Trump rails at 'loser types' as dissident Republican ad gets under his skin

Yup, preach it Don.

The Swamp is bipartisan.

 

Lol...Another lying meme to soothe trump’s ego.

 

Don’t waste your time. Small people obsess about small things.

 

Well then, using the (lack of) logic of far-right conspiracy theories that 5 million people voted illegally, then Clinton would have won the popular vote by 8 million instead of clearly 3 million because those undocumented workers wanted to thank Open Borders Donnie and his lawbreaking ilk for hiring them.

 

The information supplied to the various media outlets came from the Trump organization therefore the accuracy is in doubt; the only true and verifiable source would be from the IRS or by releasing his income tax information.

 

Just because you have a partisan view point doesnt make less factual.

 

I believe that to be true and in addition to that, Trump was the outsider promising to drain it. Amazing how when that swamp turned on the outsider, some of the people sided with the swamp. Even more amazing that as more and more evidence of the illegal actions of the swamp are exposed, those committed to the swamp refuse to see the truth. IMO it has destroyed debating political issues.

 

Your viewpoint is duly noted.

 

No. I can't imagine what it was about it that led you to believe it was. "Naked" here is used in literary sense, 'without historical context'. I should think that was obvious.

A couple of things. I use mediabiasfactcheck for most sources I quote, to determine their degree of bias, and all political journals, especially blogs, have a bias towards the right or left. It's a question of degree. I prefer quoting news sources whose bias is not extreme one way or the other, and the closer to the center, the better.

Now, If I refuse to accept a source because of extreme right bias, it's only fair that I do the same on the left. So, Huffington Post, given that fact that MBFC rates HuffPos bias to the extreme left, I rarely quote them. But, their story ratings are "mostly factual" and what this means that it's their selection of stories, that's biased to the left, where their reportage is fairly factual, but they don't get it as right as often as if it had a rating of 'factual' but on that scale, 'mostly factual' is the minimum I accept. So, with HuffPo, I accept only on a case by case basis. So, let's scrutinize more. Next, we look at the author.

The author of that story is a lawyer, whose law expertise is, apparently, cemetery law, and I'm sorry, if you want me to accept as valid, your article, on matters of historical context, I require some scholarship, and cemetery lawyer plus a blog that's biased extremely to the left ( I'm a leftist, mind you ) plus the caliber or your comments, well, weighed as a whole, it just doesn't cut it. Sorry.

For example, you've cited one document. The view put forth in that document was the mainstream view at that juncture in history, and had been for centuries. In short, your reportage lacks context and historical perspective, and it makes no efforts to weigh the good versus the bad, the timing, the social evolution, etc. That's not scholarship. Mindful, I don't quire scholarship for your run of the mill political commentary such as the normal state of things in the body politic, but for biography, history, etc., scholarship is a must. Scholarship does provide s with sufficient data on the brutality of the white man and native Americans, and African Americans, there is no question about that. i do acknowledge that the history books tend to gloss over the brutality of how America was founded. With that in mind, would could have a tough time finding any historical leader of the centuries past that we would hold in esteem, by today's standards. But, we must apply today's standards with care, when judging the founding fathers and leaders of men in prior centuries. That being said, You'll have to better.

 

Oh ffs. Do you like snopes?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-lincoln-racism-equality-oppose/

 

If CA is removed USA is basically third world. They have the 5th largest economy in the world

 

I love a good analysis!

 

Didn't Lincoln want to send all the blacks back to Africa but had calculated that it would take the entire American commercial fleet and never work even then because of the marching chinamen paradox, (that is, the blacks would be born faster than they could be deported)

In any case, so what. This constant attacking of people based on what was acceptable 150 years ago is just ****ing silly and everybody knows it. Stop trolling dammit.

 

You mention scholarship so much in this post that it amounts just about to a fallacy. If you don't like HuffPo or the blog of a cemetery lawyer, whatever the **** that is, you could have just googled the first sentence and found many other original sources of what MP apparently based his opinion on.

Here for example is one result of such a google: https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debate4.htm

Having stated this, I do agree that it is a bit of a crock of **** to label Lincoln a racist based on this debate speech.

 

Oh FFS, did you read my rebuttal?. It does not contradict Snopes, nor does Snopes contradict my comment. Snopes is there to verify the veracity of singular fact or set of facts, not to provide scholarship on biographical history, which was the point of my comment. Try reading what you are replying to, next time.

 

Many books have been written on the life of Lincoln, and the idea that a member on this forum, with a cavalier stroke of the keyboard from the comfort of sitting in a room at his computer, can levy a valid critique on the life of a US president 200 years prior, on secondary research (and what research? ) , I find absurd, lazy, and foolish. I might have suspicions about a historical figure, but I am not going to make a broad brush swipe on someone that far back in the past, especially a US president, without consulting primary documents, or books whose historical scholarship is derived on primary ( as opposed to secondary ) research. I was essentially admonishing modernpaladin for his cavalier, arrogant, lacking scholarship, broad brush swipe. And, if you are going to post some so-called 'negatives' on the fathers of this nation ( I'd include Lincoln as a shaper ) be fair and show counter arguments to any narrative you put forth, try walking in that man's shoes, mindful of the mores and mindset of the times, recalling that many, if not all, of the founders owned slaves, as well. Does that mean we indict the lot of them, trash the constitution? I think not.

 

You seem to have retained an almost childish respect for the concept of the founding fathers, how is that? Given the mass genocide as but one example of the sheerly pure evil that is part and parcel of our nation's history. "so-called 'negatives'"!? There are plenty of them, they are in my opinion anyway, real and actual negatives, and they are not exempt from moral analysis for any reason including because in 2020 we are so woke....

In historical context from my point of view there hasn't been a nation state that practiced slavery as our nation did for centuries, so yes, we do indict the lot of them and in case you haven't been paying attention there was and is nothing in the constitution that authorizes war between the states - so it has effectively been trashed for many decades now. Recent events have proven that the Congress has no power to enforce an impeachment inquiry - so much for "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

 

I said Lincoln was racist. Does it make Lincoln not racist that he was only as racist as most other people of the time?

 

Lincoln is dead, his sins should be buried with him. The racism of his day was founded on poor philosophy and even poorer science. Too many still seek instead to use his faulty viewpoints to justify holding on to them even in the modern world.

 

k... I don't challenge any of that. But was he racist or wasn't he?

In case you missed the context:
This all started cuz I said he was (among other things) racist. Proof was demanded. Have I demonstrated my claim of a racist Lincoln or not?

 

Perfect Description of Lil' Donnie...

Is it really any wonder that Trump (That Thin-skinned Paranoid snowflake) would meltdown over an ad?

 

Funny how the OP left out the ad is backed by George Conway. I would call him a Never Trumper except he is just a greedy scumbag looking to make a name for himself.

 

Speaking of greedy scumbags.....

 

I was thinking about that, but it's the Lincoln Repubs who are backing it, Conway is a member.

A greedy scumbag is anyone you don't like. Got it.