Don't think he didn't, umm, 'believe it,' at least in 1999 when he said it. Repeatedly.

As George Constanza once put it: "Jerry, it's not a lie if you believe it." The owner of a business I once worked at used to say, "We believe what we need to believe when we need to believe it. The situation changes? Then we believe something else."

The keyword is "believe." Contrary to Webster, the word has many different meanings. ;)

It's really scary to think there are so many of these right-wing nut jobs out there planning violence. I really fear for the lives of Democrat politicians in this atmosphere. I know it started before Trump, but he and his sycophants truly exacerbated the hateful atmosphere and gave these groups validation.

Considering his lifetime track record, I continue to be amazed that no one has ever come forward to claim that Trump paid for their abortion.

Can you say "paid off" and NDA?

I don't even know where to put this. Tennessee legislator encourages the homeless to be inspired by Hitler.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/histo...lican-niceley/

Yeah, that's worse than I expected from the shorter quote in the other GOP thread.

First... as I said, uh... how'd that work out for him?

And second... 'decided to live on the streets' is not what we equate with today's economic situation 'homeless', as varied as that term is.

Elsewhere...

Republican Party withdraws from U.S. commission on presidential debates

To be fair, the debates are indeed biased against overtly evil buffoons who push indefensible nonsense, especially when they have a record of supporting treason and authoritarianism. When a whole lot of Republicans have made it clear that demanding that the media provide 50% good coverage and 50% bad coverage (or at least equivalently good to bad coverage overall) is what they consider to be the standard for "fair coverage", nevermind whether it's coverage of an honest businessman or a mafia boss, I have no faith in their demands actually being even remotely reasonable.

Next up: A return to prayer in public schools.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...s-freedom.html

And that might just be what I hadn't imagined...
Wth a handful of fights, none of which I felt certain we could win in the long run (guns, abortion, public schooling etc), I never knew what might be "the tip of the spear".
That's it, right there.

I'm a childless bachelor, this barely affects me, I won't live to see it. But for many of you, your grandchildren are likely to live in a United States that I would not recognize.
I wish I was kidding, or feeling maudlin. I'm not.

I'd say "we lost the plot" and with no animus I'd acknowledge that the conservatives would say they'd felt the exact same thing for 25 years. Odd that they're looking likely to win... and take us all back to 1950. [emoji3525]
This is horrible news... I think I'll arrange to get really, really drunk tomorrow.

I can remember being forced to listen to my teacher do a morning prayer in TN the last year it was allowed. I was so happy when I no longer had to listen to that 5 days a week. Thank goodness I'm no longer teaching; I'd tell them to stick their "prayers" up their asses.

I'll join you. This country is going down the crapper.

When I went to (public school) second grade back in 1954 (yeah, I'm getting a bit long in the tooth I guess) we started every day with the Lord's prayer, the 23'd psalm, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a song, usually America the Beautiful.

I always thought it ironic that not that many years later, this was the generation that became hippies and revolutionaries. It was those same people who cheered the death of god and burned that flag. And the conservative crackpots of the day were going on about how prayer in the schools would fix the problem that it had demonstrably not only not fixed, but given rise to. Now the dregs of the hippie generation are apparently so muddled and addled that they have forgotten not only the lessons of their parents but their own. Back in second grade we said worthless psalms and prayers, but some of us also learned to add two and two together.

I keep on telling you people, time for the Dems to arm up......

Seconded.

Isn't it the case that most--perhaps all--of these regressive laws the Rethugs are shoving down the nation's throat NOT supported by a majority? If so, talk about a tyranny by the minority. Especially so in any cases where not even a majority of Rs are on board. A little clique of foam-flecked, swivel-eyed loons have hooked their grasping claws onto the levers of power, and by the authority delegated to them by their vengeful and jealous sky daddy they're gonna lurch the country back a century or two, come Hell or high water!

These insane, out-of-touch crackpots have got the triumvirate of the civilization-ruining vices of Man working together in a maelstrom of chaos; money, politics and religion. No two of these should ever intersect, let alone all three.

I don't think we can win a philosophical divide by shooting a bunch of them... a lot of them breed like rabbits, ya know? :D

.
Wish I could be badass like Melinda May... "If I need a gun... I'll take one.". :D

As long as they allow the broadcast of the Islamic Call to Prayer regularly, and the Muslim kids to go to a special room to attend prayers...

As long as they allow Hindu kids to sing their daily mantras and set up shrines to the pantheon of gods...

As long as Bhuddist children are allowed perform their mantras each day...

As long as all the other rites of daily prayer are permitted and allowed to be practiced...

...this is fine.

You miss the difference. None of the above is being led by the teacher or a school employee. All of the above are purely voluntary and initiated by the students themselves. No teacher/school employee conducts them. Christian students are free to also do the same. They are allowed to pray in school as they wish. But no teacher/school employee is allowed to initiate or conduct prayer in class as that lends it the appearance of official state preference.

I understand. Just that the "bring back school prayer" mob wants only Christian prayer "brought back". And by "brought back" they mean "made mandatory". My comment was that, if that is to happen (and it won't - it's unconstitutional), all the other prayers to other gods and deities should then be made mandatory as well.

Is that an admission of incontinence? Trump is the criminal who, when pulled over for speeding, would say, "there's no reason to look for contraband in the secret pocket under the passenger seat"

What's unconstitutional is determined by the Supreme Court. Mandatory prayer in public schools wasn't ruled unconstitutional until 1962. Nothing would keep the current SC from ruling otherwise, especially if based on the notion that a teacher can freely express his/her own religious views or if participation is deemed "voluntary" (as if a little kid is going to leave the classroom and stand in the hall during morning prayers). A lot of what has been deemed unconstitutional in recent years seems to be up for grabs now.

The way to get rid of Rabbits is to plant briers around the Snake pit, so that they think it's safe. Then you only have the problem of getting rid of the snakes.

Looking back again to my pre-constitutional second grade, I guess things were simpler them. Everyone in the class was either Christian or knew enough to shut up about it. I don't know what would have been done (likely badly and embarrassingly) if there had been any Jews in the class, but there certainly were no Muslims. There was no appointed time to pray, so it could be done at the teacher's convenience. Religious tolerance consisted in allowing Catholic children to omit chanting the "thine is the power and glory" part of the prayer, which was not included in the Confraternity version.

If a law is passed that persons may exercise their religious right to prayer without interference from the staff, then Muslim students must be allowed to cease whatever activities they are involved with at the appointed time to pray, and to do so, one presumes, in the way their religion specifies. Will there be a special room, or can they spread their rugs in the classroom? Will the school provide the alarm bell, or will they be permitted to set their watches? Hate the whole thing as I may, a part of me would love to see how the schools handle this.

At one time, I'd have agreed with that. But, with this SC, my confidence in that is pretty shaky. I thought R v W was strongly established as law. Look at what's happening to that.

Sadly, you're right. I think the two worst legacies left by Trump are his undermining of the integrity of our Democratic election process and getting 3 right-wing extremists on the SC.

When I was a kid in Nashville, my older sister refused to participate during the morning teacher led prayer. One of the boys in her class , who just happened to be our neighbor and the son of my dad's co-pilot, said loudly, "You're going to hell!".

I was in gradeschool after the SC decision on school prayer; it didn't stop then. There was one kid who did stand in the hallway. Either Jehova's Witness or Seventh Day Advent, I forget. I just got used to not saying "amen" before all my protestant classmates did. Not catholic anymore, for a long time, by the way.

As I was in parochial school through 10th grade ('77), and have no experience of this "voluntary" participation you all speak of... I shall sit out this portion of the discussion.

:D :D :D

Eta: I've never been other than atheist, but as the elementary school was Episcopalian, the emphasis was more education than indoctrination (at least there) so it was never a problem.

I'd put trying to wreck NATO and bending over for Putin high on the list, too.

Ahh, but Stacys said legacies. Trump trying to wreck NATO and bending over for Putin were plenty bad, but its harder to count them as legacies. Trump amplifying the pro-Russian and pro-corruption elements of the GOP and politically dividing the GOP on Russia would count more as a legacy, though.

If you mean "legacy" as long-term effect, I think it's likely that Putin thought NATO had been weakened and divided enough that the West wouldn't respond to his invasion of Ukraine. The result is thousands of deaths and devastation that won't be rebuilt for generations. I see that as quite a legacy.

And Trump didn't have to do anything as President about NATO except maintain the status quo that goes back to WWII. He deliberately set about wrecking NATO, likely influenced by Putin in ways we may never know.

Next up: Public libraries.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ks-censorship/

I'm not convinced Putin's invasion of Ukraine is directly linked to your theory that he invaded because Trump had weakened NATO. After all, Ukraine is not part of NATO and there is no evidence that the organization was, in fact, weakened at all by Trump.

Putin invading Ukraine may well have had to do with Trump's official actions, though. For example, Trump ended multiple treaties that were there to restrain Russia's aggression. Trump acted to boost Putin in a whole bunch of ways, including just giving Putin what he wanted in North Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. Trump's bootlicking also likely fed the alternate reality bubble he seems to be in as a proxy for the US bootlicking him.

When it comes to NATO, that's a bit more complicated. Trump acted to weaken NATO. Biden acting to restore NATO may well have added urgency to Putin's attack, yes, especially when compared to Trump's promises to take the US out of NATO should he have a second term, which would have reduced the urgency (at least until the US was out of NATO). Either way, it's fairly certain that whether the US was still in NATO or not, Trump would have been on Putin's side, likely to Ukraine's great detriment. It would hardly be the first time that Trump betrayed allies and fed those trying to kill them high-class intelligence.

Ukraine's not a NATO member, but it's a western-facing democracy. That's a threat to Putin. And there can't be any doubt that Trump tried hard to undermine NATO, and even planned to withdraw the U.S. if he was re-elected. Maybe it's hard to prove how effective Trump's sabotage was. Now it looks like maybe he wasn't. But it's pretty clear that Putin thought he was getting what he wanted from Trump.

I understand that Putin thinks any further expansion of NATO is a threat to Russia. However, Ukraine was not anywhere near close to becoming a NATO member.

I have no doubt that Putin wanted Trump re-elected and did what he could to make that happen. He knew exactly how to manipulate Trump; it's just not that hard with a narcissist of Trump's degree.

As for Trump saying he planned to withdraw the US from NATO, he publicly changed that claim in 2019:
https://academic.oup.com/ia/article/97/6/1863/6384364

The WAPO has a good article on how Trump's claims about 'saving NATO' are not, unsurprisingly, a bunch of crap. It gives Trump 4 Pinocchios:

Putin isn't just threatened by NATO expansion. He is threatened as much by the success of democracy in any former Soviet "republic." His stated goal is to recreate the Soviet Union or a Russian empire. If he succeeds in Ukraine his next targets will be the now-independent states that were part of the Soviet Union, and then on to the rest of Eastern Europe.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...imothy-snyder/
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ukraine-moscow

The trouble with that premise is that almost all the former Eastern European satellite countries of the S.U. are already members of NATO. Moldova is an exception and Putin would have to go through Ukraine to invade it. Belarus is no threat to Putin as they are obviously an ally and have no interest in joining NATO. Finland and Sweden were never part of the S.Union's satellites although the have expressed an interest in joint NATO since the invasion. I don't believe even Putin would consider invading a NATO country, especially after his Ukraine fiasco and NATO's united front.

We can certainly hope so. But I'm not sure there's a guarantee.

It may be worth considering how much of the issues that Ukraine was dealing with on the joining NATO front are directly caused by Russia.

Based on information from early on, Putin was intending to go after Moldova after having swiftly crushed Ukraine, with strong indications that he also wanted to go after the Baltic states. That his plan failed at the crushing Ukraine part of it doesn't change that he seemed to be seriously intending to do so.