15 Comments
0 ups, 1d
As Of Today, I Think This Is What You Need To Know About The 2024 Presidential Race. (This post starts with a link to the new campaign ad for Harris-Walz that's based directly on last night's debate, and is an eye-popper.)
https://newsfrombarbaria.blogspot.com/2024/10/as-of-today-i-think-this-is-what-you.html
https://newsfrombarbaria.blogspot.com/2024/10/as-of-today-i-think-this-is-what-you.html
3 ups, 2d,
2 replies
That's funny as hell coming from the same NYTimes that tried to make Hitler look like a good guy during WW2, and has been repeatedly fact checked themselves regarding their bullshit claims about Trump.
imgflip.com/i/95fxxg?lerp=1727908955652
imgflip.com/i/95fxxg?lerp=1727908955652
2 ups, 2d,
1 reply
0 ups, 1d,
1 reply
Here, learn something.
Master Compendium Of Pax-Barbaria Posts On Trump's Compulsive Mendacity: All Lies, All The Time (Or Damn Close...)
https://newsfrombarbaria.blogspot.com/2024/05/the-master-compendium-of-pax-barbaria.html
Master Compendium Of Pax-Barbaria Posts On Trump's Compulsive Mendacity: All Lies, All The Time (Or Damn Close...)
https://newsfrombarbaria.blogspot.com/2024/05/the-master-compendium-of-pax-barbaria.html
0 ups, 1d,
2 replies
You're reaching back more than 80 years to try to prove that the distant past has implications for the present.
If Truth means anything to you, you're going to have to learn uncomfortable truths, such as the fact that Democrats and Republicans having switched platforms over time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roe57gGuoqE
Sometimes the distant past has direct impact on contemporary events, but mostly in terms of large philosophical trends and political movements -- NOT when it comes to individual people.
I could take your same nonsensical approach and point out that Trump was a registered Democrat and a big fan of Hillary (and Bill) Clinton just a few decades ago - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2Obeu_VYY4 -- or that Ronald Reagan was a fervent Democrat and a Union official. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/26/how-the-right-gets-reagan-wrong-215306/
But that would be implicitly dishonest, if not stupid.
If Truth means anything to you, you're going to have to learn uncomfortable truths, such as the fact that Democrats and Republicans having switched platforms over time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roe57gGuoqE
Sometimes the distant past has direct impact on contemporary events, but mostly in terms of large philosophical trends and political movements -- NOT when it comes to individual people.
I could take your same nonsensical approach and point out that Trump was a registered Democrat and a big fan of Hillary (and Bill) Clinton just a few decades ago - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2Obeu_VYY4 -- or that Ronald Reagan was a fervent Democrat and a Union official. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/26/how-the-right-gets-reagan-wrong-215306/
But that would be implicitly dishonest, if not stupid.
2 ups, 1d
0 ups, 24h,
1 reply
Hey, Viking! This morning I introduced a Facebook post like this:
Yesterday, I had an interaction with a Trump-Vance supporter, and when I cited an article by the New York Times as evidence of right wing malfeasance, he was quick - and prepared - to make the categorical statement that The Times was untrustworthy because in the 1930s its Berlin bureau chief was sympathetic to Hitler.
I researched the matter and discovered that it was true, albeit a dubious maneuver because the bureau chief had access to many Nazi officials who were not easily accessible: and so they decided to keep him in place.
Plus, in the 1930s, it was as difficult for Americans to see the gathering fascist storm, just as it is difficult now for many Americans to see that Trump and Vanc are part of a gathering fascist storm.
Widespread right-wing eagerness to disregard generally reliable (but admittedly fallible) sources of information while elevating bullshit to the status of "God’s Truth" is a characteristic of today’s so-called "conservatives" who are completely unaware that sound thinking is the result of a long and diligent educational process.
Instead they assume -- and assert with the vehemence of Vesuvius -- that their unsubstantiated opinions are at least as good as the probed truths of well-educated people who respect the findings of science and stand on the foundational basis of the scientific method.
Notably, the same guy with whom I interacted was unfazed by the fact that just a couple years ago, Vance voiced numerous damming opinions about Trump, including his opinion that Trump looked a lot like an "American Hitler."
So...
What we have here is a right wing ideologue who thinks that a New York Times bureau chief in the 1930s obliges him to disregard the New York Times as a rather trustworthy news source, but who simultaneously believes that Vance's recent criticisms of Trump have no significance whatsoever.
Epistemology, my friends.
Epistemology!
In MAGA world, NOBODY even knows what the word means.
Yet it's as important to good politics as neuroscience is to a brain surgeon.
*****
Here is a partial collection of Vance's damning comments about Trump: https://www.axios.com/2024/07/16/jd-vance-trump-statements (I did not realize that Vance called Trump "cultural heroin.)
It appears that to climb the political ladder, Vance started to suck ......... up to His Malignancy in order to get the endorsement from His Majesty that Vance needed wo win his senate seat.
Yesterday, I had an interaction with a Trump-Vance supporter, and when I cited an article by the New York Times as evidence of right wing malfeasance, he was quick - and prepared - to make the categorical statement that The Times was untrustworthy because in the 1930s its Berlin bureau chief was sympathetic to Hitler.
I researched the matter and discovered that it was true, albeit a dubious maneuver because the bureau chief had access to many Nazi officials who were not easily accessible: and so they decided to keep him in place.
Plus, in the 1930s, it was as difficult for Americans to see the gathering fascist storm, just as it is difficult now for many Americans to see that Trump and Vanc are part of a gathering fascist storm.
Widespread right-wing eagerness to disregard generally reliable (but admittedly fallible) sources of information while elevating bullshit to the status of "God’s Truth" is a characteristic of today’s so-called "conservatives" who are completely unaware that sound thinking is the result of a long and diligent educational process.
Instead they assume -- and assert with the vehemence of Vesuvius -- that their unsubstantiated opinions are at least as good as the probed truths of well-educated people who respect the findings of science and stand on the foundational basis of the scientific method.
Notably, the same guy with whom I interacted was unfazed by the fact that just a couple years ago, Vance voiced numerous damming opinions about Trump, including his opinion that Trump looked a lot like an "American Hitler."
So...
What we have here is a right wing ideologue who thinks that a New York Times bureau chief in the 1930s obliges him to disregard the New York Times as a rather trustworthy news source, but who simultaneously believes that Vance's recent criticisms of Trump have no significance whatsoever.
Epistemology, my friends.
Epistemology!
In MAGA world, NOBODY even knows what the word means.
Yet it's as important to good politics as neuroscience is to a brain surgeon.
*****
Here is a partial collection of Vance's damning comments about Trump: https://www.axios.com/2024/07/16/jd-vance-trump-statements (I did not realize that Vance called Trump "cultural heroin.)
It appears that to climb the political ladder, Vance started to suck ......... up to His Malignancy in order to get the endorsement from His Majesty that Vance needed wo win his senate seat.
0 ups, 23h
Reality is much more complicated than the simple-minded make it out to be.
Here, learn something.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/history/articles/new-york-times-nazi-correspondent
Here, learn something.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/history/articles/new-york-times-nazi-correspondent
No comments:
Post a Comment