Nowadays, the shibboleth for conservatism is support for Trump.
Judges 12: 1-15 12, 4 Then Jephthah gathered together all the men of Gilead, and fought with Ephraim: and the men of Gilead smote Ephraim, because they said, Ye Gileadites are fugitives of Ephraim among the Ephraimites, and among the Manassites.
5 And the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, Let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, art thou an Ephraimite? If he say Nay;
6 Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand.
23 comments:
Victor,
You must think you're still fighting Bill Buckley. Trump was elected as a repudiation of the "conservatism" of Buckley.
And please. Antifa is the group smiting and slewing.
The target justifies the action. Antifa are heroes to the left for punching old men in red hats, while a Tea Party gathering is considered a neo-Nazi terrorist plotting event.
Don't forget the children with punchable faces wearing red hats.
Any child in a red hat getting racist insults thrown at him and then some weird guy walking up pounding a drum in his face clearly deserves to get punched. Hatred of Trump justifies literally anything and everything.
Legion of Logic said...
The target justifies the action. Antifa are heroes to the left for punching old men in red hats, while a Tea Party gathering is considered a neo-Nazi terrorist plotting event.
Almost always, antifa are responding to violence, not initiating it.
Legion of Logic said...
Any child in a red hat getting racist insults thrown at him and then some weird guy walking up pounding a drum in his face clearly deserves to get punched.
If anyone deserved to be punched, it was the Black Hebrew Israelites for instigating the whole thing.
Almost always, antifa are responding to violence, not initiating it.
It's of course possible that conservative web sites highlight only Antifa violence, though they certainly don't lack for material. I'd be interested to hear more about how the majority of Antifa violence is defensive in the face of prior physical violence against them.
What I was raising here concerns the idea that being a conservative now seems to be a matter of loyalty to one individual, hence Romney, who eight years ago was the Republican nominee, is compared to Judas and Benedict Arnold, and is called a RINO. Isn't conservatism about ideas, such as limited government, support for capitalism, strong national defense, and support for traditional family values? These are real ideas and we can debate them either in general or as applied to particular issues (abortion, taxes, etc.) But conservatism as a set of ideas is certainly one deserving of respect, even if you disagree with it. NOw it is probably the case that if we discover and condemn wrongdoing on the part of Trump, the conservative cause will suffer a temporary political loss and their liberal opponents will achieve a temporary political gain. But historically conservatives would have been appalled with the idea of a foreign government breaking US law in order to get the result they want in a US election. Imagine what Republicans would have said during the 1980 election if it had been discovered that the Russians were actively working to re-elect Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan, and that Carter was openly encouraging them to do it. What if Carter had been talking to foreign governments to get them to dig up dirt on Reagan? That is why it is hard to believe that willingness to protect Trump from the consequences of his actions has anything to do with conservative ideas. But it seems to be what MachiaConnell wants to do.
That was me, Victor
Mueller concluded that no American citizen colluded with Russia.
Trump and his campaign consisted of American citizens.
Therefore neither Trump or anyone from his campaign colluded with Russia.
So there is no need for Trump supporters to defend anything. The Mueller report has settled it.
However, can we say the same about DNC operatives who dug dirt, namely the Ukrainian "Black Ledger" in order to influence the 2016 election? If so, will Dem supporters condemn it and support the legal penalties?
No, Mueller did not conclude that no American citizen colluded with Russia. Prosecutors are not in the business of proving a negative, and collusion is not a legal concept. He said he did not have sufficient evidence to charge an American citizen with conspiracy. To issue a charge would be to say that he had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he could prove in court. I didn't bring up collusion, I said that Trump encouraged Russian interference by eagerly using the information provided and by rejecting the conclusions of our own intelligence community and talking about a 400 pound guy in New Jersey. Not to mention "Russia if you're listening." Republicans in 1980 would not have found actions like that on the part of Jimmy Carter acceptable even if such actions did not constitute "conspiracy" in the legal sense.
Romney is actually the only senator whose vote I would actually trust might have had some actual thought behind it instead of simply being a political vote.
If all senators had considered the charges fairly, I would have expected a few more Republicans to vote for the first article and perhaps a few Democrats to vote against it, as it is a perfectly legitimate view to believe Trump acted improper but that it did not rise to the level of requiring immediate removal to save the country. And I would have expected very few from either party to vote for the second charge, which was just stupid.
"“did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”
Trump did not conspire or coordinate with any Russians or their affiliates, so I don't understand how that encouraged Russian interference.
Since you're talking about Hillary's emails, we know from Hillary herself that there was nothing of significance in them (or she would have turned them over), and they were destroyed anyway. There are simply no emails for anyone to have leaked. So Trump joked about a then current tale of Russians having hacked her server. He wasn't president, so didn't have any intel that Russians hacked her server and also was not in contact with Russians. It was a joke not "conspiracy".
Victor,
Just for my own understanding:
I didn't bring up collusion
How is this scenario different from collusion in your mind?
What if Carter had been talking to foreign governments to get them to dig up dirt on Reagan?
From Merrian-Webster:
collude
: to work together secretly especially in order to do something illegal or dishonest :
There I was talking about what Trump did with Ukraine.
OK. That was confusing.
Were you mixing both Russia and Ukraine topics into today's first post then?
Yes, but they are related.
Victor,
I'm not sure how you figure they are related.
1) Mueller found Trump to not have coordinated with Russian officials contrary to many accusations.
2) Trump released his conversation with the President of the Ukraine, so there is no dispute he asked for cooperation.
Now it would be interesting to dispassionately rehash the impeachment arguments from both sides, but I have a feeling that isn't gonna happen. Not here for sure.
But it's really nice of you to be concerned about the moral health of the conservatives. I will consider your words.
Now please do Democrats.
Legion of Logic said...
It's of course possible that conservative web sites highlight only Antifa violence, though they certainly don't lack for material. I'd be interested to hear more about how the majority of Antifa violence is defensive in the face of prior physical violence against them.
To be clear, I think sometimes the responses to violence by antifa go beyond what is merely defensive.
Do you mean on a case-by-case basis? One example I recall is when antifa supposedly mobbed a bus and thrown a hammer at it, and it turned out the people on the bus had started the altercation and trhown the hammer at antifa first.
bmiller said...
Mueller concluded that no American citizen colluded with Russia.
Plainly untrue. Among other things, the meeting Donald Jr. had with the Russians at Trump Tower was obviously collusion. Mueller concluded that the reason some acts of collusion did not lead to criminal activity was due to unawareness they might be inappropriate, or failure to move past a certain point.
So there is no need for Trump supporters to defend anything. The Mueller report has settled it.
The dozens of convictions of over a half-dozen Trump associates seems like pretty firm speaking from the Mueller report.
However, can we say the same about DNC operatives who dug dirt, namely the Ukrainian "Black Ledger" in order to influence the 2016 election? If so, will Dem supporters condemn it and support the legal penalties?
If someone ever finds a shred of actual evidence for this fantasy, sure.
Maybe the mainstream media lies?
"A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation."
Victor,
In case you weren't aware you can get your tickets here.
You better register tonight. It's first come, first served and if you miss it you'll have to stand outside with thousands.
bmiller said...
"A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation."
Since Manafort was later convicted for some of those ties, perhaps they were worth exposing?
Post a Comment