https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-20 … ting-story
Please watch the video and tell me what it is that Trump is talking about?
Glad to help you out bud.
It is my impression that the Left has been viewed as the secular party. I would bet that support could be found for the claim that most atheists are Liberals.
Sooooo .... if the Left is secular and most likely atheist, then obviously the 'Radical' Left is not just secular but anti-religion and not just atheists but anti-God.
Soooo . . . As Joe proclaims he will be the most Progressive president in our history that easily translates into being a supporter of Radical Left agenda and policies.
Ipso factso, Joe Biden supports the radical left agenda - the radical left are anti-God - Joe Biden will be coming after your Bible and your religious freedoms.
So in fact, Joe Biden is against God. TaDaaaa . . . . Politics 101
Hurt God? Regardless of your explanation, what Trump said is still dumb and plays only to his most extremist base of supporters. Anyone who buys into that needs to take the cognitive test that Trump says that he aced. What are all the independents and fence sitters saying? Trump is an amoral man who has no business speaking of God or religion to anyone.
Trump is a fount of clarity and concise facts compared to Biden, this is just a reality anyone with open eyes will admit.
". . . plays only to his most extremist base of supporters."
. . . and to non-Biden Independents, and to religious folks of any stripe. Bemoan it all you want Cred, but it is Politics 101 and it will work with all but the firm left.
I merely provided the explanation you asked for. I didn't say it was right. We have both seen this type of scenario play-out election after election. I am surprised that you are dumbfounded. After all, your party has been doing this for over three years now.
Excuse me GA, as you know I follow you because I enjoy your musings and I respect your opinion, but for you to state "Sooooo .... if the Left is secular and most likely atheist, then obviously the 'Radical' Left is not just secular but anti-religion and not just atheists but anti-God" is a unsubstantiated generalization that you are not qualified to make. Also, your statement is placing an entire one-half of the political population into a corral of gross generalization. Not only do you supply no data to substantiate your claim but, on it's face, it is an insult to those who have their own beliefs on Religious values whether they believe in your "GOD" or not. Also, you have incarcerated yourself in the belief that there is only one Spiritual Leader (GOD) based on Christianity alone while the largest sect of religious peoples in the world are Muslim, and you seem to ignore the fact that different Religions related to Countries have a different Supreme Being. India has "Brahman, Vishnu and Shiva form the trinity of Hinduism" or, most likely a comparison to the Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost of Christianity. Allah, of course is the Muslim God, so maligned by the Christian Right as a Deity responsible for terrorism against heathen non-believers as referenced to the Quran. I am a voracious reader. I have read the Bible. I have read The Vedas (India's most holy Sacred Texts). I have read the Quran and here is a direct quote "“If one fights his brother, [he must] avoid striking the face, for God created him in the image of Adam.” (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim). Adam? Where did that come from? The Bible was written over a period of 13 centuries, and has many authors diluting and adding to the scriptures. The Quran was written in a space of twenty three years by the prophet Muhammad as referenced to him by GOD (think Moses and the Ten Commandments). To sew this up, GOD, no matter whose it is, has no place in a political discussion, The God many of you speak of, would turn his nose up at the hypocrites that are using all of us to further their careers and greed through their self-centered agenda(s). Furthermore. to quote Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate "God is an absentee Landlord". The God you speak of chose just Noah and his family and drowned the rest of the (known) world. Later, he chose Lot and his family to evict from Sodom and Gomorrah before he decided to Nuke the whole place and turn Lot's wife into a salt lick. Now I'm a big fan of Jesus of Nazareth. If we all lived by His words it would be a much better world. But, honestly, his Dad seems to have some anger issues. If God is all powerful and all forgiving why would he allow a Tsunami to cross the ocean and kill an estimated 200,000 human beings. Was it His day off? Was He in a hot poker game? To Quote Jack Nicholson in the Witches of Eastwick "when man does something wrong it's called Evil. When God does something wrong it's called Nature". Sincerely, The Masked Marauder.
Well damn Masked Marauder, that was quite a serious reply—to a completely unserious, (relative to my beliefs), comment.
However, I also enjoy your participation, so I will offer an equally serious reply—without addressing my view of the truth of any of your claims.
I think you misunderstood my comment. The question asked was relative to this headline:
US election 2020: Trump says opponent Biden will 'hurt God'
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-20 … ting-story
and Credence2 asked; ". . . tell me what it is that Trump is talking about?"
The essence of my reply was, it's Politics 101. As in a politician pandering to the perceived beliefs of a segment of voters.
Let me pose some, what I hope are, rhetorical questions:
Do you not think Democrats are perceived—by Conservatives in general, to be the more secular party, and that Liberals are generally atheists?
( Pew Research says this is not an unsubstantiated generalization )
*consider how many times you must have heard Liberal voices slamming Trump's base, (aka Conservatives), as God-fearing Bible-thumpers.
Is it then such a stretch to believe that if "normal" Liberals are generally atheists, then Radical Liberals are probably actually anti-God - to the mind of a base of Conservatives?
Of course, the Radical Left being anti-God was just an extrapolation that is easy to see a politician making when pandering to a voting segment. Would you deny that both sides do this?
Relative to your; "Also, your statement is placing an entire one-half of the political population into a corral of gross generalization. " is wrong. First, Democrats are only about 31% of the political population, and according to that linked Pew research, 69% of them are atheists. So the corral is properly placed and the generalization is far from "gross." *excepting that anti-God part that was only applied to a small segment of that 31%, (the Radicals), and as a political extrapolation at that.
And then . . .
Not only do you supply no data to substantiate your claim but, on it's face, it is an insult to those who have their own beliefs on Religious values whether they believe in your "GOD" or not."
You are right that I did not supply supporting data, but since the comment was relative to political machinations I didn't think it was needed, I have now supplied that data to you.
Also, I don't think I have insulted anyone. That is simply your effort to criticize the point of the comment. The topic was entirely about the Christian God, (whether mine or not), and had nothing to do with any other "god." Do you believe atheism is relative to only the Christian God? Do you think a God-reference made to Republican conservatives would be addressing any god but the Christian God? Sooo . . . if anyone is "incarcerated," I think it is you in your belief that my comment was a religious statement.
As for your comment that, "To sew this up, GOD, no matter whose it is, has no place in a political discussion", I would question what world you are living in. Religion has been an integral part of politics since time immemorial. Do you really think otherwise?
Now, let me close with an equally sincere, and intended to be an entirely friendly tip. On-screen reading is much easier to read, and understand, when a large block of text is broken up into smaller blocks containing the sperate thoughts in that large block.
I see your point about Trump playing to his base, it just seems very dumb that people would believe and absorb that. But it can't be any dumber than really thinking that promising a Black female into a specific job is going to positively stir up our base.
But, again, that's me and I am cut from a different piece of cloth.
Is it any dumber than believing Liberals would gladly absorb the Redneck Bible-thumper characterizations of Conservatives?
yeah, you're a piece of cloth alright. Now let's have some fun imagining where your piece was before it was cut-out. ;-)
The conservatives are the ones that give Trump's addled arguments credibility. There are no "redneck bible thumpers" on the left side of the spectrum.
One thing for certain, my "piece" even if I were conservative would find Trump's line of attack disingenuous. What ever happened to John McCain, I am reminded of the way he conducted his campaign in 2008. I missed his honesty and integrity. That must explain why so many Republicans disliked him.
My "piece" takes offense at trying to appeal to me with superficial gestures, having no real meaning. Of what real advantage is there to black women to insist that one of their own be selected as Vice President? If the policy and commitment to Democrat Party values and ideology are not there, who cares whose image is on the pancake box?
Speaking of black and blue, I am more blue than I am black. Anyway, that is the source of contention and spirited discussion at my local Barber shop. I said that the political stance of two white people in this campaign cycle made much more sense toward achieving our policy goals. And that was far more significant than just another black face in a high place.
I feel obliged by courtesy to reply Cred, but I don't get what you are talking about so I can't.
Yes, I understood the "piece of cloth" part, (I was thinking of the anatomy of a pair of jeans. Guess where my imagination placed your piece of cloth ;-))
What I meant was that your comment was contradictory. Of course, there are no Redneck Bible-thumpers on the Left, but surely you aren't saying the Left doesn't have its idiotic equivalent?
Then you speak of "superficial gestures" and John McCain and Black women as VP selections. What do you think Biden's comment and selection was if not superficial pandering?
Then I got completely lost on your thought about "two white people" and campaign policies. Which two white people?
But its late, and I haven't fortified my thinking tonight, so maybe it's just me.
A commendable, well articulated, soundly researched reply.
And thank you for mentioning the necessity for paragraphing one's replies to make them readable.
I blow pass large blocks of endless words... my view on it, if you take the time to break your response down into paragraphs and sentences, I'll take the time to read it. ... but if its not worth your effort to do so, its not worth my effort to read it.
GA. First, I appreciate the fact that you responded to my comment and do respect your writings and opinions. I apologize if you took my word "insult" as being personal as it was meant to be as much a blanket opinion as was your comment referencing the Pew Research Center. I use Pew and several other non-biased websites as fact check tools myself. I will address your comment in regard to block writing later in this comment but, for now, let us attend to your comments one by one.
I hope this block helps LOL. Your first comment in regards to my comment "Also, your statement is placing an entire one-half of the political population into a corral of gross generalization. " you stated a percentage of democratic voters as being 31%. You are correct. If you had read my article you would have seen that that is the exact figure I quoted from using PEW research. That is countered by Pew as listing Republican voters at 29% but, once again that leaves 40% of the voting population as independent. Splitting that 40% would leave the voting population at 51% leaning Democrat and 49% leaning Republican based on a TWO PARTY SYSTEM which, as I also stated in my article, we are stuck with. Therefore you are maligning (okay 51%) Democrats as being atheist. I checked the PEW research center for your statement "Democrats are only about 31% of the political population, and according to that linked to Pew research, 69% of them are atheists." If you can supply me a direct link to that statement that is PEW research, I will retract my statement that your figures actually come from WORLD ATLAS. Here is the statement direct from WORLD ATLAS site: "Research has shown that most atheists tend to lean to the left in terms of their politics. About 69% of non believers are Democrats while 56% consider themselves to be politically liberal." There is no statement like that that includes your statement "linked to Pew Research Center". Rather, here is a better representation from WORLD ATLAS quoting PEW RESEARCH "The number of non believers in America is growing. In 2007, a Pew Research Center survey found that 1.6% of respondents identified themselves as atheists while in a similar survey seven years later in 2014 that number had risen to 3.1%"
Next, my statement "Not only do you supply no data to substantiate your claim but, on it's face, it is an insult to those who have their own beliefs on Religious values whether they believe in your "GOD" or not." First of all you did not supply data that was reputable according to my research. Show me the statement that correlates nearly 3 out of 4 Democrats being Athiests by a non-partial non-biased website LIKE PEW RESEARCH and we will end that discussion. As far as your comment regarding a Christian God, you already tipped your cap by sticking conservative in that statement. God, anyone's God, is personal to them. Be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim et al. None of the religions can prove the existence of their God, just as non-believers cannot prove He doesn't exist. Your God, whatever Religion you follow is in your heart and soul. He is personal to you. He requires only what you believe of Him. But here is where we run into the problem.
Whomever your God is, no one has the right to place His convictions on others. And that is one of my problems with religious conservatives. A person should not be (changing MLK to paraphrase) "judged by their religious beliefs, but by the content of their character". A 2017 Pew Research study indicates 56% of Americans believe it is not necessary to believe in God to have good moral values. While conservatives constantly expound upon personal responsibility, it is funny how that seems to apply only to economics and not to personal choice.
Finally, "To sew this up, GOD, no matter whose it is, has no place in a political discussion", is a direct reference to the separation of church and state, more commonly coined as "wall of separation between church and state", by Thomas Jefferson. That wall has been effectively destroyed through the advent of Religious Universities that indoctrinate students into strict religious conservative thought. While actual donations by 501C3 non-profits are strictly prohibited, students and the Alma Maters are encouraged to support conservative positions and you end up with Megadonors like My Pillow who actively push for ultra-conservatives values that are nothing short of 4 years of gaslighting. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, you have the hypocrisy of evangelists speaking in tongues that manifest Trump as A Chosen One because GOD acts through imperfect men ignoring that he is everything their values dictate you should not be. But perhaps it will all come out in the wash as it looks as if GOD recognized Trump as a human train wreck and brought upon him the pestilence of the Coronavirus much as Moses called upon The Creator to deliver the 10 plagues upon Egypt. Let My People Go.
Sincerely, The Masked Marauder.
You have me confused with your "World Atlas" attributions. I was responding to your forum comment, not an article you have written, and my quoted 69% came directly from the Pewforum.org link,(Pew Research Center), that graphed Democrat/Lean Democrat as 69% atheist, as of 2014, up 4% from 2007, (should we extrapolate a similar increase from 2014 to 2020?)).
As for a direct link, I thought a link to the Pew Research Center was a direct link to what you are asking. If you want the specific study that produced those figures, well, that's on you. Here is the link to the Pew Research questionnaire that produced those graphed results: https://www.pewforum.org/wp-content/upl … nnaire.pdf
Also, you may feel it appropriate to "split" the Independent voting population into one or the other party affiliations, but I don't. That's what Independent means to me—unaffiliated. So I will stick with my thought that we are discussing 31% of the voting population.
As for your World Atlas reference to Pew research regarding those general population numbers, I don't see the relevance. It was you that spoke of the voting population and it was that population's numbers that I referenced.
Then, you further confuse me by asking; "Show me the statement that correlates nearly 3 out of 4 Democrats being Athiests by a non-partial non-biased website LIKE PEW RESEARCH . . . "
Wasn't that the link I provided? Pew Research Center - Party affiliation among atheists?
What am I missing? Isn't the Pew Research Center the place to find Pew Research? Have I been misled by a site name? When I asked Google I found that Pewforum.org is the Religion topic page of Pewresearch.org. What exactly are you asking for?
I guess I could add the graphic image from Pew Research, but you can easily see it yourself by clicking the link: https://www.pewforum.org/religious-land … filiation/
As for the rest of your "God" comment. You are off on your own tangent. It seems obvious this is a tender spot for you. I am not arguing religion, nor will I. I am not arguing the right or wrong of God being in politics—regardless of whose god. If you insist on making your point about that, then have at it.
But . . . If you want to declare that this discussion about American Republican politics and President Trump isn't all about the Christian God, then I have to strongly disagree. Maybe even to the point of declaring one of us doesn't know what he is talking about. (it could be me, it happened once before back in 79' ;-))
My impression, from your comments, is that you have strong feelings about this God thing, but they are misplaced in this discussion Jimmi. The conversation is about a specific topic and instance, "what was Trump talking about?" My comments were entirely relevant, and I think correct, to that topic.
I can see that you have a problem with the involvement and influence of the Religious Right in politics, (I don't like it either), but Thomas Jefferson and the My Pillow guy aren't the least bit pertinent to the topic of my comments that you responded to.
As a closing note, I think your Separation of Church and State thought is completely misplaced in the context of Religion's involvement in politics. It had specific intentions, and keeping religious involvement out of politics wasn't one of them, (although keeping politics out of religion was). I think you know that but are looking for support for your angst that comes from that fact of life.
psst. it's a start, but still smaller blocks would be better. I would, very humbly, offer my comment structure as an example.
WOW GA! Sorry I couldn't respond sooner but I was too busy trying to stop my head from spinning around, my eyes from bugging out and my mouth from issuing that AAAHHHHHOOOOGGGAAHH sound you used to hear from that old 54 coupe in the driveway. LOL. And, humbly, you're not my English Professor from Berkeley who extensively taught the art of freestyle, stream of consciousness writing in the style of Jack Kerouac and the beat generation or to dig further back you could read the 1288 word run-on sentence by William Faulkner. Not exactly a hack.
Heaven Forbid we should tackle War and Peace, eh? Personally, my preference in the written word is not articles or posts but, rather, screenplays. If you've ever toiled in that endeavor you would be sure to discover that writing "a small block" of description, followed by even shorter blocks of dialogue for 90 pages is mind numbingly boring. My favorite when confronted about style nowadays is to remind people of my favorite Jeff Goldblum quote from The Big Chill "Never write anything longer than it takes for the average person to read during the average dump". After all, this is the internet. You know, McDonalds fast food version of Cliff Notes. But now that you've attended my English class, lets get to PEW FORUMS.
Yes, while Pew forums is a section of Pew Research, what you sight is a survey, or perhaps, a poll. And if you're going to sight a poll I'd suggest you go back 3 1/2 years and change every reference to President Trump and change that to President Clinton. We all know how those surveys worked out right?
To continue, you are correct about the "Christian God" reference. However, in that statement alone you show a lack of vision into the mind of liberals and independents. Ask someone in America if they believe in God and, no matter who is asking that question, with 65% of Americans identifying as Christians, almost all (including non-Christians) are going to identify that question with the Bible version of the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful, earth, moon and stars were created in six days and then He rested and had a long session with His analyst to figure why He threw in Adolf Hitler, Jim Jones, Charles Manson, Jerry Falwell Jr. and the rest of the religious hypocrites that line their pockets with suckers money while they commit Godless acts that no real moral Christian would ever think of doing.
And Yes, you hit a nerve with the outrageous statement that you're an athiest if you don't believe the Cliff Notes Bible version of a Christian God when many people are Spiritual, you know, as in The Father, The Son and THE HOLY SPIRIT? In order to get a correct answer you have to be asked a correct question, not some vanilla version survey pop quiz.
In closing I want to state, emphatically, that I follow you because I think that, like many conservatives and liberals, you offer some valid points that are correct and worthy of thought and debate. Life is like a salad bar, you take the best and leave the rest. But I would like to leave you with these verses for thought in regard to Organized Religion.
"When I was young and they packed me off to school and they taught me how not to play the game
I didn't mind if they groomed me for success or if they said that I was just a fool
So I left there in the morning with their God tucked underneath my arm
Their half-assed smiles and their book of rules
And to this God I questioned and by way of firm reply he said:
I'm not the kind you have to wind up on Sunday".
Jethro Tull, Aqualung, 1971
Sincerely, The Masked Marauder.
You misunderstood the point and purpose of my text block comment. It was simply about the reality of on-screen reading. Nothing else. The best of luck to you, (and your readers), with your art of freestyle, stream of consciousness writing style. Apparently you have also misunderstood the rest of my comments about the explanation for Pres. Trump's statement. It also was simply an identification of the subject, not a position of belief or a statement of support or condemnation. As for the Pew thing, it was a survey, not a poll or study, so as with your writing style thought you can choose to believe the results, or not. I suppose I will have to revisit the survey because I don't remember any reference to Pres. Trump. If you would be helpful and point out where I said that "you're an atheist if you don't believe the Cliff Notes Bible version of a Christian God when many people are Spiritual, you know, as in The Father, The Son and THE HOLY SPIRIT" I would be glad to retract it. It was the survey answers that offered the "atheist" category. I didn't make any statements at all relative to that beyond the reality that as a question related to American politics it was almost certainly the Christian God that was being referred to. Hopefully, my simple reply to what I think are your misperceptions of my comments hasn't caused you any more dizziness. ;-)
OK GA. Since you're entirely unwilling to defend your statement other than the hopscotch version where you continually go back to the beginning. Lets start there again with your assumption that, and here is your statement "It is my impression that the Left has been viewed as the secular party. I would bet that support could be found for the claim that most atheists are Liberals.
Sooooo .... if the Left is secular and most likely atheist, then obviously the 'Radical' Left is not just secular but anti-religion and not just atheists but anti-God.". So let me ask you this very simple question. Is the Christian God a Spirit? You can't touch Him. You might be able to pray to Him but you're not going to have a conversation. The Christian God is a Spirit and here is that definition. "A supernatural being, often but not exclusively without physical form; ghost, fairy, angel". If the leading question was "are you spiritual, I'm willing to bet against you that Democratic liberals actually believe in an all encompassing spirit, it's just not yours so you disqualify it. The definition of athiest is "one who does not believe in God or Gods". I suggest discussions with a few more liberals before you rope 70% of them into the GA corral.
The real (Native) Americans, you know the original peoples before they were relegated to "reservations" by Manifest Destiny (LOLOLOL) had their supreme spirits as well. Tirawa was the God of Creation to the Pawnee. Apistotookii to the Blackfoot. You have your Christian Spirit. I could go on but what's the point? You're just going to send me "back to your jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200".
Also here is Trumps double-down statement 'Biden is 'following the radical left agenda. Take away your guns, destroy your Second Amendment. No religion, no anything, hurt the Bible, hurt God.' Are you kidding me? Only a non-spiritual moron could ever assert that anyone can hurt God. But then Trump has very little experience with God, unless his name is Roy Cohn. Oh yeah, that's the defender of Joe McCarthy who has been relegated to the dustbin of conservative history
And, to top it all off, Joe Biden is a proven, church-going lifelong Catholic who much better represents a Christian than a cheating (at golf no less), lying, pay-off-your-extracurricular-sexual-partners adulterer, can't read, can't spell, carnival barker who has failed up so spectacularly that he ended up persuading 40% of the voting population to make him President so he could utter non-sensical hyperbole so all of his conservative zombies can claim they "own the Libs".
Lastly, puhleeeze don't tell me again that your Pew Survey statement doesn't have a reference to Trump. It doesn't. You, Sir, used that survey to address the original subject which is about Trumps statement regarding Joe Biden and managed to ASSUME that 70% of liberals are anti-God. Also, I have gone well out of my way to compliment you on your opinions and been willing to acknowledge that in this debate. In return I've received nothing but "how to write a paragraph with a break it doesn't deserve or require", and no return of the good will it takes on both parts to be considered an American bipartisan.
I will approve any posted response but will not continue to take part in the continuation of this conversation. Quite frankly, I've become bored with the tit-for-tat. I'm moving forward to your posts regarding Antifa. Bone up, my friend.
Very Sincerely Yours, The Masked Marauder.
Apparently you are offering me the last word, so I will accept that offer.
First, and I think most importantly, I think you have taken my original reply to Credence2 to be something it wasn't—a defense or delineation of "GOD." At least your extensive efforts to explain different god and spirituality beliefs look that way to me.
To be clear, and as previously stated, Pres. Trump's statement was a political statement, and it is my opinion that when speaking to an American political base, in this case, conservative Republicans, the god being referred to is the Christian God. I would ask if you agreed with that, but, since this is the last word I am left without that choice.
Then there is my statement that the Democrat party, (Liberals), are viewed as the more secular party. That was my perception of Conservative views. It is also my view. That Pew survey seems to validate that Liberals do self-identify, in a majority, as atheists.
I went back to the PewResearch survey results and confirmed that there was no mention of Donald Trump or any president. And then I followed to the 45-page Religious Survey questionaire and found that it did include questions about other "gods" and spirituality beliefs. Apparently your point about spirituality beliefs was asked and incorporated into the atheist designation.
So, I believe my statement:
"It is my impression that the Left has been viewed as the secular party. I would bet that support could be found for the claim that most atheists are Liberals."
. . . is true and factually supported, (at least the part that the Left is more secular, by self-identification. That the Right thinks they are is only based on my perception, but I think it is a correct one)
Relative to my next quoted statement:
"Sooooo .... if the Left is secular and most likely atheist, then obviously the 'Radical' Left is not just secular but anti-religion and not just atheists but anti-God."
This was simply an assumption of perception based on increased degrees of belief. Sort of like the fervor difference between a supporter of something and a fanatical supporter of something. If I had the opportunity I would ask why you think your "simple question" about whether the Christian God is a spirit has any bearing on my quote or the discussion in general? The atheist designation in the Pew study was not confined to the Christian God, it encompassed most gods and many of your mentioned beliefs of spirituality. I previously offered a link to the study where you could have seen this for yourself.
But even as this information seems to support my points relative to your gods and spirituality rebuttals, I still don't think they are relevant to the original comment. I spoke entirely within the realm of American Republican politics and in that realm, the focus is almost certainly the Christian God. (of course, there will be exceptions)
Also, relative to your declaration that:
" If the leading question was "are you spiritual, I'm willing to bet against you that Democratic liberals actually believe in an all encompassing spirit, it's just not yours so you disqualify it. The definition of athiest is "one who does not believe in God or Gods". I suggest discussions with a few more liberals before you rope 70% of them into the GA corral."
It appears that would be a losing bet*. The questionnaire that was provided to you goes to great lengths to encompass most of your references in its determination of atheism. If I could I would ask if you looked at the questionnaire before offering your rebuttal thoughts. But I am only left to conclude, by your responses, that you didn't. I think the "GA corral" is shown to be a well-placed one.
And then you said this:
"Lastly, puhleeeze don't tell me again that your Pew Survey statement doesn't have a reference to Trump. It doesn't. You, Sir, used that survey to address the original subject which is about Trumps statement regarding Joe Biden and managed to ASSUME that 70% of liberals are anti-God."
What do you mean "don't tell me it doesn't have a reference to Trump" and then agree with that when you say "It doesn't"? Doesn't that seem that you are telling me not to say something that you then say is true?
And also, no, I did not use the Pew survey to make any assumption. I offered it to support my stated perception that the Left is viewed as the more secular party and a similar perception that most Liberals are atheists. Neither were assumptions, both were perceptions, and the Pew report was only offered to support those perceptions. However, with that response, its validity seems so obvious that I am concerned that I am missing your intended point. Maybe we are talking about different things?
For the last time, my formatting comment was only intended to benefit the on-screen readers of your writing. It was not intended as a writing style criticism. Of course, you can take it that way if you want, but it was intended to be helpful, not critical.
I also disagree with your claim that there has been no return of "goodwill" and desire for an honest conversation. I have politely and sincerely addressed your responses. I have dismissed none of your efforts.
But, I can understand that my refusal to address the tangents of your gods and spiritualities thoughts and my efforts to try to return the focus of the conversation to the points of the original comment may seem like "hopscotching back to the beginning" to you, but to me, it just seems like an effort to stay on topic.
I am going to disappoint you on those future Antifa discussions. I don't know enough about them to have a serious conversation. I would only be able to offer unsupported perceptions.
*Your reference to "spiritual," and your inclusion of a definition of atheism sent me to double-check my thoughts. It seems spiritual refers to a belief in the human soul—the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal. That seems close enough to the general understanding of a "god" belief—also immaterial and immortal, to be included in the general understanding of atheism.
ps. It seems you bore easily. Or maybe it is just frustration.
I saw the video. It's a politician talking to a crowd he believes to be Christian, I assume. It's not unusual.
Let me ask you this. If God is a concept and obviously can't be hurt, where is the harm? I was much more offended when Joe Biden commented,in the same news cycle, that the black community doesn't have diversity of thought.
One statement is silly. The other racist. I wonder which candidate's words will offend the entity they are talking about, more.
Looks to me like a senile old man rambling about another senile old man coming to ruin our fairy tales and take our guns. Alas, because Biden and Trump are our only real choices, I'd sooner side with Trump because he doesn't blame my entire race for every little individual problem in America. I know so many hateful people on the left that I've been forced to recede into the looming shadow of the right.
Joe "Grip'er and Sniff'er" Biden could never get my vote despite my severe distaste for Trump. I will admit, however, I'll take Biden over Kanye.
Kyler, You have a right to your opinion, but obviously, so do I. I see things in another way. I would choose Biden over Trump, taking your fears and concerns and turning them 180 degrees around.
Biden was not my ideal choice, but compared with Trump and the Republicans, he is heaven.
Lets not be silly, people, those statements regarding Biden are completely unsubstantiated and any Thinking person would question the veracity and the appropriateness of them in this contest.
You are excluded from the not "silly comment" L to L, at least you could acknowledge that.
GA, I think that it will turn off moderates, anyone who may have given Trump a chance in 2016, but is not so smitten now.
His statements are not those of one who is in command of all of his marbles regardless as to how you want to spin it.
L to L, we know that God being God cannot be physically hurt by man, but can grieve over man taking the wrong course according to scripture. Why say dumb things against your opponent, instead of emphasizing rational differences in policy.
Yes, L to L, Politically, Blacks are primarily Democrats as are Jews and the preponderance of Asians groups. There are the Cubans among Hispanics that are Republicans who still hold on this Cold War Anti-Castro kick. Biden is a stumble tongue and is not the most tactful of candidates, he is from the "old school" and was not my first choice for the nomination.
But I can be sure that although he may be timid by my standards, he will do no harm nor undermine my political interests, i can't say that for any GOP candidate, today. So, as I notice Trump supporters overlooking his vulgarity and crassness in the interest of the overriding GOP goals, such is my attitude about Biden. So, half a loaf is better than none at all.
Ken, we differ in opinion regarding Trump and his words and his policies and rest assured, my eyes are wide open.
I believe where the major difference between you and I exists, is not so much about how we view Trump... its how we view the alternative we have been given.
Biden is not competent, nor is he a decent or honest person.
Biden is not an acceptable alternative, he is a mentally dysfunctional puppet for a crony establishment that has you believing its lies... or worse... he is a simp for a whole basket of anti-American factions from China to International Corporatists and Banking Interests that have a firm control of Congress.
Then again, if you are hoping for a systemic collapse of America into economic insolvency and social chaos, voting for Biden and Democrats up and down the ballot is the way to go.
Rather than go with Trump another 4 years and the Republicans, I will take my chances despite your warnings.
And if he wins, the very people you think are going to be helped by that will be the ones that suffer the most for it.
That is how the deception of politics works... not that I think we have been presented with good choices. But I will pick the guy that at least appears to be fighting the establishment and fighting for the survival of America over the guy saying its time America is demolished and is nothing more than a corrupt establishment hack.
I get you not being offended by Biden implying what he did. I've read your comments over the years. And I've seen your insulting comments about blacks who disagree with you.
The black community is as diverse as every other community defined solely by ethnicity or color. His comment was similar to Hillary's which implied something was wrong with women who didn't vote for her, since she was a woman.
I'm glad that I don't see other humans in as a dark and disturbing light as entrenched democrats do. I'm happy I find identity politics to be contrary to the concepts contained in our founding documents. And I'm happy to listen to the growing number of black voices who refuse to be kept on the democratic plantation.
It does appear true that Democrats are making a major effort to put our people in dark boxes, whether it be by race, income, sex or other labels. Plus, they have always denied that Americans have a mind and can make decisions for themselves or even provide for themselves. It is a part of their philosophy that Big Government is required to do these things for us as we are neither competent nor able to do it ourselves. Only the Democrat party is smart enough to make decisions, and only the Democrat party can fill the "father image" they wish to give Washington.
You all offend me, it just comes down to a matter of extent and degree. I read your comments over the years as eternally lambasting the left and its candidates but, I am not to have an opinion contrary to the view from the Right, on my own? From where does that source of arrogance derive?
What I told you, for which you are obviously not listening is that the Black community are, politically, overwhelmingly supporters of the Democratic Party, in that sense they are not so diverse. Any statistic from any source will support that. You allow your self the luxury of selecting the lesser of two evils from your perspective in 2016, but deny me the same option in 2020?
We are already in the dark and disturbing light which will just be perpetuated and accentuated by Trump, Republicans and their policies.
The "growing number" of Blacks embracing the GOP is a manufacturered fantasy by the GOP apparatchiks and consequently just a s**t show. Most among us never take the Right seriously when seeking solutions to problems.
You are welcome to your opinion, although it does strike me as odd that you appear to be saying only what the DNC approves.
Just remember you, like everyone else, has an opinion. I abhor the constant attempt to marginalize any voice within the black community that doesn't mirror yours.
I have the right to disagree with any opinion and that includes yours, it doesn't matter what color you are. My opinions are not about the DNC but they are my opinions, solely. What if I told you that you sound like a GOP playbook?
I will concede that it is probable that had I lived your life I would see things as you do or close to it.
As a man that suffered the very real racism that was out in the open back in the 60s, I have to wonder, do you think it wise that any White person agree with or indulge what is essentially anti-white positions and perspectives becoming mainstreamed in Democratic Policies today?
Congrats, Ken, on picking up on the main theme that I been expressing here for sometime to deaf ears.
Most probably without the issue of race, we may very well have the same views and subscribe to similar politics since it may be reduced instead to simply social-economics.
I can see changes and I would be dishonest if I would not acknowledge that. Perhaps, within the foreseeable future, the racial abuses and their residual effects will have long been corrected and moved beyond through the passage of time, and simply not seen as any impediment to advancement and given no more credibility than witches and witchcraft given today.
The problem with too many whites, is that the ideal of creating more parity of opportunity for all is seen as taking from whites and being anti-white, the zero sum attitude.
I believe I have always had some perception of where your perspective comes from.
I have tried to relay that I see a greater threat to all Americans as my concern, especially where our discourse is concerned. Not always with success, but with effort to focus on where "all boats rise" or "all boats sink".
I watched a documentary on the Rat Pack the other day, and a good amount of it focused on the relationship between Frank and Sam, and the segregation that existed in those times.
Unthinkable in today's world.
The literal inability to stay in certain hotels, eat at certain restaurants, live in certain neighborhoods, etc. And it was systemically supported.
Where we greatly differ in our views... is you are still fighting that fight... I on the other hand fear that we are becoming so destabilized, so fragmented, that a revolution may indeed come... but not the type you foresee where greater advantage comes to "your kind".
I think all Americans, all of America, is on the verge of losing more than we imagine possible.
And I think this because I recognize that America is growing weaker as China grows stronger and that a global economic system run by an international central authority will not have America's best interests in mind, nor care one whit about the individual freedoms and liberties promised in our Constitution.
I think some of the many freedoms and liberties you have witnessed become equally yours over the decades as they are mine, are going to be lost, to the both of us.
Not enough freedoms and liberties have become mine. Oddly enough, history has shown many instances when we were asked to put our grievances on the back burner while the nation was dealing with a larger threat, be it the Kaiser, Nazis, etc. Your appeal sounds much like those did.
Reagan used to say that "a rising tide lifts all boats". Regardless of this, certain boats remained stuck in the mire through deliberate Policies belonging to him and the Republicans.
We have always been fragmented with the potential for destabilization. We worked within the current system as we did not have other options, but change is mandatory and the old promises don't cut it. If this society is not based on the lofty ideals actively make real, then we are no so far ahead of China and don't deserve to survive.
I don't see a revolution, but expression of grievance shall and must continue until people figure out that corrections need to made. Nobody is content to stay in the corner and just keep quiet.
I fight the fight as long as their remains a need to struggle, so it is not old or dated. But, I live in the South and despite the abundance of Trump Red hats and lawn signs nobody has burned a cross on my lawn yet. My perspectives coming from experience, are deep and heavily researched and far reaching. But, I could well be a relic from another era, I need to chat with my nieces and nephews asking them for a candid and more current snapshot from their assessment of opportunities in America, today. But from the perspective of my own life and that of Oprah, we have no problems, but life is rarely that simple, is it?
We will be stronger when we all can see ourselves working from the same determination to retain the status quo here, or we can see ourselves as a welcome part of the larger whole. For many of Us, America is just a geographical location as it has failed for so long to be much more....
You have as many, and as few, as I do... so the only solution to the problems you see is the absolution of the current system, society, and country.
I'm not saying there aren't racist people... what I am saying is the system and the laws that govern it, favor the minority even if there are still plenty of people in positions of power that do not (they grow fewer in number daily).
The Pendulum has swung completely to the other extreme where systemic racism is concerned, when comparing 2020 to 1960.
I agree, it is not that simple.
But I do applaud the open minded evaluation. I don't think your guard should be let down, I don't think you should ever abandon the wall and say the battle is over.
But I hope for you to truly evaluate what Biden and the Democrats represent today. Politicians lie, they do what their masters tell them to do... so it is important to know who controls them, who they serve.
Trump's appeal was that as a billionaire, no one was going to be able to buy him like they did the Clintons for a few tens of millions of dollars. He is so egotistical and arrogant he would never cave to being controlled by any one person or one party completely.
He was truly the F-U to the establishment, to the corrupt cronies that have been there for decades lying to the people, playing their political games, secretly working together to sell out the American people to the highest bidder, the core politicians in both parties sold us out long ago.
Trump has shaken up the Republicans, which is why so many of them retired in 2018. But any shake-up, any cleansing of the Democrats has yet to occur... and may never occur with the likes of Nancy and Biden in control come 2021.
I am likely very near to your positions where it comes to how you view the Capitalist System and how our Government serves the Corporate and Banking interests at our expense.
A year ago I would not have been, but I recognize (better than most) what is going on currently, where trillions are being funneled while small business owners are being stifled and destroyed right now (deliberately in many Democrat controlled cities).
The way to crushing the American system, the will of the people, is to crush the economy... in particular the Middle Class and the Small Business owners. And this is being completed successfully in a majority of states.
As for Western Liberalism, or American Progressivism, it was something I could also support years ago, but not today... today as it pushes for acceptance of Pedophiles (Oprah recently brought this up and talked about how pervasive it is, especially in the halls of power & prestige in Hollywood and DC) and push the perception that White people are inherently evil and need to recognize it, I have had my fill with it.
What if we we ran with it and really became evil?
That is what we are seeing today...
They marry this Evil with other movements people are in favor of, like racial equality and social healthcare.
They force you into one of two camps:
You are either an enlightened individual on the "PC" side of things.
Or you are an evil racist sexist nazi that deserves to be destroyed.
It is an extreme to want to defund the police.
It is an extreme to want open borders.
It is an extreme to want pedophelia accepted.
Yet these are some of the goals and rally cries for the "Progressive Left".
I am the Progressive Left, I am not advocating pedophelia nor open borders. I want serious reform for most municipal police departments, that is not defunding them.
You have aligned with or identify with the Progressive Left...
The Progressive Left is for transgender and pedophilia norming, open borders, and the dissolution of the American system (liberty and freedom of speech for all, even those you don't agree with)... whether you agree with those positions or not.
It is not the "Right" it is not the "Conservative" that is censoring speech and banning people from platforms, nor are they accepting the concept of men in girls showers and bathrooms merely because they identify as a woman, they are not clamoring for open borders without background checks, this is ALL part of what nestles under the umbrella of the Progressive Left.
Whether you personally agree with them or not... they are positions and organizations and factions that all call the Progressive Left, the Democratic Party their home.
... where is common sense, I ask?
I am starting to believe the people with backbones are just quietly waiting for the right time to strike with all their might.
There's no need to discuss where there are few ears to hear.
But I think those with ears to hear, are elsewhere ...
and everywhere, silently waiting like tigers to pounce.
And pounce, they will.
Thank You for your posts Ken Burgess.
Your thinking represents the majority .... in the future.
Fine, but I want nothing to do with Trump, conservatives or the Right as your track record speaks for itself.
I agree with most of the tenets of the progressive left but disagree with many others. But, my problem with conservatives is that they cannot deal with subtle nuances. I am sure none of the rightwing group can say that they cling to ALL its tenets, wilderness, for example resists the religious right and their control as part of the rightwing dogma.
So, since I don't accept all the tenets of the Progressive Left without, where am i categorized?
There was a time when I supported the Democrats and voted accordingly.
But what the Democrats stand today has nothing to do with who they were 30 years ago.
The exact same thing can be said about the Republicans.
I would say they have both changed drastically over the decades.
My goal is to Conserve what is.
IF you were to look at what is (not what was), you might just think it worth conserving the accomplishments that have been achieved for Blacks rather than deconstruct the system that now affords full equality.
What was in the 1960s has nothing in common with the 2020s.
Anyone trying to compare the current times to 60 years ago is either delusional or wantonly deceptive.
If the Progressive Left continues on its path, you can rest assured the country will devolve into a "survival of the fittest" society where "might makes right" and only the wealthy have true power and freedom.
These mixed movements of Progressive ideals and Socialist policy don't work out too well for the masses, just the elites.
I think if you were to consider the best ways to ensure that equal rights and opportunity were to survive, you might realize that by dismantling the system there is no certainty that the changes you hope to see enacted occur.
In fact, I am confident that any systemic changes that occur would not be liberating for anyone, they will be constricting, they will strip rights from people, while the elites stay above the fray, untouchable in their gated communities and private security.
Restitution... Reparations...Revenge... for what happened a generation or more ago. This will lead to the downfall of the system that brought equality to all. What a great weapon for the elites to use to pit one race against the other.
Don't settle for equality, don't settle for success based on merit, don't equate rewards with achievement. Demand more... even if it brings the whole country down...
We might even be able to devolve society back a hundred years... to become like China, putting people in concentration camps so their organs can be harvested, and silencing anyone who speaks out against the ruling Party.
The simple fact for me is that "what is" is not good enough.
"Don't settle for equality, don't settle for success based on merit, don't equate rewards with achievement. Demand more... even if it brings the whole country down..."
When we truly get there, I will be the first to stop bitching.....
You keep twisting things when in virtually every aspect from gutting social security, environmental regulations and letting the plutocrat have a free hand in looting the Treasury is the mainstay of the Republicans. Their goal is to promote wealthy and give them leveraged unmerited and unwarranted power despite the ideal of democracy. Compared with them, I welcome a little more "Socialism" and because the Right is so terrified of the concept, there has to be something good about it.
I don't want to destroy the system but reform it and I am willing to take the chance that such a reform would not be detrimental. You can't make an omelet without breaking an egg or two.
"Restitution... Reparations...Revenge... for what happened a generation or more ago. This will lead to the downfall of the system that brought equality to all. What a great weapon for the elites to use to pit one race against the other"
Those things that happened a generation or more ago did not happen to you. Perhaps, if they did, you would have different attitude about it. You put a dagger in a man back and think that he should be completely healed just because you removed the dagger?
Q. Who, specifically is marrying evil?
A. The Progressive-Left whites.
Ken, I seek serious reform, not just moving peas into different shells. We ask to nudge an oppressive system over a bit and it is akin to Pinko Communism. I will not go so far as to say absolution, but serious reform beyond the understanding of any Republican and far too many Democrats.
There are still too many institutions and people that "talk" that talk while the reality on the ground shows quite a difference from the kumbaya so many conservatives say that we are approaching.
Trump has also said F-U to most of the people as well, with the exception of his wealthy benefactors, his base. Should I be surprised? Isn't that what the GOP has always been about? He is a just a less desirable model of the same concepts which has always made the GOP and conservative ideals unattractive from my standpoint.
The Right is the biggest advocate for corporate power and abuse, we all know that.
Any "shakeup" for the Democrats means no more fealty to the Corporate Class. That is the shake-up I need.
I am impressed that you recognize the basic inequity of how resources are allocated, and it has more to do with the way the "system" works over the idea that Cities having Democrat mayors are responsible. The system, your status quo, that so many will hang on to to their own detriment.
I don't support everything the conservatives always say is part of the leftist agenda, but I support more of the ideals of the left while virtually none from " other side".
White people who want to maintain the advantages for themselves at my expense are not my friends regardless as to how they paint and coat over the statistics that show the actual "realities" on the ground. Those that seek parity for all are my friends, so it is not a color, but an attitude and belief system.
In Hawaii, haoelie, was a derisive term defining newcomers and reserved for whites. All the negative things were associated with whites, disrespect for cultural traditions and a determination to turn island hamlets into the equivalent of Muncie, Indiana, using wealth to fence off land and coastline, etc. The Japanese are also dominant, but were more insular in nature and not as arrogant about things. But, in reality being a haoelie is an attitude more than a physical identity. Anyone with an abrasive attitude can be a haoelie.
Whites who came over and went with the flow were treated with suspicion at first, but when they became a known quantity were treated as part of the larger community. My advantage is that I and my wife were patched in at the outset of her return and my arrival.
So, whites need not be considered as inherently evil.
Yet, until, I can find a greater level of confidence in this "system", my shields stay up.
Yes the Republicans have been the champions of the Corporate and elite.
Until that was usurped by the Democrats as well, decades ago, now the likes of Biden and Clinton serve the interests of the Corporations even more so than most Republicans, mainly because many Republicans still back the idea of America as a sovereign nation... most Democrat politicians in DC today do not.
Democrats used to champion the Middle Class, the Working Class, the Blue Collar and Unions.
They abandoned them long ago when they supported things like NAFTA, China's favored nation status, the repeal of Glass Steagall, even the ACA which did nothing but help Big Pharma and the Insurance companies get richer at our expense, making things worse for more people than it helped.
The side you support gives you the lip service you want to hear, all the while working towards the destruction of the system in place... not to make it a better world for all people... but to easier enslave them to the corporate system and an international body of control.
The Democrats (at the federal level), not the Republicans today, are the ones working towards International Corporatism and Globalism at the expense of the good things America has offered all citizens. They are the ones pushing for the obscene to be accepted as normal.
Its not that the current system is by any means great, but it is better than the alternative that the "Progressive Left" is trying to bring to reality.
Unfortunately you are equating the "Progressive Left" and the Democratic Party with what was... 30, 40, 50 years ago.
That is not what the Progressive Left stands for today... you may stand for those things still, they do not.
I would replace 'white' with American in your evaluations in the latter paragraphs.
As someone who traveled overseas a bit myself, I have seen plenty of Ugly Americans, and that arrogance and attitude transcends race.
This is also something that has changed substantially since the 1960s.
Today's African-American is just as likely and capable of being an Ugly American as his or her White counterpart.
and to what end?
what miserable deplorable end?
what disgusting uncivilized end? The youth are bringing this on.
The youth are being wild and free with no one stopping them.
Good work, to all who encourage hatred of America and all it stands for.
So, you decided to remove my name from your initial comments.
You did not have to if that is your thought. Your perception of America is not the same as mine.
I am determined to make my "good work" even better when it comes to curbing the Right and its influence.
The Right is not the America I conceive of. You claim to be from California, check out the Frontline the episode regarding those workers in meatpacking plants and who it is that harvests the vegetables. Trump says to open all food plants but provide no protection for the workers or makes it voluntary on behalf of the employers. It took a DEMOCRATIC governor to mandate compliance with COVID protections for workers by employers with fines as the penalty. OSHA under the spell of Trump provided no comments and all those advocating for the workers stated that the national Government was not concerned.
The corporate focus of the Right against labor is one of those concepts where I want to make a "good job" even better. Just one example of the loathsome nature of the Right, how can any of this sort talk to me about hatred when they translate that into reality everyday regarding real people?
I encourage America to just do better and work at it harder.....
Well, good. I hope you will include more about how you think we can improve. No one is against genuine progress toward a good, safe and fair life. As long as basic rights and freedoms are not erased in the process.
Genuine progress toward a good, safe and fair life, is a threat to the power of those that choose to reduce us all to mere commodities. That power has to be fought, often at great cost.
The idea of good, safe and fair lives should not be in conflict with basic rights and freedoms, but should be one in the same.
how can we / anyone be reduced to "mere commodities"?
What if whites lost all their culture consists of:
Following boundaries provided by moral and right behavior in family life and business practices.
Devoting their lives to their children and trying to provide them the best they can give them.
The kindness/help they show toward the oppressed and needy.
The enthusiasm they have for good education.
Their ability to think positively and overcome adversity.
Their obedience and love of parents.
Their acceptance of Jesus and his teachings. (Well, before the internet.)
The willingness to assist other worthy nations threatened by tyranny and injustice.
The willingness they have to uphold worthy laws.
Their persistence in making good laws to protect the rights of man, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all.
I am confident/thankful in the positive attributes and practices the white culture cultivates and passes on within their culture. Not arrogant/proud of them.
In fact, I was raised not to address racial differences, but to accept all people as children of God. All people cultivate and pass on positive attributes and practices, no matter what their race, unless they have been deviated by evil.
Ok. What is your question? That’s a big list. Who’s losing what? Just whites?
These issues reveal the lines which cannot be crossed when considering reform.
I hope you agree, Credence2.
I also wonder if you acknowledge that the right and the left have a common enemy in the communist government of China.
The Han Chinese, so great for 40 centuries, lost their greatness and became victims in their own eyes. To redeem themselves they must conquer the world ...
and trying, they are.
I will say that I have to support concept private property as that is the foundation of any capitalist system.
Economic freedom? That depends on what you define that to be.
Limited Government: your idea of what constitutes limited government and mine are different, please elaborate.
I have been told about "common enemies" since the end of WW II. We used to be told abou the threat of the Soviet Union, and international communism, while our imperialist and multinational firms were raping the planet under the guise of "inclusion as part of the free world". So, I am not as easily moved by these things, I have heard them before. I hear the wolf crying from the Right all the time to misdirect the public away from our domestic woes. And if you know your history these kinds of scares have been used to marginize certain ideas and groups on the domestic scene.
So, sorry, but I guess that I have seen that movie too...
by Credence2 4 weeks ago
A little background, folkshttps://www.opb.org/article/2020/11/16/ … -now-what/Have a look at that revised Greater Idaho, is that not ridiculous?I say to those dispossessed types, if you don't like Oregon and its politics, just move to Idaho!!We had such a move in Colorado with the sod...
by Ken Burgess 3 weeks ago
This thread is created in response to a comment by ABWilliamsFirst, one needs to understand that Trump is not the face of the Republican Party, he is a rogue entity that the RNC will do its best to distance from in the future, without losing that block of voters to call their own.To repeat what I...
by crankalicious 15 months ago
While Bernie has a loyal following, I think he's an absolute disaster for Democrats and about as sure a guarantee of four more years of Donald Trump as there is.If he's the nominee, Trump's campaign is going to tear him apart. And frankly, America is about individual achievements, accomplishments,...
by Denise 2 years ago
Does anyone else find this whole defense of creepy Joe by the activists weird as heck?I mean, seriously. He's being accused of groping women. We have video footage, we have eye witness testimony, we have a pattern of behavior, we have a fumbling progression of attempts by Biden to respond. But...
by Sharlee 2 weeks ago
The GOP Held Strong Using The First Filibuster To Stop The Democrats Cold In Their Tracks May 28, 2021 --- "Senate Republicans on Friday halted an effort to form a bipartisan Jan. 6 commission to investigate the Capitol attack, marking the first successful legislative filibuster...
by crankalicious 7 months ago
Here's what the Trump campaign is telling its supporters:"Here is what America gets if Joe Biden is President of the United States:Elizabeth Warren will be Biden's pick for Secretary of the Treasury... you can kiss your retirement savings goodbye.It will be Bernie Sanders for Secretary of...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|