It's starting already

You know, it took over 8 years before Conservative commentators realized they could no longer defend the incompetence and mendacity of the Bush Administration and so they rolled out the alternative reality of "George W. Bush was not a true conservative." I'm pretty sure that canard didn't appear until after Dubya was out of office. It seems to be starting already for people who can no longer defend President Cartman.

Opinions

The real reason Trump is not a Republican

By John C. Danforth

Oh, sure, he ran as a Republican and won the Republican nomination, was voted in by Republicans and his policy proposals are pretty much a Republican's wet dream, but still. . .

Many have said that President Trump isn’t a Republican. They are correct

 

No. No, you don't get to do that. You don't get to do that FOX News weasel-y "some say" bullshit without giving at least one example. "Many have said?"  Name one! Name one credible person who has said that.

 

They are correct, but for a reason more fundamental than those usually given. Some focus on Trump’s differences from mainstream GOP policies,

Such as?

Oh, riiiiight. Orange Julius Caesar wants to build a wall, mainstream Republicans want to build a fence!

Some focus on Trump’s differences from mainstream GOP policies, but the party is broad enough to embrace different views,

Oh right. I forgot about the legendary broad-mindedness of today's Republican Party!

but the party is broad enough to embrace different views, and Trump agrees with most Republicans on many issues.

Uh. Yeah. No kidding.

Others point to the insults he regularly directs at party members and leaders, but Trump is not the first to promote self above party. The fundamental reason Trump isn’t a Republican is far bigger than words or policies. He stands in opposition to the founding principle of our party — that of a united country.

 

 Ugh. Is this the part where you pretend that today's Republican Party is still the "party of Lincoln?"

We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, and our founding principle is our commitment to holding the nation together. This brought us into being just before the Civil War.

Augh!!!! NO! You have not been the "Party of Abraham Lincoln" since at least the 1970's. From Nixon's Southern Strategy to Sarah Palin's "real Americans" bullshit you have become the most divisive force since Robert E. Lee.

Saying the Republican Party is the Party of Lincoln is like saying Motorola is a car radio company. They were. They started out making car radios (hence the name) but now they make cell phones and computer chips. They haven't made a car radio in decades.

If you think that the Republican Party is still the Party of Lincoln, I wpould advise you to place a bet on the 49ers to win the Super Bowl, seeing as how they are the team of Joe Montana and Jerry Rice.

The first resolution of the platform at the party’s first national convention states in part that “the union of the States must and shall be preserved.” The issue then was whether we were one nation called the United States or an assortment of sovereign states, each free to go its own way. Lincoln believed that we were one nation, and he led us in a war to preserve the Union.

We know all that. We also know that the former Confederate States continued to vote Republican for decades because they couldn't forgive the Republicans for being the party of Lincoln. Now those states vote overwhelmingly Republican. Care to guess why that is?  Maybe because ever since Strom Thurmond led an exodus of "States' Rights" racists out of the Democratic Party, you have not been anything like the party of Lincoln. Have you not noticed all the Confederate flags at conservative gatherings?

Lincoln would have personally bitch-slapped those flags right out of their hands!

Hey, what about Iowa Congressman Steve King?

He's not even a Southerner and he has the stars & bars displayed proudly in his office. Is Steve King also not a "real Republican?"

The Republican Party has a long history of standing for a united country. Theodore Roosevelt raised up the ordinary people of his day and championed their cause against abusive trusts. Dwight Eisenhower used the army to integrate a Little Rock high school.

 And do you honestly think that either of those men would stand a snowball's chance in Hell of getting through a Republican primary today? Honestly, I'm not sure Nixon or even Reagan would. Because your party, the Republican Party, has gone that far off the rails.

Our record hasn’t been perfect. When we have pushed the agenda of the Christian right, we have seemed to exclude people who don’t share our religious beliefs.

Yeas and when I stood in the front of a church and said "I do," I may have seemed to be getting married.

We have seemed unfriendly to gay Americans.

And the Manson family seemed a bit unfriendly to Sharon Tate, but does that make them bad people?

But our long history has been to uphold the dignity of all of God’s people and to build a country welcoming to all.

WHAAAAAAAAT???

Fuck your "long history." Let's talk about now. The present. The time in which we are. The time in which Il Douche dominated the Republican primaries -- the REPUBLICAN primaries -- running as the most anti-immigrant candidate since the heyday of the Know-Nothing Party.
And a recent survey showed a majority of Republicans believe that the influx of people from other countries poses a threat to "traditional American customs and values." Every public appearance the Republican president makes, he is showered with chants of "Build That Wall!" from his fellow Republicans.  But yeah, your party is totally welcoming to newcomers.

Now comes Trump, who is exactly what Republicans are not, who is exactly what we have opposed in our 160-year history.

Then. Why. Did. They. Vote. For. Him?

 Republican voters chose Trump. No other candidate was close. Who do you think votes in Republican primaries, Whigs?

We are the party of the Union, and he is the most divisive president in our history. There hasn’t been a more divisive person in national politics since George Wallace.

Um. . .

In honor of our past and in belief in our future, for the sake of our party and our nation, we Republicans must disassociate ourselves from Trump by expressing our opposition to his divisive tactics and by clearly and strongly insisting that he does not represent what it means to be a Republican.

 Oh, his "tactics." His "divisive tactics." That's what you object to. Not his policies. Not deporting Dreamers, not banning Muslims, not kicking trans soldiers out of the military; it's his "tactics" you have a problem with. Because he says out loud the things you're supposed to dog-whistle.

Well, sorry Republicans. You can't "disassociate" yourselves from Cheeto Mussolini. Not that most Republicans would even try. If they distance themselves from tRump, they will lose their base. The REPUBLICAN base. You had your chance to stop this. You could have united behind a Rubio or a Kasich in the Primaries. You chose not to. And it's too late now. You voted for him, you own him. Or, to be fair, he owns you.

A new low.

This is a new low,
This op-ed piece appeared on the New York Times website and, presumably, its print edition.

The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Contributor

Contractors, Not Troops, Will Save Afghanistan

Now that's not necessarily any worse than the right-wing bullshit that the Times regularly publishes from hacks like David Brooks and Ross Douthat, but what makes this anew nadir in the annals of journalism is the author of this piece. I cut two words out of the original headline, here it is in full:

The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Contributor

Erik Prince: Contractors, Not Troops, Will Save Afghanistan

Yeah. Eric Prince. Brother of Betsy DeVos and, more germanely, the owner of Blackwater (or Xe, or whatever it is they're called now), the largest mercenary army in the world. Prince has been openly lobbying the tRump administration to let his private army take over operations in Afghanistan, and now the New York Goddamm Times is giving him a platform to promote his own money-making scheme as if it were some sort of objective, considered opinion.

This would be like seeing an editorial entitled "Why Electroc Cars Should be Mandatory" by Elon Musk. Or "Dogs Must be Banned" by Fluffy the Cat.

This spring, as Afghanistan policy was debated in Washington, the president asked for fresh options to end the war honorably. Faced with two choices — pulling out entirely or staying the course —

Yeah, there are more than two choices. I would argue that pulling out entirely is the only option that makes any practical or moral sense, but the possibilities are virtually endless. We could send in more troops, have fewer troops, remove all troops and concentrate on blowing up weddings and birthday parties Al Queda bases with drones and missile strikes. Why are you pretending there are only two options?

Faced with two choices — pulling out entirely or staying the course — I argued strongly for a new approach, a third path that would put in place a light footprint of American Special Forces, as well as contractors to work with Afghans to focus on the goal that Americans really care about: denying America’s enemies the sanctuary they used to plan the Sept. 11 attacks.

Oh my God. Are we still pretending that that is a thing that can happen? That we can blow up enough of Afghanistan that Al Queda or ISIS or whoever will no longer be able to plan attacks against the West? They can plan attacks from their base camps in Syria, in Somalia, in the Philipines. . . They don't even have to have a central gathering place, I'm sure they know how to Skype.

But please, tell us about your new approach.

The third path I’m talking about is not untested, even if it has been forgotten. When the United States first went into Afghanistan in 2001, it devastated the Taliban and Al Qaeda in a matter of weeks using only a few hundred C.I.A. and Special Operations personnel, backed by American air power.

So. . . how is this a "new" approach if it's what we did 16 years ago? Oh, wait. I see the difference. The new plan is we do the same thing we already did but with the added strategem of paying millions of dollars to Eric Fucking Prince! Brilliant!

Later, when the United States transitioned to conventional Pentagon stability operations, this success was reversed. Since then, the Pentagon’s biggest innovation has been to vary American and NATO troop levels from 9,000 to 140,000, and to increase civilian contractors to a peak level of 117,000 during President Obama’s “surge.”

So One Hundred Seventeen Thousand private contractors couldn't get the job done, even fighting alongside 140,000 US troops, but this new idea is . . . wait for it.. . . A smaller number of contractors are you fucking serious?

But history shows clearly that sheer tonnage does not win insurgencies. In all of them, when a foreign “invader” dominates, the weaker indigenous forces wait and learn.

 Oh, fuck you with your bullshit quotation marks around the word "invaders." We are the invaders. We are the dictionary definition of the word "invaders." You can argue whether or not we had a legitimate causus belli to invade, but invade we did. We are the foreign invaders, we need to own that.

The “new” strategy that the president adopted last week would reportedly increase authorized troop levels from 8,400 to around 12,400. This will merely continue the conflict. And no one can seriously argue that this strategy won’t inevitably require more spending, more troops and more casualties. In a war that has already lasted twice as long as Vietnam, is this the “new” strategy we want?

No. No one wants that. But does that mean that we'd rather have a bunch of cowboy mercenaries over there not subject to the Uniform Military Code of Justice or any civilian law, killing with impunity? You think that sounds like a better option to any sane person?

My proposal is for a sustainable footprint of 2,000 American Special Operations and support personnel, as well as a contractor force of less than 6,000 (far less than the 26,000 in country now). This team would provide a support structure for the Afghans, allowing the United States’ conventional forces to return home.

Oh, that sounds great. You know, the San Francisco giants are having a pretty lousy year, maybe if they only field 6 players instead of the 9 they've been using, that new approach just might turn things around for them!

This plan would use former Special Operations veterans as contractors who would live, train and patrol alongside their Afghan counterparts at the lowest company and battalion levels — where it matters most. American veterans, whose extraordinary knowledge and experience could be vital to Afghan success on the ground, would serve as adjuncts to the Afghan Army and would perform in strict conformity with Afghan rules of engagement, eliminating the stigma of a foreign occupying force.

How? How would that stigma not still be attached to US personnel? And how would these Afghani soldiers not be seen as collaborators with the foreign invaders? And has the Afghani military shown any real desire to be a part of this plan? Because it sounds awfully familiar, American "advisors" training the locals, has it ever worked?
I mean, I get that you don't care. You probably would prefer that it did not work so that the taxpayers could keep paying you for this fool's errand in perpetuity, but the rest of us care. And we're sick of this pointless bloodshed. We just want to bring our troops home. And no one is buying the idea that you are some sort of honest broker in this and not a walking conflict of interest. No one is falling for that. Except, apparently America's paper of record, who has hit a new low.

Important News! About God and sex stuff! (Ewwww)

So apparently there is a group out there called the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

     
 

I know, ewwwww already, right? Their board contains these manly specimens of heterosexual manliness

            

  Jeff Purswell  Board Member                            Daniel L. Akin  Board Member

Jason Duesing

Editor, JBMW Board Member

It may surprise you to learn that the board includes exactly zero women!

I mean, they're only the council on "manhood" and "womanhood." Why would you need any women having their womanly input? What do women know about womanhood?


Anyway, this no doubt charming little group has issued a manifesto of sorts setting out their - I mean God's - views on the whole man/woman thing and if it's any more insightful than "boys have wieners and girls have hoo-hoos" I will be truly shocked.

We are proud to release today The Nashville Statement, a coalition statement on biblical sexuality https://t.co/oNkHLEcHB0

— CBMW (@CBMWorg) August 29, 2017

Ewwwww! "Biblical sexuality?" Ewwwww! ew ew ew!!!

Evangelical Christians at the dawn of the twenty-first century find themselves living in a period of historic transition. As Western culture has become increasingly post-Christian, it has embarked upon a massive revision of what it means to be a human being. By and large the spirit of our age no longer discerns or delights in the beauty of God’s design for human life. Many deny that God created human beings for his glory,

Wait, hold up. Are you saying God made the entire human race just to show off? Just to get some glory? And he's happy with the result? He hasn't ever said "hey look what I can make. . . oh man. Uh, look over there! I made dolphins!"

And if he made us for purposes of self-glorification, why do so many of us look like this?

I mean, come on. If you had made any of these guys, would you be basking in the glory right now?

Anyway. . .

We believe that God’s design for his creation and his way of salvation serve to bring him the greatest glory and bring us the greatest good. . . Therefore, in the hope of serving Christ’s church and witnessing publicly to the good purposes of God for human sexuality revealed in Christian Scripture, we offer the following affirmations and denials.

Article 1

WE AFFIRM that God has designed marriage to be a covenantal, sexual, procreative, lifelong union of one man and one woman, as husband and wife, and is meant to signify the covenant love between Christ and his bride the church.

WE DENY that God has designed marriage to be a homosexual, polygamous, or polyamorous relationship. We also deny that marriage is a mere human contract rather than a covenant made before God.

Oh, that's original! Yeah, totally didn't see that one coming.

You really took all the time and effort to put together this proclamation and your lead is "Yup, same as always. One dude, one lady. Exactly like we've always said." That was time well spent.

Article 2

WE AFFIRM that God’s revealed will for all people is chastity outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage.

WE DENY that any affections, desires, or commitments ever justify sexual intercourse before or outside marriage; nor do they justify any form of sexual immorality

Seriously, did you just cut and paste this from every other statement every other evangelical group has ever made on the subject?

Article 6

WE AFFIRM that those born with a physical disorder of sex development are created in the image of God and have dignity and worth equal to all other image-bearers. They are acknowledged by our Lord Jesus in his words about “eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb.” With all others they are welcome as faithful followers of Jesus Christ and should embrace their biological sex insofar as it may be known.

WE DENY that ambiguities related to a person’s biological sex render one incapable of living a fruitful life in joyful obedience to Christ.

Okay, that's one I've not heard before. But really? People who are born with ambiguous or possibly no genitalia still have to conform to your rigid gender roles? You can't even give that person a break?

Article 7

WE AFFIRM that self-conception as male or female should be defined by God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture.

WE DENY that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption.

So. . . we insist that you live as God made you. Unless he made you gay or trans. Then it's up to you to cover for him and pretend you're not.

Anyway, this thing has a total of 14 articles all of which add up basically to "boys have wieners and girls have hoo-hoos and that's the way we like it!"

And you know someone is paying these grifters to put out this stupid missive about how they still believe the same things, no changes, but divided into "Articles" to make it seem important. Oh, here's a surprise - there's a "Donate" button!



Because whatever creepy families/organizations are funding these conmen aren't paying enough, they need gullible old people to endorse their social security checks over to them so that they can, I don't know, is it still the "homosexual agenda?" Is that still what they're fighting? Maybe Sharia Law or something? I don't know. But here's why they so desperately need your money:

In the months and years to come, the mission of CBMW will include distributing The Nashville Statement and developing resources to equip pastors and churches to stand firm for the Bible’s teaching on marriage and sexuality. One way you can be involved is to join us in prayer for the Lord’s blessing on our efforts, as well as to make a financial gift in support of this very important work.

So. . . they need to print up some copies at Kinko's and, um I guess buy stamps? And then pretend that "developing resources to equip pastors and churches to stand firm" is a real thing and that it is a thing that costs money?