NYT Editor Slams Pence As "F**king Horrible", Admits Reporters Tried To Sway Voters Against Trump
- Thread starter drypowder
- Start date
- Replies 23
- Views 606
IrishCannon
Fight hard.
James was on both Crowder and Alex's shows last week talking about this. It's important to get these videos out. MSM never picks up on it and always love to bury it.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
First, I will say that I agree with Shoe's opinion of Pence and his nomination as VP caused me to second guess supporting Trump. I believe given the opportunity Pence would push his politico-religious doctrine over liberty and on many of these issues I will side with the D's over the R's. However, this isn't the real story.
Second, the real story is what we all know, that the corporate media is going to whore after dollars, truth and responsibility be damned. There seems to be some sort of fundamental shift in society in the last decade that is willing to accept this. I don't know if it is the information overload via technology or the desire to tune out, but it is real.
The line between truth and profit had been irreparably blurred and in this day and age one can't trust anything.
Second, the real story is what we all know, that the corporate media is going to whore after dollars, truth and responsibility be damned. There seems to be some sort of fundamental shift in society in the last decade that is willing to accept this. I don't know if it is the information overload via technology or the desire to tune out, but it is real.
The line between truth and profit had been irreparably blurred and in this day and age one can't trust anything.
OP
drypowder
Les Deplorables
Isn't it funny how the media has intensely covered supposed Trump collusion with Russia for months despite the lack of any evidence of said collusion, yet all the Project Veritas videos showing how far left the media is - the same media that covered both the primaries and the general election and undoubtedly influenced voters - gets hardly any coverage at all and is mostly spread on the internet among non-leftists.
I'll admit to not following Indiana politics and Pence for years, but can you detail or explain his 'politico-religious doctrine'? This is new to me.
In short, we can go into this in more detail at another time, but basically, I would expect him to push "social conservativism" using religion as justification. I think this is very much like liberalism . In other words use "government" to attempt to strengthen the influence of his church. He doesn't strike me as a true liberty seaking "conservative".
To be fair, neither does a Trump, but I want Trump to break D.C.
Last edited:
Ok. Just wondered if there was some history or issues I missed. So since he is religious in his personal life you assume he'll abuse his ower and inflict it on non-believers?
The media has whored after money as long as I can remember and for decades or centuries before my time. Just look at the history of "yellow journalism" - hardly what one would call truthful or responsible. About the only thing I see that has changed is that the media has recently shaken off the disguise it wore for a couple of generations while falsely claiming to be honest and unbiased.
In his case, yes. In all cases, no. He has a reputation of being a "social conservative" politician.
I've said several time that the R's need to stay away from "social values" when it comes to appealing to folks outside their fire base, which I would consider myself part of, but they treat it like their albatross, just as the Ds are doing with gun restrictions. It costs votes.
Last edited:
You might be a tad over the top on this religion thing. Just because a politician is religious doesn't mean he/she will slam it down our throats. And I don't consider a "God Bless You" in a speech crossing the line. Heck, Kennedy was Catholic and made no bones about it. And he was banging and likely assaulting women all over the place. A politician with some level of personal integrity and morals might be a good change. Even if we don't agree with all of it.
MikeDawg46L
Rapscallion for hire
There is some history of it pretty much throughout his tenure in politics. None more so that his time as gov of IN. Look through his history just in his years as governor and you’ll see that he has consistently pushed religion-backed social conservatism onto the populace. Same with Sessions. Some agree with it, some don’t.
I’m with @noway2 on this. You can’t be on the fringe of either political leaning and also be a champion for Liberty.
A lot of them do. While I may share some, or even many of those values, I don't want them dictated though government policy. I think Pence has demonstrated that he is willing to do just that. I do think a lot of folks have a natural bias that when they perceive they share a certain value that it is s good thing to have it implemented as policy. I see this as the opposite of liberty.
I don't either. Personally, I don't care for prayer before government meetings, but I don't make a public objection to it either.
Being a participant, or not, of an organized religion has no correlation to whether one is what would commonly be called a decent person. The going around and banging women is an interesting one in that I don't have an issue with that per say, but see that as an issue between him and his wife and even then it comes down to what sort of understanding do they have in their relationship. Assaulting them is another matter, and I do suspect you're right that he did. Unfortunately I think the perception of extreme power appeals to that sort of individual; that would assault others and feel justified in doing so.
Absolutely. The sticky wicket is whether that person supports individual liberty or wants to legislate their values.
Last edited:
Been happening since the foundation of this country. And England. And Germany. And, and, and..........
The current idea that having set beliefs and thinking they are important to society is fringe is part of how this country is coming apart at the seams. That used to be considered pretty normal. The current issue we are having is largely an identity crisis. We don't know who we are or where we are headed as a country because normal is pretty much gone. In my estimation the Marxist idea of breaking the family and normalcy so to speak has caught on with the right as well. It has it's appeals. But that does not make it any less a cancer to a society. We are coming apart because we lost the bonds that holds us together. And those bonds are similar ideals and morals. Not just personal ones, large scale agreement on morals and values.
As I and others have said, a country or a nation is a region, often defined by some geographic boundary of a people that share a common culture, values, and identity.
The factions in this country do not share those things. They are becoming more disparate and are only being held together by illusive bonds and force,
For example, I keep wondering why the hell Trump let's some dumb jackass "judge" in HI dictate to the rest of the country that we've got yo let the muzzies in? Seriously. Let HI try to enforce it. They couldn't if they wanted to. This is just one example of where I don't want to be part of a nation with HI.
MikeDawg46L
Rapscallion for hire
As always, Jason, I respect and appreciate what you say and agree on some things, but disagree on parts as well.
I don’t believe that the government should be setting the standards for morals based on their religion or ideology. I believe that should be a family unit and community effort.
I feel we are coming apart at the seams not because we have grown apart as a country (we have always been a nation of differing cultures and religions), but because a grand stage has been given to anyone that wants to shout down anyone else that has a differing opinion. We are not tolerant of and have no respect any longer for anyone with different beliefs. It’s easier, now more so than ever, to dismiss someone’s differing beliefs and opinions than to respect them.
Having said that, I don’t want Pence pushing his beliefs on this country through government and laws anymore than I want a Jihadist doing the same. Politicians have things they need to focus on, and pushing their morals on the populace ain’t one of them.
I have no problem at all with Christian conservatism, Catholicism, Buddhism, etc and etc, but I do feel that it is best kept in the family and community.
We need a return to Rule of Law.
ETA: my reference to morals throughout this post is regarding their personal religious-based morals. I don’t believe the moral compass necessary to govern ourselves as a free people has to be based on religious beliefs. I’m very much a “don’t be an asshole and have some respect for those around you” kind of person.
Last edited:
In the past, the government reflected the beliefs of the vast majority of the people because the vast majority of the people held similar beliefs (@chiefjason post).
The American people did not lose their minds (and probably nodded approval) when Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison attended weekly religious services in the United States Capitol building. The reaction today would be entirely different because we, as a people, have few shared standards.
The government reflecting the beliefs of the vast majority of the people is not a particularly bad thing. Indeed, it reinforces the common bond of the people. Unfortunately, we have allowed every dissenting voice to over-rule the vast majority and chip away at the commonality of beliefs until hardly anything remains.
MikeDawg46L
Rapscallion for hire
That period of time also led to a century of massacres of the Indian tribes across this country. Though it had many moving pieces, difference and intolerance of the way the Natives lived was certainly one of them.
I don’t believe my point is being well spoken, and that’s on me.
I’m not saying that people in government shouldn’t hold strong to their beliefs. What I mean is that they shouldn’t be legislating their beliefs, unless of course it aligns with the people they represent. And at that point, they would be better off serving their people locally as it may not align with the rest of the country.
And I guess that is why I have such a strong disdain for the massive Federal govco we have today.
Politics, legislation, and even law are morality codified. Where we don't argue that, we probably agree on the moral underpinning. Where we argue that, we disagree. But it's just that simple. That morality may actually be moral, amoral, or immoral. Lack of morals is still a moral position. And this country didn't get where it is because some families agreed with it, it got there because the majority of families held similar beliefs. While the family is the best place to teach morality. A country that relies on only that, or a country where the gov morality greatly goes against the common morality of the populace is in for a lot of problems.
Even the folks that had historic differences in Europe help pretty similar belief systems. It took a while to get past the historical differences in regards to religions but that pretty much settled down in the US compared to other places. And when it did folks realized they were fairly similar in thought and ideas. So how do we respect other peoples ideas on a large scale? How do we tolerate them on a large scale? Legislation? Because that would be morality politics. And that is what the left is doing now.
I used to consider that the right should step away from moral politics. But I don't anymore. Because politics is mostly a fight for whose ideals will win out. The left is nothing but morality politics. They are dead set against the historical morality of this country in a lot of cases. And they are actively fighting against it. And that is a moral position on their part even though they try hard to present it as something else. It's not. They are forcing their moral position and trying to put a negative context on the other side doing the same thing so they can win. And folks are buying it.
MikeDawg46L
Rapscallion for hire
I’m going to try to sum up with one example.
Here goes:
The Christian Right telling gays they are in the wrong is, well, wrong. I don’t care if they use the excuse of “hate the sin,Love the sinner”. It’s wrong.
The Left telling a Christian baker that they have to bake a cake for a gay wedding is wrong. I don’t care if they feel like it’s discrimination against a “protected class”. It’s wrong.
The Right saying “hey gay dude, I don’t agree with your gayness but I hope you have a happy and prosperous marriage” and move on from it is the right thing to do.
The Left saying “hey baker, I don’t agree with you not baking a cake due to your religion, but it’s your biz and I respect your decision” and move on from it is the right thing to do.
I just feel that we should be able to live together with our differences without having to turn to the gov to push our beliefs on others. This is a small example but expand it out to other issues, and that’s where I stand.
Bingo! When people become too far apart in their beliefs, they should go their separate ways so they can all be happy. Unfortunately, a lot of people are only happy if they can force other people to conform to their beliefs.