Trump

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Q: What do you call someone who refuses to disavow white supremacists?

A: A white supremacist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Q: What is a white supremacist?
A: Whatever Pete F. implies that it is.

Q: Who is a white supremacist?
A: Whoever Pete F says is a white supremacist.

Q: Does Pete F believe that someone who is on record at least 20 times disavowing white supremacists is actually a white supremacist?

A: Yes, if he didn't a few times or once disavow white supremacists.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Q: What do you call someone who refuses to disavow white supremacists?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what do you call someone who calls everyone a white supremacist?

[Pete F.]

Some should ask themselves, why the Republican party keeps getting whiter

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Some should ask themselves, why the Republican party keeps getting whiter

Currently 17% of non-white House members are Republicans. This represents a shift from the last Congress, when just 10% of non-White lawmakers were Republicans. A gain of 7%.

So what?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Currently 17% of non-white House members are Republicans. This represents a shift from the last Congress, when just 10% of non-White lawmakers were Republicans. A gain of 7%.

So what?

And there's a shift, if not a sea-change, occurring with Hispanics. Pete doesn't know this because they don't discuss it where he gets his news, but they are shifting right.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Currently 17% of non-white House members are Republicans. This represents a shift from the last Congress, when just 10% of non-White lawmakers were Republicans. A gain of 7%.

So what?

Sounds progressive. Dosn’t look progressive

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

what do you call someone who calls everyone a white supremacist?

a liberal

[Pete F.]

Sure
Are they all following Rafael?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

The answer to your “very simple question” is
I don’t care a bit what she said, she by her presence promoted the white supremacist show.
Normalizing that #^&#^&#^&#^& is not acceptable, but apparently you think it’s fine to support
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The answer to your “very simple question” is
I don’t care a bit what she said, she by her presence promoted the white supremacist show.
Normalizing that #^&#^&#^&#^& is not acceptable, but apparently you think it’s fine to support
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

america first doesn’t sound too sinister to me. i’m sure it rubs you the wrong way though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

america first doesn’t sound too sinister to me. i’m sure it rubs you the wrong way though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But they are A OK with Jim

Ronna McDaniel statement on Marjorie Taylor Greene appearance last night at Fuentes event: “White supremacy, neo-Nazism, hate speech and bigotry are disgusting and do not have a home in the Republican Party.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

"As everyone understands, this horrific disaster would never have happened if our election was not rigged, and if I was the president," Trump continued. "Very simple: It wouldn't have happened

Trump at CPAC

And American will still vote for this Scumbag

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

"As everyone understands, this horrific disaster would never have happened if our election was not rigged, and if I was the president," Trump continued. "Very simple: It wouldn't have happened

Trump at CPAC

And American will still vote for this Scumbag

because policy results are infinitely more important than stupid obnoxious tweets, when it comes to an executive.

i wouldn’t want trump to be my father. i wouldn’t choose for him
to be my president either, but if the choice is trump and hilary, or trump
and biden, or trump and bernie….that’s a distasteful
choice. But a very easy choice.

When unethical democrats run, that’s ok.

but when immoral republicans run, you act like voting for him
means i endorse everything he’s ever said or done.

it’s s stupid argument. you’re choosing which candidate will enact better policies to help the country. Toward that end, integrity would obviously be nice, but it’s not required.

58% of americans said they were better off after 4 years of trump. that was an all time record.

to say that trump lives “rent free” in all of your heads, is a colossal
understatement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

because policy results are infinitely more important than stupid obnoxious tweets, when it comes to an executive.

i wouldn’t want trump to be my father. i wouldn’t choose for him
to be my president either, but if the choice is trump and hilary, or trump
and biden, or trump and bernie….that’s a distasteful
choice. But a very easy choice.

When unethical democrats run, that’s ok.

but when immoral republicans run, you act like voting for him
means i endorse everything he’s ever said or done.

it’s s stupid argument. you’re choosing which candidate will enact better policies to help the country. Toward that end, integrity would obviously be nice, but it’s not required.

58% of americans said they were better off after 4 years of trump. that was an all time record.

to say that trump lives “rent free” in all of your heads, is a colossal
understatement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All you did Jim with your rant was prove you have no ethics . or integrity. seeing you think neither is a requirement as long as you Get what you want from an elected Official this is the NEW GOP.


your ability to Rationalize support For Trump is what's wrong! it's a cult and that what cults do they Rationalize to convince themselves they Are the righteous

Just like How you rationalize Green attendance to a white supremacy meeting with "did she say anything racist"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

All you did Jim with your rant was prove you have no ethics . or integrity. seeing you think neither is a requirement as long as you Get what you want from an elected Official this is the NEW GOP.


your ability to Rationalize support For Trump is what's wrong! it's a cult and that what cults do they Rationalize to convince themselves they Are the righteous

Just like How you rationalize Green attendance to a white supremacy meeting with "did she say anything racist"

Hilary Clinton married a serial predator of women. She lied to protect him (she said the "vast right wing conspiracy" was framing him). My favorite, she went on national TV and slut-shamed his victims, calling them "looney tunes narcissists". That's exactly what she said.

You voted for her.

What does that say about your ethics?

It's a "cult" to like generationally low unemployment, no involvement in foreign wars, tax cuts, cheap gasoline, lowest black unemployment ever, killing jihadists, criminal justice reform,, etc?

If that's a cult, I'm in the cult.

During Bill Clinton's 8 years. all the democrats said to ignore his personal shortcomings, and focus on his policy. I thought they were right. So that's what I did with Clinton, and that's what I do with Trump.

You judge democrats on their accomplishments, ignoring their lack of ethics. You judge republicans very differently. Because your only governing principle is praising democrats and bashing republicans. Your every post makes that crystal clear.

My posts make it clear that I can find good ideas and bad ideas on either side, I can praise or criticize either side.


"Green attendance to a white supremacy meeting"

It was an america first conference. If it was a Klan rally, just show me the evidence and I'll agree with you. I assume there's some reason why neither you nor Pete can support your claim that it was racist gathering.

I think Green is a lunatic and an embarrassment. But she's not a white supremacist just because you and Pete say so.

During Obama's 8 years, Al Sharpton met with him dozens of times on race policy. He's a proven bigot and hatemonger. That's not in dispute. But thats OK, and Marjorie Taylor Green is the problem. It's OK when Obama meets constantly with a known bigot.

Wwatever you say...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

and that what cults do they Rationalize to convince themselves they Are the righteous

you know you are describing yourself ....right?

[Pete F.]

Mitt Romney on Trump (and other Republicans) praising Putin: “How can anybody in this country, which loves freedom can side with Vladimir Putin (who) is an oppressor, a dictator, he kills people, it's unthinkable to me. It's almost treasonous.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Mitt Romney on Trump (and other Republicans) praising Putin: “How can anybody in this country, which loves freedom can side with Vladimir Putin (who) is an oppressor, a dictator, he kills people, it's unthinkable to me. It's almost treasonous.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

saying putin is cunning, isn’t siding with him.

who is siding with putin? who is hoping he will win ? please provide examples with proof.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Pretty bad time to be a disastrously bad real estate developer with hundreds of millions in debt coming due and your primary source of laundered money currently banned from world banks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Bill Barr ethics

His boss burns down a house. He defends his boss and says there was no fire at all. Gets his boss off. Writes a book admitting there was a fire and his boss started it.

What a Great American

Let's not forget that Bill Barr was as much responsible as Trump - if not more - for politicizing DOJ by misrepresenting the Mueller Report, trying to dismiss the Flynn indictment, overruling his line prosecutors by cutting in half the sentencing rec for Stone - the list goes on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Bill Barr ethics

His boss burns down a house. He defends his boss and says there was no fire at all. Gets his boss off. Writes a book admitting there was a fire and his boss started it.

What a Great American

Let's not forget that Bill Barr was as much responsible as Trump - if not more - for politicizing DOJ by misrepresenting the Mueller Report, trying to dismiss the Flynn indictment, overruling his line prosecutors by cutting in half the sentencing rec for Stone - the list goes on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trumps not living rent-free in your head.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Trumps not living rent-free in your head.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump said at CPAC that he’s running in 2024.
You think he was kidding?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trump said at CPAC that he’s running in 2024.
You think he was kidding?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but you post 100 times more about a candidate than you do about the sitting president.

what did Trump
say, exactly? i hadn’t heard he announced he’s running.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

but you post 100 times more about a candidate than you do about the sitting president.

what did Trump
say, exactly? i hadn’t heard he announced he’s running.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://twitter.com/zeitgeistgb/stat...445642752?s=21

It’s obvious that with U.S. and world opinion firmly behind Ukraine, Trump, Fox, and MAGA sycophants are terrified that their words and actions (too many to list) facilitating Russia’s goals will come back to haunt them. Never forget — play every clip from now to November ad nauseum
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

How did we ever go from:

“In your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals,” Reagan said, “I urge you to beware [of] the temptation of pride, the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all, and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and, thereby, remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.”

To this:

“Hating [Russian President Vladimir] Putin has become the central purpose of America’s foreign policy. It’s the main thing that we talk about,” the Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson said on Tuesday. “It might be worth asking yourself, since it is getting pretty serious: What is this really about? Why do I hate Putin so much? Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he threatened to get me fired for disagreeing with him?”

Interviewed on “The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show” on Tuesday, former President Donald Trump described Mr. Putin as “smart” and “savvy.” Then on Wednesday night, as reports of Russian explosions across Ukraine rolled in, Mr. Trump repeated his admiration for the Russian leader. J.D. Vance, a Republican candidate for Senate in Ohio, said during a Feb. 19 podcast interview with Steve Bannon, Mr. Trump’s former White House chief strategist, “We did not serve in the Marine Corps to go and fight Vladimir Putin because he didn’t believe in transgender rights, which is what the U.S. State Department is saying is a major problem with Russia.” Mr. Bannon, for his part, hailed Mr. Putin as “anti-woke” hours before Russia’s assault on Ukraine.

In 2018, the political commentator Pat Buchanan said that Mr. Putin and the Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko were “standing up for traditional values against Western cultural elites.” He considered the Belarusian Ministry of Internal Affairs to have told a “moral truth” in asserting that same-sex relationships were “fake.”

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by PaulS

How did we ever go from:

“In your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals,” Reagan said, “I urge you to beware [of] the temptation of pride, the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all, and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and, thereby, remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.”

To this:

“Hating [Russian President Vladimir] Putin has become the central purpose of America’s foreign policy. It’s the main thing that we talk about,” the Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson said on Tuesday. “It might be worth asking yourself, since it is getting pretty serious: What is this really about? Why do I hate Putin so much? Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he threatened to get me fired for disagreeing with him?”

Interviewed on “The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show” on Tuesday, former President Donald Trump described Mr. Putin as “smart” and “savvy.” Then on Wednesday night, as reports of Russian explosions across Ukraine rolled in, Mr. Trump repeated his admiration for the Russian leader. J.D. Vance, a Republican candidate for Senate in Ohio, said during a Feb. 19 podcast interview with Steve Bannon, Mr. Trump’s former White House chief strategist, “We did not serve in the Marine Corps to go and fight Vladimir Putin because he didn’t believe in transgender rights, which is what the U.S. State Department is saying is a major problem with Russia.” Mr. Bannon, for his part, hailed Mr. Putin as “anti-woke” hours before Russia’s assault on Ukraine.

In 2018, the political commentator Pat Buchanan said that Mr. Putin and the Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko were “standing up for traditional values against Western cultural elites.” He considered the Belarusian Ministry of Internal Affairs to have told a “moral truth” in asserting that same-sex relationships were “fake.”

Russia’s the last bastion of everything white and traditional values. And conservatives love them for their intolerance
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Russia’s the last bastion of everything white and traditional values. And conservatives love them for their intolerance
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

where do you get this lunacy from? which republicans are saying we should be like russia?

it was obama, not a republican, who mocked mitt romney for saying russia was a concern.

yes wayne, liberals are the tolerant ones. it’s not conservatives who get banned from social
media and from speaking on college campuses. liberals are too tolerant to engage in that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

A reminder that (just four days ago!) Laura Ingraham referred to Zelensky’s passionate plea for peace to the Russian people as a “pathetic display” from a “defeated man” while on the phone with Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

where do you get this lunacy from? which republicans are saying we should be like russia?

it was obama, not a republican, who mocked mitt romney for saying russia was a concern.

yes wayne, liberals are the tolerant ones. it’s not conservatives who get banned from social
media and from speaking on college campuses. liberals are too tolerant to engage in that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yup, Jim, your sarcasm is spot on. "Liberals" (not classical liberals) are the repressive tolerant ones. Critical Theorists (namely Marcuse) came up with this notion of "repressive tolerance." According to the Critical Theory that evolved from Neo-Marxist Post Modern philosophers, the policies, thoughts, and expressions from the "left" always lead to "liberation." Whereas those things from the "right" always lead to oppression, to tyranny.

So, according to this Critical Theory, only in a society that has been completely liberated, can all thoughts and expressions be tolerated and debated. And no such society has as yet been established. So, until it is, thoughts and expressions from the "right" must not be tolerated. Not allowed. Totally ignored, dismissed, suppressed, eradicated. Otherwise, if "non-liberal" thoughts are allowed any access to the society, it will eventually fall into despotism.

So, you see, Post Modern "libralism" is liberating--by definition. And "conservatism" is tyrannical.

Critical Theories began to catch hold in the colleges and universities in the 1960's and gradually grew in influence on campus culture through the 80's and 90's, and radicalized the Democrat Party through its transformation by the academically left leaning graduates of our academe. And, as well, this transformation has been achieved by such graduates who have gradually filtered into and dominated our various cultural, corporate, and media organizations. It is even beginning to create the same transformation in our various religious sects, especially Christian.

This transformation is on the cusp of fruition, possibly even becoming an irreversible status, or very difficult one to overcome.

You can see its fruits in our cancel culture, and in the suppression of "right wing" thoughts in social platforms and major internet outlets such as YouTube, and in the suppression of "right wing" speech on college campuses, and in the approval of leftist riots while cracking down and reproaching riots and demonstrations from the "right." And from concocted or imposed negative labels such as racist or white supremacist--especially in their repeated rather indiscriminate, even inaccurate, use in newscasts and various media.

Pete F is an obvious example of this Critical Theory repressive tolerance. He has no tolerance for ideas from the "right." If he can't successfully discredit them, he will ignore them, not actually respond to them, treat them as if they didn't exist by just irrelevantly responding with piling on more, or repetitions, of some anti-Trump or anti-Republican, or anti-"right" rhetoric.

wdmso often will also not respond to a question, but move on to some anti-"right" or anti-Republican, or anti-Trump remark. I doubt that he is consciously practicing Critical Theory. I think he is just doing what is expedient. I think Pete F is conscious of using an actual tactic, maybe even a Critical Theory tactic. I think he once tried to bring the theory into a discussion. And he certainly backs Critical Race Theory which is an offshoot branch of Critical Theory. And he expressed the conservatism always leads to oppression nonsense.

The tactic, whether conscious or not, is conveniently used by leftists on this forum. It certainly enables them to evade getting into serious discussion which could expose their radicalism, while they're painting "conservatives" as being the radicals. They refuse to answer the simplest of questions. They can't even say whether the U.S. states are necessary or not. That would be a good discussion as we are progressively heading into the states' critical loss of power to the Federal Government--which is the kind of power concentration the leftists like and want.

[wdmso]

which republicans are saying we should be like russia?

They only want the white parts of Russia and a strongman leader and the no tolerance parts ! gays transgender , protesters , and minority’s
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device