To the good conservative people out there...
Just the facts that we know:
1. Trump makes false claims regularly (and at an ever increasing rate), at a rate unheard of ever in the office of the presidency. This is not disputable, it's demonstrable. Look it up if you doubt it.
2. This president has cheated on all of his wives. All of them. He's boasted about it. He's unrepentant about it. The man has no honor as it relates to any of his wives.
3. This president has boasted about sexually assaulting women and ogling half naked teenaged girls. He's laughed about it.
4. This president's defenders say that this is "normal locker room talk" and just how guys talk when they're alone. This is just not the case (neither I nor my friends have ever engaged in such behavior... not my progressive friends now, not my conservative friends when I was a younger man). To the degree that it IS the case, that SOME men (boys, really, whatever their age) engage in such oppressive and damaging talk does not make it acceptable.
5. What this president has said about making false claims and playing to people's worst nature by telling lies...
"The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole."
and...
"I'm the first to admit that I am very competitive and that I'll do nearly anything within legal bounds to win. Sometimes, part of making a deal is denigrating your competition."
He plays people like a conman, preying on their ignorances and thinks of this as a benefit.
6. What this president has said about greed...
"Now, I’ll tell you, I’m good at that – so, you know, I’ve always taken in money, I like money. I’m very greedy. I’m a greedy person. I shouldn’t tell you that, I’m a greedy – I’ve always been greedy. I love money, right?"
7. Along these lines, we know that this president and people he surrounds himself with, like Paul Manafort, are greedy hedonists. They are ostentatious in their hyper-consumption. They, no doubt, think of this as a moral or practical good. But the words that traditionally have been used to describe golden toilets and million dollar wardrobes (millions of dollars on their clothes... let that sink in! MILLIONS of dollars on their clothes!) is Greed, Hedonism, Debauchery.
Traditionally, these have been considered great grievous sins, NOT morally good.
8. The people around this man have secretly recorded him and each other. They are fundamentally suspicious of one another, and for good reason, it would appear. They are simply not trustworthy people and each of them appears to recognize it.
This recording of your co-workers and "friends" is not normal and must be happening for some reason.
...I could go on, but I think the point is clear: This administration, from its pathetic, lying leader to many of its top players are peopled with hedonistic, greedy, self-centered people who are willing to lie on a regular basis.
This is not normal. This is not good.
The only term I can think to describe what we are seeing and have seen is depraved, debauched. Sick.
Come on, conservative friends: You KNOW that people can make mistakes and get sucked into believing wrong things... that you can surround yourself with bad people who are thinking poorly and you, yourself, be influenced by such bad company. It is a well-worn conservative truism: You are known by the company you keep.
You KNOW this.
Set aside the politics for just a minute and look at what we know. Facts like what I've listed and so many more... isn't it possible that you've made a mistake? That you find yourself defending the wrong man, the wrong people... people who are genuinely hedonistic and debauched... and that you've simply got swept away in the heat of things (and no doubt, with good intentions on your part) and got behind a cadre of thugs and liars who simply aren't worth defending?
I know conservative religious folk believe in the notion of repenting... of admitting a mistake and turning away from that mistake.
Brother and sister conservatives who are defenders of this administration... isn't it time to turn away from that mistake?
270 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 270 of 270Oh, my bad, I thought you’re entire comment was to me. Good for you.
But in regard to addressing the killing of Americans you don’t show any lament or concern for solving the problem. You’ve not acknowledged any shared feelings that we must do something. You’ve only communicated denial, diversion, disparagement, and delay. Just here you’ve diverted by your attempts to shift the view from your known apathy by claiming that I don’t care about the terror that has received inordinate energy and attention in this country. While you, by silence, act to cover over the terror - 20 times more lethal to Americans - and scurry past the implications that Trump, Marshall, you, and people like you want to control and stop Muslims entering this country.
And the only control you wish for gun control - when gun violence is 20 times more lethal - is your little sandbox control so that you no longer face from me the direct question of why you cannot communicate care about our children. Why you cannot communicate care about our women. Why you cannot communicate care about white men killing themselves with a gun.
Dan, did you ask for an apology?
Craig, do you feel you should apologize? Or do you think your erasing the comment is enough?
No, I don’t think I should apologize for constructing a hypothetical, especially since it elicited the reaction I thought it would.
I have Dan’s demand, no where is the word apology or any form of that word used.
Dan's family isn't hypothetical, Craig. You played games with real people. That's why his offense was appropriate. But you don't care.
You didn't respond to this, though, Craig:
But in regard to addressing the killing of Americans you don’t show any lament or concern for solving the problem. You’ve not acknowledged any shared feelings that we must do something. You’ve only communicated denial, diversion, disparagement, and delay. Just here you’ve diverted by your attempts to shift the view from your known apathy by claiming that I don’t care about the terror that has received inordinate energy and attention in this country. While you, by silence, act to cover over the terror - 20 times more lethal to Americans - and scurry past the implications that Trump, Marshall, you, and people like you want to control and stop Muslims entering this country.
And the only control you wish for gun control - when gun violence is 20 times more lethal - is your little sandbox control so that you no longer face from me the direct question of why you cannot communicate care about our children. Why you cannot communicate care about our women. Why you cannot communicate care about white men killing themselves with a gun.
"When one doesn't need lies to prop up one's political corruption..."
So why do you lie so much?
"it becomes easy to acknowledge that Bill Clinton - even with just the cloud of accusations he had in 1991 - could never be nominated today... in the Democratic Party."
Nonsense. But I'll reserve judgement until we see what happens with Keith Ellison.
"In the Republican Party, hell, a white man can harass, assault, and coerce teens."
In the Republican party, evidence is required when an allegation is leveled against one of theirs...as it should be. This is more necessary than every before given how the Dems are weaponizing women with allegations.
"I could have sworn there was an issue of insulting his family."
Understandable given Dan's fallacious charge against Craig (a form of the weaponizing to which I just allluded). Craig presented a hypothetical based on Dan's own position and words. Dan chose to pretend it was an attack on his daughter. It wasn't, and Dan deleting the comment is his common tactic. If one can't see the actual comment, one can't say Dan's lying...except those of us who saw the comment know he is. I think I may have given Dan this idea when at one time I deleted a similar type of hypothetical comment a right-winger made about some friends of Dan. I deleted it because it included a level of course language of the type not dissimilar to what you and Dan routinely use now. In any case, worded in a more family friendly manner, I would not have deleted it. From that point, Dan totally lied about just what the guy was doing by posing that hypothetical in much the same way Dan is now pretending Craig was attacking Dan's daughter with his hypothetical. So I apologize for having deleted that crude comment back then.
"But you and Marshall did attack Dan for being such a great father that his children gifted him with a trip."
This is a lie as well. We actually lauded Dan for his good fortune at having such fine kids who would go through the effort and expense of taking their folks on a European vacation. A damn fine gesture to be sure. We were just surprised that a simple living, anti-over-consuming guy like Dan would accept such an extravagant gift, as doing so conflicts with all he's ever said about simple living and over-consuming.
Look, he obviously understood the question was legitimate given how he tried to rationalize it by saying they weren't staying in five star hotels and such...as in, "we're seeing France in a very 'simple living', 'anti-over-consuming' manner, so it's cool". When the correct response would have simply been to use this as a teaching moment to provide more clarity about his simple living philosophy. He kinda got around to that after about 50+ comments of tap-dancing and personal attacks against us.
Keith Ellison has himself requested an investigation.
You lose, Marshall. On all your rambling diversionary dodges.
"These are not assertions. You’ve openly and repeatedly denied the preponderant findings of actual research and data."
Yes. They're assertions. I've openly and repeatedly exposed your "findings" as not being actual evidence simply because you want it to be. Sometimes your "findings" are totally irrelevant, which means it doesn't matter how scholarly or accurate the findings are if they have nothing to do with the point. Other times, your "findings" simply don't do enough to support your own position...you simply present it as if it does. What's worse is you've openly and repeatedly done nothing in the face of my objections and criticisms except to fling more poo at me.
Heck, I could have simply done the Dan thing and said something like "I don't buy it" or "I don't find it particularly compelling", but I actually provide an actual counter argument. Consider your 20 points. Not one of those are usable for any plan to reduce "gun violence", much less school shootings, which had always been the focus of my posts.
But hey...put your plan together and post it according to the criteria your infantile behavior brought upon you and all will be well. That invitation remains open. That welcome still stands. I mean jeez, feo. These are hoops you created for yourself to dive through are way less convoluted than those Dan sets for Craig and me.
"Sometimes you rely on the rotted crutch of American Thinker..."
This is just another example of a lefty attacking the messenger because the message is truth, fact and honesty. I get that. It's how you lefties roll. But most (if not all) of that which I post from AT contain numerous links (hyperlinks for the convenience of those the writer seeks to convince...weird, huh?) to the type of research and hard data that should satisfy those who claim to feel such is needed. If as you say they are no more than manufactured lies, one would think a bright boy like you could easily demonstrate just how. But no, attacking the character of the writer and dismissing the info entirely is the limit of your brilliance.
BTW, I love Cheetos, but I'm a Dr. Pepper man...like Dan.
"3,500 Americans are killed in gun violence every year in this country."
Most of whom are people living lives influenced and enabled by the philosophies of people like you. Gun owners who are conservative Christians don't commit crimes and they don't shoot themselves on purpose. But as even your own little story about Scotland showed, as does recent reports from Great Britain shows, it ain't the guns. It's never been the guns. The removal of guns has led to a stark increase of "knife violence". So as you may recall, I've thanked you for validating the fact that it ain't the guns.
"You’re the one saying that society does not need to worry about things that kill Americans..."
"Things" don't kill Americans. Guns, knives, blunt instruments, poisons, cars, fists and feet don't kill anyone. The people who misuse them do. Remove the weapon, they'll find another weapon to use, as you link to the story about Scotland proved very well. Thanks again.
Every study finds the same thing: more guns equal more gun violence and death.
You make up fantasies to dodge that simple, irrefutable fact.
And the gears - what gears you may have in such a shallow mind and bad faith commitments - slip all the time when you make spinning candy and call it solid argument.
You’re sick in the head and living in a vacuum away from reason.
$6.26. That’s what your brain is worth. I’m happy you agree. Satan hasn’t claimed everything yet.
"And the only control you wish for gun control - when gun violence is 20 times more lethal - is your little sandbox control so that you no longer face from me the direct question of why you cannot communicate care about our children."
Another lie. I have about five or six posts in a series devoted to protecting our children, with ACTUAL ideas that serve that purpose, while you've done nothing but present a goofy list of bullet points that are nothing but failed ideas for getting that job done. And that was AFTER the criteria was imposed upon you by your infantile behavior...so you you can't say I'm preventing you from doing anything. You simply have no plan. But I'm still waiting and that door is still open, even if your infantile behavior narrowed it a bit.
"Why you cannot communicate care about our women"
I've done this in a myriad of ways that actually result in women being better protected and care for.
"Why you cannot communicate care about white men killing themselves with a gun."
You mean as opposed to white men who kill themselves with pills or hangings or slitting their wrists or sitting in the closed garage with the car running or jumping in front of train or off a building? And assuming you're correct that white men may off themselves at a greater and/or rising rate compared to black men, are we to ignore those fewer black men who kill themselves with guns or by any of those other means? You're such a racist.
"Dan's family isn't hypothetical, Craig."
Is this supposed to be an actual argument? What an absurd statement!
"You played games with real people. That's why his offense was appropriate."
"Played games"??!! Actually, a hypothetical is more of a mind exercise formed to elicit a more clarifying explanation of one's opinion. In the case in question, the topic involved females and Dan's notion they should be able to do whatever they want without expecting negative consequences (such as rape). Thus, if Dan really felt that way, then what if it was someone close to him who acted in the manner Dan used as an example? Why and how is that an attack on the one close to Dan exactly? Neither of you have explained that and it seems to me that any remorse might be more easily realized should that explanation be clearly given. Indeed, I'm quite certain Dan has asked a similar question to me regarding my daughters and lesbianism (can't verify at present---if it wasn't that exact hypothetical, some other has been offered for sure--the thought of pretending it was an attack never entered my mind....why would it since it isn't a slight at all).
"Keith Ellison has himself requested an investigation.
You lose, Marshall. On all your rambling diversionary dodges."
That doesn't even come close to a checkmate. Has the investigation been granted? Has anyone taken him up on it? More to the point, will they treat him as they did Kavanaugh (or any other right-wing figure), or will they stroke him like they did Hillary? THAT is where the rubber meets the road. It's the issue of this post: rip Trump to shreds...NEVER throw hard balls at a lefty.
All your ideas are more guns.
Reality tells us that is a fake - and lethal - idea.
Leaving us to conclude one truth: you unconsciously love brutality and pain.
I believe that about you. It shows up in everything you argue.
Do you understand the concept of a hypothetical?
I structured a hypothetical which accomplished what I hoped it would.
Then I knuckled under to Dan’s demand, to see if he’d actually do what he said he’d do.
It appears that even though it took quite a while, he might be doing what he said I’d do.
FYI, we now have medical records that support Ellison’s accuser. Ellison requested an “investigation” by the house ethics committee, not the FBI or local LE. Back to the double standard.
Good. The medical records can be part of the evidence of a Republican led committee that is the first stop for a sitting Congressman. You’re good with that, right? You trust a Republican cimmittee more than the FBI.
And a hypothetical family is Bob, Jane, Skippy and Sally.
How do you not get that? Oh, right. Shallow as hell.
"All your ideas are more guns."
That's not quite it at all, bright boy. My ideas is "it ain't the guns. It's never the guns." Until you understand that violent behavior is what needs to be addressed, you'll fail to resolve the issue. In the meantime, as the Constitution protects, I defend the right of any law-abiding citizen to buy and carry the firearm of his choice based on the law-abiding citizen's notions of how best to protect himself, his loved ones and his property.
"Reality tells us that is a fake - and lethal - idea."
It absolutely does not. Reality tells us that guns in the hands of evil people, particularly when laws prevent ownership or carry by the law-abiding, is a lethal idea.
"Leaving us to conclude one truth: you unconsciously love brutality and pain."
You're lying again. That's not a conclusion. It's your perverse desire to demonize those with whom you disagree by choosing to assert they love brutality and pain. The irony is that your plan to take away the rights of the law-abiding results in all sorts of brutality and pain by leaving good people defenseless against the very criminal element you enable with your nonsensical regulations.
So of course you believe that about me, but not because it's at all evident in anything I've said or supported, but because you're hateful and choose to believe that, like so many other anti-Christian things you choose to believe.
"The medical records can be part of the evidence of a Republican led committee that is the first stop for a sitting Congressman. You’re good with that, right?"
I'm good with it. I'd be much better with it in the hands of local law enforcement where it belongs. It is not a federal issue and thus the FBI is not required in any way. That is, unless he's crossing state lines to commit his sexual abusing.
"And a hypothetical family is Bob, Jane, Skippy and Sally."
Sure it is. But this hypothetical family would not elicit a true measure of Dan's conviction in what he had said. It has to be a hypothetical scenario involving someone to whom he is close in order to determine the true measure of his conviction. A made up family has no real effect on a person's conviction because it isn't real and they aren't real people, much less people the person could ever really know and love. This isn't deep stuff, feo. Even you should be able to understand this.
But to use one's family member in a hypothetical is not reflection on that family member in the least, because there's an assumption that the scenario is not at all something that family member is ever likely to do, is capable of doing or has the character that would allow for such behavior in the real world. Again, really, really basic stuff...so much so that I maintain that Dan's objection was feigned outrage. I give Dan the benefit of the doubt that he's not that stupid to make the mistake he pretended he was making.
Again, he's done as much. It's possible his hypothetical to me was about abortion...as in, "what if your daughter was pregnant and had or chose to have an abortion". Am I supposed to get pissed off at the thought that my daughter is the type who would do such a thing, or am I to just imagine how I might react if she did do such a thing? You know, pretend your daughter had an abortion. That's what a hypothetical is and both you and Dan know this. The whole episode of ragging on Craig is a lie. It's Dan who should ask for Craig's forgiveness for being unreasonable an irrational over an innocent thought exercise meant to determine if Dan really believed what he was telling us.
Indeed, the reaction was shallow. Shallow as hell. You get that. You're just lying again.
This is the two-faced gutless coward that we are used to over the years. What you cannot face at your own blog, Marshall, and need to control by blocking and deletion, you are perfectly willing to carry on here at Dan's blog. There are two reasons. One, you need to respond to me because you are pressured by dim awareness that you do look like a fool in your incompetent capacity for reason. And second, you count on Dan to delete what you write and what I write in response because, again, you don't want the record to stand due to the evidence of your bad faith in manufacturing lies and myths.
This is you in a nutshell. Why here and not at your blog? You're a two-faced gutless coward that can only now make a big show of argumentation without any logical, rational, content informed by sources that are reputable and ethically diligent.
The degree of your irrational denials, dodges, diversions, prevarications, and lies are seriously disturbing to people of conscience.
.......
Scientific American: "More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows
More firearms do not keep people safe, hard numbers show. Why do so many Americans believe the opposite?
"Most of this research—and there have been several dozen peer-reviewed studies—punctures the idea that guns stop violence. In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not.
This evidence has been slow to accumulate because of restrictions placed by Congress on one of the country's biggest injury research funders, the CDC. Since the mid-1990s the agency has been effectively blocked from supporting gun violence research. And the NRA and many gun owners have emphasized a small handful of studies that point the other way."
"Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide."
Harvard School of Public Health
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
"This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual gun ownership rates at both the state and the county level during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven entirely by the impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain at least one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to non-gun homicides since 1993. I also use this data to examine the impact of Carrying Concealed Weapons legislation on crime, and reject the hypothesis that these laws led to increases in gun ownership or reductions in criminal activity."
The National Bureau of Economic Research
http://www.nber.org/papers/w7967
A hypothetical is a fictional situation, in this case intended to make a specific point. But, please keep on trying to twist reality.
Hopefully, at Ellison’s hearing actual evidence will be introduced, that would be a refreshing change from the Kavanaugh debacle.
It’s strange that y’all demand an FBI investigation in one instance, while being satisfied with an “ethics” investigation in another. Of course, it’s likely that this call for an investigation is just an attempt to kick things beyond the upcoming election. Because the DFL will come out in droves to elect an idiot who’s been credibly accused of domestic violence to AG.
Just one more instance of the double standard.
"America is an exceptional country when it comes to guns. It’s one of the few countries in which the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected. But America’s relationship with guns is unique in another crucial way: Among developed nations, the US is far and away the most homicidal — in large part due to the easy access many Americans have to firearms. These maps and charts show what that violence looks like compared with the rest of the world, why it happens, and why it’s such a tough problem to fix."
1) America has six times as many firearm homicides per citizen as Canada, and nearly 16 times as many as Germany
2) America has 4.4 percent of the world’s population, but almost half of the civilian-owned guns around the world
5) States with more guns have more gun deaths
6) It’s not just the US: Developed countries with more guns also have more gun deaths
7) America is an outlier when it comes to gun deaths, but not overall crime
You can find the research cited here: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts
8) States with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths
"Researchers from Stanford and Duke University examined recent studies on the causes of gun violence in the United States in an effort to find consensus in a body of research that often covers different states or different time periods, making conclusions difficult to draw.
The analysis by John Donohue, a professor of law at Stanford, and Philip J. Cook at Duke University published Dec. 7 in Science reports some emerging consensus in the studies. Among the findings was that lifting restrictions on concealed carry guns increases violent crime and that laws restricting gun ownership for people convicted of domestic violence reduced killings of female domestic partners.
In the mid-1970s, all but five states had banned or severely limited concealed carry of firearms. But by 2014 all states except eight passed right-to-carry laws, which eased those restrictions. Understanding how that change affected crime has been challenging, however, because of the fluctuating nature of crime.
“If a gun regulation is most likely to be enacted in jurisdictions that have recently experienced a surge in gun violence and if that surge is temporary, the result will be that implementation of the new measure is followed by a drop in crime, giving the false appearance that it was effective,” the researchers wrote.
During the crack cocaine epidemic of the late 1980s and the early 1990s, right-to-carry laws were adopted more often in states that had less of a crack problem. This means that any analysis of right-to-carry laws during that period will show those laws as beneficial unless researchers can adequately control for the influence of crack cocaine, which has proved to be quite difficult, Donohue said.
“This problem has plagued every panel data analysis of RTC (right-to-carry) laws, except for those that started after the impact of crack had fully dissipated by the late 1990s and early 2000s,” the researchers wrote.
By analyzing studies from after that time period as well as recent research relying on new statistical techniques for assessing the impact of legal changes, the pair found an emerging consensus that deregulating concealed carry restrictions increases violent crime."
Stanford University News
https://news.stanford.edu/2017/12/07/new-study-analyzes-recent-gun-violence-research/
Craig, a hypothetical situation uses hypothetical characters. Otherwise, it's only half-assed hypothetically speaking.
But, please, go on dodging responsibility. It's your dominant forte.
Craig, at the hearing, concluding the committees investigation, the Democratic members asked for a further FBI investigation because they, and the country, were not satisfied that enough information had been obtained from personal testimony (which is evidence despite what you claim) to make a reasoned decision. She had evidence: therapist's notes, and a clear, factual scientific explanation as to how trauma victims remember their abuse so well while not clear on extraneous detail.
You lie and dodge about the evidence.
The Democratic members also appealed to Bret Kavanaugh because of all the conflicted testimony coming out from people who know him. The appealed directly to him to rise above partisanship and ask personally for an FBI investigation. For the sake of his reputation, for the sake of his wife and daughters' reassurance, for the sake of preserving one branch of government from slash and burn politics, an FBI investigation would remove all the stain of recent weeks. Not because it would be definitive necessarily or allow definitive conclusions necessarily. (This would be one of your predictable diversionary dodges.) But because we could put deeper trust on even inconclusivity from our structures that attempt as best we can impartiality.
Or, perhaps definitive findings would result. Kavanaugh declined from asking personally for an FBI investigation that could, in theory, cleanse his reputation. He hid behind partisan cover.
So... the Democratic members, acknowledging what all people of reason do, that we are unclear as of yet, asked AFTER WEEKS OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS for an FBI investigation at the end.
So... this from you, "It’s strange that y’all demand an FBI investigation in one instance, while being satisfied with an “ethics” investigation in another" is an obvious lie.
You lie.
You divert.
You dodge.
I don't believe that you can't figure out the bad faith logic of what you write.
I believe you are a prevaricating partisan liar.
I believe you can't take responsibility for what you write.
And so, now, this too applies to you, Craig.
What you cannot face at your own blog, Craig, and need to control by blocking and deletion, you are perfectly willing to carry on here at Dan's blog. There are two reasons. One, you need to respond to me because you are pressured by dim awareness that you do look like a fool in your incompetent capacity for reason. And second, you count on Dan to delete what you write and what I write in response because, again, you don't want the record to stand due to the evidence of your bad faith in manufacturing lies and myths.
This is you in a nutshell. Why here and not at your blog? You're a two-faced gutless coward that can only now make a big show of argumentation without any logical, rational, content informed by sources that are reputable and ethically diligent.
The degree of your irrational denials, dodges, diversions, prevarications, and lies are seriously disturbing to people of conscience.
Really? Is there some law that a hypothetical situation must use hypothetical characters 100% of the time? Where is this law?
No dodge here. I’ll glsdly support an FBI investigation, if you’ll agree not to bitch about the results when it comes back as inconclusive and support Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
I’ll repeat, it’s not about the specifics. It’s about the double standard. You demand an FBI investigation of Kavanaugh, but are satisfied with a DFL or ethics committee “investigation” for Ellison. It’s the fact that this isn’t about a search for the truth, it’s about partisan political gain.
Your litany of ad hominem attacks as well as your cowardly refusal to provide what you’ve been asked for is why I moderate your trolling at my blog.
Of course, Dan allowing your continued slander and ad hominem attacks continues to demonstrate his intellectual dishonesty and lack of consistently applied standards.
Why you are so obsessed with commenting on my blog, yet fail to do the one thing that would allow you to indulge your obsession, is beyond any rational persons ability to comprehend. The fact that your entire “blog” is devoted to your obsession with slander, is just more evidence of your unhealthy obsession.
My willingness to engage with you here, despite your boorish hostility, is evidence that I’m willing to engage with you. The fact that I’m simply being consistent about what you need to do to comment any my blog, just reinforces the fact that the only person moderating you is you.
"Really? Is there some law that a hypothetical situation must use hypothetical characters 100% of the time?"
No. You're allowed to use John Wayne.
Using the family of Dan is indecent. You know it. You can't take responsibility. Your strongest forte.
You're more than willing to use Dan's blog instead of owning up to looking bad on your own. It's more hidden from you. And you had recent enduring hopes that Dan will erase it.
You're scared.
Craig, you can't read and you can't make adult sense of anything. And you've doubled down on your lie like a shamed 6th grader.
Dems participated in the Judicial Committee. They asked for the documents from Kavanaugh's time in the Bush administration. Grassley denied them 40,000 documents. Unprecedented. They carried on. They heard from Kavanaugh. They carried on. Then late information was made public that created serious, mature concerns. They carried on. Because of the sensitivity and Kavanaugh's denials, THEN the Democrats asked for the FBI in order to get more procedural information outside of a partisan led committee staff attempt.
They were denied.
They asked Kavanaugh to rise above partisanship - as the Supreme Court Justices are expected to try to do. He hid behind partisan cover. Shameful for a prospective Supreme Court justice. Where did this begin? Committee investigation.
Where does the investigation - sans criminal indictment - begin of a sitting Congressman?
In Committee. Here we have Ellison asking a Republican led Committee to investigate. Pretty gutsy if there's nothing there.
You lie.
You divert.
You dodge.
I don't believe that you can't figure out the bad faith logic of what you write.
I believe you are a prevaricating partisan liar.
I believe you can't take responsibility for what you write.
I'm not obsessed with writing on your blog. I write you anyway. I'm pretty comfortable haunting your conscience as is.
Pointing our your blatant juvenile hypocrisy is part of that.
Add this to it:Instead of taking up Dan's space and instead of insulting his family, you can engage me at my blog.
You were the one obsessed with whether I have one. So.. I have one. You were the one obsessed about identity but cannot prove that "Craig" is yours and cannot prove that "Feodor" is not one of my names. Yours is a shame argument. But a real obsession. You wrote about loving to see me in chaps.
And do you have enough guts to show up at my blog, for which the moribund version you gutlessly trashed me? Coward. Not to be seen there.
You just wrote 3 comments. None of them accurately represents anything I’ve actually said. All you’re doing is trying to get me to defend things I haven’t said and positions I haven’t taken. Your stock in trade to try to accomplish this is the ad hominem attack, insults, and slander. Why you expect those to be effective, I have no idea. Why you think I’d waste time on your blog for more of the same is even more mystifying. As far as “trashing you”, I’m fairly confident that any thing I’ve dine that might fall under that heading is vastly offset by your vile, vitriol. But, as you’ve shown, your pretty selective about when facts matter.
At this point, I’m just greatful for you demonstrating Dan’s double standard so effectively.
The facts are that you cannot present a coherent cohesive point. You're attempt to prevaricate about committee/FBI requests is obvious.
Naming your behavior - repeated behavior even after it's been pointed out - isn't a stock in trade. Unless one wants to say telling the truth is a stock in trade.
Signs that you've manufactured a fake opposition to a committee investigation of Keith Ellison:
John Conyers DEM, resigned in the wake of an Ethics Committee investigation.
Cris Collins GOP, arrested and charged by FBI FOLLOWING an Ethics Committee investigation.
_______
Representative Keith Ellison has himself called for the appropriate beginning point.
When you want to make a claim, do research first. If you reject to have evidence from the very beginning, it's clear indication that your intent is to lie for other reasons than trying to communicate any truth: you're just determined to divert with lies.
As to you defaming Dan now, Dan honors fact finding, data listing, and reasoned arguments backed up by commonly accessible arguments from academic journals, academics, and experienced, ethical journalism.
Everything Marshall is allergic to. Everything you elide in every comment. Just like you elided my pointing out the facts re committee work, then FBI investigations.
The only rational conclusion, unavoidable, is that it is you, Craig, with double, triple, quadruple, endlessly tweaked standards.
Case in point re eliding clear reason that damages your appearance:
"Using the family of Dan is indecent. You know it. You can't take responsibility. Your strongest forte."
You couldn't defend yourself so you just moved right on along. No character.
"One, you need to respond to me because you are pressured by dim awareness that you do look like a fool in your incompetent capacity for reason."
I have no doubt you need to believe this in order to sleep at night and feel good about yourself.
"And second, you count on Dan to delete what you write and what I write in response because, again, you don't want the record to stand due to the evidence of your bad faith in manufacturing lies and myths."
There's a really, really easy way to prove this laughable claim: abide the terms your infantile behavior has brought upon you and submit your plan at my blog. Then we'll see what happens. So borrow a pair and get with it.
And just to show you're wrong about the topic, I'm ignoring every subsequent comment you leave here about guns...it's off topic anyway...and just wait for you to not present it at my blog.
No, I’m just ignoring you when you make things up.
"One, you need to respond to me because you are pressured by dim awareness that you do look like a fool in your incompetent capacity for reason."
I have no doubt you need to believe this in order to sleep at night and feel good about yourself.
YOU LITERALLY JUST DID IT.
______
"submit your plan at my blog"
IT'S 90% AT THE VERY TOP OF YOUR BLOG. SEE #2. PUT THERE BY YOU.
Good God what an imbecile.
And now Craig:
"No, I’m just ignoring you when you make things up. "
So.... you don't think Dan was offended by your use of his family?
And of course, Craig will not come back to address that. He'll just elide along.
Thank you for admitting that you haven’t posted your complete, detailed, defined plan. That makes things much clearer.
But, if it somehow makes you feel better, go right ahead and make things up. I’m sure Dan appreciates you speaking for him also.
If you remember I gave you the remaining 10% that Marshall didn’t get because he blocks me out of fear.
Thanks for your decent raising up of that additional information. Oh, wait, you didn’t show that, did you? You blocked that, too. Fear, too, I guess.
You’re a peach of twisted, messy, sloppy lies.
And you don’t think Dan’s raging at you and blocking you represents his taking offense at your using his family?
You think he was being what? Just joking, tongue-in-cheek, not serious? Or, in words you’ve used about him, faux rage?
Again, thank you for acknowledging that you haven't provided what you've been asked for, I appreciate this rare moment of honesty.
As far as Dan goes, he blocks me much more than I've ever blocked him. Even when I have it's been for specific times, and specific reasons. His comments currently show up at my blog when he comments.
Why Dan would rage about my moderating your comments, I have no idea. I suspect this is your Trumplike narcissism showing, assuming that everything is about you.
Yes, I do think that Dan's response was "faux outrage", it was clearly a hypothetical and labeled as such. It was designed to see if he would apply the same logic to those he cares about as he does to others. We got a clear answer. So, yes, I believe that Dan's outrage was disproportionate.
Thank you for taking on the role of Dan as well as the role of Dan's groupie.
You have’nt blocked him because he hasn’t insulted your family.
I never said he blocked you because of how you hypocritically treat me. You must have misread something.
But you just lied about me admitting anything. Marshall has the basic plan. You have the strategy and reference. That you two can’t get together and rationally discuss the plan is because the two of you have chosen to be infantile. Still.
It’s not hypothetical when you offend a man about his family. That’s personal. And it’s easy for anyone if at least low level empathy to observe - like myself. People of no normal empathy levels - like yourself - may never see it.
In fact, you just admitted that you have in fact had access to the my basic plan. I said that between you, you two have 100% of it. You inferred your agreement by making a bad faith conclusion from what I said. You want to see 100% of the basic plan split between you as not fulfilling your sandbox contour needs. But in concudingbwringky from what I wrote, you tacitly agreed with I wrote: Marshall has 90% of it as his second post. You have 10% that you’ve hidden. You have all you need to go further in discussion, but, sadly, you’re not mature enough or confident enough to continue.
"Craig, at the hearing, concluding the committees investigation, the Democratic members asked for a further FBI investigation..."
This is not how it went down according to Grassly, who addressed this claim numerous times. What's more, there was nothing stopping them from doing their own investigation. The real question is, what would they have found that wasn't already known? Could they compel more from those who already submitted statements regarding their memories of the alleged incident? I don't see how. They were already under penalty of perjury.
"She had evidence: therapist's notes, and a clear, factual scientific explanation as to how trauma victims remember their abuse so well while not clear on extraneous detail."
But none of that is actual evidence, as none of it proves that her recollections are indeed accurate. Her trauma could just as easily have resulted in a totally distorted memory of the events. In fact, I've corresponded with a psychologist who claims his expertise is in dealing with trauma victims such as those of sexual assaults, and how those events affect their memories. In the article that brought him to my attention, he said this:
But decades of research have shown that the most central details are noteasy(sic) to distort. (emphasis mine)
It might not be easy, and indeed might not be likely. But that's no where near the same as being impossible. And if there's any chance that her memories regarding Kavanaugh's presence are inaccurate, then one can't deny Kavanaugh his presumption of innocence. More to the point, one can't judge him as if he may have assaulted Ford simply because she said he did, if her testimony is all one has to consider. Democrats want this to be the case because it makes it far easier to block a nominee they feel may someday help overturn unConstitutional rulings made by a lib-leaning SCOTUS, such as Roe v Wade or the Obergefell decision.
"The Democratic members also appealed to Bret Kavanaugh because of all the conflicted testimony coming out from people who know him."
No they didn't. They did it to delay the vote. That's there sole agenda here, to delay the vote in hopes they'll take the Senate after the midterms, and thereby have enough votes to block any Trump nomination that doesn't support the murder of the unborn. No investigation will mitigate so-called conflicting testimony.
"Or, perhaps definitive findings would result. Kavanaugh declined from asking personally for an FBI investigation that could, in theory, cleanse his reputation. He hid behind partisan cover."
Nonsense. His reputation is established, and you lefties simply want to pretend any allegation is meaningful. Ford's testimony, aside from it's compelling nature, is evidence only that she claims something happened to her. It is added to claims of only a few individuals against a far greater number of people and organizations that have lauded Kavanaugh for his outstanding character. His reputation needs no cleansing. It simply needs to have haters stop assailing it.
Here's the deal: By Ford's testimony, there are only so many people that were in that room when the event took place. All not named Kavanaugh or Ford have said it did not happen or that their memory of that event is not at all like Ford's. What more could any FBI investigation bring about that would change that? Can you suggest anything this isn't idiotic? I doubt it. Thus, even if it happened just the way Ford said, if those others, who have submitted statements that serve as sworn testimony which would draw serious penalties if not true, say no different, nothing will change except the volume of Dem whining. It wouldn't matter who called for the investigation or for what reason.
"Using the family of Dan is indecent."
Nonsense. Absolute, blatant and willful nonsense. There is no disparagement of a family member simply by using that family member in a hypothetical scenario to make a point or to elicit clarification of another's point. It forces the other person to focus more closely on the problem with the point being made because it stands as skin in the game. It forces them to think, "What if it was my family? Would I then feel the same about what I asserted?" It's absurd to accuse Craig of having breach of etiquette by using Dan's family member in his hypothetical. But here's a breach of the concept of "embracing grace": to presume that Craig is the type of person that would defame someone's family member to make a point. Shame on you both for this most unChristian accusation!
"Grassley denied them 40,000 documents. Unprecedented."
More leftist idiocy. From an LA Times piece from 9/4/18:
Grassley dismissed Democrats’ complaints, noting that Kavanaugh was a judge for 12 years, during which time he wrote more than 300 opinions. And Grassley said twice as many government documents have been released about Kavanaugh than any previous nominee.
In other words, the whine about releasing more documents is just another delaying tactic by the Dems, not a legitimate complaint. If one needs to decide the competence and worthiness of a nominee, 300 opinions alone should be sufficient for honest senators. If the Dems had any, he'd be confirmed by now.
"I'm not obsessed with writing on your blog. I write you anyway. I'm pretty comfortable haunting your conscience as is."
I had a good laugh when I read this one!
"As to you defaming Dan now, Dan honors fact finding, data listing, and reasoned arguments backed up by commonly accessible arguments from academic journals, academics, and experienced, ethical journalism."
He thinks he does. I'd even allow that he sincerely tries to. I can even say he does it far better than you, but that is faint praise to say the least. The real problem in your statement, however, is that you can call anything that appeals to you "ethical journalism" and it wouldn't make it so. Your opinion of the journal, research or data is meaningless...made more so by your routine inability and unwillingness to address critiques like a mature adult, rather than a petulant child by attacking the critic for daring to question what you've brought forth.
"IT'S 90% AT THE VERY TOP OF YOUR BLOG. SEE #2. PUT THERE BY YOU."
I'm pretty certain you claimed those 20 points weren't your plan, and it certainly provided no explanation for how any of them, together or alone, reduce "gun violence". Indeed, I totally rebuked the notion one at a time.
At the same time, my posting it clearly shows my willingness to engage on the topic, so you are lying every time you claim otherwise.
"If you remember I gave you the remaining 10% that Marshall didn’t get because he blocks me out of fear."
LOL again! You say the funniest things!
"You have’nt blocked him because he hasn’t insulted your family."
Craig never insulted Dan's family. That Dan thinks he did or pretends he did is problematic, but not proof that Craig actually did insult or intend to.
"And it’s easy for anyone if at least low level empathy to observe - like myself."
OH. MY. GOSH! You're killin' me! I couldn't stop laughing seeing you indict yourself this way! You've totally made my day! Thanks, feo! That low level empathy of yours must be a manifestation of your low level intellect. That's funny.
Anyway, if I have 90%, then that remaining 10% can't be worth squat. I'll allow the 90% to stand (as I've debunked the efficacy of those twenty impotent points), and accept the other 10 if you'll post it where you're supposed to post it in the manner you're supposed to write it. But you won't because of fear and a lack of a real plan.
How you can twist you admitting that you haven’t provided what you’ve been asked to provide, into me not piecing your ramblings together is bizarre.
Since the point (demonstrated) of the hypothetical was that Dan has one standard of behavior for his family and another for everyone else’s, it would have been difficult to make that hypothetical without using a hypothetical family member.
But you don’t care about things like accuracy and truth, so pointing out your falsehoods is a waste of time.
Craig, please notice the accuracy and truth.
_____
Marshall False:
["Craig, at the hearing, concluding the committees investigation, the Democratic members asked for a further FBI investigation…"]
"This is not how it went down according to Grassly, who addressed this claim numerous times."
ACCURACY AND TRUTH:
9/26 "Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chided the panel’s 10 Democrats for calling on him to demand the FBI investigate a sexual assault allegation involving Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Their request “demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding” of the bureau’s background investigation process, he said. “We have no power to commandeer an Executive Branch agency into conducting our due diligence," Grassley wrote in a letter to the committee’s Democrats on Wednesday."
9/28 "Under pressure from key Republican senators, President Donald Trump on Friday ordered the FBI to conduct an additional background investigation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, who faces several sexual misconduct allegations.
"I've ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file," Trump said in a statement. "As the Senate has requested.”
_____
Marshall False:
["She had evidence: therapist's notes, and a clear, factual scientific explanation as to how trauma victims remember their abuse so well while not clear on extraneous detail.”]
"But none of that is actual evidence, as none of it proves that her recollections are indeed accurate. Her trauma could just as easily have resulted in a totally distorted memory of the events."
ACCURACY AND TRUTH:
Notes, science, and even testimony are all evidentiary material. His calendar is evidence, too, and the FBI should investigate his entries for veracity and pattern. What you are trying to say is you don’t think it proves the case. You lie with your attempt at bait and switch.
And what the hell do you know about the psychology of memory? Zero.
"But memory is fallible. A question on many people's minds is, how well can anyone recall something that happened over 35 years ago? Pretty well, say scientists, if the memory is of a traumatic event. That's because of the key role emotions play in making and storing memories. On any given day, our brains store or "encode" only some of the things we experience. "What we pay attention to is what's more likely to get encoded,” says Jim Hopper, a teaching associate in psychology at Harvard University and a consultant on sexual assault and trauma. A region of the brain called the hippocampus plays an important role in this process. Ford referred to the hippocampus when questioned by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., about how she was so sure that Kavanaugh was the perpetrator of the alleged assault. "The hippocampus certainly plays a role in taking things into short-term memory and then transferring them and consolidating them into long-term memories," says Hopper. “If an event elicits an emotional reaction in us, then it's more likely to make it into our memory. "Things that have more emotional significance tend to get more encoded…"
Marshall False:
“… one can't judge him as if he may have assaulted Ford simply because she said he did, if her testimony is all one has to consider. Democrats want this to be the case…”
ACCURACY AND TRUTH:
Regarding “one can’t judge him”, this is the very reason people of reason are calling for an FBI investigation: the questioning of various people is more thorough and done by people trained and experienced in doing these kinds of investigation every day (i.e. NOT Senate staffers). Regarding, Democrats don’t want this”, please remind yourself that it is the Dems who have convinced enough people that an FBI investigation is the best method of information gathering and weighing to be able to more effectively evaluate Kavanaugh.
And one warning on your language: this isn’t a trial. There is no guilty or innocent verdict to be had. The question if FITNESS for the Supreme Court. And given his partisan-motivated, hate filled, bizarrely scattered crazy diatribe on Friday: he ain’t fit just for that alone. Clinton conspiracy? Please. Lying about his drinking problem? Please. “You sow the wind, you’ll reap the whirlwind for years to come”? That’s a threat not even worthy of his current job, which he should lose and return to what he is: a partisan politics practitioner.
_____
Marshall False:
["The Democratic members also appealed to Bret Kavanaugh because of all the conflicted testimony coming out from people who know him.”]
"No they didn’t”
["Or, perhaps definitive findings would result. Kavanaugh declined from asking personally for an FBI investigation that could, in theory, cleanse his reputation. He hid behind partisan cover.”]
“Nonsense. His reputation is established..”
ACCURACY AND TRUTH
Notes from Friday’s hearing:
CORNYN: "But your reputation is on the line…”
KAVANAUGH: "I’m never going to get my reputation back. It’s — it — my life is totally and permanently altered.”
DURBAN: "you said, “I welcome any kind of investigation.” I quote you. I welcome any kind of investigation. I’ve got a suggestion for you: right now, turn to your left in the front row to Don McGahn, counsel to President Donald Trump. Ask him to suspend this hearing and nomination process until the FBI completes its investigation of the charges made by Dr. Ford and others, and goes to bring the witnesses forward, and provides that information to this hearing. I am sure that the chairman at that point will understand that that is a reasonable request to finally put to rest these charges, if they are false, or to prove them if they are not.
You spent two years in the White House office that approved judicial nominees. You turned to the FBI over, and over, and over again for their work. Let’s bring them in here and now. Turn to Don McGahn, and tell him it’s time to get this done. An FBI investigation is the only way to answer some of these questions…. If you, Judge Kavanaugh, turned to Don McGahn and to this committee and say, “For the sake of my reputation, my family name, and to get to the bottom of the truth of this, I am not going to stay — be an obstacle to an FBI investigation,” I would hope that all the members of the committee would join me in saying, “We’re going to abide by your witch — wishes, and we will have that investigation.”
______
Marshall False:
"All not named Kavanaugh or Ford have said it did not happen or that their memory of that event is not at all like Ford’s…”
ACCURACY AND TRUTH
Mark Judge did not sigh the letter that states that. Mark Judge has not spoken to an FBI agent trained in investigative interviewing. Doing that, at a minimum is what reasonable people would expect in terms of verifying a candidate for a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court who has been credibly accused of sexually assaulting a 15 year old.
Marshall, determined to be stupid:
["Simple rule: the more guns, the more gun deaths. Start there on any plan, for it to be rational and workable. Doesn’t mean banning everything. It dies (sic) mean caring for everybody."]
"But this is merely simple-minded. He bases this nonsense on alleged studies that allegedly bear this out."
ACCURACY AND TRUTH:
Marshall cannot read the above cited study after study after study after study after study, study
He's illiterate, apparently.
Marshall, aping Craig, saying that Dan is a liar:
["Using the family of Dan is indecent."]
"Nonsense."
Marshall False:
["Grassley denied them 40,000 documents. Unprecedented."]
More leftist idiocy.
ACCURACY AND TRUTH:
I was wrong. It's 100,000 pages.
"The Trump administration is withholding some 100,000 pages from Brett Kavanaugh’s records as a lawyer in the George W. Bush White House, something Democrats say clouds the Supreme Court nominee’s confirmation hearings that begin Tuesday.
Judge Kavanaugh spent nearly six years with the George W. Bush administration, first as an associate counsel and then as the president’s staff secretary, overseeing the documents and issues reaching the Oval Office.
"What is so disqualifying in his record from the White House that they would accede to the administration’s wishes and ignore the precedent Republicans set in demanding exhaustive document productions by Obama nominees?" Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a member of the committee, said in a statement. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), another member of the committee, added that "the majority’s opposition to transparency is as new as it is dangerous."
Craig, if Marshall rambles incoherently with the 90% he's reprinted, I can only say I agree. It's all he can do with such a shallow mind.
That you hide the remaining 10% is not about me. It's about your fear.
But, by all means, the two of you really should keep acting as if you can't bear to engage at your own blogs while blithely and endlessly offering up all this tripe here at Dan's blog.
It's called zero character - (you have to borrow Dan's good character as a substitute for your own) - and it's motivated by fear that all your shallow minded attempts would be shown by me on your own pages.
Craig: "No, I’m just ignoring you when you make things up."
Then he adds three more comments. Guess I'm not making things up.
Marshall: "And just to show you're wrong about the topic, I'm ignoring every subsequent comment you leave here about guns"
Then two more comments where the only thing he ignores are all those studies, all of them proving that the more guns the more violence and revealing how huge an imbecile Marshall is determined to be.
Dan, this is not normal and not acceptable, certainly not of screwed up Republicans, but also not of the Dems, either. This is very sad and speaks to brutalizing white male dominant culture.
“The survey asked, "If it were proven that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman when they were both high school students 36 years ago, do you think that does or does not disqualify Kavanaugh from being a Supreme Court Justice?"
Forty-eight percent of respondents overall thought it should disqualify him, while 28 percent said it should not, and 24 percent were not sure, according to the results from The Economist/YouGov. But among Republicans, a majority—55 percent—thought a proven allegation of sexual assault does not disqualify Kavanaugh from serving on the Supreme Court. About one-quarter, 27 percent, thought it does disqualify him, while 18 percent were not sure. The vast majority of Democrats—71 percent—thought a proven allegation of sexual assault should disqualify Kavanaugh.”
https://www.newsweek.com/sexual-assault-should-not-disqualify-kavanaugh-proven-majority-republicans-1141877?utm_campaign=NewsweekFacebookSF&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook
The poll does not define "sexual assault". If it means "rape", it should have said "rape". But in today's world, "sexual assault" is an ambiguous term. So, to be specific to this case, if Kavanaugh could possibly be found guilty of having sexually assaulted Ford in the manner she state originally (that is, not what she told the committee, but her original story), it would not disqualify him at all. Her original story suggests no intention of rape on the part of BK and his buddy. But even what she told the committee doesn't suggest anything so heinous as to disqualify. It just suggest drunk high school kids messin' around...NOT seeking to have their way with a chick. This is not to say that their behavior was in any way excusable. It wasn't. They were freakin' drunk, after all. But there was nothing there that suggests the type of behavior you twisted lefties so desperately WANT him to have committed.
More coming... I need the room for what's coming>>>>
feo cites a piece by Jim Hopper. As it happens, I read that piece as well. In fact, hoping to get as much "expert" insights as possible, I sent Mr. Hopper an email to question him on a point in his article wherein he stated:
"But decades of research have shown that the most central details are noteasy to distort..."
"Not easy" suggests possible, and that's what I wrote him to clarify. I asked,
"Can I assume by the wording of this statement that it is not unreasonable to say that central details can be distorted nonetheless, despite it not being easy? In the case of Dr. Ford, it's clear that the most central detail is that she was assaulted. Everything else would be subordinate to that and thus not "as central". Would this also be a reasonable conclusion? Having watched the entire hearings where both she and then Judge Kavanaugh were questioned, I found both testimonies equally compelling, with a slight nod toward the judge based on his emotional response being barely more palpable than hers. Anyway, I would appreciate your response."
His response was rather evasive.
"No, the assault was an event with many, many details -- not a (central) detail.
As I say in the article, attention and emotional significance attached to details is what makes them central. In her description, the center details included his hand over her mouth, their laughter, Judge's eyes when she locked eyes with him and got her hopes up that he'd stop it, which he didn't, at least not at that point (I'm guessing that, since another central detail she reported was Judge saying "stop," he jumped on the bed as a way to help her escape without having to admit that's what he was doing, but maybe not).
If you read my article again, very carefully, I think things will make more sense."
Which I did. More coming....
So I responded:
"Thanks for replying so quickly. I really appreciate it. "No, the assault was an event with many, many details -- not a (central) detail." Actually, I would say it's both, but I understand and concede your point. Thank you. But my main question was not answered (though you did clarify a lesser point with this response). That main question was, "Can I assume by the wording of this statement that it is not unreasonable to say that central details can be distorted nonetheless, despite it not being easy? " I only ask due to the way the statement was worded. Either central details can be distorted or they can't. Memories of such are either absolutely reliable or they aren't. This is especially important in a case such as this where two sides insist on their truth claims. Making matters worse are the clashing political agendas, which I prefer to set aside in favor of looking at the two main characters and the impacts on their personal lives so dependent upon the reliability of one's memories of such traumatic events. There is now a new trend wherein some will say "We believe the survivors" as if all who claim to have been abused automatically are truthful. One side of the political divide wishes to indulge this sentiment, whereas I am still hung up on that quaint little concept of "innocent until proven guilty". But if all we have is testimony from one who claims to be a victim of assault, that doesn't seem to me to be enough to hang the accused...figuratively or otherwise...if those central details can indeed be distorted, or, in other words, there is any real possibility that those memories might be less than 100%. If you could clarify this sticking point, I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance."
Again, he didn't really answer the question after having it asked a second time:
"On reality, either he assaulted her or not. In theory, you can frame things in black and white, 100% or bust, but that’s too limited a perspective, from how I understand this.
For example, credibility is an important issue, and judgements of that hang on several factors. Here’s a 3-minute read that May expand your perspective:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/28/kavanaugh-ford-hearing-move-beyond-he-said-she-said-column/1448461002/
Either way, I don’t currently have time to engage with you any further on this."
More coming....
So I responded again:
""On reality, either he assaulted her or not. In theory, you can frame things in black and white, 100% or bust, but that’s too limited a perspective, from how I understand this."
Once again, I'm speaking of YOUR statement regarding whether or not central details can be distorted or forgotten in one's memory any time after a traumatic experience. The question of framing it in black and white, "100% or bust", is compelled by that statement of yours. And as stated, it fails in the attempt to add weight to Ford's testimony regarding her memories. If you're not willing or able to say one way or the other, than as an expert you have provided testimony that allows for the very real possibility that her memory of it having been BK is false. There's a huge difference between "But decades of research have shown that the most central details are noteasy to distort..." versus "But decades of research have shown that the most central details are CAN't be distorted...". This distinction could mean both the career, reputation and possibly the freedom of the accused, and worse, how care is provided to the accuser dealing with the trauma. I think you would have to agree with this.
Regarding your link, it does little to clarify anything regarding this case. To wit:"
At this point I addressed several relevant points made in Hopper's link. Between Hopper and the "expert" of his link, it's pretty clear they are both left-leaning given their not subtle support for Ford's "credibility" and thus BK's guilt. (I can provide details of my response to the link if need be.) But I finished thusly:
"No problem. Take your time. But if this is just an adios, so be it. My intention was to find clarity on the point regarding the reliability of recalling central details made unclear by your own words. I have to assume, then, that details central to one's traumatic experience, including in this case who actually did the assaulting, are not beyond distortion and thus there is no way one can accept her testimony as if it is true beyond any reasonable doubt. I was hoping the expertise you claim to have could have slammed that door shut for the outside observer. If I was a jurist hearing this in an actual trial, I could not regard it as firm evidence against him so long as that door is cracked open.
Thanks anyway, and best wishes to you, too."
more coming....
So you can plainly see that this "expert" failed to answer a simple question, because doing so would allow that Ford's memory is suspect and her "100%" certainty that BK was her "attacker" is reliable. No doubt the obvious retort is that said "decades of research" makes things so common as to make exceptions almost non-existent or unlikely. And the several testimonies I've heard from other victims who insist they remember all manner of details from their actual rapes doesn't mean squat about the testimony of others. But then there's this other clinical psychologist who totally finds Ford lacking in credibility:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/christine_blasey_ford_is_not_credible_by_memory_relationships_or_morality.html
And just as we're hearing of all the criminal behavior of Obama & Co since the hunt for evidence of Russian collusion on the part of Trump, we're learning so much about Blasey-Ford that burns her story to the ground.
That's all the response to feo I'm going to give, unless Dan decides he'd like me to address something specific.
The creation myth of the billionaire businessman Donald Trump just imploded
“By age 3, Mr. Trump was earning $200,000 a year in today's dollars from his father's empire. He was a millionaire by age 8. By the time he was 17, his father had given him part ownership of a 52-unit apartment building. Soon after Mr. Trump graduated from college, he was receiving the equivalent of $1 million a year from his father. The money increased with the years, to more than $5 million annually in his 40s and 50s."
And remember that $1 million loan Trump talked so much about on the campaign trail? The Times reports that the total loan by Fred Trump to his son, Donald, was actually $60.7 million or -- and brace yourself here -- $140 million in today's money. (The total amount of money Trump received from his father's holdings is estimated at more than $400 million by the Times.)”
North Carolina Republicans Use Fake Photograph to Imply Christine Blasey Ford Was Too Ugly to Rape
“The North Carolina Republican Party followed President Donald Trump’s lead in attacking Dr. Christine Blasey Ford for coming forward about an alleged sexual assault. The News and Observer reported Thursday that Lanny Lancaster, Cabarrus County GOP chairman, shared a photo he said was Dr. Ford, posted by another account named Joseph Mannarino. “This is the alleged sexual assault victim. Wow,” Lancaster said of a young woman in braces and large glasses. The photo isn’t “the alleged sexual assault victim.”
Lancaster doesn’t get what the big deal is. In a phone interview with the paper, he claimed nothing was inappropriate. “I didn’t say anything. I just said this is her picture. Basically, the media is distorting the facts on this lady. Everything she’s said is made up. She has no evidence whatsoever. I support that theory,” Lancaster said. “The media wants you to think she was a beautiful young lady who was on her way home from the tennis courts …” Lancaster continued. “I just wanted you to see the real person. I wanted people to see that this is really her.” “I didn’t say anything” isn’t actually true. Saying that it was her picture was fake news. It’s not Dr. Ford. Instead, it is a 2012 meme that has been circulating the internet for years.“
Post a Comment