Posted by Tina
The Trump campaign got more endorsements today. Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio cited the border in his endorsement statement:
“Donald Trump is a leader. He produces results and is ready to get tough in order to protect American jobs and families. I have fought on the front lines to prevent illegal immigration,” Arpaio said in a statement released by the Trump campaign. “I know Donald Trump will stand with me and countless Americans to secure our border. I am proud to support him as the best candidate for President of the United States of America.”
Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. gave his endorsement to Trump saying Trump was, “a wonderful father and man who I believe can lead our country to greatness again.”
Arpaio is interested in border issues. I guess he has confidence that Trump will solve his border issues. Jerry Falwell’s endorsement is more surprising to me. He was on Rush’s show today and it seemed he was more concerned with economic issues. He said he’d like to see Cruz follow Trump. My thought is if he thinks that why not Cruz now?
I guess it’s those negotiating skills that have people enthralled. Iowa is known for its surprises…stay tuned.
Trump just announced he’s not going to attend the Fox debate on Thursday. All because little Megyn Kelly is going to be one of the host. Poor baby.
Cruz challenged him to a one on one debate before Thursday. Hehehehe, bet he won’t do it.
After Donald Trump Announced He’d Skip Fox News Debate, Ted Cruz Offered Him This Challenge:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/26/after-donald-trump-announced-hed-skip-fox-news-debate-ted-cruz-offered-him-this-challenge/
Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council announced on the Kelly show tonight he’s endorsing Cruz.
Yeah, but old Sheriff Joe isn’t going to bring anybody new into the fold, is he?
Now, the Boston Globe has gone with somebody else entirely.
LOL!
“We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president — a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings.”
http://www.ijreview.com/2016/01/523565-fox-news-brings-up-the-ayatollah-and-putin-in-epic-response-to-donald-trump/?author=kl&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=owned&utm_campaign=politics&utm_term=ijamerica&utm_content=politics
Ha!
Trump is such a whiny baby. I don’t know why anyone thinks he’s “tough;” it’s like his fans can’t tell the difference between tough talk and actual strength. The guy has been in more celebrity feuds than I can remember, usually because he’s responded to legitimate criticism with taunts of “loser,” “lightweight” or fat jokes. He can’t take any kind of criticism, and he immediately lashes out like a kindergartner. Megyn Kelly was completely fair to him; he has said sexist things in the past, he denied it, and now he still acts like she’s the bad guy? What a piece of work. Hopefully him not showing up for the debate will be the thing to finally make him lose some support, but who knows; he’s said and done so many things that should have been dealbreakers it’s impossible to know.
Key endorsements also include
David Duke Ex KKK Grand Wizard
https://soundcloud.com/buzzfeedandrew/david
neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, Council of Conservative Citizens (racist), Jared Taylor American Renaissance (racist), Brad Griffin (Hunter Wallace) of Occidental Dissent, Peter Brimelow of Vdare.com, Rocky J. Suhayda of American Nazi Party praises him, Don Advo Stormfront radio co-host, Richard B. Spencer president of the white nationalist National Policy Institute, Andrew Anglin editor for The Daily Stormer.
I would say the mainstay of the Republican base loves him.
Dewey. I’m aware of Mr. Buchnan who is no more neo-Nazi tan Bill Clinton. I’ve heard of Jared Taylor only because of Chris. The rest I know nothing about, nor care to, and I would imagine that most conservatives are the same. As long as we’re playing the smear game why not mention Sheets Byrd grand poobah in the KKK who used the word Ni**er on national television a few short years ago and was given a complete pass.
Shall we talk about neo-fascist and neo-communist groups that support Bernie Sanders? They exist you know.
Your screed consists of the usual nasty attempt at create invented characterization. Push me again and I will be forced to list those neo-f and neo-c organizations.
Right now I have to go
Tina, I agree with your overall point that guilt by association is unfair. Just because Trump is endorsed by racist and neo-Nazi groups and individuals does not make him a racist. We needn’t judge Trump based on guilt by association; his own words reveal his racism.
A few quibbles:
“I’m aware of Mr. Buchnan who is no more neo-Nazi tan Bill Clinton.”
You’re wrong about Pat Buchanan. He frequently contributes to VDARE, a white nationalist website; has flirted with Holocaust denial; and has been called anti-Semitic by numerous conservatives, including William F. Buckley:
“I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism, whatever it was that drove him to say and do it: most probably, an iconoclastic temperament.”
http://www.newsweek.com/pat-buchanan-anti-semitic-201176
The Anti-Defamation League has recorded a number of racist and anti-Semitic statements from Buchanan as well.
http://archive.adl.org/special_reports/buchanan_own_words/on_nazis.html
It’s also worth noting that in the 60s he was a staunch segregationist, and many of his words since indicate he still holds segregationist views.
“I’ve heard of Jared Taylor only because of Chris.”
Well, let’s be clear: I told you about Jared Taylor because you cited his organization many times, and didn’t know who he was.
“As long as we’re playing the smear game why not mention Sheets Byrd grand poobah in the KKK who used the word Ni**er on national television a few short years ago and was given a complete pass.”
Do you mean Robert Byrd? I don’t think it’s true that he was “given a complete pass.” It was in the news, and he was forced to make an apology. Here was his exact quote:
“Asked about race relations today, the 83-year-old Byrd said in the interview taped Friday with Fox News Sunday that they are “much, much better than they’ve ever been in my lifetime. … I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us.”
He continued: “I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, ‘Robert, you can’t go to heaven if you hate anybody.’ We practice that. There are white ni**ers. I’ve seen a lot of white ni**ers in my time; I’m going to use that word.”
His apology:
““I apologize for the characterization I used on this program. The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today’s society. As for my language, I had no intention of casting aspersions on anyone of another race,” according to the statement read on air.”
As for his history in the KKK, Byrd openly renounced his past views:
“Late in his life, Byrd explicitly renounced his earlier views favoring racial segregation.[55][56] Byrd said that he regretted filibustering and voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964[57] and would change it if he had the opportunity. He said joining the KKK was “the greatest mistake I ever made.”[55] Byrd also said that his views changed dramatically after his teenage grandson was killed in a 1982 traffic accident, which put him in a deep emotional valley. “The death of my grandson caused me to stop and think,” said Byrd, adding he came to realize that African-Americans love their children as much as he does his.[58]…
For the 2003–2004 session, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)[62] rated Byrd’s voting record as being 100 percent in line with the NAACP’s position on the 33 Senate bills they evaluated. 16 other senators received that rating. In June 2005, Byrd proposed an additional $10 million in federal funding for the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial in Washington, D.C., remarking that, “With the passage of time, we have come to learn that his Dream was the American Dream, and few ever expressed it more eloquently.”[63]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd
It’s fair to argue that Byrd’s history is unforgivable, but he did make efforts to make amends, and I often see that left out whenever Republicans mention him.
Chris I wouldn’t mention it at all except for the fact that you and others on the left love to smear candidates and bloggers on the right with this kind of thing, acting as if your side doesn’t have a history of racism within the ranks. Pat Buchanan is not running for office. There was no need to try to smear Trump and all Republicans with this information.
A lot of people have changed or tempered their views over 40-50 years. Byrd was given a pass; he wasn’t run out of Congress. Republican Trent Lott was run out of Congress for kind words he said when an elder colleague was retiring, ” “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.” … Lott gave an interview with Black Entertainment Television explaining himself and repudiating Thurmond’s former views.[16] Wikipedia
I realize you didn’t witness a lot of what happened in the past before radio, the internet, and alternative Fox News came along. The media was extremely one-sided, and in many cases in collusion with the Democrat Party. I think they are just now beginning to realize they will have to be more balanced…they have to compete now.
Re : “A few quibbles”
quibble
noun
1. an instance of the use of ambiguous, prevaricating, or irrelevant language or arguments to evade a point at issue.
2. the general use of such arguments.
3.petty or carping criticism; a minor objection.
verb (used without object), quibbled, quibbling.
4.to equivocate.
5.to carp; cavil.
What better summation of Chris than that from Chris himself? The English major has aptly defined himself.
As for Sheriff Joe and Sarah Palin, both have gone down 50 points on my socially acceptable meter. National Review’s “Against Trump” issue speaks for me. I can only hope that at least Palin’s endorsement is the kiss of death.
“As for Sheriff Joe and Sarah Palin, both have gone down 50 points on my socially acceptable meter.”
There’s hope for you yet.
Tina
What did you miss? Trump Said Romney Choked because he did not pander to the base. Trump has done nothing but race bait to gather the base! Now he was brought up by a racist and he prob is a bit of one himself but was not the point.
You miss the whole point! The base they go after are the extreme crazy idiots!
I listed some supporters that’s it. Sheriff Joe is a racist as well! Fact! Bottom Line the larger part of this new Republican party race baits then cry’s when called on it.
It is what get’s the Republican base going! There is the crazy religious base which ted Cruz tried to gather. The preachers who cry out to stone the gays ect ect.
You people live in a Media vacuum. Funny part is trump and Cruz are fighting to gather these crazies.
Bernie?
Bottom Line the people do not accept superpacs or racist groups. They are asked to cease and desist. That is the difference.
That said The very fact we say Equality s for everybody does not attract Neo nazi’s. What is wrong with you? the Sanders Platform is against everything they want!
Know your history it is fascinating!
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/how-a-young-donald-trump-forced-his-way-from-avenue-z-to-manhattan-7380462
Woody Guthrie wrote a song while living in Fred Trumps building. It was about segregation.
I suppose
Old Man Trump knows
Just how much
Racial Hate
he stirred up
In the bloodpot of human hearts
When he drawed
That color line
Here at his
Eighteen hundred family project ….
Beach Haven ain’t my home!
I just cain’t pay this rent!
My money’s down the drain!
And my soul is badly bent!
Beach Haven looks like heaven
Where no black ones come to roam!
No, no, no! Old Man Trump!
Old Beach Haven ain’t my home!
God dont
know much
about any color lines.
“Racial Hate at Beach Haven,” “Beach Haven Race Hate,” “Beach Haven Ain’t My Home” and Guthrie’s untitled notebook writings: all words by Woody Guthrie, © copyright Woody Guthrie Publications, Inc.,
Dewey thanks for sharing. It’s always fun to watch an “extreme crazy idiot” have a fit over what he perceives as “extreme crazy idiots.”
Is it not you who lectures about name calling…constantly! Is it not you who asks, “Why all the hate?”
Just because you label Arpaio a racist it doesn’t mean he is one. You socialists don’t care about equal rights, you use that race label as a dog whistle to gather support from the professional grief agitators and to whip up minorities.
99.9999% of preachers do not say they want to stone gays. (See you’re one of the extreme crazy idiots) There are at least as many gays that would do the same to a Christian.
“Bottom Line the people do not accept superpacs or racist groups. They are asked to cease and desist. That is the difference.
Open Secrets on Bernie sanders donations:
You’re just enough of an “idiot” to think that SEIU isn’t a PAC!
Tina
Epic Fail. As I said The Preachers they have been courting are the Crazy ones. DO you even follow these candidates or just read censored RW Blogs?
Bernie’s Donations? OMG exactly what “Dark Money” is there? Those are all above ground donations to which I would be proud of.
Berni’s biggest donors are “The People” Average donation around $30.00.
That is why Hilliary has been begging for $1.00 donations to try and Break Bernie’s record of the most single donors to date in any election.
There is a difference.
You have not a clue what a Pac is or how they work. The Hidden Money. You call facts hate?
There s an intricate vast system to hide the donors names on donations. Furthermore non profit pacs are not there for the good of the people. They are there to hide who is buying out the political system.
The Kochs have a network of about 400 Billionaires and multiple think tanks, pac ect ect. Their goal is to change How America Thinks. All for their Profit.
You are severely clueless on the system.
Invitation stands come to DC for awhile.
Again Epic Fail
I am not extreme, I stand with the Majority of Americans Dem, Rep, and Independent.
I stand against rule by the Billionaires.
Michigan is a Prime example. 1.2 Billion in Rainy day fund after cutting safety net and removing Democracy from predominately Black towns and now wants the Fed to pay for their horrific feat of poisoning a whole City!
Tea Party Agenda in Action.
Of course Arpaio endorsed Trump. He was his number one guy on the birther issue. Falwell is more surprising; if expect him to go for a religious right conservative like Santorum (but is he still running?)
Tony Perkins is a single issue guy, so probably supports Cruz due to his insistence that Obergefell was wrongly decided. I don’t know if Cruz actually believes that–he’s very educated, but his constitutional theories are pretty wonky. Bans on SSM clearly violated equal protection, which is in the Constitution; but Cruz insisted he couldn’t find it in there somehow.
Trump has made Cruz look far more appealing, but IMO he’s still an uncompromising radical who would take out country backwards.
Cruz’s Constitutional knowledge isn’t based on theory.
SSM exists by redefining a word and altering historical understanding. That they had to give up their own terminology, alternative lifestyle, and redefine a word to find it in the Constitution the argument for SSM has to be very weak.
To the degree that the people have decided the government should hand out benefits the due process clause is more applicable. It would be easy enough to alter the regulations that apply…even better to get the federal government out of the redistribution business altogether.
Tina, if you believe that government recognized marriage amounts to “redistribution,” why are you legally married?
“redefine a word”
The word was redefined socially decades before it was redefined legally. Words are redefined socially all the time; “marriage” has been redefined countless times throughout history. The law responded to social changes that already existed. This argument, like all anti-equality arguments, is weak.
“That they had to give up their own terminology, alternative lifestyle”
I realize you’re not exactly a critical queer theorist, but could you maybe stop for a second and think about *why* homosexuals needed to adopt the phrase “alternate lifestyle” in the first place? That phrase was itself a response to discrimination (both legal and social–homosexual acts were ILLEGAL in Texas until 2003), and hostility, which often resulted in violence. The phrase was a stepping stone toward equal treatment.
Your argument is nothing less than an insistence that gays should have been happy with second-class citizenship and “separate but equal.”
That’s why you lost.
“…if you believe that government recognized marriage amounts to “redistribution,” why are you legally married?”
I don’t believe government recognized marriage is redistribution. I was told, by you I believe, that one of the arguments for SSM was the benefits that were (unfairly) not available to them. The solution to the problem is to alter the benefits regulation.
“The word was redefined socially decades before it was redefined legally.”
Not in our culture. Your argument is weak.
” The law responded to social changes that already existed.”
The “law” was “written” in the courts. Constitutionally we don’t do things that way. An activist minority managed to impose it’s will on the people through the judicial branch.
“could you maybe stop for a second and think about *why* homosexuals needed to adopt the phrase “alternate lifestyle” in the first place?”
I was right there in the Bay Area when they proudly announced it and dared anyone to object! They were perfectly content to tell the world that they chose to live differently and dared anyone to challenge their right to do so. I wasn’t born yesterday Chris. the surprising thing is the majority of Americans barely noticed and got on with their own lives. The movement went through several stages of acceptance and every one was well received by a majority of the people. to the degree that any group can be free of prejudice they were. They only got push back when they decided to men or two women married was the same as one man and one woman…and we had better agree. Well sorry, I don;t think its the same at all. That doesn’t make it lesser to me, just different, and their choice.
Your opinion, that I think they should have been “happy with second-class citizenship” or that the different life they chose meant they were “separate” doesn’t mean it is true for me. I never thought of gays as second class or separate. People are people. Sexual orientation is not identity. I am not my sexual preference. My preference does not define my citizenship. These are nothing more than concepts created to be used as legal tactics in the war on the definition of marriage.
I lost, it’s true. It doesn’t mean I’m wrong and it doesn’t mean I hate or have any designs on robbing anyone of rights.
“Not in our culture.”
I don’t know what you mean by “our culture,” but I guess that’s why they call it the culture wars.
In my culture, gay marriage has been normal for a long time. I went to a gay wedding prior to Obergefell. It was a packed house. It was just like every other wedding. Everyone there, I assumed, viewed the couple as entering a real marriage. Not a word was said about children or reproduction–just like every wedding I have ever been to.
Nearly everyone my age supports SSM. My students’ generation even more so. The dictionaries have included SSM as part of the definition for over a decade. The culture had already changed.
You may not consider yourself a part of that culture. That’s cool. The great thing about this ruling is that it literally has no effect on you at all. You don’t have to agree with it. You just can’t stand in the way of others exercising their constitutional rights anymore.
Tina, this is what your argument about “alternate lifestyles” sounds like to people of my generation:
“I was right there in [Washington DC in 1870] when they proudly announced [the first public school for blacks] and dared anyone to object! They were perfectly content to tell the world that they chose to live differently and dared anyone to challenge their right to do so. I wasn’t born yesterday Chris. the surprising thing is the majority of Americans barely noticed and got on with their own lives. The movement went through several stages of acceptance and every one was well received by a majority of the people. to the degree that any group can be free of prejudice they were. They only got push back when they decided [whites should go to the same schools as blacks and get the same education]. Well sorry, I don;t think its the same at all. That doesn’t make it lesser to me, just different, and their choice.”
When a group is isolated from mainstream society, they create their own separate traditions and institutions. But eventually, that’s not enough–and it shouldn’t be. Eventually, marginalized minorities push to be allowed participation in the same traditions and institutions and everyone else. This is not a bad thing. If we truly want a shared culture, then separate but equal doesn’t work. It leads to subcultures, division, lack of assimilation, and social strife.
You insist that you harbor no prejudice toward gays, but your tone is dripping with resentment–as if somehow, the progression from “alternate lifestyle” to “we’re just like you” is some sort of sinister betrayal, instead of the way every minority group has behaved throughout history when they stop settling for separate but equal.
Tina marriage is no more than a legal contract in the eyes of the law. Any religious beliefs are just that and no one is forcing a church to marry anybody.
The Bible is not law. A marriage is a contract interpreted by the law.
Religious Freedom is not forcing everybody to abide by your religious beliefs. I promise you do not have to marry a girl.
Marriage is more than a legal contract for the couple; it is also the basis of civil society.
If humans did not procreate there would be no need for marriage, civil or religious.
Trouble is people DO procreate and people do not create life in pairs of the same. When one man and one woman have a child they should be responsible to raise it together, or they should not have children. Marriage is more than a contract; it is an obligation. The child/children produced from these unions deserve the advantage of being raised by his parents. Our society benefits. The standard for society, therefore, was marriage between two people with the ability to procreate. There are exceptions, of course, but the standard to hold society together and provide the children with the best possible chance at life is to legally encourage marriage (one man;one woman).
The court case that became law, without benefit of congressional action, altered the basis of marriage. Now marriage is no longer based in an obligation made public for the sake of children and the family but is based in just about anything.
I did not bring up religion. Please do not talk down to me Dewey, or presume to think you know me or the all of the things that motivate my thinking.
Tina
Equality is for every single human on the earth. Period.
You talk religion all the time, But OK take religion out of it. WHat is the basis to discriminate now?
This is the 21st century. Freedom is for all peaceful people. There is no reason why a same sex partner should not have the same legal rights as a hetro. The mainstay of a marriage contract is financial and rights to children, visit in the hospital ect ect.
All people should be protected under the law. There is no reason why anybody in love should not be able to marry.
Tina I know you from your writings. I still have your piece on why women should not have voting rights. I still say no intelligent “Woman” would ever write that stuff.
Tina, is it really your view that the Supreme Court has no right to evaluate a law when a case is brought to them, and to determine that law’s constitutionality?
I ask because you talk as if that is your view.
You accuse the court of “making law,” and insist that this should have been left to congress. But the court was clear that they believed this was a constitutional issue, and that the laws that they were asked to look at violated Equal Protection and Due Process.
There was no new law made. Laws banning same-sex marriage were overturned. No new law allowing SSM must be made, since equal treatment is automatically presumed in our Constitutional form of government, unless otherwise stated.
If you had any evidence that the court behaved in an untoward or unusual manner regarding this case, you would have presented it by now. Instead you just say things about “the court making law” while ignoring that the Court did exactly what the Supreme Court has always done: examine existing laws for their constitutionality, and overturn them if they are unconstitutional.
I suspect you know this, but “the court making law” is such an enticing right-wing buzz phrase that you can’t resist using it, even though you know it’s baseless and not a real argument.
Tina: “If humans did not procreate there would be no need for marriage, civil or religious.”
And yet it does not follow from that premise that we should prohibit non-procreative couples from entry into the marriage contract. I cannot think of any major cultures that ever restricted marriage only to procreative couples. Can you?
Marriage has several societal benefits that are, at minimum, just as socially relevant as responsible procreation:
–Married people are healthier and less of a drain on medical resources, even when they have no children.
–Married people are more productive and less likely to need welfare, even when they have no children.
–Married people are less likely to commit crimes than non-married people, even if they have no children.
–Married people are less likely to engage in risky disease-spreading behaviors, such as promiscuity and drug use, even if they have no children.
–Married people provide more stable homes for adopted children.
There is no reason to believe all of this won’t also apply to gay married couples. To say that the government has no interest in promoting marriage other than to encourage responsible procreation is preposterous.
“When one man and one woman have a child they should be responsible to raise it together, or they should not have children.”
Of course. No one disputes this, and same-sex marriage does not in any way contradict this.
“The child/children produced from these unions deserve the advantage of being raised by his parents.”
SSM does not in any way take this advantage away from any child. This is a non-sequiter.
“The standard for society, therefore, was marriage between two people with the ability to procreate.”
No, that was not the standard. The standard was marriage between a man and a woman. That is not the same as marriage between two people with the ability to procreate, as not every man/woman couple has the ability to procreate.
“There are exceptions, of course,”
You’ve offered no explanation for why we should make exceptions for non-procreative heterosexual couples, and not non-procreative homosexual couples. An explanation is necessary, especially since the number of straight couples who can’t (or won’t) reproduce far outweighs the total number of gay couples in the world.
According to the Mayo Clinic, approximately 15% of couples are infertile:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/male-infertility/basics/definition/con-20033113
No one of importance has ever seriously considered denying these couples the rights of marriage. That is not because we pity them, or view them as “exceptions” to the rule that Marriage Must Lead to Babies. It’s because we as a society have always seen marriage as being about more than just responsible procreation. The notion that marriage is primarily about that is rather new, and was invented by opponents of marriage equality as a post hoc rationalization.
It is nonsensical to argue that gay couples, who make up a much smaller percentage of the population than straight married infertile couples, are going to lead to the destruction of marriage because they can’t have babies. We have been letting people who can’t have babies get married for literally thousands of years. Marriage still exists. Humans still like to pair-bond. It’s good for themselves and it’s good for society. That’s not going away any time soon.
“but the standard to hold society together and provide the children with the best possible chance at life is to legally encourage marriage (one man;one woman).”
One man, one woman marriage is still encouraged.
Looks like Katrina Pierson isn’t the only mean-spirited, incompetent bully on Trump’s staff–which isn’t surprising, as Trump is a mean-spirited, incompetent bully. According to Fox News:
“Capitulating to politicians’ ultimatums about a debate moderator violates all journalistic standards, as do threats, including the one leveled by Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewandowski toward Megyn Kelly. In a call on Saturday with a Fox News executive, Lewandowski stated that Megyn had a ‘rough couple of days after that last debate’ and he ‘would hate to have her go through that again.’ We can’t give in to terrorizations toward any of our employees.”
http://ethicsalarms.com/2016/01/26/ethics-hero-fox-news/#more-30897
Good for Fox News.
Mean spirited? Okay.
Megyn Kelly can take anything they dish out.
Trumps just following his own code. (And agreed, longitudinally he does come across as a petulant child when anyone challenges him) He’s put himself in the hot seat he should have the grace to meet the challenges.
I too am proud of Fox’s decision but would not have expected anything else. Roger Ailes Rupert Murdock created Fox as a vehicle to challenge the left wing alphabet channels and they have been a success because they don’t censor their employees and they do invite differing opinion. The left’s negative smearing of Fox is biased, political, envious, and wrong. Their narcissistic idea that only their point of view is valid screams a need to control the narrative.
Fox News and Fox Business have held the most interesting debates to date…nobody else came close.
Well, at least we can agree on the first half of what you wrote.
Fox debates are no more than a shrill factory.
That said trump is playing a game. Jeeze have you not watched him over the years? He is no longer a builder he is about Branding.
Cruz is creeping close so he needs to do something to Keep his Media dominance. He is a master of the Media always has been.
It is all a calculated response. Chess.
This is a good older doc on him. Notice how he uses the media.. A true master! nothing wrong with it, a skill.
Trump: What’s the Deal? Full Length Film
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=220&v=5UO3nn7awUk
Rush presented a similar argument on his show this am.
Donald Trump is Setting Up Fox News to be the Scapegoat for an ‘Unfair’ Iowa Loss:
http://www.redstate.com/diary/jdrucker/2016/01/27/donald-trump-setting-fox-news-scapegoat-unfair-iowa-loss/
I heard Rush say it was “hard” for him to choose a side between Megyn Kelly and Donald Trump. It shouldn’t be: Kelly asked Trump fair questions, and Trump reacted like a baby and a tyrant with no respect for journalists. The reason it’s hard for Rush is because he’s been engaging in the same outrageous bullying behavior for years, then blaming the media for accurately reporting his words. He can’t condemn Trump for doing the same thing.
Chris you shouldn’t try to speak for other people. Rush found it difficult because he knows both Trump and Kelly: “RUSH: I have definite opinions about what is happening here, and I want to share them with you. It’s tough, just to be flat-out honest. It’s very hard when you know everybody involved and when you consider them friends. Sometimes, I’ll tell you, it’s much easier when you don’t know them.”
And because he knows what it’s like to be in the spotlight and the focus of mean-spirited demeaning criticism, overreaction, mischaracterization….
For the record…The media has not always accurately reported Rush’s words much less what he was communicating. The left has had it in for Rush from the beginning because he was the first to finally break through their media stronghold and call attention to their failings, deceptions, hypocrisies, and lies. He was the first to articulate what a lot of Americans were thinking and feeling and in a way that was both funny and entertaining. He was the first to create a popular nationwide (worldwide) following with influence for the conservative side of politics and social issues.
In terms of what some would call mean spirited critique or humor, he did nothing that the left had not been doing to Republicans/Christians for years with impunity…he just did it more successfully. They couldn’t have that!
Our readers can decide for themselves about Rush by visiting rushlimbaugh.com
Rush? Really? OMG No Thanks.
BTW the under squabble here is Paul Ryan has been positioned as speaker and a possibility as a candidate in a Brokered Convention by GOP. Who Knows? There is Romney too!
They do not want Trump although some are warming up and they do not want Cruz by any measure as he turns his back on them after he uses them.
Cruz “uses” them? What a crock!
Cruz stood up to “them” using their own promises to their constituencies as grounding. Cruz is the most steady of the lot…in either party…in terms of keeping his word!
The deal makers in Congress (that work mostly for themselves) attacked him en mass because he refused to play the establishment game.
If you missed the interviews after the debate here’s Megyn Kelly agreeing Ted Cruz is telling the truth about his amendments to stop the Gang of Eight’s amnesty bill that Rubio helped write.
No, Ted Cruz Did NOT Support Amnesty, Concedes Megyn Kelly After #GOPDebate:
”
During the Fox News/Google GOP debate on Thursday night, the candidates, especially Rubio and Cruz, were taken to task over their record on immigration. In one exchange, moderator Megyn Kelly challenged Senator Cruz to on whether, based on his amendments offered, he supported legalization. “Yes it would,” said Kelly of his amendment.
However, later that evening Kelly interviewed Cruz and conceded an important point. That being pretty much the opposite, which is that he did not and does not support legalizing the status of people here illegally.
“I looked back at your record a lot to see, did Ted Cruz really want legalization or didn’t he? I think the record supports you that you did not want it. It does.”
http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/29/ted-cruz-support-amnesty-concedes-megyn-kelly-gopdebate/?utm_content=buffereeab1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Take the challenge and see how YOU do!
http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/who-said-it-donald-trump-or-hillary-clinton/
Dewey: “All people should be protected under the law. There is no reason why anybody in love should not be able to marry.”
You don’t actually believe this, and you should be more careful in your writing. A grown man and a teenager might be “in love,” but that doesn’t mean they should be able to marry; I’m sure you agree.
“Tina I know you from your writings. I still have your piece on why women should not have voting rights. I still say no intelligent “Woman” would ever write that stuff.”
As I have told you more times than I can remember, Tina did not write that piece, nor did any other intelligent woman. Her friend OneVike/Gate, who is neither intelligent nor a woman, wrote it. Tina merely defended it. When you make false accusations like this, it hurts your entire argument.
Chris
I believe a persons legal right to enter into a contract is 18. Correct me if I am wrong. Is there a state that allows a teenager to enter into a legal contract without their parents signature?
To imply that I suggested changing that is well, I find is disingenuous. But Ok Whatever.
Tina Published it, defended it, and believes it. So I stand corrected on that. As I said I know her through her writings. That stands.
I stand by my statements. No intelligent woman would defend that. Better?
While I find Meagan Kelly a shrill and despise her, I will defend her against the misogyny of Donald Trump. The man is a Buffoon.
Point is Trump knows how to gather the Base and he was correct when he told the GOP how to gather them.
It is racism, hate, extreme religious nutjobs, and ideology.
The DNC has the same problem growing. Both parties are a bunch of crap using a social ideology to divide while fighting for power. They work for about 400 billionaires who control them through elections.
The GOP has moved to the right of Goldwater who was considered too right wing for Republicans. That is just fact.
Read the Powell memo. That was the groundwork. The hate and racism is the tool.
Now business runs the gov. WHen you combine Business with Gov you form a brand of Fascism. PointBlank.com
Chris I have never written in support of women not having voting rights. I may have offered an explanation for that point of view. You have a habit of doing this, distorting the communications of others to fit your own biases and contempt.
According to marriage.about.com Georgia changed their law in 2006 to 16. Each county has it’s own regulations regarding parental consent.
“Chris I have never written in support of women not having voting rights.”
I know; I just told Dewey that you didn’t. Did you mean to address him?
Sorry Chris, I guess I missed the quotation marks. Thanks for the correction.
“In my culture, gay marriage has been normal for a long time.”
The future does belong to your generation. You will get to own both the positives and the unintended consequences.
I was speaking of western culture which, like it or not, was formed from Judeo/Christian values. Western culture has been successful because those values supported and created civil society, individual freedom, the opportunity for creativity and innovation, and progress. If you drop those values, particularly based on imagined and whipped up discrimination, those things will be lost. The seeds of our destruction have already been sewn and require just a little more nurturing support from short sighted shallow thinkers to bring on the tyranny.
Jews are the number one group being targeted for discrimination and death. Christians are beginning to run a close second. It’s no accident.
Tina: “Jews are the number one group being targeted for discrimination and death. Christians are beginning to run a close second. It’s no accident.”
This is hard to respond to, since it’s too vague to mean anything. Are you talking about in the U.S., or worldwide? Legal discrimination, or social? Just religious groups, or all social groups?
It is true that Jews are number one among religious groups targeted for hate crimes in the United States, making up over 60% of victims targeted on the basis of religion, according to the FBI.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2014/tables/table-1
There were 609 hate crimes against Jews in 2014 with a total of 648 victims. Christians trail far behind; if we count Catholics and Protestants together, there were 89 instances of anti-Christian hate crimes with a total of 98 victims, making anti-Christian hate crimes only about 9% of all religiously-motivated hate crimes. This is far lower than the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes, of which there were 154 instances and 184 victims, making up 16% of religiously motivated hate crimes.
So your claim that “Christians are beginning to run a close second” when it comes to being targeted for discrimination and death, at least in the U.S., is false. In our country, Muslims are much more likely than Christians to face social discrimination, including hate crimes.
This is unsurprising, as Christians make up the majority of our country and the vast, vast majority of our elected representatives. There is no legal discrimination against Christians in the U.S.
It’s true that in other countries Christians are being persecuted by Islamic radical groups, to a far greater degree than any group is presecuted in the United States. What that has to do with the United States allowing gay marriage, I can’t fathom.
I also find it hard to understand why you express so much concern about discrimination toward Christians, which is very rare in the U.S., while at the same time accusing gays in our country of inventing “imagined and whipped up discrimination” against themselves. According to the FBI, 18.7% of hate crime victims “were targeted because of bias against sexual orientation,” while slightly less, 17.1%, “were victimized because of bias against religion.” So one is actually slightly more likely to be attacked for their sexual orientation than for their religion.
Among those targeted based on sexual orientation, the FBI says:
“56.3 percent were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-gay (male) bias.
24.4 percent were victims of anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (mixed group) bias.
13.9 percent were victims of anti-lesbian bias.”
In 2014, there were 999 reported hate crimes against LGBT people, with a total of 1,229 victims. That’s more than even the total number of hate crimes against Jews. (The social group with the highest total number of hate crimes against them is African-Americans, with 1,621 incidents and 2,022 victims. You have also claimed that discrimination against this group is largely “imagined.”)
So the claim that Jews are the group most heavily targeted for discrimination and death is only true if you are talking about only religion. But you seemed to be comparing them to gays, against whom you claimed discrimination is “whipped up” and “imagined.”
That doesn’t make any sense, Tina. Nor does your implication that allowing gays to marry is somehow contributing to anti-Christian and anti-Jewish bias.
I don’t post these stats to play Oppression Olympics or engage in any kind of competition. Hate crimes of any kind are terrible. No one should suffer discrimination, legally or socially, for their race, religion, orientation, or any other status.
But you’ve claimed that discrimination against gays isn’t significant in this country, while discrimination against Jews and Christians is a significant problem. This conclusion is impossible to come to by looking at the raw numbers of attacks on each group. Your conclusion can only have come from a place of bias. That doesn’t necessarily mean hatred. It just means you identify more strongly with Jews and Christians than you do with gays, so you tend to magnify problems faced by the former while trivializing those faced by the latter. That also explains why you are willing to make “exceptions” for non-procreative straight couples when it comes to marriage, but not willing to make the same exact exceptions for gay couples.
Chris I was speaking internationally. I was also not talking about “hate crimes.” I was talking about intolerance and discrimination, which can include hate crimes but is not limited to them.
According to the U.S. State Department, Christians in more than 60 countries face persecution from their governments for their beliefs. China is a nation that greatly discriminates against Christians. Christians in the ME have been persecuted, murdered, had their churches decimated and burned, and their artifacts destroyed.
Here in America hatred and disdain toward the Christian faith is either celebrated or at the very least approved of by many people in what you call “your culture.” It’s been going on for some time, actually, long before the term LGBT became fashionable. Since this intolerance and discrimination is considered sane or normal it isn’t thought of as discrimination.
The notion that my position is about hate that derives from my religion is a whipped up notion. My position is about preserving Western culture and creating a solid civil foundation in our culture.
I have no desire to discuss my position further regarding traditional marriage. You don’t seem interested or able to grasp the concept and importance of intact families so adamant are you that my position is about discrimination or hate and yours inclusion and compassion. So, do go ahead and feel superior and all that; it matters not to me. We really have nothing else to say.
Tina: “Here in America hatred and disdain toward the Christian faith is either celebrated or at the very least approved of by many people in what you call “your culture.” It’s been going on for some time, actually, long before the term LGBT became fashionable. Since this intolerance and discrimination is considered sane or normal it isn’t thought of as discrimination.”
I would really like to see some evidence of that charge.
Tina: “I was speaking of western culture which, like it or not, was formed from Judeo/Christian values. Western culture has been successful because those values supported and created civil society, individual freedom, the opportunity for creativity and innovation, and progress. If you drop those values, particularly based on imagined and whipped up discrimination, those things will be lost.”
Can you explain how allowing gay people to get married compromises ANY of those values?
The argument is about preserving something I believe is important to civility and stability in the culture. The argument isn’t against gay couples. So your question isn’t applicable. Changing the definition for marriage is just another cog in the wheel. Easy divorce and the break up of the family, as we have discussed before, has had a huge impact in destroying this important pillar. Much more significant than gay marriage. So too tolerance of infidelity and hedonism, abortion on demand, and the drug culture.
I’m concerned and you seem to find that amusing. In a free society people can live as they choose. The possibility that the destruction of family will lead to the destruction of civilization may be scoffed at but it deserves a higher level of consideration than you are willing to give it.
But as I wrote above, you have no interest in the possibility that I may have a point so it isn’t worth my time to pursue this further. Have a nice night, Chris.
Tina, of course I’m interested in the possibility that you have a point. Otherwise I wouldn’t be here. It’s not my fault that you’ve been utterly unable to make that point with any kind of coherence or consistency. Instead you say vague things about”preserving institutions” or “destruction of the family” with absolutely no logical argument about HOW gay marriage destroys families or the institution of marriage. This argument isn’t worth your time because your argument isn’t worth making; it doesn’t make any sense, which is why always you have to retreat to vague generalities instead of arguing specific, rational points that would prove your case.