F***. Merely F***, F***, F***.

(Laughter)

I didn’t say I thought Halperin was wrong. He may in fact end up being right, but he doesn’t know what will happen any more than anyone else does.

In fact, though, if you followed my link, I wrote about a month after the election of 2012 that I thought Hillary had an excellent chance of winning in 2016.

And as far as blaming the Republicans for not getting their act together three years ago, even if they had, how would that help in the face of the Trump phenomenon? Speaking of which, there’s a new piece up at Commentary that says that foreign team Trump’s been bragging about may not even exist.

I do wonder what the GOP candidate field would look like right now if Trump hadn’t gone off on his ego trip.

That article of Halperin’s was written for 2 reasons and 2 reasons only.

The first is to buoy up all the Hillary supporters into giving money and spreading themselves around the blogosphere crowing about how great Hillary is.

The second is to demoralize people on the right.

Other than that, Halperin has no idea what will happen a year from now.

But let me also say that anyone who didn’t think Hillary would be a formidable opponent in 2016 with a good chance of winning was not very smart, IMHO. I wrote about Hillary’s possible (maybe even probable) victory here. Republicans should have been planning to fight it for the last three years.

If they were really and truly ignorant, they would be very close to neutral on many positions. But belonging to an organization like the Leftist death cult, cannot work for someone truly ignorant. That is because if they were that ignorant, they would break all the rules and be punished for it.

When 2001 happened, I didn’t know the difference between the D and R behind people’s names when I watched the news. Oh, I knew there were political parties and which one was the “good” one and the “heartless” one, but that is an example of true ignorance. What Neo and others have described here aren’t ignorant voters, these are something else entirely. They can’t go for 10, 20, 30 years and not know “something”.

If I paid attention to the news and made moral and ethical decisions with as little as I knew back then… what does that say for older people that have had decades to think on their decisions… yet are some too “ignorant” to make one still? Of course they have chosen their faction and side, that’s why they Obey the Left.

Of course applying my own standards to humanity at large is rather pointless, and it’s something I take note and care to point out when Neo does that, using her individual expressive anti authoritarian instincts and painting other humans with the same brush.

You have become what you criticized back then.

Stan was talking about dismissing Republicans as evil in order not to think about the issue, meaning that Republicans weren’t evil to begin so dismissing them as evil is a way to run away from the foe. When an individual sees evil and recognizes it for what it is, and then calls it out, that is a call to arms or rather a call to justice. It is not merely obeying the authority of a Death Cult in saying and thinking what they tell you to think and say about Republicans.

In fact many anti Leftists are loath to adopt Leftist tricks and or thoughts that would make them similar to the Left, yet does this mean we can’t be against the Libyan war started by Hussein for his own kicks and giggles because the Left was against the Iraq war because they accused Bush of starting it for kicks and giggles? Obviously that is not how it works. The truth is what matters, not the tools or methods used.

For the sake of accuracy, here is the quote in question.

During the Clinton scandals, I corresponded with an ardent liberal. Every time someone like Dick Morris spilled the beans, he immediately became a suspect source. Anyone who was critical of Clinton was, by definition (and catch 22), a biased and unreliable source.

As for arguing with liberals, I think there is something important that can be gained even when it is impossible to change a mind. A very large part of the liberal belief system revolves around the conviction that conservatives are evil, stupid or ignorant. Any time you can make a liberal confront the fact that a moral, ethical, well-reasoned argument supports the conservative position, you chip away at that conviction. You don’t change their mind on the issue that is being argued, but you start to make them confront the reality that they can’t simply dismiss opponents as evil.-S

If there was a moral, ethical, well reasoned argument that supports Leftist positions, that might bolster their belief that they are good and their enemies are evil. Is there such an argument about PlannedProfit’s activities and undercover sting videos released on YOUTUBE that people “don’t know about”?

I don’t think I was either a coward or lazy. I wasn’t into politics, but I was reasonably well-informed, or at least I thought I was because I was making the effort to read the paper every day in some depth. That’s what I mean by saying I wasn’t lazy. The paper, however, was the Boston Globe, and every few days the NY Times as well (for most of the years I’m describing they were not owned by the same group). In addition, I read the New Yorker every single week, pretty much cover to cover. I thought that was a nice spread of viewpoints but of course it was liberal all the way; I just wasn’t aware of that. My unawareness was not willful, but more akin to naivete. I also was never interested in newscasters or which network was which. I didn’t watch much TV news—certainly not every night or close to it, unless something special was happening, and then I watched a great deal. But the TV news I did watch involved no sense on my part of the differences in the coverage among the stations (of course, in those days the coverage wasn’t so very different from station to station, and Fox wasn’t born until quite late in the game).

As for cowardice, I know it wasn’t that for me. In fact, I was also very naive about the reaction a person might get if he/she became a conservative in a liberal world, and that’s because no one I knew had political discussions as a rule. In fact (and this may be hard to believe, but this is the way it was for me) I didn’t know the political affiliation of most of my friends at that point. I actually assumed some might be Republican (even though, as it turns out, they were not). I remember the day after Clinton was elected to his first term, I was in a group of about six friends and I was surprised to discover, when the topic of Clinton came up (don’t remember how it came up; that it came up at all in this group was somewhat unusual), everyone was happy about his victory. I thought it was a coincidence that they all were Democrats—that’s how unaware I was of the social side of politics back then (and at the time, I was living in an area where the party affiliation was roughly equal). If you had asked me at that time whether my own brother was a Democrat or a Republican, I don’t think I could have answered with any certainty.

That’s the way it was. I wasn’t afraid of changing and afraid of ostracism or what people would think of me because I was unaware that could be the possible consequence. And so I went through my political change reading sources online I didn’t even know were conservative (I had never heard of the Telegraph or the Guardian before, for example, both British papers, and was reading both and ultimately inferred their political leanings but did not know them at the outset). It was only ex post facto that I realized that the periodicals I agreed with tended to be the conservative ones.

But I don’t think it would have stopped me from reading them had I known. I’ve always been one to try to challenge my own point of view with the opposite side (maybe it’s the law student in me?). And if a line of reading leads me to change my mind, so be it. I pursued the change when it happened, reading and reading more and more, because it was so interesting. I didn’t shy away from it. I also don’t like to be lied to, and once I determined that some of the sources on which I’d always relied on to tell the truth had sometimes been lying to me, that made me less automatically accepting of what they were saying.

Another way in which my experience is different now from Beverly’s is that some of my liberal friends do listen to me. Not the majority, but quite a few. I can think of three offhand.

What on earth are you talking about? How could someone “show you” evidence that someone who voted for these people either (a) didn’t know what you thought they knew; or (b) thought it was an exaggeration or a lie; or (c) knew about it, cared and disapproved, but voted for that person because they still thought that person holding office would lead to greater good for a greater number of people.

Of course one can’t prove those things or cite evidence for them. One can merely state them for this person or that person that one knows personally.

And by the way, did you read that comment of yours from years ago, and contrast it with the far more extreme message you’re putting out now? You have become what you criticized back then.

Due diligence is no longer even necessary. The evidence of blatant corruption and criminality is right in front of their faces. The truth is known. They don’t care.

Every Mass liberal who voted for Teddy knew all about the manslaughter and the lies. They didn’t care.

Every liberal who has voted for Alcee Hastings and Marion Barry and the sexual predators among Mass congressmen knew what they did. They often celebrated the depravity.

In Chicago, they know that the machine is hopelessly corrupt. As it is in Detroit and NY and Boston and New Orleans and California, etc. They know. They even know the Dems in Chicago have political alliances with the criminal gangs. Liberals don’t care. Not as long as Ds keep getting into office.

They know a lot. Even when they try not to know.

Every person with above room temp IQ knows that the Clintons are dishonest, corrupt, and depraved. They don’t care. If they don’t know details it is because they have chosen not to know — even made an effort not to know. That’s morally culpable (unless).

They’ve heard about the PP videos. If they never bothered to find out about the details, it is because they didn’t want to know. Because they knew that they were going to vote D no matter what. And that is morally culpable. (unless)

We can go down a long list of horribles that Obama has committed but the lies about Obamacare suffice. Everyone knows about the lies. Everyone. Liberals don’t care.

And the reason they don’t care is because there simply isn’t any crime, corruption, rape, or depravity that the Dem candidate could commit that would keep your liberal friends from voting Dem. They consider the GOP evil. So in their moral calculus, voting Dem is moral, no matter what.

You say I’m wrong. Show me evidence. Show me an example. There’s lot of evidence to support what I’ve written. The list is long.

Show me some contrary evidence.

You try to tell me they are simply ignorant. Really, really, really ignorant. I don’t believe your friends are that ignorant, although I understand why you want to believe it. Of course, even if true, it does not excuse them from blame. They are still responsible, still culpable.