Indian/South Asian for years, the all of a sudden switch to identifying as black, I think I'd be offended. The fact that she thinks that changing how she identifies somehow means she deserves black folks votes seems incredibly condescending.
As Trump said, she should pick one identity and stick with it.
Sigh.
The bible does not LITERALLY say anything. It can not speak or think, and it is a brainless inanimate object.
The Bible does not FIGURATELY say anything. It can not speak or think, and it is a brainless inanimate object.
The many AUTHORS in the Bible MAY express opinions or teachings, but no one of those opinions/teachings are what "the Bible" says, nor are they definitively authoritatively what God is saying... when we're speaking about the words themselves.
EVEN MORE SO, the opinions that some people form based upon the words that some biblical authors wrote are NOT what "the Bible says" NOR are they what God says.
Literally, specifically, objectively.
Do you understand what I'm saying.
MAYBE when Jesus said he'd come to preach good news to the poor, heal the sick, release the captives and proclaim jubilee, maybe he literally meant it... or maybe he was speaking figuratively. Or maybe something else. We humans now can form OPINIONS about that, but we can't prove our opinions about that.
MAYBE when Paul said that the minds of the Gentiles are darkened, MAYBE he was speaking of all humanity and MAYBE he was thinking that all of humanity is what Calvinists theorize to be "totally depraved." But Paul didn't say that, it is a human opinion that can't be proven.
Regardless, "The Bible" does not say that humanity is totally depraved as a universal objective reality, nor has God told this. It is literally a subjective human opinion.
EACH of those statements above are objectively observably factual.
IF you can disprove any of those statements objectively, by all means, do so.
I'm just trying with a great deal of respect and patience to make my position clear to you AND to demonstrate what is clearly objectively known and what ISN'T.
The Bible "says" nothing. Literally. AND figuratively.
Perhaps you don't understand, but the problem with saying "The Bible says..." is that one is implying that GOD says and then they're putting in their personal human theories and traditions into God's mouth, as if they could do that. But that is objectively not true, or at least not provable. You all may GUESS that God literally objectively thinks that all of humanity is "totally depraved," and if we could ask God, MAYBE you'd be right (it's a ridiculous, irrational opinion, but MAYBE... who knows!?). But you can't objectively prove it. It is a subjective human opinion, a human tradition that God has not provably approved of.
As a point of objective fact.
Now, I AM making a fact claim there. If you have data to disprove it, then you can and all will be settled. But you don't and you won't because you can't.
Craig...
if I was black and saw Harris identifying as Indian/South Asian for years, the all of a sudden switch to identifying as black, I think I'd be offended.
What in the name of all that is holy and rational are you talking about? She's ALWAYS been a child of a black father and an Indian mother. That never has changed. And she's always mentioned both.
Here's another example of you, like Trump, making an obviously stupidly false attack claim that is not supported by reality and not even trying to back it up.
Meanwhile, in the real world, reality disagrees with this sort of birtherism racism common to Trump and his ilk:
At a 2006 panel of emerging Black leaders at a conference about issues, impacting African Americans, Harris, then San Francisco District Attorney, referred to herself as African American: “What I suggest we do as African American is own this issue in law enforcement and then define it in the way that works for us because it is a myth, to say that African Americans don’t want law enforcement.”
Harris graduated from Howard University, one of the country’s most esteemed HBCU (Historically Black Colleges and Universities), in 1986.
https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/kamala-harris-has-long-identified-black-contrary-trump-claim-2024-08-01/
This is nonsense. There is no substance to it. It's baseless. In two words, it's stupidly false.
As Trump said, she should pick one identity and stick with it.
Do you know how blatantly arrogant and racist that kind of thing is when white guys like you and trump make them? WHO ARE YOU to tell her how she should identify? She's BOTH things and a great deal more. YOU white boys do NOT get to tell other people how they should identify.
THAT is the problem with our arrogant white racist history in this nation. I get that your eyes may be solidly shut on this so that you can't see it, but that doesn't make it untrue. YOU DO NOT GET to make these calls.
Repent, little brother. This is truly arrogant, sexist, misogynist and racist.
"Sigh."
Ohhhhhhhhhh, look. It's the fake sigh while Dan has to explain something again for the stupid people. It doesn't matter that I addressed this idiotic. woodenly literal bullshit. He's going to play his "Aren't I so superior and I'll condescend to share my wisdom." game.
"and it is a brainless inanimate object."
interesting that Dan finally found something that he acknowledges is an "inanimate object" and one the he chooses not to imbue with agency or moral significance.
"Regardless, "The Bible" does not say that humanity is totally depraved as a universal objective reality, nor has God told this. It is literally a subjective human opinion."
Sigh. Eye roll. No it doesn't but it DOES say things that inform that formulation. It says those things quite clearly. That you want to muddy the waters with speculation and fanciful WAG's just means that you fancy yourself as quite the expert on what Jesus meant to say and what He really meant.
"Perhaps you don't understand, but the problem with saying "The Bible says..." is that one is implying that GOD says and then they're putting in their personal human theories and traditions into God's mouth, as if they could do that."
Look I get it. I understand that "Did YHWH really say..." is your primary hermanutical tool. The problsm is that when scripture records "All have sinned..." you immediately decide that it means anything BUT what the text clearly conveys. When Jesus says "No one is good", you somehow conclude that He didn't mean "No one", but that He really meant "everyone". When you pronounce that "the gospel" is "X,Y, and Z", you put yourself in the position of speaking for YHWH. When you paraphrase the words of Jesus and mix them in with cherry picked random words and phrases from other sources, arranged so they align with your political, worldview leanings, you do what you criticize.
"Now, I AM making a fact claim there."
Then, per what you demand of us, the burden is on you to PROVE YOUR FACT CLAIM. It's not my job to disprove your flight of fancy, it's yours to prove it.
"What in the name of all that is holy and rational are you talking about? She's ALWAYS been a child of a black father and an Indian mother. That never has changed. And she's always mentioned both."
She has, although she, the DFL, and the NSN have repeatedly chosen to portray her as "Indian" when it was convenient, and then as "black" when thet seemed more advantageous. Had she/they chosen to pick one primary identity and stick with in, no problem. It's about consistency.
"Here's another example of you, like Trump, making an obviously stupidly false attack claim that is not supported by reality and not even trying to back it up."
Well, except that Glenn posted a link with multiple examples to demonstrate that it's NOT a "false claim".
"Meanwhile, in the real world, reality disagrees with this sort of birtherism racism common to Trump and his ilk:"
Wow, that's quite the reach and hiding behind another conspiracy theory.
"At a 2006 panel of emerging Black leaders at a conference about issues, impacting African Americans, Harris, then San Francisco District Attorney, referred to herself as African American: “What I suggest we do as African American is own this issue in law enforcement and then define it in the way that works for us because it is a myth, to say that African Americans don’t want law enforcement.”"
"Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., was sworn in by Vice President Joe Biden today at a ceremonial swearing-in on Capitol Hill. She became the first Indian-American in the United States Senate."
In 2017 according to the Sacramento Bee, Harris was the first "Indian American" senator. Which kind of (along with Glenn's link) makes the point.
Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article124327739.html#storylink=cpy
"Harris graduated from Howard University, one of the country’s most esteemed HBCU (Historically Black Colleges and Universities), in 1986."
Which I noted as the one exception to Hers and P-BO's education, culture, and background.
"Do you know how blatantly arrogant and racist that kind of thing is when white guys like you and trump make them? WHO ARE YOU to tell her how she should identify? She's BOTH things and a great deal more. YOU white boys do NOT get to tell other people how they should identify."
Do you know how badly you've taken what I actually said and twisted it into something unrecognizable. NO ONE even hinted that she should not identify as she wished. I (and Trump) did suggest that perhaps it would be good if SHE CHOSE ONE identify and stuck with it. But lying has never bothered you.
"THAT is the problem with our arrogant white racist history in this nation. I get that your eyes may be solidly shut on this so that you can't see it, but that doesn't make it untrue. YOU DO NOT GET to make these calls."
Awesome, more lies.
"Repent, little brother. This is truly arrogant, sexist, misogynist and racist."
Screw you, you condescending ass who has the gall to posture as some sort of superior person. It's none of those things, you just desperately need to pretend it is to justify your narrative.
I just saw a clip of Don Lemon arguing that Harris is not an African American, which she's pretty clearly not.
But this points out the idiocy of Dan's position. Dan correctly points out that Harris is "mixed race" with an Indian mother and Jamaican father. Now we don't know what ethnicity her Paternal grandparents were, but their names suggest that they likely weren't both of African descent. But, as long as she's identified as "mixed" no one would have any problem.
But what Dan wants to do is insist that she's "mixed race" AND be able to refer to her as "black", "African American", and "Indian" interchangeably. If she's "mixed" then by definition she's NOT "black" or "Indian" by any definition, yet she's described as exclusively one or the other at her convenience.
Back in the bad old days, there was great effort into quantify the % of blood from various "races" went into people of "mixed" heritage. Back then it was used as a way to keep people down who had even the perception of black ancestors. Now in the progressive utopia that is 2024, "one drop of black blood" is enough to elevate anyone to full on "black" as long as there's an advantage to being identified as "black".
Of course this wouldn't be an issue of the entire left and MSM weren't making it an issue, and had Biden hadn't proclaimed that she was a DEI hire.
FWIW, My paternal grandmother was more than 50% Native American, I've never once even considered using my ethnic heritage to gain any advantages (Fauxahontas), or attempted to cash in on casino profits.
I just saw a clip of Don Lemon arguing that Harris is not an African American, which she's pretty clearly not.
Again, who the hell are you to make these sorts of decisions? WHY do you presume to speak for other people and other races?
In our nation, the racists of yore penalized folks for being even a little bit black or who they suspected had black people in their family line. It was white racists who started this race-identification as a way of penalizing black folk.
They continue to try to do the same thing today.
Just stop. It's not YOUR call to make, young white man.
And who is saying that merely correctly identifying her family heritage is "using her ethnic heritage to any advantage..."? The racists are saying that, but why should anyone care what the racists are saying?
Our nation is made stronger by our great and varied cultural traditions. Why do you and your maga-types continue to fret so much about this?
Is it because you feel your perceived "OUR nation" slipping away to people who don't look or think like you? Tough. Make better arguments. Stop attacking people for their race. This is a non-issue except you all keep trying to MAKE it an issue.
Harris is who she is. She identifies as black and Indian and legitimately. Black people and Indian people are not objecting. They're proud to be finally represented. Just let it go.
It doesn't ALWAYS have to be white conservative men making the calls.
If she's "mixed" then by definition she's NOT "black" or "Indian" by any definition
Says you. Listen to people of color. They may tell you otherwise. Again, it's not YOUR call to make, white brother.
I (and Trump) did suggest that perhaps it would be good if SHE CHOSE ONE identify and stuck with it.
But that's just it. It's not YOUR WHITE CRACKER choice to determine. It's not YOUR decision to make. Move on. If it displeases you a REALLY WHOLE LOT, well, tough.
Just keep reading and repeating and trying to wrap your mind around this:
"It's not my decision to make.
It's not my decision to make.
I've enjoyed white privilege my entire life.
It's not my decision to make."
n 2017 according to the Sacramento Bee, Harris was the first "Indian American" senator. Which kind of (along with Glenn's link) makes the point.
No. No. No.
No, it literally doesn't. That ONE (or maybe a few?) newspapers identified her (correctly) as the first Indian American senator does not mean a single thing. Do you think Harris made the call as to what the headline should be? Where is your proof of that?
Your little worry about this is entirely meaningless and exactly the sort of emotional overreaction about literally nothing that racists and white supremacists are freeting about. Move on.
It's not your call to make.
No it doesn't but it DOES say things that inform that formulation. It says those things quite clearly.
To you. But who are you? Why does YOUR personal opinions about what you find informative in the Bible outweigh others understandings?
For many of us, this is a entirely UN-biblical and frankly, childish and idiotic, anti-God way to interpret the passage... to read into the passage what literally isn't there.
To many of us, because and regardless of what the bible says, IF we are humans created in God's image, created a little lower than God (just because you're not aware of the passage doesn't mean it doesn't exist), created to do good works, created with God's Word and ways written upon our hearts, then it's rational that the claim that humans are "totally depraved" is an insult to God who created those humans in God's own image. Is GOD totally depraved?
Look, I GET that this is the way your interpret these passages. It was what you were taught by humans in your human tradition. As was I. BUT, that some humans interpret it that way is NOT proof that this is objectively factual. It is literally a subjective, unproven human opinion.
My evidence is ALL the known data in the world that doesn't prove it.
Much like the obvious conclusion that there are no purple unicorns on the moon - there simply is NO proof otherwise. IF someone wants to claim that there are purple unicorns on the moon, then they need to provide the objective data.
The onus is on you to objectively prove your dubious claim IF you want to say that it is objectively proven.
You haven't done so precisely because you CAN'T do so. The data is not there to support your irrational and, I say, unbiblical, claim.
The ball is in your court.
Your court, just like the ball is in the lunar purple unicorn people's court.
Do you understand?
Dan:
"Here's another example of you, like Trump, making an obviously stupidly false attack claim that is not supported by reality and not even trying to back it up."
Well, except that Glenn posted a link with multiple examples to demonstrate that it's NOT a "false claim".
No, his links literally did not support the contention. Indeed, his "Patriot Post" extremist author (who writes like a radicalized extremist, not a professional journalist and who is writing a frothing opinion piece, not doing journalistic work) said:
In 2016, the Associated Press headlined, “California’s Kamala Harris becomes first Indian-American US senator.”
Her influential home state capital newspaper noted in 2017, “Watch Kamala Harris sworn in as first Indian-American senator.”
In 2019, The Washington Post declared Harris was “the first woman, the first African American woman, the first Indian American and the first Asian American.”
The echo-chamber Beltway Media repeated that all-inclusive hyphenation charade, with NBC noting, “If elected, Harris would make history in several categories: she would be the first woman, the first African-American woman, the first Asian-American and the first Indian-American to serve as president.”
In other words, the news that reported on her noted that she was both of Indian descent and African descent. What of it? Glenn's extremist opinion piece proves nothing beyond what we're noting as reality: That Harris is a woman of Indian and Jamaican descent. ALL of those things are factual. She need not pick one.
Is it in your imagination that she must pick one identifier and, if so, why??
Dan:
"Meanwhile, in the real world, reality disagrees with this sort of birtherism racism common to Trump and his ilk:"
Craig:
Wow, that's quite the reach and hiding behind another conspiracy theory.
What conspiracy theory? Trump actually has attacked Obama in the past as possibly/probably not "American" and he's doing a similar thing with Harris. What conspiracy theory?
???
"Again, who the hell are you to make these sorts of decisions? WHY do you presume to speak for other people and other races?"
1. Don Lemon is not whita or conservative.
2. I've never said that I should "make these sorts of decisions" or "speak for other people".
3. Dan's going to keep making shit up and acting like I've said things I haven't.
"In our nation, the racists of yore penalized folks for being even a little bit black or who they suspected had black people in their family line. It was white racists who started this race-identification as a way of penalizing black folk."
Again, when you repeat something I've already said and act as if you've stumbled upon some major discovery you just look stupid. If being "black" is such a detriment in 2024 in the US, despite the ample evidence that black students get into medical school with lower credentials than other ethnic groups, then why is Harris so desperate to be known as "black"? Given that being Indian carries much less negative baggage why insist on being "black"?
"And who is saying that merely correctly identifying her family heritage is "using her ethnic heritage to any advantage..."? The racists are saying that, but why should anyone care what the racists are saying?"
NO ONE YOU MORON. If you're not going to read what I say and respond to that, why waste the time to spew this bullshit?
"Our nation is made stronger by our great and varied cultural traditions. Why do you and your maga-types continue to fret so much about this?"
We don't. We're just sick of y'all manipulating "race/ethnicity" and making it the focus of political candidates as if one's "race/ethnicity" plays any role in one's ability to govern.
"Is it because you feel your perceived "OUR nation" slipping away to people who don't look or think like you? Tough. Make better arguments. Stop attacking people for their race. This is a non-issue except you all keep trying to MAKE it an issue."
No, but thanks for proving yourself to be idiotic.
"Harris is who she is. She identifies as black and Indian and legitimately. Black people and Indian people are not objecting. They're proud to be finally represented. Just let it go."
But to identify as either exclusively is simply not True. She's "mixed" and that's awesome, just embrace the reality of her heritage and stop playing games.
It doesn't ALWAYS have to be white conservative men making the calls.
"Says you. Listen to people of color. They may tell you otherwise. Again, it's not YOUR call to make, white brother."
Interesting, that's like saying that a bronze statue could accurately be referred to as either copper or tin.
Your problem is that you insist that some evil, malignant, motives underlie this desire for Harris to not be a chameleon.
Just to clarify, Kamal is 50% Indian and 50% Jamaican. How much negro is in the Jamaican half because Jamaica had indigenous people when Spaniards arrived. Later black African slaves were brought over. As normal with slavery, many whites had sex with the slaves a produced children while some intermarried. But who did Kamal's Jamaican side come from? Spanish, Taino, other Europeans, any mixture of all these origins???
She is not negro, even it a tiny percent of DNA is carrying African origin, which, to my knowledge, hasn't been demonstrated so it's a good possibly she has no African in her ancestry!.
"But that's just it. It's not YOUR WHITE CRACKER choice to determine. It's not YOUR decision to make. Move on. If it displeases you a REALLY WHOLE LOT, well, tough."
When you keep up these insane straw men you just look desperate. The fact that you have to twist what was said by others in your desperate desire to prove your superior virtue, kind of demonstrates your lack of virtue.
I'll try this one more time. NO ONE is demanding that anyone but Harris choose how to identify. What IS being said is that is people are confused by her "race/ethnicity" because she changes like a chameleon when it benefits her political ambitions, it's her fault. (Along with the MSM, DFL)
"No, it literally doesn't. That ONE (or maybe a few?)"
No, No, No, No, it's NOT "one" or "maybe a few" it's NOT isolated. She literally can't be the "First black..." and the "First Indian..." simultaneously. She's neither. As you correctly point out, as does Glenn, she is of mixed Jamaican and Indian heritage with zero evidence of African ethnic heritage.
Hypothetically, Harris does 23 and Me and makes the results public. It comes out a 50=% Indian/SW Asian, 20% Western European, 10% Taino or Spanish, and 5% west African, does that really qualify her as black or African American?
The issue, you idiot, is NOT what her specific "race/ethnic" heritage is, it's the fact that she changes how she identifies like a chameleon based on what benefits her, instead of just sticking with "mixed"/
"My evidence is ALL the known data in the world that doesn't prove it. "
This is Dan demonstrating that he doesn't understand the nature of proof or evidence. But it won't stop him from insisting that his hunches accurately represent Jesus' real meaning.
Glenn:
She is not negro, even it a tiny percent of DNA is carrying African origin, which, to my knowledge, hasn't been demonstrated so it's a good possibly she has no African in her ancestry!.
????!!!
Again, EVEN IF you have these racist, arrogant notions in your head, you really shouldn't say them out loud. It just outs your racist comments for what they are.
Craig, will you STOP your ally there from making these arrogant, ignorant racist statements? Or at least call him out on it?
LORD GOD in heaven have mercy! Defend us from your followers!
Glenn, it's not YOUR call to make. YOU are not the judge and jury for all people of color. We've been there and it didn't end well. The era for this sort of white arrogance has long gone.
Move on, little men. Get over yourselves. It's not your call to make.
Craig:
What IS being said is that is people are confused by her "race/ethnicity" because she changes like a chameleon when it benefits her political ambitions, it's her fault.
BUT SHE DOESN'T change like a chameleon. YOU have presented no evidence of that stupidly false claim. That YOU somehow find it confusing that she can note that she's both of Indian and Jamaican descent doesn't mean it's confusing. It doesn't mean she needs to choose one or the other (like you and Trump have said).
It's NOT your call to make.
YOU are making an accusation that YOU can't prove. That she identifies as both cultures/ancestry does not mean that she is changing it. WHERE IS THE PROOF OF that ridiculously, stupidly false claim? YOU HAVE NONE.
TWO headlines from newspapers (not from her) are not proof of this stupidly false and arrogant claim.
You all are just making factual, racist mistakes. Admit it. Move on. There's no harm in admitting being factually wrong. There IS harm in this sort of white arrogance you two (and more) are making.
She literally can't be the "First black..." and the "First Indian..." simultaneously.
YES! You can't be this obtuse, this stupid, this racist.
OF COURSE, a woman with Jamaican ancestry can right note that she can be the first black woman to be president.
OF COURSE, a woman with Indian ancestry can rightly note that she can be the first Indian woman to be president.
BOTH things are literally true.
Would you say, "She can't say she's both the first woman AND the first black person to be president!"... would you? OF COURSE, she can, because it would be factually true.
This is just mind-boggling. I don't know if you understand how ridiculous and, I don't even have the words... just stupid this line of thinking (not reasoning) is.
What is also true is that the more you all pursue this stupidly inane, vapid, weightless and ridiculous line of nonsense attacks, the more likely she is to win.
People are tired of the morally vacuous inanities that come from the chaos of maga world.
SHE is a woman.
SHE has Jamaican ancestors.
SHE has Indian ancestors.
It's not a race, ALL those things are factually true.
Good God, please, I beg of you for your sake, move on. This is just embarrassing for you and for conservatives and for the US.
I'm not wasting time with Dan's bullshit, although he's welcome to cement his status as an idiot.
"What conspiracy theory? Trump actually has attacked Obama in the past as possibly/probably not "American" and he's doing a similar thing with Harris. What conspiracy theory?"
To be accurate, Trump merely picked up on Hillary's attack on P-BO. To be more accurate, knowing whether or not a candidate for president actually meets the constitutional requirements for president and can legally serve if elected, seems like useful information. In any case, the birther thing was from Hillary, not Trump. Trump just borrowed it. Except he's not doing a "similar thing" with Harris, he's just factually not.
I'll note that Dan played the "real journalist" card in regards to Glenn's link. Apparently Dan doesn't object to the "real journalists" playing race games with Harris race/ethnicity, but the fact that someone who doesn't meet Dan's "real journalist" criteria accurately copy/pastes the work of "real journalists" demonstrating the actual point being made regarding Harris' chameleonlike morphing between "racial/ethnic" identities depending on which helps her more.
To say that "mixed" Harris is "black" is simply factually inaccurate, to say that she is "Indian" is factually inaccurate. To say that she is a mix of Jamaican and Indian is factually accurate.
"BOTH things are literally true."
No they are not.
1. You have absolutely zero proof that she has a significant amount of West African ethnic heritage.
2. The only thing that IS "literally true" is that she is the "First Jamaican/Indian...". Your entire argument hinges on the fact that she's mixed, yet now you abandon this position to insist that she can literally be (exclusively) two races/ethnicities simultaneously.
3. If y'all insist on making "race/ethnicity" as the primary factor in Harris" success, you can't act surprised when you can't get away with this bullshit.
I allow you to post all sorts of unproven idiotic, stupid shit with virtually zero constraints. The only time I've deleted any of your comments over the last few years is when I hit the wrong button, and asked you to repeat your comment. The fact that you want special treatment, the fact that you can't demonstrate Glenn wrong, but instead demand that I protect you from proving him wrong, seems to demonstrate your desperation to cling to your double standards.
"SHE is a woman."
Are you a biologist? An expert in biology? Are you the only one on the left who can define woman?
"SHE has Jamaican ancestors."
Noted, yet there's no evidence that she has any African ancestors. Jamaican isn't a race/ethnicity. So there's no actual evidence that I've seen that she's black/African American. Which I could care less about if she/y'all weren't making such an issue of it.
"SHE has Indian ancestors."
Noted, yet she's not exclusively "Indian", just like she's not exclusively "black" or Jamaican. You are making my point, she's of mixed "race/ethnicity" and if y'all would stop manipulating her ancestry to score political points it wouldn't be a big deal.
FYI, when Trump was getting grilled by hostile black "journalists" at an event that was supposed to be attended by Biden or Harris, where were they? When was the last time that Biden or Harris willingly went into a situation where they were going to be questioned by a hostile room?
If you'd just stopped at "Harris is of mixed race/ethnicity and is neither exclusively "black" or "Indian", this would have ended hours ago. You just needed and excuse to call people "racist".
To say that "mixed" Harris is "black" is simply factually inaccurate, to say that she is "Indian" is factually inaccurate...
And to say that it's arrogant and presumptuous for white guys like you and Trump to simply declare this is factually correct. It's NOT YOUR CALL TO MAKE.
You of the Grand Old White Party ignore race and racism and race history to your peril.
To say that "mixed" Harris is "black" is simply factually inaccurate, to say that she is "Indian" is factually inaccurate. To say that she is a mix of Jamaican and Indian is factually accurate.
I can see that you can't wrap your white privileged mind around this, but ALL those things can be true at the same time.
Are you saying she can't claim to be the first woman president when she wins, because she's also of Jamaican heritage?
This is entirely bizarre.
Talk to some black people, Craig, Glenn. Listen to what they'll tell you (and here, I'm not suggesting you find some black people who you know agree with you... just listen to what black folks in general are saying.)
It's not your call to make.
Listen to Nadra Nittle:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/kamala-harris-asian-black-shouldn-t-be-confusing-2020-it-ncna1236501
Listen to the black journalists in the conversation here:
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-interview-kamala-harris-black-indian-nabj-rcna164736
In this day and age, we are WAY past the time when white men can choose to insist others define their race to please them. It's not confusing. Maybe, just acknowledge that you all are old and out of touch. (Not that there's anything wrong with being old, I'm roughly your age... but being THIS out of touch with reality, well, I'm just embarrassed for you all).
when Trump was getting grilled by hostile black "journalists" at an event that was supposed to be attended by Biden or Harris, where were they?
First of all, here again, you impugn people of color by scare quoting "journalists." Those people ARE journalists. It's not YOUR CALL TO MAKE, it's what they do.
Rachel Scott, the journalist interviewing your pervert king, IS a journalist working for a reputable actual journalistic organization - ABC News. You impugn her good name while taking seriously the foaming at the mouth "Mark Patriot..." or whatever his name is?
Same for award winning Kadia Goba and the others present there. Who are you to try to take a swipe at their journalism? Award winning Harris Faulkner of FoxNews? Is it because they are part of the National Association of BLACK Journalists that makes you demonize them this way?
Again, EVEN IF you are thinking these irrational and awful thoughts, don't say them out loud.
Shame on you. Apologize for those kinds of slurs.
As to Biden or Harris supposed to be there... says who? Trump? Who cares what claims a liar makes? I can find no information to support this claim. And why does Trump care? Why wouldn't he want to just talk with black journalists?
Well, after the fact, we can see why?
Your race-baiting pervert prince was in over his head and just made things worse for himself - CONTINUES to make things worse for himself.
Again, EVEN IF you have these racist, arrogant notions in your head, you really shouldn't say them out loud. It just outs your racist comments for what they are.
How in blazes is it racist to give factual data as to one’s ethnic heritage?!??!?
"When was the last time that Biden or Harris willingly went into a situation where they were going to be questioned by a hostile room?"
It's problematic and telling that you all think entertaining questions from actual, professional journalists - including "black journalists" - is considered, by y'all, as a "hostile room."
Fascists also consider journalists to be hostile towards them.
Dan
This thread escalated markedly whilst I was out of town. Now, it continues while I try to catch up. For now, I want to simply respond to part of Dan's self-satisfying "proof" of Trump's "corruption". (This comes from his comment on Aug 2, 2024 @ 12:52PM.)
Notably, Dan begins with what he likely thinks is checkmate all by itself. The 3K+ alleged conflicts of interest/acts of corruption. I have to say that I only went about 1/5 to 1/4 of the article, and see that as is typical of Trump-haters and leftists (I haven't made any effort to investigate the political leanings of this allegedly non-partisan source), they pad the list to exaggerate the charge of corruption. The 300 or so uses of his properties for government business are examples of a single example of a "corrupt act"...not 300 acts of corruption. That is to say, it was his practice and as such can't be regarded as any more than a single practice which might be regarded as corrupt...if it actually is. This notion of divesting from one's business is not a law in any way. To use his own facilities, which he not remarkably regards as better than others, does not constitute any breach of ethics so long as there's no proven act of bribery between he and those who stay at or use his facilities.
Again, there's no requirement of divestment of a politician from his personal source of income. Any politician who puts his own business above the work he was elected to do can be dealt with, especially at election time. Few would do so, due to the constant attention a politician's job entails, particularly the president. To my knowledge, Trump wasn't involved in any day-to-day activities at his businesses.
In the piece, the authors imply that use of Trump facilities allowed access to him by foreign, business and government officials. But then, so does going to the White House, so what of it? Again, is any of this access said to have resulted in something nefarious? Perhaps continued reading of the article will expose such a thing. They didn't mention it at the point I suspended my perusal.
It also suggested that loyalty was established by using the facilities, but again, how does one prove such a thing with any certainty aside from a subordinate AND Trump attesting to that in a given case. In a piece about corruption, it seems to me assuming what isn't proven is corrupt itself.
I then moved to the CNN link. What a joke. Top ten examples of Trump corruption and astonishingly, they were all lies (I'm pretty sure I made it to #10...I looked at well over half of them at least). But then, it's CNN...a well known perpetrator of TDS lies.
Then Dan cited a book to which he linked, and I've no doubt Dan hasn't read that either.
He also cited stupidity, such as Trump's trials as if they were legitimate legal actions...which so many legal analysts affirm they were abuses of the legal system. Dan refers to the E. Jean Carroll case, which did not render a guilty verdict for any sexual assault, and the civil trial, which as Craig mentioned does not require the same standards for conviction as a criminal trial, basically stole money from Trump on the basis of a crime for which he was not convicted.
Dan satisfies his perverted hatefulness by regarding all the legal woe Trump's endured since he won election in 2016 as "proof" of corruption, while each "proof" is questionable to say the least. Most are outright lies...such as the CNN link...but Dan chooses to pretend it's all perfectly truthful and without blemish. I don't believe he ever studies any links he presents, choosing them on the basis of their titles/headlines and perhaps a quick glance at the first paragraph...perhaps. Dan's a liar and he's not concerned with truth at all.
I'll leave it there for now, though I don't know if it's worth it to go further. I will look at the rest of that comment and actually peruse the rest of the links that may exist there. I know I will be wasting my time. If the roles were reversed, Dan would not accept any of it. Yet, he craps on far better provided for him to defend whatever his opponents support, believe or express.
And I'm once again put off by Dan's attempt to pretend his a Christian...that he would count himself among Christ's followers as he lies about all manner of things and supports all manner of perversion and murder. Dan is truly a contemptible fraud of a person.
"It's problematic and telling that you all think entertaining questions from actual, professional journalists - including "black journalists" - is considered, by y'all, as a "hostile room."
Fascists also consider journalists to be hostile towards them."
It's fcatually True that 90%+ of "journalists" in the MSM are liberal/progressive. It's obvious that the MSM is hostile and critical of Trump.
The point remains that Biden's idea of a "debate" was to pick a venue that was going to be friendlier to him than to Trump, and unilaterally set rules that he thought were beneficial to him.
Notwithstanding this bit of bullshit obfuscation, Trump showed up at a media event (Which Biden/Harris were supposed to be at but skipped) answered tough/hostile questions and spent the vast majority of the interview discussing Harris' record. Biden's been avoiding press conferences for months/years and certainly isn't going to show up at an event where the participants are going to ask him tough questions.
Trump showed up, answered the tough questions, and the bulk of what he said got ignored.
"First of all, here again, you impugn people of color by scare quoting "journalists." Those people ARE journalists. It's not YOUR CALL TO MAKE, it's what they do."
1. Noting that I was not 100% positive about the composition of the panel and used quotation marks around "journalists" to clarify that there might have been non journalists there is simply acknowledging my lack of precision.
2. Noting that has nothing at all to do with the race/ethnicity of those there. It's allowing for the possibility that there were more people there than "journalists"/
3. I seriously doubt that you've vetted everyone in attendance and compared them to your "who's actually a real journalist" rubric.
4. But anything to distract from my point is fair game I suppose.
"Rachel Scott, the journalist interviewing your pervert king, IS a journalist working for a reputable actual journalistic organization - ABC News. You impugn her good name while taking seriously the foaming at the mouth "Mark Patriot..." or whatever his name is?"
When you say stupid, made up bullshit like this, you just look like the petty, childish, partisan, tyrant you appear to be.
"Same for award winning Kadia Goba and the others present there. Who are you to try to take a swipe at their journalism? Award winning Harris Faulkner of FoxNews? Is it because they are part of the National Association of BLACK Journalists that makes you demonize them this way?"
Since there was no "demonetization" on my part, your hysterical whining based on you jumping to a false conclusion, based on your reading my mind, I fail to see why I should enable your hysterical overreaction.
"As to Biden or Harris supposed to be there... says who? Trump? Who cares what claims a liar makes? I can find no information to support this claim. And why does Trump care? Why wouldn't he want to just talk with black journalists?"
Trump DID talk to black journalists, are you an absolute moron. He showed up and answered the tough questions. The fact that y'all choose to focus on one tiny snippet of his answers says more about you than about Trump. But by all means, make excuses for Biden/Harris not being there.
I have a hell of a lot more respect for Trump showing up, answering the tough questions, and regularly taking questions (even if I think his answers are bad, counterproductive, or stupid) than I do for Biden who's avoided press conferences and tough questions for quite a while.
After hearing him recently I understand why he sticks to scripted events, but that's not much to be proud of.
"And to say that it's arrogant and presumptuous for white guys like you and Trump to simply declare this is factually correct. It's NOT YOUR CALL TO MAKE."
I never said it was my call, but thanks for making that shit up. Fortunately we have technology that can measure a person's genetic makeup. It's totally possible for Harris' to settle this with science. That she doesn't suggests that she might prefer the ambiguity.
"You of the Grand Old White Party ignore race and racism and race history to your peril."
No, I'm well aware of the racism that the DFL is steeped in. I'm well aware that the '60s civil rights legislation would not have passed without republican votes.
"I can see that you can't wrap your white privileged mind around this, but ALL those things can be true at the same time."
If you say so. I guess of ethnic/racial/identity politics are all you have then you need to make things as flexible as possible.
"Are you saying she can't claim to be the first woman president when she wins, because she's also of Jamaican heritage?"
No.
I'm saying that folks on your side of things can't define a woman, which seems problematic to the making of that claim.
She can "claim" anything she wants, whether those claims are True is another thing entirely.
Biological sex, and national heritage are two completely different categories.
If she claimed to be the first woman president and a male president simultaneously, that would be problematic.
If she claimed to be the first "Indian/Jamaican" president that would be accurate.
"Talk to some black people, Craig, Glenn. Listen to what they'll tell you (and here, I'm not suggesting you find some black people who you know agree with you... just listen to what black folks in general are saying.)"
Well Don Lemon seems to be pretty black, at least more black than you, and he was pretty clear on the subject. Maybe you are so convinced that "black folks" are some monolithic mass of people who all think the same way, that you can't comprehend the CNN interview of 5-6 black guys who disagree with you as well.
"It's not your call to make."
Nor is it yours, nor is it some cherry picked black folk who agree with you.
"In this day and age, we are WAY past the time when white men can choose to insist others define their race to please them. It's not confusing. Maybe, just acknowledge that you all are old and out of touch. (Not that there's anything wrong with being old, I'm roughly your age... but being THIS out of touch with reality, well, I'm just embarrassed for you all)."
Which no one is doing. The question being asked is about the chameleon like switching of racial/ethnic identity for political advantage and the condescending ghetto/hood speech affectation when she talks to black audiences. Does she/do you. really think that black audiences are unaware of how Harris sounds when she speaks the majority of the time?
I'll give you credit. You're persistent. Stupid, committed to a bullshit narrative, and hyper partisan, but persistent.
Glenn,
My question exactly. Fauxchaontas made all these claims and used her false Native American heritage to her advantage (harming actual NA in the process), until science proved otherwise. Although Harris hasn't taken or publicly announced the results of a test, we can speculate and get pretty close.
India is a pretty homogeneous society, so her maternal "half" is likely to be homogeneous as well. Jamaica has a much less homogeneous racial/ethnic mix which makes it harder to evaluate. Although, judging from names,at least some of her paternal ancestors were likely white.
What's interesting to me is that we have multiple companies that use science to decide people's genetic backgrounds, we have a TV show dedicated to tracing the ancestry of famous people, the Mormons have a huge repository of ancestry information in SLC, yet somehow it's "racist" to draw conclusions about the ancestry of a presidential annointee. Especially since it's that very racial/ethnic background that got her considered for the job of VP and is such a feature of her career.
It's just nuts that this is "racist", until you consider that "racist" is what get's thrown out when those on the left have nothing of substance.
Harris Faulkner from FoxNews was ashamed of the "journalist" Dan praises. She weirdly expected more graciousness and professionalism from an arrogant, condescending broad who didn't feel compelled to welcome Trump, her being the first to address him.
As Craig says, and as it has been well established, journalists are at least 90% Democrat and anti-Trump. Some, like it was affirmed in the the NYT, have acted effect his ability to win the 2020 election, pretending they exist to save America. One isn't likely to find truly professional journalists at any traditional news outlets Dan regards as sacrosanct, like ABC.
Dan dares to chastise Craig's comments on the basis that some of these "journalists" have been given awards for their work. But by whom? By journalist organizations composed of Dem supporting "journalists".
My use above of quotation marks around the word "journalist" is intentional and indicates my low regard for the bulk of them. A proper journalist seeks truth as an outside observer. In interviews, one can expose their own personal bias only in the context of seeking that truth...that is, to get clarification or confirmation of the journalist's understanding of an issue. This first broad who questioned Trump was very biased and confrontational as if she was a freaking prosecuting attorney at one of his sham trials.
"Although Harris hasn't taken or publicly announced the results of a test, we can speculate and get pretty close..."
What is racist is, after centuries of white oppressors attacking those had "one drop of black blood," for modern white conservatives to NOW waste a minute of time trying to evaluate if this woman of color is "black enough " to be considered, Black... it's just devoid of any substance.
I don't know how else to tell you: it's not YOUR call, as a privileged white man to make.
I mean, on the one hand, this is gold for Kamala Harris. Every time trump and his white maga mob attack Harris on this non-issue, they cut away at any potential gains that the GOP may have made in wooing black voters. The more you all keep up this nonsense (as I hear from black people and scholars), the more you cement the GOP as the party of arrogant white nationalists and racists. There is literally nothing to these attacks on Harris, they are completely vapid and devoid of substance.
On the other hand, the nation is just tired of these nonsense attacks about literally nothing and it's just embarrassing to us as a nation and, to the degree that maga-types are conservative christians, it is an embarrassment to the church.
It's not your call to make.
There's literally nothing there.
Tell your side to just stop it.
Dan
"What is racist is, after centuries of white oppressors attacking those had "one drop of black blood," for modern white conservatives to NOW waste a minute of time trying to evaluate if this woman of color is "black enough " to be considered, Black... it's just devoid of any substance."
What a bizarre twist. Y'all are literally the ones who are saying that no matter how little of Harris' actual ethnic/racial heritage is actually African/black, that she should be considered "black" for political purposes. That it doesn't matter if she is actually of African/black race/ethnicity, it just matters that y'all can label her as black because it'll help her political chances. Personally, I could care less. Y'all have made it a focal point of her candidacy since Biden picked her as VP, so it seems as though it's now fair game to explore how she's chosen this chameleon like presentation of herself so as to best take advantage of her ethnicity.
"I don't know how else to tell you: it's not YOUR call, as a privileged white man to make."
Well, since I've never said that it was and have no desire to do so, I fail to see how you repeating this made up bullshit helps.
"I mean, on the one hand, this is gold for Kamala Harris. Every time trump and his white maga mob attack Harris on this non-issue, they cut away at any potential gains that the GOP may have made in wooing black voters. The more you all keep up this nonsense (as I hear from black people and scholars), the more you cement the GOP as the party of arrogant white nationalists and racists. There is literally nothing to these attacks on Harris, they are completely vapid and devoid of substance."
In one sense you are right. Harris can say anything and everything about her race/ethnicity, the DFL can tout it as well, and they can then bitch when anyone raises questions about the accuracy of their claims. Strategically, it's great for them. Strangely enough, y'all said the same kinds of things about Haley and it didn't seem to bother you then. As far as what "black people" are saying, I'm hearing plenty of "black people" who disagree with the words your putting in "black people's" mouths. I realize that y'all think that "black people" who don't toe the liberal line aren't really "black", are "Uncle Toms" or "House N*****s", and that you'll ignore or dismiss any "black people" who disagree with you. But I'm sure they they appreciate some old, white, rich, southern guy, speaking for them and telling everyone what "back people" really say.
"On the other hand, the nation is just tired of these nonsense attacks about literally nothing and it's just embarrassing to us as a nation and, to the degree that maga-types are conservative christians, it is an embarrassment to the church."
I'd argue that a big part of the nation is sick and tired of identity politics, of people being primarily defined by the color of their skin or their racial/ethnic identity.
"It's not your call to make."
Still haven't said that it is, and can't believe that you think repeating this bullshit over and over again makes it True.
FWIW, If I had the power to tell the GOP and trump campaign what to do, I'd tell them to ignore Harris' racialized identity politics and to flood the airwaves with clips of her actual words. Her comments about how she could have/did abuse her power as a prosecutor are chilling. Here idiocy about inflation is staggeringly stupid. Her excuses for not even visiting the border make her look incompetent.
I completely agree with you that the GOP should stop taking the bait of all the race/ethnicity crap and start focusing on the ample evidence of her own words.
I agree with you, Craig, though I'd say pointing out the duplicity of Harris's and the Dems' portraying her as "black" for political purposes is a legitimate negative to add to her incredibly large list. It's not like we're Dan Trabue saying the same thing in two different ways to have two items to put on the list instead of one.
But yeah...it's not necessary to belabor it or to subordinate her far more serious problems to it.
I think that it's fine to focus on the larger issue of identity politics, to feature black voices who don't agree with the Harris narrative, and on the fact that they trust her so little that they had to stick her with an old, white, man to keep her out of trouble.
Beyond that focus on her plethora of idiotic quotes, policy flip flops, record of incarcerating young black men on drug charges, and her record of playing fast and loose with evidence leading to innocent people being convicted.
You know, I saw something referencing her massive record of prosecuting mostly black dudes on minor pot offenses in order to appear "tough on crime", which suggested that after logging the arrests and convictions, many weren't even actually punished. Now, I didn't read the article and don't know where I saw it, so I'm not sure if that "weren't even actually punished" considers arrest and/or conviction as punishment alone, or was referring to lax or non-existent sentencing.
Just thought I'd throw that out there.
There are a few things from Harris' tenure as a prosecutor that stand out.
1. The number of black men prosecuted for relatively minor drug crimes and incarcerated, primarily due to the Biden 1994 Crime bill.
2. Several instances where she withheld exculpatory evidence or otherwise prosecuted someone in a corrupt fashion.
3. That she ran her office like a tyrant and that many/most of her employees hated/feared her. I've heard the same about her VP staff.
3a. There's a video of her talking about how she will/has used her discretion as a prosecutor to manipulate people for her own ends. I'll have to see if I can find it.
The reality is that there is ample video evidence of her saying stupid crap for many campaign spots, as well as plenty of ammunition for Trump in a debate if he'll do the work to use what she's given him.
One or two people I've seen on the telly made a great point regarding all the examples of her speaking stupidly never being countered with any examples of her demonstrating intelligence or coherence. Who needs senility when one is already a total moron?
I hadn't thought of that, but it's a good point. I haven't seen any instances of her being able to discuss issues with any sort of depth or intelligence.
Post a Comment