American Politics

[MarquisdeSade1]

"Thanks. The facts and data are always convincing. And I absolutely have the facts and data on my side.

Hmm. John Wayne Gacy might be one of the rare exceptions to the serial killer thing you suggested.

However, there is no exception to that consistent, beyond all possible matters of chance or coincidence atrocious Outgoing Repub handoff to the Incoming Dem vs the Far Superior Outgoing Dem handoff to the Incoming Repub historical pattern for the past century or so.

Now, if the lucky Incoming Repubs varied wildly in the kind of idiotic Repub economic and tax policies along with a general contempt and inattention to regulations and the enforcement of regulations they favored, proposed and were guided by before their typical Great Repub Depression, Great Repub Recession and / or Massive Repub Jobs Destruction inevitably kicked in, well, maybe we could chalk up most or some of those consistent Repub stewardship and policy results as "wild coincidences. ".

But they didn't and don't. That's why their historically disastrous results only vary by degree here and there. ".

Hitler was a Nationalist Socialist.

How about Mao.

How about Stalin.

How about Pol Pot.

How about Che or even Sodom Hussein (and yes related to Barry Hussein) and et al.

Add up all these deaths and brutal murders!!

[MarquisdeSade1]

"No wonder polls are showing registered voter respondents fleeing from Biden and the Dems and flocking to Trump and his fellow Repubs today! Same as we read about here, of course.

Just look at what Mainstream Media has been harping on and what all Repubs, all Repubs claiming to be "Independents" and some other poll respondents claiming to be Dems agree is the most terrifying threat to the America today:

Top newspapers mention Bidens age more than twice as often as Trumps.

Since the president announced his 2024 campaign, five major USA Papers have mentioned Bidens age in 332 articles and Trumps in just 158.

https://www.mediamatters.org/los-ang...e-often-trumps

Gov. Karen Has Had It, Is Taking 'Woke' Words To The Manager.

Wait, is she the manager, or is there a CEO at the Woke Department she's going to talk to?

https://crooksandliars.com/2023/10/g...ing-woke-words

And take a gander at the delicious carrot of plans Trump is dangling over American voters' eyes if their terror over the previous issues works as hoped for by Bill Maher and MSM and they grace America and the World with a second of many future Trump so-called presidential terms!

Donald Trumps answer on what he would do in a 2nd term is literally unintelligible.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/28/polit...mes/index.html

27 Insane Things Trump Said he Will Do in a 2nd Term.

A list with dates and links.

https://www.meidastouch.com/news/27-...-in-a-2nd-term

Seriously, who can hear and read those issues and not be compelled to reject Biden / Dems and embrace Trump / Pink Tinkle Do Nothing Know Nothings in the polls?

Whats wrong your couldn't find more ridiculous websites to link, pro tip try the Onion.

Oh wait that's where I think you grabbed these silly links.

No offense jajajaja but nobody with even only an ounce of intelligence would read those childish websites.

Here Ill even throw you sum help jajajajaja.

https://justthenews.com/accountabili...d-be-disbanded

Go ahead ET now you can start posting Newsguard links they are right up your tinfoil hat alley jajajajajajajajaja.

[The Cane]

In the Republican way!

[MarquisdeSade1]

Per ETs characterizations of Dirty Joes mayhem and murderous crime wave sweeping every corner of the country 24/7.

https://www.aol.com/news/senate-warn...080049392.html

https://www.aol.com/news/son-nashvil...tR4j1cf1iXLYq8

[EihTooms]

"Ted Bundy, Republican:

https://law.jrank.org/pages/12174/Bu...nnections.html

In fact, Bundy was the kind of Repub whose appearance, presentation and chosen candidates to support most directly would peg him as one of those "normal" Republicans.

Jeffrey Dahmer's political affiliation is more difficult to determine. However, his family's influence and life choices strongly suggest he was a typical, closeted, conservative, anti-science, bible-thumping Repub:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer#text=In%20 early%201982%2 see%20 he%20 found, money%20 his%20 grandmother%20 gave%20 him.

And there is no doubt Hitler would have been drawn to Trump's Republican Party that praises, attracts and is practically exclusively represented in its voter base by "very fine people on both sides", but most especially on the Nazi side. ".

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023...on-both-sides/

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023...m-on-the-left/.

College students who don't think Bill Maher is funny enough to invite to appear on their campus anymore and Career Liar, Nude Grinbitch? LOL.

My my. Well, it says a lot if you think what a handful of college students say about "very fine people on both sides" carries as much weight or is it more weight than your oh so much strength-projecting lord and savior did in generously embracing Nazis on the world stage as a so-called president of the United states.

Sad.

[EihTooms]

LOL. It's fun to see that Ronnie is still coated with Teflon and that Grinbitch's only contribution to how congressional Repubs "govern and legislate" lives on in the Repub Pink Tinklers of today.

Thank goodness Reagan spent and spent and spent on the military throughout his so-called presidency in order to "end the cold war" with Russia. Although there is zero evidence he was ever aware that was supposedly why he did it at the time. Why, if he hadn't done that the world would still he plagued by warlike Russian aggression and unprovoked invasions willy-nilly since the dust settled on that spectacularly expensive brilliant Reagan "victory"!

Uh. Well, except for 1994,1999, 2008,2014 and 2022, that is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion

And does anyone even need to link the number of times congressional Repubs (and so-called potuses) could only come up with Grinbitchian threats to shut down the government whenever all the heavy lifting and political risk taking by Dems was already producing historic positive gains for the country and, therefore, Repubs desperately needed to put and end to that before the next election?

Nope.

[EihTooms]

No wonder polls are showing registered voter respondents fleeing from Biden and the Dems and flocking to Trump and his fellow Repubs today! Same as we read about here, of course.

Just look at what Mainstream Media has been harping on and what all Repubs, all Repubs claiming to be "Independents" and some other poll respondents claiming to be Dems agree is the most terrifying threat to the America today:

Top newspapers mention Bidens age more than twice as often as Trumps.
Since the president announced his 2024 campaign, five major U.S. papers have mentioned Bidens age in 332 articles and Trumps in just 158.

https://www.mediamatters.org/los-ang...e-often-trumps

Gov. Karen Has Had It, Is Taking 'Woke' Words To The Manager.
Wait, is she the manager, or is there a CEO at the Woke Department she's going to talk to?

https://crooksandliars.com/2023/10/g...ing-woke-words

And take a gander at the delicious carrot of plans Trump is dangling over American voters' eyes if their terror over the previous issues works as hoped for by Bill Maher and MSM and they grace America and the World with a second of many future Trump so-called presidential terms!

Donald Trumps answer on what he would do in a 2nd term is literally unintelligible.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/28/polit...mes/index.html

27 Insane Things Trump Said He Will Do in a 2nd Term.
A list with dates and links.

https://www.meidastouch.com/news/27-...-in-a-2nd-term

Seriously, who can hear and read those issues and not be compelled to reject Biden / Dems and embrace Trump / Pink Tinkle Do Nothing Know Nothings in the polls?

[Tiny 12]

Both the Democrats and the Republicans spend like drunken sailors on shore leave.

Agreed

The difference is what they choose to spend the money on. Oh, and the Republicans like to give their rich friends huge tax breaks

So do Democrats. Look at the capital gains treatment of performance fees for fund managers, also known as carried interest. Tricky Chuck Schumer has managed to keep this in effect for many years, while putting the blame on others, most recently Kyrsten Sinema. Or look at the tax benefits given by Democrats to manufacturers and consumers of green energy.

while they keep spending away like crazy on their pet projects and causes. Under the Republicans, virtually everything the Pentagon asks for it gets, no matter how costly.

Agreed. However, I give Reagan a pass. High defense spending in the 1980's was part of the reason for the end of the cold war, and provided a "peace dividend", equivalent to about 3% of GDP per year, that helped enable Clinton, Gingrich and others to balance the budget in the late 1990's. Also, this ain't your Daddy's Democratic Party no more Cane. Or, well, actually maybe it is. LBJ was a Democrat. The mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans are both on board with giving the Pentagon what it wants. And even what it doesn't want if there's a weapons system or military base in your Congressional district that the brass want to do away with. The outliers are the true Progressives and the Libertarian right.

Democrats have their pet causes too, and they squander more money on them than Republicans IMHO. You saw that in action during 2021 and 2022, with massive amounts of pork and corporate welfare appropriated for said pet causes through the infrastructure bill, CHIPS act, and ridiculously-named Inflation Reduction Act.

If the dollar wasn't the world's reserve currency we would be absolutely screwed!

Absolutely agreed! And I'm not mimicking you. I really do absolutely agree.

And let us not forget that there have only been two balanced budgets in recent history, and both times under Democratic presidents, with 2001 being the last time. To balance the federal budget, government revenue must meet or exceed government spending. That's happened only twice in the past half-century plus: President Lyndon Johnson did it in 1969,

You're cherry picking Cane. If you're going back 54 years so you can count Johnson's $3.2 billion surplus in 1969, then why shouldn't you go back another 9 to 13 years and count Eisenhower's 3.9 billion surplus in 1956, 3.4 billion surplus in 1957, and $301 million surplus in 1960?

and President Bill Clinton from 1998 to 2001. Those are just the facts of the matter.

You're ignoring the role of Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, and Congressional Republicans who controlled the Senate and the House during that period. The best combination for controlling deficits is a Democratic President and Republican House. You saw that earlier this year, when McCarthy and House Republicans managed to claw back $1.5 trillion of the $5+ trillion of unfunded spending legislated by Democrats in 2021 and 2022. Also there was the aforementioned peace dividend. Defense spending as a % of GDP dropped from 6.1% to 6.8% during the Reagan Administration to 3.1% to 3.2% during 1998 to 2001, before jumping up to around 4% as a result of George W. Bush's ill advised war in Iraq.

[MarquisdeSade1]

Ross Douthat.

By Ross Douthat.

Opinion Columnist and host of the "Matter of Opinion" podcast.

On Thursday, Joe Biden gave a speech linking the Israel-Hamas conflict and the Russian invasion of Ukraine and framing American involvement as part of a grand strategy to contain our enemies and rivals. "When terrorists don't pay a price for their terror, when dictators don't pay a price for their aggression," he declared, "they keep going. And the cost and the threats to America and the world keep rising. ".

Listen to 'Matter of Opinion'.

Ross Douthat and his co-hosts are joined by Thomas L. Friedman to discuss the evolving situation in the Middle East and Netanyahu's "incompetent" cabinet.

Opinion.

Michelle Cottle, Ross Douthat and Lydia Polgreen.

Thomas L. Friedman on Israel's 'Morally Impossible Situation'.

Oct. 20,2023.

Broadly speaking, Biden is correct; the United States has a strong interest in preventing rival powers from redrawing maps or undermining America's democratic allies. But the difference between the president's strategic analysis and the kind I've tried to offer recently is twofold: the general absence, in Biden's words, of any acknowledgment of difficult trade-offs and the specific absence of any reference to China as a potentially more significant threat than Russia or Iran.

These absences are not particularly surprising. It's normal for American presidents to say chest-pounding things like "There is nothing, nothing beyond our capacity" rather than to talk about possible limits on our strength. And since we don't actually want to be at war with China, it makes a certain sense to avoid lumping Beijing in with Moscow and Tehran.

But presidential rhetoric and policy are inevitably linked, and the China threat that doesn't exist in Biden's speech barely exists in his funding request: The administration is asking Congress for over $60 billion for Ukraine, $14 billion for Israel and just $2 billion for the Indo-Pacific. Likewise, a president's rhetoric lacunas inform political priorities, at least within his own coalition. If you can't talk about why we need to worry about Chinese power alongside Russian or Iranian aggression, the people who listen to you may assume there's nothing to worry about.

So let me explain why I worry about China and why I keep insisting that a strategy of containment in the Pacific should be a priority, even when other threats seem more immediate.

Start with the geopolitical background. It makes sense to talk about China, Iran and Russia as a loose alliance trying to undermine American power, but it is not a trio of equals. Only China is an arguable peer of the United States, only China's technological and industrial might can hope to match our own, and only China has the capacity to project power globally as well as regionally.

Moreover, China offers a somewhat coherent ideological alternative to the liberal-democratic order. The Putin regime is a parody of Western democracy, and Iran's mixture of theocracy and pseudodemocracy holds little broad appeal. But China's one-party meritocracy can advertise itself — maybe less effectively since Xi Jinping's consolidation of power but still with some degree of plausibility — as a successor to democratic capitalism, an alternative model for the developing world.

These general strategic realities obviously aren't as threatening as actual aggression. But the threat China poses to Taiwan, in particular, has different implications for American power from the threat Russia poses to Ukraine or Hamas poses to Israel. Whatever happens in the Ukrainian conflict, America was never formally committed to Ukraine's defense, and Russia cannot realistically defeat NATO. Whatever misery Iran and its proxies may inflict upon the Middle East, they are not going to conquer Israel or drive American power out of the Levant.

But America is more committed (with whatever public ambiguity) to the defense of Taiwan, and that expectation has always been in the background of our larger alliance system in East Asia. And while six experts may give six different opinions, there are good reasons to think that China is open to invading Taiwan in the near future and that America could join such a war and lose outright.

China hawks tend to argue that losing a war over Taiwan would be much worse than our post-9/11 debacles, worse than letting Vladimir Putin hold the Donbas and Crimea permanently. You cannot definitively prove this, but I think they're right: The establishment of Chinese military pre-eminence in East Asia would be a unique geopolitical shock, with dire effects on the viability of America's alliance systems, on the likelihood of regional wars and arms races and on our ability to maintain the global trading system that undergirds our prosperity at home.

And it's at home where I fear the effects of such a defeat the most. America has experience losing wars of empire — in Vietnam and Afghanistan, for example, where we were extending ourselves without putting our full might into the fray. But we have no experience being defeated in straightforward combat, not guerrilla war, by a great-power rival and ideological competitor.

Whatever anxieties you have about our current political divisions, whether you fear left-wing disillusionment with America or right-wing disillusionment with democracy or both, such a defeat seems more likely than anything to accelerate us toward a real internal crisis. Which is why, even with other foreign crises burning hot, a debacle in East Asia remains the scenario that the United States should be working most intensely to avert.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We'the like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (at NYTOpinion) and Instagram.

Ross Douthat has been an Opinion columnist for The Times since 2009. He is the author, most recently, of "The Deep Places: A Memoir of Illness and Discovery. " at DouthatNYT • Facebook.

[MarquisdeSade1]

"Ted Bundy, Republican:

https://law.jrank.org/pages/12174/Bu...nnections.html

In fact, Bundy was the kind of Repub whose appearance, presentation and chosen candidates to support most directly would peg him as one of those "normal" Republicans.

Jeffrey Dahmer's political affiliation is more difficult to determine. However, his family's influence and life choices strongly suggest he was a typical, closeted, conservative, anti-science, bible-thumping Repub:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer#text=In%20 early%201982%2 see%20 he%20 found, money%20 his%20 grandmother%20 gave%20 him.

And there is no doubt Hitler would have been drawn to Trump's Republican Party that praises, attracts and is practically exclusively represented in its voter base by "very fine people on both sides", but most especially on the Nazi side. ".

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023...on-both-sides/

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023...m-on-the-left/

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023...ocratic-party/

Do you always use double speak, or just when you want to look really xtra silly here?

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023...ocratic-party/

And there is no doubt Hitler would have been drawn to Trump's Republican Party that praises, attracts and is practically exclusively represented in its voter base by "very fine people on both sides", but most especially on the Nazi side.

And there is no doubt Hitler would have been drawn to Trump's Republican Party that praises, attracts and is practically exclusively represented in its voter base by "very fine people on both sides", but most especially on the Nazi side.

And there is no doubt Hitler would have been drawn to Trump's Republican Party that praises, attracts and is practically exclusively represented in its voter base by "very fine people on both sides", but most especially on the Nazi side.

And there is no doubt Hitler would have been drawn to Trump's Republican Party that praises, attracts and is practically exclusively represented in its voter base by "very fine people on both sides", but most especially on the Nazi side.

And there is no doubt Hitler would have been drawn to Trump's Republican Party that praises, attracts and is practically exclusively represented in its voter base by "very fine people on both sides", but most especially on the Nazi side.

And there is no doubt Hitler would have been drawn to Trump's Republican Party that praises, attracts and is practically exclusively represented in its voter base by "very fine people on both sides", but most especially on the Nazi side.

And there is no doubt Hitler would have been drawn to Trump's Republican Party that praises, attracts and is practically exclusively represented in its voter base by "very fine people on both sides", but most especially on the Nazi side.

[MarquisdeSade1]

"Age and gender of children sexually abused by priests:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...he-abuse-began

Excerpt from New York Times Article, It Is Not a Closet. It Is a Cage. Gay Catholic Priests Speak Out.

The crisis over sexuality in the Catholic Church goes beyond abuse. It goes to the heart of the priesthood, into a closet that is trapping thousands of men.

Fewer than about 10 priests in the United States have dared to come out publicly. But gay men probably make up at least 30 to 40 percent of the American Catholic clergy, according to dozens of estimates from gay priests themselves and researchers. Some priests say the number is closer to 75 percent. One priest in Wisconsin said he assumed every priest was gay unless he knows for a fact he is not. A priest in Florida put it this way: A third are gay, a third are straight and a third don't know what the hell they are.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/17/u...speak-out.html

Regardless of whether it's a boy or a girl, or the sexual orientation of the perpetrator, it's sick. We all agree about that. ".

When I whisper in their ear I want to "RAPE the fuck out of you" theyve replied.

"you cannot rape the willing".

Regardless of whether it's a boy or a girl, or the sexual orientation of the perpetrator, it's sick. We all agree about that. ".

No we can't all agree, that's ASININE!! On steroids.

Have you ever asked girlfriends or wives their sexually fantasies? Many will say to be forcibly raped by 1 or more men.

Now ask 1000000000 straight teen boys their sexual fantasies, how many do you think will say to be raped by a man?

[MarquisdeSade1]

Age and gender of children sexually abused by priests:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig3_247523934

Excerpt from New York Times Article, It Is Not a Closet. It Is a Cage. Gay Catholic Priests Speak Out.

The crisis over sexuality in the Catholic Church goes beyond abuse. It goes to the heart of the priesthood, into a closet that is trapping thousands of men.

Fewer than about 10 priests in the United States have dared to come out publicly. But gay men probably make up at least 30 to 40 percent of the American Catholic clergy, according to dozens of estimates from gay priests themselves and researchers. Some priests say the number is closer to 75 percent. One priest in Wisconsin said he assumed every priest was gay unless he knows for a fact he is not. A priest in Florida put it this way: A third are gay, a third are straight and a third don't know what the hell they are.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/17/u...speak-out.html

Regardless of whether it's a boy or a girl, or the sexual orientation of the perpetrator, it's sick. We all agree about that. ".

Here's a hypothetical question.

When you were in grammar school.

What do you think would have been the impact of some female teacher did something with you sexually?

https://people.com/crime/mary-kay-le...i-fualaau-now/

With lots of law enforcement men with my friends and family.

The joke is, prison is for ugly women and stoopid men.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20.../24/usa.gender

No one is locking up beautiful white women for having sex with their students, nor should they!!

[EihTooms]

Both the Democrats and the Republicans spend like drunken sailors on shore leave. The difference is what they choose to spend the money on. Oh, and the Republicans like to give their rich friends huge tax breaks while they keep spending away like crazy on their pet projects and causes. Under the Republicans, virtually everything the Pentagon asks for it gets, no matter how costly. If the dollar wasn't the world's reserve currency we would be absolutely screwed! And let us not forget that there have only been two balanced budgets in recent history, and both times under Democratic presidents, with 2001 being the last time. To balance the federal budget, government revenue must meet or exceed government spending. That's happened only twice in the past half-century plus: President Lyndon Johnson did it in 1969, and President Bill Clinton from 1998 to 2001. Those are just the facts of the matter.

That just doesn't sound like "guilt" on Both Sides anywhere close to equal measure though. Especially when you factor in Dem spending being done in order to pull us out of one Great Repub Depression or Great Repub Recession and Massive Repub Jobs Destruction after another while there is no Repub spending re Dem results counterpart to that going back to at least the 1920's.

Further, if we would be screwed if the USA Dollar were not the world's reserve currency, I am sure you must know there is only one side pulling every stunt in the book to lay the foundation for that to happen; the Repub Party.

BTW, has any incoming Dem POTUS squandered and shit all over a balanced budget or surplus handed to him by an outgoing Repub POTUS rather than the other way around? LOL.

Serious question. I have only seen Incoming Repubs do that with budgets balanced by Outgoing Dems in my lifetime.

[MarquisdeSade1]

Surely, if my post was so "stoopid", a man of your "stature", "intellect" and "reasoning", can I never heard of any nuns fucking the other altar boys or, I certainly would of been all over it". Correct me if I wrong, but it sounds like your saying, you'd wouldn't have minded getting sexually abuse by nuns.

Is it so difficult for you find the words, to explain what you meant by your comments?

Here are several articles on minors being abused by nuns: Women Sexually Abused By Catholic Nuns Speak Up: She Told Me.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nuns-...b0d3a48b563001

Sexual Abuse of Nuns: Longstanding Church Scandal Emerges From.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/w...buse-nuns.html

I stand by my statement w / are to the church as an opportunity offender.

These Are The Chilling Stories Of Abuse Covered Up By The Catholic Church.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/these...b0df9b093b7235

Not sure what you think is so "dumb" about my statement, but the above article by the Huffington post, substantiates my statement. Note, the alleged clergymen / priests weren't classified as either as "gay" or "straight", but simply "predator priests", abusing both "BOYS" and "GIRLS".

A few of may fav quotes on this subject matter:

"Vulgarity is the effort of a weak mind to forcibly express itself" -Unknown quote.

"Profanity never indicates high station or a well bred person. It is an evidence of low breeding, of limited ideas and a weak mind. " -Source: "Profanity," in Massachusetts Reformatory, Our Paper (November 24,1906).

In truth, the ISG forum's "IGNORE button", really doesn't work that well in practice. But by all means, you're welcome to use it!

The real trick to "IGNORING" other ISGers (when they've hurt your itty-bitty feelings, shame you, belittle you or were being silly towards you, or just plain outwitted you), is to show some "will power" and restraint" and use that the real "god-given" IGNORE button in your brains (assuming that is, you have all your faculties in check).

The lady doth protest too much me thinks.

Shame me? You are a vile (probably morbidly obese) creature taking offense to me calling Gay dudes that rape little boys rapists, your offense is extremely suspicious.

Out smart me? Doubtful, you sound like a garden variety dirtbag that's playing with the internet between prison stints.

I wonder if the courts allow registered sex offenders to use ISG, does your parole officer know you use this website?

Let me guess you're using the free wifi at McDonalds so your parole officer or your prison half way house doesn't see all your male child porn activity.

Lastly, where did you find your victims? The boy scouts? Church?

[EihTooms]

Your proof of cause and effect for the party of the president and economic performance is just as convincing as your identification of party affiliation of serial killers.

Thanks. The facts and data are always convincing. And I absolutely have the facts and data on my side.

Hmm. John Wayne Gacy might be one of the rare exceptions to the serial killer thing you suggested.

However, there is no exception to that consistent, beyond all possible matters of chance or coincidence atrocious Outgoing Repub handoff to the Incoming Dem vs the Far Superior Outgoing Dem handoff to the Incoming Repub historical pattern for the past century or so.

Now, if the lucky Incoming Repubs varied wildly in the kind of idiotic Repub economic and tax policies along with a general contempt and inattention to regulations and the enforcement of regulations they favored, proposed and were guided by before their typical Great Repub Depression, Great Repub Recession and / or Massive Repub Jobs Destruction inevitably kicked in, well, maybe we could chalk up most or some of those consistent Repub stewardship and policy results as "wild coincidences. ".

But they didn't and don't. That's why their historically disastrous results only vary by degree here and there.