Sunday, June 05, 2016

Toto, I've A Feeling We're Not In Kansas Any More.

What a sad time.  Coming to the end of an eight year period of idiocy by a guy poorly pretending to be a president, and what have we got?  The choice between bad and worse and the inability to decide which is which.  I am on record as insisting it is the duty of every American to vote...for every Christian to vote...that not voting is a vote for the worst of evils on the ballot (assuming more than two)...and that one cannot complain about the state of affairs when one did nothing to influence the direction of the state. 

So now what do I do? 

Assuming there's still a chance ol' Bernie can win the Democratic nomination, there's no way on God's green earth that I would ever vote for a socialist...especially one as goofy as this guy.  And Hillary?  Are you freaking kidding me?  At best she's four more years of Barry O! 

Then there's the Trumpster.  We know what kind of hell hole we'll be in with either Bernie or Hillary.  Of that there's no doubt.  They simply CAN'T improve our situation.  But Donnie-boy is an unknown.  That is to say, we really don't know what he'll do given the fact that he hasn't given us a whole lot about which we can feel certain.  I'm not talking about getting things done, but about exactly what he'll try to get done.  He's walked back a lot of things he's asserted he will do. 

I'm concerned about the guy's character, frankly, and despite what some who are said to know him well say, it's hard to feel good about a strip-club owner.  There's also his lack of concern for private property rights.  And we're just supposed to believe him that things will be better with him in charge, when a little insight as to how he intends to accomplish what he promises would go a long way toward instilling some confidence in those like myself who are not impressed with his "political incorrectness". 

That alone is a big deal to me.  There's rejecting political correctness, and then there's being an ass.  There is no need to be the latter when claiming to favor the former.  In speaking to Megyn Kelly, he said he likely wouldn't be where he is if he hadn't acted and talked like he did.  I don't doubt it for a minute.  But being a clown is not what we need in a president, as Barry has proven.  (Indeed, pretending for a moment that he's actually conservative, he's the conservative Barry O, and his supporters are very much like Barry's were...and just as foolish.)

He also told Kelly that if he fails to win the White House, he would regard his campaign as having been a great waste of time.  Two problems with this gem:  1.  He didn't use the word "failure" in regards to...you know...FAILING to win the presidency, and 2.  Striving to serve the nation as its president, but failing to be elected is not a waste of time if one is truly concerned with doing the job I the first place.  His comments indicate an "it's all about me" attitude, which seems to be totally Trump.

And that's another problem.  Many insist that he will surround himself with really good people.  I would hope so.  But my fear is that he will not abide their counsel.  He regards himself highly.  He's a legend in his own mind.  Will he truly take guidance from more expert people? 

I could go on and on about all the things that make him a horrible choice.  As disappointed as I was with the American people for Obama, both with those who supported him as well as those who didn't vote because of all the lame reasons for not voting, I am even more disappointed now.  We had a guy who really knows the Constitution and has proven that he is more concerned with it being followed than he is with making friends, and people think Trump spouting off about immigration makes him more worthy of their votes.  It didn't then and doesn't now, but now we have a harder choice (Cruz was the no-brainer choice, meaning too many have proven they have no brain). 

We have a harder choice, but we have no choice but to cast a vote for this low-life scumbag (I'm following his lead in my word choices here).  To allow a Clinton/Sanders win is to support what they will do to us.  That simply can't be allowed to happen.  It's too late to go third party and while I'd like to write in Cruz, that's really no different than going third party without some real confidence that a majority will do the same. 

I'm going to have to hold my nose (tightly) and vote for Trump.  I don't want to.  But fools have tied my hands.  I have to vote for the guy who didn't attract enough attention in the primaries to quickly force out those who eventually stayed in the race too long.  Most of the right-wing didn't want him.  I still don't.

But....

I recently heard Mark Levin talking about SCOTUS appointments and those on Trump's list of possibilities.  Mark knows these things well and his opinion of the list is favorable for the most part, Levin knowing many of them on the list.  So Trump's choice(s) could make voting for him worth it.  What else he might do and/or accomplish will remain to be seen.  And I'm nervous as hell about it.

295 comments:

1 – 200 of 295   Newer›   Newest»
Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Yep, Trump is necessary to prevent more socialism, more anti-gun policies, and a decent chance at good SCOTUS choices. Holding my nose also.

Feodor said...

God knows you deserve the guy. The consequences of your dedication to hate. A racist leader of your immoral party and other such monstrosities.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/danielwagner/how-trump-tried-to-get-qaddafis-cash?utm_term=.gq2pGmJn9q#.mn1rJmeA2q

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The LEFTISTS keep saying Trump is a racist, but they never have any proof of such. Their proof is his wanting to build a wall to keep out ILLEGAL Mexicans, so don't you know that makes him racist against Mexicans? And a judge whose parents are Mexican, and who is a member of a radical Mexican leftist group and who hates everything Trump stands for is in charge of a case against Trump and Trump speaks against him and that's racist?

Oh, and Trump wants to stop Muslims from coming to the USA until we can get proper vetting done, and that's racist. Trouble is, stupid leftists don't understand that Muslim is not a race!

Oh, and conservatives are dedicated to "hate," yet LEFTISTS say it's hate just to disagree with their immoral agendas.

LEFTISTS have no common sense.

Feodor said...

"House Speaker Paul Ryan [noted Conservative] ripped Donald Trump's recent remarks saying a judge presiding over a lawsuit involving his business was biased because of his Mexican heritage as "the textbook definition of a racist comment."

Feodor said...

You don't really seem to be holding your nose all that tight, Glenn. I think you get s little giddy with his open racist comments.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

So now Paul Ryan is the expert on what is or is not "racism"?

Feodor said...

Well, you have leftists and conservatives saying it's racism. And you say it isn't. Guess where that leaves you.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

It leaves me not being a politically correct lemming. It leaves me being intelligent and understanding the definition of the word. It leaves you stupid.

Craig said...

This brings up two things I was in a conversation about the other day.

1. When all Hilary supporters do is bash Trump they have already admitted failure. If someone wants to make a positive case for Hilary please feel free to do so. But reasons to vote against Trump do not equal reasons to vote for Hilary.

2. Virtually every single negative people use against Trump can also be used against Hilary. So when I hear people say that they can't vote for Trump because he's a (fill in the blank), then I fail to see how they can vote for Hilary who has many of the same failings.


Finally, I've come to conclude that the least bad of all possible options might just be Bernie. If nothing else he stands virtually zero chance of actually accomplishing anything on his agenda and we're left with 4 years of nothing.

Marshall Art said...

Leaving feo's remarks until time allows for more in depth refutation of his nonsense, I do wish to make a quick comment in response to Craig.

Points 1 & 2 are absolutely correct, though a case could be made that she has a few more negatives that Trump lacks. I'd have to think about it to see how such weighs out, but that's my first impression.

The final statement seems just about true for any of them, at least while a Republican majority remains in Congress. The one point that stands out as still being problematic with Sanders as much as with Clinton is that of the judicial appointment. The GOP is less likely to hold up a nomination unless the candidate is just so incredibly and obviously unacceptable. Note how Obama's appointments failed to meet staunch objection from the right. At least with Trump, according to a few I've heard, his list of possibilities is sound. I don't know that would be the case with either of the other two, but that doesn't mean that another total leftist wouldn't be approved by the GOP. That SCOTUS situation, at least for me, is the one driving aspect of this insane election season. We simply can't risk another leftist among the Supremes. Leftists do NOT abide their Constitutional mandates.

Feodor said...

Hillary is misogynistic, racist businessman who bankrolls his revenue via tax-payer paid bankruptcy court and who cheated on his wife.

No, Craig, it doesn't seem to work.

Feodor said...

And I'm not telling these guys to vote for Hillary; that would be like asking the devil to contribute to AmeriCares.

I'm just noting my deep un-surprise that they are committing themselves to a misogynistic racist.

The Piper's Wife said...

Where is the evidence that Trump hates women and is a racist? I don't deny that he's a jerk, etc, but those two are just lies made up by the LEFT. They charges the LEFT makes against everyone who disagrees with them.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

That comment from "The Piper's Wife" is me -- I just didn't realize she was still signed on to blogspot. OOPS.

Craig said...

I think it's safe to call Hilary misogynistic when one considers how she treated Bill's "conquests". I guess enabling a serial cheater is significantly better than being one. She's on record as having made racist remarks, and her magically appearing field hand dialect certainly suggests at least a twinge of racism. You are correct that Hilary is not in business, of course that just means she's been feeding at the public trough for the last 30 years or so, that doesn't even get into the 100 million or so she/they have "earned" by trading on their positions and influence. While I don't disagree with Trumps use of bankruptcy laws and eminent domain are problematic, at least Trump has engaged in activities that have built tangible things and employed thousands of people.

Your problem is that you still haven't done anything but bash Trump.

So, yeah,, virtually every negative Trump has is matched by Hilary.

Craig said...

The difference this election is that those on the right are acknowledging that we have a choice between two deeply flawed candidates and the if the choice is between one who might possibly advance (or at least not be hostile) to a reasonably conservative agenda, and one who will stop at nothing to block any sort of conservative priorities and demonize any who disagree, the decision is to take the chance on the one who at least gives conservatives a chance. Too many Hilary folks have drunk the Kool Aid and expect everyone to ignore Her negatives.

It makes one wonder if it's even possible to make any sort of positive case in favor of electing Hilary.

Craig said...

MA, I do agree with you that the judicial appointment aspect is the one area where Bernie might be able to get something done.

Feodor said...

In your fantasy world, Craig, I'm surprised you didn't note "a well known fact that Hillary is a hermaphrodite" and so the male pronouns for Trump can be matched by using them for her as well.

Feodor said...

I haven't bashed Trump yet.

Feodor said...

Glenn, unsurprisingly unable to be comfortable with conservatives like Paul Ryan, Hugh Hewitt, much less compassionate people with reason, thinks he's in the smart class going with Trump. Apparently Glenn thinks smart people are these fellas:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/david-duke-trump-judge-224121

And

http://nationalreport.net/kim-jong-un-endorses-donald-trump/

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Apparently, as usual, Feodor is wrong again in his understanding about me and my beliefs. This false preacher has no clue about reality, but just follows the media and the "Christian" left as if they are all gods themselves.

Feodor said...

You don't have beliefs, Glenn, you have anxieties and defensive prejudices.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feodor, as usual, you are deluded and looking in the mirror -- these charges fit you, not me.

Feodor said...

Who could forget 4th grade?

Craig said...

Feo,

As usual your positive evidence based argument in favor of Hilary is both cogent and overwhelming. In fact I'm amazed by your thorough grasp of the vast number of reasons why Hilary should be elected as well as your impassioned and well reasoned defense of her flaws. In short it's simply amazing how well you have defended your candidate.

Because "misogynistic" and "racist" aren't bashing in Foe world.

Feodor said...

I answered you, Craig, early above referencing the devil and AmeriCares. So, the lapse is rather yours.

Since the campaigns have been going for than about a year, you're a smart fella, why don't you sketch a few of Hillary's policy points if you want to start a discussion.

Meanwhile, its not bashing anyone when repeating consensus judgments held in common by both the left and right.

Craig said...

Feo,

It must be nice to live in your world. A world where calling someone a "racist" and misogynistic" are compliments (or at least not bashing). To live in a world where one simply "repeats" others bashing as a way to maintain a pretense of innocence.

As to your "answer", if that's all you have then that's just awesome.

I can't help but note the lack of a positive case for Hilary. Y'all can't even acknowledge the fact that she's got serious problems. But despite all her flaws she's still a woman and that's enough.

Feodor said...

I live in the same world as the Speaker of the House.

Refusal is an answer just as much as any other. What could possibly amount to more than futility to reason things out here about Hillary? If you can provide a constructive point to it, I'll change my mind.

Feodor said...

This is a great study in how reactionaries don't know the difference between judgments and opinion, between consensus and baseless opinion. If Crsig can call public consensus judgments bashing it's just of a piece with other acts of denial: the Holocaust, Armenian genocide, climate change, Obama's natural citizenship, the expanding universe, etc.

Craig said...

"What could possibly amount to more than futility to reason things out here about Hillary?"

At a minimum simply to demonstrate that you are able to actually do so seems sufficient. But excuses are good also.

"If Crsig can call public consensus judgments bashing..."

Got it, as long as you can make any tenuous claim that something is a "public judgement", then you get a free pass to say whatever you want about anyone. That makes perfect sense to me, why be bothered to provide proof when simply trotting out the nebulous concept of "public judgement" eliminates the need to.

Of course to be accurate, the speaker of the house didn't actually say that Trump was a racist, but who cares about accuracy when it's all about "public judgement".

Feodor said...

Well, see, here's the predictable black hole at the end of your feints toward reason. 16 million people have voted to make Hillary the nominee of one of two major American parties. And rather than accept that common sense accounts this quadrennial event of American life as something more than "tenuous" public judgment, you challenge me to come up with something. 16 million people voted with no policy in mind you infer. And yet you presume to think that I ought to take you as a reasonable enough man that you have the capacity to realize sense making.

I can only hope for the cognitive miracle that you see the absence of your own credibility.

Not only did the Speaker say, "racist," he used a superlative in front of it: "the epitome of..."

Feodor said...

Oh, strike that. The Speaker said "textbook definition of..." not "epitome of..."

Craig said...

Oh, strike that, The Speaker said it was the "textbook definition" of a "racist" comment, not that Trump was the "textbook definition" of a racist. Not that accuracy means anything.

Great argument for Hilary. 16 Million (actually less but let's round) people voted for her, that's all we need to jump on the bandwagon. Great point, unassailable really. That's how we should make every decision.

Feodor said...

I can well appreciate a motive on your part for denying the connection between the characteristic of a statement and any necessary characteristic of the speaker. People can be honest, good Americsns in your world and yet have no connection to 17 words appearing in their name that kill thousands of soldiers and bankrupt a nation.

It's funny this post-modern speech but no speaker of yours. No wonder that you cannot acknowledge yourself that 16 million people just decided America's future for certain reasons. To you, they may not really be voters at all. Just textbook definitions of votes.

Feodor said...

But then so many of your kind has trained themselves to believe in a red letter printed (textbook) Jesus rather than the living Christ.

So I see where you're coming from.

Craig said...

If you want to be consistent in going down that road, then your contention is that anyone who has made any statement that you or someone else decides is racist means that that person is a de facto racist. It's an interesting theory, but I'm not sure that you can make valid judgements about someones character based on a small percentage of their comments. One has to wonder if you apply this standard as strictly to those you support as opposed to those you would like to demonize.

I guess I accept your apology for wrongly representing The Speakers actual quote.

Feodor said...

Almost all white people are racist to some degree. It's socially learned via messages from family, friends, authority figures, media, entertainment, etc.: whiteness is to be preferred and if not white, money. It's as American to absorb this as it is to absorb the message that you can make of your life what you want. So, de facto to the existence applies to almost all of us. There are white saints out there, those who are unaffected or so surrounded by determined caregiving that they are ultra-conscious to oncoming racist messaging and reject it.

The degree of our racism though, but of course, is quantifiably a mystery. Culture and social impact can only be measured approximately. How we do that with moral issues depends upon where we stand re moral life and issues. As I have written but you cannot absorb, it is not my contention only that Mr Trump is racist. Reason in the form of agreement between those who could have a negative agenda against Trump and those who likely have a positive one makes for a consensus that Trump has now repeatedly made several racist statements. Beginning with the announcement speech at Trump Towers. Centrist media commentators along with Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, rock-ribbed conservatives like Erik Erikson and Hugh Hewitt along with Hispanics - the objects of his attacks (victims, you know, Craig, have an insight into when they are wronged).

Given all this, my repetition of the consensus public judgment on all sides is merely stating truth as we know it.

What apology? Why apology? Do you even know what extemporary writing means, or that it is now the most common form of writing on blogs and social media? But look at what happens when I write extemporary: I get the meaning right, though the words somewhat differently. Extemporary speaking brings mistaken meaning only when a word is switched up or the opposite is accidentally chosen.

But then that would mean we must accept what people say as characterizing them. Even when they make a lapse, we replace the right meaning for them because we know them.

Trump was speaking extemporarily. Perhaps he meant to say that the judge's Mexican heritage was a benefit. And he just chose the wrong word.

Either way, we have to ascribe the statement as his character. Either he misspoke - extemporarily - and we can replace the right meaning for the wrong one. Mexican heritage is an advantage. Or, he didn't misspeak. And we know what that means. Unless we choose to be stupid.

Feodor said...

Well... I just have now to add these words from Mit Romney: Trump will change America with "trickle-down racism." The hyphen, though, may an egregious misquote. Perhaps he meant "trickle down" instead. If so, my sincere apologies.

Feodor said...

According to CNN: "I don't want to see trickle-down racism" Romney said in an interview here in a suite overlooking the Wasatch Mountains, where he is hosting his yearly ideas conference. "I don't want to see a president of the United States saying things which change the character of the generations of Americans that are following. Presidents have an impact on the nature of our nation, and trickle-down racism, trickle-down bigotry, trickle-down misogyny, all these things are extraordinarily dangerous to the heart and character of America."

Oh, crap. You know what? He could have been saying this about Elmer Fudd. Or worse, if it's a textbook case of misconstruing mainstream media.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feodor is a typical leftist racist. Almost all white people are racist to some degree Bullocks! In my 64 years of life, living in poor neighborhoods, Mexican neighborhoods (federal housing projects) and going to school with large percentages of other than "white" kids, five years in the Army, and several jobs since where I worked with people of every skin color, let alone living is society, I have encountered many more Hispanic and Black racists than I ever came across "white" racists.

I would say that "whites" who are truly racists are a small minority, but to the LEFT, anyone with lighter skin has to be a racist, and those with dark skin rarely are.

I'm really sick of the "race" card.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Yeah, Romney is one to listen to about racism, isn't he? His whole religious system is racist!
http://watchmanvlds.blogspot.com/2014/12/mormonism-racist-religion.html

His statements are just sensationalism based on sour grapes.

Feodor said...

Glenn brings a refreshing voice from the plantation, "why I've worked with hundreds of niggras and there ain't a one of 'em can out work a white man in the field!"

Feodor said...

Glenn finds the serial adulterer, bankruptcy king to be the better Christian.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feodor,

You are behaving as an ass. You leftists have deluded yourselves into thinking everyone but yourselves are racists.

Bill Clinton was a rapist and serial adulterer and you LEFTISTS had no problem with that, but if it is a Republican (RINO actually) then you get you shorts all twisted up. Hillary is the biggest liar ever, a rank criminal, is supported by Muslim states who hate the USA, left people to die in Benghazi (who'd want her as Commander in Chief?!?!), loves abortion, promotes every sort of sexual immorality and perversion, but all that is okay with you. You are disgusting.

By the way, Trump is no more Christian than is Obama or either of the Clintons. At least Trump likes the USA and wants to have a strong military and secure the borders and have a constitutional SCOTUS, while the LEFTISTS you love so much are doing everything possible to destroy the USA.

Feodor said...

So who is the better Christian, Glenn, Trump or Romney?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,

In that lineup, GLENN is the ONLY Christian. Apparently, from your self-professed beliefs, you are no more Christian than they are.

Feodor said...

So, the Republican Party - the party you vote for all the time - hasn't chosen a Christian nominee in eight years...

And you're still solidly behind it.

And you claim that I'm doing the same thing as you, voting for Obama and now Clinton, two non-Christians according to you.

Kind of puts into question your "true" Christian faith, doing the same as me. How does that make you feel, Glenn?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo, you just continue to show your ignorance.

I never said the Republican party hasn't chosen a Christian nominee in the past 8 years. That topic was never addressed.

I vote Republican not because I am a Republican but because no third party has yet been viable enough to make it and votes for 3rd parties have always given the win to the Demokrats, and I refuse to vote for any member of the DemoKrat party because of their party platform of being for all that is unholy, anti-American, anti-Military and pro-socialist.

I have never determined who to vote for based on whether or not they are Christian. And according to the BIBLE Obama and Clinton are not Christians.

Christians are not mandated by Scripture to vote only for Christians. And my faith is not the same as yours because I believe in the TRUE Christian faith and not a made up one like yours.

Feodor said...

Well, you go ahead and vote for a serial adulterer and bankruptcy king, then. I'll vote for the policies that protect women, give children better education, take in the widows and orphans and oppressed, and refuse to engage in racist hate.

We'll see what Christ smiles upon when we get there. But I'm very worried you won't show up in the right place.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,

Demokrat policies, i.e. like Clinton's, cause HARM to women. The abortion industry kills baby women in the womb, kills and maims women having the abortions. Same-sex fake marriage causes harm to women, as does the whole "transgender" agenda.

The Demokrat policies and the Department of Education (given to the teachers unions by Carter for their support of him) have ruined public education and turned it into socials, leftist, immoral indoctrination centers. The socialist do nothing for widows or orphans but cause them more distress. And the Demokrats are the ones who are the most racist and always have been (pro-slavery, against civil rights legislation, social welfare which keeps the ghettos in business, ruined Detroit, etc), all the while denuding our military, pandering to Islam (which is a misogynist religious/political system), supporting illegals (who have committed many rapes and other assaults, by the way), etc. The Demokrats are the PARTY of religious hate.

You are a lemming of the LEFT and have no clue about the real Christ. Go troll elsewhere.

Feodor said...

You're just going to keep screwing Jesus and his children, Glenn. But thank God Trump won't get a chance to join you.

Marshall Art said...

Glenn and Craig,

You'll have to forgive feo. He's a serial buffoon who suffers from a severe case of white guilt and insecurity. His arrogant tone is a defense mechanism for that insecurity and his accusations of racism are projection. He likes to pretend he's married to a black woman so that he can posture himself as "down with the cause". He won't actually argue a point, but instead, due to the aforementioned insecurity, merely posture himself as a superior intellect by employing a rather childish tactic of pretending he's willing to go into great depth (his reference to Hillary's policy positions) when he could simply get on with it and explain why she's worth anyone's time of day.

It wouldn't matter who the GOP candidate is. It could have been Abe Lincoln and he'd denigrate that guy as well. He's more village idiot than leftist, a false priest who has consistently demonstrated no true understanding of Scripture, and quite frankly is allowed here for comedic value, given he has no real point to make about anything at anytime on any subject, save that we are all somehow, and without basis that he'll ever describe, beneath his majesty. I'd almost pay money to see him desperately try to make himself feel like he's significant. It's really so very sad, but extremely funny at the same time.

Feodor said...

One doesn't explain why Hillary's worth the time of day to people who don't know what sunlit reason is. I pop in your s&m dungeon every once in a while for the amusement.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

A large percentage of Hillary promoters say they vote for her because she's a woman, and "it's time for a woman president." It doesn't matter that she is a pathological liar and unqualified for office -- she's a woman and we need a woman president. THAT, friends, is SEXISM!

Marshall Art said...

"One doesn't explain why Hillary's worth the time of day to people who don't know what sunlit reason is."

Do you really think you're fooling anyone with a cheap dodge such as this? (Rhetorical question. Of course you do. You're just that stupid.) You would first need to demonstrate just how anyone on this side of your idiocy is ignorant of reason...something you've never even attempted, much less demonstrated you have the capability of doing. No, you just cast aspersions on your betters due to your insecurities. So much easier to simply posture yourself as intellectually superior rather than do anything to prove it...as if you could. Again, you're a sad and pathetic case...my very own village idiot.

Craig said...

Hilary isn't a serial adulterer, she just enabled one and led the attack on his victims. Hillary didn't take advantage of bankruptcy law, she doesn't need to since she's not actually engaging in any business or anything. Oh, and (at least the appearance of ) influence peddling.

Anonymous said...

I wonder, Marshall (et al), how bad the Not Clinton candidate has to be before you would be willing to say, "I can't vote for this monster!"

That is to say, if Hitler were running against Clinton... BUT if he had at least promised to nominate the "right" SCOTUS candidates, would you hold your nose and vote for Hitler? Presumably there IS a line somewhere that you're willing to draw as moral human beings, right? You're not willing to sell your soul for the sake of a "right" SCOTUS nominee (or at least the promise of one... if your nominee is like Trump and has expressed a cavalier approach to promises and honesty, how do you know WHO he will nominate?), is that correct?

Trump has clearly made demonstrable false claims, repeatedly, even after being called on them and clearly has little regards for being honest.

Trump has clearly made racist comments according even to reasonable conservatives (whether or not the man is a racist, he is making racist comments, by definition) and done this towards black folk, Mexicans and Arabs.

Trump has clearly expressed un-American values in his "ban Muslims" nonsense.

Trump is clearly childish and bullyish in his approach to dealing with others... nothing like a presidential or even an adult demeanor, this according to other conservatives.

Trump has expressed very hateful things about women.

Trump is not a very moral man by traditional standards.

What does it take for you to stop holding your nose?

Would he have to literally murder someone on the street, or would you still vote for him as he says you would?

I just can't see how rational, moral adults could in any way vote for this guy. My conservative parents would not. I've even heard some of my ultra-conservative and at least slightly racist extended family folk say they couldn't vote for him. Where is the moral decency in the conservative wing of this nation? Do you recognize the truth of Romney's and other conservatives' comments that voting for him today may well set the conservative movement back even further... that "conservative" will be equated with racism, sexism, anti-American values, emotional childishness, dishonesty...?

~Dan T

Feodor said...

Here's Glenn's exploded-sun-lit irrational thinking: "I'm going to vote for a serial adulterer, bankruptcy king because we can't have socialism." Glenn can't read or take in information so he doesn't know that Hillary was narrowly nominated because Wall Street people give to her campaign; she wont release transcripts of her paid speeches to Goldman, Sachs (a major investment bank on Wall Street, Glenn); and the narrow loser is, in fact, a social democrat (drawing from scandanavian-like ideas that have worked great in northern European countries.) So... Glenn is a blind idiot.

Craig, on the other hand, argues that Hillary is just like Trump. Just like Trump. And you guys are voting for Trump. Now if I believed that my candidate was just like Trump, I'd abandon that candidate with prejudice. And here Craig is telling you guys that your candidate is just like Hillary. Congratulations.

And as for you, Marshall, Omar Mateen shares your fundamentalism. Fundamentalist belief is how you both draw your assurance. Fundamentalist hate of gays and blasphemers. Fundamentalism, whether Christian, Muslim, Capitalist or what have you, is a slaughterer. You must be proud. Sitting on your hands in your hate, Mr Mateen acted on his. So, while both of you draw sustenance and surety in faith from your hate, you have the advantage of sitting on your hands and congratulating yourself for being peace loving. You're a magnificent specimen of ugliness.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dan Trabue and Feodor,

Two totally ignorant peas in a pod, spewing irrational nonsense. Neither one has a clue about the real Christian faith, and both are just trolls looking for REAL Christian blogs to dominate in the comment strings with lies, innuendo, misrepresentations of facts, and just plain stupidity.

Anonymous said...

Glenn, you sound like Donald Trump when you talk. If you'd just throw in a tiny bit more absolutism, it'd be perfect.

"You two are TOTALLY ignorant peas in a pod. Losers! You spew 100% irrational nonsense. I guarantee it!"

Anytime you'd like to deal with matters of faith and morality on an adult level, please let me know. For the time being, I am entirely unsurprised that you'd stand ready to vote for an immoral, dishonest (verifiably - not "dishonest" like Clinton is, but in measurable, demonstrable ways), racist-speaking, sexist-acting, self-proclaimed mastermind who has no track record of getting anything accomplished politically. I guess the answer for you is, "There is NO line I wouldn't cross... no amount of corruption I wouldn't vote for, as long as it wasn't a democrat..."? That would explain a lot.

I hope that's not the case, though.

~Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue,

There you go spewing more of your foolishness. You always complain about people lying about what you say, but right here you have quotation marks around what I supposedly said and you've added much more so as to misrepresent me. Well done!

I always deal with matters of "faith and morality" on an adult level. The problem is that you deal with such matters on an irrational emotional level, totally misrepresenting the true Christian faith while propagating the false christ and false god you worship.

Seems funny that a far-left liberal like you can seriously chastise anyone for voting for an immoral person, as if 90% of the people in our government aren't immoral!! Clinton is immoral!! Just look how she defended a man who raped a 12-yet-old! She immorally supports abortion and homosexual behavior. She immorally supports violating the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. Clinton's dishonesty has been demonstrate in so many ways it isn't even funny any more (can you say "Benghazi"? you know, the lie that it was about a video). Clinton is like Obama - both are pathological liars and yet you leftists vote for them because: Obama was the first black president (liberals are racists who believe "one drop black blood" makes a person black) and now we will have the first woman president. It's all about demographics: race and gender. To heck with qualification when you can promote liberal ideologies.

For all your whining about people "slandering" you and spreading "gossip" about you, your whole statement about Trump makes you guilt of the same charges.

"There is NO line I wouldn't cross... no amount of corruption I wouldn't vote for, as long as it wasn't a democrat..."? That would explain a lot.

Yes, it explains that you are an inveterate liar who continuously misrepresents the positions of sane people. After all, your father is the devil, and lies are your native language.

Anonymous said...

Then by all means, Glenn, answer the question. What is the line that you wouldn't cross to vote against a Democrat?

~Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I don't have to answer anything to you, fool.

Anonymous said...

Clinton is like Obama - both are pathological liars and yet you leftists vote for them because: Obama was the first black president (liberals are racists who believe "one drop black blood" makes a person black) and now we will have the first woman president. It's all about demographics: race and gender. To heck with qualification when you can promote liberal ideologies.

1. Trump has zero qualifications for being president. He is a half-failed, immoral business man who's more PT Barnum than Henry Ford. According to his conservative comrades, that is.

2. Your empty claims about lies from Obama and Clinton ring hollow when you try to support it with demonstrable data. Trump is a well-documented liar.

74% of Trump's claims checked by Politifact are false (compared to Clinton's 39%:

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/74_of_donald_trump_s_statements_checked_by_politifact_are_false

Obama, for his part, has had the most scandal-free and clean administration in decades. His family are moral, well-behaved icons of virtue. Compare that to Trump's circus of a household.

That's got to burn you all to see how clean cut and virtuous the Obama administration has been as compared to all your "family value" conservatives (Bush, Bush, Reagan, Palin and Trump! who makes them all look like boy scouts!) and their hotbeds of immorality and scandal.

At any rate, the data simply doesn't support the claim that Trump is anything but mostly dishonest and not trustworthy as a result. Myself, I doubt very seriously that Trump is anything like conservative in his values (not that he's liberal, either, of course!). I think he's just a charlatan out to promote his own name and make himself more wealthy and powerful. And again, this is what his comrades and former allies have to say about him... conservatives all.

How can you trust this charlatan?

(None of this is to say that Clinton hasn't had her missteps, just that, by comparison to Trump, even Reagan looks saintly! and certainly, of the two, there is no contest between Trump and Clinton in regards to honesty. According to the data. Empty claims from bitter people with nothing to prove their claims but their hatred do not impress me.)

~Dan

Anonymous said...

it explains that you are an inveterate liar who continuously misrepresents the positions of sane people. After all, your father is the devil, and lies are your native language. 100% guaranteed. Dan is the Devil! Loser! Liar Dan!

~Glenn Trump

Anonymous said...

Whereas Trump has a 74% false claim rating, and Clinton has a 39% rating, Obama has a 26% rating.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

And, this from center-right pundit David Brooks...

“I have my disagreements, say, with President Obama, but President Obama has run an amazingly scandal-free administration, not only he himself, but the people around him. He’s chosen people who have been pretty scandal-free.

“And so there are people in Washington who do set a standard of integrity, who do seem to attract people of quality.”


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/amazingly-scandal-free-administration

And, from that same story, a pre-emptive pfft to the inevitable complaints of bitter partisans...

I realize, of course, that for the right, these assessment seem outrageous, if not ridiculous. My inbox will no doubt soon fill up with emails from conservatives demanding to know how I can think Obama’s tenure has bene scandal free in light of Benghazi, IRS “targeting,” et al.

But in order for a story to be a proper, legitimate White House “scandal,” there actually has to be some hint of wrongdoing from someone in the White House. Made-up controversies that didn’t amount to anything shouldn’t be taken seriously.


Read again: Your complaints, absent any data, shouldn't and won't be taken seriously. You'll be written off as an immoral crank, so, just know that.

It must burn you all up (you people like Glenn) to be viewed as the immoral and emotionally distraught irrational ones.

~Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue, you are so deluded by the Kool-Aid you drink that you wouldn't know the truth if it hit you between the eyes!

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dan Hitler. Dan Heretic. Dan FOOL.

I can play your childish game too. No wonder you've been blocked by so many good Christian sites.

Anonymous said...

Again, empty claims don't impress me. Facts. Data.

I can claim you molest puppies all day. Don't mean nothing without no support.

The same is for each of your claims, Glenn.

I hope you can understand how rational people will dismiss empty claims, especially those that are accompanied by sophomoric name-calling.

Come, let us reason like adults.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

I can play your childish game too.

Interesting. I echo back YOUR words, in an effort to help you see how childish you are being with the name calling. You echo back MY object lesson to you, recognize it as childish, but fail to recognize that this is what you were doing..?? That it is YOUR words and name-calling that are childish.

Irony.

dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

You lie once again, fool. I never called your name "Dan ....", rather I used your real name, yet you got childish and called me "Glenn Trump." It is impossible for anyone to have a rational discussion with you because you are unteachable and foolish. Have a nice day, fool. (And yes, a Christian may biblically call someone a fool when their behavior and ideology are both foolish, as many, many good Christians have pointed out about you.)

Marshall Art said...

Not much time here, but scandals, I guess, are in the eye of the beholder. Dan and feo behold only that which serves them.

Obama:

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/08/01/obama-dozen-scandals-counting/

http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/barack-obama-scandal-fast-and-furious-obamacare/2014/12/22/id/613216/

http://dailysurge.com/2014/07/obamas-scandals-lies-blunders-z/#

Clinton:

https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/The-Hillary-Clinton-Scandals

http://www.westernjournalism.com/website-exposes-this-gigantic-list-of-clinton-scandals/

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/the-hillary-clinton-scandals-volume-1/

As to lies, Dan apparently thinks that the number of lies makes a difference as to who is the greater liar. As far as we know, there were no deaths connected to any of Trump's lies.

It is also helpful to remember what a lie is and whether or not any particular lie is truly a lie. I recall one of Dan's blogger co-horts, a coward who no longer blogs or visits the blogs like mine due to his inability to truly support his ideology, one GKS, listed what he claimed were lies of GW Bush. I went through each one to explain why they don't qualify as lies. He did not make any effort to refute my comments.

That being said, there are lies and there are mistaken notions and simple errors. Trump might be more accurately accused of the latter in most cases. We on the right do not confuse lies with errors. We know the difference.

I would also add that while I cannot defend Trump's character, my point about the difference between he and his likely opponent is enough. We know what we will get with Clinton. Trump is an unknown. And while I'm not entirely comfortable with unknowns, I'm less so with the known, which in this case is Hillary and her likely actions as president. Can't have that. We've had more than enough of it with her boss Barry O.

As such, I would pose the same challenge to Dan as he poses to us. What's the line you won't cross? I'm confident the line is far closer to perdition than any I'd ever cross. He already supports immorality by supporting the Democratic party over the GOP, just based on party policy and philosophy alone. Said another way, Dan crossed the line long ago.

Much more later.

Dan Trabue said...

Easy.

If Trump were running as a Dem, I would not vote for him.

If Bernie (my preferred candidate) were saying the sort of racist comments that Trump is, I would not vote for him.

If Bernie did the sort of violence I inciting at rallies that Trump is, if he proposed banning a religious group, if he repeatedly overtly lied, if he didn't wait for evidence but instead repeatedly leaped to conclusions (this is totally terrorism! 100% guaranteed!)... If he acted the way Trump consistently acts, I would not vote for him. Even if he "promised" to choose good scouts candidates. I would not sell my soul, just to vote against the GOP.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trump hasn't incited anyone. The LEFT always blames the victim for their troubles. Trump has said nothing to incite violence, rather he has stated the truth. But the LEFT hates the truth. The left has traveling agitators to stir up locals.

Islam is not just a "religious group," it is a religious/political system. He only wants them banned from the US until proper vetting procedures are accomplished so as to prevent the entry of terrorists. All one has to do is to look at what is happening in Europe since they let Muslims in willy-nilly. But then, the LEFT has no problem with illegal and violent actions as long as it helps support their agenda.

You've already sold your soul to the devil, long ago.

Dan Trabue said...

Well Glenn, many conservatives disagree with your unsupported hunches. And with good reason. Trump will destroy the GOP. He is amoral with a value system based on greed and ego. What does that say about people who'd actually vote for him?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Typical Trabue.

Every fact presented by normal people are just "unsupported hunches" but everything Trabue says is 100% factual. Bullocks. The guy is deluded.

Oh, and he knows the heart and mind of Trump -- because Trabue just KNOWS Trump's value system is based on greed an ego.

As for people voting, what does it say about people who twice put a the worst president in history -- Obama -- in office, and are seeking to put a female version in the same office. Insanity.

Craig said...

"Craig, on the other hand, argues that Hillary is just like Trump. Just like Trump."

Except that's not what I argued at all perhaps that explains your confusion.

Dan Trabue said...

Scholars would disagree with your unprofessional and baseless claims, Glenn. The facts:

Trump, 74% false claim rate.
Clinton, 39%
Obama, 26%.

Data-based. Not shrill emotional baseless claims.

And the hard numbers show the US is in much better shape than under Bush. He is being and will be judged favorably by actual scholars.

Unlike you.

Still unimpressed with your baseless claims.

The Piper's Wife said...

Trabue appeals to "ghostly authorities" -- i.e. "scholars". Really? No identity of who said "scholars" are or whether other "scholars" disagree. Data is contrived to promote an agenda.

The US is certainly not in better shape than under Bush. Under Bush we had a stronger military, fewer troops over seas, same-sex fake marriage hadn't invaded the US, "transgenders" weren't given special rights, we didn't have Obamacare (you know, the one Obama lied about "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" "if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance" "it will be save people thousands of dollars"). ETC.

"Actual scholars" are only those who agrees with Trabue. Just like the ones he finds to support his unbiblical understanding of Scripture.

Dan Trabue said...

Those are fine unsupported claims, Glenn. Worth the corncob you wipe your butt with.

You've lost the arguments for your worldview because you give so little credence to data and scholarly research and science and so much authority to your own personal emotional opinions.

No wonder you're a Trump man. Data and reality doesn't matter to him, either.

But I wonder about actual, intelligent and moral conservatives... why would any of them vote for Trump?

As to sources, I can certainly provide them. Just as I did for the data about who is actually dishonest (which you ignored). But if you're going to ignore data and scholars, why point them out?

Dan Trabue said...

Not that scholarship means a thing to you, Glenn (or does it? Prove me wrong...) but here's one recent survey of 238 presidential scholars...

"President Obama ranks 15th out of 44

in a poll of the best and worst presidents while

former President George W. Bush earns a place in the bottom five,

according to the Siena College Research Institute's recent survey of 238 presidential scholars released Thursday."

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/07/02/survey-ranks-obama-15th-best-president-bush-among-worst

I could also start citing the improvement in the horrible economy we received from Bush or the improvement in the unemployment rate, but what does data matter to you?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

For those who don't know, "The Piper's Wife" was me -- my wife was still signed on to google and I didn't notice.

And for Trabue, again I repeat what I stated above:
Every fact presented by normal people are just "unsupported hunches" but everything Trabue says is 100% factual. Bullocks. The guy is deluded.

And the "scholars" he presents are always LEFTISTS. But when his whole worldview is skewed by worshiping a false christ and a false god, it isn't any wonder that such a person follows as a lemming to everything liberal and ungodly.

The unemployment rate is one of the worst in history, but the government under Obama plays with the numbers to make him look good. The economy is so good that people on fixed incomes -- like me -- continue to see the value of our money dwindle as it costs more and more to get the same things. And the country is more in debt than any time in history. And they always go back to the "Bush's fault."

Oh, and I'm not a Trump fan -- another lie by Trabue.

Feodor said...

The Piper's wife is Glenn, as he said. The Piper is the satyr Pan, from whom we get the word, panic.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Another asinine statement from Feo.

Dan Trabue said...

The difference between what I am saying and what you are saying Glenn, is that I am providing sources for my data, while you are making unsupported claims and treating them as if we should believe them simply because you say so.

We will always rightly treat unsupported and emotionally shrill claims like the girlish gossip they are. If you ever want to start talking about actual data like an actual adult, let me know.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I don't need to waste my time searching for data to disprove what is so obvious lies from the LEFT. The LEFT lie like their father the Devil.

You have nothing in your "Data" but contrived "evidence" to support LEFTIST ideology. And all fools follow it.

Dan Trabue said...

And for the final time, those are fine and pretty little claims you've offered. Sorta like a cute widdle pink unicorn. But, you've still provided zero data to support them. So, while YOU may not need to "waste time" worrying your pretty little head about data, we adults do.

I hope one day you may realize this is only reasonable.

Have fun skipping rope and playing with your dolls, Glenn.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Your claims are petty and invented. You are the one around here playing with dolls, you foolish boy. Grow up and quit trolling Christian sites.

Marshall Art said...

Wow! Am I seeing things? Did Dan actually supply a link? I'll have to peruse it to find the truth. As Glenn said, Dan favors all "scholars" that favor his position.

Dan Trabue said...

Annnnd... you all have yet to cite ONE source that supports your girlish claims.

You can make claims all day long (and you do, over and over... especially Glenn) but if it's just your jabbering jaws making the claims, meh.

Marshall Art said...

OK, I took a quick look at Dan's link, which stands as a foundation for his pride in incompetence. While USNews doesn't give a direct link to the study, it does provide this laugher:

"Obama secured a top ten place in two skill set categories, communication ability (7th) and ability to compromise (10th), and in two personality trait categories, imagination (6th) and intelligence (8th)."

On what do they base these "skill sets"? I'll need to get at the actual study to hope to find an answer, but from this alone, there's reason to doubt:

---7th in communication ability? How? For reading a teleprompter? I've never seen Obama speaking extemporaneously where he isn't stuttering and stammering and frankly, failing to make his point as he likely had hoped. The famous response to "Joe the Plummer" is just one such example.

---10th in ability to compromise? Was there even any debate or discussion with regard to Obamacare? (Rhetorical question. Of course there wasn't.) And how do executive orders demonstrate compromise exactly?

""If we're serious about reducing our deficit while still investing in things like education and research that are important to growing our economy - and if we're serious about protecting middle-class families - then we're also going to have to ask the wealthiest Americans to pay higher tax rates," he says. "That's one principle I won't compromise on.""

http://www.floppingaces.net/2014/01/29/a-thought-experiment-name-all-the-obama-compromises/

---The funniest bit--6th in imagination and 8th in intelligence???!! Really?? By what standard? His idiocy about the Constitution being a document of "negative rights", shows he clearly doesn't understand what the Constitution is or what it was meant to do...funny given he was allegedly teaching American students about it...those poor kids. His exit from Iraq was a proven disaster. Cash for clunkers anyone?

There are scholars, and there are scholars. As so much of academia skews left, I cannot be surprised that any group of "scholars" would give props to a leftist president over a center-right president. What a shocker! But it's enough to stand as credible data to the likes of a Dan Trabue.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue must be insecure in his manhood -- he keeps calling people who counter him babies and girls. That is really creepy. Of course with his 100% support of homosexuality, perhaps he's a bit light in the loafers.

Dan Trabue said...

...Aaaaand still no data to back your hunches. Just more empty, unsupported claims.

And Glenn, you're right, it's not fair to compare your whining to girls. Most girls I know behave and reason better than you are doing. My apologies to girls.

Feodor said...

Feodor: "Craig, on the other hand, argues that Hillary is just like Trump. Just like Trump."

Craig, in response: "Except that's not what I argued at all perhaps that explains your confusion."

But Craig, many hours earlier: "Virtually every single negative people use against Trump can also be used against Hilary. So when I hear people say that they can't vote for Trump because he's a (fill in the blank), then I fail to see how they can vote for Hilary who has many of the same failings."

Craig thinking I'm the one's confused: 🤔

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue, you continue to prove you are nothing but a jackass -- no, wait, that insults the jackass. You're just an ass.

Anonymous said...

Clever.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

we have no choice but to cast a vote for this low-life scumbag (I'm following his lead in my word choices here). To allow a Clinton/Sanders win is to support what they will do to us. That simply can't be allowed to happen.

Why moral people can't vote for Trump, whatever they may think of Clinton:

1. He makes racist comments (according to fellow conservatives, he is making comments that are, by definition, racist, not to mention exceedingly stupid and anti-American and immoral).
2. He attracts large numbers of racist and sexist followers (Trump would not be a problem if it weren't for a too large number of citizens who vote for him... these citizens are often demonstrably racist and hateful to many groups... the US can't afford to be seen as a nation that encourages our worst elements. The GOP needs to be seen as clearly rejecting that sort of demographic if it wants to survive).
3. He has called for anti-American values policies (banning Muslims, limiting press, )
4. He is not presidential (from his silly "hand size" comments tp his leaping to conclusions - "terrorism! 100%" - to the way he expresses himself with his ridiculous grimaces and nutty no-brain catch phrases and nicknames, to his making up of clearly false "data" just to make a point... this man is not president material. He makes Palin look like Einstein)
5. He is not beholden to the truth. Not only does he make false claims, but he does not care that they are false claims, it's all about the sound bite and scoring points. He shamelessly lies and is oblivious to being corrected with data. How the GOP thinks they can trust this man to deliver anything he "promises" is hard to believe. Are the conservatives willing to vote for him that stupid? He changes his positions all the time, he is not principled, he makes up data, he lies. Period. And on a HUGE and regular basis.
6. He has no serious policies or plans as to what to do. He just makes outrageous and vapid claims ("When I'm president, there won't be ANY of this coddling or PC-politeness... I'll totally take care of the terrorism problem. Guaranteed!" ... this is not policy!) and hopes people don't look too closely or think too much. For those willing to vote for him, it appears to be paying off.

...for starters. This conman is not suited for public office. Don't be fooled by whatever it is that might appeal to you (if only the fact that he's not Clinton). This is a whole new level of bad idea. I mean, in the past, I've often not been very pleased with the Dem choice and felt the GOP choice was disastrously worse... but at least those were actual politicians who had some semblance of allegiance to some ideals and strategies, even if I disagreed with them.

more...

~Dan

Anonymous said...

But don't take it from me. Here's a conservative evangelical Christian...

"Trump has boasted of infidelities, profited off gambling, mocked the handicapped, cheered and offered financial assistance for his supporters who fight protestors, supported abortion (until his fortuitous change of heart before the election), called for war crimes against innocent people, demonized minorities and immigrants, knowingly played upon racist fears, promoted open racists through social media, promoted conspiracy theories, and crudely treated women. And the list grows every single day."

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/7/11868028/evangelicals-nevertrump

Or this Evangelical...

"I’ll put this another way: if you vote for a man who worships himself over God, you deserve the tyranny that happens next."

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/dear-christians-if-you-vote-for-a-godless-man-you-are-asking-for-tyranny/

Or this conservative Christian...

"Should evangelical Christians support Donald Trump as the Republican candidate? I do not see how we can if the Word of God is to be our guide and if it's important to us that a candidate have a solid moral compass and a biblically based worldview – and I mean to be our president, not our spiritual leader, since we are electing a president, not a pastor or priest."

http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/michael-brown/2015/11/30/why-evangelical-christians-shouldnt-support-trump

Or this one...

What would you do if a dinner guest in your home told a person of Mexican descent that most of her people crossing the border to come to America are criminals and rapists? What if he called one woman a dog, another a bimbo and another “a fat pig,” then addressed others as dummies and losers? What if he told certain people to “go F--- themselves?”

What if he made a demeaning reference to a woman’s menstrual cycle, then a lusting comment to a young woman in your home, in which he fantasized about her assuming a sexual position for him? What would you do if he started telling stories of his sexual conquests, saying, “Oftentimes when I was sleeping with one of the top women in the world I would say to myself, thinking about me as a boy from Queens, ‘Can you believe what I am getting?’”

...I’m well aware of the pragmatic arguments against voting for third party candidates or writing in someone who can’t win. But in the face of the evidence concerning pride, selfishness, immoral sexual references, and bullying tactics, some Christ-followers can’t help but ask themselves whether voting for such a candidate would violate their conscience and the Christian values they seek to live by (Romans 14:23). If you have no sympathy for them, please realize that some of your brothers and sisters in Christ are equally dismayed at how people of faith could support Donald Trump without embarrassment or shame or the conviction of the Holy Spirit concerning so much of what he says that flies in the face of Jesus and God’s Word.

http://www.epm.org/blog/2016/Mar/21/donald-trump-character

I could go on all day. People of good character can not vote for this man without being coated with the slime of his bad character.

Don't like Clinton? Don't vote for her. But this Trump thing is just a wrong way to go. For anyone.

If nothing else, stop Trump because of the damage he'll do to the GOP. You all already may never get the presidency again. Trump will put the nails in that coffin.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

Another great article from an uber-conservative evangelical, on why Christians can't vote for Trump...

Born of the tribe of Dobson and inducted into the party of Reagan on the eighth day, I have supported every Republican presidential candidate in my lifetime. And never before have I been more ready to dissolve that union.

If Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, I will not hesitate in abstaining or voting for a third party in November. And neither should you.

——

In January, I compared Donald Trump to Sir John Falstaff, whose debauched and degenerate jollity has long intoxicated audiences with the strange brew of repulsion and mirth. Falstaff is larger than life itself: He somehow stands outside morality, even as he stands outside the political order. But Henry, having deliberately shrouded his character in the stench of vice through his close friendship with Falstaff, knows that the friendship cannot endure in the same way when he assumes the throne: “I will banish thee,” he promises Falstaff in the midst of their revelry. They both know it must be true: The legitimacy of Henry’s rule would be imperiled by his close friendship with the lecher.

Trump is a not simply a charlatan, a huckster, a con-man, though he is all of that. He is also shameless. The more outlandish he is, the more he is rewarded with the only currency he cares about: attention. He has none of the checks or balances that make the rest of us mortals weak and irrelevant. He is T.S. Eliot’s ‘Hollow Man’ come to life: He blows wherever the loves of money, fame, and his indulgent fantasies of being a ‘winner’ will take him. As Joe Carter said recently, his penchants for insults betrays an incredibly insecure mentality, the sort that breeds a harsh authoritarianism at the first whiff of power. Nothing else will matter except maintaining the delusion that Trump is a Winner, Baby: the common good be damned.

... those who support Trump will be most likely to lose out if he eventually wins. So it has often been for those who have bought into his lies. From Trump’s casinos to Trump University, like the prosperity preachers he emulates Trump has preyed upon the very people he claims to love and support. And why would a President Trump be any different? We have been given no reason why the Newly Converted Conservative Trump will be any better for America than the liberal Hillary Clinton. And no reason can be given because none exists outside of Trump’s most solemn word, a word that his history suggests is as valuable as the degrees from his University. For those drawn to Trump’s policies, on what reasonable basis would you expect him to not sell you out?

Read the whole article. Really, well done.

https://mereorthodoxy.com/against-donald-trump-evangelicals/

~Dan

Feodor said...

The reason Marshall, Glenn, and other fundamentalist bigots aren't in Kansas anymore:
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/capitol-report/2016/jun/10/poll-shows-clinton-leading-in-kansas-bro/

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The last resort of the LEFT is to call people who disagree with them "bigots." Proof they've lost the debate.

Dan Trabue said...

And what about calling them fools or satan's child? Ass, jackass, light in the loafers?

In other words, us name-calling only a sign of loss when THEY do it, but okay when you do it?

Given the racism in Trump's words, why is bigot not simply descriptive?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

"bigot" is the name given by you LEFTISTS to those of us who say homosexual behavior is an abomination to God, that marriage is between a man and a woman, that there is no such thing as "transgender," that people have the right to keep and bear arms, that abortion is murder, etc.

Yet "bigot" actually defines the people who are totally intolerant of these beliefs!

A fool defines one who refuses to be corrected and sucks up all the leftist doctrines, unable to think for themselves, and who continues to blaspheme God and Christ by claiming they are okay with homosexuality, transgender, abortion, etc.

A person who continually blaspheme's Christ and God must certainly by definition be a child of Satan.

One who continually claims other people's information is "suppositions" or "hunches" and yet prevents junk science and false studies as "Facts" all the while trolling Christian web sites to cause strife and harass real believers, certain is an ass.

One who continually defends homosexuals and definitely seems very insecure of his manhood, certainly must be effeminate (i.e., "Light in the loafers.)

But there are a few terms people like you always use to marginalize debate -- "bigot," "racist," "homophobe," etc. Because that is all you've got.

I have nothing but abject contempt for you -- the same contempt I have fall everything else evil.

Feodor said...

Romney called Trump a bigot. Glenn is voting for Trump. I'm with the conservative Romney and against the Pan's wife.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Romney was wrong, as well as being a hypocrite. His religion is a racist religion which claims blacks are inferior to whites. But he's no more "conservative" than Trump, being just another RINO like Trump.

Leave my wife out of this, moron. I said that post was mine while not realizing she was signed onto blogger. Or do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

Feodor said...

All Christianity used to proclaim blacks were inferior to whites. Some still do. The Zmormon church has apologized for its history.

Feodor said...

Not referring to your wife. I'm using your words: "For those of you who don't know, "The Piper's Wife" was me..."

You're a satyr's wife.

Dan Trabue said...

70% of the population thinks Trump's a creepy, and probably a good number of them think it's because he says racist thing. Is this part of that vast leftwing conspiracy? That IS pretty vast.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

All Christianity used to proclaim blacks were inferior to whites.

This is a bald-faced lie. You just made that up.


Some still do. REAL Christians don't. REAL Christians know that all people are one race - the human race - and we treat everyone the same.


The Zmormon church has apologized for its history.

Um, no they haven't. They played politics to make people think so, but their DOCTRINE still says people with black skin are that way because in the pre-existence they were not valiant and didn't stick up for Jesus in the war between Jesus' followers and Satan's followers. And because of this they will never attain the highest heaven in the Mormon scheme of things (of course all this theology is bogus and totally unbiblical). I think I know a lot more about the Mormon religion than you do.

My words merely stated that the comment by "The Piper's Wife" was really by me. You just proved you have a problem with reading comprehension.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

70% of the population thinks Trump's a creepy... There goes Trabue making things up again.

Feodor said...

Glenn, I considered thinking you were possibly right. After all, hermetic, insular, and racist heresy is your forte. But, my nascent confidence in you plummeted. Because you're wrong, yet again.

"These statements are offensive and cannot be taken in any other manner. We renounce what was said as not doctrinal and apologize for any confusion or offense the racist statements or policies may have caused."

You're also have the literal mind of a post.

http://equalitysblog.typepad.com/equality_time/2009/04/lds-church-apologizes-for-past-missteps.html

Dan Trabue said...

"Donald Trump’s unfavorable rating jumps to a staggering 70%, poll shows"

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-unfavorable-rating-jumps-70-poll-shows-sad-article-1.2675303

"Making things up..."? Then how come I'm the only one supporting my claims with data?

Again, is this all part of a vast 70% of the population wide conspiracy?

Be serious, Glenn. Anytime you want to start supporting your claims, feel free.

In the meantime, don't expect to be taken seriously.

Grow up.

Marshall Art said...

This AT article makes great points with regard to favorability. Trump NEVER had great favorability numbers. Clinton's numbers continue to drop. Clinton bashes Trump, and his numbers don't change. Trump says nothing about Clinton, and her numbers worsen. If Trump talks about her, they worsen.

There are no polls that suggest anyone like either of these people more than the other. If Clinton's favorability numbers are at all better than Trump's, it is not by a significant margin. What this means for the purpose of this discussion is that pretending one piece of crap is less smelly than the other only means that we're dealing with two smelly pieces of crap. Anyone who thinks they're justified in supporting Hillary over Trump as a result is supporting a piece of crap just like Trump supporters.

But here's the thing: you'll find no supporters of Trump here. Glenn doesn't support him. I don't support him. We only find Hillary to be the greater of two evils. And the fact that Bernie might be more sincere in his beliefs only means he's incredibly stupid, for his socialist policies are stupid and proven failures the world over. Not to mention, Dan's support of Bernie proves what we've always known about Dan...that he's a socialist.

Marshall Art said...

In the meantime, we find that feo continues to pretend he sees racism in either Glenn or myself without ever making the least effort to support the contention. Being that he is the true racist, and a leftist, and a false priest, there is no surprise here that he would make unfounded charges against people with whom he cannot content without his childish displays. It is legend at this point.

Dan Trabue said...

Yes, there ARE polls that show that, Marshall.

Clinton's unfavorable ratings, 55%, compared to Trump's 70%. That's a significant margin. Yes, they are both not liked as much (in record numbers), but Trump is significantly disliked, even over Clinton.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-unfavorables-spike-clintons-challenged-poll/story?id=39856303

And no, they are not comparable. Bush and Clinton may be comparable (and Bush of course would be much worse). Or Romney or Cruz... but Trump is in his own category. He is despised (and righteously so) by many conservatives and for good reason: They are being honorable and Trump is not a viable candidate. He is going to destroy the GOP if you all don't stop him and his many followers.

If you vote for this misogynistic, racist-language-spewing, con man, shamelessly lying, etc (as all these conservatives I cited are saying), then you ARE supporting him, whether or not you approve of him. In fact, you are supporting someone you seem to be saying is despicable and not worthy of support.

If someone like Trump were running as a Dem, I would not vote for him or her. It's a blow to our nation that he's gotten as far as he has.

As all these conservative Christians are saying. As Romney is saying. As many others in the GOP are saying.

And your stupid claims (Dan is a socialist) are just that. Stupid. Easily demonstrated to be a false claim. Not that I consider the term to be a bad word (in the sense that you all use it, like an epithet), I just am literally not a supporter of a socialist system of gov't or economy.

Democratic socialist? Sure, that's closer. But there's a difference. Words have meanings.

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Feodor said...

"Two new opinion surveys show that the candidate has fallen significantly behind rival Hillary Clinton nationally after he accused a Hispanic-American judge of bias against him because of his Mexican heritage. He later suggested that he should be congratulated for “being right on Islamic terrorism” following Sunday’s attack in Orlando.
Seventy per cent of Americans now have negative views of Mr Trump, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released on Wednesday, his highest disapproval rating since the 2016 campaign began.
A separate poll by Bloomberg Politics found that Mrs Clinton holds a 12 point lead over Mr Trump in national polls. According to Bloomberg, 55 per cent of likely US voters say they could never vote for Mr Trump, while an equal percentage said they were bothered by Mr Trump’s recent accusations against Judge Gonzalo Curiel.
The latest polls appear to quantify what has been Republicans’ biggest fear — that Mr Trump is alienating vast swaths of the electorate.
They also illustrate how both Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton seem to have been more in tune with voters in the wake of the weekend terrorist attack in Orlando, which prompted Mr Trump to repeat and expand his call for a ban on Muslims entering the US.
A CBS poll found more Americans approved of both Mr Obama’s and Mrs Clinton’s response to the crisis than Mr Trump’s. Importantly, 51 per cent expressed outright disapproval for the Republican’s response.
The same poll also showed Mrs Clinton’s calls for greater gun control had far broader support than Mr Trump’s plans to ban Muslims from entering the US.
Of those surveyed by CBS, 57 per cent said US gun laws needed to be “more strict” and the same number said they supported a nationwide prohibition on the sale of military-style assault weapons like the one used in Orlando. In contrast, just 31 per cent of those surveyed said the US should temporarily ban Muslims from other countries from entering the US."

Feodor said...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b43187b8-330f-11e6-bda0-04585c31b153.html#axzz4BiNB7995

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

First of all, if you like Bernie best, you're a socialist because what you would be getting with Bernie is socialist proposals. If you're not a socialist, why would you support one yourself? Thus, no lie on my part whatsoever.

Secondly, my point is with regards to likeability. On the right, you have center-right people that dislike Trump. On the left, you have too many that actually think she's worthy of the presidency. The right is more honest and knowledgeable. I don't expect the left to think deeply enough or have integrity enough to distance themselves from a poor candidate. There is far less support for Trump amongst those like to vote for him than there is disdain for Clinton amongst those same people. This is what you fail to understand or even see.

As to Trump's numbers, they are largely affected by recent comments regarding a judge who is overseeing a case against Trump. Though I haven't been closely following it, it is my understanding that this judge of Mexican descent is in some way supportive of La Raza. Thus, with Trump's general policies regarding illegal immigration and his comments referring to the numbers of illegals that wind up in our prisons, it is not an unreasonable concern that this guy is presiding over the case. Not unreasonable at all. What is unreasonable is that anyone would refer to this concern as racism, when it is clearly a legitimate concern regarding the judge's ability to remain objective in light of both his own leanings and Trump's position on immigration. The judge should have the integrity to recuse himself in light of these conflicts of interest. I would wager that any judge of Mexican blood that is NOT favorable to La Raza would not draw the same concern.

In the meantime, opponents of Trump use this to stoke accusations of racism, because it's what is done nowadays, particularly against anyone who claims to be center-right. As a result, there's no surprise that his numbers would take a hit.

In the meantime, the left is quick to dismiss anything negative about their own regardless of the severity of the issue. Clinton's crimes are now well known and all that remains is that she be charged officially. How her likeability numbers are not worse as it is is an indictment of the left, not a true measure of which candidate is worse.

You want to suggest that somehow voting for Trump indicts those who would do so, based upon his obvious character flaws. We cannot help that we are faced with the choices presented to us. There are four assuming a Sanders independent run: Bernie, Hillary, Donald, no one. Three of those are more immoral than the fourth, which is also questionable due to Trump's character. It is unfortunate that Trump stands as the only prevention against Clinton or Sanders, both of whom would be a complete choice for the further destruction of our way of life. What remains as the best hope is Sanders running as an independent. That is one way that a non-vote might not result in either of these buffoons from winning the presidency and sending us on a continuing path toward perdition.

But in that scenario, not voting for Trump could still result in his winning as a Sanders campaign would split the idiot vote and give Trump a better shot. I would be more likely to not vote at all should Sanders run as an independent. Should he drop, I cannot chance a Clinton in the White House. I'd HAVE to vote for Trump.

You have no argument to put forth that makes voting for either Clinton or Sanders a more "moral" choice. None whatsoever. Indeed, when Bubba was running, the left was real big on saying character didn't matter, that what a guy was like in his personal life was inconsequential compared to his policy proposals. Now the shoe is on the other foot, as is typical of the moral relativists of the left.

Marshall Art said...

feo,

Having trouble with your link, and considering it's coming from you, it's not worth my time to struggle with it any longer. Instead, be a good little false priest and post a link to your CBS poll. I'd love to see how many were queried. I'm sure it's no more than perhaps 2000, which makes it worthless. Anyone who thinks more gun control is what is needed is simply a stupid person. To suggest more people prefer that to better vetting of immigrants or refugees from muslim countries indicts the poll as well.

Dan Trabue said...

“I’m a Republican,” he told me. “I’m going to travel for Republicans. I’m going to help the ticket in Ohio. But I’ve learned over the course of my career that I have to live with myself and with my family.”

You would think, after the worst mass shooting in American history, and after wave upon wave of Donald Trump’s stunning response to it, elected Republicans would be asking themselves a hard question right now.

Are they going to dutifully follow Trump down this twisted, rapidly descending path to the place where he promises there will be all kinds of winning and “everything is going to be fair” because there’s going to be “total justice”?

Or, like Kasich, are they going to say “enough is enough” and set off in search of higher ground?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-show-isn-t-funny-000000627.html

The man is a different level of bad, Trump. Many conservatives, evangelicals and traditional GOP folk are recognizing it. A moral person can not, in good faith, vote for him. Not without selling out their soul.

Re: "Clinton's crimes" and the other excrement you offer: It's excrement. If she were guilty of a crime, she'd be convicted. You all have witch hunted the Clintons for over 20 years. Time after time, they come up having been proven innocent. Your side's repeated false claim that she IS guilty, regardless of, you know, law and all that, is just a blow against American and Christian and moral ideals, like the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

You are wrong, over and over.

Re: Opponents of Trump "using" racism... it's the GOP and conservatives also doing this, and we're not "using" charges of racism, as if these conservatives have made it up out of nothing... he is USING racist language, by definition. Moral conservatives with actual integrity are speaking out against it. Good for them.

And yes, Marshall, suggesting a person of Mexican descent can't be fair IS racist. By definition. And making that suggestion is a sign of your white privilege. Just consider the inverse... if those prosecuting Trump said, "Well, wait, we can't have a white judge... he'd be prejudiced in favor of Trump!"

Of course, the claim is racist. By definition.

Beyond that, you just offer more excrement upon more excrement. And no sources to dispute anything I've said. Just your opinion, stated forcefully, as if that were worth something.

Feodor said...

"… you used an analogy, let me reverse it on you. If every time the mafia made a killing or a murder, they said ‘well, those Italians, well there’s something about ’em, and the mob. There’s something about the Giuliani and the Cuomo.’ How would you have felt? You would have been disgusted. It’s one of the things that motivated you as a prosecutor to distinguish the mafia from the rest of the Italians. That is the same point, is it not? That you can’t talk about all of Islam you talk about these perversions.”

Chris Cuomo butch slapping Rudy Guiliani and, by proxy, Marshall.

Dan Trabue said...

Re: we haven't given you any reason why voting for Clinton or Sanders is more moral then Trump...

Yes, we have.

1. Trump is a con man. Clinton is not.
2. Trump is a habitual liar, the truth is irrelevant to him. According to the data, he tells lies more than the truth.
3. Trump is making overtly racist comments. Trump is drawing racists to his side. Clinton Is not.
4. Trump appears entirely amoral, unbound by any allegiance to a set of ideals. Clinton is not.
5. Trump has advanced fundamentally on American ideals comma like his ban on Muslims. Clinton has not.

I could go on and on but the reality is his own party does not trust him or at least many of them and with good cause. the data is there. The reasons are there. Just ask the many conservatives with Integrity to her refusing to support him.

Dan Trabue said...

"Fundamentally un-American ideals..." Posted from cell. Sorry for typos.

Dan Trabue said...

Look, there's a difference between not voting for a candidate from the other party because one disagrees with their policy opinions... Which are also for us matters of morality. I would not like he ever wrote for a republican for president just because of the policies that the GOP has these days.

But, there is a significant difference between not being able to vote for their candidate for reasons of morality and policy and what you all have with trunk. Again if there were a Democrat candidate running with the moral baggage that Trump brings I would not vote for that candidate. Just as many conservative Christians and GOP members are saying. His immorality and lack of integrity are just a whole other ball game. Reasonable conservatives recognize the damage, perhaps fatal, Trump is doing. You all have already lost the black, gay and a good part of the woman's vote. Trump will further alienate most other minority groups and young people. You can only get so far on angry old white conservative evangelical men.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,

Again, the LDS lies. They are playing the PC game. I KNOW the LDS church, was once a member and have studied it in depth for 40+ years, have a whole library full of their stuff. I know their doctrine.

Just like Joseph Smith lied about being polygamous while he had numerous wives.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue always telling people to grow up. Not only is he insecure in his manhood, he's also insecure as to his maturity!

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Democratic Socialist. Isn't that what the Nazis were?

The term "Nazi", commonly used in English, derives from the first and the fifth syllables of NAtionalsoZIalistische. It was derived in accordance with the German term Sozi (pronounced /zoːtsi/), an abbreviation of Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (Social Democratic Party of Germany)

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue,

the worst mass shooting in American history,

You mean the Wounded Knee Massacre?

suggesting a person of Mexican descent can't be fair IS racist

Um, no. That isn't the reason Trump said the guy couldn't be fair. The reason is the judges association with anti-American Mexican radicals, his history of support for illegal immigrants -- both by virtue of him being full-blooded Mexican. And in light of the fact that Trump wants to put up a fence on the Mexican border and get illegal immigration by Mexicans under control, a man who is pro-illegal Mexican invasion and associated with a radical group will certainly be biased against him! So that makes Trump a racist for pointing out the obvious bias in a judge?

The rest of your continued rants only prove your bias and ignorance.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Glenn, I'm advocating Nazi-style totalitarianism. I want to see people oppressed and killed because I love Nazis and that style of government.

Yes, Glenn, encouraging someone with a childish approach to understanding and discussing issues to grow up is a reasonable thing to do.

Democratic Socialism, like in Denmark, Sweden, etc...

"I would like to make one thing clear," Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said recently in a speech at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. "Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

But it is a market with many differences from the United States. All Danish citizens have access to child care, state-guaranteed medical and parental leave from work, free college tuition in which students receive a paycheck from the government during enrollment, free health care and a generous pension, all of which Sanders supports.

"Free" is actually the wrong word to describe these services. Danes pay some of the highest taxes in the world, including a 25% tax on all goods and services, a top marginal tax rate hovering near 60%. The top tax rate in the U.S., by comparison, is less than 40%.

But there are aspects to the Danish model that you would never see on Sanders' policy platform. As a small country heavily reliant on trade, Denmark imposes minimal tariffs on foreign goods. Businesses here are only lightly regulated. The corporate tax rate is much lower than in the United States, which has one of the highest in the world. There's not even a minimum wage in Denmark, although most workers are paid high salaries in large part due to the strength of labor unions. And in the past few years, Danish voters elected a right-of-center government, which has been instituting reforms that have put tighter restrictions on access to the long-held safety net...

"There is this idea that we are a heavily regulated society with a closed economy. The opposite is true," said Bo Lidegaard, the executive editor-in-chief of Politiken, one of Denmark's leading newspapers. "If by socialist you mean regulated, restrictive, the individual is not free to do what she or he wants, that is not what we have here. We have a society where the individual is perhaps freer than any other society because the government is securing the social contract so comprehensively."

In terms of pure semantics, few Danish politicians today would characterize themselves as "socialist"--even a "democratic socialist"--as Sanders does. The word has largely fallen out of fashion in recent decades..."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-denmark-democratic-socialism/

Learn what it is that you are criticizing, Glenn. Criticizing something you are entirely ignorant of only serves to make you appear, well, ignorant.

And to be clear, I'm not even saying I'm entirely for "democratic socialism," only that there are aspects of it that are reasonable, it seems to me. I'm for a smart gov't that works to ensure liberty... sort of the opposite of the Nazis, Glenn.

If truth or facts matter to you in the least.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

Re: "You would think, after the worst mass shooting in American history..." well, that WAS a GOP fella making the comment, not me. I'm well aware of our history at Wounded Knee, as well as the mass killing of black folk at the Colfax massacre and other massacres of native and black folk.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

Do facts matter to you at all, Glenn?

That isn't the reason Trump said the guy couldn't be fair. The reason is the judges association with anti-American Mexican radicals, his history of support for illegal immigrants -- both by virtue of him being full-blooded Mexican. And in light of the fact that Trump wants to put up a fence on the Mexican border and get illegal immigration by Mexicans under control, a man who is pro-illegal Mexican invasion and associated with a radical group will certainly be biased against him! So that makes Trump a racist for pointing out the obvious bias in a judge?

"In an interview with The Post, the former House speaker [GINGRICH] repeated a widely debunked claim perpetrated by Trump’s supporters and surrogates to argue that Curiel is a liberal judge playing identity politics through the Trump University case. Gingrich described Curiel’s membership in a “radical” La Raza group in San Diego, suggesting that the group is affiliated with a well-known pro-immigrant group with a similar name."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/07/trump-supporters-false-claim-that-trump-u-judge-is-a-member-of-a-pro-immigrant-group/

Do facts matter to you? If so, you will retract your false claim with an apology.

And as a point of fact, judges whose family came from Mexico CAN be unbiased. That would be like saying someone from your family could not be unbiased in a case involving black people because you're white. Is that what you're saying? Are you suggesting ALL judges step off of cases that touch on race if you are from some race? That would, of course, be insane.

Awaiting you demonstrating you are a man of integrity and admitting the false claim and retracting the statement with an apology.

~Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Tabue,

And YOU in your subjective (and idiotic) opinion gets to decided what is a "childish approach".....?!?! Just like you get to determine what Jesus really says about homosexuality. Your opinion is as worthless as a screed door in a submarine.

Wow, pointing to those European nations as the epitome of your political ideology is downright scary. "Free" services lead to monstrous tax rates, as you noted, but that is what Sanders and other socialists like you aspire to.

Since they are so reliant on trade, it is incumbent upon them to have low tariffs. The USA is only reliant on trade as our politicians want to be -- the great industrial might of the USA has been traded for political gains as unions ran too many out of the country.

Us real conservatives have been against high corporate tax rates forever, but it is the LEFT who doesn't think they pay enough taxes. It is the conservatives who are against monstrous government regulations of business, but it is the LEFT who wants MORE government regulations.

Whether one would characterize themselves as socialist is irrelevant. If it walks like a duck....

I do indeed know what I am criticizing, I just don't bother spending that much of my time and energy in discussions with people like you -- throwing my pearls, that is.

I gave the facts about the term "Socialist Democrat" or "Democratic Socialist." How you want to spin it is your prerogative, but we all know what you want.

Feodor said...

All we can do, Glenn, is put up facts, polling numbers, statements by LDS leaders, quotes of what even rational conservatives agree is racism, misogyny, and bigotry.

We can't make you sane.

We can disturb your little paranoid code that types from an office in your pea brain.

But we can't lift the fog of idiocy. We don't expect to. Disturbing the darkness is enough.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue,

Okay, so they got the wrong "La Raza."

The point is still valid. The Judge is full-blooded Mexican and he was called a Mexican, so that isn't racist. Trump is well-known for speaking against Illegal Mexican immigrant, and it is NOT unreasonable to suggest that this would make the judge biased.

Anonymous said...

Marshall, at my blog, you made an appeal for me to show more grace to Glenn. Glenn is like Trump. He is symptomatic of a deep-seated problem. It's not enough for these type of people to respectfully disagree, they must insist you are a Nazi for daring to disagree with them. It's not enough to post data and research and actual quotes, citing reality... what they say is "true," regardless of facts.

As Feodor notes about Glenn, we can't lift the fog of idiocy, but we can disturb the darkness.

Unfortunately, sometimes you come way too close to the Trump/Glenn dementia where facts don't matter, just what you say matters. I hold out hope for you, though. And sure, at some level, I hold out hope for the truly demented like Glenn and Trump and his true believers. But not much.

Disturbing the darkness, indeed.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

Glenn, presumably you are "full-blooded white guy." Does that mean you are incapable of deciding an issue rationally in matters of white guy topics?

But, I forget who I am speaking with.

Nice "apology" for repeating a false claim.

You know the Bible, right? It talks a bit about repentance... it's sort of a good thing. Humility, too. Consider those ideals, man.

Embrace Reason.

~Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,

If your beliefs remain the same after you "apologize," doesn't that make the apology worthless? Doesn't it make it only for placating detractors? How about some history of LDS racism for you:

http://watchmanvlds.blogspot.com/2014/12/mormonism-racist-religion.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2Ed4Ox6m1U

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/17/174559275/mormons-change-references-to-blacks-polygamy

http://watchmanvlds.blogspot.com/2014/12/did-they-really-say-that_17.html

http://watchmanvlds.blogspot.com/2014/12/more-about-racism-in-lds-church.html

And their DOCTRINE still includes the "Pearl of Great Price" and the "Book of Abraham" as part of their "Standard Works" and revelations from God. It is in these doctrinal books that the racist teachings originally began. Since they still hold to these books as Doctrine, all the apologies in the world are meaningless.

Feodor said...

And our book justifies slavery, Glenn. This is your problem and its sociopathic. You look around in suscipicion and judgment at the whole world never once humbly looking at yourself.

Luke 12:47 "That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating."

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue,

YOU are the one who said you were a "Democratic Socialist." I didn't call you or anyone else a NAZI -- I merely gave you the definition of NAZI which aligned with what YOU called YOURSELF.

It is you and your ilk that are the "deep symptomatic problem" with this country. It is your ilk which has given us sexual anarchy destroying the family and destroying lives by forcing people to accept perversion or be punished severely. It is your ilk which has perverted the Christian faith. It is YOUR ilk which has led this country more and more socialist. It is YOUR ilk which has ruined the military by social engineering. It is YOUR ilk which continues to raise taxes on everyone. IT is YOUR ilk which has given us the ruinous "OBAMACARE." It is YOUR ilk trying to disarm us. It is YOUR ilk which has subjugated blacks by horrid welfare programs keeping them enslaved to the government. It is YOUR ilk which has ruined cities like Detroit. It is YOUR ilk which has led to the horrendous crime rates in Chicago, Washington DC, et al. It is YOUR ilk which hates women while protecting rapists. It is YOUR ilk which murders millions of babies in the womb.

I could go on with how YOUR ilk has ruined the family unit with your perversions, etc. But you insist rational people like us are the ones who are "demented." Why Art continues to allow people like you and Feo to continue to contaminate the internet on his blog is beyond my comprehension.

YOU are the disturbing darkness.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Re: "full blooded Mexican." The judge was born in the US. He is a US American, raised by US citizens who migrated here from Mexico.

Mexicans (Spanish: Mexicanos) are the people of the United Mexican States, a multiethnic country in North America. Mexicans can also be those who identify with the Mexican cultural and/or national identity.

"Mexican" is a label, not a race where one can be "full-blooded."

That is the kind of thing a racist might say, but not a sober scholar of culture.

Again, if facts matter to you. Perhaps this will help...

Race is way of classifying people based on genetics. This is pretty clear cut when you have two parents of the same race, but gets subjective when you have different races involved. For example, everyone thinks of Obama as black, but he's also half white.

Ethnicity includes race as a factor, but also includes cultural differences. In China, you'll find people of the same race with different cultures and dialects. They are considered to be of different ethnicities, despite being the same race.

Nationality is the country where you were born. Your parents could both be from Mexico, but if you were born in America, you are an American.

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/genealogy/1262690-what-difference-race-ethnicity-nationality-native.html#ixzz4Bl2O2TBi

Judge Curiel is a US citizen, born and raised in Indiana. His race is Hispanic, presumably. His nationality is the US. You'd have to ask him about his ethnicity.

He is NOT a "full-blooded Mexican," however.

IF facts matter to you.

~Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

As usual, Feo, you PROVE you don't understand Scripture. Nice eisegesis.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dan,

Both parents are Mexican, ergo he is Mexican. He is also an American. If my parents were both German that would make me a full-blooded German, even though I'm an American.

"RACE" is a construct by evolutionists separating people into particular categories as to where they fit in the evolutionary chain. Prior to that it only meant tribe or culture, e.g. "The Irish race" or the "English race."

There is only one real race and that is HUMAN RACE. It is YOUR ilk that divides people by "races" -- it is YOUR ilk which divides people by skin color.

Trump was addressing a culture, and that culture would necessarily be biased against anyone seeming to want to harm that culture.

IF facts matter to you.

Anonymous said...

You were the one that called this judge "full-blooded Mexican," dividing him off into a group of people by race/blood who can't be relied upon to be impartial. Racist, by definition. As even many conservatives are pointing out.

~Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue,

I called the man what he is culturally, ethnically, and even by your genetic claim. There was no claim about him not being able to be impartial except in an instance where the man he is adjudicating is seen to be anti-Mexican. You are being intentionally stupid by continuing to call this racist.

YOUR and YOUR ilk are the racists, as I noted

I have better things to do with my time than to continue this discussion your irrational and corrupt mind.

Feodor said...

Glenn, you are such an idiot. You don't know the Greek word, eisegesis, means. To be "bringing into" the text the notion of slavery would mean that we should not find the word, doulos, in it. Surprise! It's all over the passage.

Anonymous said...

* Here’s House Speaker Paul Ryan, at a news conference this morning:

“Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment. I think that should be absolutely disavowed.”

* Here’s Senator Lindsey Graham:

“This is the most un-American thing from a politician since Joe McCarthy,” Mr. Graham said. “If anybody was looking for an off-ramp, this is probably it,” he added. “There’ll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary.”

* "It's completely racist," Joe Scarborough declared

* "Attacking judges based on their race &/or religion is another tactic that divides our country. More importantly, it is flat out wrong," says Ohio Gov. John Kasich

* Rubio, who has said he'd speak on Trump's behalf at the convention in July, told a local television affiliate on Monday that Trump was "wrong" to question Curiel's fitness based on his ethnic heritage. "That man is an American," Rubio said.

* Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), however, called Trump’s remarks “absolutely unacceptable.”

“His statement that Judge Curiel could not rule fairly because of his Mexican heritage does not represent our American values,”

You'll have to take it up with these and the many other conservatives and evangelicals who disagree with your hunch.

~Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,

I do indeed know what eisegesis means. You wrote this: And our book justifies slavery, and then point to the Luke passage to support your statement. THAT is not what the passage says, ergo you read into the passage what you wanted to. YOU are the idiot.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue drags out all the PC people calling Trump a racist of this statement, all joining the band wagon as a way to nail Trump, rather than use their own heads and process the reason he said what he said rather than the reasons they claim for him. Doesn't matter right-wing or left-wing, when people go after someone, they will "trump" up charges with political correctness practicing eisegesis with what Trump actual said and the intent behind it. And fools like Trabue jump right on the bandwagon with him.

Common sense has left the political scene when both side try to politically correct rather than address this issue. The very same mentality that eventually led to the Orlando shooting -- PC wouldn't allow people to complain about what a Muslim was doing or saying. PC is another part of what is destroying this country.

Feodor said...

Not only does the parable justify slavery. It justifies beating the slave.

All you can do is deny scripture.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,
All you've done is prove you are a fool and have no idea what the Bible teaches. You are a false priest and a tool of the Devil.

As with Trabue, I have no time to waste with a fool. Good day.

Feodor said...

Denying scripture. Supporting a serial adulterer, bankruptcy king. Running away like as a coward. Glenn, a satyr's wife.

Dan Trabue said...

Glenn, have you ever considered that, sometimes when it seems that everyone is wrong - on the left, on the right, in the middle, conservatives, evangelicals... Sometimes when everyone is wrong, perhaps you are the one that's wrong? Have you ever considered that?

Anonymous said...

Trabue drags out all the PC people calling Trump a racist of this statement, all joining the band wagon as a way to nail Trump, rather than use their own heads and process the reason he said what he said

So, now it's not only a vast Left wing conspiracy, it goes across the board. Who do you suspect is behind it, Glenn? The Illuminati? Opus Dei? I had no idea how vast the conspiracy is...

Another question: Do you know why people write off vast conspiracists as delusional?

As to this...

process the reason he said what he said rather than the reasons they claim for him. Doesn't matter right-wing or left-wing, when people go after someone, they will "trump" up charges with political correctness practicing eisegesis with what Trump actual said and the intent behind it.

I have said quite clearly that this is (as people across the board have confirmed/agreed with) a text book racist statement. I have not said that Trump is racist. As a point of fact, I suspect that Trump is amoral and a PT Barnum-type con man who says what he says to get a rise out of people, not because he is necessarily racist. Trump may be a buffoon and amoral, but he knows how to play the crowd and win over certain segments of society, to whip them in an emotional frenzy to advance his power and gain him cash. The question is: While Trump has won over a certain segment of less-educated and less-critical thinking conservative-types, will he convince the more rational segments of the GOP wing to go along with the rather obvious con game? And, if so, why?

~Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

WOW,

Trabue again misrepresents what people say. Art I have to ask you, if I said "all the PC people", did I in any way suggest only ""Left wing" or a conspiracy of any kind? The man is so delusional.

Anonymous said...

You are suggesting that people, left, right, and otherwise, are coming together to make up a fake "racist" charge against Trump. You are saying that all these people are simultaneously mistaken and/or colluding to criticize Trump because we're too stupid or just evil enough to want to make up stuff.

So, are you saying you DON'T think it's a vast across the board conspiracy? Just that most people are way more stupid or evil than you are?

~Dan

Marshall Art said...

A comment is not racist if the comment is true, or if the commenter believes the comment is true. It has been said that Newt Gingrich suggested another outfit with the name "La Raza" to which the judge is affiliated that is not the "La Raza" group that most people would assume. If this is true, there are a couple of problems:

1. Was Trump aware of this alleged distinction? If not, one can make the case that he perhaps should have been aware before speaking on it and assuming. But that would involve suggesting that anyone should have thought that perhaps more than one group has the same or similar name. Who would automatically think of that possibility? Few, if any.

2. The name still translates to "The Race", which itself is a rather racist name to apply to one's own organization. Why would anyone not be suspicious of a group self-identifying in a race conscious manner?

3. I've seen nothing in the reactions of center-right figures (or anyone else, for that matter, including two people commenting here) that suggest they even take into account either of the above.

4. From what I've seen thus far, Trump was NOT denigrating this judge merely for being Mexican. As such, he was not questioning his objectivity solely, if at all, on the mere fact of his Mexican ancestry, which is what some are accusing him of doing.

Glenn's point is not unreasonable. There are many on the right who oppose Trump. It is just as easy for some of them to toss out the race card as any lefty and shame on them for doing so considering it's a lefty ploy.

Feodor said...

And now, proving that he has no backbone, Glenn returns after saying he has not more time and made his goodbye.

Feodor said...

Marshall, though, trying to talk about racism. hilarious!

Marshall Art said...

"Marshall, at my blog, you made an appeal for me to show more grace to Glenn. Glenn is like Trump. He is symptomatic of a deep-seated problem."

Actually, I'd like to see you stop telling people to embrace grace when you so regularly fail to do so yourself. Comparing him to Trump is not doing so, particularly when you have described Trump so negatively as you do. How does that demonstrate grace in your little fantasy world? The deep-seated problem is within you and feo. Glenn's problem is that he let's himself get frustrated by the likes of you two chuckleheads. That's unfortunate, but understandable.

And then you go on to accuse me of being Trump-like as well. Nice. Demented? Also nice and an incredible display of grace, you freaking hypocrite.

You also whined about my use of the term "liar" in reference to you. But here you've asserted falsely that Trump was questioning the objectivity of the judge solely due to his heritage. That is a clear lie as anyone who cares enough to know the truth would have discovered by actually reading Trump's comments. And again, whether Trump's perspective on the judge's affiliation is correct or not is irrelevant to whether or not he truly believed about those affiliations. So while you can only assert and accuse Trump or Glenn or me with dementia, you continue to prove yourself a liar, over and over again.

Marshall Art said...

feo also fails the integrity test with his Scriptural offering on slavery. This is truly one false priest. Nothing in Scripture anywhere justifies slavery, encourages it, celebrates it or condones it. Only a false priest would pervert a verse like Luke 12:47 as justification for slavery. It does not justify it. It speaks of what happens to slaves who abuse their privileges given to them by their masters...that is, what was typically happening at that time in such a situation. That does NOT in ANY WAY constitute a justification of the institution of slavery, no matter how much your race-baiting, self-loathing white guilt compels you to believe so.

Try again, faker.

All those books...all that education...sad that it did nothing to improve your intellect, wisdom and honesty.

Marshall Art said...

"Marshall, though, trying to talk about racism. hilarious!"

Wanna take me on, race-baiter? Go for it.

Anonymous said...

That is a clear lie as anyone who cares enough to know the truth would have discovered by actually reading Trump's comments

So, Ryan, Kasich and the dozens of others of conservatives are all just not interested in the Truth? Where is your support for that claim? Do you think they are part of a vast conspiracy?

~Dan

Feodor said...

"A comment is not racist if the comment is true, or if the commenter believes the comment is true."

Priceless.

Feodor said...

"It does not justify it. It speaks of what happens to slaves who abuse their privileges given to them by their masters...that is, what was typically happening at that time in such a situation."

If the parable does not condemn it, it continues the justification of it. You haven't made it past the bus boycott of 1955 in your mindset.

Priceless.

Anonymous said...

Marshall, if a comment is racist, by definition, then it IS racist.

And "if it's true..."? Are you suggesting that this judge can't be impartial? Based on what? That his parents were from Mexico 70 years ago?? Because he's "full-blooded Mexican..."?? Why can't this judge be impartial? What do you know about him that makes you think that? Do you know ANYTHING about this judge? Did Trump know ANYTHING about this judge when he made his initial spew?

Do you understand how Trump is bringing up ugliness like this in the GOP's supporters and that this is going to destroy the GOP? Reasonable people like Ryan recognize this. Even crazy old Uncle Mitch McConnell recognizes it (albeit in a pretty cynical way).

~Dan

Craig said...

"...if a comment is racist, by definition, then it IS racist."

No matter who makes it?

Dan Trabue said...

It's a tautology. A racist comment IS a racist comment.

Marshall Art said...

"If the parable does not condemn it, it continues the justification of it."

Says who? A false priest like YOU? So I suppose by your wacky, race-baiting reasoning, Jesus Christ supported and condoned slavery, since it was His parable and He failed, in your arrogant opinion, to say, "Not to say slavery is A-OK or nothin', 'cuz it's not." Is that what you're desperately hoping is true? You're truly pathetic.

Craig said...

Just checking, because I tend to see people make excuses when people they support make racist comments. So I just wanted to confirm that you were as critical of those on your side as you are of Trump.

Marshall Art said...

"It's a tautology. A racist comment IS a racist comment."

It's subjective race-baiting. You begin with the insistence that a comment is racist. We who are actually objective (as proven by our distaste for Trump while being honest enough to know when he's actually guilty of some nastiness or not) look at what is being said, the context in which it was said, and the point that is hoped is being made by the comment.

Here's an example: Years ago, Jimmy the Greek was accused of racism when he attempted to discuss traits specific to one race or another for the purpose of pointing out how one might be more suited for a sport or position within a sport than would be another. There's nothing whatsoever racist about his comments. What was racist was the accusation against him, as if he is prohibited from daring to suggest that physical differences between the races may indeed be a benefit or hindrance depending upon the situation.

Now Jimmy might be full of shit...OR, he may have a point that the timid are too afraid to broach. In either case, his comment wasn't racist because he meant nothing racist by making it.

But YOU decide that simply because he dared compare one race against another that his intent is to disparage, or that the comment is disparaging regardless. The fact of the matter is that he simply was saying one race may be more suited for one task and less so for another when compared to another race. This is logical to suppose until it can be absolutely confirmed that there is no difference whatsoever.

Here's another example: It is not racist to say that every Anabaptist I've ever met is an idiot, since you're the only one I know. It would be wrong to say that every Anabaptist is an idiot, because I don't them all. Thus, similar comments that actually involve racial comparison would be or not be racist for the same reason.

Another example: feo thinks every white guy is racist. That's a racist comment because it disparages the entire white race in a manner that cannot be confirmed. He can't even confirm that it is true of every white guy he knows personally. He only accuses them of such, while he himself is totally racist by ascribing such traits without basis. If indeed every white guy was actually racist, to say so would not be racist but only a statement of fact.

It is so with Trump's comments about the judge. He feels that because of his own position on immigration, the judges affiliation with a group he perceives is racist and the judge's nationality...that all this (and possibly more---I'm not down with every detail) puts doubt in Trump's mind that he can get a fair shake. That's not an unreasonable doubt to hold if you were honest enough to view it objectively. Again, Trump may be wrong, but the comment isn't racist with all that in mind, regardless of what center-right figure (who happens to totally oppose Trump) says to the contrary.

And how typical of you to give ANY member of the GOP consideration when they agree with you. Each of them have stated opposition to Trump. They have their reps to consider as they are now faced with the same dilemma as every other conservative come election time...

Marshall Art said...

...and that's the point of this post. Vote for the scumbag our party nominates, or the scumbag of the other party. Character is no longer an option. Considering again all three (assuming Sanders runs as an independent), we have two scumbags and an idiot. One of the scumbags is less likely to continue down the road Obama has worked to take us (the road to hell). She will build on Obama's mistakes and stupidity by adding her own. Her base positions are horribly flawed on every issue. The same with Sanders the idiot. Trump provides at least the possibility of doing some things right.

Feodor said...

It would be odd, if I didn't have this familiarity with you, Marshall, and certainly bizarre to the outside world, to hear someone who defends his religiosity with such distaste for differing views... who is so consumed with rigid purity of adhering to biblical texts... say, fuck it, I don't care what he's like I'm voting for the damned.

I am very glad that I don't have to do that. My candidate is a thirty year gospel candidate. Worked for women and children all her life, fulfilled her professional responsibilities at every level, real foreign policy leadership. Not without mistakes. But here only make her better. Sanders made her better. I'll be proud to vote for Hillary.

And you're stuck with a serial adulterer and bankruptcy king who spouts textbook racist hate like he's ordering tacos.

Dan Trabue said...

YOU decide that simply because he dared compare one race against another that his intent is to disparage

I don't know how else to say it other than just like Paul Ryan said. To say that this guy can't be objective because he is Mexican and Trump has been an asshole towards Mexicans is a racist thing to say, by definition. It's saying, "I have been an asshole towards Mexicans. Now, I fear that this judge won't be able to ignore my asshattery towards Mexicans because he is a Mexican..."

Mexicans (and white folk and black folk) are entirely capable of setting aside distaste towards one person and be objective because that is the job of a judge. These judges are professionals. They deal with assholes who say stupid racist things all the time and they move on, doing their job.

I have seen nothing to say that Trump was singling out this one "Mexican" (who is actually an American from Indiana) saying THIS ONE guy was not qualified because... of anything he knows about him (except for the ludicrous claim about a lawyers' group that he belongs to). It was a slam against Mexicans, as a group. Racism, by definition. As many conservatives have pointed out.

Do you think these conservatives and evangelicals are too stupid to recognize a racist comment? Do you think they are prejudiced against conservatives? Do you think they are part of a conspiracy? You keep directing this towards me, but it's your own tribe that is making these claims. I'm just agreeing with them.

Dan Trabue said...

...and that's the point of this post.

And that's the point you're missing. Compare Clinton to Bush or Cruz, if you want. We get it... you disagree with some of her policies because they don't align with yours. Because of that, you think she's "evil" and make up stories about her being arrested (which isn't happening because she is guilty of no crimes).

Similarly, I disagree with Bush and Cruz. I think some of their policies are very bad and would have evil results (although I'm more than willing to assume their good intent, I'm not willing to call them evil the way you are Clinton, simply because I disagree with their policies).

But Trump is a whole other thing. He is amoral. He is a con man. He lies with regularity. The vast majority of his fact claims are false. He has repeatedly said racist and sexist things. He holds anti-American ideas. Ryan just warned again today that his approach to ignoring American ideals is a danger to our nation (and still he is endorsing him, go figure!). This is what CONSERVATIVES and EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS are saying. He is not a viable candidate. He is a joke. He is a horror. The data shows he lies regularly and without compunction.

This is the point that you're missing, it appears. To compare Trump to Clinton just does not jibe with the data that even your own side sees way too clearly.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall, way back I answered your question to me about what would keep me from voting for Clinton. What about you? Is there anything Trump can do or advocate that would cause you to not vote for him?

Marshall Art said...

Yeah, feo. Hillary's a freakin' saint. Right.

"Worked for women and children all her life."

By supporting their abortion. She's a pip. And of course there's this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658801/I-never-trusted-polygraph-Hillary-Clinton-LAUGHS-recalls-helped-suspected-child-rapist-walk-free-prosecution-lost-crucial-evidence.html

"I'll be proud to vote for Hillary."

Because you're a morally corrupt false priest.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/08/15/top-5-sins-of-hillary-clinton-81592
http://www.newsmax.com/LowellPonte/hillary-hypocrisy/2007/09/13/id/321674/
http://nypost.com/2015/08/12/hillary-clintons-top-secret-sins/
http://bloodonherhands.com/the-seven-deadly-sins-of-hillary-clinton/
http://patriotupdate.com/hillarys-real-character-revealed-secret-service-agents/
http://www.inquisitr.com/3190973/sickened-by-hillary-clintons-character-former-secret-service-agent-pens-tell-all-book/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420963/estrangement-truth-problem-hillary-jonah-goldberg
http://nypost.com/2015/11/28/hillary-clintons-million-little-lies/

Yeah, I'm not surprised you take pride in supporting Clinton. Not surprised at all.

In the meantime, I don't support Trump. Should I cast a vote for him, it would only be to block Clinton and/or Sanders, both of whom would be far worse for the country, even with Trump being a scumbag as well.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

"We get it... you disagree with some of her policies because they don't align with yours."

I disagree with her policies (haven't heard one with which I don't) because they are the same old leftist nonsense that has failed miserably time and time again (such as tax policy), because they are ill conceived and based on fabrications and falsehoods (such as gun control) and because some are indeed outright evil (her support for abortion and SSM). That I disagree is only logical for all those reasons. I could provide much more detail should time permit, and easily so.

"...and make up stories about her being arrested (which isn't happening because she is guilty of no crimes)."

I've made up no stories about her being arrested, and despite all that indicates she very likely should be, I have no confidence that she will be. She hasn't been found guilty of any crimes because she hasn't been arrested, indicted and tried as yet. But again, indications are that she is guilty of at least three crimes.

"Similarly, I disagree with Bush and Cruz. I think some of their policies are very bad and would have evil results..."

...because you're a fool and morally corrupt, demonstrated by your support for immoral policies of the left...not because you can make a real argument against their policies.

"I'm not willing to call them evil the way you are Clinton..."

I seem to recall a very lovely poem you wrote about Bush 43 that has been re-posted by two blog opponents for it's hatred and vitriol. Thus, you lie once more.

"But Trump is a whole other thing. He is amoral. He is a con man. He lies with regularity."

All true of Hillary, as my partial list to the false priest above demonstrates. As I said, the choice now stands as between two scumbags and an idiot. You support the idiot, or will unless he drops out...then you'll support the Dem scumbag because you laughingly think she's morally superior to Trump.

"The vast majority of his fact claims are false."

Really? You really think percentage wise he's worse than Hillary?

"He holds anti-American ideas."

So do Hill and Bern, and as a matter of party policy.

"The data shows he lies regularly and without compunction."

More regularly than Hillary? By how much? Frankly, Bernie lies without being smart enough to know that what he believes is false. So there's that.

"To compare Trump to Clinton just does not jibe with the data that even your own side sees way too clearly."

The actual fact is that they compare favorably, which is the problem and the point of the post. There's little to distinguish them from a character perspective, but he's just a tad more to the light from an ideological perspective. Hill and Bern are always in the dark.

Marshall Art said...

"Marshall, way back I answered your question to me about what would keep me from voting for Clinton."

Really? I don't recall. Tell me again right now.

"Is there anything Trump can do or advocate that would cause you to not vote for him?"

Now that I'm forced to decide between two scumbags and an idiot? Hard to say. Aside from the things you would be likely to offer, such as raping puppies, it would have to be something serious to leave the country to either Clinton or Sanders. The smart money is on "we're screwed no matter which of the three wins", so how much worse Trump would have to be would be some pretty obvious sh*t. So obvious that it is wholly unlikely that he would perpetrate such a thing. But again, keep in mind that my vote would not be support for him, but would be a tactic for keeping the other scumbag and the idiot out of office. You and feo actually support either a scumbag or an idiot. Just like you did the last two times around.

Dan Trabue said...

So, Trump was right that he could kill someone and his supporters would still vote for him. Lord have mercy.

Anonymous said...

Now that I'm forced to decide between two scumbags and an idiot? Hard to say

Do you know how astounding that it to hear coming from a man who prides himself on the ideals of being moral. "Hard to say..."??

If Clinton were spewing racist words, I would not vote for her.

If Clinton were making false claims 77% of the time, I would not vote for her!

If Clinton were making these false claims, casually, as if the truth were irrelevant, I would not vote for her.

If Clinton were calling for a ban of a religious group, I would not vote for her.

Any ONE of those things would stop me from voting for a candidate. With Trump, you have someone doing all that and more!

Where are those "family values" that conservatives pride themselves in?

You're talking about a vulgar, unprincipled, stab people in the back for profit, licentious and promiscuous charlatan and you can not think of anything he'd do that would stop you from voting for him??

Damn.

Anonymous said...

Trump, in his own vulgar, twisted, unstable words...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqMw9sLzTeQ

You can watch that and think you'll vote for him?

Or these...

“Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?! I mean, (Carly Fiorina’s) a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?"

“You know, it really doesn’t matter what they write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”

“Beautiful, famous, successful, married – I’ve had them all, secretly, the world’s biggest names, but unlike Geraldo I don’t talk about it.”

“I don’t think Ivanka would do that [pose for Playboy], although she does have a very nice figure. I’ve said if Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her.”

"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families."

“There’s many different ways (to fix health care), by the way. Everybody’s got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, ‘No, no, the lower 25 percent that can’t afford private.’ But...I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now....the government’s gonna pay for it.”

“Bush was a disaster for the country as well as for the Republican Party. Then he asked me about Barack Obama. I told him that Barack will need to be a great president because we’re in serious trouble as a country. It hasn’t been this way since 1929. So he doesn’t have much choice—he will simply have to be great, which he has a very good chance of being. What he has done is amazing. The fact that he accomplished what he has—in one year and against great odds—is truly phenomenal.” (2009)

in 2012, Trump gave his take on how to keep oil prices low for American consumers: just curse out OPEC! The real crux of the problem, in his words: "We have nobody in Washington that sits back and said, you're not going to raise that fucking price."

I dealt with Gaddafi. I rented him a piece of land. He paid me more for one night than the land was worth for two years, and then I didn't let him use the land. That's what we should be doing. I don't want to use the word "screwed," but I screwed him. That's what we should be doing.

[Trump, flailing his arms and mocking a disabled reporter] "awww, I don't wemember! ah don't wemember!"

[Trump, mocking prisoners of war] "He's a war hero because he was captured?! I like people who weren't captured..."

“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

The man is a charlatan and a pig. Not a serious candidate.

Who would vote for that?

~Dan

Anonymous said...

Trump is attacking the uberfundamentalist Southern Baptists now...

Russell Moore is truly a terrible representative of Evangelicals and all of the good they stand for. A nasty guy with no heart!

http://time.com/4323009/donald-trump-southern-baptist-russell-moore-evangelicals-christianity/

More from the article...

"Trump’s direct attack comes three days after Moore wrote an op-ed for the New York Times, “A White Church No More,” that directly called out Trump by name for a campaign that “has cast light on the darkness of pent-up nativism and bigotry all over the country.” Moore pointed out that the evangelical church in the U.S. is no longer the “old white precinct captains in Iowa,” or the “old, white television evangelists.”

“The next Billy Graham probably will speak only Spanish or Arabic or Persian or Mandarin,” Moore wrote. “The man on the throne in heaven is a dark-skinned, Aramaic-speaking ‘foreigner’ who is probably not all that impressed by chants of ‘Make America great again.’...”

For decades the golden rule of Republican politics has been that winning over social conservative evangelicals, like Moore, is a necessary strategy for a White House win. Now that group and its leadership is split—half of white evangelicals think Trump would make a good or great president, according to the Pew Research Center. Moore came out early this cycle as a #NeverTrump voter, and he has been urging evangelicals to vote for neither nominee if he or she is “morally disqualified,” including Trump, for his comments on race.

Some evangelical leaders are coming to Moore’s defense. “An attack on Russell Moore is an attack on the entire evangelical community,” Samuel Rodriguez Jr., president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and a leader of the Evangelical Immigration Table, says. “White evangelicals alone can never and will never elected Donald J. Trump. Dorothy, we are not in Kansas anymore.”

Trump is not only a charlatan and a fraud, he's the death of the GOP.

~Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Marshall Art,

Thank your for all your brilliant responses. Too bad the opposition is unteachable. I've been really enjoying your dismantling of all the claims.

Feodor said...

Glenn thinks ripping off the shipping label is dismantling something.

Anonymous said...

Marshall, presumably Clinton's "arrest" is over her failure to follow proper email protocols...

"The inspector general's report cited "longstanding, systemic weaknesses" with State Department records that predated Clinton's tenure, and found problems with the email record-keeping of some of her predecessors, particularly Powell, that failed to comply with the Federal Records Act. "

...the same sort of problems of mistakes made by earlier Sec/States had, including Republican Powell. Are you suggesting that Powell should be arrested for making EMAIL MISTAKES?

These are not criminal offenses. They are simple mistkes over email usage.

Are you seriously calling that a crime?

“While there were warnings and memos that she should have been aware of, from a prosecution side they would need to prove her knowledge and intent and have evidence of that to bring before a jury.”

Are you seriously suggesting this seasoned political actor deliberately broke some criminal laws to, what? Profit? Share state secrets?

What exactly is it you think she's guilty of? Bad email protocol? Sloppy email handling?

Okay. Not a criminal offense.

On the other hand, Trump has scammed people out of money over and over in the past... mostly using tricks and vagaries of the law to keep it on the barely legal side of things, but the intent was always to scam people out of their money (in his planned bankruptcies, for instance, which meant the "little guys" he hired didn't have to be paid for their work! This from a supposed "billonaire..."?). Do you truly fail to see the difference between a stupid mistake (and it was stupid and a mistake) about EMAIL, with no ill intent involved and the attempt to profit off of people by using and abusing the law to do it?

Here's an excerpt from a article about Trump and his frivolous claim about Judge Curiel and his general abuse of the law. You should read the whole thing, fellas. Learn about the US system of justice...

Trump is making a legal argument to the public that he can't make in court. This is part of a frightening pattern of telling Americans the law is whatever he says it is. He wants to "open up" the nation's libel laws so he can sue those who criticize him, First Amendment be damned. He says Hillary Clinton must go to prison — though he can't identify any crime she's committed (he says she's guilty of "the server" and "stupidity") — rejecting the principle of innocent until proven guilty and promising to have a political opponent investigated once he is president. He advocates torturing detainees and killing civilians in violation of treaties incorporated in U.S. law. Should his orders to the military be illegal, he says they won't refuse.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trumps-terrifying-relationship-with-the-law-20160608

~Dan

Anonymous said...

Glenn, neither of you two have dealt with any data. I have offered sources and expert opinion. You all dismiss it NOT with any cause that you've offered other than "I don't agree with it... It's probably from a liberal source" and other nonsense.

You use those words "brilliant" and "dismantling..." I don't think you know what they mean.

~Dan

Marshall Art said...




http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430706/obamas-hillary-clinton-e-mail-problem

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/watchdog-two-national-security-laws-appear-broken-in-clinton-email-scandal/

From the above:

"Two laws apply to the mishandling of classified data on unsecure networks, Farrell said.

The first is 18 USC Sec. 1924, which outlaws the unauthorized removal and storage of classified information. Penalties can include fines and imprisonment for up to one year.

That statute was used to prosecute retired Army General David Petraeus, a former CIA director who provided classified documents to his mistress and biographer, Paula Broadwell. Petraeus was sentenced to two years’ probation and a $40,000 fine as part of a plea deal in March.

A second federal statute that prosecutors could use to charge Clinton and her aides is 18 USC Sec. 793, a more serious felony statute Farrell described as a “hammer.”

That law covers national defense information and people who misuse it to injure the United States or benefit a foreign power.

Those convicted of violating that law face fines and up to 10 years in prison."


I've seen a third mentioned elsewhere, but don't have the time to track it down at present. What I've also seen, and it is mentioned here, that intent to commit a wrongdoing with regard to mishandling classified information has no bearing on guilt in this case due to the sensitive nature of dealing in classified docs. I've even seen where the law in this case states that many docs do not have to be labeled classified, but all involved must work under the assumption that all docs are classified until they are properly designated as not classified.

I don't know how much "hard data" Dan needs, as this criteria changes on a whim for him, with stricter rules for it becoming necessary with every bit of hard data presented to him. It's how he rolls.

As regards others, such as Powell, no one has dealt with such accusations in as evasive a manner as has Clinton. In every other case even remotely similar, those under suspicion have fully cooperated. This has not been the case with Clinton. What's more, General Petraeus has been treated far more harshly for his own breeches which were far less serious than what appears to be the case with Clinton.

There's plenty of detail out there about this scandal, but no doubt Dan will gravitate to and accept only those that dismiss the legitimate concerns that Clinton's incompetence and arrogance have brought about.

Anonymous said...

That statute was used to prosecute retired Army General David Petraeus, a former CIA director who provided classified documents to his mistress and biographer, Paula Broadwell. Petraeus was sentenced to two years’ probation and a $40,000 fine as part of a plea deal in March.

A second federal statute that prosecutors could use to charge Clinton and her aides is 18 USC Sec. 793, a more serious felony statute Farrell described as a “hammer.”

That law covers national defense information and people who misuse it to injure the United States or benefit a foreign power.


As noted, this is a clumsy mishandling of email, NOT an action with intent to cause harm or deliberate mis-sharing. This is why she is guilty of nothing but a stupid mistake ABOUT EMAIL.

Are you seriously suggesting that she did this with intent to harm the US? Because I've heard no one seriously suggest such a thing. That would be a serious charge but you almost certainly aren't making that argument since that would require evidence and you have nothing but your ugly and unhinged hatred for Democrats just because...

I will await your apology for misrepresenting the case and for suggesting the stupid email handling is not the same as an actual crime. I will await your repentance (per scripture and just basic decent humanity) for slander and misrepresentation. Or do you take that Bible seriously as anything other than a hammer to beat up your political opponents?

~Dan

Marshall Art said...

"Do you know how astounding that it to hear coming from a man who prides himself on the ideals of being moral. "Hard to say..."??"

Not astounding at all given the explanations I've provided for the likelihood that I'll have to vote for him. Maybe this will spark your lame recall ability: "Two scumbags and an idiot." The choices are poor. You want to pretend that voting for an idiot who proposes policies that do not work is a good idea, or that should the idiot actually drop out of the race, the female scumbag is somehow a superior choice than Trump.

There is no need to list all of Trump's many character flaws. I'm more than well aware of them. I argued against him based on those flaws during the primaries. Now it's a matter of choosing between three extremely flawed possibilities. It's a matter of deciding who's the worst and second worst choice and selecting the third to prevent the worst or second worst from winning. That does not indicate favor or support of the third worst choice.

Sure, there's a fourth choice...not voting for any presidential candidate. But that's doing nothing to prevent those worst and second worst choices from winning. I can't be a part of that either.

But of course your objective is simply to denigrate those who understand that Bernie and Hillary is bad for the nation. This is a known fact. To whatever extent Trump would be bad is an unknown. SCOTUS appointments alone make Trump the better choice for the nation.

Marshall Art said...


"If Clinton were spewing racist words, I would not vote for her."

But she can employ bad negro dialects all day long and that's not racist to you. And where does she stand on affirmative action, a race-based policy? Trump hasn't "spewed" racist words, but has used language that others have labeled racist more because they oppose him than because they are actually racist. (He hasn't said "nigger", "spick", "camel-jockey" or any racist words like that, so what racist words do you mean?)

"If Clinton were making false claims 77% of the time, I would not vote for her!"

Actually read some of my links above and show you have some integrity (or at least pretend to). And hey! How about that Hillary landing in Bosnia under sniper fire!!! How brave she is!!!!

"If Clinton were making these false claims, casually, as if the truth were irrelevant, I would not vote for her."

"I was named after Edmund Hillary." Then there's stuff like this:

http://www.speaker.gov/general/former-secretary-state-hillary-clinton-s-constant-barrage-false-claims-quick-reference-guide

"If Clinton were calling for a ban of a religious group, I would not vote for her."

As far as I'm aware, Trump has not called for a "ban of a religious group", but a halt to allowing refugees from muslim countries until a more effective vetting process is in place. Considering the vast majority of terrorist attacks are perpetrated by muslims these days, and considering the threats made by islamic terrorist groups with regards how they intend to enter our country, that's more than a reasonable action. It's essential for the protection of our people, which is kinda like the job of a president. Seems we've got enough to worry about with home-grown muslim terrorists as it is. We don't need to import them as well.

Hillary, on the other hand, doesn't have the balls to admit the truth about the source of terrorism...islam...so to expect her to deal with it rationally, reasonably and responsibly is as stupid as expecting Obama to do so. She's already shown she hasn't a clue how to do that, as Benghazi has demonstrated clearly.

So no. None of those things will stop you from voting for Clinton if Sanders drops out of the race, and none of those things stopped you from voting for Obama, who displayed his own racist bent several times and has lied and made false claims repeatedly.

Anonymous said...

Not astounding at all given the explanations I've provided for the likelihood that I'll have to vote for him. Maybe this will spark your lame recall ability: "Two scumbags and an idiot."

Yes, it is astounding. I would not vote for someone I considered a scumbag, especially not one so beyond the pale flawed as Trump.

Look, if the popular choices running for office were Hitler and Mussolini, I would not vote for Mussolini as the least evil. An awful and amoral candidate would not get my vote, I'd vote for a third party (and have in the past) before I'd vote for what I believed to be an evil candidate. I will not sell out to the least evil, if I truly believed the best choice was an evil choice.

Are you saying you're comfortable selling out to an evil choice? I can't believe you're that immoral, given all the preaching you do about morality. Come on, Marshall, don't sully your soul. Join the many conservatives who will not vote for Trump.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

Did you know there's a Libertarian candidate out there getting some serious poll numbers (10%?).

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

There are options.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

Hillary, on the other hand, doesn't have the balls to admit the truth about the source of terrorism...islam...

Never mind. You are as deranged as Trump and Glenn. You throw around "liar" and "idiot" with the same casual disregard to truth and facts as the Amoral and Irrational Ones.

No wonder you can support him.

I'm out.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

When you say, "The source of terrorism is Islam," you expose yourself as unstable and unable to recognize reality. You expose yourself as fatally prejudiced against a whole religious group, 1/4 of the world!

When you defend racist comments (and Trump has endlessly made racist comments, even his fellow conservatives recognize it), you expose yourself as fatally prejudiced against reason and respect.

When your response to those who disagree with you is to call them liars, sons of the devil, losers, etc, you expose yourself as not able to engage in adult conversation. Which is one thing on a blog, but another thing altogether if you're being considered for President of the US!

When you openly support and defend a ban on an entire religious group (I don't care if it's temporary, it's still a ban. I don't care if you're scared of Muslims, it's still a ban), you are supporting and defending ideals that run counter to basic Christian and American ideals.

Marshall, you and Glenn and Trump represent what is wrong with the GOP/conservative wing today. In times past, one could be a conservative and still be respectful and not hateful or irrational or run counter to basic ideals of human decency and liberty. But the Trump model which, like him or not, is YOUR model, is destroying the GOP. You all are losing all respect and it seems to be getting harder and harder to find basic, decent, rational conservative folk any more. I know they exist. My parents were basic decent and rational conservatives.

I won't miss the Trumps and Glenns of the world when you all go into hiding because you're so far off the mainstream of basic moral decency and rational thinking... I just hope that some good conservatives are left behind, because I think we need that for balance.

I hope maybe one day you'll back away from the dark side/Trump side of fundamentalism and be able to repent/turn away from this path you're on.

Good luck.

~Dan

Marshall Art said...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414777/yes-hillary-clinton-broke-law-ian-tuttle
http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-signed-nda-laying-out-criminal-penalties-for-mishandling-of-classified-info/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/03/29/hillary-clinton-must-face-the-music-and-the-fbi/

"Yes, it is astounding. I would not vote for someone I considered a scumbag, especially not one so beyond the pale flawed as Trump."

That's because you're not very bright. And frankly, you've done that already, likely more than once (Obama? Bubba Clinton? Gore? Kerry?) And even more frankly, I should include Sanders, because even though he's a complete idiot for thinking socialism is the way to go, one must also be a scumbag for wanting to implement socialist policies upon our nation.

But that's neither here nor there. All you're doing is pretending the Trump is head and shoulders worse than your preferred candidates because of a few of his positions. You are not a moral person based upon your support of abortion and SSM, as well as you insistence that some people should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than others. You are also willing to let people die rather than to kill those who would take their lives. The point here being that you're incredibly subjective about who is immoral, what makes them so and when it is appropriate to give a damn. Said another way, you totally lack credibility on the issue of dictating who is a scumbag and how much more of a scumbag than another.

In the meantime, there is nothing you could tell me about Trump that I likely don't already know, and you still ignore the reality of the situation: as bad as he is, he is still the only one likely to block a Clinton or Sanders victory. I can't help that. I already tried to get all the Trump supporters I know to throw in with the best candidate available, and it did no good. I must choose between all who are or will be on the ballot. No third party option exists that has the support necessary to beat out the Dem candidate. I'm stuck with Trump. Not voting, voting third party, both gives me Clinton/Sanders and the country can't handle that.

So while you like to pretend you're virtuous in asserting you wouldn't vote for a scumbag, you have before and you will now. I'm voting against YOUR scumbags, not for mine. If you want to pretend I'm throwing in with a bad person, it is no worse than FDR did in WWII by aligning with one of the worst scumbags of all time to defeat another scumbag. And like FDR, I'm taking the chance the Trump can be contained by a center-right controlled Congress more easily than can either of the two socialists for whom YOU'RE likely to cast your vote.

I know you'd love for me to "join other conservatives" by not voting for Trump. But I'm not as stupid as you are and fully understand the ramifications of not getting behind what unfortunately is the best chance of defeating the other two buffoons. You'd let the worst choice win by not voting for the second worst. That's because you're an idiot. You think letting ten people die rather than making a choice that only results in four people dying is a good thing. You won't support the eradication of abortion and end the ongoing slaughter of innocents because you think a woman's right to choose is more important than those lives. So who are you kidding trying to pretend you're taking a higher road? You're not. Not by a long shot.

Marshall Art said...

"Did you know there's a Libertarian candidate out there getting some serious poll numbers (10%?).

There are options."


First, who ever won a presidential election with "serious poll numbers" like 10%? Ross Perot?

Second, I have the option of voting for myself, but I don't think I have much of a chance of beating out the communist party candidate, so I'm not really an option, am I? Trump is the only viable option for defeating Clinton/Sanders. That's just another reality you ignore/dismiss/reject.

"Never mind. You are as deranged as Trump and Glenn."

"Deranged" is pretending islam isn't the source of the vast majority of terrorist acts since at least 9/11/01. Yet another reality your ignore/dismiss/reject. I don't care how many nice muslims you know, there aren't enough to alter that FACT. I'd say your head is in the sane if it wasn't up your ass.

"You throw around "liar" and "idiot" with the same casual disregard to truth and facts as the Amoral and Irrational Ones."

No. I say it because as with you, there is evidence to support the charge that Hillary is a liar and Bernie and his supporters are idiots. Note all the links I provided that speak to the issue of Hillary's lies and false claims.

Marshall Art said...

"When you say, "The source of terrorism is Islam," you expose yourself as unstable and unable to recognize reality. You expose yourself as fatally prejudiced against a whole religious group, 1/4 of the world!"

No. I expose myself as keenly aware of reality. When so many terrorists acts are preceded by shouts of "alahu Akbar!" (or whatever), and when experts point out the very passages and verse of the koran that incite terrorist acts of all kinds against even other muslims, between the two of us, I'm not the liar. I'm not prejudiced against all muslims. I'm prejudiced against their false religion which has resulted in mass murder for around 1400 years.

"When you defend racist comments (and Trump has endlessly made racist comments, even his fellow conservatives recognize it), you expose yourself as fatally prejudiced against reason and respect."

I've not supported any racist comments, and you haven't quoted any from Trump. Go ahead and try and we'll see which are truly racist as opposed to just crudely stated truths. Be damn sure you use links that I can peruse or I'll have to assume that you're lying again.

"When your response to those who disagree with you is to call them liars, sons of the devil, losers, etc, you expose yourself as not able to engage in adult conversation."

Let's see, which is worse: Calling someone with whom you disagree a liar, or lying about someone with whom you disagree?

"When you openly support and defend a ban on an entire religious group..."

When that religious group accounts for the vast majority of terrorists murdering innocent civilians, it is not only wise to hold up entry to this country of those who are members of that group, it is incumbent upon the federal government to do so until such time as the actual terrorists, and those who would incite others to terrorism, are weeded out. Only a complete idiot would call that racist or anti-American. Your concern for your fellow Americans inspires my nausea. You're an ass.

"Marshall, you and Glenn and Trump represent what is wrong with the GOP/conservative wing today."

A much smaller group than the entire nation, and you represent what's wrong with America today. However, people like Glenn and I are simply working with what we have, despite our efforts to support better people than Trump. You go right ahead and support scumbags and idiots and pretend you're doing good. So you can accuse me all day long and I just consider the source.

Marshall Art said...

"But the Trump model which, like him or not, is YOUR model, is destroying the GOP."

And the Democrat model has been destroying American for some time, and is poised to continue doing so for the foreseeable future. But again, you're a complete ass for asserting that the Trump model is mine. It most certainly is not. I did not vote for him in the primaries. He's the guy that won the GOP nomination (which will or won't be confirmed at the convention...we might get lucky). YOUR model has caused what could be irreparable harm to the entire nation. Thanks for nothing.

"You all are losing all respect and it seems to be getting harder and harder to find basic, decent, rational conservative folk any more."

Bullshit. Worse, voting Dem proves one is not decent or rational.

"I won't miss the Trumps and Glenns of the world when you all go into hiding because you're so far off the mainstream of basic moral decency and rational thinking"

You're a leftist who supports sexual immorality and abortion. You don't get to talk about decency and rational thinking.

"I just hope that some good conservatives are left behind, because I think we need that for balance."

Balance, schmalance. We need the left so people never forget what stupidity and moral degradation looks like.

"I hope maybe one day you'll back away from the dark side/Trump side of fundamentalism and be able to repent/turn away from this path you're on."

You're a horse's ass, and that's an insult to the assholes of every horse in America. I'm not on Trump's side. I'm on the side of the United States of America, which you oppose by supporting socialists. Trump's simply the least leftist available right now, unless the Electoral College or the delegates at the GOP convention show some spine.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 295   Newer› Newest»