Lessons to be learned from the Kavanaugh Hearing

FYI the Anti-Defamation League did some research on lef-wing versus right-wing terrorism:

https://www.adl.org/resources/reports/murder-and-extremism-in-the-united-states-in-2016

Over the past 10 years (2007-2016), domestic extremists of all kinds have killed at least 372 people in the United States. Of those deaths, approximately 74% were at the hands of right-wing extremists, about 24% of the victims were killed by domestic Islamic extremists, and the remainder were killed by left-wing extremists.
 
The Norseman said:
I'm certain that this sounded so much more profound in your head.
Click to expand...

I never said it was profound. That doesn't mean it isn't true. But it's telling that you seem to object to my response to Craig4, but Craig4's post somehow doesn't merit any attention.
 
Ziggurat said:
It's funny when Trump supporters suffer. They're all traitors so the deserve what they get.
Click to expand...
This is how you get more Trump.
Click to expand...
I'm certain that this sounded so much more profound in your head.
Click to expand...
I never said it was profound. That doesn't mean it isn't true.
Click to expand...
Doesn't mean that it is true either.

The whole "if you are mean to Trump supporters it will increase the number of Trump supporters" seems like a rather silly claim. After all, Trump supporters are already motivated to vote for him based on their racism. And they're clearly happy with the partisan divides and distrust in American society, giving their willingness to vote for a guy who is doing his best to divide society along partisan lines.

Who exactly is supposed to be convinced to switch over to Trump just because someone says mean things about Trump supporters?

Its much like the whole "deplorable" statement in 2016. I'm sure Trump supporters gladly wore the badge of deplorable as they fantasized about their abuse of minorities, but I doubt very much whether anyone said "Oh, some people are talking badly about Trump supporters. I was going to vote for Clinton but I'm instead going to vote for Trump".
 
Segnosaur said:
Doesn't mean that it is true either.

The whole "if you are mean to Trump supporters it will increase the number of Trump supporters" seems like a rather silly claim. After all, Trump supporters are already motivated to vote for him based on their racism. And they're clearly happy with the partisan divides and distrust in American society, giving their willingness to vote for a guy who is doing his best to divide society along partisan lines.

Who exactly is supposed to be convinced to switch over to Trump just because someone says mean things about Trump supporters?

Its much like the whole "deplorable" statement in 2016. I'm sure Trump supporters gladly wore the badge of deplorable as they fantasized about their abuse of minorities, but I doubt very much whether anyone said "Oh, some people are talking badly about Trump supporters. I was going to vote for Clinton but I'm instead going to vote for Trump".
Click to expand...

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...ided-voters/9EjNHVkt99b4re2VAB8ziI/story.html

There was one moment when I saw more undecided voters shift to Trump than any other, when it all changed, when voters began to speak differently about their choice. It wasn’t FBI Director James Comey, Part One or Part Two; it wasn’t Benghazi or the e-mails or Bill Clinton’s visit with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac. No, the conversation shifted the most during the weekend of Sept. 9, after Clinton said, “You can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables."
Click to expand...
 
Ziggurat said:
I never said it was profound. That doesn't mean it isn't true. But it's telling that you seem to object to my response to Craig4, but Craig4's post somehow doesn't merit any attention.
Click to expand...

It isn't profound and it's not true either. But what is telling about what I choose to respond to?

ETA: What Segnosaur said.
 
Segnosaur said:
Who exactly is supposed to be convinced to switch over to Trump just because someone says mean things about Trump supporters?
Click to expand...

Craig4 isn't simply saying mean things. He is endorsing violence. And not for the first time in this thread either. If you don't think that changes people's opinions, well, you don't understand people.
 
LSSBB said:
Who exactly is supposed to be convinced to switch over to Trump just because someone says mean things about Trump supporters?

Its much like the whole "deplorable" statement in 2016. I'm sure Trump supporters gladly wore the badge of deplorable as they fantasized about their abuse of minorities, but I doubt very much whether anyone said "Oh, some people are talking badly about Trump supporters. I was going to vote for Clinton but I'm instead going to vote for Trump".
Click to expand...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...ided-voters/9EjNHVkt99b4re2VAB8ziI/story.html

There was one moment when I saw more undecided voters shift to Trump than any other, when it all changed, when voters began to speak differently about their choice. It wasn’t FBI Director James Comey, Part One or Part Two; it wasn’t Benghazi or the e-mails or Bill Clinton’s visit with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac. No, the conversation shifted the most during the weekend of Sept. 9, after Clinton said, “You can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables."
Click to expand...
Yet if you look at the nationwide polling data from the election, there was a very small dip in the week or so after the 'deplorables' comment, but that was immediately followed by an increase in Clinton's support (to the point where she was more popular AFTER the 'deplorables' comment than she was before) and a corresponding drop in Trump's support. If the 'deplorables' comment did have an effect, it was short-lived.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Now, the journalist who claimed that she saw an increase in Trump support following the deplorables comment? Not sure why their data differs from polling results, but there are possiblities:
- She was using a small sample size, and/or wasn't doing a proper statistical analysis (fixating on a few 'special' cases)
- The people who claimed they were undecided or "OK" with clinton were actually Trump supporters who had hid their intentions prior to the deplorables comment
 
Ziggurat said:
Craig4 isn't simply saying mean things. He is endorsing violence.
Click to expand...
Uhhh... where exactly does he 'endorse volence'?

He said he likes to see Trump supporters suffer. That doesn't mean that he advocates violence against them. In fact, in the previous page he specifically talks about "if its legal", which of course violence will not be.

I like to see Trump supporters suffer too. Not that I think Democrats should beat them up, but when a Trump voter ends up losing their health care thanks to Trump's actions? When a Trump voter loses their job because of Trump's tariffs? Well, that's pure schadenfreude. And I don't need to see any violence used against them to make it so.
 
Segnosaur said:
Yet if you look at the nationwide polling data from the election, there was a very small dip in the week or so after the 'deplorables' comment, but that was immediately followed by an increase in Clinton's support (to the point where she was more popular AFTER the 'deplorables' comment than she was before) and a corresponding drop in Trump's support. If the 'deplorables' comment did have an effect, it was short-lived.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Now, the journalist who claimed that she saw an increase in Trump support following the deplorables comment? Not sure why their data differs from polling results, but there are possiblities:
- She was using a small sample size, and/or wasn't doing a proper statistical analysis (fixating on a few 'special' cases)
- The people who claimed they were undecided or "OK" with clinton were actually Trump supporters who had hid their intentions prior to the deplorables comment
Click to expand...

The poll you are referring to is an overall poll, not specifically testing one aspect. If the poll asked the same question as the reporter asked of her sample, they would be comparable. In addition, the places best to test were not covered specifically by that question, which would be the swing states.

In any case, the reporter detected that it was a deciding factor for some voters, despite your claim. The impact though is unknowable without time machine and a better set of poll questions in critical areas.
 
KDLarsen said:
Incidently a tragic case of politics being reduced to soundbites. The first sentence got played over and over and over again, but the part where Clinton spoke about people feeling left behind? That recieved very little airtime as far as I recall.
Click to expand...
Maybe Trump has a point about the media not doing the country any favors.
 
Lesson: don’t sit on evidence that Avenatti and his client were lying through their teeth until after the vote.

Scum
 
The Big Dog said:
Lesson: don’t sit on evidence that Avenatti and his client were lying through their teeth until after the vote.

Scum
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
Maybe Trump has a point about the media not doing the country any favors.
Click to expand...

Er, no. The story has to have some relation to reality. Trump says something: it has some relevance to some current issues. But it has always been given some spin. Half the time it is just a lie.

It’s not the press’s fault if they have to use facts!
 
Last edited:
Tero said:
Er, no. The story has to have some relation to reality. Trump says something: it has some relevance to some current issues. But it has always been given some spin. Half the time it is just a lie.

It’s not the press’s fault if they have to use facts!
Click to expand...

The story, which NBC did release weeks later, was that Avenatti suborned perjury.

Those are facts.
 
theprestige said:
Maybe Trump has a point about the media not doing the country any favors.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Most if the media, calls out his lies, points out when he is wrong, occasionally humiliating Trump by bring his crimes and stupidity to light. That is pure patriotism. It's always good to damage Trump.
 
theprestige said:
Maybe Trump has a point about the media not doing the country any favors.
Click to expand...

There is a point to be made about media selling itself out and becoming counterproductive. That's not what the President says. He dislikes them, you know, reporting on things that don't suit his purposes
 
Ziggurat said:
I never said it was profound. That doesn't mean it isn't true. But it's telling that you seem to object to my response to Craig4, but Craig4's post somehow doesn't merit any attention.
Click to expand...

Yep it is like calling nazis deplorable or anything other than the fine republicans they are. Even the republican leaders view nazis as republicans. After all austrians nazis are just republicans here.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/413601-steve-king-members-of-nazi-linked-party-in-austria-would-be-republicans-if

Yet people keep calling nazis nazis. That should not be allowed.
 
LSSBB said:
The media is a money making organization. They reduce things to high impact statements and flashy visuals so they can get the ratings they need.

It is this same media that enabled Trump to get where he is.

Do you have any proposals for reform?
Click to expand...


All those Nationalists GOP supporters sure love capitalism until it leads to a result they're against.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Yep it is like calling nazis deplorable or anything other than the fine republicans they are. Even the republican leaders view nazis as republicans. After all austrians nazis are just republicans here.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/413601-steve-king-members-of-nazi-linked-party-in-austria-would-be-republicans-if

Yet people keep calling nazis nazis. That should not be allowed.
Click to expand...


Which goes a long way to explaining the conservative apologists who dismiss comparisons to Nazis by explaining that they aren't "real" Nazis.

If you bring real Nazis into this country they are just lost in the background noise of what the GOP has become.
 
Lessons learned from the Kavanaugh hearings? All Left Wing Atheists are now praying to a God they don't believe in for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's good health and longevity.
Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Lessons learned from the Kavanaugh hearings? All Left Wing Atheists are now praying to a God they don't believe in for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's good health and longevity.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

Sorry Chris. Atheists don't pray to God...any God. But I certainly hope she sits on the court for another twenty years and Kavanaugh has a cardiac arrest soon.
 
Ziggurat said:
This is how you get more Trump.
Click to expand...

If Trump supporters are a hated other, it may keep the lesser of two evil voters from giving Trump their support. People who hold their nose and vote, likely don't want to be associated with the scum at the rallies. We are talking about razor thin margins in three key states. I see nothing wrong with making millions a hated, reviled group if it brings over 200,000 swing voters in the Rust Belt.
 
BREAKING: This is quite a read. Woman who claimed Justice Kavanaugh raped her now admits they’ve never even met. She’s been referred to DOJ/FBI for investigation and could soon be in serious legal trouble.

-- Shannon Bream (Fox News) Nov 2, 2018
Click to expand...


Criminal Referral:
"The accuser alleged that Justice Kavanaugh and a friend had raped her 'several times each' in the backseat of a car.

"Under questioning by Committee investigators, she confessed that (1) she 'just wanted to get attention'; (2) 'it was a tactic'; and (3) 'that was just a ploy'.

"Committee investigators were able to determine that she: (1) is a left-wing activist; (2) is decades older than Judge Kavanaugh; and (3) lives in neither the Washington DC area nor California, but in Kentucky."

-- Senator Chuck Grassley (Nov 2, 2018)​
 
Fourth Kavanaugh accuser referred to FBI after recanting

Just days before the midterm elections, Sen. Chuck Grassley asked the federal authorities on Friday to investigate another person he says made false claims against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Grassley, in a letter to the Justice Department and FBI, said a woman by the name of Judy Munro-Leighton took responsibility for authoring an anonymous letter that made allegations that Kavanaugh and a friend raped her. After she was tracked down and interviewed by Senate investigators, the woman recanted and said she had never met Kavanaugh.

Grassley has thus far asked federal authorities to investigate: Julie Swetnick, who accused Kavanaugh of drunken behavior and sexual assault; Michael Avenatti, her lawyer who also represented porn star Stormy Daniels; and a man, who was never publicly identified but recanted an allegation he'd made against Kavanaugh.

-- USA Today (Nov 2, 2018)
Click to expand...


"Thankfully, the law prohibits false statements to Congress and obstruction of congressional committee investigations. For the law to work, we can’t just brush aside potential violations. I don’t take lightly making a referral of this nature, but ignoring this behavior will just invite more of it in the future.”

-- Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley
 
A vicious accuser of Justice Kavanaugh has just admitted that she was lying, her story was totally made up, or FAKE! Can you imagine if he didn’t become a Justice of the Supreme Court because of her disgusting False Statements. What about the others? Where are the Dems on this?

-- President Donald J. Trump (Nov 3, 2018)
Click to expand...


"Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported."

-- Hillary Clinton (Nov 22, 2015)
 
Last edited:
That is four people with criminal referrals for making false claims against Kavanaugh, five if you count the person who claims she did not read the affidavit Avenatti faked up for her to sign.
 
The Big Dog said:
That is four people with criminal referrals for making false claims against Kavanaugh, five if you count the person who claims she did not read the affidavit Avenatti faked up for her to sign.
Click to expand...


Everyone who accused Kavanaugh of actual rape has since recanted their stories.

Meanwhile, the person who originally instigated this whole farce -- two front doors and one beer Christine Blasey Fraud -- has pocketed over $840,000 from her GoFundMe campaign.

And take notice of how the liberals who were in a near state of hysteria over the word "boofing" have suddenly gone silent.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
Everyone who accused Kavanaugh of actual rape has since recanted their stories.

Meanwhile, the person who originally instigated this whole farce -- two front doors and one beer Christine Blasey Fraud -- has pocketed over $840,000 from her GoFundMe campaign.

And take notice of how the liberals who were in a near state of hysteria over the word "boofing" have suddenly gone silent.
Click to expand...

JaWohl.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
"Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported."

-- Hillary Clinton (Nov 22, 2015)
Click to expand...

Do you think there's a problem with that statement? "We should believe everyone who is telling the truth" is pretty banal but it doesn't mean we should believe liars.

Of course we can't always tell the difference between actual survivors of sexual assault and people who lie about it, which means that in practice we don't always manage to believe all the people who are telling the truth*, but that's certainly a goal to strive for.

*Because sometimes the evidence isn't clear, and at some point, once we've done all we can to improve our ability to assess that evidence, whatever we do to try to make sure we avoid false negatives will lead to more false positives.
 
Roboramma said:
Do you think there's a problem with that statement?
Click to expand...


"The 'Believe Women' movement started with a commendable goal — to take women seriously when they charge that they’ve been sexually harassed.

"What began as a drive to respect women’s claims increasingly insists that all charges leveled at all times against all men must be believed.

"And if you don’t believe it has gone that far, then you weren’t listening to the protesters during the Kavanaugh fracas, and you probably haven’t spent time on a college campus."

-- Trib Live (Oct 11, 2018)
 
President Trump at a campaign rally in Montana:
"She lied about the story about rape -- about rape, she lied. It was a made-up story. She made up the story. It was a lie. It was a total lie. It was fake. You know what fake means? It was fake. And we're supposed to sit back and take it."

-- President Donald J. Trump (Nov 3, 2018)​


Explanation for her false rape accusation:
"That was just a ploy, it was a tactic."

-- Ms. Judy Munro-Leighton (left-wing activist)​
 
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows said:
President Trump at a campaign rally in Montana:
"She lied about the story about rape -- about rape, she lied. It was a made-up story. She made up the story. It was a lie. It was a total lie. It was fake. You know what fake means? It was fake. And we're supposed to sit back and take it."

-- President Donald J. Trump (Nov 3, 2018)​


Explanation for the false rape accusation:
"That was just a ploy, it was a tactic."

-- Ms. Judy Munro-Leighton (left-wing activist)​
Click to expand...

There is no excuse for lying about rape.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the credibility of Blasey-Ford's testimony. That stands or falls on its own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom