Gerson calls out WEP’s for what they really are…

https://www.pilotonline.com/opinion/columns/vp-ed-column-gerson-1031-20191031-3mu7647ghrct5l7myxktotetde-story.html

I’ve been saying it for so long, I thought I was the only one. Now an actual conservative, White Evangelical Protestant calls out the majority of his own.

88 thoughts on “Gerson calls out WEP’s for what they really are…

  1. Historically Gerson (a hard core Republican) and I have had differing views on many issues. His even handed and mostly objective editorials on the trump Administration have been consistent and accurate.

    True Conservatives recognize insanity when they see it, although many (at least those still adhering to that apparently outdated mindset) sadly, do not have the gumption to stand up and do their duty to end this travesty and remove this stain on our great nation.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. You do realize that the current definition of “conservative” is reserved for those who kiss Trump’s butt?

    His critics are officially known as “human scum”.

    Just thought I should point that out in the interest of accuracy.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. I take it, Mr. Green, that you agree with Gerson’s judgement of evangelicals:

    “Rather than shaping President Trump’s agenda in Christian ways, they have been reshaped into the image of Trump himself. Or, more accurately, they have become involved in a political throuple with Trump and Fox News, in which each feeds the grievances and conspiracy thinking of the others.”

    I don’t. I find Gerson’s reasoning shallow and inept. His basic mistake is confusing/conflating evangelicals’ religious disposition with their political disposition then pretending the two are in conflict.

    Personally, I don’t find evangelism compelling, but I recognize it as a legitimate strain of true Christianity. Gerson would be wise to do the same, but Gerson is not wise.

    Like

    1. I disagree with you. You may not personally find evangelism compelling, but it is a fairly impressive voting bloc in this country. But if you have ever gone to a church and listened to the words of Jesus, you might find that the actions and words of this President are counter to those teachings. Evangelicals would vote for Satan himself if he promised them judges to overturn Roe, among other things that are currently law in this country that don’t feed into their “belief” systems. Which by the Constitution are to be separate.

      Gerson is a hell of a lot more wise than those he considers himself a part of. “An extraordinary 99% of Republican WEPs oppose the impeachment and removal of the president — which probably puts me in the smallest political minority I have ever had the honor of occupying.”

      And you find any criticism of Trump to be “shallow and inept”. He’s part of the group he is criticizing. He’s on the inside and sees it a lot clearer than those on the outside. You don’t see it at all.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. RE: “But if you have ever gone to a church and listened to the words of Jesus, you might find that the actions and words of this President are counter to those teachings.”

        I’ve done far more than go to a church and listen to the words of Jesus in my life, and I do not find the president’s actions and words to be counter to Christian doctrine. In fact, it is based on my own experience that I find Gerson’s reasoning shallow and inept.

        But you needn’t concern yourself with any of that. I substantiated my assertion with an observation you can test for yourself: Gerson’s “basic mistake is confusing/conflating evangelicals’ religious disposition with their political disposition then pretending the two are in conflict.”

        Apparently you haven’t tested it at all.

        Like

        1. Tested it? Holy Papal See, I see it daily on TV, in the paper and on line. If a Democratic President was to act in the manner Trump has, especially wrt to immigration, they would be protesting in Lafayette Park, calling for the head of the President. If you don’t believe that, it is only because you are blind to the hypocrisy of many Christians, including your own.

          And unless you were seminary student or an ordained minister, I doubt you have done much more than attend church and read the Bible. I find your lack of true Christian character in regards to this President to be very very sad. Like the Christian who claim to be “good” Christians while severely judging others not seeing how hypocritical they are being, you need a long look in the mirror.

          Like

          1. RE: “Like the Christian who claim to be ‘good’ Christians while severely judging others not seeing how hypocritical they are being.”

            Doesn’t that describe your own behavior here, Mr. Green? Perhaps you are the one who needs a long look in the mirror.

            Like

          2. RE: “I’m not a Christian.”

            Of course not. Your hypocrisy is in imagining you understand Christianity better than Christians do.

            Like

          3. Actually, I believe I do. and why s that, you ask? Because I actually study and listen to those better trained to interpret things. I also apply my knowledge, which I know you will probably question, and insight of those who I have come to trust over the years.

            When I sit in A Methodist Sunday School class (as I do most Sunday’s) next to a sweet old lady named Doris and listen to her bad mouth people in the church because of their own personal stances on things and hear some of the hateful things she says about those she disagrees with, and then hear her claim to be a “good Christian”, I am living it. Most Christians don’t understand their own religion. It usually takes someone outside of their bubble to understand it and try to explain to them. But because of their spiritual blindness they are clueless.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. @Roberts
            Re: “Your hypocrisy is in imagining you understand Christianity better than Christians do.”

            Okay, we can now add “hypocrisy” to the list of words that you use a lot but do not actually know the meaning of.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. Doris is one person, but on the basis of your perception of her you feel qualified to generalize about all Christians?

            And you are not a Christian, but you feel that makes you especially qualified to explain Christianity to people like Doris?

            I don’t have to know anything about your training, knowledge or experience. It is clear you don’t think logically. Psychologically, you may even have a Jesus complex, an irrational compulsion to teach.

            Whatever it is, you are in no condition to tell other people they are blind. Your only hope is to figure out how to show the “blind” what they are missing.

            Like

          6. Doris is the prime example of Christian (and especially Evangelical) hypocrisy. And the easiest to cite as she is the closest personal relationship I have with someone like that.

            …”makes you especially qualified to explain Christianity to people”… And yes I am because I was not indoctrinated into it as a child. I have learned more about Christianity by NOT being a Christian than many Christians have. And remember that ALL of Christianity is originally based in the Torah. Or are you one of those Christians that believes the “Old Testament” is the Jewish Bible? I’ve lost count of how many times I have heard that. Even the Bible I was given in boot camp had to be replaced because it was missing the first two thirds.

            I know nothing of your training either. What I do know is that you refuse to see that which is right in front of you. Possibly because you are afraid of what you might see if you take a truly close look at yourself. I suggest professional counseling. It did me a world of good. It could do the same for you.

            I am in perfect position to tell someone if they are blind. I tell you all of the time and your own oh, so powerful words, prove it many times each day. I live by a more Christian doctrine than most Christians. Let us not forget that the chances of my being related to Jesus Christ is MUCH better than yours.

            Like

          7. RE: “Let us not forget that the chances of my being related to Jesus Christ is MUCH better than yours.”

            Now there’s a rational thought.

            Like

          8. Heck, that was the easiest post today. Maybe rational is easier? 😉

            I’m done for the week. Sincerely, Mr. Roberts, have a safe weekend. I will be travelling and “off the grid.” I do enjoy the challenge of our back and forth. Enjoy your extra hour of sleep Sunday morning.

            Like

        2. “I do not find the president’s actions and words to be counter to Christian doctrine.”

          It is obvious that you are nurturing a very perverse idea of what Christian doctrine actually is. Maybe you follow Prosperity Theology?

          Here in the real world in both his public and private life Trump is the living anti-thesis of just about everything that Jesus taught.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. RE: “Maybe you follow Prosperity Theology?”

            No, I don’t.

            RE: “Trump is the living anti-thesis of just about everything that Jesus taught.”

            So you say, but you have no capacity to tell anyone what Jesus taught, given your comments on that topic over the years.

            Like

          2. You have never heard me contradict or criticize ANY of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ. In fact, like most secular humanists I follow them more closely than the vast majority of self-proclaimed “Christians.” So, you are dead wrong. I am very familiar with the moral ideas that Jesus brought to world and I am fully capable of seeing when other people ignore them. As in this case where you – apparently with a straight face – observe that . . . “I do not find the president’s actions and words to be counter to Christian doctrine.”

            Liked by 2 people

          3. It’s just another case of of Trump does it, it doesn’t matter.

            The level of hypocrisy in Evangelicals is staggering. And Mr. Roberts is living, typing proof of it. And like most hypocrites, he can’t see it. Or won’t.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. RE: “You have never heard me contradict or criticize ANY of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ.”

            Yes, I have. Your most common contradiction of Jesus is your claim that Christianity is consistent with collectivist, progressive philosophy and even humanism. I have repeatedly pointed out your error on that point, which is why I remember it.

            You actually know nothing of Christianity and follow none of its moral teachings.

            Like

          5. @Roberts
            “Yes, I have.”

            Your doubling down on this perverse understanding of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ is both sad AND milk out the nose funny.

            Here let me inform you what those moral teachings actually were . . .

            1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
            2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
            3. Do not resort to violence (turn the other cheek).

            Of the two main political parties in our country the one I support is far closer to living and being guided by these moral ideals that the one Trump leads and you support. Far, far closer.

            As for your very silly use of the word “collectivist” let me remind you that the earliest Christian communities were what we would call today “communes” where the guiding idea was “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

            But hey, I get it. It is not easy to accept one’s own over-the-top hypocrisy.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. RE: “Here let me inform you what those moral teachings actually were…[And] let me remind you that the earliest Christian communities were what we would call today ‘communes.'”

            As I have pointed out many times before, that you claim superior knowledge on the basis of such trite and vast ignorance is astounding. Here, yet again, you show clearly that you don’t know the difference between moral philosophy and standards of behavior, or between a commune and a school.

            Like

        3. @Roberts
          Keep digging that hole you are in.
          It is getting funnier with each shovel load.

          The moral teachings of Jesus Christ are mere “standards of behavior” and not a moral philosophy at all.
          The early Christians lived in “schools” and not in close knit communities akin to communes.

          Hilarious.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. RE: “It is getting funnier with each shovel load.”

            The ignorant always laugh at things they don’t understand.

            Like

  4. The error Gerson and others make is to assume that Trump’s base’s loyalty(evangelical or otherwise) is a result of ongoing approval.

    Trump as always the lesser evil, and he still is. During the election, Hillary was the greater evil, now it’s Gerson and other never-Trumpers.

    Trump’s base embraced him as a break from business-as-usual in government. They worked hard to elect him as a way to reject a government that did not share their concerns.

    And from the day he won the election, Gerson and the rest have worked to pull him down. They never gave him a chance, or even get sworn in, before the effort to remove him was underway.

    Think of how that is perceived.

    You are telling them that they were stupid to elect Trump, but not to worry, your betters will fix it for you.

    Do you see how arrogant that looks? How often do you think people are won over by telling them they are stupid. Or that your duty is to fix their mistakes.

    If Trump had gotten his 100 days, not of submission by Congress, but of respect for the office, his base might have fallen away, but they were dug in to resist you from the first phony impeachment attempt and even if a real reason came along, they are in the trenches now for the long haul.

    Like

    1. What a load of crap!

      ALL of Trump’s problems since becoming the President are of his own doing. Almost all Americans – including me – hoped that no matter the ugliness of his victory he would transition to being Presidential. He never did. And it is now obvious that he simply cannot.

      Imagine, for example, a world where Trump retired his iPhone on January 20, 2017 and actually surrounded himself with competent people capable of writing careful, thoughtful and TRUTHFUL speeches that Trump then faithfully delivered without wandering off into demented train of consciousness ramblings. Imagine also that out of his love of country he really did put his business interests aside, helped root out Russian meddling, did NOT behave like a Putin puppet and did not seek personal political favors from foreign governments.

      In THAT world Trump would be far more respected and would be very well-positioned to ask for a second term. In THIS world, he will do well to keep himself out of prison.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Baloney

        The efforts to derail Trump began even before the election.

        https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-13/we-cant-take-risk-fbi-texts-reveal-insurance-policy-prevent-trump-presidency

        If you’re claiming that you wanted to give Trump a fair chance, you’re taking advantage of the Pilot deleting all those old posts.

        But just imagine how insulting your posts in this very thread are to those who supported Trump. How many people do you thing you win over that way?

        You are the reason they are digging their trenches deeper.

        Like

        1. So, you cannot imagine a world in which Trump became Presidential, did not lie all the time, gave up his conflicts of interest and did not extort personal favors from foreign governments. If he had done so, all those supposed efforts to derail his Presidency would have come to nothing. That is the truth that you pretend not to see. His impending failure is a product of his own character and incompetence.

          As for my insulting Trump supporters from the get go, too bad. I call it telling the truth. Trump sought the office with rank incivility and dishonesty, by promoting the racist lie of birtherism and by demonizing immigrants. People who respond favorably to such a leader and constantly spread his slanders and lies are – what’s the word – deplorable and pretending otherwise is not going to change them.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Oh my!

            So, you and others like you are going to continue to ignore the overwhelming evidence and support the criminal incompetent in the Oval Office because little old me [Murphy] has hurt your tender feelings by telling the truth about just what kind of person follows such a leader?

            Sad.

            Liked by 2 people

    2. “And from the day he won the election, Gerson and the rest have worked to pull him down. They never gave him a chance, or even get sworn in, before the effort to remove him was underway.”

      And that is right out of the conservative playbook since the election of Clinton.

      The efforts to destroy Clinton from before the election, then Starr, then finally a blue dress are legendary.

      Obama, same exact thing. Birtherism followed by a pact made the night of his first inauguration to destroy his Presidency. And again on the second one.

      But that is ok, because they were Democrats and deserved it, I suppose.

      Don’t you guys ever learn that what goes around, comes around? Especially after 16 years of deliberate attempts to unseat two twice elected presidents by investigations, government shutdowns and total stonewalling.

      Trump got off easy and most of his early press criticisms were because he insulted everyone he could think of to get attention.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. No one ever tried to impeach Obama, even after Libya, when they should have.

        And while it is true that some GOP legislators did not want to give Obama a chance, most did, and they treated him with respect. He wore that out rather quickly by telling them they could come along but they would have to ride in the back.

        But even if your charges were true, would that excuse attempts to derail Trump by CIVIL SERVANTS?

        Civil servants are given job protection in return for a requirement that they stay out of politics, at least publicly. But Trump faced sabotage, leaks, and disinformation from the protected civil servants in the intelligence community.

        That has never happened before and cannot be excused. They are civil servants, not a ruling class.

        Like

        1. I am sorry Don, you are in a bubble that is impenetrable.

          The excuses about the evil civil servants are all based on unproven speculation, fueled by Trump from the very beginning. Conspiracy sites abound with mostly crap. The same folks that accused the Clintons of killing about 40 or more people are peddling fairy tales about a deep state.

          Trump has been so incompetent in appointing leaders so he blames everyone else and you believe him. And his relentless attacks on the intelligence community from before the election, based also on crap, has probably not endeared him to the hard working folks in that area of government. Yet, they soldier on and do their best to protect us against those who try to undermine us, despite working for a president who tries to bad mouth them in favor of someone like Putin.

          A president who believes and or spreads conspiracy lies from around the world like he’s sprinkling magic confetti designed to confuse and obfuscate. Remember the phony video from the Netherlands purportedly showing Muslims beating up a white Christian. Staged and phony. Yet our esteemed president retweets it like gospel (irony intended) to push his bigoted agenda.

          And his presidency is packed with such abuses and lies that cause damage. Day in and day out. Tweet after tweet.

          He won’t be impeached and he might even be re-elected. Unless, of course, there are enough “human scum” to make a difference. Probably not, though. Conservatives, not all but enough, would rather destroy our country than stand up for what’s right and good. Fortunately, we are strong enough to withstand this regime and it might make us even stronger, just like scar tissue does for an injury.

          Even to the soul.

          In my opinion and nothing humble about this one.

          Liked by 3 people

        2. …”some GOP legislators did not want to give Obama a chance, most did,”…
          Mitch McConnell: Our number one priority is to endure this President is a one term President. That is from the LEADER of the GOP in the SENATE. And has been proven in recent history, the GOP follows its leaders BLINDLY. The leadership did not want to give Obama anything. And then after he won reelection, the McConnell led GOP had a new goal: To ensure their was no Obama legacy. SO they got themselves the eraser-in-chief.

          As far as civil servants go, there should be more trust in them then on our political leaders regardless of party. They are the ones in the trenches doing the grunt work of governing. Big or small government requires them to get the work done for this country. PERIOD!

          Liked by 1 person

        3. “No one ever tried to impeach Obama, even after Libya, when they should have.”
          You have stated that repeatedly, but I do not see anything close to impeachable in this instance. Bush moving to Iraq instead of focusing on Afghanistan is more impeachable than Obama and Libya.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Bush got an authorizing resolution from Congress, twice.

            The War Powers Resolution allows the President to commit US forces for up to 60 days if:

            1)There is a declaration of war or other authorizing resolution from Congress

            2)The US or our armed forces are under imminent danger of attack

            3)There is an attack on a treaty partner.

            Libya had threatened no one other than Al Qaida, which Gahdafi had driven out of Libya and into Mali. They had dismantled their nuclear program under our supervision and renounced terrorism. Having done so, the resolution allowing pursuit of terrorists did not apply.

            There was no legal authority for Obama to intervene in Libya on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.

            His use of over 100 cruise missiles against Gahdafi’s forces was not only illegal and unconstitutional under our law, it was a war crime under international law.

            The GOP simply lacked the political courage to impeach the first black President.

            Like

          2. “1)There is a declaration of war or other authorizing resolution from Congress

            2)The US or our armed forces are under imminent danger of attack

            3)There is an attack on a treaty partner”

            None of which were true in shifting the focus to Iraq. You can’t have it both ways. Tim Kaine is the only Senator that I am aware of that has pushed for a new AUMF and did so during the Obama years. The GOP is afraid to go on record even when asked about it. I don’t agree that it was right but I do know that a a new AUMF should be at least considered. McConnell will have nothing to do with it. The Koward from Kentucky.

            Like

          3. Not so.

            Bush got an AUMF prior to the air war and a second one prior to the ground attack.

            That is not to say it was wise, or turned out well, but it was legally authorized by Congress.

            Like

          4. @Tabor
            Bush got his authorizing resolutions from Congress based on a pack of deliberate lies. THAT was the impeachable offense that got ignored. There were others. Especially authorizing the use of torture.

            Liked by 1 person

    3. RE: “Trump’s base embraced him as a break from business-as-usual in government.”

      That’s certainly true for me. Further, I believe that Trump is delivering on his promise to drain the swamp, though not as loudly or as dramatically or as quickly as I might have originally hoped. But with irreversible certainty.

      Like

      1. RE: “Drain the swamp? You’re kidding, right?”

        Not at all. I have in mind the 24 or so corrupt FBI officials who have been forced out of their jobs, the well-deserved collapse of media credibility, and the steady erosion of the Democratic Party. I expect the “draining” will accelerate as the impeachment unfolds.

        Like

        1. You are really going for laughs today!

          Which of those 24 “corrupt” FBI officials have been indicted for their “corruption?”

          The well-deserved collapse of media credibility? You mean people are finally catching on to what Fox News has been up to? And moving to MSNBC to get the truth from the network where Rachel Maddow has the highest rated news and opinion show in the cableverse?

          Steady erosion of the Democratic Party? Funniest of all. Did you miss the vote yesterday? Have you forgotten about the 2018 election which made it possible?

          Here is a clue – Wishes and daydreams are NOT reality.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Yep. Trump, Pence, Giuliani, Barr, Miller, Perry (Oh, wait. He’s already leaving), DeVos, Chao and McConnell, Meadows, Jordan, Nunes (please Dear,
          G-d, let him be next), Kushners (both), all be gone when the swamp is drained.

          Liked by 1 person

  5. …” to resist you from the first phony impeachment attempt and even if a real reason came along,”…

    I take it then you still believe it is OK what he did wrt to Ukraine? That sounds stupid to me. Every passing day, every new deposition, adds another brick in the wall. If there were any, A-N-Y, exculpatory testimony during these hearings, the GOP members would do everything in their power to get it out there. As it stands, they attack the integrity of those testifying. The weakness continues.

    …”respect for the office”… To that I say, “You first, Mr. President.”

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I see nothing unlawful in Trump’s phone call.

      Considering that billions of dollars in US aid have been sent to the Ukraine only to disappear into oligarchs pockets, it is the President’s duty to determine that the new President there was serious about ending corruption. It is also appropriate to investigate efforts to influence the US 2016 election originating in the Ukraine.

      Trump talked about corruption and election interference and only tangentally mentioned the Bidens well into the discussion. Considering Biden’s boast that he got a prosecutor fired.as a condition of delivering previous aid was plenty of justification for including him in the investigation. Biden is not above the law.

      If Trump had conditioned aid for a specific finding in the investigation, that would be a problem, but simply asking for an honest investigation is entirely proper.

      Like

      1. “I see nothing unlawful in Trump’s phone call.” Of course you don’t. It is called denial and your extremely opaque bubble will not allow you to see it.

        ” It is also appropriate to investigate efforts to influence the US 2016 election originating in the Ukraine.
        You mean every single debunked conspiracy theory needs to be investigated again? And to what purpose? To find non-existent corruption perpetrated by Joe Biden? Now the bubble is reflective. Amazingly sad.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Right, and Hunter got that $50K/month gig purely on merit.

          And yes, the investigations done under the previous, corrupt Ukrainian government need to be revisited by the new administration there.

          Like

      2. “I see nothing unlawful in Trump’s phone call.”

        Funny, various White House insiders found it very troubling and IMMEDIATELY went to the responsible lawyer with their concerns. His reaction? Lock the evidence away. And, clean up the “transcript.” So, at the very least your perception is based on a doctored version of what was said. If you were an honest observer, the fact of the doctoring might explain the disconnect between your reaction and the immediate panic the call triggered in the White House.

        Liked by 1 person

      1. My count is about 5-1 on the wall building. It was his OPINION that there was nothing wrong in the call. The consensus so far is that what Trump did rose to the level of needing investigation.

        Like

        1. There is no clear statute defining what is proper in requesting foreign help in an investigation of cross border corruption, so it will come down to a matter of OPINION as to whether the phone call or anything else was an impeachable offense.

          Clearly, Trump knowing that many people were listening, did not think he was crossing any line.

          Democrats, desperate for an impeachable offense after their first few causes fell apart, think anything Trump says or does is impeachable.

          But the OPINION that matters, in this case, is the OPINION of the US SENATE, by a 2/3rds majority.

          Like

          1. “Clearly, Trump knowing that many people were listening, did not think he was crossing any line.”

            Ah, the old dumb as a bag of rocks defense. Well, if this were merely a criminal matter that defense might work. We are a decent people and sometimes give a child or a moron a break if they truly did not understand that what they were doing was a criminal offense.

            But an impeachment is NOT a criminal trial. It is a political process for dealing with a President who has shown himself to be unworthy of the office and responsibilities he has been entrusted with. In this case, the facts are very clear. Mr. Trump has abused that trust and the powers of his office for personal gain egregiously. Whether out of malice or ignorance does not matter.

            In the end, the opinion that really matters is not 2/3 of the Senate. It is that of the voters. GOP leaders continue to support Don the Con at their own peril.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “There is no clear statute defining what is proper in requesting foreign help in an investigation”… No, but there is a treaty signed by the US and Ukraine that indicates assistance will be provided if an investigation is begun in the States and CREDIBLE information is passed on that shows the necessity for such an investigation to move to Ukraine. That is NOT what happened. Trump asked for Zeleynski to OPEN an investigation into alleged corruption by the Biden’s. And to check on the debunked Crowdstrike/Server issue. YAWN!

            Keep digging. Let me know when you hit water.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: “It was his OPINION that there was nothing wrong in the call.”

        It was Bill Taylor’s OPINION that there was.

        RE: “The consensus so far is that what Trump did rose to the level of needing investigation.”

        Only on CNN and MSNBC, from what I can tell.

        Like

  6. “ If Trump had conditioned aid for a specific finding in the investigation, that would be a problem, but simply asking for an honest investigation is entirely proper.”

    “You know it would be a real shame if you got hurt in that war with my good friend…a real shame. Do me a favor though. Maybe we can work something out. Talk to my consigliere, Giuliani, he’ll help I am sure.”

    Quid pro quo?

    Not at all. A threat is more like it.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Extortion by any other name…

      It is becoming apparent, generally, not just on this forum, that what would normally be considered an obvious abuse of power and clear basis for removal of a sitting President will be denied by the cultist under the sway of their Demi-god.

      The “silent majority” will need to get off their asses and right this wrong.

      Fingers crossed….

      Liked by 2 people

    2. Nice drama, it would make a good movie.

      But do you have any evidence to support it?

      And what is wrong with Quid pro Quo? or a threat, for that matter?

      Foreign aid is often conditional for good reasons. We don’t give money if we don’t expect it to be used as intended. We also make bargains, such as conditioning aid to the Northern Triangle in Central America on their reducing he need for people to migrate.

      The important thing is what the conditions are. Conditions that support US interests are appropriate, Conditions that would be for the private benefit of a politician would not be, But if the conditions are primarily in the US interest and ALSO benefit the politician, that is still appropriate.

      Knowing if a former Vice President engaged in corruption using US funds s definitely in the national interest, whether it benefits Trump or not.

      Is Joe Bidden somehow above the law? Perhaps the Ukrainian investigation will clear him. Maybe Hunter did get that gig on merit.

      Like

      1. that one man can call down on the entire weight of the highest office in the land on a rival.

        Congratulations. The Right has always feared such power and working hard with diligence to ignore it, they’ve succeeded in creating it.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. @Tabor

        “And what is wrong with Quid pro Quo? or a threat, for that matter?”

        Nothing, nothing at all.

        Unless the Quid is a personal favor with zero benefit to the United States of America in whose interests the President is SUPPOSED to be acting. When the Quid IS a personal favor then it is an egregious High Crime. Even worse when the Quo is Congressionally approved and vitally needed military aid the lack of which will give “aid and comfort” to the enemy country that successfully subverted our most recent Presidential election.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. So, you think there is no benefit for the US to determine whether there was unlawful foreign influence by the Ukraine on the 2016 election? You sure thought it was when it was believed to be Russia.

          There is no benefit in turning the Crowdstrike servers over to the FBI for forensic analysis of the determinations about the Clinton emails? We have only the DNC’s word on that, based on their hiring of a foreign contractor.

          There is no benefit the US to know, one way or the other, if a $Billion in US foreign aid was conditioned on the firing of another country’s chief prosecutor(honest or otherwise) by a US Vice President with a family conflict of interest?

          An honest investigation may well exonerate the Biden’s but it is definitely in our interest to know one way or the other.

          Like

          1. Your rhetorical questions about what is in the interest of the United Stated are premised on outright lies. And your amazing ability to believe them if they are offered by your Dear Leader.

            Is there any evidence of corruption – other than your opinion – in Burisma adding Hunter Biden to its Board? Let’s stipulate that the main attraction for them was his name and family ties. So what? Boards are full of people hired for the same reason, not their expertise.

            It is only the hyper-partisan “mind” that focuses on Hunter Biden’s gig for a mere $50k per month while ignoring that Trump’s kids rake in BILLIONS of far more dubious dollars? Are they hiding some BILLION dollar expertise? If so, it is very well hidden.

            Liked by 1 person

  7. @Roberts
    For some reason, posts are getting blocked.

    …” that you claim superior knowledge on the basis of such trite and vast ignorance is astounding”…
    Yet it appears you are as guilty of that of which you accuse Mr. Murphy

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “Yet it appears you are as guilty of that of which you accuse Mr. Murphy”

      Instead of guessing and assuming you know what you’re talking about, why don’t you look it up? After some research, come back and tell us how early Christians lived in “communes” without private property the way modern day socialists have tried to do. That is is one Mr. Murphy’s main contentions, and it is testable.

      I can save you the trouble: Early Christians were Jews who lived in typical Jewish communities of the period. They didn’t hold property in common or eschew private enterprise. They shared meals, often ritually, in imitation of the Last Supper, but communal dining is not unusual or defining in any way. Vikings, Germans and British Anglo Saxons also were communal diners, as are many Americans, as at Thanksgiving.

      But living in communal societies? That’s just ignorant.

      Like

      1. Again, one of us is ignorant and deliberately so. And that is you.

        Why?

        Because you want to pretend that somehow Christianity is all about private property, capitalism and the pursuit of individual wealth. It isn’t. Except in its modern day perverse forms such as Prosperity Theology or the kind of Christianity seen on TV or at Trump rallies.

        How do I know about early Christian lives? Easy. It is in the Bible!

        Acts 4:34 “Neither did any man lack, for as many were possessors of lands or houses, sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, laid them at the apostles feet, and distribution was made accordingly.”

        Acts 2:44–45 “And all that believed were together and had ALL things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need”.

        Pretty clearly “From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs.”

        So, instead of ranting about the supposed ignorance of people who know more than you do, try learning for a change. It doesn’t hurt.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: “Pretty clearly ‘From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs.'”

        Only to a commie. Your Bible quotes don’t describe early Christian communities in general, but only the historical events related to a single community, the direct followers of Christ. Moreover, the description is only that: descriptive. It is not prescriptive.

        You might just as well describe Democrats contributing money to a political campaign as living in communes.

        Like

        1. Only to a commie? Uh, no. To anyone who can read and understand the plain language of the Bible.

          Who said anything about “prescriptive?” But it is as you say “descriptive.” Which is why I offered it to refute your ignorant accusations of ignorance. What better evidence could there be than the unerring Word of God Almighty Himself?

          Liked by 1 person

  8. “They shared meals, often ritually, in imitation”…
    Actually they shared ritual meals, not in imitation of the Last Supper, but in celebration of the Passover, as was written in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Also, in celebration of the Sabbath. Mostly, any festivals from what Christians refer to as the Old Testament, involved 2 things: sacrifices and food.

    Your attempts to make it about socialism, while veiled, is admirable, but wrong. Because the people of those times relied on each other, though commerce and communal necessity, to survive.

    Like

    1. RE: “Your attempts to make it about socialism, while veiled, is admirable, but wrong.”

      Take that up with Mr. Murphy. Also, you haven’t done your research. Ritual commemoration of the Last Supper in fact distinguishes the early Christians from other Jews of the period. Why do you persist in posting without learning?

      Like

      1. Check the timing. The Last Supper was quite possibly Jesus celebrating the Passover with his Jewish disciples. A celebration that was ordained in the Torah to commemorate the exodus from Egypt. A few hundred years before Jesus walked the Earth.

        Why is that Christmas is ALWAYS December 25th and Easter floats? Because Easter follows the Jewish lunar based calendar. And Christmas was co-opted from the Pagans.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s