Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But zeek's idols, those other wealthy $Billionaires who financed Socialist Democrats all across the nation, including his own boy Gillam, they are not "Mammon Incarnate."

That God for zeek's altruistic leftist gods, like Steyer, Oprah, Soros, Bloomberg, etc.

Like I said many times, I would rather have a successful and patriotic business man "buy" the Presidency, than a jobless community organizer "sell" the Presidency to foreign powers. Tell me again how Obama can make $400K for 8 years and leave a Billionaire.

Suffice it to say that whereas by parroting Fox News, Breitbart and other extremist sources Mr. Ohio has with few exceptions defended Trump for years on this very thread you will be hard pressed to find me defending the immoral behavior of any of the people he claims are my "gods".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Suffice it to say that whereas by parroting Fox News, Breitbart and other extremist sources Mr. Ohio has with few exceptions defended Trump for years on this very thread you will be hard pressed to find me defending the immoral behavior of any of the people he claims are my "gods".

I do prefer accurate sources. Sources that own up to error, and those that value journalistic integrity. If they are conservative and labled "extremist" then so be it.

It's so easy for you to stand up for nothing, and attack everyone and everything else, including those who try to do good. But, as they say, those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.

I do take a lot of heat on alt-views for standing up for the integrity of the word of God and for conservative leaders. I find it humorous watching leftist media outlets today using G.H.W. Bush's character and leadership integrity to again attack Trump. When Bush was alive, they hated him. They have repeated this pattern since Eisenhower. They hated "W" until Trump came along. One day they will extol Trump while trashing some future conservative President.

Some never will see thru the hypocrisy.

It should be troubling to all decent people today watching how leftist media sources constantly take positions contrary to Trump, just to smear him. Obama was once for a border wall, once for the defense of marriage, once for moving the US Embassy to Israel, once for granting DACA's a pathway to citizenship, etc. etc. and the Left constantly gave him a pass. But when Trump now acts on Obama's former platform, the Left goes apoplectic, as if Trump acted on some new policy.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

One day they will extol Trump while trashing some future conservative President.

If there comes a day when a president makes us look back and miss Trump, he'll be a dictator, like Putin ... and many others. And that president will not make America great again. Let's hope that's not the future of America.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Some never will see thru the hypocrisy.

It definitely discredits them in my eyes.

Originally Posted by Ohio

It should be troubling to all decent people today watching how leftist media sources constantly take positions contrary to Trump, just to smear him. Obama was once for a border wall, once for the defense of marriage, once for moving the US Embassy to Israel, once for granting DACA's a pathway to citizenship, etc. etc. and the Left constantly gave him a pass. But when Trump now acts on Obama's former platform, the Left goes apoplectic, as if Trump acted on some new policy.

It is troubling to me that some of these outlets feel obligated to hate all things Trump. They lose credibility.

For example, Herbert Hoover was one of the most respected businessmen when elected president, yet our opinion of him as president was terrible to mediocre at best. On the other hand FDR may be vilified for his policies but most everyone has to agree he was one of the top ten presidents in US history, perhaps even top 5. He navigated the US through both the Depression and WWII and had a very neat handoff to a very capable successor. FDR was a much more skilled politician than Hoover, though in many other respects not as successful.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I do prefer accurate sources. Sources that own up to error, and those that value journalistic integrity. If they are conservative and labled "extremist" then so be it.

It's so easy for you to stand up for nothing, and attack everyone and everything else, including those who try to do good. But, as they say, those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.

I do take a lot of heat on alt-views for standing up for the integrity of the word of God and for conservative leaders. I find it humorous watching leftist media outlets today using G.H.W. Bush's character and leadership integrity to again attack Trump. When Bush was alive, they hated him. They have repeated this pattern since Eisenhower. They hated "W" until Trump came along. One day they will extol Trump while trashing some future conservative President.

Some never will see thru the hypocrisy.

It should be troubling to all decent people today watching how leftist media sources constantly take positions contrary to Trump, just to smear him. Obama was once for a border wall, once for the defense of marriage, once for moving the US Embassy to Israel, once for granting DACA's a pathway to citizenship, etc. etc. and the Left constantly gave him a pass. But when Trump now acts on Obama's former platform, the Left goes apoplectic, as if Trump acted on some new policy.

I can understand your turn to right wing media due to your childhood disappointment with liberal democracy. The question is whether you have just turned to sources that tell you what you want to hear or whether you are pursuing objective facts and thinking critically about what you learn from all sources. If people don't recognize that Trump is pursuing the policies of Obama perhaps they would be helped if Trump ever gave Obama an ounce of credit for anything instead of blame for everything. But of course the pendulum swing that characterizes the two party bipolar disordered partisanship in this country didn't start with Trump. He just exacerbated it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I can understand your turn to right wing media due to your childhood disappointment with liberal democracy. The question is whether you have just turned to sources that tell you what you want to hear or whether you are pursuing objective facts and thinking critically about what you learn from all sources. If people don't recognize that Trump is pursuing the policies of Obama perhaps they would be helped if Trump ever gave Obama an ounce of credit for anything instead of blame for everything. But of course the pendulum swing that characterizes the two party bipolar disordered partisanship in this country didn't start with Trump. He just exacerbated it.

First, liberal "democracy" did not "fail me" when Roe was decided in 1973, it was judicial activism on the highest court.

Politics is nasty business. I just heard a story of Dole and Bush 41 -- at one time they had such a heated political contest, yet Dole stood to salute him. Bush41 said, "politics is what we do, it does not define us." Bill Clinton is another politician who rose above the fray to befriend former combatants, and put politics aside. Apparently Trump and the Bush family have long put differences aside. Kavanaugh was confirmed due to Bush 43's efforts.

Regarding Obama, he has changed, at least regarding certain policies I mentioned. That was my earlier point.

I'm not sure which is worse, media or politics. They fuel each other. The arrival of cable news, and now social media, has only made things more toxic.

I view things, not as a line with left and right, but as a circle where left and right meet on the other side. Many liberal views match libertarian views. Some of Trump's policies, eg trade, union jobs, infrastructure, getting out of foreign wars, etc. were very similar to Bernie Sanders and Sharrod Brown, yet politics prevents them from working together on policy. Except for Joe Manchin, no Democrat dares to side with Trump.

Regarding objective news sources, I have studied way too much regarding Trump and Mueller. I have studied Mueller's history as a prosecutor, and it ain't pretty. It is extremely disappointing what I never hear from the media. Anyways, there's little chance that I can ever persuade you on this, but as Americans we all should be concerned with "process crimes."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Regarding objective news sources, I have studied way too much regarding Trump and Mueller. I have studied Mueller's history as a prosecutor, and it ain't pretty. It is extremely disappointing what I never hear from the media. Anyways, there's little chance that I can ever persuade you on this, but as Americans we all should be concerned with "process crimes."

The history of appointing special or independent prosecutors has become quite dangerous to our American system. The Founders never envisioned this. Neither Starr nor Mueller ever accomplished their original directives, unless their real mission was purely political. Both concluded their investigations with "process crimes," aka as "perjury traps."

Clinton was never convicted of Whitewater crimes, rather for lying to protect himself and his marriage. Flynn pled guilty to lying because he was broke. The real message here is never talk to the FBI or federal prosecutors. Plead the Fifth. If you don't, you can be convicted. Not for actually lying about a crime, but for misremembering or forgetting something, or for protecting your family.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The history of appointing special or independent prosecutors has become quite dangerous to our American system. The Founders never envisioned this. Neither Starr nor Mueller ever accomplished their original directives, unless their real mission was purely political. Both concluded their investigations with "process crimes," aka as "perjury traps."

Clinton was never convicted of Whitewater crimes, rather for lying to protect himself and his marriage. Flynn pled guilty to lying because he was broke. The real message here is never talk to the FBI or federal prosecutors. Plead the Fifth. If you don't, you can be convicted. Not for actually lying about a crime, but for misremembering or forgetting something, or for protecting your family.

This is true and don't know what the solution is. But if we are going to talk about special investigators you have to include Nixon and Watergate.

Too much politics. We have taken financial policy out of the hands of the politicians, we should do the same with these special investigations. Perhaps judges with a lifetime appointment, dare I say the Supreme court, should have to determine if a special prosecutor is necessary and if so oversee an investigation. Senate has to call for it, Supreme court has to decide it is warranted, and Congress has to fund it. That would prevent highly partisan politics from controlling the process.

I am also going to be very disgusted if the sum total of Mueller's findings is that Trump is a shady businessman who does business with people who lie to investigators. We knew that before he even started.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am also going to be very disgusted if the sum total of Mueller's findings is that Trump is a shady businessman who does business with people who lie to investigators. We knew that before he even started.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find another kind of successful businessman. Do you think Manafort is any worse than the Podesta brothers? Did Comey, McCabe, Lynch, Yates, Holder, Strzok, Page, etc. never lie to investigators?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

First, liberal "democracy" did not "fail me" when Roe was decided in 1973, it was judicial activism on the highest court.

It was unrighteous and unconstitutional. Anyone who supports this decision comes across as someone who will allow their bias to justify anything.

In my opinion it is undeniable that this is a religious issue and therefore is not under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and rather should be decided by each individual State. Likewise, who is the Supreme court to decide when a baby is or is not human? Everything about this decision to me is an outrage.

There have been some very horrendous decisions by the Supreme Court: Dredd Scott and Roe v Wade are two of the most heinous.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It was unrighteous and unconstitutional. Anyone who supports this decision comes across as someone who will allow their bias to justify anything.

In my opinion it is undeniable that this is a religious issue and therefore is not under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and rather should be decided by each individual State. Likewise, who is the Supreme court to decide when a baby is or is not human? Everything about this decision to me is an outrage.

There have been some very horrendous decisions by the Supreme Court: Dredd Scott and Roe v Wade are two of the most heinous.

It was truly incredible how many lies were used to deceive the Court over Roe, but then again, perhaps Burger had decided to act long before Roe came to the court.

Never saw a "Living Document" shed so much blood.

History shows us that Ted Kennedy killed Mary Jo Kopechne and "Borked" Roe v. Wadw.

[zeek]

duplicate post--but a damn good one.