LOL - You don't remember him telling North Korea that they will be "met with fire and fury like the world has never seen"? You don't remember him telling Iran that they will suffer consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before" ??? These are actual quotes BTW, from Trump himself not the "liberal media". And his repeated assertion that our actions will be more colossal than anything the world has ever seen is pretty serious considering what the world HAS seen.

And these are just two examples that come to mind... I know there's more (as if I need anymore to make the point). I have to get ready to go, so I don't have time to do this right now, but later, I'll find actual videos of him saying these things and share them with you, 'cause I don't know where you were when he said these things but you really missed out - these statements made headlines around the world because what "the world has never seen before", is a leader of a democratic nation making any such threats in the public forum toward anyone. Kim Jong, yeah... Bin Laden, sure... but the President of the United States?

I'm sure you can find some way to excuse him, but I can't. The world is well aware of U.S. military might so it's really not something we need to brag about and doing so shows a very impulsive and juvenile side of the guy you seem to think is qualified to command our military.

Well, you can disagree all you like but it doesn't change the truth.


That is absolutely true. I know this issue drives conservatives up the wall but racism is a form of exclusion and as such is has always been associated with the right. Your confusion comes from an inability to separate "left and right" from "Democrat and Republican". I've seen this a hundred times.

If you're up for a little reading check this out... http://factmyth.com/factoids/democrats-and-republicans-switched-platforms/ You probably won't agree with it but at least it explains things so you know I'm not just pulling this out of my a-s. If you happen to find fault in the assessment let me know.


No it's true, but your denial is awesome! ;)

Not in Montana, not in North or South Dakota, not in Nebraska or Missouri, not in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama or Georgia...

In those places conservatives are still interfering with freedom by telling the gay people they can't get married.

OK - well that sounds reasonable enough... that is if we're talking apples and apples. But Barracuda wasn't talking apples and apples. He was basically an apple talking about an orange (no pun intended). In other words... Yes, a private citizen has every right to criticize the president for his lack of military experience regardless of his own military experience or lack thereof by virtue of the fact that the president is the frickin' Commander in Chief of the entire military.

Does a patient have to go to medical school before he can criticize a doctor for not going to one? Does a homeowner need a contractor's licence before he can say anything about a contractor who doesn't?

Apples and Oranges my friend...


It's possible he just didn't think it was relevant. I mean, I obviously didn't think it was either.


If you remember Obama didn't serve either but he didn't get that same treatment and the reason why is because he wasn't running around telling everyone how we're going to blow them off the map. THAT is the reason why Trump "haters" are so critical of his military experience. It's been my observation that military commanders are much less likely to rattle their sabers than civilian politicians and there's good reason to believe that's because the military commanders are more familiar with the consequences. Trump has already proven himself to be incredibly impulsive and many of us think he also indecisive; several times now he has tweeted warnings of doom and destruction only to dial it back after his advisors finally get him to STFU and listen to them. These are NOT good traits for a commander in chief and I think it's entirely reasonable to suspect his lack of military experience may preclude him from fully appreciating the consequences of what he so often suggests.


Yes, everytime I log into OPP - ;)


No it's not, but some jobs require that you deal with it anyway and the POTUS is one of those jobs. If Trump is so frail that he needs to be defended by his fans against criticism he should't have applied for the job in the first place.


Again... every time I log in... and you know what? It's not a big deal. Trump spends his time in the lap of luxury surrounded by people who worship him, not with the common people who criticize him. So I wouldn't worry too much.

4430, why was it so important to you that Barracuda answer that question? I don't see how it has any bearing on Trump's lack of military service or any resulting criticism about it. Barracuda isn't the Commander in Chief - Trump is.

When I turned 18 I registered for the draft just in case it was reinstated and my country needed me. But like Barracuda, I had plans for my life that didn't include the service, so long as it was optional. But I also had a conviction from early on that the U.S. military is being used to suit the needs of the plutocracy, mostly Big Oil and they kill a lot of innocent people for that money. So I take tremendous pride in NOT serving.

Not so sound hateful, but I don't thank the military either. I used to fly in and out of San Diego all the time and I would often have conversations with young Marines on leave. Great kids and I admire their courage and their passion, but I never thanked them because that would be dishonest coming from me. Thank them for what? My freedom? What does that even mean?

I've lived in a number of places outside the U.S. and found that they have as much freedom out there as we do in here. I suppose one could argue that we have more freedom when it comes to buying guns, but that's about it. It doesn't seem like much because you can still own a gun in England as I did, you just can't by military grade, that's all.

And who is the military supposedly defending our freedom from? I can't think of ANY nation that wants to invade the U.S. and take away our freedoms and it's not because the U.S. military is a deterrent, it's because there's no actual reason to do it.

Seriously, there isn't much here that invaders can take that isn't already for sale. The difference is that when countries like China purchase large shares of America they get all the benefits without the liabilities of military occupation.

I'm not saying America is safe from threats, there's plenty of threat out there, but it's mostly coming from within our system which is something the military is useless against. I see conservatives impeding on freedom everytime they tell gay people they can't get married. I see liberals impeding on freedom everytime they tell gun enthusiasts they can't by an AK-47. And you know who I see defending these freedoms? Lawyers. As unpopular as they are in our pop-culture, lawyers and activists are the real champions of our freedom, not the military.

If anything, I think the military should be thanking the citizens for taking care of them. A tremendous amount of tax dollars goes to pay for everything the military does, from the munitions they use to the food they eat. The military has long been a sanctuary for young men who have trouble standing up on their own with great options like a paid college education... Paid by who? Paid by the American tax payers and what do those tax payers get back in return? Imaginary protection from imaginary threats to our freedom? Less funding for things like healthcare?

I hope this doesn't offend you too much. I'm not trying to insult those who served, like I said I have great admiration for those who put themselves in harms way thinking they're fighting for their country. I just don't think they realize how they're being used or how unrelated their efforts really are to American freedom. Most times, I just don't have the heart to break it to them.

Yeah... I'm going to disagree with your bit about Leftists hating him and the Right standing by him. That really makes no sense to me at all. I think people get a little confused between their "left and right" and the juxtaposition that spectrum always crosses with other spectrums like "liberal vs conservative" and "Republican vs Democrat". None of these spectrums are the same, nor are they historically tied to each other.

Political parties are instrumental platforms of compromise and leverage and as such they can shift positions in much the same way the government can, it just depends on who is driving. There is no real anchoring to ideology as many people seem to think and a political party can drift in any direction at all.

Conservative vs Liberal is a little more rooted to the ideas of tradition, where conservatives fight to preserve tradition (or the status quo) and liberals fight to "liberate" themselves from it.

Left vs Right is probably the most nebulous of all these spectrums but despite the ambiguity a number of concepts have stood the test of time, such as the fact that every leftward movement since the French Revolution has always fought for an open society while every rightward movement has always fought for a closed society. We see this today with those on the right demanding we build a wall and accusing the left of wanting open borders. We saw it in Nazi Germany when the right wanted to exclude Jews and Gypsies from their society, in fact Hitler hated communists BECAUSE they pursued an international (inclusive) agenda that he saw as a threat to his (exclusive) nationalism.

MLK came at an interesting juxtaposition when the Democratic party, which was the conservative party for decades was starting to warm up to leftist (inclusive) ideas such as LBJ's "Great Society" and many of those conservatives, especially in the South, left the party and ended the era of the Democratic South. They called them "Dixiecrats". In the years that followed, people like Nixon and Goldwater completed the transition by inviting the disenfranchised Dixiecrats to the Republican Party thereby creating the "New Republican Party". Meanwhile a lot of liberals previously in the Republican party jumped over to the Democratic Party. It doesn't happen often but our political parties actually have switched sides on several spectrums on several occasions.

So, getting back to your point. Those people who "hated" MLK were tied to the RIGHT by virtue of the fact that they didn't want the open their society to black folks. Many of them were probably Democrats because the transition was only starting to happen and most conservatives interested in preserving the status quo (blacks at the back of the bus) were still in that party.

So did Democrats hate MLK? Yes, many of them did. Were they leftists? No... not even close.

LOL - I'll start by agreeing with your final point... (indeed, there are many stupid voters... on all sides).

I also agree with your point about the law of averages. I too think that with humans being what they are, we should see more even numbers in the aggregate and this is why I pointed out the difference between the elected politicians and the appointed politicians, because when it comes to the elected politicians, the numbers ARE more even... well, 8 Democrats to 13 Republicans, but parity is lost on the appointed politicians 1 Democrat to 12 Republicans. So as I said, my conclusion there is that the Republican leaders are less excusable that the Republican voters.

I have some theories about the lesser difference between voters based on the idea that political differences often tie into cultural differences. For example, there is a certain "compliance" that is bred into people who come from a congregational culture. These people are effectively trained to believe what they are told by the pastor whom they are told to trust. There is no flexibility in this model. This culture is far more rooted on the right than it is on the left and I think it's effects carries into politics.

That being said. I'll go through your enumerations...

#1 - list is grossly inaccurate: I got the initial list from Wikipedia for reasons I stated earlier and I verified at least six of the names and found no error. I won't say inaccuracy is impossible but I think it's unlikely.

#2 - Republicans are by nature more dishonest than Democrats: This is where I have to ask if you're referring to private citizens or the politicians themselves. I don't think this statement applies to the average voter, but I suspect it does apply to the politicians (with exceptions on both sides of course).

#3 - Democrats being far more devious than Republicans: This time, I'll just assume we're talking about the politicians and yes, the thought HAS crossed my mind. It could be that the Democrats are just better at not getting caught. Of course there's no way to prove that either way.

#4 - voters reactions after convictions not accounted for: Hmm, I'm not really sure how reactions after convictions make any difference as to whether or not a politician is elected then convicted. Are you saying that if Republican voters are disappointed with a convicted politician they can take back their vote so we can take that name off the list?

#5 - Nationally Republicans outnumber Democrats leading to a higher number of disgraced politicians: The basic problem here is that nationally, Democrats outnumber Republicans. There are of course variations among the polls but the average result from all of them indicates Democrats are ahead by a significant margin. This is not a new trend either and it explains why the only presidents in my lifetime that won the EC but lost the popular vote were Republicans. It also explains why almost all of the recent gerrymandering is being done by Republicans. It makes sense... they are fighting the odds BECAUSE there are far more Democrats. Finally, I don't see ANY Republicans pushing to reform or eliminate the EC. That fight is all on the Democratic side which wouldn't make any sense unless they had the numbers.

I don't know about you but a lot of conservatives seem to get confused when they look at an election map and think because most of the surface area is red, it means there are more Republicans. But unless you're counting the cows and the trees as Republicans, this is assessment is erroneous. There are far more American citizens in those little blue blotches than there are in the large swaths of red. So if that's what you're going by, I suggest you find the maps that account for population not just acreage. Look up "cartograms".

Otherwise, I'm not sure why you would think there are more Republicans than Democrats.

I'll go with your #2 - with emphasis on politicians rather than voters and maybe #3 as an unprovable possibility.

Of course. None of us really know for sure until it happens. ;)

lol - I don't know about his niece either... I mean literally... I didn't even know he had one. Not sure it matters either. I know about King. I can hear his voice in my head as I read the speech. One of my favorite lines...

"We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline."

I hope these words don't get lost in the fury created by a media industry competing for our attention.

Happy MLK Day ya'all!

I just thought I'd put aside the squabbling for a moment to share the text of that famous speech by that great American figure that we honor with this day.

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we have come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.” But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “For Whites Only”. We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with a new meaning, “My country, ‘tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim’s pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.”

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

Obviously, they did or they wouldn't have proceeded.


Ah, yes... The completely unsubstantiated right-wing narrative. You need to add some memes of Pelosi shooting heroin - that should help your case ;)


You might see it different if you actually listen to what they are saying instead of just laughing at the memes.


You're calling a public demand for his tax returns, collusion. Ya wanna think about that for a minute? Also, just because the list of charges is long doesn't mean it's invalid. That would be like saying the holocaust was fake because 6 million Jews is too many to be real.


Are you forgetting the nonstop accusations the Republicans made against the Obamas and the Clintons that went on for much longer than three years? And THOSE accusations didn't even come with any evidence!


I'm pretty sure the Democrats are more connected to the average American than the Republicans are and unlike you I actually have a fact to back that up with... Democratic registration is up 40% of the total, Republican registration is only at 28%.

And as for this "duly elected president" crap... I don't give a flying rats ass how "legitimate" his election was, it's no excuse for his bad behavior. If anything, the Democrats are securing stronger support among the largest demographics because of the overwhelming disapproval for that POS you call a president.

When I posted that list of federal politicians that were convicted of crime, there were two columns... one with the list of Republicans and the other, a list of Democrats, therefore I HAVE considered "the beam in my own eye". But since my entire argument is to show conservatives who insist they are standing on higher ground, empirical evidence that their own side is actually more criminal, Mathew 7:3 does seem appropriate. So thanks for bringing that up ;)

The list is long but the article that permafrost linked to provides a good start. If you want me to give you an example, I suppose I can start with the frantic opposition to the impeachment trial. Whether or not you agree with the charges against Trump, the Constitution established the impeachment process for a reason and the Democrats apparently think that reason is enough to prosecute Trump. So, the ethical stance on this is to allow full consideration of the evidence and witness testimony and let that process determine if he is guilty or innocent. It should never matter who the defendant is, or which party he belongs to. What matters is upholding the Constitution.

The last thing Pelosi or any of the Democrats wanted to do is impeach Trump. Contrary to the right-wing narrative, most Democrats are confident they will win the election in 2020 and if the right is correct about anything it's that the acquittal that we all know is going to happen in Senate will more likely help Trump in 2020 than hurt him. So why then would they proceed?

The answer is ethics. Given the case against Trump, the Democrats were at risk of losing their own support if they didn't take a stand. So even if Trump is acquitted and even is he wins in 2020, the Democrats will still have at least preserved their ethical standing by impeaching him. On the other hand, the Republicans have done everything they can to frame this impeachment as a scam, going to far as to suggest the Senate dismiss the case or disallow any witnesses. McConnell actually stated publicly, that he will work in full cooperation with Trump, which is really no different than a judge telling a court that he's going to work in full cooperation with the defendant. Do you want to tell me how ethical you think that is?. All of this undermines the seriousness of the only Constitutional provision for dealing with a corrupt president and it's all being done to preserve the right-wing politics that Trump champions.



I'm gonna say that's all on you. I never actually said that, nor do I think it, nor do I think it's even possible for one faction for have everything right. In fact, I take the conservative side on a number of issues.

OK... none that I know of. Happy?

That being said however, I don't recall any politicians making such astounding promises and then failing to meet them, so Trump DOES stand out in that respect.

Still, if you paid more attention to what I was stating you would know that I mentioned campaign promises as being of lesser significance to the point I was making about normalizing shitty politics.


There's already been an abundance of back and forth on this issue and it's not relevant to the point I was making which is this... Trump supporters are willfully supporting a degradation in American ethics to protect their politics.

I'll say it again, so you get it this time...

Trump supporters are willfully supporting a degradation in American ethics to protect their politics.

I encourage you to find a solid argument to challenge this assessment. If that's too hard for you and you would rather spar over Trump's record on his campaign promises because you think he actually kept his promises then I'll start by giving you the same challenge you gave me... Name one.

Thanks for sharing that permafrost.

I certainly think the question regarding the loyalty of Trump's base is worth looking at and the article featured in the Atlantic really brings this question out - not so much underlining Trump's failure to meet campaign promises or the meaningless of his campaign promises in the first place, but more than anything, to highlight the significance of the attempted "normalization" of shitty politics.

Indeed, there was an era where politicians had to hide their corruption because they could never get it past the American people. This is something Republicans today very much depend on as they point to the Democratic past and suggest a wide range of crazy, hidden conspiracies. But what Trump did (and this is perhaps his greatest "accomplishment") is he pushed the envelope on what Americans are actually willing to accept and this is creating a new divide between us, not so much based on the forgivable premise of being misled but on the unforgivable premise of willful choice.

This is why "divided America" carries so much more weight now under Trump than it ever has before. It's one thing to point to a citizen and say "you've been misled" - quite another to point to a citizen and say you made the informed choice to downgrade American ethics.