And that is what they call “obfuscation”, the primary tactic of Marxism - relying on word games.
So it seems that yes, you do support hiding evidence of treason as long as that evidence involves the Marxist party. We will probably never know if you would support hiding evidence of treason if it involved the constitution party although from your litany of quotes from communist Marxist media outlets we can make a safe bet.
And all of that leads to the probability that you also favor being lied to, having criminals and liars run your country, and dismissing the Bill of Rights entirely.
I just wanted to clear that up before making any category judgments.
Marxism is merely a trace that has negated any essential significance to society. It is an outworn , faded idea that failed.
What troubles everyone nowedays is not the ideas permeating I lost ideology, but the fear of a universal identifiable changes of value which. try to recognize some need for unity between a conventional and a Freudian economy. It is the shift from categorical assumptions toward structural , universal change, with impending accaleration.
Try telling that to the Seattle Washington city council or the BLM leaders.
Deflection. “The problem isn’t what you see. The problem is you being afraid of it. You are just a weak person. You can’t accept the greater good to come. It’s not communist aggression. It’s just progress toward a brighter, more balance, heavenly future.”
You are at least very consistent in your communist Marxism.
It is possible and I never totally discounted an ideological nihilism referenced as some do, by confirming that
history is dead.
The uncertain political fabric produces either this of that, with almost metapolitical uncertainty, confirming Kant, but not necessarily Marx, of Hegel.
Science has replaced god as the enabler of utopia.
The insecure Trump finds himself in an approaching uncdrtainty:
"Democracy Dies in Darkness
The Fix
Analysis
Down in the polls and yearning for an October surprise, Trump lashes at his most loyal allies
“There was much about President Trump’s Thursday morning interview with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo that reeked of desperation and an incumbent president fighting for his political life. He decided to go down the “unlikable” path with Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) and called her a “monster.” He said he wouldn’t participate in a virtual debate with former vice president Joe Biden next week. He suggested he might win heavily blue New York state. He even cast doubt on polls showing him down by double digits — by pointing to boaters and truck owners who support him.”
Politico
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a feeling that the big October surprise will be the -look out- the show of balanced mind correlating with the final outcome from see-see-saw sources, to pull out the stimulus carrot stick out of appearant ashes-at the last dramatic moment before the election, for maximum punch.
I may be wrong, but apart from an equally but uncertain array of possibilities, this has a kind of reality about it.
He couldn’t at this stage wag the dog, …or, could he? That would indicate more a president unhinged, and would certainly be stopped by the brass.
An announcement of declaring the 100% effectivity of a vaccine would be viewed with doubtful credulity, o the carrot stick option may be the most likely.
I think the China syndrome has been overplayed, because the march toward the NWO allows plenty of slack to those who would rather see the US as the prime example for the decline of the west.
For all said and done, China still is and will be for a long time, merely a paper tiger.
Fatalists point to the post modern signs which are not contained in bubbles that fill a wide array of prognostic allusion to the book of revelation. They cannot point to confirmation to events, grotesquely immediate, as the completion of the rebuilding of the 2nd temple. equivocates within the larger bubble of biblical prophesy.
It’s like not sensing the similar equivocation that I mentioned , between Joshua and Jesus, which have identical meanings.
Cognitive dissonance , for an acting president , is a very resourceless attempt to minimize the preponderant similarity, in laymen’s terms to that, which stymies that possibility.
We can really return and absolve ourselves in a spiritual bubbly time machine.
"Trump delivers dark and divisive speech in first major appearance since Covid diagnosis
(CNN)A defiant President Donald Trump is resuming public events Saturday with a divisive speech at the White House, where he’s potentially putting lives at risk once again, just nine days after he revealed his own Covid-19 diagnosis.
After being sidelined from the campaign trail for more than a week, Trump is leaning into his law-and-order message to reject what he’s calling “a campaign of slander against our police from left-wing politicians and liberal pundits.”
Although Trump looks to be playing to his base, the event is purportedly aimed at Black and Latino Americans, who, he’s arguing, are benefiting from his agenda.
With just three weeks to go until an election in which he’s trailing badly in the polls, Trump is deploying familiar scare tactics.
Though members of the audience are mostly Black Americans – members of a group known as “BLEXIT” that was founded by conservative firebrand Candace Owens to encourage African Americans to leave the Democratic Party – the lines of Trump’s speech seem clearly aimed at White suburbanites who are not sympathetic to the Black Lives Matter movement.
“If the left gains power, they will launch a nationwide crusade against law enforcement,” Trump said.
While some Democrats have joined calls for a radical shift in police policy, including a reduction in police budgets, top congressional Democrats and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden have not supported calls to “defund the police.”
Just as the US sees an upward trend in hospitalization rates, Trump invited some 2,000 people for the speech from a White House balcony, in just the latest sign that his staff and doctors are acquiescing to his desires rather than following public health guidelines and common sense.
The large gathering follows Trump’s acknowledgment during a televised interview with Fox News Friday that he may have contracted the virus at one of the recent events at the White House. It’s unknown whether he’s still contagious, but Trump gave an incomprehensible answer about his latest coronavirus test results Friday.
“I haven’t even found out numbers or anything yet, but I’ve been retested and I know I’m at either the bottom of the scale or free,” Trump told Fox News’ medical analyst Dr. Marc Siegel on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” “They test every couple of days, I guess, but it’s really at a level now that’s been great – great to see it disappear.”
CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta noted that the Fox interview offered very little clarity about Trump’s level of contagion and said that if the President had a simple answer about testing negative, he would have given it: “They are being purposely vague on this, but I think they’re trying to track his viral load,” Gupta said on “Cuomo Prime Time.”
View Trump and Biden head-to-head polling
Americans are still in the dark about the date of Trump’s last negative test for Covid-19. But as Trump taped the Fox interview, he said he had stopped taking medicine eight hours earlier. But he also underscored the seriousness of his illness when he acknowledged that scans of his lungs in the hospital had shown congestion and that he took the steroid dexamethasone because it keeps “the swelling down of the lungs.”
White House doctors have not spoken directly to the press since Trump left Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Monday, and his doctor did not reveal his temperature in the latest statement on his vitals Thursday. Trump’s physician, Navy Cmdr. Dr. Sean Conley, said in his Thursday statement that Saturday would be day 10 since Trump’s diagnosis and based on unspecified tests that the team was conducting, “I fully anticipate the President’s safe return to public engagements at that time.”
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says on its website that patients with mild or moderate illness are infectious for up to 10 days, while those with “severe to critical illness” could remain infectious up until 20 days after the onset of symptoms. The medications that Trump received have suggested serious illness to many of the doctors interviewed by CNN.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett walks to the microphone after President Donald Trump, right, announced Barrett as his nominee to the Supreme Court, in the Rose Garden at the White House, Saturday, Sept. 26, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
No evidence of change to White House protocols
Still, the President’s illness does not appear to have changed the safety protocols adopted by the White House or Trump’s campaign, even though Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease specialist, said on Friday that it’s now clear that Trump’s Rose Garden ceremony for his Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, two weeks ago was a “superspreader event.”
“We had a super spreader event in the White House,” Fauci told CBS News Radio on Friday. “It was in a situation where people were crowded together, were not wearing masks. So the data speak for themselves.”
Attendees at Saturday’s White House event must bring masks and will be subject to temperature checks, a source with knowledge of the planning told CNN. But while Trump said he may have contracted the virus at the White House, he made no mention of masks when Siegel asked him about the lessons he has learned from contracting the coronavirus. Cases are now rising in 28 states, and Friday marked a record number of new coronavirus cases worldwide – more than 350,000 in a single day, according to the World Health Organization.
“They had some big events at the White House and perhaps there,” he said when Siegel asked where he thought he contracted the virus. “I don’t really know. Nobody really knows for sure. Numerous people have contracted it, but you know people have contracted it all over the world. It’s highly contagious.”
Trump said his main takeaway from his illness was that Covid patients should seek medical treatment as soon as they detect possible symptoms.
“I think the secret for me was I got there very early,” Trump said during the Siegel interview, acknowledging that many Americans do not have the same level of medical care or access to doctors that he does. “I think going in early is a big factor in my case.”
But when it comes to preventing the spread of the disease, the White House still seems to be flouting basic public health precautions, with their Saturday protocol not looking much different from the September 26 Rose Garden event where at least 12 people who attended – including former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who was released from the hospital Saturday after a week-long stay – have contracted the virus, forcing the White House to empty out after aides went into quarantine.

Biden enters final weeks in commanding position as Trump wastes precious days
The Commission on Presidential Debates on Friday canceled the second debate, which was scheduled for next Thursday, after the President declined to do a virtual debate despite concerns over his Covid-19 diagnosis, organizers said.
Trump went ahead and announced a rally in Florida on Monday, even though at least nine people who attended Trump’s September 18 rally in Bemidji, Minnesota, according to Kris Ehresmann, the state’s infectious disease director.
“Nine cases reported attending the rally. One case was known to be infectious,” Ehresmann said. “There were two hospitalizations that were associated with that. One who is in intensive care and no deaths at this point.”
That would normally be chilling news for any campaign to hear, but it has not affected Trump’s desire to get back out on the trail to receive adulation from his fans at a time when he is trailing Democratic nominee Joe Biden by 11 points in CNN’s poll of polls.
He hasn’t hesitated in the past to put his supporters or those who protect him at risk. The President endangered Secret Service agents at the height of his own illness – traveling with them in an SUV to thank supporters who were cheering for him outside Walter Reed.
The agents wore medical gowns, masks and eye protection as they escorted him on the unnecessary trip out of the hospital, but Trump still defended that much-criticized photo op during his Fox appearance with Siegel.
“After two days I said, ‘You know I want to go out and say hello to the people,’ and I went to the Secret Service – and these are the people that are with me all the time – and they said, ‘We have no problem sir,’” Trump claimed in Friday’s interview on Fox.
CNN’s Kevin Liptak, however, has reported that members of the Secret Service have expressed escalating concern about the disregard for their well-being in the midst of a deadly pandemic.
One current Secret Service agent who works on the presidential and first family detail said, “That never should have happened.”
“We’re not disposable,” the agent told CNN.
Trump offers widely varying descriptions of his illness
As medical experts try to assess the risks to Trump’s supporters with the planned White House and Florida events this weekend and next week, the President’s own descriptions of how serious his case of coronavirus became have varied wildly this week.
On Monday, as he returned from Walter Reed medical center, Trump implored Americans not to be afraid of the coronavirus or let it “dominate you” and said, “You’re gonna beat it.”
On Friday, in the midst of a blitz of interviews with friendly news outlets, he said on the Rush Limbaugh radio show that he might not have recovered if he had not received the monoclonal antibody treatment from Regeneron.

Republicans start to distance from Trump
“I was in not great shape and we have a medicine that that healed me, that fixed me,” Trump said on the show. “It’s a great medicine. I mean I feel better now than I did two weeks ago. It’s crazy. And I recovered immediately, almost immediately. I might not have recovered at all from Covid.”
On Friday in the Fox interview, Trump also acknowledged that many people have died from Covid and that the pandemic had been very painful for many American families. But in a moment of cognitive dissonance, he seemed not to realize the lives he could be jeopardizing with his return to the campaign trail.
Biden clearly plans to make it a campaign issue in the coming days. During an event in Las Vegas Friday, he criticized the President’s “reckless personal conduct” and said it was having “a destabilizing effect” on the government.
“He didn’t take the necessary precautions to protect himself or others,” Biden said. “The longer Donald Trump is President, the more reckless he gets. How can we trust him to protect this country?”
© 2020 Cable News Network. A Warner Media Company. All Rights Reserved.
"Politics Newsletter
NEWS ANALYSIS
Taking Page From Authoritarians, Trump Turns Power of State Against Political Rivals
President Trump took a step even Richard M. Nixon avoided in his most desperate days: openly ordering direct, immediate government action against specific opponents, timed to serve his re-election campaign.
Oct. 10, 2020
President Trump’s order to his secretary of state to declassify thousands of Hillary Clinton’s emails, along with his insistence that his attorney general issue indictments against Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., takes his presidency into new territory — until now, occupied by leaders with names like Putin, Xi and Erdogan.
Mr. Trump has long demanded — quite publicly, often on Twitter — that his most senior cabinet members use the power of their office to pursue political enemies. But his appeals this week, as he trailed badly in the polls and was desperate to turn the national conversation away from the coronavirus, were so blatant that one had to look to authoritarian nations to make comparisons."
© 2020 The New York Times Company
…always ; )
"Voter suppression tactics against Black, Latino and Native commun…
Trump ‘army’ of poll watchers could frighten voters, incite violence, election officials warn
TREVOR HUGHES | USA TODAY | 20 minutes ago
Civil rights experts point to long wait times to vote as a sign of growing voter suppression in the U.S. Here’s what to expect in the 2020 election.
Deep in the Democratic stronghold of Fairfax County, Virginia, about 50 of President Donald Trump’s supporters gathered, wrapping themselves in American flags and waving Trump 2020 banners as they chanted: “Four more years! Four more years!”
It was Sept. 19, and the county had just begun early voting. The Republican volunteers stood on the sidewalk outside of the concrete Fairfax County government center building. Steps away, voters waited to cast their ballot while lined up on blue social distancing markers.
As the crowd grew — along with the chants — county elections officials began whisking the voters into the building, despite concerns of spreading COVID-19. County officials explained later that several voters felt threatened by the crowd, and requested escorts in and out of the polling place, even though the Trump volunteers had not violated any election laws.
“We were actually trying to encourage people to vote,” said Sean Rastatter, 23, a software engineer and Fairfax County Republican who helped organize the event aimed at increasing GOP turnout. “The point of it was to remind people that early voting was taking place, since it had started a few days earlier. There wasn’t anything close to voter intimidation.”
President Donald Trump’s growing call for an “army” of supporters to “monitor” voting has raised concerns during an already vitriolic presidential election campaign about voter intimidation and suppression of minority groups.
Voting rights activists and government officials said they worry Trump’s supporters will scare away Democratic voters fearful of confrontation with his supporters, including voters from Hispanic, Black, Asian and Indigenous communities who have been disproportionately hurt by the pandemic, ongoing police violence, immigration enforcement and growing rates of hate crimes under the Trump administration.
“The rhetoric itself is suppressive," said Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat. “All of that taken together is aimed to suppress turnout. As elections officials, we have to clearly state that voter suppression is systemic racism."
Trump calls for an ‘army’
In repeated tweets, speeches and paid advertisements, Trump and his campaign have called for an “army” of poll watchers to monitor contested election areas. “Fight for President Trump,” reads one ad on Twitter, directing supporters to the website “ArmyForTrump.com.”
Trump has repeatedly called the ongoing election “corrupt,” which some election experts said is aimed at reducing confidence in the overall results and dissuading some voters from even bothering to cast a ballot. That favors Trump because his core supporters, who are older, white Americans, are the most consistent voters regardless of circumstance. And those voters are also the least likely to have to wait in long lines to cast a ballot.
Trump tweeted Friday that a mistake by an elections board in Ohio in sending out ballots to the wrong voters was further evidence of a “rigged election.” The elections board said new ballots were being distributed, but Trump’s tweet is the latest in what voting experts said is a concerted effort by the president and his supporters to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election.
“My biggest concern, and both sides do this, is undermining confidence in elections across the board,” Trey Grayson, a Republican and former Kentucky secretary of state, said in a call with journalists Tuesday. “We’ve got to have people trust the outcome. The losers have to believe it was a fair fight.”
There have so far been few concrete examples of voter intimidation at polling sites. But the U.S. has a long history of violence against people of color during elections, including state and local lawmen attacking Black voting rights activists with nightsticks and tear gas in Alabama in 1965, which resulted in the passage that year of the federal Voting Rights Act.
Rastatter, the Republican from Fairfax County, said he’d never participate in anything that scared off voters. He said voter intimidation is a serious charge, and that police who investigated the incident declared no laws were broken.
“They’re calling it out before it’s even occurred,” he said of the rally’s critics. “This is one of these elections where people are so hyper partisan.”
Vote by mail, early voting underway around the country
Fearful to vote
No one expects voter intimidation tactics to halt large numbers of voters from casting ballots. But experts said the even subtle shifts in voting patterns could change the outcome of elections.
During the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush won Florida and its 25 Electoral College votes by just 537 votes.
Voter suppression could also shape races for state legislatures, which will next session use the 2020 Census results to map out election boundaries. In most states, whatever party controls the state legislature determines how those boundaries are drawn, and can use them to gerrymander favorable districts for Congress.
“This is all, in my mind, to deter people from showing up at the polls," said Myrna Perez, director of New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice’s Voting Rights and Elections Program. “These statements are designed to make people fearful to vote.”
Election experts said they are also worried about violence breaking out between the president’s supporters and voters.
Mary McCord, a former top federal prosecutor focusing on national security and a professor at Georgetown Law School in Washington, D.C., said her biggest fear is that armed groups of right-wing Trump supporters will “self activate” in response to Trump’s repeated calls to protect polling places.
Her concerns sharpened last week when Michigan state and federal prosecutors arrested 13 men they said were conspiring to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Prosecutors said the men discussed trying Whitmer for treason over her COVID-19 closures, which Trump also opposed. On April 17, Trump tweeted “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!” as part of a series of tweets criticizing both Whitmer, a Democrat, and pandemic-related lockdowns.
Monday was the first day for advance voting in Georgia and people showed up by the hundreds to cast their ballot early at the Bell Auditorium in Augusta, Ga., Oct. 12, 2020.
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, another Democrat and frequent Trump target, was also targeted by the same group, the FBI said Tuesday.
“Some people are just not very smart and buy into conspiracy theories. And some people are smart and they would happily disenfranchise voters,” McCord said. “You can’t ignore the disinformation coming straight from the president. He right now is the greatest threat to our democracy. And people do act on the things he says.”
The concerns are building at least in part due to a rise in violent hate crimes under the Trump administration. The FBI last year said that while the overall number of hate crimes dropped slightly in 2018, the number of violent hate crimes hit a 16-year high – from intimidation and assault to homicide.
And the Department of Homeland Security in a report last month concluded that white supremacist extremists “will remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the Homeland.” The reports comes two weeks after Trump’s call during the first presidential debate for the far-right Proud Boys group to “stand back and stand by.” While the White House later said Trump was condemning the group, its members quickly declared they were ready to follow his orders.
“I’m concerned they’ll take the constant daily tweets about election fraud, that that’s their signal, in their view, their license to self-activate,” said McCord. “They put on this façade, these right-wing groups, that they are patriots and that they have an obligation to protect the vote or protect the election or protect the president.”
Voter fraud? No. Suppression? Yes.
Elections experts said there’s no evidence of Trump’s repeated complaints about widespread voter fraud. But fair elections are under attack.
Grayson, the former Kentucky election official who also served as president of National Association of Secretaries of State, said it’s no secret politicians want to “shape the electorate.” It’s why liberal groups want to increase voting participation among people of color, because they tend to vote for Democrats, and why conservatives regularly target those same voters for suppression.
Until 2018, the Republican National Committee was forced to submit all of its poll-watching plans for review by a judge after getting caught hiring off-duty law enforcement officers and stationing them only in minority precincts during the 1981 New Jersey governor’s election. Those armed officers wore “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands and demanded Black or Latino voters show voting registration cards.
Denise and Bill Hasbune, of Stone Mountain, Ga., fill out a pre-registration form while waiting in line to vote Oct. 12, 2020 at the DeKalb County elections office in Decatur, Ga. The Hasbunes arrived before 6 a.m. because they said they wanted to be sure to exercise their right to vote and didn’t want to take a chance of missing the opportunity.
That poll-watching consent decree expired in 2018. And in 2013, the Supreme Court eliminated a provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act requiring areas with a history of discrimination to get federal approval before changing the rules. Fourteen states — all but one controlled by Republican legislatures — quickly toughened voter ID laws.
Republican operatives were also linked to the data-mining firm Cambridge Analytica during the 2016 presidential race, which targeted 3.5 million of Black Americans for “deterrence,” according to an investigation by Channel 4 News in London. The report said operatives bought Facebook advertisements aimed at dissuading Black voters from casting a ballot, rather than trying to persuade them to pick one candidate over another.
While the federal government has typically taken the lead in enforcing the Voting Rights Act, some liberal activists worry the Trump administration’s Justice Department lacks the interest to aggressively protect voting rights.
“We understand there are folks who came before us who were literally risking their lives to vote,” said Jamal Watkins, the NAACP’s vice president of civic engagement. “This notion that violence is a ruse and not real – it scares a lot of us.”
Watkins said given the revelations about the role Cambridge Analytica played in dissuading Black voters, it’s not surprising that turnout among Black voters dropped in 2016 for the first time in 20 years during a presidential election, falling to just below 60%, according to the Pew Research Center. Black voter turnout had previously hit a record high of 66.6% in 2012, when Democrat Barack Obama, the nation’s only Black president, won a second term.
Meanwhile, a Brennan Center study found that 2018 wait times for Black and Hispanic voters averaged 45% longer than for white voters, a more subtle form of voter suppression than outright intimidation.
“We’re not blind. We see there’s an intentionality behind all of this. That’s the sad truth,” said Watkins. “This is not conspiracy theory. This is factual. We have seen it play out in what happened in 2016.”
Voting advocates say Trump has brought intimidation to new levels
Some voting rights activists said they are worried Trump’s call for poll monitors and violent rhetoric is setting an unprecedented tone.
Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Party, said part of the problem stems from a misunderstanding of what it means to be a certified poll watcher, which is a legally defined role at the county level. He said the president can’t just order supporters to look over voters’ shoulder.
“You’re not going to be allowed into the voting booth area, and you’re not going to be allowed to intimidate voters who are standing in line waiting to go vote. But when you have someone of the president’s authority saying something like that, rank-and-file Americans who support the president want to be helpful and will show up on Election Day and go ‘well, I’m here to watch the polls,’” said Steele. “And then, of course, you run into the problem of some thickheads who want to come armed to the polls, which is nothing more than intimidation.”
Six states and the District of Columbia explicitly ban guns at polling sites, and they’re also generally banned inside polling places at schools or other public property. While using a firearm to intimidate someone is illegal, simply carrying it in public doesn’t violate the law as long as the carrier maintains a certain distance from the polling site, usually 50 to 100 feet.
In Fairfax County, election officials said social-media videos provided a misleading perspective on the Trump rally, whose participants never got closer than 100 feet to the actual polling site. Still, voting-rights advocates said what happened there offers a glimpse into potential problems as more and more Americans begin voting in person. They said voting by mail or voting early are among the best ways to avoid Election Day polling problems. And lawyers across the country are prepared to defend voters in the courts, as needed.
“We need to be ready," Perez said. “Folks need to know their community, have a plan, be prepared for contingencies, and persist.”
Vanita Gupta, CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said “targeted harassment” is very much a concern this election.
“We have enough examples in recent memory where elections have been called in states on razor-thin margins. We need to make sure everyone eligible is able to cast a vote and have that vote counted,” said Gupta, who led the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division under the Obama administration. “Every single vote does matter.”
That’s why it’s critically important elections officials at all levels encourage every qualified voter to vote, said Griswold, the Colorado elections official. Like many of her colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, Griswold has repeatedly reassured voters that the process is safe, secure and trustworthy. Griswold said she particularly gets calls from Black community leaders every time Trump tweets or speaks about poll watchers.
“Voting is supposed to be the great equalizer for our communities,” she said. “Every American deserves a democracy we can believe in. And that starts at the polls.”
© Copyright Gannett 2020
No worries, most prizes are up the alley within politically inclusive swamps anyhow, so not to worry
Alfred e Newman
Well that’s funny… coz we don’t suppress anyone from voting where and whence I’m from… well, you know… apart from those that are trying to vote more than once and so commit fraud. 
Fraudulent voting is a crime, is it not?
MagsJ says:
“Fraudulent voting is a crime, is it not?”
Well, back in the day when more was merrier, yes, but now days , the less the more somber seems to predicate different values.
If my memory serves me right , it says recently suggested by the chief executive, that to balance democratic fraud-republicans should vote twice.
So Trump committed fraud by suggestion ( intent ) , but then again he subscribes to a higher standard
Seems like Trump is a closet royalist. and had he starred on the international stage, say a good 100-150 years ago, no mention of any of this would be noticeable in the press.
Gosh how things have changed since !
So you are saying that during a communist Marxist takeover attempt of the USA (a coup d’état), lying is not a crime? Certain “Deep State” Americans agree (James Comey, Hillary Clinton, Schumer, McCain, Shiff, Pelosi, Waters, Wray, Biden, and many others).
Another lie but under communist Marxist takeover rules, such lying is okay, right?
The fascist right doesn’t seem to have any trouble with Trumps rather questionable grasp of the truth. But not all republicans lean that far right. Even the centrist republicans don’t seem to have any difficulty at all with Trumps lies.
So it’s a good question. Such lying does appear to be okayed by the right. And if the question is support for capitalism neither side has a great track record of policing truth in advertising.
Not for the gander, not for the goose.
So truth is relative to the interpretation. of differences incurred and efforts made between two similar but distinct categories , that arose between. ‘Questionable grasp’ and. out and out lying
I surmise, that is a sub-qualifier, that needs clarification , inter -alia.
That not too many can visually decipher such , below the surface, however establishing a definite point of contention-does not bar those, who would not be idisnclined to wallow in mud, rather then be accused of slinging it.
Reminds me of someone commenting on such behavior, as ’ honey on the outside, chickenshit inside’
Course, whenever this is even hired at, the innards rise up again, as if is lintented as a humiliating affront.
How can anyone come to grips within such a diminished political theatre?
The child within us…and so and so.
.
[quote=“obsrvr_”]
obsrvr said:
“So you are saying that during a communist Marxist takeover attempt of the USA (a coup d’état), lying is not a crime? Certain “Deep State” Americans agree (James Comey, Hillary Clinton, Schumer, McCain, Shiff, Pelosi, Waters, Wray, Biden, and many others).”
On a nominal level, irrespective of what constitutes a lie, yes, a lie is absolutely reprehensible.
But there are mitigating situations, where a brazen black lie can turn to virginal white. These are the great vindicators , National Security is the most pre-eminent .
The cliche, ‘would. you rather be red then dead’ still echoes a late refrain?
How many people polled today would hold to it’s opposite nowadays? 50-50? I would increase the odds within a reasonable margin to 20-80, even 85.
This is why, the national poll based on the vote is such an acute indication of common sentiment.
Reason: as the rich get richer af the expense of the middle classes, the drain is becoming visuble-creeping toward the upper middle classed.
Once that happens, and present indications are that they will,inordinate gaps will appear, that may be hard to fill.
I said it, then, 5 years ago, and I will say it agaun: trillion dollar hikdings, even at the cost of measurement of the entire wordily economy, will become self destructive.
Oh , not because, even higher unfair distributions on vastly larger scales have appeared through out history, but because
in the process of evolving collision between repression & humanism, the level of anticipated conflict will deconstruct the partial theaters of limited warfare.
Not relative for the goose not relative for the gander. Truth is what it is and falsehood is not a truth. But I question whether Trump has actually lied. It seems to me you would have to have absolute knowledge of truth and intentionally spread falsehood in it’s place to be called a lie. As far as truth is concerned where independent and collaborative validation is our best shot at achieving Truth, half truths that include misinformation are not a lie automatically; more an ignorance in belief and a willingness to proselytize it. What I am intending to say is that the unintentional disseminate of a falsehood is no lie. It is just ignorance and our first amendment seems to get rather fudged up when we mistake beliefs for truths. The first amendment also guarantees the right to ignorance, sadly enough.
That doesn’t seem a way point any Nation would wish to dwell on in it’s pursuit of a more perfect union.
Here is an interesting piece, verifying Your thoughts :
"In her essay Truth and Politics, published in The New Yorker in 1967, the philosopher Hannah Arendt was already lamenting the fact that politics and truth don’t mix. But even Arendt was aware that not all lies are the same. There are lies that are minimal forms of deception, a micro-tear in the fabric of reality, while some lies are so big that they require a complete rearrangement of the whole factual texture, a shift to another reality. In today’s terminology, Arendt was alerting us to the difference between a lie, and the 2016 Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year – “post-truth”.
One way to understand the difference between lies and post-truth, which I’ve written about in a new paper, is that a liar denies specific facts that have precise coordinates in space and time, whereas post-truth questions the very nature of truth. A liar knows the truth, and, by trying to persuade us of an alternative narrative, a liar is paradoxically honouring the truth, whereas post-truth allows no last refuge for the truth.
Clinton versus Trump
This distinction between a lie and post-truth becomes more clear by comparing two recent American presidents, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. At a White House press conference on January 26 1998, Clinton famously said:
I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never.
Clinton’s statement, given the subsequent revelations and a semen-stained blue dress, is disconcerting. It’s possible that Clinton did not consider his intimate interactions with Lewinsky as a “sexual relation”, but that is unlikely – it would require a phenomenal effort of self-deception, or ingenuity, to defend that position with honesty and integrity. Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, because he lied under oath, but he was ultimately acquitted in a Senate trial.
Subverting truth itself
Clinton lied, and that was inexcusable. But Trump’s relationship with truth is even more disturbing, and dangerous. Trump’s incessant accusations of fake news against the main media outlets, including the Washington Post, The New York Times, and CNN, reflects a longstanding disdain for the truth. Unlike Clinton, Trump is not simply denying certain facts, instead he is determined to undermine the theoretical infrastructure that makes it possible to have a conversation about the truth.
Trump’s response and demeanour to the impeachment allegations made against him is a typical example of post-truth. By spurning the impeachment proceedings as a “charade” and a “witch-hunt”, his strategy is to create an environment where objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion, where theoretical frameworks necessary to make sense of certain events are scorned, and where scientific truth is delegitimised."