Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
You are such a good little hall monitor, Sketch. Yes you are!
Here's a Gold Star for you.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
When you use lies against someone, then it is deplorable
When you use facts against them, then it's not deplorable, but important exposure of the crime or lies being perpetuated.
Those photos of Melanoma should be on posters throughout the Deep South Bible belt.
All that stuff about Obama and Hillary were lies and projection.
All the crap about Trump is unfortunately true
No lies are being used against him, all we have to do is repeat what he said verbatim.
|
|
Cragar
climber
MSLA - MT
|
|
My question: How are the posts depicting Trump as a Nazi or nude photos of our future First Lady less deplorable?
Well, it really is quite easy; the Obama's are black and I'd say >90% of the repulsive attacks are simply because they are black.
Trump tweets/says/makes deplorable statements almost daily. His wife has posed in many nude photographs and both of these actions are entirely within their control. Being black isn't as is being white or being born with a handicap, etc. etc.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Hopefully, some of you wizened liberals can explain how the Republican party is spiralling the drain.
It's not that they've won a majority of state houses, it's how they've done it and where the party ended up. The gop essentially committed suicide with a sixty year campaign of fear, hate and division. The result was that what was once know and the 'republican party' suffered a cruel, but justly deserved death at the hands of a fringe-right monster of its own creation. It also accomplished it by gerrymandered all the red state congressional districts and suppressing voter turnout in every way possible as often as possible.
trump taking office is the official death knell of the republican party with exists now in name only having been radicalized beyond all recognition to the point where Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan would have all been vilified by the gop-base if they had run in last year's election.
It's the death of reason and we've now entered into a post-truth world half-populated by gullible rubes.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Sketch can answer his rhetorical questions himself.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
You're all gullible rubes, all of ya.
You all continuously prove it here .....
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
My question: How are the posts depicting Trump as a Nazi or nude photos of our future First Lady less deplorable?
they are not. However, what that feeds into is the supposition that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the two sides, which was one of the major arguments for not voting. Those that said that now look at the anti-Trump (before he has taken office and actually done anything as President, and the anti-Melania stuff, and they say "AHA! Knew it!)
I am particularly bothered by the attacks on family, by either side. I've never considered it fair, except when they are involved and doing something political. It is fair to look at her immigration status. It is fair to look at her stealing of someone else's words in her speeches. But I think body-shaming and things of the type are really out of bounds.
Let the actual deplorables do that, and we may have to admit that we've got some on the Democratic side, too. (and we do)
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
The Souter video was great, and on the mark.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
From the above-cited article:
While much has changed since 1789, certain premises of politics and human nature have held steady. One of those truths is that private financial interests can subtly sway even the most virtuous leaders.
I struggled to remind myself that this article was singling Mr. Trump out for special condemnation. I thought that it must be about Mrs. Clinton.
As careful students of history, the Framers were painfully aware
that entanglements between American officials and foreign powers could pose a creeping, insidious risk to the Republic.
Again, I thought it must be talking about Mrs. Clinton, you know, who sold off our uranium deposits to the Russians in exchange for donations to her "foundation," you know, the "same" Russians who supposedly rewarded her generosity to them by exposing the evils and corruptions of her and the DNC.
It's all very confusing, Mrs. Clinton being the real exemplar of foreign entanglements and all.
Now in 2016, when there is overwhelming evidence that a foreign power has indeed meddled in our political system, adherence to the strict prohibition on foreign government presents and emoluments “of any kind whatever” is even more important for our national security and independence.
This MUST be talking about Mrs. Clinton. Yet the article keeps saying "Mr. Trump." It's just SO confusing!
Never in American history has a president-elect presented more conflict of interest questions and foreign entanglements than Donald Trump.
Had Mrs. Clinton become the president-elect, the above sentence would have been precisely as true with her name inserted there.
Given the vast and global scope of Trump’s business interests, many of which remain shrouded in secrecy, we cannot predict the full gamut of legal and constitutional challenges that lie ahead.
Right! So, the article is saying, "We are ignorant, but we're paid to speculate in alarmist terms. It's gonna be bad! Real bad! And we're a [left-leaning] think-tank, so you had better pay attention! REAL bad, we're tellin' 'ya."
And lines like "shrouded in secrecy" are so transparently a left-wing biased hatchet job! My relatively tiny business is also "shrouded in secrecy," as are all businesses! "Business is war" is the old saw, and that line is true. "Shrouded in secrecy" indeed. ROFL
What a goofball Eisen is! Oh, and I loved his "credentials," which included his post as Chief White House Ethics lawyer during the early Obama reign. LOL... HE was a busy man, although not busy serving OUR best interests!
While holding office, Mr. Trump will receive—by virtue of his continued interest in the Trump Organization and his stake in hundreds of other entities—a steady stream of monetary and other benefits from
foreign powers and their agents.
Again, it's just SO confusing. I kept picturing Mrs. Clinton as president-elect, and the article rings true of her as well and based on a more reliable raft of evidence.
Whatever "evidence" the article has is at least equally "solid" about Mrs. Clinton. So, I'm confused, so confused. I had to keep reminding myself, "This is a left-wing hatchet job, which is why it's condemning Mr. Trump for Mrs. Clinton's character." That's the only way the article could make any sense.
Had this been an unbiased article, it would have instead taken the position that we dodged a bullet when Mrs. Clinton didn't get elected. It would have gone on to say that Mr. Trump has his own problems in this regard.
And from those two facts it would have culminated with the pressing question I think really matters here: "So, in modern America, must we only elect presidents that are 'just right' in terms of personal success?"
After all, "too successful" just means "having 'too many' international connections," which is a logical problem for the premises of this article.
Yet, "not successful enough" means "not well enough known and vetted to be credible." You know, like the community organizer turned unfinished-term junior senator Obama.
So, apparently, in modern America, the president-elect must be "just right" in terms of success and international connections. And, of course, Mr. Eisen knows what "just right" is, and Mr. Trump is NOT it.
OF COURSE, Mr. Trump is "too entangled," while Mrs. Clinton, having already demonstrated her own entanglements and what she'll do with them, was "just right," apparently, according to this article.
Yeah, I guess I AM a "denier" who calls this article a left-wing hatchet job. Because that's what it was.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
One could spend hours debunking the bullshit in MB's post.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
"Really, but why bother?"
Dominic Dumas
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
So Mad Bolter, are you comfortable?
Fine, let's start with your childhood....
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
LOL... you guys are entirely predictable.
You float as credible what is really a transparently left-wing hatchet job that predictably fails to paint Clinton with Trump's brush, as it should.
When this transparently obvious fact is pointed out, you shoot the messenger.
Echo
Echo
Echo
Okay, now back to this thread's regularly scheduled programming.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
A few days after the election, I got so tired of the infantile rants on Facebook that I decided to take a break from political threads generally, even though the political threads on ST were significantly more intelligent than those on FB (how's that for damning of Facebook?).
Well, after reading the last couple of pages, I feel like I never left. I don't see a lot of conservatives (like me) soul-searching about how a populist like Trump won the Republican nomination, but I see even fewer Democrats, and almost no one in the left wing of that party, making any effort to figure out why Trump became the president elect. All I see is shallow analysis, usually dismissing those with whom we disagree as some combination of brainwashed, stupid, hateful, ignorant or criminally insane.
I see even less self-examination in the media. They seem to remain unconcerned that so few Americans trust them to give us accurate information, and seem to categorize their critics with the same dismissal shown above. Consequently, we have what seems to me, the most divided thinking [sic] I've experienced in my 65 years. We can't even agree on facts, or on goals.
About the only discussion I've seen on how to end this resembles the joke about how you get two trombone players to play in tune -- you shoot one.
All of this makes me appreciate those who actually engage those with whom they disagree, rather than merely dismiss them with an insult or two. In this regard, I find MB's comments above worthy of more than a mere dismissal. You don't need to agree that Clinton, and not Trump should be the target of the criticism to see that criticizing just one of them, and ignoring the other, might represent political myopia.
Of course, I also tend to find Norton's, healyje's, Apogee's and many, many others who generally disagree with me worth considering. It just bugs me that so many have commented on MB's post with no real response.
John
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
John, we have responded. He continues to trot out the same spiel, so why bother?
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
Anyone who understands history and is paying attention (and not to Fox) should not take offense at comparisons between Donald Trump 2017 and Adolph Hitler 1933. He might not be as bad, but he could be worse.
Such comparisons ARE grossly unfair--to Hitler. He was at least intelligent and understood politics.
Curt
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
John
Why should we do any soul searching about how we lost.
we didn't lose, we had a right wing take over
The election was rigged
Crosscheck scrubbed 10x the votes that we lost by
read this
http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/
The Election was Stolen – Here’s How…
Friday, November 11, 2016
Before a single vote was cast, the election was fixed by GOP and Trump operatives.
Starting in 2013 – just as the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act – a coterie of Trump operatives, under the direction of Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State, created a system to purge 1.1 million Americans of color from the voter rolls of GOP–controlled states.
The system, called Crosscheck, is detailed in my Rolling Stone report,
“The GOP’s Stealth War on Voters,” 8/24/2016.
Crosscheck in action:
Trump victory margin in Michigan: 13,107
Michigan Crosscheck purge list: 449,922
Trump victory margin in Arizona: 85,257
Arizona Crosscheck purge list: 270,824
Trump victory margin in North Carolina: 177,008
North Carolina Crosscheck purge list: 589,393
On Tuesday, we saw Crosscheck elect a Republican Senate and as President, Donald Trump. The electoral putsch was aided by nine other methods of attacking the right to vote of Black, Latino and Asian-American voters, methods detailed in my book and film, including “Caging,” “purging,” blocking legitimate registrations, and wrongly shunting millions to “provisional” ballots that will never be counted.
Then we can add a repetitive chorus of lies about Hillary, Russian hacking, voter suppression techniques, and voter machine fraud.
Trump, a right wing congress, the FBI, a stolen Supreme Court Seat.....
it was right wing coup
So what will us libs do, fight for our voice to be heard
and fight the right wing Congress's policies that hurt America.
Why couldn't the votes be recounted? Why couldn't CrossCheck be audited?, what does trump know? Should we water board him to find out his connections to Russia?
I want to see his tax returns!!
He is hiding way too much.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Thanks, dirtbag, for clarifying your position. I confess that I didn't read all the posts dating back to Nov. 9, or so, when I decided I needed a vacation. Still, I usually find MB's posts substantial, and did so here, so the seeming dismissal surprised me.
And in addition to MB and the others I've named, you and crankster are two more whose posts I always read, usually with intellectual profit, and there are many more. I know lots of people think otherwise, but I still find the political threads on ST valuable.
John
P.S. Craig (another voice from the left who I respect), Dudley Do-Right famously (for Rocky & Bullwinkle fans like me) stated "But it's in the newspaper, so it must be true." Rolling Stone has had some issues with truth of late. It's certainly possible that someone rigged votes, but I think you make a mistake if you accept that explanation at face value and ignore other possibilities. As just one example, I think both conventional conservative Republicans and Hillary Clinton gave too little consideration to the gripes of the Rust Belt.
Also, we may learn something from how the party establishments dealt with the primaries. The Democrats had their Superdelegates system in place to try to prevent another 1972, when McGovern's policies were too far to the left to be electable. Totally aside from the likely attempts to tilt the playing field against Sanders, the Democrats' built-in bias toward the party leaders ended up giving them a candidate with deep flaws.
The Republicans, in contrast, seemed powerless to prevent the Trump nomination, even though most all of the party leaders opposed his nomination, and also, not a few of his policies. Until election night, I thought the Democrats were smart -- Trump was, in my estimation, the weakest Republican candidate, and Sanders the weaker Democrat. The election results led me to think that I've been too dismissive of the concerns that propel populists.
I'm far from conclusion in analyzing this election, but I'd be cautious about offering just a simple explanation.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
MB's intense hate for Hillary and his comparisons of her to Trump is so biased that everything he says can be invalidated.
He bases all his rants on premises that are total BS to start with, so they are just BS rants about some BS topic he wants to show boat on.
He never got the memo that the right wing media created all the witch hunt crappola BS about Hillary, and it's time to let go of the Hillary hate, it just makes you look stupid at this point.
we read the Goldman Sachs Speeches, there was nothing there
she didn't lie about her server
she didn't kill the folks in Benghazi
she didn't take money from other Nations or what ever from her foundation
edit:
RollingStone has some issues????
That's your response to vote purging??
Pretty weak..
Hillary won the Rust belt, the exit polls of voters say she won, but after they purged the votes, she lost.
The swing states was were the rigging took place.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!