Trump is not a joke

[DB Roy]

KS, Marx never said that. If I'm wrong, prove it.

[KindaSkolarly]

Out of all of that, THAT'S what you seize on? Pretty sad.

Bill Clinton is a mass murderer. Hillary Clinton is a mass murderer. Jerry Brown is a mass murderer. If I'm wrong, prove it.

[Interbane]

The specifics of that video are absolutely true. As far as the generality, that we’re fighting evil, yes, I believe that. Absolute evil exists, and if you don’t fight it, then you serve it.

The problem is you think you’re able to determine what’s evil.

That entire video is made up of weaponized memetics, tailored for emotional appeal. It feels good when your beliefs are reinforced, and very good when it’s very emotional. It takes a certain type of person to see this and act against it, to critically examine the information. These weaponized memes all point to implications that fall apart when looked at closely. Although intelligent, it seems you’re not that type of person.

Like the meme mentioning how women buy 50 shades of grey yet are upset at Trump’s language. Sure, the meme feels good for someone on team Red. But it’s utter garbage upon examination. I’ve heard the sort of “grab them by the p***y locker room talk in locker rooms a lot growing up. Not from everyone, of course. It’s usually from the bombastic blowhard asshole that makes friends by being a dick to everyone. And that’s the sort of person we elected leader of the free nation. I don’t give a crap about 50 shades of grey, the point is that Trump’s language shows how pathetic he is. A woman’s private BSDM fantasy does not in any way justify the crap that comes out of wig’s mouth.

Then there’s the idea that Russia supported Hillary through donations. Yet the swarm of weaponized memes I was bombarded with during the 2016 election were almost unanimously pro-Trump, anti-Hillary. They’re tailored specifically to ignite racism, nationalism, fear, and partisanship. And post hoc investigations show thousands upon thousands of them originating from Russia. It’s obvious they wanted Trump in office, so he could do dumb shit like backing out of Syria and opening the floodgates for Russian influence in the middle east.

You don’t recognize evil KindaScholarly. You promote it unwittingly, believing you’re on the right side of history. Harkening to the ancient wisdom that the lord of evil is the ultimate deceiver, you’re too arrogant to consider you might be deceived.

[DWill]

The specifics of that video are absolutely true. As far as the generality, that we’re fighting evil, yes, I believe that. Absolute evil exists, and if you don’t fight it, then you serve it.

Leftists tend to be moral relativists. They tend to think that morality is a relative thing and all peoples’ choices should be honored. But should all choices be honored?

I have to appreciate the "tend to" above. Do you implicitly acknowledge that rightists also can be moral relativists? Certainly if Donald Trump & Co. are currently representative of the right, the answer is "yes," because they have moral relativism written all over them. The acceptance of the murder and dismemberment of Khashoggi, for business reasons, is just one example of several.

Take AIDS/HIV for example. If you know you have the disease and deliberately infect an unsuspecting victim, is that an evil act? We’ve all seen the pictures of people wasting away to death from the disease, so would you be evil if you intentionally condemned somebody to that? If you say no, then you either have no moral compass or your compass is broken.

Yes, of course. But see Khashoggi above and note how easily we let our absolutes crumble under the influence of partisanship and self-interest. Strong Christian belief is supposed to lend one the "full armor of the Lord," but what good has it done Mike Pence?

Moral relativism has been sold to us by people who are attempting to avoid judgement.

Maybe you are in some way referring to "values clarification," which was an approach to moral teaching that came out many years ago and was condemned by conservatives. I haven't heard about it in ages. An honest approach would be to admit that moral relativism is engaged in by everyone, regardless of political persuasion. It's impossible to do moral reasoning without it. Only a small percentage of acts that have moral dimension qualify as absolutes (either as evil or as good). Below them is a scale on which we all apply our individual or tribal judgment. No one really agrees with the absolute of the Kantian imperative, under which it is wrong to lie, even to save someone's life. The 10 Commandments aren't effectively absolute, either, as generally sound as they are. "Thou shalt not kill?"

I voted against my economic interests when I voted for Trump. He presented his tax plan before the election, I reviewed it, and I voted for him even though it meant I would pay more in taxes.

If you could provide a link to this pre-election plan, I'd appreciate it. I don't recall any promise he made that ended up being similar to the plan the Republicans passed.

He outlined his tariff war against China, I saw that it would mean higher prices for me, and I voted for him anyway. The survival of the United States trumped pocketbook concerns in the 2016 election. And I think this is where the Democrats miscalculated. The moral relativists were shocked to learn that so many people still believe in something strongly enough to vote against their economic interests. We believe the country is worth preserving. Leftists want a country without borders, occupied by “residents” rather than “citizens.” They want to destroy the nation. Trump said he would do what he could to stop that, so we gave him his chance.

Well, economic interests are pretty important. Ask the formerly well-paid factory workers about that. They thought that Trump would help them get back their good jobs, and I can't blame them for grasping at straws. I disagree that the push for Trump was fueled by principle. That is rarely the case in politics.

It makes sense that you would emphasize--rather, over emphasize--absolutes, because absolutist thinking is black-and-white thinking. The problem with black and white thinking like yours is obvious: most people aren't going to buy it because in their life experience they've learned about distinctions, gradations, and nuance. Your attempts to paint the Clintons, Bushes, John McCain, and whoever as absolutely evil are futile. People would need to believe that none of these people did a single good thing--and the evidence to the contrary is staring us all in the face. Yours isn't an appeal that will work with the vast majority of grown-ups.

[DB Roy]

Out of all of that, THAT'S what you seize on? Pretty sad.

It's all I bothered to read.

[KindaSkolarly]

The quote in the headline has been attributed to Marx, Stalin, Hitler and others. The author of the piece chose to attribute it to Stalin. I find it odd that you folks would be so fussy about who said what while you’re supporting a closed-door “impeachment inquiry” that’s gathering information from anonymous witnesses who may or may not even exist. I don’t believe any of you are stupid, so maybe you’re just doing your parts as “useful idiots.” The coinage of that term has been attributed to Lenin, Hitler, Ted Turner and others.

Leftists have to lie in order to advance their agenda, and the easiest way to lie is to control the language of the discussion. That’s why we see so much fuss over non-issues involving wording. Trump recently used the word “lynching” for instance, and SJWs said he should be impeached because blacks have been lynched in the past. Obama and H. Clinton made it possible for northern Libyans to return to lynching dark-skinned southern Libyans, but there was never a peep from the mainstream leftist media about that. The Left is disingenuous. Everybody knows it. That’s why the Left recruits kids and foreigners, because those groups can’t understand how they’re being lied to.

So there’s a defense of Karl Marx here, but no comment on how the Clintons received 140 million dollars in the Uranium One deal? No comments about Bill Clinton intentionally infecting Canadian hemophiliacs with HIV? Leftists don’t give a damn about people. They have to pretend they do, but all they care about is power. And they’re willing to overthrow an elected president in order to steal power. Fortunately for us, in their desperation to avoid facing Trump again at the polls they picked the worst time they could to “impeach” him. In the run up to the election the impeachment will be seen for the purely political act it is. Americans won’t support it, no matter how many fake polls say otherwise. Americans may reject Trump on election day, but we won’t support a coup by the National Socialists. I hope the House of Representatives DOES vote to impeach Trump, because moderate Dems would have to sign onto the move. The Dems would lose the House as a result.

[Interbane]

Leftists have to lie in order to advance their agenda, and the easiest way to lie is to control the language of the discussion.

For example, spinning real events with misleading headlines or summaries that misrepresent what happened. It's not just the left that's guilty of it. Here's something I read recently that is exactly what you're talking about: "...Bill Clinton intentionally infecting Canadian hemophiliacs with HIV". The crime there is being friends with Dunn(not a crime), and not firing Lockhart(not a crime). The situation feels slimy, but not to the extend that you should lie to control the language of the discussion.

Here's another lie in the form of twisted language: "...the Clintons received 140 million dollars in the Uranium One deal" Even though Giustra had already left the company years before, and Hillary had no veto or approval authority for the deal.

Obama and H. Clinton made it possible for northern Libyans to return to lynching dark-skinned southern Libyans

This one isn't so much twisted language, but it lacks context. The Libya intervention was well intentioned and even successful. But as Obama himself admits, failure to plan for the subsequent descent into anarchy was the worst mistake of his presidency.

And they’re willing to overthrow an elected president in order to steal power.

He committed a crime. Read US Code title 52, section 30121. What's with the people on the far right and your blatant denial of reality? It's absurd to me as if you're arguing about 2+2=4.

From the Federal Election Commission chair, June 13th, which was before Ukrainegate: "Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a novel concept. Electoral intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the beginnings of our nation. "

Trump's only defense is the statute that it must be proven the defendant acted "knowingly and willfully" their actions were unlawful. Trump was already put on notice during Mueller's investigation, and he's aware of the FEC statement above. Of course he knows. Yet, he has the same strange disease as KindaScholarly... blatant denial of reality. He might truly believe he didn't commit a crime. He might be that dumb.

[DWill]

I find it odd that you folks would be so fussy about who said what while you’re supporting a closed-door “impeachment inquiry” that’s gathering information from anonymous witnesses who may or may not even exist.

Can you address the fact that other congressional investigations, both on impeachment and not, also began with closed-door testimony? Can you also address the problem of Republicans at the depositions not saying a word about non-existent witnesses? What will be the pivot of the Trump apologists when the hearings become public soon?

No comments about Bill Clinton intentionally infecting Canadian hemophiliacs with HIV?

Interbane pointed out your terrible logic and distortion. You take as defense of a person the rejection of wild accusations. There is no defense of Bill Clinton entailed, only the rightful rejection of scurrilous charges, whomever they may be against.

[DB Roy]

Well, ol' Donald-baby done got himself impeached. While I was hoping it would force him into resigning--and I still hold out some meager hope for this--it looks like the House will hold onto the articles of Impeachment since the Senate republicans are making it clear that they don't give a damn what evidence is brought to bear against him, they will not throw him out. If there was ever a time for the people to realize how abysmally vacuous of character that the republican party truly is, it would be now. And I think most of the country does realize that. Not even the USA could be THAT far gone. But, regardless, the republicans in the Senate are not going to throw Trump out unless a good number decide to defect--and that actually IS a possibility. But what's the use of turning over the articles if they are not going to weigh the evidence? Might as well wait.

Some are saying that if the House doesn't turn over the articles to the Senate then the Impeachment is null and void. I do not believe this to be the case. From what I understand, the House adopted a specific rule that allows them to hold onto the articles and the Impeachment still counts. Trump is impeached--period.

His bid for a wall all but over, Trump now wants to get his space force off the ground. He's created it on paper but that is as far as it will go. He has to get funding for it and there is bipartisan hemming and hawing over the price tag. On top of that, Trump wants to cut deeply into non-defense spending such as, of course, Social Security and Medicare. That won't get past the House.

In other news, the tax break that Trump put his name on has not born fruit. Nothing has happened as a result of it except to increase the deficit. No one can seriously say that they have received a noticeable boost to their paychecks but many saw their income tax shoot into the red. Trump promised that the new tax law would act like "rocket fuel" on the economy and shoot it into the upper atmosphere. No...not quite. Not that most of us thought it would, just those fools who actually believe that Trump knows what he's talking about. Fortunately, that seems to include progressively less of total population. Well...he can always blame Obama. That's all the guy ever does--blame Obama, blame Clinton, blame the democrats, even blame the republicans. Anyone but himself.

[DWill]

If the Republicans aren't going to have any witnesses, the whole thing is truly a sham, and McConnell and others announcing they've already sided with Trump makes the oath they take to administer "impartial justice" a joke. But it would be worthwhile for me just to hear them say the oath. Also worthwhile would be to see one or more principled Republicans who have spoken against Trump vote to impeach, or at least vote "present." Mitt Romney, this is your moment. What I'm pretty sure would happen, though, is that the Republican Trump critics will say he was wrong but that his actions weren't impeachable, and vote not to impeach.

All of Trump's restrainers have peeled away, leaving him with his sycophants and main influencers, Sean Hannity and Rudy Giuliani.