Absolutists Are Being Stupid As Hell!

 I've been involved with a lot of discussion about Donald Trump's position on abortion/pro-life issues.  I'm going to begin with a few statements:

1.  I'm an absolutist on the subject of abortion.  It should absolutely be outlawed, as there is no legitimate reason to abort any child.  None.  I'm not going to provide the supporting evidence for this fact again in this post.  I've done it often enough and it's not specifically what this post is going to be discussing. 

2.  No absolutist on the subject of abortion is truly "pro-life" if they withhold their vote for Trump due to less than perfect alignment with the pro-life position.

3.  It is absurd to say that Trump's comments on abortion law make him responsible for an election loss due to moronic pro-life absolutists choosing not to vote for Trump because of his less than perfect alignment with the absolutist's position.

Initially, I was unaware of the source of those insisting that Trump is no longer worthy of support due to his less than perfect alignment with the pro-life absolutists.  When I first heard of it, I was aghast at the clear incongruent nature of such a position.  Who in their right mind would presume to suggest that allowing Kamala Harris and the Dem party to rule would move the needle toward the elimination of abortion in this country? 

I was told that it was wrong to refer to these people as "stupid" and other negative terms...that doing so isn't the best way to change hearts and minds.  But I intend to shame such absolutists...proud of their inflexibility and firmness in their defense of the innocent unborn...because time's growing short between now and November 5th, and "stupid" is absolutely the appropriate response to stupidity.  

As an absolutist myself, I defend against the unjust taking of innocent life, and none are so innocent...as well as defenseless...as the conceived, yet unborn.  But they aren't the only victims in need of protection in this world.  We've already seen an alarming rise in murder since Jan 20, 2021, with abortion accounting for only 6-800,000 murders per year.  Add to that, 70,000- 100,000 fentanyl deaths per year.  I don't know how many other forms of deadly drugs are smuggled in to add to that number.  Then of course we have the murders from assholes released from incarceration due to "progressive" District Attorneys and Prosecutors, murders from cartel members allowed into our country under the lie of asylum seeking and "self-determination" migration.  Add to that those killed as a result of funding Iran, such as the Oct 7 massacre of Israeli citizens by members of the "Religion of Peace", Ukranian and Russian soldiers and citizens since western leaders like Biden and Boris Johnson talked Zalinsky out of the treaty he and Putin were on the cusp of cementing.  That's a lot of dead, mostly murdered, folk since Donald Trump was cheated out of a second term in 2020.  

I wonder how those single issue absolutists can defend rejecting Trump with those numbers staring them in the face.  Will it improve under Harris?  Can they make that argument?  Will they try?  Or will they feel good about themselves about "standing on principle" when doing so results in so many dead people?  It's not voting for Trump which compromises their principles.  It's denying him the win in November and leaving their cause to the abortion loving Kamala Harris and the Democrat Party which does. 

So many have told me in rejecting or criticizing Trump that they're not concerned with perfection in candidates.  Yet, this kind of bullshit belies that claim. 

So what of Trump?  While some speak of what he says, I look to what he's done.  Putting more conservative (even if not conservative enough) justices on the Supreme Court resulted in what most pro-lifers have been demanding since 1973.  Now, that Roe has been overturned and the issue has been returned to the states, the absolutists are pissed that Trump holds to that...that the 2024 GOP platform is not as hard-core pro-life as it had been.  Well, I also would have preferred that the party not so greatly altered their platform regarding this issue.  But having done so, it doesn't mean that any attempt by Dems to push a national policy protecting the "right" for people to murder their kids in utero won't be opposed when such comes to pass.  That platform change doesn't mean they've changed their position on this issue, but merely that they've changed their focus now that it's a state issue instead of a federal one. 

And for anyone who would suggest that this platform change, and recent comments by Trump indicate he and the party are in any way "abortion friendly", I have more appropriate words than "stupid" for such people.  I won't use those words now, but the motherfuckers can probably guess.  Shame on them for the mere suggestion.  We have an election to win, the result of which impacts far more than just abortion in the lives of the American people who aren't total lefty asshats.  When the single issue absolutists forget that, "stupid" is the baseline. 

So in doing some research, I found that Lila Rose of LiveAction was encouraging pro-lifers to withhold their votes from Trump...which as I said would go a long way toward ensuring more people die.  I sent her a note when I became aware of her public call for this ultimatum and gave her one of my own:

"

Dear Lila,

I recently made aware of pro-life response to Trump's comments on abortion, such that his comments have resulted in an ultimatum which would see pro-lifers withhold their votes from Trump because of them.  I just now found that you are among those encouraging this response.   I cannot express just what an incredibly self-defeating position this.  It belies your claim of being pro-life by choosing to risk a Trump loss in November because he doesn't rise to a level of pro-lifer which suits you.  I have absolutely no doubt you realize how much worse the nation will be with a pro-death party candidate...Kamala Harris...in the White House.  As such, to reject "the best one can get" (and he's better than that) over comments likely intended to diminish the effect of pro-abort rhetoric and accusations only serves the pro-abort cause. 

I don't know the true position of Trump on the issue of abortion.  I can't read his heart.  I can only go by what he's said..that he's pro-life.  Some have doubted that, saying it's just a political posturing.  But such people can't read his heart, either.  I prefer to believe he's sincere, but still trying to sort out in his mind just how "pro-life" he truly is, given he's more of a recent convert to the pro-life side of the issue.  More than that, however, is that I believe he's trying to find the right balance politically so as not to incite the lazier of the pro-abort proponents to get to the polls.  As I believe he was absolutely robbed in 2020 by nefarious means, this means he has to act in a manner which takes into account the fact that the left will cheat again, and likely harder than before.  I think this may be the case with his admonishing governors whose policy proposals we find pleasing because they move their states closer to a total ban, but push pro-aborts to step up their efforts on every level. 

The nation in general is too corrupt to push for a total ban.  We both know this, though we both do what we can to change hearts and minds.  In the meantime, "all or nothing" is going to result in getting nothing if it means punishing Trump because of his lack of perfection on this issue.  Instead, we need him in the White House, not just for now, but to lay a foundation for his successor (DeSantis perhaps?) take over and move the needle even further in the direction we both want. 

It's also imperative to keep in mind all the others ways life is made worthless by the Democrat Party.  Leftist DAs and prosecutors not prosecuting violent criminals, open borders which admit even more violent criminals and terrorists and deadly drugs like fentanyl, just to name the most obvious.  Are the lives of fellow citizens worth less than the lives of the conceived yet unborn?  THAT question cuts both ways. 

So, while I'd love to see Trump either clarify or reverse his comments (it would be enough for me if he said nothing more), I'm still voting for him because he's the better choice even given his comments, and far fewer lives of all people will be lost.

But even more, I insist YOU reverse YOUR threats to withhold your vote for him as if voting for him would be a compromise on your principles.   Clearly withholding it would be, as I explained above.  And I hope to see that reversal because as a man of few financial means, my charitable dollars (another form of voting) must be reserved for those who further the cause of life, not compromise it on "principle". 

Thanks for your great work.  Don't screw it up by not thinking about your position any more deeply than Trump has about his.

God Bless you.

Sincerely,

Art"

It was only right that I did so since I sought an answer to the question, "What are YOU doing when you hear of absolutists insisting they won't vote for Trump?"  But then, there should never have been any question I wouldn't confront this absurd counter-intuitive position when the opportunity presented itself. 

Finally, as the wine and late hour now makes their demands on me, I'll finish with this:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/aug/30/donald-trump-declares-he-will-vote-no-on floridas-/?bt_ee=sZPmaNiJQQkDK7MJ6Rb85%2BaScxhh%2B5njFqEIcgP8PasaFcyAJnQKIfLWFp9glYG2&bt_ts=1725061530914

Wow.  I hope that link will be easy to access!

In it, Trump asserts that he'll be voting against a leftist infanticide amendment in Florida, which is nice.  What's not is that he opposes the DeSantis legislation which cut off abortions after six-weeks gestation.  I can't find anything which explains why he thinks so, and the video in the links doesn't show the reporter asking.   This is something about which I've had concerns with regard to Trump's abortion comments, as well as other things unrelated.  He says something and no follow up occurs to procure clarification...and then some will say it's all on him if things go south.   No.   It doesn't work that way.  He is what he is and has been for some time.  To pretend that doesn't put some obligation on journalists to do more than stand pat on every utterance emanating from him is not journalism.  For everyone else to insist they're going to go by what he says when oratory isn't his strong suit is..."stupid". 

Anyway, he also says he wants to see insurance companies or the federal government cover the cost of IVF.  I totally oppose this on the grounds alone that IVF is more of an elective procedure.  It's unfortunate that some have difficulty conceiving.  That's just too bad and doesn't justify demanding money from others to pay for it, either through increased insurance premiums for all or by the use of our tax dollars.  It seems clear he's not up on the truth regarding IVF, such as the fact that there are better, safer and more effective ways to treat whatever it is obstructing a couple's ability to conceive. 

So the bottom line remains:  for those who oppose abortion, Trump is still the guy needed in the White House.  The fight for life goes on regardless, but it won't lose ground by voting for Trump.  

ATTN:

Another great argument which rebukes the notion single-issue pro-lifers must withhold their votes from Trump...if they're truly pro-life:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/09/if_you_are_pro_life_or_pro_constitution_you_must_vote_for_trump.html

And another:

https://www.operationrescue.org/archives/its-time-to-stop-blaming-president-trump-for-his-evolving-public-position-on-abortion/

Operation Rescue is one of the original Christian anti-abortion absolutist organizations in the nation.  They realize their principles are not compromised by continued support for Trump in the next election.   That's because the principle is working toward the abolition of abortion, not voting for candidates who aren't anti-abortion purists.

The Con Con

 So it's two days into the Democratic National Convention...what I can now call "the Con Con".  It's a convention to con the stupid into believing there exists legitimate reasons to cast one's vote for Harris/Walz, instead of Trump/Vance (as usual, it really is between only two parties' nominees). 

One of the most ludicrous "reasons" given is "joy/fun".  This party knows how to have fun!  Imagine being so stupid as to even consider that among the criteria for choosing a leader of the free world!  The reality is that while the GOP speaks of the many problems caused the current administration, of which we're told by both Biden and especially Karine Jean-Pierre how closely tied Kabama Harris has been throughout the last three + years in every major decision, we're supposed to ignore all that because, gosh darn it! these guys are bringing "joy"!  So we should be joyful because the woman responsible...in part at least, but certainly complicit...for all the suffering of the last three + years will now just turn it all around to stark happiness simply because she'll be president instead of Biden or Trump.  And the trained seals in the stands clapped on cue for all of this nonsense.

And of course, Harris is going to resolve all that suffering...(it's all Trump's fault, you know!)...when somehow, over the last three + years, she was somehow incapable?  Yeah...that makes perfect sense. 

What's transpired thus far in these first two days has been rote repetition of every bullshit claim made about Trump, together with baseless insistence that Harris will be a capable alternative.  She really has nothing to commend her.  We also have been seeing fantasies put forth as the record of accomplishment by the Harris/Biden administration.  They really are shameless in their deceit!  Crime is not down.  The economy isn't booming.  The border is still not secure.  There are NOT more than two genders.  The conceived yet unborn are people with the unalienable right to life. 

As to that last bit, Planned Parenthood had a van outside giving free abortions and vasectomies!  Isn't that wonderful!   The murderous assholes!  I heard today, though I haven't confirmed it, that two dozen abortions have been performed as a result of this murder wagon sitting outside the United Center like a freakin' Good Humor truck!  And naturally, the lie is that Harris will defend "reproductive rights", which clearly, as the 800K annual abortions attests, has not been an issue.  These low-lifes have indeed been reproducing, otherwise they'd not need to avail themselves of abortion. 

I'll just leave with the following collections of lies by the true con artists "progressive" voters swallow:

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/08/10_lies_leftists_tell_you.html

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/08/dnc_has_a_massive_emissions_footprint_but_the_brass_has_a_solution_one_offsetting_donation_at_a_time.html

Con Artists and Their Marks

So as noted, Biden will not run for the party nomination for president.  He claims he will serve out his term and he has given his blessing to the someone nobody wanted for president, Kamala Harris. 

What this announcement brought to my mind, after watching a few hours of FoxNews reports, was something I've been trying to get Trump-haters, especially the leftist/marxist/progressive/Democrat (same things) Trump-haters, to provide for me.  I've asked...almost pleaded...these people to provide which lie Trump told which has any significance.  Trump says lots of things which aren't 100% accurate.  No honest person would say otherwise.  But that's not the same thing as suggesting he plays fast and loose with the truth.  Self-promotion always is less than 100% truthful, no matter who the politician is.  There's an old song which preaches, "You've got to ac-cent-tchu-ate the positive...E-lim-i-nate the negative".  All politicians do this to one degree or another about themselves and their records when seeking support from the electorate.  Trump does this and I'm not ignorant of him doing it and never have been.  His particular style is a bit more blatant than the typical politician, but his "lies" have never been anymore than some manifestation of this "rule" of self-promotion.   None that I've ever seen or have been provided to see by Trump-haters.

Somehow, Trump-haters believe this behavior is "conning" the Trump supporter, as if his "lies" are clouding our judgement when choosing between him and the..."alternatives"... offered by the other party, or even those of his own during the primaries.   But like providing an example of a serious lie which has actually misled anyone, no prog who's bleated about Trump being a con man has yet to explain the con itself...how his supporters have been fleeced and how Trump has profited without delivering.  Yet the grace-embracers bleat on. 

In the meantime, how can the haters defend themselves against the very same charge they project upon Trump?  So far, all they're doing is lying.  And the lies of the administration and the party are swallowed as truth by the Dem constituency.  Gullible is a word which doesn't quite describe the abject stupidity of those who insist that Trump is a threat to us, for the sake of this essay, on the strength of the "lying con man" charge. 

Yet Biden's announcement reveals who the true lying con men are and who are the marks who have bought in hook, line and sinker.   Some especially idiotic of useful idiots suggest that Biden's condition can be difficult to assess.  That's of course bullshit, especially given the access to the very best of medical and mental health professionals at their disposal.  The only way this nonsense comes close to making sense is noting when an absolute moron whose entire career is loaded with examples of his imbecility crosses over into senility.  Indeed, I have no doubt that even professionals are burdened in such cases with making that judgement.  When one is intelligent and honest, senility is far easier to determine because both those qualities can be impacted and usually are (though the honesty thing can as often be simply no longer perceiving what is true---which will be a boon for Dan in his later years as he'll then have an excuse).

But the point is that we're talking about the alleged leader of the free world (one pundit said he didn't even "lead from behind" as Obama was described, but simply not leading at all).  One would think a higher standard would be in play by which someone like Sleepy Joe will be pushed out sooner because of the incredibly greater threat a now senile imbecile would be.   Of course, there is also the possibility that those in charge have been so stupid and self-deceived as to actually believe the putz was the man for the job.  There's no way Obama ever believed that. 

So for months at the very least...and I insist it's been since before Nov 2020...this Party has been conning their constituents about themselves and those they put forth for voter consideration.  Now they're pretending they actually think Harris is the new "One" despite so many of them suggesting Joe find another VP for 2024. 

Of course, as far as the voters are concerned, it's more than merely possible they are conning themselves, knowing what they're seeing and hearing from their overlords is crap, but because there's a piece of it by which they think they will profit, they play along.   Who can believe the shit the Party spews but the terminally stupid and those who have something to gain by getting behind it all?  Trump's in the way of that, too. 

So how's the true con proceeding now?  Well, with the addition of another marxist to the ticket, we have further evidence to confirm a con is being run. 

First, is the notion that anyone voted for Harris.  The lie is that because 14 million voted in the less than ethical Dem primaries (RFK Jr. being denied participation) for the Biden/Harris ticket, it counts as 14 million voted for Harris...as if there would have been that many voting for her had she not be Biden's VP pick, but a prospect competing for those votes against him.  Said another way, it suggests that no one was supportive of Biden until he picked Harris for VP and decided to keep her on the ticket for a second term.  Both are absurd and no one votes for VP.  We vote for the person running to be POTUS.  For example, I felt much better about my support for John McCain when he was running against Obama when he selected the wonderful Sarah Palin as his VP.  But I wasn't voting for Palin.  I was voting for McCain because he was the candidate and party nominee running against the empty suit no Democrat voter actually vetted.  (They went for the con that Obama being half-black meant something.)

Then, with this crowning of Harris as the "winner" of all Biden's delegates, as if she debated other candidates for the privilege of having those delegates behind her, Dem voters sit quietly being told who their candidate will be, rather than being allowed to select one for themselves.  The Dem voters are conned into believing the party which bores us constantly with talk about "saving our democracy", clearly demonstrated with this clearly undemocratic move what a con job that truly is.

After bullshitting their constituents on that score, they now are engaged in conning America that all we know about both Harris and Walz are somehow not true.  Her crappy record as DA and AG in California (a state which didn't give her any votes for her previous attempt at winning the presidency), her crappy record as US Senator and her crappy record as Biden's VP are all being whitewashed while we still have no idea what her plans are for her presidency.  And they're doing similar with regard to Tampon Tim, a guy who lies about his background in order to lure voter support just as Biden's done all his political career. 

In light of this very short list of examples of Democratic bullshit shoveling, only Democrat voters, Trump haters, "progressives" and fake Christians from Louisville, Kentucky could dare suggest Trump is the con man of whom one must be wary!  But is even the Dem Party operatives the worst con artists?  

I insist the worsts con artists are the Dem voters themselves.  No mildly intelligent person...much less an actually intelligent person...could ever buy and willingly eat the crap sandwiches the Party has been selling!  There remains the Dem voters themselves who are a mix of abjectly ignorant/stupid and those who are conning themselves.  To an extent, that's all of them.  They tell themselves they believe all the lies told to them by their Party overlords.  Here's a very recent example:

Trabue has now contrasted his side from ours by speaking of the Harris/Walz duo as projecting "joy" and "fun", as opposed to how Dan chooses to paint the better choice as bitter or angry or fear mongering and the like.  It's bad enough to imagine anyone so stupid as to think that's a basis for choosing a president and vice-president over the shit records of the current administration and those of these two morons Dan is now supporting.  But then, I saw a montage of lefty "journalists" and "analysts" speaking in those very same terms!  It's the new party line!  "They're 'fun', 'joyful'!"  "Walz is like your favorite uncle!" (Sounds like what they've said about Biden!)  Now Dan cons himself into perpetuating these clearly dishonest descriptions.  There's dozens of former Harris staffers who would roundly disagree!

Between the Democrat Party operatives and their truly dumbass supporters among the American electorates, it's clear who the truly dangerous con artists are.  Not a one of them is named Donald Trump.

Dan Does Little To Alter The Fact Progs Mustn't Be Included In Immigration Debate

 http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2024/07/is-deporting-immigrants-rational.html

The above is a link to Dan's post opposing mass deportation of illegal aliens.  As usual, I'm not up for commenting there regarding what I see as serious flaws in the links he provided to bolster his favoring invaders over Americans.  While he imposes his double standard of demanding evidence for anything remotely resembling a claim, even questions or concerns about is own attempts to support his position usually results in the same demand, as if seeing problems justifies such a demand.  Here's a hint:  it doesn't. 

Anyway, as I said, he has a couple of links which he believes are the last word on the subject.  But I see problems.  For the first, from AmericanProgress.org, one is provided nothing more than assertion.  It refers to a report, but there's no link to it.  Thus, I suppose we're to infer there's no possibility the report of total crap.  But as it appears to be from AmericanProgress...though I doubt they did the research themselves...that's suspicious enough.  

However, my concerns also arise from his other link from an outfit called Peterson Institute for International Economics.  Never heard of them.  Thus far, I've not found too much upon which to form an opinion of them regarding their credibility, reliability or political leanings.  But then, I'm more interested in what they have to say and why they believe their conclusions are sound. 

Both of these links promote the notion that removing so many from our country has a negative economic impact.  Let's assume for the moment this is true.  The first question then is:  So what?  As this is the driving theme of the links and thus Dan's post, the question is especially relevant.  Dan postures as an "anti-'over'-consumption", "anti-greed" kinda guy.  If he's being honest, why the concern about how much it costs us to correct what we shouldn't have let happen in the first place?  I submit that Dan...if not the authors/researchers he cites in his links...don't care about the economic consequences at all, but rather simply keeping our borders open to whomever wants to traverse them for any reason without regard for the will of our people or our laws as if their existence here will always be a net good.  The implication is that it's OK to break the law if our nation, our state, our municipality can benefit financially.  And of course, clearly are both a good percentage of illegals and a too great enough percentage of businesses.  This attitude should thus allow for all manner of law breaking so long as the economy benefits.  

The problem here is all the harm that has come along with those invaders.  Thus far in my review of the second articles many links, I've not found anything where the "good" has been balanced out by the "bad" to arrive at the ultimate conclusion.   I've thus far seen no mention of tax dollars expended for the benefit of invaders or that which is expended for law enforcement related to criminal activity and incarcerations.  It seems the only calculations are related to estimates of revenues generated from the number of invaders working, and how that would be lost by deporting them all.

Now, I want to say at this point that I haven't gotten through all the links provided by Dan's second offering.  (Again, the first had none.)  Of those I tried to read were those which required payment to do so.  I'm not about to cough up bread for every bit of "evidence" Dan offers which requires it.  What's more, I doubt Dan shells out any to do so, either.  I don't think he reads any of the links which don't and I don't believe he really read either of the two articles either beyond finding it gives him what he thinks would be a compelling reason for someone like me to reconsider by position. 

But of that which I was able to open, came info regarding one case of mass deportations which included actual American citizens of Mexican descent.  How does that parallel to our current situation?  No one is seeking to deport Americans.  Without separating citizens from non-citizens, how does one make the case or use this past case one to support the current one?  And there's still the problem separating the legal immigrants from the illegal immigrants which wasn't at all addressed.  So that link is useless for use as supporting evidence against deportations of illegals now.

Another referenced the 1920s and 1930s.  The first referenced Calvin Coolidge, who's term in office resulted in a stimulated economy, so I don't know where the problem would've been.  That was one link requiring payment to view.  The other is getting into the Depression era, so there were many reasons for economic struggles.  Both of these eras also do little to suggest a problem with deportation.

Another issue of concern is that the time periods mentioned seem to be as short as needed to make the case that economic problems were beyond overcoming.  A mention was made of deporting illegals who were farm workers, the farmers then turning to mechanization in response to an inability to replace illegals with natives.  This portion didn't really flesh out the situation to get a sense of how accurate their negative cause/effect scenario truly was.  Here, it was stated the farmers who mechanized still didn't recover and even land values suffered after the loss of labor.  This suggests that all farmers in that situation were inept, unimaginative and equally unable to deal with this situation.  I find that very hard to believe.  Rather, I think the author focused on one farmer, or a few, who did struggle to imply they all did. 

In any case, did these farms all eventually fail, and did they fail only because of the illegals deported?  That, too, seems to be implied by the manner in which it was mentioned.  That, too, is hard to believe. 

These are among the things that popped into my head as I read Dan's links he didn't read.  Whether I go back and try to access the rest is not something to which I've committed myself.  What's really important are the specifics of our current situation and what a mass deportation would mean long term.  

Trump's plan is to begin with the criminals and terrorists who entered, as well as those who broke the law since entering.  What happens later remains to be seen, though he speaks of deporting them all.  Likely, some will leave of their own accord, as had been the case for a variety of reasons in the case studies I was able to read in Dan's article.  This article concludes with complaining that we aren't set up to allow in enough people to come legally and work as citizens.  That we need to expand our ability to process those who wish to enter.  Sure, this sounds good until one considers that there wouldn't be this horde at the door were it not for Democrats.  We can go back to the Reagan amnesty debacle, made so by the fact that the deal was an amnesty for border security arrangement with the Demoncrats.  Reagan gave amnesty, the Dumbocrats didn't do shit for border security, and now all who wish to come here expect to elude our law enforcement until amnesty is granted to them as well.  We're dealing with this now. 

So, do I care that our economy might take a hit by deporting all those who don't deserve to be allowed to stay here?  No.  Not at all, because with the right people in government, we will recover far sooner than the lefty loons like Dan have the honesty and capacity to accept.  For example, tax and regulatory relief will still result in increased revenues to the federal coffers with or without illegals working here and buying stuff.  With that, folks will do what they've been unable to do during the Harris/Biden failed presidency...live a safer more prosperous life. 

Whenever a study is presented from a leftist, it's a safe bet important info has been left out, ignored to make the conclusions better fit the narrative or it's just crap.  As regards immigration and or border control, it's guaranteed.  An even more sure thing is that regardless of the flaws of a leftist study or report, Dan will continue to cite it as if it's gospel truth...which is ironic given his rejection of actual Gospel Truth. 

I Support Trump Now More Than Ever. Harris? REALLY??

 http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2024/07/kamala-harris-our-next-president.html

The above is the latest error and lie riddled post at Dan's Blog of Lies.   This post will be a response to it, and I won't be copy pasting each item on his laughable list of points contrasting Kamala Harris as a superior choice over Donald Trump for the office of POTUS.  Dan had already made a fool of himself with his post advocating for the Biden/Harris ticket prior to the stolen 2020 election.  We didn't need Biden/Harris' failed administration to have taken place to know it was going to be the failure it has been.  Neither had records which suggested they'd improve our lot in any way.  It was only a matter of how badly they'd hurt us.  We'd have been so much better off if that question was to have been left a matter or speculation rather than the shit show reality it's been since they stole the election from the proven commodity of beneficially effective governance.  So open a second window and follow along as I will only be providing my responses to each item on Dan's list.  (BTW, I won't be providing any supporting evidence for my responses than Dan did to back up his assertions.  That may come in the comments section if I feel the need.)

1.  By whom and how many was Harris' DA and AG careers respected?  Dan doesn't provide any testimonials, but I've read much which presents her many failures of competence.  

Dan contrasts his unproven assertion by pointing to the consequences Trump suffered as a result of the political persecution of the sham trials he was made to endure.  Honest people know better.

2.  Harris failed her bar exam on the first try.  The California exam reportedly has a 50% failure rate for first time attempts to pass it.  This "demonstrably intelligent" woman wasn't intelligent enough to be among the 50% who pass on the first attempt.  Since then, and especially since being picked for VP because of her sex and skin color, she's done nothing to demonstrate intelligence.  On the contrary, she's seems to have done all she can to project the opposite.  She was really good at that, too!

Trump, on the other hand, spent four years demonstrating remarkable intelligence as president, after spending his private professional life growing a vast personal business empire.  I haven't seen his grades, but as Kamala herself said with regard to her failing to pass the bar, such things aren't the be all and end all of judging a person's intelligence.

3.  I've already posted comments detailing the extent of Harris' "prowess" at prosecuting sexual predators.   Not at all impressive.  Certainly nothing about which one can boast to commend her.  Almost comical, in fact.

There's no evidence Trump is or ever has been a sexual predator.  Dan relies on unfounded allegations he regards as "credible" simply because they were alleged at all and because they were alleged of Trump.  To the leftist/progressive/marxist/Democrat (same things), an allegation is equal to guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt.  

4.  I've covered this before as well.  Harris went after an overtly corrupt operation which was so out there that it was a slam dunk situation...the very type of case Harris favored over anything which required actual work.  Trump, on the other hand, made restitution when the operation bearing his name was determined to require it, but he did not run it.  He merely lent his name to it and when initially approached about doing so, saw it as a venture worth an investment.  Bad move on his part, but there's no proof he intended to defraud anyone.  It's just one more thing Dan puts on his "I Hate Trump" list of rationalizations to pad it out.

5.  While I've found some reports of Harris' going after banks, she didn't go after OneWest and those who claim to have been victimized aren't pleased.  This is likely another case of Harris only presecuting slam dunk cases, avoiding the hard work required to bring justice to others.

In the meantime, I can't find a thing about Trump defrauding any homeowners.  Everything I see regardless of what words I use for my search default to the shame trial about Trump "defrauding banks" to get loans.   I won't hold my breath waiting for Dan to provide evidence to support his claim.  That's only what his opponents are supposed to do.

6.  Harris hasn't any business dealings worth mentioning.  But this is a favorite of Dems, as if like divesting from one's business, there's some law requiring politicians to open up their personal affairs for scrutiny to "prove" they're not crooks.  That flies in the face of our judicial principles, but "principles" is no more than a punchline to lefties like Dan.  

In the meantime, Trump has released tax returns, so I don't know what Dan's trying to pull here.

7.  Dan finds supporting the targeting of innocent infants for destruction is a good thing.  Once again, there's no justifiable reason to ever abort a child. 

Trump got a bad SCOTUS ruling overturned because it was Constitutional.  Lives have been saved as a result...female lives, both those born and those about to give birth.  

8.  This one is true about Harris.  She proved to young girls everywhere that if they spread 'em for men in power, they too can get help climbing the ladder.  They simply need to ask, "Who do I have to f**k to get any attention here?"  Way to go Kamala!  She's not a "good" person.  Aside for having an affair with married man to advance her career, she was willing to allow people to rot in prison when exculpatory evidence could have freed them.  One such was on death row.

In the meantime, Dan continues to pleasure himself to the thought of Trump grabbing women by the crotch "ogling" teenage girls.  Dan doesn't care about the ubiquitous desires of his homosexual community for young boys.  I provided an extensive article detailing the "minor attraction" of homosexuals.  Dan's only concerned about the young when it serves his agenda.  The women in Trump's orbit are far better role models for young girls than harpies like Harris or Clinton or Pelosi.  

9.  Harris is a leftist extremist and doesn't care about American sovereignty.  She ignores laws when they serve her agenda, much as Dan does and typical as leftists in general.  Harris promotes voting rights for incarcerated felons.  It's not surprising she would ignore lawbreakers entering illegally.  There's nothing "crass" about referring to them as "illegals", "illegal aliens", "invaders" or any similar description than it is to refer to other lawbreakers by the words describing their criminal behaviors.  With the amount of harm inflicted upon this nation by her and Biden's disregard for our sovereign borders, there's nothing laudable about her with regard to this point.

In the meantime, Trump's intention to deport all illegals is appropriate, particularly as he will first focus on the more hardened criminal types before moving toward the rest.  Dan has a post will alleges a massive negative economic impact on the nation by ridding ourselves of those who came across illegally.  I've only skimmed it thus far, but it raises quite a few questions about the methodology used to come to that conclusion.  I may do a post on that soon.  I don't expect respect for raising those questions at the Blog of Lies, because Dan demands evidence for even concerns, much less anything resembling a claim.

10.  Harris comes from an intensely leftist state.  Leftists don't get prosecuted by leftists unless they're forced to by having their own positions threatened. 

Conservatives are convicted of anything for any reason on the flimsiest of reasons without allowing for any true equal evaluation of defense arguments.  All of what's been alleged of Trump have been what honest people can see are bullshit charges, followed by bullshit results.  Dan, being a lying fake Christian, hasn't the integrity to admit this reality.  He hates Trump so strongly...and America and his family, too, by extension...to judge him fairly.  Nor does he judge his preferred alternatives fairly, either.

The same is true when Dan speaks of Trump associates, who have been likewise persecuted for the crime of being a Trump associate.  The lawfare waged upon Trump & Co. is about as unChristian and unAmerican an example of injustice as has ever been waged upon anyone in government.  Dan loves it, because he's a scumbag with no regard for truth, facts or anything which opposes his twisted worldview.

But Dan's absolutely correct about one thing:  In his final sentence he says:

"But from all appearances and given the known data, there's just no contest between Harris and Trump as to who the better, more intelligent, more decent candidate is."  

These is indeed no contest between them.  Trump has proven himself in his first term to be far better, far more intelligent and a far more decent candidate and person than Harris.  Hands down.  Harris is as much, if not more of, a clusterf**k than Biden.  The problem is that Dan doesn't actually consider ALL the "known data" regarding either candidate.  In his typical dishonest, not-Christian manner, he disregards the faults of Harris as DA, AG and VP and focuses on mostly superficial crap of no true relevance or significance in the choosing of a candidate, disregards the many, many good works and deeds of Trump as president and private citizen to focus on as much negative crap as he can find.  Then he inflates it to greater importance and significance than it is.  

As I said at the top, Dan made a complete fool of himself in pretending that Biden/Harris was a worthy choice for Prez and VP.  He now doubles down on that world-class stupidity by fantasizing Harris is actually worthy of consideration for the job of leader of the free world.  God help us if this radical leftist, who has selected just as radical a leftist as herself for VP, actually succeeds in cheating their way to the White House come Nov of this year.

As to her VP pick, I'm greatly interested in hearing Craig's take.