Kent beat the Republican incumbent in the primary but lost in the general election to a Democrat, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, who defeated him in a landslide that was one of the biggest upsets of 2021. Kent refused to concede until December, echoing what Trump did when he lost the 2020 presidential election, which Kent has steadfastly insisted Trump won. Kent went on to run against Perez again in 2023 and lose in another landslide, casting him into relative obscurity except in the white nationalist antisemitic tribe of the Republican Party which he called home.

Bobby Nelson:

You are one ARSE KICKING, SLAPPING DOWN MONSTER. Love your work! It's a KILLER!

but lost in the general election to a Democrat, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, who defeated him in a landslide that was one of the biggest upsets of 2021. Kent went on to run against Perez again in 2023 and lose in another landslide ,

Just curious about the term "landslide" since Trump also seems to misunderstand the meaning of the word.  According to the Washington State Standard :

Gluesenkamp Perez, who represents the 3rd Congressional District in southwest Washington,   had 51.9% of the vote ( to Kemps 48.8% ) as of Saturday afternoon and led Kent by 16,340 votes, the largest margin since Tuesday’s election.

In  a social media post on Saturday night , Kent said: “Approximately 30k ballots remain to be counted, so my race is not over, however things are not trending in my favor. I won’t concede until every ballot is counted .”

This was a rematch of the 2022 battle in which  Gluesenkamp Perez  won by a couple thousand votes in one of that year’s biggest ballot upsets. 

Calling either one of those elections a "landslide" is a lie or at the very least intellectually dishonest, just like it is when Trump does it.  Trump likes to misuse that term as well in describing his victories.  Just wondering why this writer, who clearly loathes Trump, would stoop to his tactics.  All it does is call in to question his honesty when it comes to the rest of the story.

These sorts of opinion pieces are interesting to me because the author's statements about the subject, Joe Kent, appear to be all over the map.  The guy who served 11 combat deployments in the Army Special Forces resigned due to disagreement with Trump over possibly sending troops to an unwise war in Iran, so his conviction isn't much different than most Trump hating Democrats, and a fair number of conservatives as well, in that regard.  He did not like what he saw as Israeli pressure when it came to Trump's decision to assist in the attack on Iran potentially putting American troops in harms way for little benefit to America.  How does that make him anti-Semitic or a neo-Nazi as the article suggests, especially since he wasn't chanting anti-Jewish slogans used by groups like Hamas as some other folks here in America were doing shortly after Hamas attacked Israel in October 2023?  Kent does exactly what most Americans would want a person to do in standing by his convictions and against the Trump administration when it is wrong (which sadly is much of the time), and now that administration is really coming after him with guns blazing.  And authors like this one are playing right along with it. Love Kent or hate him, doesn't matter, but at least acknowledge that he took action against Trump at great personal risk and for more consistent and less partisan or ideological reasons than most folks have.  

Trump has flooded the national consciousness with so many lies, so much nonsense, so much stupidity and so much vindictiveness that large swaths of our population are at a loss for what to do or say.  It is a bleak situation. 

Seems that everybody that Trump has hired is a criminal in their own right. Trump is insane and everybody who works for him has proven themselves to be an equally insane criminal. 

America has to take our country back from these fascist criminals. The Trump idiocrasy is not what America was meant to be.

We, as liberals, have to put more effort into our rhetoric. I will admit that recently when I listen to what is called congressional committee hearing what I come away with mostly, emphasis on mostly is questions that fall flat. It does not take too much intelligence to realize that the 5 minute system of committee questioning is being abused by interviewees. It leads to a question: Why even bother?  "Everybody" knows that little to nothing will be accomplished in these so-called "hearings" and in fact they are nothing more than an abuse of the citizen mind that sits through any of them. 

Anyway, liberals need to get off their butts and the sidelines and get more YOUNG people into Congress! I call for this action! It would seem that most of these members of congress love the game of complacency than accomplishment and advancement of truth over errors!.

We, as liberals, have to put more effort into our rhetoric.

I don't think that's the problem.

Well, read on: 

I will admit that recently when I listen to what is called congressional committee hearing what I come away with mostly, emphasis on mostly is questions that fall flat. It does not take too much intelligence to realize that the 5 minute system of committee questioning is being abused by interviewees. It leads to a question: Why even bother?  "Everybody" knows that little to nothing will be accomplished in these so-called "hearings" and in fact they are nothing more than an abuse of the citizen mind that sits through any of them.  Anyway, liberals need to get off their butts and the sidelines and get more YOUNG people into Congress! I call for this action! It would seem that most of these members of congress love the game of complacency than accomplishment and advancement of truth over errors!.

Furthermore, a good number of these rather old and stained looking congress=people appear to me to be fresh out of ideas. The panels look haggard. . .and with only five minute questioning periods some of them are 'idle' when they stutter to remember what they want to ask! (Time is squandered in the 'delivery' of questions.) A dog or a fool can run 'circles' around these people—and yet congress has been given powers that ordinary dogs and fools do not have over us!

Another thought: Cut the bullsh-t out! Change congressional hearings policy back to taking as long as it needs to be to get ANSWERS from whomsoever is sitting in front of the committees, plural! Make the interviewees (all of them): 

1. Answer questions.

2. Explain properly why they can not answer a question (classified, privileged, et ceteras.)

3. Plead the Fifth.

It does not take too much intelligence to realize that the 5 minute system of committee questioning is being abused by interviewees.

Where have people been?  It's been abused by politicians for decades.  It's nothing more than political grandstanding, trying to produce video clips for social media. 

 Anyway, liberals need to get off their butts and the sidelines and get more YOUNG people into Congress!

The hiccup in that strategy is that more and more young people are conservative.

Which brings us to the real problem..... Liberals do not need "more effort into the rhetoric".  They need ideas that aren't stupid.  More specifically, they need to stop taking their good ideas to such an extreme that they become stupid.

They need ideas that aren't stupid.  More specifically, they need to stop taking their good ideas to such an extreme that they become stupid.

This is mostly correct. It’s partly the ideas. In my mind, though, the ideas become stupid when they are prioritized by the party and the candidates. That is, it’s perfectly fine to have woke opinions about sex or immigration or whatever, but don’t make that the main thing you talk about all the time. Not because they shouldn’t ever be discussed, but because they don’t impact most people, most of the time.

Democrats should let Republicans spend all their time talking about these issues. They’re only too happy to talk about the “threat” of trans athletes, for example. But trans athletes aren’t impacting the lives of 99% of people on a daily basis.

Rent? Jobs? Income? Healthcare? Traffic? Crime? If you have a plan to improve these things, you can get elected, no matter what party you belong to.

This is mostly correct. It’s partly the ideas. In my mind, though, the ideas become stupid when they are prioritized by the party and the candidates. That is, it’s perfectly fine to have woke opinions about sex or immigration or whatever, but don’t make that the main thing you talk about all the time. Not because they shouldn’t ever be discussed, but because they don’t impact most people, most of the time.

Yeah, I agree.  Also, I think there is a lot of tolerance out there for "woke" ideas or whatever, but that goes away almost instantly when they demand everybody else change behavior to comply with their beliefs.    

Democrats should let Republicans spend all their time talking about these issues.

It's never really gone well for whichever party tries to morality police mainstream Americans.  That used to be Republicans, now it tends to be Democrats.  

They’re only too happy to talk about the “threat” of trans athletes, for example. But trans athletes aren’t impacting the lives of 99% of people on a daily basis.

Sort of, but it's not that simple. It violates the fundamental principles of fairness, and that generally upsets people from high-trust societies.  Nobody cares about Will Thomas being trans.  But people do care that he used it to his advantage unfairly, especially when he took advantage of women.

But that's the point.  Supporting him is one thing.  Demanding he be allowed to compete against women is overboard.  Claiming he has no unfair advantage is possibly the stupidest position possible, and yet we have a small subsection of liberals prepared to die on that hill.

They can't just say "leave the trans kid alone, he's going through some stuff and you don't need to be assholes about it".... which is perfectly reasonable. 

Instead, they have to say "he IS a woman, despite his genetics and genitalia, and if you don't think he should compete with the women you're a bigot".... which is both utterly ludicrous and fascist.  

Rent? Jobs? Income? Healthcare? Traffic? Crime? If you have a plan to improve these things, you can get elected, no matter what party you belong to.

Exactly. 

TBF, I haven't seen anybody with a decent plan on any of that in a very long time.  

Which brings us to the real problem..... Liberals do not need "more effort into the rhetoric".  They need ideas that aren't stupid.  More specifically, they need to stop taking their good ideas to such an extreme that they become stupid.

I know conservatives are not calling somebody else stupid simply because they hold to a different (diverse) worldview. Surely, an informed person would not do that seeing as how diverse and enveloping the world is surrounding us. So, . . . that must have been a 'hiccup' statement.

As for young people, of course, they are fluid in their opinions and worldview/s (yet forming, fashioning, and refining themselves).

As for what congress has become. . . it's rank. The parties are failing. They game is the thing-and its a worse game now than ever. That is on them (those causing the mess specifically and they should know who they are.) Anyway, in my opinion, it is time for the 'aged' members (I am getting up in age myself) to realize that younger brains, fresher energies, and more flexible and alert minds are the 'new order' being called for.

What do I give a about "grandstanding"? Nothing! Take that crap away from me. Congress is a house of folks making games. . . and that is no laughing matter. Time to act and ask members to go home for good! We The People have had enough of bullsh-it smoke and mirrors masquerading (in plain sight) as "service" to the people!

Also, I think there is a lot of tolerance out there for "woke" ideas or whatever, but that goes away almost instantly when they demand everybody else change behavior to comply with their beliefs.    

You are right to state "whatever. . . ." because being woke generally means being informed and denying ignorance to persist; allowing for human and civil rights. . . now what human or civilian in our society can not accept that as a positive?!!! We can debate the aforementioned profoundly and settle this! 

Are MAGA supporters 'bewitched'? What liberal thinks a trans-person is a literal cis-woman or cis-man?!  By definition, a trans individual is a classification of an individual trying to create a reality in which she or he can physically, mentally, and spiritually exist for the duration of a life(time)! 

The argument over sports and gender is unique and has its peculiar challenges, and yet no one worth their salt is fool enough to think that today a womb-less man or a sperm-less woman can even 'contain' a pregnancy or impregnate a woman—respectively.

It violates the fundamental principles of fairness

You can say that about a thousand things that impact more people, more frequently, and more intensely. You’re getting swept along by the erroneous narrative that this is an urgent issue demanding national attention. It’s just not.

Nobody cares about Will Thomas being trans.

That’s not true. You know that’s not true. You may not care, but plenty of conservative busybodies want to chime in on something that is not their business.

If someone could figure out a way to get all Americans free basic healthcare, or just double the width of about half of LA’s freeways, they’d get my vote. Those things impact everyone every day. Hell, I was psyched that Trump was gonna let me do my taxes on a postcard. But that fucker was lying.

Nobody cares about Will Thomas being trans.  But people do care that he used it to his advantage unfairly, especially when he took advantage of women.

Now, I can spin that around and ask you about transservice people whom only wish to serve their country and be accepted for doing so."Nobody" cares about them being in the military: Do tell (that to Hegseth!)

Hell, I was psyched that Trump was gonna let me do my taxes on a postcard. But that fucker was lying.

You can say that about a thousand things that impact more people, more frequently, and more intensely.

Sure.  But nobody defends stupidity on those and screams names at people who talk about them.

Nobody calls anyone a "taxphobe" if they want lower taxes or a "schoolphobe" over teacher pay or a "bigot" over healthcare reform.

You’re getting swept along by the erroneous narrative that this is an urgent issue demanding national attention. It’s just not.

You're projecting.  It's never been an urgent issue, it's an emblematic issue.  These people will rip your head off for speaking out in defense of the most obvious principles of the most basic forms of fairness.  They've completely lost their minds, so how could you possibly trust them with anything important?

It's exactly how you feel when you look at people who automatically support Trump no matter what.  If they can't see things that are this obvious to you, it's unreasonable to expect you to have any confidence in their judgement.

I know conservatives are not calling somebody else stupid simply because they hold to a different (diverse) worldview.

Nice try.  

Stupid ideas are stupid, regardless of the source .... like defunding the police so poor people lose the only protection they have against rampant crime.

They can try to hide stupidity behind the "diversity" tag, and for a short while that probably worked.  But America is healing.

As for young people, of course, they are fluid in their opinions 

Which statistics record.  It's about the numbers.

As for what congress has become. . . it's rank. The parties are failing. They game is the thing-and its a worse game now than ever. 

I wish you were wrong about that.  I wish there was more reason for optimism.  Unfortunately, I think you're spot on.

Time to act and ask members to go home for good!

Warren Buffet told us how to do that.

“I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.”

." because being woke generally means being informed and denying ignorance to persist; allowing for human and civil rights. . .

It doesn't. 

I know they like to say that, but they also like to set shit on fire and call it "peaceful protest", so you might want to reconsider how reliable their descriptions are.   

These are the same morons who go around chanting "from the river to the sea" and can't name either the river or the sea in question. 

The argument over sports and gender is unique and has its peculiar challenges,

It only becomes "challenging" when they twist themselves into such a lunatic state that they have to ignore why we started women's sports in the first place.  

Now, I can spin that around and ask you about transservice people whom only wish to serve their country and be accepted for doing so."Nobody" cares about them being in the military: Do tell (that to Hegseth!)

I'm going to let Tacos! answer that for you.....

a thousand things that impact more people, more frequently, and more intensely. You’re getting swept along by the erroneous narrative that this is an urgent issue demanding national attention. It’s just not.

These people will rip your head off for speaking out in defense of the most obvious principles of the most basic forms of fairness. 

And you turn around and rip their heads off because you MUST let it be known that their ideas are stupid and you have a much better way of looking at things. Don't deny it

The hiccup in that strategy is that more and more young people are conservative.

Among young males, the opposite is true among young females and the death of Charlie Kirk who in a religeous sense radicalized a generation will see even more Zoomers leave ... Ms Erika is not upto the task of keeping them there.

I'm not seeing young people turning to conservatism. Unless they grew up in the Bible Belt and then they don't give a crap about politics

Sure.  But nobody defends stupidity on those and screams names at people who talk about them. Nobody calls anyone a "taxphobe" if they want lower taxes or a "schoolphobe" over teacher pay or a "bigot" over healthcare reform.

Of course they do. Not necessarily those precise words, so let’s not get pedantic about it. There is nastiness and name calling in every issue. There always has been. 

Also, if you’re being called a name, maybe engage in some personal reflection and see if you can understand why someone would choose that name. Is there a possible connection to something you are saying or doing?

It's never been an urgent issue

It definitely is for conservatives. At the national level, conservative politicians spend a lot of time and energy on sexual issues that are really not their business. They use the issues to get their conservative constituencies worked into a lather because the world is allegedly going to Hell in a hand basket. This has been going on for forever.

It supports the point I made. There is conservative hysteria on sexual issues that are not their business and not a national problem.

Keep them focused on things that are petty and don't mean anything because that distracts them from the real issues. Like gas prices, jobs, the economy, infrastructure, etc

They need ideas that aren't stupid.  More specifically, they need to stop taking their good ideas to such an extreme that they become stupid.

This is a good conversation - you, CB, and Tacos!.

I agree with you here, and your (all of you) choice of trans issues as a vehicle for discussion is a good one, because it cuts both ways. You're right that the left has let itself get maneuvered into putting way too much emphasis and energy into fringe aspects of trans rights. While there is no excuse for infringing on trans people's human/civil rights, and the left is right to fight that fight... "boys competing in girls' sports" is way, way too far. The left, as usual, has let the right frame the debate, so human/civil rights have been lost in the fog of a tiny marginal topic.

And CB is spot on, too. The right has also gotten lost in the trans "debate". Hegseth, indeed!!

These people will rip your head off for speaking out in defense of the most obvious principles of the most basic forms of fairness.  They've completely lost their minds, so how could you possibly trust them with anything important?

Good summary. The argument is a strawman, of course - nobody, even way left, thinks "boys in girls' sports" is a hill to die on.  But everyone, including the left, has become accustomed to letting the right frame all political/social debate, so... "trans rights" has been reduced to "boys in girls' sports". The left has no argument, there... while the right busily uses the strawman to dismantle human/civil rights, as in Kansas's lifting trans drivers' licences as a first step to lifting their voting rights.

defunding the police so poor people lose the only protection they have against rampant crime.

No. Defunding the police is intended to allow fewer killings of Black people by the police. Yes, it might mean more Black-on-Black killings... but it would certainly mean fewer cops killing Blacks.

Strawman arguments are intellectual poverty.

You're projecting.  It's never been an urgent issue, it's an emblematic issue.  These people will rip your head off for speaking out in defense of the most obvious principles of the most basic forms of fairness.  They've completely lost their minds, so how could you possibly trust them with anything important?

That is excessive hyperbole, as I do not imagine it is possible for an entire class of people to "completely" lose its collective mind! I mean on one or several issues yes, but completely be 'gone' for all occasions not often!

And you turn around and rip their heads off because you MUST let it be known that their ideas are stupid and you have a much better way of looking at things. Don't deny it

Thank you for making the point.  Any criticism of any liberal idea is somehow deemed an attack on all liberals and all their ideas.   That's not crazy at all.  

Among young males, the opposite is true among young females

There is definitely a gender gap, but overall the group is more conservative than Millennials were at the same age.  

and the death of Charlie Kirk who in a religeous sense radicalized a generation

Strange how advocating for American values that have been the norm for most of our history is somehow to be written off as "radical".   It's a wonderful example of the larger issue.

will see even more Zoomers leave

I think that's impossible to predict without introducing the personal bias of the predictor.  Nobody really knows what other people will believe 10 years from now, in large part because nobody can predict what events will shape those beliefs.

Any criticism of any liberal idea is somehow deemed an attack on all liberals and all their ideas.

And you attack liberal ideas with impunity. Seems like you don't like liberals

[deleted][✘]

Of course they do. Not necessarily those precise words, so let’s not get pedantic about it. There is nastiness and name calling in every issue. There always has been. 

There hasn't always been.  And they weren't names like "nazi" or "whateverphobe" or "bigot" or other thoroughly nasty personal assaults. 

Also, if you’re being called a name, maybe engage in some personal reflection and see if you can understand why someone would choose that name. Is there a possible connection to something you are saying or doing?

Riiiight.   Do you actually hear yourself?   How does that work when someone calls you a name related to rainbows?  Do you "engage in personal reflection"?  Or do you realize that person is defective?  

At the national level, conservative politicians spend a lot of time and energy on sexual issues that are really not their business. They use the issues to get their conservative constituencies worked into a lather because the world is allegedly going to Hell in a hand basket. This has been going on for forever.

Conservative politicians spend a lot of time on those issues because the people who want their religious beliefs enforced as law will scuttle them in the primaries if they don't. 

It's exactly how liberal politicians spend a lot of time talking the beliefs liberal extremists have adopted as their religion so they don't get primaried by some lunatic even further left.

Yes, it's been going on forever.  Unfortunately, the sensible people are held hostage by the extremists.

Keep them focused on things that are petty and don't mean anything because that distracts them from the real issues. Like gas prices, jobs, the economy, infrastructure, etc

Yes.  Exactly.

You're right that the left has let itself get maneuvered into putting way too much emphasis and energy into fringe aspects of trans rights.

I think that's a really good way to put it.

The left, as usual, has let the right frame the debate, so human/civil rights have been lost in the fog of a tiny marginal topic.

It seems to me, and I would be interested to hear your view, that a major element of this for both sides is who garners the attention.  Common sense isn't particularly newsworthy or worth very many clicks, so those people tend to get ignored in favor of the people who are too stupid to know they should be embarrassed.

The argument is a strawman, of course - nobody, even way left, thinks "boys in girls' sports" is a hill to die on.

Then why are they still there and why were they threatening women with suspensions if they complained?  

But everyone, including the left, has become accustomed to letting the right frame all political/social debate, so... "trans rights" has been reduced to "boys in girls' sports".

It's more than that.  We had government employees getting fired for "misgendering".  We had political retribution for bathroom laws.  Just all sorts of overboard.

Kansas's lifting trans drivers' licences as a first step to lifting their voting rights.

C'mon now.  That's a stretch.    

No. Defunding the police is intended to allow fewer killings of Black people by the police.

Nobody cares what the intention is.  They care what the results are.   And they would  be catastrophic. 

Yes, it might mean more Black-on-Black killings... 

Might??  Stop it. 

It will definitely mean more black on black killings, more robberies, more rapes, more assaults, and more of any other crime you wouldn't want to be a victim of yourself.  

It's an outrageously ridiculous idea, and it's yet another example of people trying to force liberal ideology with complete disregard for the people who end up as collateral damage.  

Why does "black on black" matter, anyway?  Why would their deaths be any more or less important than Asians or Guatemalans or you or me?

but it would certainly mean fewer cops killing Blacks.

So would better training.   We have data.  We know that works. 

We know that officers with de-escalation training, control based training, and mental health crisis response training have significantly lower instances of violence.  We know that internal police policies make a significant difference.

Defunding the police is probably the best example of commitment to really stupid idea that will very obviously do far more harm than good.  It's exactly the type of thing that devastates liberal credibility.

And you attack liberal ideas with impunity.

Just the stupid ones.

Seems like you don't like liberals

Just the stupid ones.  But I don't like stupid conservatives, either.

There hasn't always been.

Yes there has always been.

9 Insults That Make the Presidential Campaign Seem Civilized

Think campaign rhetoric is getting nastier? Open a history book.

Adams had a special expression that he came up with for Hamilton: "bastard brat of a Scotch  pedler .”....“Grant is a  Drunkard ”; “Grant is a man of vile habits, and of no ideas”; “I am going to Europe to get out of advocating this bungler”; “Never ask me to support a twaddler and trimmer for office”; “The nation owes it to its self respect to tolerate imbecility in politics no longer”; “Grant is as brainless as his saddle.”....In a letter to Schuyler Colfax in 1848, he wrote of the candidate as “that pot-bellied, mutton-headed, cucumber-soled Cass.”......“The minions of power are watching you, to be turned out by the pimp of the White House if you refuse to sustain him.....“A late  Harper’s Weekly  we have received (May 26), gives us a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, the nominee, for President...; and a horrid-looking wretch he is!—sooty and scoundrelly in aspect; a cross between the nutmeg dealer, the horse-swapper, and the nightman.”.....a small compendium of some of the insults that had been lobbed Lincoln’s way: “Filthy story-teller, Ignoramus Abe,  Despot , Old scoundrel, big  secessionist ,  perjurer , liar, robber, thief, swindler, braggart, tyrant, buffoon, fiend,  usurper , butcher, monster, land-pirate, a long, lean, lank,  lantern-jawed , high-cheeked-boned,  spavined , rail-splitting stallion.”

And they weren't names like "nazi" or "whateverphobe" or "bigot" or other thoroughly nasty personal assaults. 

Do you "engage in personal reflection"?

Any criticism of any liberal idea is somehow deemed an attack on all liberals and all their ideas.

Hyperventilation? 

Sadly, much of the Right has turned into a legion of snowflakes

who seem to care more about being called a bigot than the possibility that they might be acting like one.

I suspect that much of this pearl-clutching is disingenuous and functions primarily as deflection from the core issue.

When you can't argue your point honestly, you can always resort to, "how DARE you talk to me that way."

The rest really are bigots who are either proud of it or don't want to face it.

Tacos! is right. If someone calls me a liberal or socialist or somesuch, I'm pleased - it's accurate. If someone says "libtard" or somesuch, that's their stupidity. I don't recall ever hearing much else. 

Often, insults demonstrate the ignorance of the speaker - "communist" comes to mind.

If ever I do hear an novel insult, I think about it. 

OTOH, I don't use insults sloppily. I'm prepared to justify them. "Fascist" is an example. I've given the definition of that word many times: authoritarian and xenophobe (racist). It's applicable to many Americans these days, including here on NT. 

This is another instance where bothsidesism is erroneous.

ght has turned into a legion of snowflakes

Is this satire? Because, after years of imposing speech codes, inventing the concept of microaggressions to have fainting spells over, inventing genders and trying to force people to humor their insanity, having meltdowns over Trump saying "offensives" things on a daily basis  etc,etc,, it is funny in a bizzarro world way to call right-wingers snowflakes.  A little over the top, but it works.  

care more about being called a bigot

Well, no. It's the fools screaming "bigot or Nazi" like monosyllabic idiots every time they hear something they don't like inciting their idiot comrades to murder followed by the "if they don't want to get shot in the throat don't say things I don't like" defense that we saw play out here  that normal people reject. Silly names are fine. Justifying murder over those labels progressives so wantonly misuse isn't.

.

who garners the attention.

Good topic. More assymetry. Gay pride is kinda the left equivalent of Nick Fuentes - noisy and pushing the limits.

It seems to me that the right embraces Fuentes with glee, while the left embraces Pride by obligation. 

We had government employees getting fired for "misgendering". We had political retribution for bathroom laws. Just all sorts of overboard.

I'm unaware of that. OTOH, the expulsion of trans people from the military and from government is all over the media. That is real retribution.

As for voting rights... do you not agree that MAGA is going after the human/civil rights of anyone "different".

Hyperventilation? 

Documented sociological phenomenon among an admittedly very tiny subset of liberals. 

It's not unique to them, BTW.   

If someone has made "being a (insert type of person here)" their entire identity, they struggle to separate themselves from criticism of any element associated with the tribe.

Find a guy who ties his entire existence to "being American" and try to tell him about a time when we screwed up as a country.  No matter how obvious the screw up, he'll get defensive about it because in his mind he's woven the two together.

Might?? Stop it.

Do you really believe the police spends much time investigating Black-on-Black crime? As you say, "Stop it." 

o you really believe the police spends much time investigating Black-on-Black crime

Most areas where are black on black crimes occur are controlled by Democrats. They often have black police chiefs. Why do racist Democrats ignore black on black crime, in your view? 

Defunding police is stupid-unless it is a sure-fire way to get POLICE attention! Nothing, but nothing impacts an organization more than its finances. . . not even the occasional death will have the same impact. And more to the point. . . yes, nobody should want to defund their safety apparatuses, plural. And at the same time nothing and nobody in society should be allowed to run amok, 'wild, and with complete abandon on the bodies of living citizens!  So, I suggest that MAGA refrain from the self-righteous telling of liberals as to what they should 'protest' over. If liberals go too far (completely defunding police would be too far. . .however, sequestering funding to provoke a positive result in law enforcement works. . . (it focuses the minds of the collective force and gets the proper attention placed on priorities - human life being number 1).

Let me be clear, I will NEVER, EVER, stand for blanket law enforcement running rampant on this citizenry for which I and other minorities belong . . and nor will MAGA supporters seeing as how you all protest ever effort of the courts to rein in some conservatives activities happening right now. We are entitled to our worldview same as you are entitled to yours. We have been attempting for years now to convey this to conservatives. . . it would seem that MAGA conservatives think 'everybody' should accept their role as subservient to conservative power. . . and forget their own hopes, dreams, and ways and means of achievement and living productive lives.

Finally, people who really mean to defund police completely need to quiet down. . . police perform a service to all of the Community, large "C," and the communities, small "c" - for good. I will NEVER EVER support no police presence in our Community or its communities.

Yes there has always been.

OK, that's fair.  It's always been wild.

Sadly, much of the Right has turned into a legion of snowflakes who seem to care more about being called a bigot than the possibility that they might be acting like one.

And much of the left can stop themselves developing outright hatred for people who challenge their ideas.   How far off the rails have they gone when they celebrate the assassination of a guy who said things they didn't like?   

I don't remember the last time AOC or MGT said something I agreed with, but I would never celebrate their untimely demise. I'm still unpleasantly surprised at how many people turned out to be complete pieces of shit about that. 

I suspect that much of this pearl-clutching is disingenuous and functions primarily as deflection from the core issue. When you can't argue your point honestly, you can always resort to, "how DARE you talk to me that way." The rest really are bigots who are either proud of it or don't want to face it.

I think if you're not the target of the abuse it's more difficult to realize how often it happens. 

I've been called racist for pointing out obvious flaws in the Affordable Care Act that President Obama himself later corrected through executive order.  I've been called misogynist for opposing the removal of a $10 copay on birth control, and then again for supporting the idea that it should be available OTC. 

I've been called racist by people on this very site for pointing out that our public school systems fail to educate minority kids to the same standards they do white kids.   

And of course I've been accused of trans"phobia" (the most moronic claims of all are the "phobias") for opposing trans people playing women's sports and people with male genitalia using women's locker rooms.

So no, I'm not doing "personal reflection" based on comments from people like that.  Their boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes them cheer.

If someone calls me a liberal or socialist or somesuch, I'm pleased - it's accurate.

I am 100% honest when I say I hope you never lose that.  

Often, insults demonstrate the ignorance of the speaker - "communist" comes to mind.

Fair.  It's usually a fool's accusation.

"Fascist" is an example. I've given the definition of that word many times: authoritarian and xenophobe (racist). It's applicable to many Americans these days, including here on NT. 

It's applicable to many Americans on both sides of the aisle.  

Do you really believe the police spends much time investigating Black-on-Black crime? As you say, "Stop it." 

This isn't about what you or I may "believe" or "feel".  This is about what actual empirical data has shown to work.

Absence of police = increase in crime. Increase of police = decrease in crime.

This is exceedingly well documented.

We know increased police presence is more effective against property crimes and violent crimes than it is against drug use or disorder offenses.

Directed patrols in high crime areas have been shown to reduce violent crime by up to 30%. 

They can try to hide stupidity behind the "diversity" tag, and for a short while that probably worked.  But America is healing.

This is a most shocking statement I have ever read on NT masquerading as intellect. If this country does not wish to have diversity of people-it should not have put out a 'red-carpet' for the world's people to come here. And, of course, in the case of blacks. . .historically, whites should have never 'shopped around for blacks they could bring here and convert into 'product.' Moreover, if diversity is such a bad thing, I would like to see how this country can succeed and compete in the world if all the minds here were conservative. . . I am pretty sure it is a wide-diversity of opinions and ideas by diverse stripes and people types here that has cause us to emerge as the world's preeminent nation. . . not the fact that suppressive tactics and strategies bound the nation at its colonial inception.

Y'all presume to get along without half the country. . . sure that will work for a 'minute'  - I recommend MAGA supporters not delude themselves into thinking this country can 'go along to get along' with half of its citizenry under excessive duress or sitting on its hands in complete protests of its treatment.

Whatever we need to do. . .we need each other to do it. . . and sitting around smoking violent and vicious rhetoric at each other won't fix any of our current problems at all. It will take ALL of us to fix this - all of us on something of 'one accord.' 

Defunding police is stupid-unless it is a sure-fire way to get POLICE attention! Nothing, but nothing impacts an organization more than its finances

At last!   A non-stupid defense of the idea. 

Not sure I agree that it will work, but at least it's not ridiculous.

Warren Buffet told us how to do that.

“I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.

Sounds intriguing. And yet it has not taken shape politically. So. . . . 

Okay. Give me MAGA supporter definition of "Woke" in the political sense. No more striving. . . no more what 'they' say. . . what do MAGA supporters OFFICIALLY mean when they think liberals are WOKE.  Please proceed. . . .

As for transwomen and ciswomen in sports. . . I defer to the professionals. . . as I barely care about sports in a general sense. And that has been my 'condition' for nearly all my life. That is, sports is low on the totem pole for me. Only recently have I had any real interest in sports overall and that waves and wanes. I say leave it to sports officials and aficionados as to how to manage this. . . they will come up with something and it most likely won't be culture 'war' fall-out. 

This is a most shocking statement I have ever read on NT masquerading as intellect.

I didn't think you were so easily shocked.

If this country does not which to have diversity

Oh FFS.

"Wanting diversity" does not mean accepting every idea without regard for its merit.  

Some ideas are stupid, and should be identified as such.  We've implemented far too many of those in recent years because the multitude of warnings were ignored.  

So no, I'm not doing "personal reflection" based on comments from people like that.  Their boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes them cheer.

If you're so certain that you're never wrong, there's not much anyone can say to you about anything, no matter how they phrase it.

You have your thoughts about why you were called names, but is there a chance you could be wrong about the reason? Some element of nuance that you are missing?

Trans servicepeople being de-enlisted  and de-commissioned and having their opportunity to prosper equally as every other American allowed to serve whom undergoes some sort of temporary or permanent medical procedure (for which we have proof of service and performance because well service record 'Evaluations') carries a lifelong impact.

Of course, those heterosexuals choosing to delude themselves into believing that all people are 'better' off as 'straight' miss the point: We are compelled to be a diverse nation and world. . . just look around at evolution or simply look at the trees. . . trees are not all the same. Real trees are made of wood, but not all trees are green.

Give me MAGA supporter definition of "Woke" in the political sense. No more striving. . . no more what 'they' say. . . what do MAGA supporters OFFICIALLY mean when they think liberals are WOKE.

I would not endeavor to speak for them, certainly not in any "official" capacity.  I'm sure one will be along shortly.

From the general outsider experience, "wokeness" is like any other religious crusade.

People who describe themselves as "woke" are generally on a self righteous mission where they display contempt for anyone outside their own tribe while enthusiastically attempting to coerce or bully everyone to conversion.  They frequently hold an awkwardly misguided confidence in both the accuracy and righteousness of their beliefs that no amount of contrary empirical evidence seems to temper.  It's religious fanatacism.

Their claims about "being informed" or "being aware" are nearly identical to conservative Christians proclaiming their own righteousness.  They believe it utterly, they believe they alone are righteous, they believe it is their mission to inflict that righteousness on to everybody else whether they want it or not, and they don't care about the cost.

Sounds intriguing. And yet it has not taken shape politically. So. . . . 

Well... who would have to pass that law?

If you're so certain that you're never wrong, there's not much anyone can say to you about anything, no matter how they phrase it.

There is a great, vast difference between "certain you are never wrong" and "easily able to recognize that 3 x 3 = 9".  

Some ideas are worthy of consideration, even if they come from seemingly unlikely sources.  Some ideas are very obviously not, regardless of their origin.

If someone is casting slurs at you, I hope you recognize immediately that neither the slur or the person is worthy of your time or effort.

Trans servicepeople being de-enlisted  and de-commissioned and having their opportunity to prosper equally as every other American allowed to serve whom undergoes some sort of temporary or permanent medical procedure (for which we have proof of service and performance because well service record 'Evaluations') carries a lifelong impact.

Another fine example of "overboard".  Why would we equate a military discharge with a denial of the "opportunity to prosper"?

Why is this so debilitating for a trans person but not for a diabetic...who also can't serve for the same reasons?  What about the diabetic's "opportunity to prosper"?  What about the "lifelong impact" on people deemed too short for service?

So rather than have a normal, grounded discussion along the lines of "hey, are we sure this is a good idea?".... we're going to jump into a mini sermon about "opportunity and prosperity".

The issue here is that subtlety, nuance, and details matter. It is the reason we have congress (weak as it is) making laws that respect one idea over and against another because of application and effectiveness. 

It is similar to why we have three concepts of water: 1. Hot. 2. Lukewarm. 3. Cold.  All of which are wet. To pretend that water is 'only' wet and nothing more can happen to it is ignoring its reactions to applied heat.

As a nation, we really need to stop this internal striving against one type and classifications, I know how it has happened to us. One political side or the other decided to move to 'conclusion' and "X" out what it considers it competition with FINALITY. And so, extremists on opposite sides are having their 'day' politically and we are all the worse off for it.

It is rumored that many YOUTHS/MALES are without proper 'guides' in this world right and are 'seekers' of something to believe in. I hear it on Trinity Broadcast Network all the time now (as I listen in over a relative's shoulder). 

Apparently, young white males especially are feeling alienated by girls and women who consider them 'toxic' personalities. . .so much so that are becoming Incel (sexless male youths and adults). . . and somehow that is the fault of girls and women whom simply want to be in control of their own lives - physically, sexually, spiritually, and financially. 

The thinking goes: Males have a need to feel they are In-charge or else they will feel neutered (weakened). 

Of course, the conservative church has been in the past and is actively telling these guys that within the church patriarchy 'rules': God, Jesus, Man, Woman, and Child/ren - respectively. Naturally, Incel males see DIRECTION AND AFFIRMATION in church culture which tells them they are the next best thing under GOD/Jesus.

So these directionless males - join a 'flock' of Christians!

It's applicable to many Americans on both sides of the aisle.  

"Many" can be 100 million or 50. The way you use it implies a symmetry that isn't there. There may be some authoritarians on the left, but they are not the rule. On the right, authoritarianism is almost universal: state legislatures, governors, House of Representatives, Senate, Supreme Court, ...

Fascism is on the right.

If you have data, it would be appreciated. What I found is inconclusive. I found your reduction in violent crime, but also a poor clearance rate.

drug use or disorder offenses

Many people think these are medical problems, more than criminal ones. Drug crime looks a lot like prohibition crime. 

Why is this so debilitating for a trans person but not for a diabetic...who also can't serve for the same reasons?

Please clarify. This sounds like you think transgender is a disease.

There may be some authoritarians on the left, 

Conservative Americans who scored high on the authoritarianism questionnaire had no problem saying “Yes, I am authoritarian.” But liberals were a different thing entirely. Not only were liberal authoritarians less likely than conservatives to accurately identify themselves as authoritarians (when they were, in fact, authoritarian), but there was actually a negative correlation between left-wing authoritarianism (the reality) and liberals’ willingness to identify as authoritarian (their own perception). That means that the more authoritarian liberals are, the less they believe they are authoritarian!

pressermag

Proof of this phenomena is impossible to miss. 

Emphatically.

The left has no argument, there... while the right busily uses the strawman to dismantle human/civil rights, as in Kansas's lifting trans drivers' licences as a first step to lifting their voting rights.

You're right. This trans-athletic sports activities and women's sports is a real conundrum because real athletes are involved and the investment of time, talent, and energy is REAL. And yet, as sporting officials and associations have indicated they want all athletes to find a place within the sporting sphere. 

Oh and by the way the issue for transsexuals is the 'outing.' That is, these athletes want to be associated with their PREFERRED sex and have a career in that category-if only to continue the outside show of woman sexuality. . . and 'fully' release their past life as boys. 

Now politically, this looms large because of political ramifications of outrage—real and imagined. That is, even where girls and women are not outraged or protesting, there is a political sphere that is willing to use OUTRAGE on their behalf!

It is a real problem for these trans-athletic youths. And, the industry experts have their work cut out for them. It is an industry decision-politicians should stay away from this, and I am sure they will not!

Jack: It's exactly how you feel when you look at people who automatically support Trump no matter what. 

"Support Trump no matter what." - Uh Jack, why in the world would anybody support anybody no matter what? It has been concluded that we are all imperfect creatures/beings. . . so understanding and accepting that. . . we should all be careful of giving and lending blind support for no matter what types!

The way you use it implies a symmetry that isn't there.

Or just a symmetry you don't see.

Please clarify. This sounds like you think transgender is a disease.

The rationale given for not allowing trans people to serve is that they require an overly heavy medication regimen to function.... which is the same reason they don't allow diabetics to serve.

But the US  military disqualifies people for things as simple as height.  It's not like trans people are being singled out, despite what CB likes to pretend.

My problem here is that the population of trans athletes is vanishingly small... but it sucks up s-o-o-o much energy on the left. Energy that could be so much better spent on topics that concern vastly larger populations. 

"Support Trump no matter what." - Uh Jack, why in the world would anybody support anybody no matter what?

The same reason they oppose someone no matter what.  Brainless partisanship.

One version is not better than another.

Trouble is there is ample cause to oppose Trump.   So you casting opposition as 'opposing no matter what' downplays this fact.

Of all that Trump has said and done as PotUS in his second term, there is precious little to praise him on and mountains on which to criticize him.

Frequent criticism is a function of frequent causes for legitimate criticism.

Conservative politicians spend a lot of time on those issues because the people who want their religious beliefs enforced as law will scuttle them in the primaries if they don't. 

So are the politicians 'leaders' or 'followers' or just mere 'drum majors'?  (Maybe we should call politicians "drum majors" - while the band plays! Cause leadership is something more efficient.

It's an outrageously ridiculous idea, and it's yet another example of people trying to force liberal ideology with complete disregard for the people who end up as collateral damage. 

Point of clarification: When did the MAGA collective begin caring about "collateral damage"? Please explain this!

I would love to know what your ("we")_ view of officer escalation during a citizen action causes individuals and the public-at-large. 

Because, after years of imposing speech codes, inventing the concept of microaggressions to have fainting spells over, inventing genders and trying to force people to humor their insanity, having meltdowns over Trump saying "offensives" things on a daily basis  etc,etc,, it is funny in a bizzarro world way to call right-wingers snowflakes.  A little over the top, but it works.  

Question: Why have you put the word "offensive" above in quotes? 

Trump would not have used those quote markings ("scare quotes") - there is no need to protect or defend Trump from Trump. After all, your comment rebukes the notion conservatives are snowflakes! Moreover, if "idiots" and "fools" can be justified as "moronic," then it should not cause MAGA conservatives discontentment when it flung back back home to 'roost.'

I've been called racist by people on this very site for pointing out that our public school systems fail to educate minority kids to the same standards they do white kids.   

I see you are still running alongside the discussion with a notion (narrative) that "defund the police" is liberals' interpretation of "no policing of any kind" What will it take to update your perspective to something less extreme like police correction action-taking or police being 'encouraged' by loss of specific and sufficient funding to facilitate changes in law enforcement institutionally? After all, the police work is done on all citizens and not just for purposes of "one size fits all"!

I am not sure why you think it won't work - defunding bad behavior is equivalent to spurning it. . . not continuing its promotion. Even a fool can figure out that if it is a matter of their general welfare or survival at large. . . it is better to listen to those that 'cut' the checks!

"Wanting diversity" does not mean accepting every idea without regard for its merit.  

". . .every idea" is to broad a statement, Jack_Tx! 

Okay, let's test that theory. What type/s of diversity would you state qualifies as unwelcomed diversity? And, do give us a couple (several) of relevant discussion-wise types and let us make an assessment.

There is a bone of contention on the religious Right that: 1. Liberals as a lot are godless. So asserting that they are "religious fanatics" is inconsistent!

And since liberals can be god-fearing people, then one would have to invoke God and the Bible in some constructive form or set of statements to argue where the religion in their so-called, "fanaticism" derives. Please proceed - if that is possible!

As to being informed and inflicting one thing or the other on others. . . liberals want to be free to enjoy the country of their birth and if that means standing up for knowledge, science, and a proper understanding of religion that allows people to find God in a free and loving way suitable to the individual then there is nothing wrong with that as in causes no harm to conservatives.  

Guess. Maybe. . . lawmakers?

Are you serious? Diabetics is a chronic condition and comes with a host of mitigating and compromising circumstances (loss of energy being a major concern for people required to work under strenuous tasks and commands.

And I will point out to you transsexual servicemembers were positively serving until that "Yahoo Zealot" Hegseth and the "Department of War" decided that their good and honorable service was not going to be sufficient to overcome his personal biases. 

Also, the army's  policy is presently changing on diabetics - due to medical science advancements with the disease:

Type 2 diabetics have a greater likelihood of gaining acceptance, especially with the right waiver.

Why? The military states that a medical board evaluation is not required if the person maintains a hemoglobin A1C of less than 7%.

Furthermore, the individual must not need medication and only lifestyle modifications (exercise, diet, etc) to remain fit for service.

It gets a little more complicated if the servicemember with diabetes requires a significant amount of medication, such as insulin for type 1 diabetes.

If that is the case, it could deem the individual “medically non-deployable” and require a medical board evaluation.

The military member of the military may be removed from service or remain on active duty. The results are quite variable.

It is worth noting that medical boards vary by service (Army, Navy, Air Force, etc).

There have been inconsistent rulings over the years regarding various conditions depending on the board that handled the evaluation

operationmilitarykids

There are waivers being given . . . medical waivers given. . . . waivers given to a number of diabetics .

Would you oppose transsexual medical waivers as a means to let transsexuals be and continue to be a 'plus' to their country (and what they can do for their country)?

See 3.1.85.

Agreed. I will make this point: Transsexual athletes are not "sporting authority/ities" - it is the officials that set the rules of play, grounds behavior, and 'starting line-ups.' With that understanding as a foundation. . . a transsexual female would be a fool or remiss to not accept the rules as she reads them AFFIRMING her placement and status on a team or in a sporting field of endeavor. 

That is, transsexual females have not arbitrarily entitled themselves to female sports. They did not 'hi-jack' female sports. . . sporting authorities and boards signed off on their participation in female sporting events and other related female 'platforms.' 

Of course, the "culture warriors" on the Right whom take it to heart when a suppressed group comes out of suppression feel IMPACTED personally when they by definition of being conservative can not rise to the occasion on change. Change is 99.99 percent impossible for them, in my lived experience. 

Such people hark on the 'old ways' as being perfect; odd in itself, seeing that each day on this planet is a story unto itself. . . in an evolving sense. Old fashioned means outdated. Outmoded. Passing away. 

People should not be "old-fashioned" in an increasingly advancing world.

 That is an unacceptable dodge. Try again.

"Support Trump no matter what." - Uh Jack, why in the world would anybody support anybody no matter what?

Trouble is there is ample cause to oppose Trump.   So you casting opposition as 'opposing no matter what' downplays this fact.

Only to people who oppose him no matter what.

The key then is to distinguish between opposition for cause (evidenced by a sound argument) and opposition for the sake of opposition (lacking an argument or unable to deliver a sound argument when asked).

These people can be reached, albeit it long and hard. . . . 

Lord, give me the strength to not give up and throw up my hands and walk away from the 'fierceness' of attack that is besetting our nation. Heck, let me, us, even find JOY in slowly lifting this heavy veil that has fallen and encased in delusion those among us who self-righteously think they 'own' other free people in our country. Lord, open the eyes of whomsoever 'eyes' are closed to the truth-no matter whom it may be!

The key then is to distinguish

Absolutely.  That's exactly the point.

There is indeed ample cause to oppose Trump.  But nobody is always wrong.

But nobody is always wrong.

I doubt anyone on this site would claim that Trump is always wrong.

Critics of Trump-critics need to consider that Trump is predominantly wrong.   So it follows that there will be mountains of criticism.   The criticism is more a function of Trump's words and deeds than partisan bias.   (And that is not saying there is NO partisan bias in some of the criticism ... mitigating exaggeration of my comment.)

There is indeed ample cause to oppose Trump. But nobody is always wrong.

Why do you insist on bothsidesism? If something is wrong 99.9% of the time, it isn't "false" ro say it's sometimes true... but very, very misleading.

Trump is wrong almost all the time. Sometimes just intellectually (ignorance and lies), but often ethically and morally (evil deeds and policies). 

Why do you gve him equal time?

I doubt anyone on this site would claim that Trump is always wrong.

Hmmmm... not so sure about that. 

In the odd instance where I have agreed with Trump on a particular subject (even a subject that raised the eyebrows of his MAGA followers),  I've seen plenty of screeds on how he is always wrong, or accusations that I am somehow claiming that he is always right, or that I'm engaging in "mindless dumb-fuck hero worship".  Such exchanges typically end with me being accused of "sucking MAGA dicks" or something equally insulting.

A minor example of that on an article about the H1B Visa Program a few months back started HERE and ends at the conclusion of that comment string HERE , where I pointed out that:

How this got twisted into me "deflecting and defending" Trump or "cheering him on" for his "flip-flop" is beyond comprehension.    When the discussion about important matters like this gets boiled down to a partisan screed about who loves or hates Trump more, nobody wins and no progress is made.

I am certainly not a Trump fan, and I disagree with the MAGA extreme on many matters (including that H1B Visa matter where many on the far right tend to conflate it with illegal immigration or stealing American jobs).  And I agree that Trump is predominantly wrong about many things and on many subjects. When he is on the rare occasion right about something, I find that to be just as newsworthy as all the other crap. 

I'm rarely a "critic of Trump-critics" until I find there to be more emphasis on the hatred of Trump and all his followers than on the actual facts of the important matters we are discussing.  To such folks not being in complete lockstep with their hatred and thoughts on Trump means that I am not "one of them" and any facts, logic, or reason I might present on any particular subject becomes null and void and unworthy of discussion, but rather only worthy of derision.  Just wanted to point out what I have seen from time to time. 

I do not think Trump is always wrong. . . .  And, NOR do I think CONSERVATIVES ARE ALWAYS WRONG. 

What I do think is this, conservatives continue to be strident to the point of irreconcilability. Moreover, their irreconcilability hinders others in a shared country ability to figuratively, "breathe."  Trump wants to be this nation's best and most 'prolific' (production) president  and so he tries to fix all this countries 'blemishes' and problems with a figurative "jack-hammer" which does not take account of the world's snail pace of change. And that is the problem. Trump seems to think he can MAKE people do what he wants. . . when history assures us that when too much change is forced upon the world. . . the world will balk. That is, the world is not INTERESTED in Trump's personal/private goals for it - not really. Certainly not 'everywhere and everything' at ONCE!

I've seen plenty of screeds on how he is always wrong, or accusations that I am somehow claiming that he is always right, or that I'm engaging in "mindless dumb-fuck hero worship". 

If someone wrote he is 'always' wrong I bet if you asked a qualifying question they would acknowledge that nobody is wrong on everything.   Emotional phrasing does not always accurately represent what someone believes.

But in general, here is my position.   I am convinced that Trump is, by far, the worst PotUS in most every dimension, in our lifetimes and very likely in our history.   I am convinced that he is unfit for the office due to his abysmal character, incompetence, vindictiveness, and what seems to me to be a clear psychopathy.   Because he is so bad and so damaging to our nation, my position is that he is well past the point of giving him the benefit of the doubt.   Every attempt to defend Trump contributes to the facade that keeps him empowered.   With someone this bad, we (the people) should be criticizing the hell out of him and not cut him any slack.

You can see even here how people will try to drive a train through a needlehole crack.   When Trump does or says something that correlates with what a responsible, rational PotUS might do, his supporters exaggerate and try to recast his entire presidency in terms of these far and far-between good cracks.   So ... no ... this guy is so bad that critics should not give any airtime to these dishonest attempts to hide all the bad behind scraps of good.

To wit, if someone objects to someone saying something positive about Trump, consider the defense / excuse-making / recasting dynamic I just described and you might better understand the objection they are raising.

When he is on the rare occasion right about something, I find that to be just as newsworthy as all the other crap. 

Understood.   For me, since his supporters will take 100 km if given a millimeter, and since the super majority of what Trump does is bad, acknowledging his rare good only to see blatant exaggerated dishonesty in response is a non-starter.   And also, acknowledging good along with bad makes sense with a human being who is actually trying to do right but screws up.   Acknowledging a rare good from a pathological-liar, vindictive psychopath makes no sense to me.

 Acknowledging a rare good from a pathological-liar, vindictive psychopath makes no sense to me.

Fair enough, but consider for a moment whether the acknowledgement of the “good” itself is more important than whether a pathological liar or vindictive psychopath happens to agree with it.  Trump is who he is and there isn’t much we can do about that at this point other than try to make the best we can out of the quagmire he represents.  What we can do is support the ideas/policies we feel are best for the country and not worry so much about whether someone we dislike immensely happens to agree.  That is what makes sense to me.

Understood.   

To be effective, a PotUS needs traits like honesty, emotional stability, and sound judgment.   Rational objectivity.  When a PotUS consistently demonstrates behavior that undermines trust or prioritizes personal grievances over the responsible execution of a sacred oath, it raises serious concerns about their ability to govern effectively

Candidly, it is very difficult for a vindictive, pathological liar, psychopath to do good for the nation as PotUS.   Those characteristics are antithetical to doing good in that role.

Given he does so much bad and so little good, and given any tiny good is exaggerated to ridiculous proportions by his supporters and every bad is deflected, gaslighted, and denied, I see no value in giving Trump credit.   These are not normal times, and the person occupying the most powerful office on the planet is a loose-cannon buffoon.

If Trump had ended the war in Ukraine sensibly, I would have given him credit.   If we had major, verified, durable accomplishments like that, where Trump is clearly involved positively, I will acknowledge.   But this guy is just bad news for our nation.   The amount of damage he is doing does not open up logical avenues for praise.   He is like an employee who consistently fucks everything up due to incompetence, carelessness, etc., but occasionally seems involved in something good.   In such a case, recognizing good is pointless since this employee is incorrigible; the employee needs to be fired.

For me, since his supporters will take 100 km if given a millimeter, and since the super majority of what Trump does is bad, acknowledging his rare good only to see blatant exaggerated dishonesty in response is a non-starter.

If Trump had ended the war in Ukraine sensibly, I would have given him credit.   If we had major, verified, durable accomplishments like that, where Trump is clearly involved positively, I will acknowledge.   But this guy is just bad news for our nation.   The amount of damage he is doing does not open up logical avenues for praise.

Why do you insist on bothsidesism?

I have an addiction to rational thought.

If something is wrong 99.9% of the time, it isn't "false" ro say it's sometimes true... but very, very misleading.

Exactly the point.  Nobody is wrong 99.9% of the time.  That's just partisanship talking.  

... You take 99.9 as a serious proposition?

Let's look at this from the other end. Do you agree with Trump - intellectually and morally - half the time? How do you keep score?

I doubt anyone on this site would claim that Trump is always wrong.

I think that's wonderfully optimistic of you, and I admire your ability to cling to such a view in the face of such a large amount of contrary evidence.

Out of curiosity, when, in your opinion, has he been right?

Critics of Trump-critics need to consider that Trump is predominantly wrong. 

Riiiiight.  Because it certainly won't be the Trump critics themselves doing any form of introspection.  

 So it follows that there will be mountains of criticism.  

There are always mountains of criticism attached to any leadership position.  The higher the position, the more criticism. 

The criticism is more a function of Trump's words and deeds than partisan bias.

For some people sometimes, yes.  For some people, never. 

It's exactly the same way a the praise of Trump works.  Sometimes that's a function of what he's done, sometimes, it's just brainless partisanship.  

I think that's wonderfully optimistic of you, and I admire your ability to cling to such a view in the face of such a large amount of contrary evidence.

You are being ridiculous.   A basic example:  who would deny that Trump was wrong when he put illegal immigration and reduced prices at the top of his campaign promises?   Clearly he was correct that those items would resonate with the voters.

Because it certainly won't be the Trump critics themselves doing any form of introspection.  

As usual, you try to defend Trump by criticizing his critics.

There are always mountains of criticism attached to any leadership position. 

And Trump has created a massive mountain of justification for criticism.   You are trying to normalize Trump.

For some people sometimes, yes.  For some people, never. 

Given Trump gives critics ample reasons to criticize, and precious few reasons to praise, you should expect to see substantial criticism.    The problem is not the critics; the problem is Trump (and those who inexplicably try to defend him).

You take 99.9 as a serious proposition?

Of course not.  You're being hoisted on your own petard and you don't even see it.

Do you agree with Trump - intellectually and morally - half the time? How do you keep score?

Why would you keep score?  Seems an odd idea.  

I've been very open about not being a fan of Trump personally.  I despise his intentionally antagonistic social media posting, I think his immigration views and activities are extreme and more harmful than not, I have more than a few words to say about surprise tariffs that I can't repeat in church, and I think the current Iran situation is less well planned than I would have hoped.  There are more, but you get the idea.

But I think it's about time that he President of the United States unashamedly put the interests of Americans ahead of everyone else, just as I expect Macron to do that for the French people.  I support the idea of demanding reciprocity from trading partners.  I think DOGE was an excellent idea poorly executed.  I don't have any problem with voter ID.  I think it's past time the rest of NATO took their defense as seriously as we do, especially as we're not the ones who would be invaded.  There are more on that list, too.

So I think Trump does some good things and some bad things.  I can point to good and bad with Biden, Obama, W, Clinton and most other presidents.  IMO, that's how sane, rational, educated people should operate. 

But I think it's about time that he President of the United States unashamedly put the interests of Americans ahead of everyone else,

Do you think that's happening? I see a VERY SMALL segment of America - the ultra-rich, including Trump's own family - raking in immense sums, while many Americans cannot make ends meet. You don't see that?

Do you think that's happening? 

In some ways, undoubtedly.  

 I see a VERY SMALL segment of America - the ultra-rich, including Trump's own family - raking in immense sums, while many Americans cannot make ends meet. You don't see that?

It's an interesting discussion.

The America first ideas I support are things like fairer trade deals, NATO carrying more of its own weight, and better immigration enforcement, (although not to the extremes we're seeing), and a few others.

The economic issues are partially related (tariffs), and I think he could be doing, much better with that.  "Affordability" is a long term systemic issue that has been developing for 40 years and isn't really within the power of any president to solve in one term.  

A president can only move the needle slightly, but we haven't moved it in the right direction in a long time, and Trump isn't doing that either.

As far as the very wealthy doing better, I think we're all less wealthy since this tariff nonsense started.

Ironically, it's Democrats who have historically presided over the largest expansions of income and wealth inequality.  They don't intend that, it just works out that way.

I don't worry about that because "inequality" is a nonsense issue anyway in a place like America.  

In short, we should be doing a lot of things differently, IMO.  But the whole "Handmaid's Tale dystopian nightmare" idea is just stupid melodrama.

You are being ridiculous.  

Your position requires complete denial of obvious visible evidence.  So naturally you resort to personal attacks.  Again.

Just read the posts of some of your fellow liberals on this very forum. 

As usual, you try to defend Trump by criticizing his critics.

I'm glad you've finally stated openly the complete batshit lunacy underpinning so many of the insane accusations liberals attempt on a regular basis.

Any challenge to their factual inaccuracy or outright hysteria is deemed to be "defending Trump", and earns the name "Maga" or "nazi".

Then they are astonished when people vote against that, so they proceed to blame the voters.

I will absolutely and unapologetically criticize that type of insanity at every turn.

If you are unable to distinguish that from defense of Trump, you simply reinforce the validity of the criticism.

Now you are just trolling.  

Calling me a liberal is the first clue.    The rest of your post is just a slew of invented pissy bullshit.

You spend the majority of your time here criticizing Trump critics in a reality where Trump almost daily now makes a move that justifies criticism.

And your criticisms are typically exaggerations.   In short, dishonest crap.

Trump is a disaster.   I understand that makes it real difficult for you to honestly defend him.   But that is reality.   You should attempt to deal with it ... honestly and objectively.

Now you are just trolling.

AKA "disagreeing with TiG".

Calling me a liberal is the first clue.

You were extolling the virtues of Marxism less than a week ago.

You spend the majority of your time here criticizing Trump critics

They say some crazy stuff sometimes.

And your criticisms are typically exaggerations. In short, dishonest crap.

Riiiight.  "Dishonest crap" with a shitload of evidence to support it.

Trump is a disaster.  

You're proving my point. You state your unrealistic opinion as fact and then lambast anyone who doesn't accept it as such.

As to this "disaster"... describe that for us. 

Has the stock market collapsed?  No?

Are we even in a recession?  No? 

Do we have full employment?  Yes we do. 

Are we bombing people?  Yes. 

Has every president since Reagan bombed people?  Also yes.

Have the banks collapsed?  No?

Are millons of people in foreclosure?  No?

Are there bread lines? No?

Are their lines at the pump?  No?

Is your daily life materially different than it was in 2023?  No?

So maybe your social media algorithms are feeding you a lot of doom and gloom that isn't nearly as bad as it seems.

honestly and objectively

That's utterly laughable, considering your complete lack of willingness to even entertain either.  

You were extolling the virtues of Marxism less than a week ago.

Typical exaggeration coupled with blatant misrepresentation.   

I, as always with this topic, was stating facts about Marxism analytically.   Pointing out both the flaws and how some of his ideas underlie some good modern-day practices.   Apparently, you are walking around with the superficial, naive view that Marxism categorically means 'bad' and that clouds your ability to objectively discuss this topic and not jump to superficial conclusions.

"Dishonest crap" with a shitload of evidence to support it.

Another claim sans substance.   Your posts often are mere claims like the above.

As to this "disaster"... describe that for us. 

The Trump supporter speaks!   A fine test for a Trump supporter today is someone who not only cannot recognize that Trump is a disaster, but actually challenges the characterization.

Trump is a disaster as PotUS because he is:

• unpresidential
• unfit
• extremely vindictive
• a psychopath
• a pathological liar
• incompetent
• irresponsible
• intentionally ignorant
• impulsive to an extreme

In result we have a PotUS who:

• tried to steal the 2020 election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement
• surrounded himself with incompetent sycophants
• tried to keep classified documents and obstructed their safe return for months
• engaged in true lawfare, blatantly so, directing the AG (never should be done) to go after select political opponents (e.g. Comey, James, Cook, ...)
• coerced private businesses (e.g. Perkins Coie LLP) and universities (e.g. Harvard) with threats of denying federal business opportunities/funding
• overstepped authority and effectively killed USAID, which was congressionally approved, and abruptly, irresponsibly cut life-critical funding worldwide
• removed watch dogs (e.g. inspectors general, FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter,...) and fired DoJ attorneys, et.al. who worked on his indictments
• unilaterally destroyed the East Wing
• accepts outrageously expensive gifts such as the Qatar jet (which will now cost at least $400 million in taxpayer dollars to prepare)
• renamed the Kennedy center to arrogantly put his own name as top billing
• abused the use of the National guard to deploy to cities as a political show
• more than doubled ICE personnel with demonstrably poorly vetted, poorly trained individuals, and then unleashed them en masse into communities
• abuse of tariff power which pointlessly damaged USA reputation worldwide and triggered trading partners to strategically establish trade alternatives other than the USA
• pullback from WHO, UN, UNFCCC, etc. reducing the USA's international leadership
• anti climate change initiatives (as if trying to damage the environment further)
• blatant attempt to steal the 2026 midterms by coercing states to gerrymander for political (not census) reasons
• failed miserably on his campaign promise to lower prices
• failed miserably on his campaign promise to end the Ukraine war
• is a national embarrassment given he is the voice, face, and hand of the USA, yet publicly trolls our allies (in particular, Canada) and whines about not being awarded the Peace prize and then vindictively threatens not to be motivated for peace
• has substantially increased both deficit spending and the national debt (in direct opposition of his promises)
• is actively trying to steal the 2026 midterms
• unilaterally put the USA into an illegal war with Iran with no clear objective (best we can tell) and no exit plan

Next time you try to claim that you are not defending Trump, remember this post and the one to which I am replying.

[deleted][✘]

He’s not defending Trump. He’s simply pointing the hysterical “attack everything Trump” nature of many liberals here and elsewhere. [deleted][✘]

‘He’s not defending Trump.’

Seems like the ongoing talking point is when someone points out the bs leftists accuse Trump of, it is considered defending him. 

Well said.

Next time you try to claim that you are not defending Trump

He is  not a Trump defender, he has stated many times he has issues with many of the things Trump does.

The problem with many of the Trump haters:

There is no gray.

1.  Buy into ALL the Trump hysteria including the hyperbole, dishonest spin and lack of context.

2. Be a Trump supporter.

You can't go case by case issue, it is all or nothing.

A Trump supporter is someone who routinely tries to defend Trump ... especially when Trump is wrong.  

Given Trump's words and deeds are predominantly bad for this nation with precious few good, it is natural for there to be substantial criticism.   Accordingly, those like you who are constantly trying to criticize the critics and put forth feeble 'arguments' to deflect, downplay, and misrepresent what Trump is doing are defending Trump.

Trump is indefensible. 

He may have a couple policies everyone can agree with, but he is not his policies. HE is a piece of shit human being. Corrupt as the year is long. 

Accordingly, those like you who are constantly trying to criticize the critics and put forth feeble 'arguments' to deflect, downplay, and misrepresent what Trump is doing are defending Trump.

In other words don't buy into the hysteria

HE is a piece of shit human being.

He is an asshole. Not sure how many voted for him because they think he is a nice guy.

We needed an asshole in office. Assholes don’t back down from left wing stupidity

We needed an asshole in office. Assholes don’t back down from left wing stupidity

IMO being an asshole has its advantages and disadvantages, just as being seen as unpredictable has its advantages and disadvantages.

We needed an asshole in office. Assholes don’t back down from left wing stupidity

The only thing stupid is wanting an asshole to represent our great nation, our once ``shining city upon a hill.'' . I've no doubt assholes and dipshits cheer for their fellow troglodyte Donald Trump daily wishing him the best because they are all just a bunch of useless, feckless, impotent, desperate not to be irrelevant side show jokes. They pray for Armageddon to come and smite their enemies, not because they hate sin so much, but because they're sick and tired of being laughed at for predicting the end of the world for the last thousand years and it never coming. Now they're determined to self-fulfill their longed-for prophecy, so they elected what amounts to a natural disaster to be in control of the nuclear football. Way to go assholes.

Trump is completely corrupt and mentally ill, and a pathological liar. 80% of the time no one can be sure he is accurate or telling the truth. You cannot have a fair, functioning society under these circumstances.  He should be impeached tomorrow. 

The America first ideas I support are things like fairer trade deals, NATO carrying more of its own weight, and better immigration enforcement, (although not to the extremes we're seeing), and a few others.

"Fairer trade deals" are not obtained by bullying. Trump's has demonstrated that we are not a reliable partner, so countries are scrambling to deversify away from us. This is a topic I watch fairly closely. Trump has done a lot of damage, but the full extent of that damage is yet to be seen.

"NATO carrying more weaight" is a trope for US domestic consumption. Since its inception, NATO has operated under a tacit agreement: the US pays more and get all the command slots. De Gaulle left because he wanted equality and was willing to pay. The US wanted the status quo. Macron has offered France's nuclear umbrella, and Merz says he'd consider the idea. Oh, and lots of arms procurement has shifted from the US to Europe...

"Better" is a word that should be banned. It's worse than meaningless. It means radically different things to different people. Trump's "better" is anti-brown, anti-Spanish. Airplanes sent to extract South African Whites. Visas for South Asian talent who then work for low wages for Trump's techbro donors. And who's gonna cut the lawn?? This is "better"?? Than what? 

Ironically, it's Democrats who have historically presided over the largest expansions of income and wealth inequality.  They don't intend that, it just works out that way.

I don't worry about that because "inequality" is a nonsense issue anyway in a place like America.

... the whole "Handmaid's Tale dystopian nightmare" idea is just stupid melodrama.

The only thing stupid is wanting an asshole to represent our great nation,

I would far rather have Trump as an asshole than the dementia riddled amoeba and his DEI VP.  

Those other words are not even close to what I wrote.

More dishonesty from you.

I would far rather have Trump as an asshole than the dementia riddled amoeba and his DEI VP.  

The problem with Trump is not merely that he is an asshole.   Other PotUS' have been assholes;  the problem is that Trump is fundamentally flawed in many dimensions.   Trump is:

• unpresidential
• unfit
• extremely vindictive
• a psychopath
• a pathological liar
• incompetent
• irresponsible
• intentionally ignorant
• impulsive to an extreme

In result we have a PotUS who:

• tried to steal the 2020 election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement
• surrounded himself with incompetent sycophants
• tried to keep classified documents and obstructed their safe return for months
• engaged in true lawfare, blatantly so, directing the AG (never should be done) to go after select political opponents (e.g. Comey, James, Cook, ...)
• coerced private businesses (e.g. Perkins Coie LLP) and universities (e.g. Harvard) with threats of denying federal business opportunities/funding
• overstepped authority and effectively killed USAID, which was congressionally approved, and abruptly, irresponsibly cut life-critical funding worldwide
• removed watch dogs (e.g. inspectors general, FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter,...) and fired DoJ attorneys, et.al. who worked on his indictments
• unilaterally destroyed the East Wing
• accepts outrageously expensive gifts such as the Qatar jet (which will now cost at least $400 million in taxpayer dollars to prepare)
• renamed the Kennedy center to arrogantly put his own name as top billing
• abused the use of the National guard to deploy to cities as a political show
• more than doubled ICE personnel with demonstrably poorly vetted, poorly trained individuals, and then unleashed them en masse into communities
• abuse of tariff power which pointlessly damaged USA reputation worldwide and triggered trading partners to strategically establish trade alternatives other than the USA
• pullback from WHO, UN, UNFCCC, etc. reducing the USA's international leadership
• anti climate change initiatives (as if trying to damage the environment further)
• blatant attempt to steal the 2026 midterms by coercing states to gerrymander for political (not census) reasons
• failed miserably on his campaign promise to lower prices
• failed miserably on his campaign promise to end the Ukraine war
• is a national embarrassment given he is the voice, face, and hand of the USA, yet publicly trolls our allies (in particular, Canada) and whines about not being awarded the Peace prize and then vindictively threatens not to be motivated for peace
• has substantially increased both deficit spending and the national debt (in direct opposition of his promises)
• is actively trying to steal the 2026 midterms
• unilaterally put the USA into an illegal war with Iran with no clear objective (best we can tell) and no exit plan

More dishonesty from you.

I call them like I see them.  I know what Trump hysteria looks like.

Very well said, TiG. It was said long ago, and I can't remember who said it, but, America will not be destroyed from the outside, but, destroyed from the inside. 

It seems that Trump and his admin of goons will be ones to make that prophecy come true if they are not stopped before its too late. 

ICE is becoming Trump's Gestapo, and using our military to terrorize our country. What Trump is doing now is wasting the lives of our military in a useless war in order to make himself look like the world ruler. Even our closest ally's won't follow his demands. THAT should tell us what America should do, and do it NOW.  

JMOO

Seems like the ongoing talking point is when someone points out the bs leftists accuse Trump of, it is considered defending him. 

I know, it’s a pretty sophomoric tactic that any thinking person can immediately see right through.

"Fairer trade deals" are not obtained by bullying.

Wouldn't be my preferred method, but we seem to have new trade deals.  

Since its inception, NATO 

At its inception, the arrangements were appropriate.  Free Europe needed our protection, and I think we were all happy to offer it. 

That was 75 years, one iron curtain, one missile crisis and several proxy wars ago.  The world is a very, very different place, and it's not out of bounds to ask those now prosperous western nations to pay more for their own defense.  

"Better" is a word that should be banned.

I'm still going with free speech, thanks.  Although the irony of a liberal wanting to ban a word while simultaneously screaming about books being banned (when that isn't happening) is too hilarious to pass up.

This is "better"?? Than what? 

Better than no enforcement.  Better than pretending the law doesn't exist simply because your political enemies want it enforced.  Better than allowing people with standing deportation orders from 5 years ago(or 25 years ago) to ignore the law. 

If you doubt that mass illegal immigration is a problem, maybe you should ask some of the mayors of these "sanctuary cities" who melted down when fewer than 1000 were deposited on their doorsteps. BTW, 1000 people is about 4 hours worth of illegal immigrant traffic across the Texas border in 2023.... and that's just the ones we know about.

It's logical.

Then let's stop pretending it's a problem.

"Inequality of opportunity" is not at all the same thing as "inequality of results". 

Excellent point.  You sound like a moderate already.  But let's don't pretend "opportunity" is what they're complaining about when every statistic they cite measures results.

There is legitimate "inequality of opportunity" in America, and I think this is a place where reasonable people can see it from different perspectives.  Liberals tend to think along the lines of "there is inequality, we should change the system".  Conservatives tend to think along the lines of "there is inequality, we should change the people".  In reality, we probably need to do some of both.

losing one's home, for example - as Americans commonly do.

That's not common at all.  That's a fantasy concocted by the far left.

Tell that to Renée Good and Alex Pretti.

Speaking of far left fantasies.  The idea that either of these people are somehow martyrs is one of the most ludicrous ideas in the left wing.

we seem to have new trade deals.  

... which serious economists and bankers all agree are bad deals. Bravo!

it's not out of bounds to ask 

"Ask"?? I don't remember Trump "asking". Asking is a way of opening negotiations. Trump doesn't negotiate. He commands.

Although the irony of a liberal wanting to ban a word while simultaneously screaming about books being banned (when that isn't happening) is too hilarious to pass up.

Holy fuck! Are you so incapable of recognizing exaggeration? You use hyperbole often... expecting to be understood...

Better than no enforcement. Better than pretending the law doesn't exist simply because your political enemies want it enforced. Better than allowing people with standing deportation orders from 5 years ago(or 25 years ago) to ignore the law. 

How is warrantless detainment following racial profiling an improvement?

But let's don't pretend "opportunity" is what they're complaining about when every statistic they cite measures results.

Gee... You're a mindreader! You know what people mean, even when they say something very different. Oh, and... it's easy to measure results, hard to measure opportunity.

The idea that either of these people are somehow martyrs is one of the most ludicrous ideas in the left wing.

They're dead. They died for a cause. That's kinda the definition of a martyr. Do you consider Charlie Kirk a martyr?

which serious economists and bankers all agree are bad deals. Bravo!

I'm sure the ones your reading say that, yes.  Reality is almost never one sided... which is sort of the whole point of this entire conversation.

"Ask"?? I don't remember Trump "asking". Asking is a way of opening negotiations. Trump doesn't negotiate. He commands.

Well.... whatever you may not like about his "tone", European nations are starting to accept more responsibility for their own defense. 

Holy fuck! Are you so incapable of recognizing exaggeration?

So is the exaggeration the banning of words or the claim that books are being banned?  What was that about hyperbole?

How is warrantless detainment following racial profiling an improvement?

How is an 81% reduction in illegal border crossings not an improvement?

Gee... You're a mindreader!  You know what people mean, even when they say something very different.

The opposite actually. I know what they say, even if they may mean something different.  I also know what statistics mean, even when people use them incorrectly.

Oh, and... it's easy to measure results, hard to measure opportunity.

So you just substitute one for the other?  What??  Does that work everywhere?  Can we just substitute things that are easy to measure whenever it makes us feel better? 

Think about all the money we're wasting collecting high level scientific data when we could just substitute something else.  Why study temperature at the South Pole when we could just use the Brisbane weather forecast instead?  Why have doppler radar on hurricanes when we can just ask Uncle Sal if his knee hurts?

This is amazing. We're on the cusp of an entire scientific revolution. 

They died for a cause. That's kinda the definition of a martyr.

By that definition John Wilkes Booth was a martyr.  As was David Koresh. And Ashli Babbitt.  And Mohamed Jalloh.  And pretty much every Muslim suicide bomber whose last words were allahu akbar.

One of the major things that erodes the credibility of extremist (more often with liberals) is this insistence the rest of us only remember the parts of any story that they make them look favorable.

So we're not supposed to remember that Good was killed while fleeing arrest for obstruction or that Pretti inserted himself into a violent situation and had attacked police a few days prior.  Neither of those should have resulted in their deaths, but this idea that they were just innocent bystanders is ridiculous.

I don't consider Charlie Kirk a martyr. I do consider him a far more innocent victim than either Good or Pretti. 

Trump is a disaster as PotUS because 

In other words because you don't like the way he conducts himself and you are determined to misuse the word "disaster" in a traditional melodramatic fashion.

Your silence in response to the most basic of all political question is deafening.  I suspect that if your daily life were actually materially different than it was three years ago, you would have said so.

Given your recent patterns, I expect you to declare the question "irrelevant" and accuse me of "trolling" because a truthful answer to that question undoes your last 1000 posts.

This has been disappointing. You've chosen to be clever rather than intelligent.

In other words because you don't like the way he conducts himself and you are determined to misuse the word "disaster" in a traditional melodramatic fashion.

You ignore my argument and then create a truly stupid misrepresentation.    I have argued that Trump is a disaster due to a multidimensional failure (enumerated even) and you ignore all of that and misrepresent my complaint as merely my not liking his personal conduct (that he is an asshole).

Your silence in response to the most basic of all political question is deafening. 

You ignore the details of my argument and then claim that my not responding to a stupid cliche is insightful.  Feeble!

My daily life is a shitty measure of Trump.  Primarily because that ignores all my specific points and tries to make my argument a simple binary based on my personal situation.    But second, I am not of an economic situation that would be affected much —in the short-term— by Trump's fuck ups.   I can weather the economic storm whereas many cannot.

Note, Jack, your posts are consistently going after me personally rather than dealing with the issue.   You try, as you often do, to discredit the critics of Trump.   Going after the person rather than making a thoughtful argument is trolling.

I am now repeating why I consider Trump to be a disaster.   Deal with the facts rather than glossing over them, deflecting to my personal economic situation, and engaging in typical dishonest trolling:

The problem with Trump is not merely that he is an asshole ("the way he conducts himself").   Other PotUS' have been assholes;  the problem is that Trump is fundamentally flawed in many dimensions.   Trump is:

• unpresidential
• unfit
• extremely vindictive
• a psychopath
• a pathological liar
• incompetent
• irresponsible
• intentionally ignorant
• impulsive to an extreme

In result we have a PotUS who:

• tried to steal the 2020 election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement
• surrounded himself with incompetent sycophants
• tried to keep classified documents and obstructed their safe return for months
• engaged in true lawfare, blatantly so, directing the AG (never should be done) to go after select political opponents (e.g. Comey, James, Cook, ...)
• coerced private businesses (e.g. Perkins Coie LLP) and universities (e.g. Harvard) with threats of denying federal business opportunities/funding
• overstepped authority and effectively killed USAID, which was congressionally approved, and abruptly, irresponsibly cut life-critical funding worldwide
• removed watch dogs (e.g. inspectors general, FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter,...) and fired DoJ attorneys, et.al. who worked on his indictments
• unilaterally destroyed the East Wing
• accepts outrageously expensive gifts such as the Qatar jet (which will now cost at least $400 million in taxpayer dollars to prepare)
• renamed the Kennedy center to arrogantly put his own name as top billing
• abused the use of the National guard to deploy to cities as a political show
• more than doubled ICE personnel with demonstrably poorly vetted, poorly trained individuals, and then unleashed them en masse into communities
• abuse of tariff power which pointlessly damaged USA reputation worldwide and triggered trading partners to strategically establish trade alternatives other than the USA
• pullback from WHO, UN, UNFCCC, etc. reducing the USA's international leadership
• anti climate change initiatives (as if trying to damage the environment further)
• blatant attempt to steal the 2026 midterms by coercing states to gerrymander for political (not census) reasons
• failed miserably on his campaign promise to lower prices
• failed miserably on his campaign promise to end the Ukraine war
• is a national embarrassment given he is the voice, face, and hand of the USA, yet publicly trolls our allies (in particular, Canada) and whines about not being awarded the Peace prize and then vindictively threatens not to be motivated for peace
• has substantially increased both deficit spending and the national debt (in direct opposition of his promises)
• is actively trying to steal the 2026 midterms
• unilaterally put the USA into an illegal war with Iran with no clear objective (best we can tell) and no exit plan

You've chosen to be clever rather than intelligent.

You pretend the former is possible without the latter.

I've found both statements can be true, by both of you, but that's just me.

You ignore my argument and then create a truly stupid misrepresentation. 

I'm sure you wish that were true. 

But your first set of bullet points are all simply how you feel about how he carries himself.  They are also things that don't make a damned bit of difference in your daily life except for the fact that you allow them to wind you up.

At this point I really have to ask... do you hear yourself?  Renaming a theatre.... that's a "disaster"?  Accepting a jet on behalf of the US Govt...that's a "disaster"? 

Failed campaign promises...."disaster"?   Gee... so this thing that literally every politician ever has always done is suddenly now a "disaster" because it's Trump.  

To quote Inigo Montoya.... you keep using that word.... I do not think it means what you think it means.

We have problems.  We do not have "disasters".  Describing everything in wildly exaggerated terms is what Trump does.  Don't be like Trump.

Note, Jack, your posts are consistently going after me personally rather than dealing with the issue.

There is a story about a log in an eye.....   I match the tone of the person to whom I am replying.   If you don't want a fight stop picking them.  Stop abusing the people with whom you interact and you might just have a better experience. 

You try, as you often do, to discredit the critics of Trump. 

There are critics of Trump who make legitimate cases and then there are people who post as if Trump hysteria earns bitcoin.  Why should I be expected to indulge the latter?

But your first set of bullet points are all simply how you feel about how he carries himself. 

A dishonest mischaracterization.   I stated my opinion on fundamental characteristics of Trump.   Not just how he carries himself but rather his defining characteristics.

At this point I really have to ask... do you hear yourself? 

Jack's favorite platitude.   

 Renaming a theatre.... that's a "disaster"? 

And of course now you are going to cherrypick and pretend that every line item must itself be a disaster.   The list is what I presented, not just one line item.   The list, collectively, illustrates why Trump is a disaster.

Do you think Trump starting an illegal war with Iran was a smart move?   He claims their nuclear capabilities were obliterated and when asked about why he chose to attack them again he said that they could still dig up their capabilities.   He is now committing major resources and boots on the ground to open up the Strait of Hormuz ... yet it was his idiotic war that caused the Strait to be jammed.  

Not serious enough?   Not irresponsibly stupid enough?   Not a disaster in your mind?

I match the tone of the person to whom I am replying.  

Bullshit!   When you cannot prevail you make things personal and post dishonesty.

Why should I be expected to indulge the latter?

From what I can see, your default position is that most criticism of Trump is wrong.

The far-right wing Trump fascists (Bondi etc.) know exactly how to avoid legitimate questions from Congress by speaking gibberish and then complaining that they aren't allowed to answer those questions the way they want to. All of them knowing that they are just killing time. Trumps minions are all scum-of-the-Earth! 

I fault both houses of congress-supposing to represent "People" instead allowing the appearance, continuing, and resulting bulls--t sessions of committees IMPROPERLY questioning interviewees. CONGRESS IS WEAK! CONGRESS IS A PLACE FULL OF SICK PEOPLE trying to run a country of WELL PEOPLE. CONGRESS HEAL THYSELF-YOU ARE UNHEALTHY. CONGRESS IS UNWISE. CONGRESS IS FALLING BEHIND. CONGRESS IS MENTALLY SLOW! CONGRESS IS IRRELEVANT!

AG Bondi came to the hearing and opened-up a SELECT 'Can of Whup-ass' on her interviewers. Where else in America can you see such irreverence treatment of a panel of INTERVIEWERS. Worse, the interviewers took it on their jaws! 

CONGRESS IS PATHETIC. It is time to get new (and more robust) thinkers into congress. At least, if a political FIGHT is going to be the order of the day-it ought to be for a good result afterwards, and not just more of the same coming out of it!

It is time to get new (and more robust) thinkers into congress

= eliminate maga republicans.

It could mean that too, and I won't miss the absence of aggressive people whom ROBUSTLY and energetically (zealously) trample the physical, mental, and spiritual aspects of the citizenry. That said, it is time for democrats to 'release' some of the party "favorites" whom are solid seat holders and are also WEAK and inept for the times we are encountering politically. 

trampling assholes is still okay though, right? and I'm good with clearing out the dead wood too ...

Alright, I guess. (BTW, earlier your avatar was displayed in the open space below and I got a 'full-orb' view of what is written on the 'dark' cat's cup! You are a model of consistency. You know what I mean! )

not all of us were fortunate enough to be born offensive to them, so we have to work a lot harder at it ...

it is time for democrats to 'release' some of the party "favorites" whom are solid seat holders and are also WEAK and inept for the times we are encountering politically. 

Here! Here!  Senator Schumer for one. He's been there far too long