Morning Joe appalled by GOP voters buying Trump’s lies: Most can be debunked ‘in 30 seconds’
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Morning Joe” co-host Joe Scarborough found himself appalled at polls showing how much Republican voters trust President Donald Trump to give them accurate information.
A recent CBS poll found that the percentage of strong Trump supporters who trust the president to give accurate information is greater than the percentage of strong Trump supporters who trust their own family members to do the same.
Scarborough said that the trust in Trump was particularly galling because all of his lies were so blatant and easy to disprove.
“Why don’t my friends and family just turn on the Google machine?” Scarborough quipped, lamenting Trump supporters’ unwillingness to independently verify the president’s claims for themselves.
“Because the truth has been devalued,” co-host Mika Brzezinski responded. “And people must not care.”
“But I don’t understand!” Scarborough interjected. “So many of his lies, so many of his claims, can be completely blown out of the water with 30 seconds. Again, borrow your neighbor’s Google machine! 30 seconds — and it is a proven lie!”
“They don’t care,” Brzezinski said.
Scarborough, however, insisted that was no excuse for not caring about the truth.
“The truth is 30 seconds away,” he said. “Check out Google.”
Tags
Who is online
87 visitors
Just proof of how the ignorant, would prefer to believe the lies they "want" to hear, like it's the illegals, the blacks, the Asians, the poor, and everyone else in the world,
except
those silly ones in the mirror
I don't know if it is possible to give the deplorables any good press.
Trumpp would deem it fake, and they would buy it, Hooker, liner, and pornstar playmate cooler sinker, lead to the moral trough where Trumpp has to bend over n cough
that's sad
We are eventually going to build up to the breaking point, where Trump and Trumpsters constant lying butts head on with the rest of the world, and there may very well be violence. This insanity cannot go on forever without things turning quite harsh.
When someone or a group of people get injured or killed, then we likely will see unity galvanize against and overtake this chaotic "One Man Show." Other than that it seems President Trump and his minions are free "in the land" to raise all manner of verbal havoc!
Who cares what a cuckold like Scarborough or his mistress says
Attack the messenger ! lol. I know you can't defend Trump's lies, so you do what you can do.
Scarborough is a joke which any rational person recognizes and his mistresss is a nut job
I keep repeating that I don’t care about his lies because all politicians are serial liars. I only care about their actions
No president has ever lied like Trump. Not even close.
deleted
deleted
You are protected right now by the coc, which is something I dont agree with at all.
Project much? Spouting outrageous hyperbolic untruths destroys any credibility. Your comment is demonstrably untrue.
Nonsense.
Two lies right there from someone who pretends to care about lying.
Truth not lies
Nobody is "protected" by anything on here. deleted
Being harsh with Trump supporters is not allowed here. I don't make the rules, I just live by them.
I find it hard to believe that liberal "males" can be harsh with anything.
Amazing, a 'man of the cloth,; a 'shepherd of manking,' who diminishes truth-telling by our world leader to others and the citizenry. Thus, giving license to using any means necessary to win. I will no longer ask what would Jesus say about this tactic and strategy, for I already know the answer to the question. Appalling.
That's a lie. And for the record, lying is an action. What you must have meant to claim is not caring about lying-just benefiting from the results. if results are all that matters, then why bother being civil at all?
You’ve tried that canard before. Words by definition are not actions. Try a cogent argument that actually can be defended
Weasel words and misdirection. Don't bother with that on me. I am staring you squarely in your virtual world eyes .
Pastor, is a lie really not an action? Does a lie depart from one person to impart to another person or persons?
What means this?
I adjure you speak truth to a fellow member in the body of Christ! Pastor, "do not give the Devil this chance." You are in manifest error right now!
The reach of The Deceiver is long. His Shadow is longer. Do not fear the light and the truth.
Telling a lie is most definitely an action. I would be quite interested in an actual argument that tries to suggest otherwise.
Total lies there, and you should not be allowed to get away with them. Either put up the links and stats or take it back. You have to best this. Or admit your post was bullshit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/01/president-trump-has-made-4229-false-or-misleading-claims-in-558-days/?utm_term=.001995feb919
No I’m not. You are trying to play a deceitful game that I won’t play
wallow in your hate because I won’t participate
Brother, you dare talk about "wallowing"? You need to rethink what your ACTIONS are exampling to this site (and by extension the nation). I am on my way out for the day. Talk to you later tonight, if you are around.
I rebuke the deceiver in the name of Jesus
those who accuse the redeemed of following the deceiver are guilty of blasphemy
Leftist ideology turns language on its head and conflates words in purposeful denial of their distinctions to further their goals
Miriam Webster Dictionary
Definition of action
plural actions
1
a : a thing done : deed
b : the accomplishment of a thing usually over a period of time, in stages, or with the possibility of repetition
c actions plural : behavior, conduct unscrupulous actions
Words and actions have relationship but anyone who understands language knows they are distinctly different.
I have not committed any actions here other than the acts of posting my views and the word of God
I have separated myself from the things of the world to serve the Lord as the Word commands. Can you say the same?
“Then he spoke to them all. “If anyone wants to follow in my footsteps, he must give up all right to himself, carry his cross every day and keep close behind me. For the man who wants to save his life will lose it, but the man who loses his life for my sake will save it. For what is the use of a man gaining the whole world if he loses or forfeits his own soul?” Luke 9:23-25
“I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.”
2 Timothy 4:1-5
“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.
Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise”. you. Titus 2:11-15
Communication is an action. Do you not realize that you giving a sermon is an action? Similarly, when you post a comment you are making an action.
Words in and of themselves are not action but as soon as a being uses words to communicate we have an action.
You need to reexamine your interpretation of 'the Word'. If you believe Trump and current gop positions are righteous, keep your faith away from the rest of us. It's an insult to anybody who does believe and follow the true meaning of the tenets. Your take on Trump's lies are just one of the problems.
The dictionary and linguists disagree with you. No amount of trying to redefine words changes their meaning
Nowhere did I say that. I stated that in reference to myself, not Trump or the GOP
Really? The dictionary states that communication is not an action?? Show me.
he defines what a definition should be refined into
The lowest form of equivocation.
You are attempting to mislead me and others into a misguided acceptance of President DJ© Trump's compulsive lies as mere words signifying nothing. I did mention, Trump is President, as such his words form the foundations of our national policies. Thus, his words can demand of and impact all our lives.
Your words have authority in the Christian community, Trump's words have authority over our nation. I do not know why a learned man such as you suggest you are, choose to take the words of a documented, repeat liar over a brother in the 'community' writing truthfully about Trump's statements!
You know I'm a nonbeliever. But if I were a believer, considering joining a church, and I saw a pastor defending lies obfuscating the way LFOD is, well, I'd have to consider my opinion of organized religion in general. For someone to go so blatantly against religious principles he claims to espouse and teach speaks extremely ill of either that person, or of his religion.
Sandy, (sigh) this whole 'situation' grieves my spirit. I love my brother in the faith. This is 'shocking my system' right now. I can find not one 'drop' of joy in publicly writing in this manner to 'Pastor.' I am a firm believer in giving honor to those to whom it is due. He calls me "comrade," nevertheless. I shall speak with him further, if he permits it. Better Angels!
&
Lfod, in writing your first quote can you prove any of that ? In your second quote note the emphasized area - are you being truthful when you imply President Trump does not lie to you, me, and the citizenry?
As you should be fully aware, when a man or woman is not telling the truth to the citizenry, technically using the same set of words he or she is not sharing the truth with you or me either.
Authority reflects standing not actions.
it is bizarre that leftists are obsessed with ignoring clear meaning of language
wors can precede actions but they are NEVER actions
Trumps words have NO force of action in our country. Only Executive Orders, Directives, and the signing of legislation have the force of action.
and at no time have I ever said I like or respect lies
leftists correctly and repeatedly state that we have a secular government. Yet they want to hold Trump to requirements of Christian behavior in order for him to remain in office
but we conservative Christians didn’t demand that Obama or Clinton’s be Christians in their lives and policy actions. We recognized that their lives and policies were polar opposite of The teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.
Obama from appearances seemed to have been a good family man but I considered his policies to be immoral and offensive to Christians. So I and many Conservative Christians were very vocal against his policies. But most didn’t engage in the extreme vitriol of the left.
The only time I’m aware of Obama speaking the truth were the following
1. His goal of fundamentally changing America. He was a determined Marxist Statist who sought to further his life long stated goal of a Marxist revolution against the United States
2 He repeatedly exposed his contempt for conservatives, especially conservative Christians, and His liberation theology opposition to historic Christianity
3 He was truthful about his desire to strip Americans of their natural right of self defense
4 He was truthful about his love of Islam
5 He was truthful about his desire to have the US surrender it’s sovereignty to the global order
I’m sure he had a few more over the last 20 years
I'm sure. Anybody sincere in his or her faith would hate to see it so badly represented.
Emphasis is mine.
Communication is an action. Hard to imagine that I had to make that statement, much less for the second time.
I don't appreciate conspiracy nonsense on my seeds "pastor'.
Interesting, your. . .words. . . sound like the words spoken _On-Air_ tonight on fearlessly Defending the Truth with Bob Dutko:
[Dutko] also talks to author S. Michael Craven about how to overcome cultural barriers that are standing in the way of our faith.
As to President Trump, it is a select group of conservative Christians who are likely 'shipwrecking' their faith and the Republican Party, because in Trump you collectively think God is bringing about a greater good. Time will tell if God approves of this select group forming your collective and Trump!
You know nothing of me or my trust in Jesus and God. Despite the fact that I have "breathed" much of it out on Newstalkers! Livefreeordie, my 'pastor' on the web is actually out of Texas, Basic Gospel. The message of Jesus Christ is simple-people make it complicated. All for now.
Livefreeordie wrote:
And, Livefreeordie wrote:
. .
Livefreeordie, which one of your statements is communicating a lie?
LFOD is attempting to deceive us. He wants us to agree with Trump's lying 'spirit' because he wants those other actions coming out of that administration. The statements before can be borne out by watching LFOD's example of maligning (speaking evil of) Obama when Trump is caught on the horns of a discussion dilemma. We are supposed to buy that twisted comparison and fall silent.
Another possibility is that he actually believes what he is writing. That is my hypothesis.
And from observation you can write until your fingers grow raw and nothing you say will even be acknowledged (much less considered) if it conflicts with preconceived notions.
Ergo, I would simply focus on exposing the many wrong positions that have been articulated. Very easy to do in most cases. Don't expect any form of direct debate, just deal with the false notions themselves. These notions are false regardless of who writes them down.
Commie Marxist Fascist Statist Leftist Socialist Sinner!
Are you 'listening' to yourself'?
LOFD can you hold to this moral imperative, while not speaking out against thousands of lies President DJ© Trump has delivered to date in office?
I’ve never heard of this person you mentioned
you claim to be against theocracy yet now you are demanding we govern as one. we cannot CONSTITUTIONALLY hold our leaders to Biblical requirements
we didn’t elect Trump to be a pastor or to be a Christian role model. Many of us want him to overturn the Marxist Statism of both parties over the past 85 years.
and someone to stand up to the immorality of the left on cultural issues
someone to stand up for Christian liberty for American believers which Trump has done more of than any modern president.
you on the left will simply never understand this
I mentioned several persons in that comment. Which one?
On a different note: What do you know about the Liberty Amendment?
Part of your 'problem' is you choice to psychoanalyze me online. Pastor, I have dimensions to my spirituality and depth in my citizenship. But only time and farther discussion will bear this out for you. Stop trying to 'own' me and simply relate to me as a fellow believer, a fellow traveler, in the game of life.
God can not be pleased when his children in the Earth do not look, will not allow themselves, beyond carnal labels and political postures and positions. First, we are love. . . people. . .humanity. . .if all our other social constructs are heaved away from us, our humanity would be all which is left to call us by!
LFOD, you wrote:
End quote.
So you admit the Christian-Right is using Trump. And surely you are aware Trump is using you—his base! We're see who has used whom more at the end of all this.
This is most definitely not a theocracy. But you operate as member of God's family, a 'godly' example in the Earth. This is what you do? Use people against people? Our constitution permits believers such as you and I something that they fled other countries to arrive here to develop: freedom from persecution. Nothing more expressive. However, you, "American believers" see god's favor, success, as a means to 'cast down' others unlike yourselves by demeaning other good men and women! The Constitution you lift up will not allow you to raise your fist over the fallen carcasses of secularists, other branches of a shared faith, or any other models of religion! This country's constitution promises all who dwell in it freedom, equality, and prosperity.
There is nothing wrong with that understanding of the Constitution.
Moreover, you can not ignore the significance of President Trump's lies simply by giving him a pass to, "stand up to the immorality of the left on cultural issues someone to stand up for Christian liberty for American believers" without exposing your wish to deny others their right to life, liberty, and equality simply to make you feel morally content.
The type of government you love stands in opposition to Christianity which is why we oppose it.
The principles of Liberty and Christianity and those of marxist collectivism through statist government are completely incompatible. Liberty is about the sovereignty of the individual whereas socialism or collectivism is about the "good" of the state. They cannot exist together.
Obama, Hillary, the Democratic Party, and the rest of the left including Bernie Sanders do not believe in the same America reflected in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Their America is not about the natural liberty, sovereignty, and natural rights of the individual. Instead this ideology is that of statism and collectivism, where your rights are determined by the state. Where the pursuit of happiness comes from the benevolence of the state, who takes from one class of citizens and redistributes to another class of citizens for the "collective good".
Collectivism through Statism is in opposition to Christianity. Jesus came to set the captives free from the oppression of both sin and anything including governments that put us in bondage. Either we are looking to God as the one who gives us our rights, liberty, and our needs, or we look to government. Either we are praising and glorifying God for these things, or you are doing so to the state.
John F Kennedy put it exactly right in his inaugural address
"And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue arounvd the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."
Between the destruction of our liberties by decades of collectivist Statism and the threat of Islam we who love this country must not only continuously speak up, but we must demand leaders who will restore liberty, the sovereignty of the individual, and an all out effort against Islamic jihad if we are to survive. But it's not just to survive, it's to restore the blessings of liberty and a national return to morality
Nothing in what I’m standing for opposes anyone’s right to life, liberty, and equality. Just the opposite. Nor do Trump’s policies.
you cannot have those qualities of life when you are enslaved to the state, to sin, or both.
leftist ideology is not just immoral, it comes from Satan which is why I’ve fought against it for nearly 60 years
You keep saying this: Now then, can you prove it. "Chapter and verse," please.
Satan is the origin of liberalism?
This argument hails back to a set of 'states' creating a constitution for the governance of a relatively small x million (say 5 - 12 million people) developing connective "tissue" to one another. There are 300+ million people in this country today. We are no longer a developing nation! At this point, to regress and pull up stakes in the world is to become a "stunned" nation. Moreover, there is no practical way to have 300M disassociated people all pushing and pulling the country in disparate directions and call the "condition" an advancement. Our founders knew this and made contingencies for new generations of citizens to advance their original constitution document accordingly.
You choose to drive a wedge between "parties" with talk of statism and collectivism. By now, even you should know Obama and Hillary were explicitly different and set apart from Bernie Sanders and his politics. It suits your narrative to lump them all in together, nevertheless. . . .Maybe you really do not know the differences between those folks—and, that is on you.
Our system of government is a hybrid system of capitalism and social programs, not because of some ideological "perfection," but as a matter of practical necessity. Pure capitalism can not satisfy people any more than utter and complete governmental control over the citizenry. Example:
1. The United States, under President George Washington, immediately realized that it needed a UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE to carry out enforcement of federal laws in 1789. Why is that?
Because the citizenry can in large numbers gravitate downward in public character when there is no opposing push-back force, in this case the federal marshals service to guide them back to a standard of "normalcy" in their manner of treatment of one another (all) and agreed upon directives of community/governance.
2. "Robber barons." In the era of industrial development in this country (and population growth), certainly men were extremely successful and lived "palatially." These men's personal wealth astronomically exceeding anything approachable by common men and women whom these so-called, "barons" (taking after their European counterparts) either ignored the squalor of their existences, or in concert acted to tamp down common men and women efforts to achieve, if only in appearance, parity.
Much more could be stated on this subject of how we come to be where we are as a nation today: The avoidance of monopolies, positive and negative externalities, racism, nepotism, public utilities, and the like.
Suffice it to say, this is not about supporting any "Divine right of the state." It is about doing what is right in every situation for the good of people, of whom we are many. We were a young nation once and maturity brings with it challenges to act in concert. We can not return this nation to its sucking on a teat stage. Best to grow up and fulfills our creeds to one another as a diverse people. Why? Because, after all, it is what we are.
A powerful expression of "speechifying," from JFK and yourself, no doubt. Your second paragraph above has numerous "issues" which on background need time to be properly developed. I will just mention one at this point: Morality.
Whose morality? When you write about objective morality-for the Christian community-morality is defined in the New Testament books and letters. When you write about morality rendered through the State - it is relative morality and it is societal determined.
Please, distinguish between these two states when you write.
You're mistaken. You can not insist the state formulate concepts and policies based on religion and spirituality as deliverables to its citizens who want no part in our chosen relationship with God. You and I, among a host of believers trust in God. And there are plenty others in this land who have no interest at all in God. Are we expected to live TOGETHER? Co-exist?
Co-exist in peace?!!
Diversity in this sense means living with our differences in unison. You can not stand atop and bear down on your fellow citizens-nor they you conversely-and expect all to experience life, liberty, and equality maximally.
So what am I saying? Yes! This nation in order to live up to its creeds and high-sounding statements written into its Constitution and other documents will need to allow true liberty emergence. We need to accept the partial 'blending' of varied multiculturalism, various world religions, and various political ideologies, again together to form into something new, post-modern, of which the world has never seen before.
A nation of citizens living together in harmony with their differences as one!*
* This is the meaning inherent in our Constitution. The meaning in our bibles can be wholly different and for God to decide at some future time.
I will continue the fight against the enslavement to Marxist Statism which you and others on the left embrace as long as I draw breath. It has always and will always be hostile to individualism and Christianity
You continue to lie about my position accusing me of wanting a theocratic government that only favors one group. I think that you have been so braised about Marxist Statism that you no longer understand what liberty actually means
That is both, a charge and an opinion. What I care about is diversity and people. Whichever system of governance that affords all citizens maximum life, liberty, and prosperity; whatever "hybrid" system which can efficiently lift all people up, bears proper consideration.
On another subject: The Liberty Amendment: What do you know about it?
Christianity has little to nothing to do with politics in this country. As believers we live by objective truth through a belief in God. There are millions of people (the pool we are drawn out of) who operate in relative truths. I see value in the views of the latter and hope they see value in us—you clearly do not see value in relative truths. Thus, you only operate in a limited mindset, which allows no other perspectives to hold anything you consider valuable. You do favor one group: Your own. Your political actions evidence your intentions to lock other perspectives out or, at the least, permanently disable them in our mutually shared society.
I could suggest you have been so braised about the founder's period that you no longer understand what 'hybrid' government structure and progress means to a multicultural society like ours.
I WON'T SUGGEST THIS. /s
The term 'Marxist Statism' is nonsensical. The word 'statism' connotes the idea of an encompassing State. If by 'Marxist' you are trying to (in an inappropriate and historically confused fashion) channel the former USSR then you can use the word 'authoritarian'. To express the economic aspects of the former USSR the term 'command economy' does nicely. And if by chance you wish to express the inhumane acts of Stalin add the adjective 'brutal'. The former USSR was a brutal, authoritarian State which implemented a command economy.
Seems to me your true enemy is statism. The USA is a market economy and there are no attempts to transform it into a command economy. We do not have authoritarian rule (as of now) but we do have plutocratic rule. There is no movement to turn away from capitalism so you can retire your 'Marxist' nonsense. So far the USA has not engaged in brutality against its citizenship either.
A good (well-known, defined) term to represent your boogie man is 'social democracy'. The USA is indeed a social democracy (since FDR) and is continuing to borrow from the revenues of citizens yet to be born to fund our irresponsible practices. So if you were to replace the nonsensical 'Marxist Statism' (which sounds like a mad conspiracy theorist sans clue one) with the term 'social democracy' you would not only find that people better understand what you are saying, but you might find some who agree with you.
So,' commie ' Cal, you are now a 'Marxist Statist' ?
Good practice for patience I suppose.
I am adamant against these-call “hybrid government” you suggest. It’s like saying I only have a little cancer.
socialism or forced collectivism is a cancer against the principles of liberty. You cannot say you are truly free under forced collectivism and no amount of twisting rationalizations can change that truth
We have had Marxism incrementally forced upon us since the 16th amendment. FDR expanded it, as did LBJ, Nixon , Carter, and Obama.
Marx agreed with using Statism to implement socialism as the transition from capitalism to communism
Marx on Socialism as the initial or first step to Communism (Critique of the Gotha Programme)
Marx continued:
"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
Marx not only most scrupulously takes account of the inevitable inequality of men, but he also takes into account the fact that the mere conversion of the means of production into the common property of the whole society (commonly called “socialism”) does not remove the defects of distribution and the inequality of "bourgeois laws" which continues to prevail so long as products are divided "according to the amount of labor performed". Continuing, Marx says:
"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."
And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent--and to that extent alone--"bourgeois law" disappears.
However, it persists as far as its other part is concerned; it persists in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) in the distribution of products and the allotment of labor among the members of society. The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois law", which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products.
This is a “defect”, says Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change.
Marxism is not the same as federal taxation. Good grief man, do you label everything you dislike as 'Marxism'?
The most basic notion of Marxism (just to get the point across to you) is anti-capitalism. Marxism is about workers retaining the value of their labor (at its technical core).
Do you understand the difference between a State and statism? The presence of a nation State does not mean statism is in place. Further the State that Marx refers to is the State that was in place with capitalism . He is noting that this would be a transition and that society is not going to simply jump to a new well-functioning socio-economic/political system. The change to communism would necessarily be evolutionary and would evolve per the wishes of the people.
Sorry to burst your bubble but although the USA has an ideal of individualism, in practice our nation has necessarily moved towards collectivism. The instant one has a society, individualism will be diluted. For example, upon our declaration of independence from England a great many of our fore-fathers made the decision to put their lives at risk in order for the new nation (and its freedom) to survive. When you consider the military you cannot avoid recognizing one of the more obvious manifestations of collectivism. The founders themselves forged our nation at great personal risk. They were clearly putting the needs of the many over their individual needs and wants. Reality imposes certain conditions that tend to force compromise.
I understand your confusion because the USA does indeed value individualism and (still) seeks to preserve individual freedoms. But, ultimately, if one is realistic one will realize that it is impossible for everyone to be free to do whatever they wish. It is impossible for -literally- the needs of the individual to always outweigh the needs of society and the nation. It would mean the end of our socio-economic/political system.
You can be against anything you wish, for we remain at this time a free-er country. That is, until some set of organizations messes it up for everyone, and people go back to living in rags, dying of curable and preventable diseases, living in blighted cities and towns, and poor ordinary people act out to catch and 'knock the . . .heaven' out of the wealthy.
I know what you want for this country. Ironically, you have what you have already - and apparently its okay for corporate "suits" to continue shipping 'tons' of money out of this nation into stealth overseas accounts (cue: Paul Manafort court days as a loose reference). After all and foremost in your philosophy the money is their earned profits to do with as they each see fit. Right? Right?
Listen, what you propose for this country was the order of the day when it began. It did not stay that way, because a mature and expansive set of states, has obligations to all its citizens and the governing rules it uses to mandate good regular order.
I get it something are not good for the country and yet they come to be anyway. However, what you are prescribing as a cure did not work in the past and it can not solve our present set of dilemmas.
Lastly, some of the situations our local, state, and federal governments find themselves messed up in are due to the fact that conservatives are "kicking against the girds," I am sure you understand that reference where some others may not. In all the world this nation is #1 and yet we bitch and moan about the good people who got us this way every day! Hint: It was all the diversity of this nation which caused it to be a world leader.
That in itself is a flat out lie. Obama lied around 26% of the time, trump is over 80% of the time. You can of course go look it up. I have point this out to you several times, I won't do it again, do it yourself.
As I've explained before, if you believe Barack Obama is an American citizen, that pretty much makes you a 'Marxist' right there!
When you make claims like that your comment comes across like the rantings of a conspiracy theorist. Terms like 'Marxist statist' are truly nonsensical and wildly inapplicable.
My advice is this. Claim that the USA is becoming more statist. Skip the Marxist crap because the USA has not and may never follow what Marx outlined / predicted. But we certainly have grown incrementally more statist and indeed a clear point of demarcation is with FDR.
So try this: "We have had statism incrementally forced upon us since the 16th amendment. FDR expanded it, as did LBJ, Nixon , Carter, and Obama."
Not only will this silence the laughter, but you probably will notice that some now agree with you.
Suffice it to say, that this country is not about supporting any "Divine right of the state," nevertheless. We wrestle with the state and it is good for us as "Americans." It is about doing what is right in every situation for the good of people, of whom we are many. We were a young nation once and maturity brings with it challenges to act in concert.
Disagree. Most of Marx’s steps to transition from capitalism to communism found in Section II, Proletarians and Communists of the Communist Manifesto
1. Heavy Estate Taxes
2. Heavy Progressive Income Tax
3. Promote Unionism to destroy capitalism
4. Redefine family and destroy the concept of the traditional family and it's influence.
5. Transfer as much power as possible to the Central State.
6. Free Public Education
and more, read here
Your link is broken, but I will assume it simply went to a copy of the Communist Manifesto.
First you still do not understand what Marx meant by State. He was talking about a proletariat State. What that means is that the State serves as an administrative mechanism for the people at large. He did not promote the creation of an all-powerful State - indeed quite the opposite. Marx' ideas were centered around putting the power in the hands of the workers (the proletariat) and out of the hands of the minority aristocracy (the bourgeoisie). He was, in simple terms, against minority control over the productive resources of society. Moving this power from aristocracy to officials empowered by a State is the opposite of what Marx sought - he sought moving the power to the workers - the people. He sought, in a phrase, economic democracy.
Second, this section of the Manifesto is Marx' predictions of what would likely take place if the people (worldwide by the way) revolted against the established power of the bourgeoisie. Basically the people taking control over the economy. This was a time where bloody revolution was not uncommon so this is how Marx saw the world. He is basically thinking through what would likely take place under such a revolution. He is not describing socialism (or communism) but rather the dismantling of capitalism under a worldwide proletariat revolution. (Quite the fantasy - never happened - never happened in the USSR either.)
Finally on the family and public education. Marx here is arguing against inherited wealth - basically he is arguing against the lifestyle of aristocracy. He is not calling for the destruction of the family as we perceive it - quite the opposite. The public education part makes sense - especially in Marx' times - because many were deprived of the opportunities of life by not having access to a decent education. Education was one of the key factors that perpetuated the social classes and the class disparity was key to Marx.
I addressed your comment, but your comment disregarded the point I made. My comment was that you run about crying 'Marxist Statist' at pretty much anything you dislike. You will be hard pressed to find people today channeling to the mid 19th century conditions of poverty and despair and calling for the people to engage in a bloody revolution to seize control over the State and dismantle the aristocracy. That alone makes your label laughable (first because it is hard to imagine how that could even take place nowadays). But your conception of State is entirely different from that of Marx so you are missing the point. 'Marxist Statist', if the phrase had meaning, would be a highly democratic society where the people participate substantially in determining how their national (and regional) resources are best used. The State would be the means of administration controlled by the people (not by a minority). Your concept of State is somewhat akin to the former USSR (a State that held the power over the people) which is basically the opposite of what Marx described.
So go with the label 'Statism'. Skip the Marxist nonsense since it does not apply to today's world. Marx was all about moving from capitalism (minority control over productive resources, class differences) into communism (the people control their productive resources) using socialism (people controlling an administrative State). Marxism = economic democracy = distributed control over the productive resources of society.
To wit:
In short, putting Marx out as some 'boogie man' makes your objections sound like silly conspiracy theories. Especially since you have nothing to fear from Marx. His predictions never came true and his outline for a better world (as he saw things) has no real chance of taking place without a substantial change in how people think. Maybe in the future, but I suspect nobody alive today will see it.
Why is it that people obsessed with bashing Marx almost never know what they're talking about?
Here's the actual text from the Manifesto:
Do you see anything in there about unions or redefining the family? Where do you people get this shit? You posted a crap link so I couldn't see it for myself. Talk about fake news.
By the way, that union thing is a laughable demonstration of how little you (or whoever wrote that crap) understands about what you're trying to attack, since the whole point of a labor union is to put workers on a more equal footing with capital, and the distinction between those two classes goes away in Marx's new society. No class divisions, class antagonisms or class exploitation means there's no reason for labor unions to exist at all. They'd be pointless.
And the only redefinition of the family in Marx (or Engels after Marx's death) has to do with their view of the structure of the modern family (back then) being essentially a reflection of the hierarchical, almost exclusively patriarchal structure of capitalist society, as well as little more than a business arrangement among the wealthy for the production of heirs to inherit and control their property. Engels points out that the proletariat gets to marry voluntarily for love, which is a good thing in his eyes. That's what he's saying would change in communism. That's the redefinition. Marriage would cease being a business deal and would become something based on genuine affection for everyone.
Also, note that 1) What Marx lists there were things he considered to be general suggestions for the most advanced and capable nations, with the highest industrialization and thus the highest productivity per man hour, not absolute requirements or edicts carved in stone. And, 2) He clearly defines the state in the revolutionary period as being the proletariat organized as the ruling class, not something external to them, lording over them, but literally a government of the working people themselves (which, in the new classless society would be pretty much everyone). It's what came to be called a workers' state, if you've ever heard that term before. It would probably be a technical nightmare in reality, with extremely large populations, but Marx certainly didn't mean it to be a tiny few with totalitarian control over everyone else.
No it hasn't. Totalitarianism isn't Marxist. Stalinism (what you're almost certainly talking about) isn't Marxist. Swapping out one set of masters for an even more powerful, more oppressive set of masters was NEVER Marx's suggestion. Jesus!
Don't worry, though. The global working class is very likely never going to rise up in unison and overthrow capitalism.
Marxism isn't even a system. It's a philosophy or worldview, the main point of which is to do away with the coerced exploitation of the working class in... wait for it... capitalism.
The USSR (in particular Lenin and Trotsky) took advantage of the provisional government in place after the Russian revolution (February revolution) to seize power under the banner of 'Communism' and the promises of good things for the proletariat. Lenin and Trotsky most definitely were students of Marx but they did not implement socialism (communism, by the way, cannot be 'implemented' per Marx - it is a steady state of an evolution). Lenin recognized that the proletariat (the workers) were not capable of transforming Russia (which at the time was pre-industrial and thus far too immature according to Marx' views to even consider a transition to socialism) so he implemented a strong pseudo-military state which quickly moved to single-party authoritarian rule and, upon his death and the ascension of Stalin (something Lenin fought to stop), to brutal, oppressive rule, command economy, single-party state and all the crap that pretty much everyone recognizes as the opposite of a desirable society.
Lenin was a Marxist but what he created -largely out of necessity since the nation was in a shambles- was the opposite of what Marx described. What Stalin created bears no resemblance to Marx' views.
I can definitely say that I really don't like Marx's ideas except for free public education
Few people (and I am including socialists) would find this particular list of predictions to be desirable goals. The key is to not interpret this list of post-revolutionary actions as a representation of Marx' goals. This is not a description of the end he envisioned but rather what he thought might be involved if the workers revolted against the conditions of the time. Marx' ideas were about democratic control over the productive resources of society. Basically the people being in control over their economic destiny rather than a minority.
I understand that, but the monopolization and state controlled media is a non-starter for me. Then we have the confiscation of property from dissatisfied citizens and the inability to pass on your estate to your children. I also don't care for a centralized banking system....I ain't crazy about the Federal Reserve System, either.
Yeah....Marxism is definitely not my cup of tea.
OMG!
does that make me a capitalist????
That is not what Marx proposed. The key is understanding what he meant by 'state'. To Marx the state was the administrative arm of the people. He is calling for freedom of communication. By the way, many of Marx' ideas seem naive to me (or at least inappropriate for modern times). His intentions, however, are very much focused on freedom and opportunity.
If anything like this were to ever occur it would be a result of evolution. The idea of literally confiscating property only comes into play when one takes about forcibly changing from capitalism. I do not see that as desirable or even possible. Centralized banking can be good or bad - like anything else - it depends on the details. The idea, per Marx, is to have a means to administer productive resources. There is nothing sinister about it nor does it seek a strong central state.
The entire planet is capitalism (as Marx defined the word - and he is the one who defined the word) in one form or another.
I guess I don't understand what Marx means by state. But I appreciate your patience in explaining it to me.
And the entire planet has to be capitalistic, otherwise people would starve
It is (for the most part) impossible to discuss this with most people because the words Marxism, communism, socialism are inextricably tied to the former USSR's system. Given the original meaning and the meaning that resulted from 70 years of the USSR (and then other nations adopting the terminology) these terms now pretty much have no meaning since the endpoints directly contradict each other.
In result I think these terms nowadays simply mean 'something about the government that I do not like'.
And it goes back to what we were taught in school. We touched on the basics of socialism, Marxism, and laissez-faire, but capitalism was emphasized
I suspect the major positive changes of the future will be towards a reformed capitalism. Something that encourages the individual, ambitious spirit but does not consolidate massive wealth into a tiny minority. It would be capitalism because the leaders and shakers would still be hiring people to work for them and determining the profits but it might be one where extreme wealth is not possible due to progressive taxation (hopefully well used). In result capitalism would involve a much larger group of 'capitalists'.
What most people think when they consider capitalism is market-based economy, entrepreneurial spirit, individual opportunity, etc. (This is also key in most contemporary theories of socialism.) They downplay or ignore the downside of having so much wealth (and thus power) in the hands of so few. Not sure why people do not recognize the problems with plutocracy. It is quite prevalent in the USA.
Unfortunately, the track record shows us the text book, put into practice turns out something like this:
Lenin's revolution was the November Revolution or Bolshevik Revolution which created the foundation of distaste.
That is correct - pretty much what I wrote. What Lenin started almost immediately turned into pseudo-military rule and strong central state. Then with Stalin the shit truly hit the fan. Calling this Marxism is the key mistake.
I thought the imagery would help a little.
I don't think Marxism, per any document can ever be put into practice.
Based on track record, the reality of history shows us how implementation of Marxism is manifested.
What Marx envisioned has never existed. Until there is a nation (although he figured it would be the entire planet) where productive resources are actually controlled by the people (not by a minority) there will be no example that could be accurately labeled 'Marxism'. A totalitarian nation is by definition not Marxism since in that case a minority of officials control the state which controls the people. It is the people who have to control the state.
Me too. Hopefully the super majority of all people would agree.
We have never seen a manifestation of Marxism. Unless something becomes Marxism if someone merely labels it as such (as in Lenin) regardless of what is actually done.
The USSR became Stalinism, The People's Republic of China became Maoism, The Republic of Vietnam became Ho Chi Mienism, and The People's Republic of North Korea became Jungism.
Ok...that's a loose interpretation but I think I get it now. Ironic that these totalitarian states call themselves "republics" when they are anything but.
Difference in semantics.
i agree, we have never seen a manifestation of Marxism, but we have repeatedly seen the results of how implementation of Marxism is manifested.. History has shown us very little variance.
The is no proof Marxism can be implemented as the text book describes.
There is plenty of proof of what really happens.
They use labels to garner support because it works. For example, people even suggest the Nazis were socialist because of their party name: National Socialist German Workers' Party aka the Nazis.
If one is not implementing economic control by the people rather than by a minority then one is simply using a label.
I think Lenin originally was going to try to achieve what could be considered socialism, but quickly turned to conventional authoritarian rule (in part based on the desperate conditions). Virtually all his actions had nothing to do with socialism (per Marx). Russia did not even have the criteria for socialism (per Marx) in that they were not even industrialized. I suspect Marx would have labeled Lenin’s good intentions (assuming he had this) as a fool’s errand.
But, alas, Russia was at least ripe for change and Lenin seized the opportunity.
Agree, Russia was ripe for change. He stepped in with his "army". Brutal murderers of civilians.
That was a springboard to a worse murderer and of the others around the world who followed.
I hope we can avoid such an experiment again.
I agree with your entire post.
If you mean that list, then it's worth noting that many of them (if not all) probably weren't his idea. He certainly didn't come up with the idea of public education or progressive taxation, for example. The rest of them were likely either inspired by the previous writings of others, or were notions being bandied about in the taverns and coffee houses of the time. The Manifesto was written in a pretty heady time, during the build up to the revolutions of 1848.
But if you mean his ideas about communism itself, then there aren't really all that many. The majority of his work was about existing society (capitalism). He never even tried to lay out a blueprint for how communism would actually work in any kind of detailed, technical sense. I don't think we can really blame him for that, though. His theory of history was about previous social relations always changing because of changes in the material forces of production, which makes it only natural for him to conclude that the big changes of his time (the industrial revolution) would eventually make society so productive that the stage would automatically set itself for another phase of history beyond capitalism (what he called communism) in which both want and greed would just naturally go the way of the dodo. Think of Star Trek, which is of course fictional, but in that same vein where extreme labor-saving technology like replicators have freed humanity from both scarcity and toil. But that idea in and of itself doesn't grant a person any explicit details about how that next phase would actually work. I do wish he'd put a bit of effort into making it clear what communism was NOT supposed to be, though. For example, that it was NOT supposed to be a regression to the kind of centralized authority and domination that would have made kings and emperors of old blush. He might have saved the world quite a bit of suffering and grief if he'd been clearer about that.
Capitalism has starved plenty of people in its time, and worse, especially back when it was more laissez-faire. There's a reason for all of those movements in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that were so critical of capitalism, leading to a lot of the government intervention we often take for granted today (minimum wage laws, 8 hour days, 40 hour work weeks, job safety regulations, unemployment benefits, public pensions, food stamps, etc.)
Capitalism is not free of coercion. The condition of private, individual property in socially-relevant means of production, and the never-ending competition to acquire it, turns the majority into a largely unpropertied class (in terms of productive wealth), forcing them into servitude to survive, into the employ of the propertied class, working to increase capital for someone else. Since we're on the topic of Marx, here's how he puts it in the Manifesto: "a class of laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital."
Do you not consider it coercive for a system to force people (a majority of people at that) into economic servility, living only if their work makes money for someone else? Does that really sound like something people naturally want to do?
Possibly, but based on what one can observe it really does not matter what Marx actually wrote. Most go on labels. Thus whatever Lenin (and ultimately Stalin, Mao, et. al.) did was socialism / communism. Which continues to be bizarre given we know that what they did is fundamentally at odds with what Marx professed.
I suppose it would help in that it would give quotes. But Marx would have had to be very careful with words. Just using the word 'state' is enough for people to claim 'ahah - see Marx is promoting an oppressive state'.
Am I sounding too cynical? 
About Marx and family
in the Communist Manifesto Marx called for the end of marriage and family
“Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.
Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.”
I’ve read everything published by Marx for nearly 60 years and as I noted elsewher, Section II Proletarians and Communists, Marx calls for the abolition of marriage and family
I was in both the Teamsters and UAW where I developed first hand my hatred of unions.
unions are nothing but tools of communism which is why communists usually lead them
they are anti liberty and anti freedom of association because you are forced to join to work for that employer.
they discourage personal achievement
i have spent the last 38 years since I left the Teamsters seeking the end of unionism in this country
No. You're apparently correct about what he says not actually mattering. See the 2 posts immediately following yours.
The primary concept is the bourgeoisie family. He is talking about aristocracy and inherited wealth. He is talking about the rich father providing wealth to his family. He is talking about dynasties. I would say read it again, but I doubt you can achieve an objective read of Marx at this stage. Marx views on the proletariat family are quite different. During these times the proletariat (working class) were all working - husband, wife and the children. Marx was railing against the exploitation of children, arguing that children need to be nurtured and educated - not working for peanuts to sustain life. This is not an argument to abolish the concept of the family but rather a cynical view on the state of affairs in proletariat households forced by their class conditions. I think Marx was too cynical but his cynicism was based on the economic conditions of the time (which were abysmal) - not on a philosophy of destroying the concept of a family.
And from what I have observed you have read it poorly. Confirmation bias seems to be the key problem.
60 years wasn't enough time for you to understand what you were reading?
He is not calling for the abolition of marriage and family. He was married and had a family himself at the time of that writing.
He's being intentionally facetious in the passage you posted, about the sham of 'Bourgeois marriage'. He was mocking it. You know, like for well-to-do society types claiming marriage is hallowed and righteous and then whoring around. Marx wrote facetiously about a lot of things. You should know that if you've been reading him for 60 years. It's his style.
Some people are less set in their ways than others.
Here is a quote from dig that you probably should read:
The lack of a bourgeoisie class, the presence of distributed control over the productive resources of society means there would be no entity to lobby. The people work, compete, achieve unequal results based on merit and share in the success (or failure) of their enterprises. Instead of a union, think of an entire company as the 'union' but there are no dues and no bargaining because the workers are the owners. (Just describing the concept of workplace democracy ... a bit more modern than the topic of Marxism.)
Add to the series: End of world slavery. (Smile.)
Just for the record. It was Mika's poor husband who was cuckolded. BTW, Joe Scarborough is an arch conservative...
Joe Scarborough is definitely not a conservative . He embraces far too much leftist government
Mika is a radical leftist like her father and indeed cuckolded Scarborough who is now just a wimpy leftist
That could only be said by someone who's on the extreme right fringe.
Project much?
Apparently you don't know what projection means. That comment makes zero sense.
Projecting again? Wow!
Atheist is right, your projection comment makes no sense. GOP has the projection down to a science, but trying to project the projection? Not so much.
Arch?? Not in a million years.
He's about as conservative as Bill Clinton, which is "sorta".
The left hasn't been operating in a Psychologically healthy place for a long, long time but that is especially true since November of 2016.
Since then, the cheese has slipped completely off the liberal cracker ....
There is no such thing...
There's NO White Liberals ?
You're getting colder.
Now, THAT's projection. You finally got it....and demonstrated it...... at the same time. Well done
Boom! Lol Knew it wouldn't be long!
Deleted
can I b exhibit A
ss to watt \your hearsay sayshere, B exhibit
A plus
mini mouse marketing reaping grim n mighty mouse rewards
known as musket tears, blowing Trumpps
Horatio felaitio horn, off despite faces that nose
Ah yes, took you awhile but you finally got to what appears to be the lefts favorite debate tactic these days ..... the old Pee Wee Herman "i know you are but what am i" gambit.
Congrat on fitting the mold like a glove. The hive is churning out almost exact copies these days ..... how nice for you
Lol if that help you feel better then by all means think that.
Deleted
Scarborough is a corporate thug Republican anyway. He spoke out against the blatantly racist birtherism, otherwise, he criticized Obama every step of the way. He's absolutely horrified by Donald Trump because he's sane, but that makes him a liberal squish to our right wing dingbat friends.
Of course it's BS, but they not only attack liberals with ridiculous lies, they even attack staunch conservatives, Republicans who are more conservative than Trump, if they don't join their crazy Trump cult.
“So many of his lies, so many of his claims, can be completely blown out of the water with 30 seconds."
But yet, crazy Joe and loony Mika have a 3 hour show every day to do just that, but didn't.
Kinda like some seeders on here who post hundreds of accusatory seeds of our President on here, but never show any proof of those accusations. When those seeders cannot show that proof, they always claim the CoC is protecting the other and cannot respond they way they like.
I sincerely believe no one WANTS to be a liberal.
Maybe Joe and Mika shouldn't have sucked up to Trump until 11:59 PM on November 7th
Good point. I'm still trying to figure out when Joe made that left turn
Sorry Joe, you're a day late and a dollar short.
Does the Trump lie? His whole life is a lie. He is a hollow man.
People don't care that Trump lies. It just doesn't matter.
They see the alternative as so horrific they're willing to tolerate almost anything else.
They recognize current liberalism for the extremist religious movement that it has become, and will tolerate anything or anyone who prevents that theocracy from taking hold.
Or at least Trump supporters don't care that he lies. Normal people do care a lot and think it's a very bad thing to have a sociopath as prez.
.
If you're worried about theocracy here's a good suggestion:
Not just his supporters. There were millions of people who simply voted against HRC and the militant left. They weren't happy about voting for Trump, and they certainly didn't "support" him. He was just the lesser of the evils at hand.
Normal people understand that every politician lies, and presidents are not immune. "If you like your insurance, you can keep it". "I didn't have sex with that woman". "Read my lips, no new taxes."
Trump just tells them more often.
Normal adults also realize that what people do is infinitely more important than what they say.
There are also millions who are delighted with what he has accomplished
Oh you mean all those who are thrilled they got a 2% raise but don't have the education to figure in that they actually lost money because everything they buy went up 20%......
While that's true for ordinary people it also shows what a complete disaster Trump is given that his actions rarely match his rhetoric. But more importantly the world needs an American prez whose word they can rely on but no one can rely on anything Trump says.
There are, but not enough to win him the office. Elections are always decided in the middle, and a huge number of those people who ended up voting for Trump were really voting against HRC and....more importantly....the militant left.
Did your taxes go up?
I highly doubt it.
I know you hate him, so I know this will be difficult for you to accept.
They. Don't. Care.
Remember how you didn't care that Bill Clinton sexually harassed one (or several) of his employees, then committed perjury? Remember how you just didn't give a sh*t about that? It's like that.
Does it? Every foreign country I've ever been to seemed full of people who were amazingly indifferent to America and our president. They go to work, they send their kids to school, they hang out with their friends, they watch football, they go shopping....all without paying any attention to the POTUS. Their primary thought about Americans seems to be an eyeroll followed by a comment about how fat we all are and how we think the universe revolves around us.
There is no metric by which Trump has majority popularity. It seems to be quite the contrary actually. Trumpsters have to stop saying that there is something happening that "the people" want. There is no evidence of that. Yeah he won the election, but did not even win a plurality of the votes. A plurality is a step below a majority and he couldn't even win that. His polling ever since has consistently hovered in the low 40's or lower. AT BEST, his support is a distinct minority.
Obviously. It speaks volumes about the character of Trump supporters that he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave and They. Wouldn't. Care.
.
I'm not sure how that compares exactly but I do expect most people to lie about their private sex lives....including an admitted pussy-grabber and golden shower fan like Trump. Also your statements about "sexually harassed one (or several) of his employees" and "then committed perjury" are both lies. You might want to investigate the difference between sexual harassment and a consensual affair, and learn what the legal definition of perjury is.
.
You might want to ask Iran's leadership why they're unwilling to take Trump up on his "offer to renegotiate" the nuclear deal given that he continues to issue threats against them, reneged on the US commitment to the JCPOA, and has reinstituted sanctions despite Iran's complete compliance with the JCPOA and the IAEA. Or you could just ask any of our allies whether they trust Trump further than they can throw that obese sociopath.
A rally in the city's Trafalgar Square attracted such a large crowd that organizers struggled to accommodate the sheer number of anti-Trump marchers.
First time for everything.
Yep. It basically reflects the percentage of Americans who have no problems with racism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, Islamophobia and xenophobia. Who else would vote for the racist King of the Birthers other than a racist?
That was back in the day, when America was respected by the rest of the world, you know, 2 years ago.
True. And they aren't about to go back to that
I found it to be true in April.
Conservatives said the same thing about Clinton defenders. I say the same thing about Bernie Bots. They forsake their values for the sake of opposing their enemy. It's the ugly new normal.
So lying about stuff your guy lied about is OK.... That's not a rationalization or anything.....
A Clinton appointed judge said outright he committed perjury. And if the Clinton situation wasn't harassment, let's give Matt Lauer his job back.
That statement is a lie too.
Sorry but contempt of court isn't the same as perjury and you erroneously and falsely claimed that Clinton committed perjury. Note that people lie in court or purposely mislead a court all the time but not all lies are perjury.
Funny how virtually no conservative seems to know what perjury actually is. The first required element is that the statement has to be relevant to the outcome of the case......and it's simply not possible to have a "lie" about unrelated events which occurred years after the events of the case to be perjury, as the court noted. Even more hobbling for a charge of perjury is that Clinton's statement was made in compliance with the definition of "sex" provided by the attorneys for Paula Jones, and he was under no obligation whatsoever to correct their errors.
She held him in contempt because he committed perjury.
No, she held him in contempt because he misled the court but it wasn't perjury, as judge Wright noted. If it were perjury he would have been charged with that.
As I said, conservatives don't even know what the word actually means. They just erroneously use it because they hate Clinton and they pretend to be informed.
Conservatives know that a Judge can't charge charge a witness with perjury in a civil trial. That's apparently more than you know. Seriously, are you familiar with how the American legal system works?
I didn't claim they could. But a judge normally would refer a perjury case if there were a case to be made, particularly when the judge was as offended by a party's behavior as judge Wright was.
As I said, conservatives don't even know what the word actually means. They just erroneously use it because they hate Clinton and they pretend to be informed.
Again, you don't understand what happened. The Judge noted that Clinton was already the subject on ongoing criminal investigation and a referral for possible criminal behavior was unnecessary.
Plus, on his last day in office, he agreed to pay a $25,000 fine to avoid prosecution for his lying once he was a private citizen.
Still there was no prosecution for perjury so why do conservatives always make that moronic claim? Do they truly not know the definition of the word or are they just dumb?
How do you not get this? he reached a plea agreement to avoid prosecution. By admitting guilt and paying a fine, he avoided being prosecuted. Are liberals really this ignorant about how the justice system works?
Please stop embarrassing yourself with this silliness. It's tiring correcting false statement after false statement.
Sure, but it's still not perjury. That was the erroneous claim Jack made but perjury has a very specific definition.
It's the best illustration I could possibly imagine.
She's desperate to defend the indefensible simply because the perpitrator is on her "team". She does the very thing she berates Trump supporters for doing.
By "people" you mean just Trumphumpers. Most people don't think lying doesn't matter. The rightwing has made it a core value, however. And you just admitted that. But there's still the hypocrisy of falsely attacking others for lying so it's an evil soup of hypocrisy and lying (about lying). We owe you thanks for exposing it all for us.
Most people don't think adultery doesn't matter. Yet they didn't care when Clinton did it, and they elected Trump knowing he'd had multiple affairs and wives.
The core value in question is "keeping the other bastards out of office", and it's not limited to the right wing.
That is really rich "whataboutism" coming from a trumpster who in the tank for a serial adulterer and sexual abuser. Don't you people ever review your "thinking," much less the words they produce before hitting the post button?
Nice try, but I didn't vote for Trump.
This is incoherent rambling.....which makes this....
all the more amusing.
There is a saying about glass houses.
His followers don't care that they follow his lies. Those lies are what they WANT to believe. If a liar is telling them what they want to hear, they have absolutely no motivation on earth to bother checking.