The RNC continues to set fundraising records and has buckets more money than the DNC. Now, don’t get too cocky about this – the Democrats have a vast network of non-party funding sources (the “dark money” they complain about when it isn’t them doing it), so it doesn’t mean the Democrats will be low on cash for 2020. But the fact that the RNC – under Trump – is breaking fundraising records does show that the new GOP is appealing to a large number of people. Keep in mind that every last thing the MSM does vis a vis politics from now until election day is to help Democrats and/or hinder Republicans. And they won’t shy away from just making things up, is that is required. From the MSM you simply will not get the true state of affairs…you’ll have to dig around a bit; because the truth is freely available. It just won’t be headlined or lead the nightly broadcasts. But if you look around you’ll find things like fundraising totals, crowd size, voter registration stats and such which will give you an idea of how things are going. Almost nothing is ever an actual surprise in politics – remember that Hillary cancelled her fireworks display a few days before the election. She knew – she knew – that she already lost the election about a week out from the vote. So did everyone else who was juiced in – they just didn’t tell us. Team Trump because they didn’t want anyone overconfident (and they’ll be like that again in 2020), Team Hillary because they were still hoping for a miracle…and the MSM because they were ordered by the Democrats to keep their traps shut about it.
Moonbats prepare to descend on Area 51. It is a bit of a joke, but from what I’ve heard about 50,000 people are going to a county with 5,000 residents, and that is going to put a huge burden on that county (as well as providing a bonanza of business: so, a bit of plus to the minus). Things like this are silly, but they can also get out of hand. I hope everyone just behaves themselves and has a good time. As for Area 51 – my Dad was out there frequently in the 80’s and early 90’s and assured me there are no Aliens there…but, that’s what They would want him to say, isn’t it?
China’s one child policy lead to a gigantic disparity in the number of boys and girls being born…and that, in turn, has lead to the price of a bride skyrocketing in China. A bride can set a family back 200,000 Yuan, that’s about $28,000 – and I don’t think that includes the cost of the wedding, etc. The more Progressives try to “fix” things, the worse they make them – and I find it enormously funny (mixed in with the overall tragedy) that this attempt at social engineering has simply allowed women to charge even more than they used to for the whole marriage and family thing. Hate to break it to ya, guys, but a woman – well, a wise woman – always looks for the guy who she believes can best take care of her. She might want the good looking, studly guy but she wants more the kind, strong man who looks like he can hold down a job and won’t go wandering off at the next pretty face. And in China, she’s getting that…because she’s so rare, now, that she’s commanding the whole country to bow before her.
Blogs For Victory 
Amazona, forgive me if I am unable to respond to all of your commentary of this morning, but it was rather voluminous. If there is something specific that you wish me to address, beyond what I address below, let me know. In the meantime, here are a few responses.
Am I the only one noticing that rgrg2 is no longer even pretending to want to engage in discourse but is just using this site to spew radical
Leftist garbage?
I am more than happy to engage in whatever political discourse you like. What would YOU, Amazona, like to discuss?
2.) No president should interfere in private enterprise for personal, political or even economic reasons. If there is a legitimate argument that presidential pressures on private enterprise are part of national security, that is different. I would have no problem, for example, of the president issuing an order that a company could not sell nuclear triggers to North Korea. That would not in any way conflict with my deeply held and consistent attitude toward federal.
Good. We’re in agreement.
It’s accepted now, except in the loony bins of the rabid Left, that Russia’s “meddling” was merely a general effort to create scenarios that would lead to internal conflicts, divisiveness and destabilization of our society.
No. It’s accepted now that Russia interfered in America’s 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion with the intention of both sowing doubt and confusion among the American people and also aiding and abetting the Trump campaign. Furthermore, various members of the Trump campaign activity colluded with the Russians in this effort. In addition, various members of the Trump campaign lied to the FBI and the special counsel’s office in an effort to obfuscate their role in said collusion. And on top of that, the president of the United States engaged in many acts of obstructing the investigation into the Russian interference in the 2016 election.
You “have no doubt Trump is a racist”. That is an amazing statement, given the fact that he has never said a word to indicate that he is.
It is an amazing statement, and it gives me no pleasure to recognize that the president of the United States is a racist. But he is. As for your claim that he has never said a word to indicate that he is, look again. The Atlantic even ran an article titled, “Oral History of Trump’s bigotry.”
You have a typically rg-ish conviction that “white supremacists view Trump as someone who supports their cause in his words and actions”. As he has never publicly said anything to indicate even the slightest hint of supporting white supremacy, much less taken any action to do so, your rant is either a purposeful lie or just another of your sad pathetic delusions, created in a desperate attempt to make your pathology look less…..pathological…….and give it a veneer of reason.
Geez, look up what Richard Spencer, for one, has had to say about Donald Trump’s election. It’s not that hard.
The only fresh perspective he [meaning rgrg2] has brought is his laughable conceit that having no coherent political philosophy or commitment to any specific form of government is, in fact, a sign of political sophistication, sanctified by the (inaccurate) application of the word “pragmatic”.
I do have a coherent political philosophy and commitment to a specific form of government. We went over this months ago. Do you need a refresher?
You just reached back into your tightie whities for the addition to the sentence about Russia wanting to sow discord in the United States when you came up with “also aiding and abetting the Trump campaign.” Nearly three years of investigation by the top investigative agencies in the United States, interviewing hundreds of witnesses and examining thousands of documents, with an unlimited budget and spending millions of dollars uncovered no collusion between anyone in the Trump campaign and anyone in the Russian government or, for that matter, any Russian. You have to know this. Why do you lie about it?
The president of the United States verbally expressed his frustration at being hounded and lied about in this bogus “investigation” and said he would like to fire some people he knew were dishonest and had severe conflicts of interest. But he didn’t DO anything of the sort. Instead, he fully cooperated with the bogus “investigation”. You have to know this. Why do you lie about it?
Who cares what Richard Spencer said? He does not speak for the president. Since when does any comment by a third party have any significance? For all we know, Spencer is as unhinged as you are, and bases his beliefs on equally false perspectives and interpretations of what other people say. The voices In his head probably have a lot in common with those in yours, regarding their validity and their toxicity.
You are right. I don’t remember you ever explaining a coherent philosophy of how best to govern the nation As that would be an “ideology” and your recent return to the blog started with you preening about how you have embraced what you foolishly call “pragmatism” and that pragmatism is antithetical to ideology, you can see how I would be confused by you now claiming that you DO adhere to a political ideology. So—what is it?
Maybe it would be easier for me to start. Mine is a belief that the United States must be governed by a federal government severely restricted as to size, scope and power, with most authority left to the states or to the people. That is, the governmental structure outlined and codified in our Constitution.
You’re up. Where do you agree with this, where do you disagree, and when you disagree, why and what do you think is a better alternative? And then, does your alternative comply with our Constitution? If it does no, do you think we should just ignore the Constitution
I looked at the Atlantic screed. About halfway through I could tell it had no interest in fairness, but had cherry-picked what it could find and then interpreted much of it, as well as depending on some third party comments.
This is a paragraph: His statements have been reflected in his behavior—from public acts (placing ads calling for the execution of five young black and Latino men accused of rape, who were later shown to be innocent) yet it calls for the projection of racism, an assertion that this opinion to be based on the race of the accused to private preferences (“When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor,” a former employee of Trump’s Castle, in Atlantic City, New Jersey, told a writer for The New Yorker). this is a third party assertion from a class of people (former employees) likely to harbor negative feelings about former bosses and hardly objective sources Trump emerged as a political force owing to his full-throated embrace of “birtherism,” the false charge that the nation’s first black president, Barack Obama, was not born in the United States.
The term “birtherism” is a pejorative invented to go along with the calumny that anyone who wanted to be sure a presidential candidate was in fact eligible for the office was a racist and that the query was an attack. It ignores the fact that Obama had for years told people he had been born in Kenya and cruised on the image of being a foreign-born success story. Referring to Obama’s own comments, including his long-standing publisher’s biography, to speculate that he and it had been telling the truth was not only not irrational, it had nothing at all to do with his race.
His presidential campaign was fueled by nativist sentiment directed at nonwhite immigrants, and he proposed barring Muslims from entering the country. It is another lie spread by political opposition that his pride in this nation, which was recast as “nativist sentiment” and later, even more malignantly, as “white nationalism” was related in any way to skin color. This is something projected onto him but in no way originating with him or anything he said or did. Trump’s concern with ILLEGAL immigration had nothing to do with the skin color of those entering the country illegally. And he never “proposed barring Muslims from entering the country”. These lies have been spread, and debunked, and spread, and discredited, and spread, and proved false.
So when a rag like The Atlantic goes back to the trough again, and rummages around to dig up old, scurrilous, despicable slanders and libels to recycle in an entirely dishonest hit piece, no wonder it appeals to someone like you. It is what people like you live for, seek out, slurp down from the trough and beg for more, and then you regurgitate this slop to try to use it to prove a point. But the only point it proves is that those who do it are profoundly dishonest and seriously disturbed people driven by blind hate.
To respond to Cluster’s post of this morning:
So now your position is that it is unpatriotic to criticize the president? – RG
That’s not at all my position and I am not even sure how you came to that conclusion.
You said, “And RG have you ever stopped to think that this whining and bitching by the left is exactly what Russia was aiming for?” The obvious implication here is that by “whining and bitching” about the current president of the United States, I am aiding and abetting a geopolitical foe and undermining our own country.
Did you think Trump was a racist prior to January 21, 2017 when he was given applause and awards from Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? Or when he was donating heavily to Democrats?
Yes. It is clear from his own words and deeds. As for Sharpton and Jackson, are these people you respect? (You watch more MSNBC than anyone I know, so I presume you are thoroughly familiar with Sharpton.)
Regarding Trump’s donations to Democrats, Trump is first and foremost an opportunist whose political philosophy, such as it is, is to do what’s good for Donald Trump, period.
RG, are you a Bernie supporter?
No.
Where do I start? You have definitely proven beyond doubt that your mind is full of garbage but I am more than happy to challenge your beliefs and very existence.
1. Barack Hussein Obama was President when you claim Russia “interfered in America’s 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion with the intention of both sowing doubt and confusion among the American people”. What specific actions did the Obama administration take to diminish the impact and get to the core of problem? He was President and it was his responsibility.
2. Your contention that Russia aided Trump, I submit this. Let me know if you see yourself in this rally as did Michael Moore and covered by MSNBC
The government alleged in an indictment signed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller that the defendants organized a Nov. 12 “Trump is NOT my President” rally in New York. Their “strategic goal” was to “sow discord in the U.S. political system,” the indictment said.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-moore-participated-in-anti-trump-rally-allegedly-organized-by-russians
3. Do you think Sharpton and Jackson are in the habit of giving awards to racists? Doesn’t matter if I respect them, I am just curious what you think. Trump also donated to Obama’s campaign in 2008. Why didn’t Obama make a stand against racism then?
4. Ben Carson is a black conservative and I suspect you disagree with his positions which can only lead me to conclude that you too are a racist. That gives me no pleasure to admit that, but there can be no other reason if in fact you disagree with Ben. Prove to me you’re not a racist.
5. You said that Trump’s actions indicate he is racist. What specific actions of Trump’s are racist?
6. Tell me what is racist by inner city economic zones? And why didn’t Obama create inner city opportunities for black youth?
I have all day RG, let’s see how smart you are.
1. Barack Hussein Obama was President when you claim Russia “interfered in America’s 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion with the intention of both sowing doubt and confusion among the American people”. What specific actions did the Obama administration take to diminish the impact and get to the core of problem? He was President and it was his responsibility.
There are many reports and analyses of what the Obama administration did and didn’t do. You have a computer with access to Google. Use it. NPR has a good one as a starting point. I will just add that this was obviously a complex issue, and that when the Obama administration approached Moscow Mitch to issue a joint statement on the subject, Moscow Mitch refused and said that he would paint it as a partisan effort by the Obama administration to influence the election. Quite the patriot there, that Moscow Mitch.
2. Your contention that Russia aided Trump, I submit this. Let me know if you see yourself in this rally as did Michael Moore and covered by MSNBC.
Didn’t go to the rally. Didn’t know about it. Don’t care about it. Don’t claim Trump is not my president. He obviously is, sadly, the president of my country. However, it is also obvious by his actions that Nothing But A Showman views himself as beholden to only a segment of the US citizenry. That’s on him, not me.
3. Do you think Sharpton and Jackson are in the habit of giving awards to racists?
I have no idea. You seem to know more about them than I do.
4. Ben Carson is a black conservative and I suspect you disagree with his positions which can only lead me to conclude that you too are a racist. That gives me no pleasure to admit that, but there can be no other reason if in fact you disagree with Ben. Prove to me you’re not a racist.
That’s just idiotic and childish on your part, Cluster. By the way, Ben Carson is also incompetent at his job.
5. You said that Trump’s actions indicate he is racist. What specific actions of Trump’s are racist?
You can start with the fact that the Department of Justice sued the Trump Management Corporation for violating the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against black people. And then from there, you can work through all of his public utterances that are racist in tone and content. Google will help. Here, I’ll even make it easy for you:
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=donald+trump%27s+history+of+racism&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
You can sue anyone for anything, just as you can publish anything or say anything. The goal of the Left is to focus on the accusation and then bury the outcome, when the accusation is proved false. They count on the stupid and the vicious just remembering the accusation. And they are right—-it is a very effective tactic. BTW, the Trump Management Corporation is not the same as Donald J. Trump.
I’ve read the public statements claimed, by the howling Left to be “racist in tone and content” and found no content whatsoever of any kind or degree of racism. As for “tone” your comment is an admission that the perception of racism depends on how the hearer interprets a comment to uncover a “tone”. Like a dog whistle. Or a hidden code. That is, something that without the participation of the hearer simply does not exist.
The racism, race hustling and race pimping of Sharpton and Jackson are well known and documented. The only way to not know of them is to be determined to ignore any reference to them. But there is a reason they are the inspiration for the term “race pimps”. By the way, it was Jackson who said that when he is walking down a dark street and hears footsteps behind him he is relieved when he sees that they belong to a white man.
Clearly the only reason to scorn the highly regarded, successful and talented neurosurgeon Ben Carson is because he is black.
Hint: Inventing and then constantly using an infantile and utterly stupid name like “Moscow Mitch” only proves beyond any shadow of any remaining doubt, faint and feeble as it might be, that you have absolutely NOTHING upon which to base your crazed accusations. It’s interesting, though, to see such power ascribed to McConnell, actually being able to silence the president of the United States with a veiled threat to make him look bad—-when none of the egregious scandals of the prior eight or ten years had laid a glove on him. I had to re-read that paragraph a couple of times to confirm that you were really saying that Mitch McConnel bossed the president around, with the implication that he was motivated by something somehow Russian.
And you actually seem to buy into this load of crap.
Now it appears that people in the Obama administration, “all the way to the top”, conspired to concoct a scheme to have an American businessman approached by one or more government agencies to be told that seducing a Russian agent and maintaining a relationship with her so he could introduce her to people in some political campaigns would be helping his country. This was so these federal agencies, acting in the interests of the administration and its political party, could use the association of this agent with anyone in a Republican campaign as the foundation for demanding a FISA warrant, under the claim that the Russian link called for a counterintelligence operation, so the administration through its federal agencies could find or invent accusations of wrongdoing against Republican candidates.
Did it work? Well, getting her in the same room with Don Jr. allowed the hyenas of the Left to concoct all sorts of allegedly sinister and meaningful explanations of how and why this meant “collusion with Russia”.
Which reminds me of the question no one wants to answer: What is the formal name, definition and statute number of a crime referred to as “collusion with Russia”?
However, it is coming out that a real Russian agent WAS planted in or near the campaign, with the intent of influencing the outcome of the election. It’s just that this was done by the Dems to try to injure a Republican candidate, as well as the DNC involvement in hiring Christopher Steele to invent a fake “dossier” on Trump with the assistance of yet another Russian agent. The combination of the dossier and the FISA spying generated by the claimed association of the Russian agent with the candidate were supposed to guarantee a victory for Clinton.
It’s kind of funny to see the Dems screeching “THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING! ” when they hired them and told them what to do to try to bring down Trump. But this would never have gained much traction without the gleeful voluntary participation of people like rgrg2.
RG it’s an incredible feat but you managed a litany of word salad without actually answering one question:
1. There are many reports and analyses of what the Obama administration did and didn’t do So? Where are they? I honestly haven’t read one legitimate account of what they did, other than turn their investigations to Trump, so I will ask you agin. What did they do?
2. You asserted that Russia was all in Trump’s favor and then when confronted with conflicting evidence, you claim “Didn’t know about it. Don’t care about it.. Says a lot
3. You assert Trump is a racist but seem very incurious about his actions that suggest otherwise. Again, says a lot
4. Ben Carson is incompetent? Do you have concrete evidence of that? Otherwise, it sure sounds racist.
5. Tell me more about the DOJ’s Fair Housing against Trump … in detail. And a link to a google search page is not evidence, just saying. We all learned that along time ago.
See this is why I think you’re a tad stupid.
Well, rg, anything that makes it through your filter is going to be ugly and wrong, so your claim that Cluster meant that (which is code for “he never said it but I am pretty sure that is what he meant”) it is unpatriotic to criticize the president. Of course, he said or implied or hinted at no such thing.
As we, and so many others, have pointed out so often, any “meddling” by Russia was not to influence the election but merely to litter the political landscape with so many booby traps, so many trip wires, that the predictably excitable Lefties would jump on them and generate vast amounts of angst, fury, rage, hysteria and general social unrest. And that was the intent.
Therefore, participating in the angst, fury, rage and hysteria have served only to increase general social unrest, which is the same thing as working to advance the Russian agenda. What you blandly call “criticizing the president” has been to criticism as the sniffles are to cancer. It has been a nonstop blast of the most virulent, vicious, unsupported personal attacks based on the most outrageous lies, coupled with the stated intent of many to simply overturn the election results.
And it has not just been attacking the president. It has been attacking his wife, his children, all who work for the administration and every person who voted for him. This has all contributed to such a high degree of societal disruption that many fear a civil war is in the m making. When half the nation hates the other half and considers it racist and degenerate that is a society in danger. And this has been fed by the ravenous appetites of the Trump haters for anything they can say about him.
So when you spread lies about him, as you have been doing here, you are not “criticizing” him but savaging him with vile, vicious, virulent attacks that have no foundation in fact or truth. There is no other way to view this than as working to assist any nation which wants to destabilize our nation and weaken it.
So when you spread lies about him, as you have been doing here, you are not “criticizing” him but savaging him with vile, vicious, virulent attacks that have no foundation in fact or truth. There is no other way to view this than as working to assist any nation which wants to destabilize our nation and weaken it.
That might–might–be true if the attacked had no foundation in fact or truth. But in fact, they do.
No, they don’t. And no matter how often and how thoroughly they proved to be lies or projections or distorted interpretations or fragments of comments taken out of context, people like you love them too much to give them up, so you recirculate them over and over again.
I understand RG that you are bona fide member of the Party of Misfit Toys, but I do want you to really understand the difference in personal character that separates the two sides and that contrast is revealed in the reactions by the two sides to the death of David Koch and reemergence of cancer in Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/08/leftwing_institutions_mainstreaming_hatred.html
Common sense Conservative Americans are compassionate people who embrace life and acknowledge a Higher power. Their response to RBG’s condition highlights that.
Delusional Liberal Democrats are full of hate, malice, and spite who only love power and worship themselves. Their response to Koch exposes that, wouldn’t you say?
The contrast is undeniable.
I understand RG that you are bona fide member of the Party of Misfit Toys…
I haven’t heard of it. Tell me more. I have all day.
Party of Misfit Toys = Democrats. There, that was a short day.
Oh, it’s the counterpart of Party of Wing Nuts. Got it.
I love wing nuts. I use them all the time. They hold things together and contribute to stability and function. I always thought it kind of the Left to appreciate how the same qualities apply to so many of on the Right.
I love wing nuts. I use them all the time. They hold things together and contribute to stability and function
LMAO. I am stealing this one.
Here’s another question for you RG. Do you think a woman who wears a rag on her head is an independent woman? And the rag does symbolize a devotion to the Islamic religion. How does that square with your most sacred tenet in separation of Church and State?
https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/24/ilhan-omar-mocks-republicans-losing-their-minds-muslims-congress/
That’s a difficult question so you can take your time answering that one. I understand.
Here’s another question for you RG. Do you think a woman who wears a rag on her head is an independent woman?
How disrespectful of you, Cluster (but fully in keeping with your character). Do you refer to a nun’s habit, which consists of three yards of wool and covers much of her head, as “a rag”?
If they wore it in the execution of their political career, I sure would. You didn’t answer the question sport. How does that square with your most sacred tenet of separation of Church and State.
And Omar will never have my respect. She’s as dumb as you are.
After years in parochial schools I don’t remember seeing any nuns with three yards of anything on their heads (I sew, and know what “three yards of wool” looks like) or anything being wrapped around and tied on their heads.
Having said that, I agree that referring to the religious garb worn by Iman in defiance of the Left’s hysterical determination to eliminate any symbol of any religion from the public square, which I would assume would include the halls of Congress, as a “rag” is crude and disrespectful. I don’t have to invent some imaginary description of any other religious garb to make that point.
You would have to have respect for the Islamic religion to be offended by the rag comment. I have zero respect for the religion, which in fact is not a religion but a political front designed solely to secure power and subject many to second class citizenry.
Not my thing.
After years in parochial schools I don’t remember seeing any nuns with three yards of anything on their heads (I sew, and know what “three yards of wool” looks like) or anything being wrapped around and tied on their heads.
I can’t help it if you didn’t learn anything about it. Sister Helen Prejean described it in an interview recently. And I was a little off. It was three-and-a-half yards.
The irony is that through the Trump organization, Trump has lifted more black families into middle class than I would wager to say all current Democrats combined. If that’s racism, sign me up.
The irony is that through the Trump organization, Trump has lifted more black families into middle class than I would wager to say all current Democrats combined.
Care to back that up with facts?
When I say that “I would wager” … that refers to an educated guess RG. I didn’t “declare” that to be a fact.
See this is why I think you’re a tad stupid.
When I say that “I would wager” … that refers to an educated guess RG. I didn’t “declare” that to be a fact.
Oh, so now we’re just making things up. This is what you consider to be elevated discourse? Seriously?
Don’t get your panties in a bunch sweetheart. The Trump organization employs thousands of Americans of all colors and creeds, and they all pay taxes that benefit their communities. Meanwhile, Democrats like Nancy Pelosi look the other way and go on vacation in Europe while homeless people in her district literally defecate on the streets.
And that’s not “wagering” anything. That’s a fact. See the difference sport?
Claire McCaskill: “I’m trying to imagine what my former R colleagues would have done if Barack Obama ‘hereby ordered’ American businesses to do anything. They would’ve gone batsh*t crazy. Today? Crickets. I’m embarrassed for them.”
Pretty much.
And I remember when Barack Obama ORDERED business’s to include abortion coverage for their employees. Even the Little Sister’s of the Poor, who Obama sued in Court over that very issue.
Do you not remember that? I am embarrassed for you.
And I remember when Barack Obama ORDERED business’s to include abortion coverage for their employees. Even the Little Sister’s of the Poor, who Obama sued in Court over that very issue.
First off, President Obama didn’t order businesses to include abortion coverage for their employees, nor did Little Sister’s of the Poor sue over that very issue. Little Sister’s sued over the Department of Health and Human Service’s requirement that employers provide contraceptive coverage.
Second, even if Obama did, I am perplexed as to why you would cite it as justification for President Trump’s own actions. Here I thought you all believed that Trump would bring a return to limited federal government and the end of the so-called “imperial presidency.” And now you use such examples, even if made up, to justify the same behavior from Trump. Have you no principles (other than owning the libs)?!
RG, will you ever man up and answer how Omar’s rag on her head comports to your sacred tenet of separation of Church and State? Or will you be permanently relegated to pajama boy status?
RG, will you ever man up and answer how Omar’s rag on her head comports to your sacred tenet of separation of Church and State?
Omar doesn’t wear a rag on her head. If you’d like to rephrase the question in an appropriate way, I would be happy to respond.
Non-answer….scurry to the corner
Non-answer….scurry to the corner
Non-answer because she doesn’t wear a rag on her head, so it’s a non-question. Make it an appropriate question and I’ll respond with an appropriate answer. If you can’t, that’s on you.
Nice effort to dodge, but phony. You don’t get to make rules and impose them on others, no matter how deeply this urge is part of Leftist agendas.
Nice effort to dodge, but phony. You don’t get to make rules and impose them on others, no matter how deeply this urge is part of Leftist agendas.
Fine. Nor do you get to demand that I answer questions about rags.
So I have to say, I’m a little disappointed by Cluster and Amazona’s response to my invitation for political discourse. The above is the best you have? Educated guesses? Personal insults? “Prove you’re not a racist”? Party of Misfit Toys? I’m gonna go to lunch. If you would truly like to have a more elevated discussion, now is your chance to offer something more substantive. I’ll be back in a while to see if you’re up to it.
Uh, I responded with a request for you to explain your alleged political philosophy and even started the ball rolling with an explanation of my own, so you could pick it apart, agree or disagree, and not have to start from scratch. Are you denying that I did this? Or did it just “disappoint” you? So hard to tell, once you start tap dancing.
Uh, I responded with a request for you to explain your alleged political philosophy and even started the ball rolling with an explanation of my own, so you could pick it apart, agree or disagree, and not have to start from scratch.
No you did not. You haven’t asked me to explain my political philosophy anywhere in these 130-plus comments. I think you have me confused with someone else.
That said, I’m happy to oblige, even though we’ve done this before.
For some reason my computer will no longer copy and paste on this site. But my answer was three hours ago starting with the comment that you had to reach back into your tightie whities for your comment prior to that.
For some reason my computer will no longer copy and paste on this site.
Ah, I see it now. There have been a blizzard of comments from you and Cluster, which is interesting since you claim that I have nothing to say. So sorry, I missed that one. But I will respond to your request at the bottom of this thread instead of here.
Your idea of “elevated” discourse is to evidently not answer any specific questions. You can’t answer the separation of church and state issue. You can’t answer Obama’s healthcare order. You can’t provide any concrete evidence that Trump is racist. You can’t provide any evidence that Carson is incompetent. You can’t answer what Obama did about Russian meddling.
In other words. You have brought nothing to the table. We have given you plenty of opportunity to defend your assertions but you always run away or deflect.
Your idea of “elevated” discourse is to evidently not answer any specific questions. You can’t answer the separation of church and state issue.
When you refrain from calling it a rag, I’ll be happy to answer.
You can’t answer Obama’s healthcare order.
Answered. And also pointed out that you are blissfully confused about it.
You can’t provide any concrete evidence that Trump is racist.
I provided you with a handy link from which you can find numerous examples. Do you really want me to start enumerating instances of Trump’s racism here? Well, okay…
You can’t provide any evidence that Carson is incompetent.
Just one example, from his testimony before Congress on May 21:
You can’t answer what Obama did about Russian meddling.
I referred you to an NPR analysis of the subject. Read it. Do you want me to paste it here?
That was not from a transcript of testimony before Congress. That was a biased and obviously racist comment on it from the perspective of a hateful and bigoted commenter
Your links cite lies,
Your claim that someone does not understand Obamacare has no credibility at all. It is just a non-responsive snarl
You can’t just invent criteria others have to meet before you will answer. That is a tired old trick, meaning you got nothing.
Wow, these are some thoughtful comments from you, Amazona. Is your return key stuck?
Well now I don’t think you’re a tad stupid, I am convinced of it.
1. Obamacare mandated insurance policies to cover all forms of contraception, from birth control pills to abortion drugs and devices at no cost to the employees. This was ORDERED regardless of the business owners personally held beliefs.
2. Words are not racist. Only to the emotionally challenged are words, taken out of context, construed as racist. Actions define racism, so I will ask you again, what specific actions has Trump engaged in as President to oppress minorities? You continue to fail at this basic exercise.
3. Not knowing industry acronyms is again not an example of incompetence. Actions are a better measure of that and Carson’s HUD through economic opportunity zones has done more for inner cities than any President in my life time. These are real actions, not words sport.
https://fundrise.com/education/blog-posts/the-top-10-opportunity-zones-in-the-united-states
4. You mentioned an NPR article but never referenced it and considering NPR has been wrong on just about everything over the last 20 years I hesitate to give them credibility.
1. Obamacare mandated insurance policies to cover all forms of contraception, from birth control pills to abortion drugs and devices at no cost to the employees. This was ORDERED regardless of the business owners personally held beliefs.
Leaving aside the accuracy or lack therefore of your statement, this is the order that you are holding up as an example to justify Trump’s ability to order American businesses to do his bidding? Again, do you have any political philosophy at all, or is it just to own the libs?
2. Words are not racist. Only to the emotionally challenged are words, taken out of context, construed as racist. Actions define racism, so I will ask you again, what specific actions has Trump engaged in as President to oppress minorities? You continue to fail at this basic exercise.
Of course words can be racist. I mean, we have would-be and actual mass murders citing Trump’s words as justification for their crimes. As for actions, we can start with the Justice Department’s 1973 lawsuit against Trump Management Company for not renting to African-Americans because they were African-Americans.
3. Not knowing industry acronyms is again not an example of incompetence.
Not know the basic business of his own department is the very definition of incompetence.
4. You mentioned an NPR article…
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/21/587614043/fact-check-why-didnt-obama-stop-russia-s-election-interference-in-2016
RG WILL NOT answer the separation of church and state question because he has no answer. He is terrified of Muslims to the point of silence. If this were a Nun wearing a Habit in Congress, RG would go apoplectic because Christians are tolerant people and there is no fear of backlash. In his circles, to criticize Muslims there will be hell to pay.
You have exposed your duplicity RG
You have an active fantasy world, don’t you? I would do this, I would do that. Try sticking to reality, not educated guesses, B.S. lawsuits, and made up personas.
Try answering the question
Nah, you’ll have to phrase it appropriately first.
In response to Amazona’s request for me to explain my “alleged political philosophy”:
I believe that any worthy system of government must protect and guarantee the rights of individuals against the tyranny of federal, state and local governments. So the Bill of Rights is a pillar of American governance. It is particularly important now, when we have a would-be authoritarian in the White House who would like nothing better than to use his powers to silence his critics and enrich himself and his cronies.
I believe that any worthy system of government is one in which no one is above the law. Also important now, given who occupies the White House.
I believe that government has a role in advancing the general welfare of the people it governs. And this includes government at all levels, including federal. One of the beauties of our system of government, and the Constitution (including its amendments), is that it has adaptable to a country that is vastly different from the one for which is was originally written.
As a blueprint for achieving these aims, the Constitution is not perfect—the Electoral College is an anachronism that has aged poorly—but it has and hopefully will continue to serve us well.
Since Amazona tends to focus almost entirely on Tenth Amendment, let me state the obvious, which is that I take a more expansive view of implied powers than she does. As you know, there has been disagreement over the interpretation of the Constitution with respect to the federal government’s ability to “provide for the general welfare.” The commerce clause gives wide latitude, as does the power to levy taxes and expend funds to “provide for the general welfare.”
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
The debate over what powers this actually gives the federal government goes all the way back to the Founders, even the authors of the Federalists Papers. Hamilton took a broad view of implied powers. Madison took a strict view. Two hundred plus years later, and we’re still debating it.
I don’t know how you concluded this:
It is particularly important now, when we have a would-be authoritarian in the White House who would like nothing better than to use his powers to silence his critics and enrich himself and his cronies
Trump has an enormous amount of critics and is at the brunt of one of the most concerted and hostile media attacks ever, yet he has not done one thing to threaten their license or platform. Additionally, Trump is probably the most transparent President ever, constantly talking to the press. And please provide concrete evidence that Trump is n this only to “enrich himself and his cronies”. If you can please
No is above the law? Really? How about illegal immigrants? How about Hillary Clinton? How about Andrew McCabe? How about James Comey? How about Mayors from Sanctuary Cities? What a stupid comment.
Democrats could fulfill their wish list if they just did within a State’s borders. In fact, that is actually unfolding before our eyes in California and we are seeing the abysmal results. Constitutionally, the federal government has limited powers, while the State’s nearly have unlimited powers. And the electoral college is simply a compilation of the individual State’s popular vote.
It would be good if you, Cluster, expounded on your political philosophy. I don’t think you have ever done so.
As for the electoral college, it is not “simply a compilation of the individual State’s popular vote.” There is no Constitutional requirement or law that the electors vote per the results of the popular vote in their states. Maybe you should read up on it.
I should say, there is no federal law requiring that electors vote per a state’s popular vote, but some states do have such laws. In any event, the Constitution doesn’t mandate this at all.
No there is no law but does there really need to be? Shouldn’t the electors respect the popular vote of their respective State? You’re wanting the nation to respect the popular vote of the country but then you dismiss the popular vote of the State’s. That’s a tough position to defend.
No there is no law but does there really need to be? Shouldn’t the electors respect the popular vote of their respective State?
If that is the case, why have electors in the first place? Furthermore, electors don’t entirely respect the popular vote. For instance, there were more votes for Trump in California than in several other states combined. Yet those votes did not count in the Electoral College because all of California’s electors went to Hillary Clinton.
The reason conservatives advocate for the Electoral College is that the winner-take-all procedure used by most states currently gives conservatives an edge over the popular vote, which has been won by the Democratic candidate in six of the last seven presidential elections. Conservatives know that they can no longer regularly win the popular vote, so they cling to the winner-take-all Electoral College. Problem is, winner-take-all is not actually proscribed in the Constitution and it can be changed; hence the fact that several states have pledged to change their Electoral College procedure to mimic the popular vote once enough states have agreed to do the same.
Well it’s obvious you have no idea why the electoral college is in place. First off, California’s votes for Trump have no bearing on other states votes, period, They are meaningless. Hillary won the popular vote in CA so she gets their electoral votes.
We are not a democracy RG. We are a representative republic and the popular vote in each state does matter. In a democracy, the popular vote of the country would matter, much like Iraq and Venezuela. In a representative republic, the individuals states popular vote matters. See the difference?
Hillary won the popular vote in CA so she gets their electoral votes.
Uh… isn’t that what I said?
The states could just as easily change their method to allocate electors based on the percentage each candidate got of that state’s popular vote, as opposed to winner-take-all. Do you not know that? I personally like the coming compact in which the states put their electors on the winner of the national popular vote.
By the way, I’d love to learn from you “why the electoral college is in the first place.”
I personally see the Compact costing every participating state a bundle of money to defend it in court, and it being shot down by the courts.
Saying what you would like as an outcome is not the same thing as saying how the government should be structured. So you rattle off a few items on a wish list, peppered with more unfounded snarls about the President, but completely devoid of content regarding how a government could be structured to grant your wishes. You have a lot of vague kinda-thoughts but nothing very coherent.
Then you veer off into the tired old argument about what the term “provide for the general welfare” means and, naturally, you ignore the contemporaneous explanations by the men who wrote it in favor of a what you admit is an expansionist view. Hamilton was our first Lefty, a guy who never met an expansion of the federal government he didn’t love, which is why he is the only Founder you rabid Lefties have any use for.
It comes as no surprise that you misstate what I write. I do not focus entirely on the 10th Amendment, but it is an excellent summary of the rest of the Constitution. That is, if it isn’t specifically delegated to the feds, it is forbidden to the feds, and left to the states as long as what they want doesn’t violate any part of the Constitution.
I stated my political perspective in a clear and concise manner, about the ideal basic structure of a government. If you start from the other end—-what you would like the outcome of a government to provide—naturally you are going to like a government that declares itself able to do that. I find it amusing that you consider your wish list to be a coherent POLITICAL philosophy, when in fact it is just a list of things you think would be nice.
You believe the government should have a role in advancing the general welfare of the people it governs. But those who wrote the Constitution said, very clearly, that it has a role in doing what it has to do to advance the general welfare of the NATION, not its people. The document protects the rights of the people to pursue and provide for their own welfare, and leaves plenty of room for the states to add to that if they wish and take on more responsibility for the care of the people.
The end result of a federal government allowed to expand without restrictions to try to address the various concerns and needs of the populace is tyranny. It is loss of individual liberty and the development of a massively powerful Central Authority, and historically one of the methods adopted by these Central Authorities has been to confiscate private property for redistribution by the State.
If only you were capable of sticking to a POLITICAL argument, trying to explain and defend your preference for a Leftist form of government and not our Constitutional model, you would at least be rational even if wrong. But it is clear that even this fuzzy and vague semi-philosophical approach to government plays second fiddle and may even be totally dependent on your pathological hatred of Donald Trump.
You invent fantasy crimes and offenses to try to justify your mental condition, but this is all transparent. When pushed to provide examples to support your bigotry all you can do is offer equally hostile opinions from equally biased haters. When you do try to make a declarative statement, that statement is always factually inaccurate and wholly the result of your personal need to savagely attack this man.
The problem you have, though you will never admit it, is that we now have access to facts and are not dependent on the invented hysteria and body of extravagant lies you seem to feel support your pathology. So while you posture as writing about Trump, what you are really doing is writing about you. And it isn’t pretty.
It also isn’t worth the time it takes to address your various intellectual, character and factual defects. The only reason I respond at all—-because you are just the latest in a long line of equally delusional, hate-driven and, to put it bluntly, stupid, shrieking trolls howling at the moon—– is because a lot of people read this blog without participating and I am concerned that if I let your lies just hang there, unaddressed, some of those readers might assume there is at least a kernel of truth in them.
I don’t respond to YOU, because I think you are beyond redemption as a decent, honest and sincere human being, but to the people who might be wondering if anything you say is really true. And to those people I say, without any hesitation or qualification, NO. Nothing rgrg2 says is factual or rational or related to anything but his own personal pathology. I’ve spent enough time to illustrate that, as he hasn’t been able to come up with a single fact and rely on the lies of others to shore up his own. He would like to drag this on, and for some strange reason Cluster just loves to roll around in the muck with these people, but I think I have proved that rgrg2 brings nothing to the table but rancid garbage and a lot of unresolved mental health issues.
I think I have proved that rgrg2 brings nothing to the table but rancid garbage and a lot of unresolved mental health issues.
Oh my God, this may be your best response to anything anyone has ever written on this blog. You have truly outdone yourself in this thread, having thrown in every insult from your great big bag of insults and even managed to invent some new ones in your latest post. Congratulations. I am in awe.
So I take it you don’t believe the Bill of Rights is a pillar of American governance? lol
You love to cite what someone said once upon a time, so go to your more recent archives and re-read what I said about the giveaway of a Lib starting with “So….” and then proceeding with a version of “..what you REALLY MEAN is…” It’s just one of the infantile tactics you people use as filler when you can’t come up with anything, and a foolish love of the “gotcha!” school of pseudo-discourse.
Having seen how bizarrely clueless and inaccurate and downright WRONG you are in the many ways you “take” things, I can’t imagine giving a hoot about how you take anything. As you immediately post my comment that I think the 10th Amendment is an excellent summary of the Constitution, and as the 10th Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, it is obvious that your utterly stupid comment was never meant to be taken seriously and was just another of those nuggets you pull out of your undies to hurl when you don’t have anything to say.
It comes as no surprise that you misstate what I write. I do not focus entirely on the 10th Amendment, but it is an excellent summary of the rest of the Constitution.
I said “Since Amazona tends to focus almost entirely on Tenth Amendment.” And that is absolutely true, as the many silent readers of this blog well know.
Funny, last time I posted about the Bill of Rights, etc, using almost exactly the same text verbatim, you thanked me and offered a considered response. Now you hurl insults.
RG, that was an effective rebuttal by Amazona, you just can’t admit it. You did just lay out a wish list of “outcomes” rather than define a structure on how to achieve. You mention the Bill of Rights but that is just one component to our current structure that helps strengthen it. You seem to want a national poplar vote but that would be in contrast to our current structure. A national popular vote would blur the states lines and voice and lead to a one party rule. Start by defending that. If we have a national popular vote which is simple majority rule, who represents the interests of the people in Wyoming?
RG, that was an effective rebuttal by Amazona, you just can’t admit it. You did just lay out a wish list of “outcomes” rather than define a structure on how to achieve
That’s just B.S. You are just piling on, which is typical since you rarely have an original thought of your own.
By the way, here’s Spook describing conservatism on this thread:
No, the “overriding tenet of conservatism.” is still small, unobtrusive government, individual liberty and personal responsibility, and adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law.
All outcome based.
Oh, also by the way, here’s Cluster defining his political philosophy:
[crickets]
Amazona’s response was laden with insults because she can’t stand the fact that someone–anyone–offered a reasonable definition of their political philosophy that differs from her own. As I said, last time I posted pretty much exactly the same response, she was much more considered. Now I seem to have gotten under her skin. But today is a new day.
If you think Spook’s philosophy is outcome-based you truly are blind to reason. He described a political system—-the Constitutional model of small federal government, personal responsibility, individual liberty and adherence to the rule of law. He described a framework of government. Naturally you have to quibble and bicker about the choice of words.
You, on the other hand, ramble through a wish list of vague outcomes.
You seem to want a national poplar vote but that would be in contrast to our current structure. A national popular vote would blur the states lines and voice and lead to a one party rule. Start by defending that. If we have a national popular vote which is simple majority rule, who represents the interests of the people in Wyoming?
Yes, I think the president of the United States should be elected by all of the citizens of the United States, using a popular vote in which each and every citizen of the United States gets the same vote as any other. No more, no less.
Yes, it is in contrast to our current structure, which is the Electoral College. Yes, if I had my druthers, it would be changed. Glad you caught on.
You ask, “who represents the interests of the people of Wyoming?” First off, why should a citizen of Wyoming have any more say regarding the president of the United States than a citizen of, say, Arizona? There is no rational reason for that.
Second, the Senate provides a mechanism in which each of the states is given equal representation. That is, the 40 million people fo California get the same representation as the 577,737 of Wyoming.
If you think Spook’s philosophy is outcome-based you truly are blind to reason. He described a political system—-the Constitutional model of small federal government, personal responsibility, individual liberty and adherence to the rule of law. He described a framework of government.
So did I–namely the Bill Of Rights, which in case you’ve forgotten, is part of the Constitution. And I specifically named the Constitution as a framework that serves us well, but you gloss over that in order to denigrate me, which was really your intent all along.
In any event, claiming that the American Constitution system is a political philosophy is rubbish in the first place. The Constitution is a work of political engineering aimed at achieving a political philosophy.
The political philosophy codified by the Constitution is that a nation’s governance must be by the people and for the people, which is laid out in its details. It clearly limits the size, scope and powers of the federal government. It clearly assigns responsibility for most legislation to the states or to the people. It clearly lays out an umbrella of protection from various abuses—–interference in the ability to worship as one pleases, having the military quartered in our homes without our permission, being tried without the due process of being formally accused of a specific crime and being able to confront the accuser and mount a defense, and so on. It clearly lays out specific rights which the government cannot alter, such as the right to bear arms and the right to free speech. Each element of the Constitution supports the underlying philosophy of limited central authority, powers left to the states or the people, personal responsibility and individual liberty.
You are quite coy about your true political philosophy, goals and agendas. You hide behind elaborate semantic gamesmanship and various avoidance tactics. But it is still obvious that you are a Leftist. You might balk at using the word, but the word is less important than the structure it defines. The thing is, one cannot be a Leftist—that is, one who believes that a nation should be governed on a collectivist model under a massively powerful Central Authority and still believe in our Constitution.
So the natural question is why you try to hard to hide this? Is it because I just described a political belief system far beyond your inclination or ability to consider and comprehend? Or is it because you prefer to continue paying lip service, when pushed, to the Constitution as part of the deceptions and games you employ to come to sites like this and know that admitting your true political positions would prove this to be a lie?
You have chosen to be in the position where the only choices of others, in looking at what you write, is that you are either profoundly stupid or a complete liar. And you have proved that the two are not mutually exclusive.
The American Constitution is the codification of a political philosophy. It is the organization and formalization necessary to put a political philosophy to work, to make it a blueprint for government. As usual, you have it completely backwards, which takes us back to the question: are you really that stupid, or just that deeply invested in making dishonest comments?
As usual, your crystal ball, which you most recently tried to use to explain my true motives (to “denigrate” you) is out of whack. As usual, it tells you what you want or need to hear, and as usual that has little or no relation to reality.
I do not denigrate you. You denigrate yourself by lying, constantly and insistently, and clinging to those lies. You denigrate yourself by your malicious glee in regurgitating those lies. You denigrate yourself in many ways, and all I do is put words to the examples of lack of self-respect and personal dignity you exhibit, whether by lying or by being sneaky or any of the other ways you illustrate yourself to us.
But of all the characteristics you exhibit here, the one that stands out as the most defining of you as a person is the word LIAR. Up to a point, you can get a pass for simply being so stupid and gullible you just believe the lies other people tell you. But when those lies have been proved to be false, and when you essentially admit you are lying by citing other liars as proof that you never had any facts but only the hate bubble where the lies circulate, you can no longer hide behind the claim that you are not purposely lying, you are just repeating something you believe to be true. So that feeble excuse is off the table, and you now stand fully exposed as nothing but a liar.
Mean-spirited, hostile, surly and addicted to hate, yes—but the connective tissue among all these other descriptions is that you are just a stone-cold liar.
You love to cite what someone said once upon a time, so go to your more recent archives and re-read what I said about the giveaway of a Lib starting with “So….” and then proceeding with a version of “..what you REALLY MEAN is…” It’s just one of the infantile tactics you people use as filler when you can’t come up with anything, and a foolish love of the “gotcha!” school of pseudo-discourse.
I don’t need to read what you said about libs, I can read your insult-laden posts right here. Serious question: Are you able to debate without resorting to insults?
And the rag, or as they refer to it as Hijab or Burka, is nothing more than a sign of male oppression so I will never speak to it with “respect”. Again you’re duplicitous to claim to champion women’s rights and at the same time treat this symbol of male oppression with “respect”. And considering Omar’s actions and words over the last couple of years, she is not worthy of respect either and seems to me to be programmed by her bettors. .
Oh, so you do actually know the terms for her headwear…
From the NPR article:
Among other things, top U.S. intelligence officials — including then-CIA Director John Brennan — privately warned their Russian counterparts not to persist with their active measures. Obama himself told Russian President Vladimir Putin not to interfere in the election. These warnings did not work.
LMAO. I am shocked Russia didn’t oblige
Ladies and gentleman. Former President Barack Obama
“There is no serious person out there who would suggest that you could even rig America’s elections, in part because they are so decentralized. There is no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that there are instances that that could happen this time,” the president said to the future president in October 2016.
Very good. You actually can follow a link. Now read the Mueller Report and let me know what you think.
I prefer to read non fiction
You prefer to have a closed mind.
According to Obama, what he told Putin was “cut it out”. I wonder if he used his Mad Daddy face.