Kavanaugh endorsement rescinded

[Gingersnaps4]

You are right, for the most part republicans don’t trust the media. Trump has done many good things for this country while in office, yet I’ve heard the mainstream media coverage of trump has been something like 92% negative. They pick the smallest things to report on or downright twist most of the time, too.

 

[PetraG]

You are right, for the most part republicans don’t trust the media. Trump has done many good things for this country while in office, yet I’ve heard the mainstream media coverage of trump has been something like 92% negative. They pick the smallest things to report on or downright twist most of the time, too.

You’ve “heard” it…where? From the media? And you believe that figure…why? What does it even mean?
Do you see what I mean about the rhetorical force of saying what people want to hear?

If the mainstream media is covering him in a negative light 100% of the time and Mr. Trump tells a big fat whopping lie, do you know what means? It means he told a big fat whopping lie, that’s what it means!! (By the way: if he tells a lie and someone writes that he told a lie, is that coverage “negative”? If so, why is negative coverage automatically a bad thing? Is it not, in that case, a hard truth that people do have a reason to know?)

You don’t accept deflections like this from your children, right? You don’t let them lie because “all the other kids lie,” do you? Why should we accept them from anyone who wants us to trust what they say? If we don’t believe the media, that doesn’t make it rational to believe anyone who tries to get on our good side by bad-mouthing the media.

It is fine not to trust the media. Check what they say. Ask what their agenda is. What is their motive for publishing? That is only prudent. What is not fine is to automatically trust a guy just because he badmouths the media. Not everyone who runs around yelling, “Liar! Liar! Liar!” can be depended on to tell us the truth.

By the way? I think if Mr. Trump’s base gave him negative feedback about telling whoppers, he might actually make an effort to cut it out. As it is, he seems to think the wild things he says only make him more popular with his base. Again, I’d have a hard time arguing with him on that point.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Donald Trump has been an A List celebrity for 40 years, people know what he means when he says it.

I don’t because I never paid much attention to him before, and I know there are many others like me. Also, what is funny as a whatever he is, doesn’t fly when one is president of arguably the most powerful country in the world. Presidents of the US are certainly allowed their relaxation and levity, but overall, their demeanor should be dignified.

 

[otjm]

They already started in on her when her name was on the list. Their attack is to attack religion, and her faith.

And if the last go-around is any indication, they will go sleuthing for any stray tidbit. If she is married, they may try to find dirt or implied dirt in fidelity. If she had any boyfriends in high school/college, they will see if they can turn one of them. we have already seen the press try to imply that Kavanaugh was unfit to coach, as in being a sexual predator to his teams.

She has made statements - not that I would disagree with them - that they will drag out to try to show she is predisposed to unravel Roe vs. Wade.

As much as I would like to see her on the bench, I don’t know if she would submit herself to being dragged through the sewer the Democrats would try to create.

Unless this election gives us both a House and a Senate that are more than just razor thin in favor of the Republicans, its DOA. If we have another surprise red wave, then maybe. I certainly would like to see her on the bench.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

You’ve “heard” it…where? From the media? And you believe that figure…why? What does it even mean?
Do you see what I mean about the rhetorical force of saying what people want to hear?

I believe that you actually believe that Trump supporters are ignorant or stupid. No, I don’t just listen to what I want to hear. Read all of this.

Study: Economic Boom Largely Ignored as TV's Trump Coverage Hits 92% Negative

Over the summer, the broadcast networks continued to pound Donald Trump and his team with the most hostile coverage of a President in TV news history — 92 percent negative, vs. just eight percent positive. Nearly two-thirds of evening news coverage of the Trump presidency focused on five main...

www.newsbusters.org

 

[pnewton]

they all go to books about his lies

That word is flowing too freely from you. In fact, so freely that I am extremely skeptical of any use you make of it. Maybe it is time to again point out Catholic teaching.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

That you have to go so far of topic it make these accusations is not very charitable. Neither Obama, nor Bush, were involved in the nomination or the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh.

 

[otjm]

If by Democrats, you mean members of Congress, I would agree.

However, if you look carefully at the second accuser (college “exposure” allegation), she publicly said that she was a) unsure, and b) spent 6 days with her attorney and a Democratic operator "going over the matter".

This is such a tell-tail of False Memory building that it is almost unimaginable she would publicly make such a comment.

And there is no question that the attorneys (as I understand it, referred to Dr. Ford by Senator Feinstein) were deeply pro-Democrat; I put them right in the middle of her releasing tidbits of her therapists notes, and were clearly the point of her not releasing them.

And my recollection of research papers she had done in the past lend further credence to the very real possibility of False Memories.

Evidence (other than refusing to release the therapists notes) with Dr. Ford is lacking if for no other reason than that the Republicans had no interest whatsoever in “going after her”. but pieces keep floating to the surface indicating she was neither a babe in the woods, nor lacking contact with Democratic operatives.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

The books were literally titled “the lies that bush told” or some such, so what else should I say? And I was having a discussion about presidential lies, so…

As for nominating Kav, that’s a non sequitor imo. There is no proof at all that kav did anything wrong so I don’t see his nomination as a negative at all. Of course the other presidents weren’t involved with that and the discussion of lies or falsehoods if you prefer, had nothing to do with that.

 

[PetraG]

I believe that you actually believe that Trump supporters are ignorant or stupid. No, I don’t just listen to what I want to hear. Read all of this.

No, I think that politics have become so polarized that people feel they have to dig in and defend their side, no matter what. There is also a very strong “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” sentiment, as well. It isn’t just his supporters. The problem is, he keeps doing things that put his supporters on the spot to defend him, and he is more brazen about it than most.

Trying to count up “negative” and “positive” stories is an example. What about a week when Hurricane Florence hits the Carolinas? Is the news going to run stories about places the weather was unseasonably beautiful? No, they’re not. Are they going to bump human interest stories about neighbors helping neighbors when there is some question about whether overflowing ponds at swine farms are going to flood the state with E. coli? Oh, yeah, they probably will. Terrifying stories of contamination are going to get the front page.

My frustration with the President is how much negative press he stirs up for himself. Positive things are the last things to get onto the news. If you want the economy to be covered, you need to not tweet about anything but the economy. His supporters may like that he’s a fighter, but if you’re a fighter, you’re going to get some scrapes, and scrapes sell newspapers. He goes out picking fights with the media and, to be blunt, he says stuff that is just plain not true himself, which is blood in the water for journalists. They’re fighters, too, as it turns out.

Do I think he is the only one with a Pinocchio nose? Oh, gosh no. Take this one for instance, from Oregon’s Sen. Jeff Merkeley (D), on his repeated trips to New Hampshire. When asked if he was considering a run for the White House, he said, “I’m focused primarily on the 2018 races." Yeah. Right. Sure you are. Everyone believes that, LOL. As for HRC, she was another one that required a fact checker, because she said things that simply were not true. (Example: She said Trump was against saving the big automakers during the Great Recession. That is not true, and it is not hard to find quotes from him at the time to show that it isn’t.)

As for Trump’s economy, he started taking credit for it the day after he was elected. Um, sorry, no. If there was job growth before you were elected and it kept going after you were elected, you don’t get to just jump in and take credit. It doesn’t work like that. In the end, though, Presidents always get more blame and more credit than they deserve. The entire planet does not revolve around them, and no matter how good or how bad they are, people will keep trying to make money, people will suffer set-backs, people will make the decisions that are in their interest. The President can make things a lot better or a lot worse for business, for workers, and so on, but the President has only has so much control over the big picture. If we keep getting big storms and wildfires and hits to the economy can be traced back to that, it wouldn’t all be on Trump’s head, either.

 

[PetraG]

That word is flowing too freely from you. In fact, so freely that I am extremely skeptical of any use you make of it. Maybe it is time to again point out Catholic teaching.

Yet there is a time to say, “This statement is totally false and it is reasonable to conclude the speaker knew it was totally false when he said it.” I have some relatives who jump on every misstatement and call it a lie, I do agree with what you’re saying, but it is not a sin to ever use the word with regards to someone else’s public statement. A deliberate false statement is a lie, and it is not automatically rash to conclude that a false statement was undoubtedly deliberate.

 

[UltimateChikorita]

innocent until proven guilty
also i like beer

 

[PetraG]

innocent until proven guilty
also i like beer

And he is sworn in and for all practical purposes the point is moot.

By all accounts, it churned up a world of campaign funding for both parties though. A WORLD of it…
(Great, just what we need. Dig more foxholes and build up those war chests…here comes another season of it…)

 

[Augustinian]

And he is sworn in and for all practical purposes the point is moot.

Temporarily, anyhow.

If the Democrats were to gain a majority in next month election, Rep. Nadler and other would be leaders are committed to impeaching Justice Kavanaugh among others for the alleged gang rape parties and other sexual offenses.

 

[pnewton]

Yet there is a time to say, “This statement is totally false and it is reasonable to conclude the speaker knew it was totally false when he said it.

There is also a place to say such things. Trump might be seen as tangentially connected to this topic, but even that is a stretch. The other two presidents are not.

”A deliberate false statement is a lie, and it is not automatically rash to conclude that a false statement was undoubtedly deliberate.

No, it is not automatic. Sometimes one can know the motivation through evidence or personal knowledge, and know a lie. However, if the word is used freely, then its use should be viewed with suspicion.

 

[pnewton]

I am not too concerned. I don’t think Democrats, a large majority anyway, can be that stupid.

 

[HarryStotle]

…politics have become so polarized that people feel they have to dig in and defend their side…
…he keeps doing things that put his supporters on the spot to defend him, and he is more brazen …than most.

The polarization in politics isn’t about picking a side and digging in to defend it no matter what, it is far deeper than that. So deep, in fact, that digging is no longer required.

What sensible people have realized is that what is stated by a politician is essentially meaningless. Hillary so much as admitted that in her speech to Wall Street executive types (my memory is hazy as to where that happened), but she claimed there was a distinction to be made between her public thoughts and her private ones, between what she says in public and what she believes in private. That was, essentially an admission of duplicity.

I think Trump has taken that idea and turned it on its head and crushed it, by basically parading what would be, in Hillary’s terms, a politician’s closely held ideas kept secret so as not to ruffle feathers, and blast them out on Twitter and the news cycle.

By doing so he is demonstrating that what politicians think and say should basically be counted as valueless. The only thing that does matter is what they do. What they say is meaningless.That stance is resonating with the people who have become so jaded by politicians saying one thing and doing the opposite, or worse, doing nothing at all. That level of betrayal cuts deep, and one does not need a shovel to reveal the harm.

So, Trump is basically thumbing his nose at the way the political domain has operated over the past 30 or more years, where the public personae of politicians are squeaky clean and beyond reproach while in private, and in reality, these individuals are duplicitous and slimy reptiles.

Trumps approach is to not give a hoot about the public shaming that has been used by the leftist media to keep politicians in line with the progressivist, leftist and globalist agenda, but to consistently carry out with absolute precision and determination what is good for the people.

If the people recognize that and work with him, so much the better, if they don’t then they will inevitably suffer the fallout from their own folly of continuing to side with the corrupt political class that outwardly appears to be the caring shepherds of the people but inwardly betray them at every turn.

Trump doesn’t care what he is called, how he is shamed or who goes after him, because by doing any of those things, those individuals reveal their own motives and their own duplicity, at worst, or their folly, at best.

When I first heard that Trump had announced his candidacy, I thought it was a joke and that he was a joke. Then as I observed the media reaction to him and how his attackers were far more guilty of the things they were accusing him of, it became obvious that something much bigger was being revealed here about politicians and the ruling elites – in particular that what these people say should never be trusted and their actions alone should form the grounds upon which to assess their bona fides.

 

[PetraG]

Temporarily, anyhow.

If the Democrats were to gain a majority in next month election, Rep. Nadler and other would be leaders are committed to impeaching Justice Kavanaugh among others for the alleged gang rape parties and other sexual offenses.

They cannot prove these parties happened, let alone that Justice Kavanaugh, a minor at the time, was a participant.

No, it is not automatic. Sometimes one can know the motivation through evidence or personal knowledge, and know a lie. However, if the word is used freely, then its use should be viewed with suspicion.

Agreed.

 

[Augustinian]

They cannot prove these parties happened, let alone that Justice Kavanaugh, a minor at the time, was a participant.

That is certainly true. But they can launch an investigation into the event, interview people on both sides and when there are discrepancies- and there will be- that can be prosecuted as “perjury” which is as good a reason to impeach as any other.

I was at the funeral home a couple of years ago for the father of one of my high school chums who I hadn’t seen for quite some time… I was chatting a bit with his now adult son - grandson of the deceased- and I got related back to me about some jackpot I was involved with my chum back in the day. The recollection that was given back to me on this was different than I remembered- and everyone there were people of good will.

In an adversarial confrontation like the Rape Train Impeachment investigation, the whole thing would be amplified and look serious enough to impeach.

 

[PetraG]

…she claimed there was a distinction to be made between her public thoughts and her private ones, between what she says in public and what she believes in private. That was, essentially an admission of duplicity.

Yes, when someone says, “I say this, but it should not be taken as a reflection of my beliefs,” that is creating a gap between what she says and the whole truth. Even if she were saying, “I deep-six my own principles in order to advocate for yours,” that is a deeply troubling thing to say. If someone’s ambition for a seat at the table of power is great enough that she’ll betray herself, it is great enough that she’ll betray you.

By doing so he is demonstrating that what politicians think and say should basically be counted as valueless. The only thing that does matter is what they do. What they say is meaningless.

No, no, no. That may be exactly where he is trying to go, but it is not acceptable. It is in keeping with a section from his The Art of the Deal (which he had ghost-written but which he apparently likes very much):
“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. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration—and a very effective form of promotion.”

I would argue that lying to people in order to get them excited about the direction in which you want to lead them is NOT innocent. The deliberate use of falsehood is NOT innocent, it is not something anyone should just learn to accept under any circumstances. The only exception I can think of is when someone is manufacturing a surprise, when the intention is that the deception will be openly admitted and it is counted on that the person deceived will accept the deception as having been innocent. Politics is not like that.

Trumps approach is to not give a hoot about the public shaming that has been used by the leftist media to keep politicians in line with the progressivist, leftist and globalist agenda, but to consistently carry out with absolute precision and determination what is good for the people.

If you’re saying that the President intends to appeal to the morals people actually have rather than the morals that a certain few “moral sylists” have been saying they ought to have, there is nothing wrong with that, per se. There is evidence, however, that he is not always “telling it like it is” but rather making up some rather shocking falsehoods.

CONT

 

[PetraG]

CONT
When he said, for instance: "With us, it’s a lottery system — pick them out — a lottery system. You can imagine what those countries put into the system. They’re not putting their good ones.

"And remember my opening remarks at Trump Tower, when I opened. Everybody said, ‘Oh, he was so tough,’ and I used the word ‘rape.’ And yesterday, it came out where, this journey coming up, women are raped at levels that nobody has ever seen before. They don’t want to mention that.

“So we have to change our laws. And the Democrats, what they’re doing is just — it’s insanity. I don’t — nobody understands what’s going on.”

What he was saying that even people who immigrate here legally via the lottery system are largely criminals hand-picked by the Mexican government!! That’s outrageous! Even the people who come here illegally are otherwise a typical mix of people. Native-born people do not commit crimes at a lower rate than people who immigrate from Mexico. They just don’t. There is so much wrong with that speech, I hardly know where to start.

Trump doesn’t care what he is called, how he is shamed or who goes after him, because by doing any of those things, those individuals reveal their own motives and their own duplicity, at worst, or their folly, at best.

Whoa, whoa…motives? You know all the motives of everybody objecting to the President’s falsehoods?!?

Do you include me in that? Are you really saying that if anybody objects to Mr. Trump’s false statements in the same way they object to Hillary Clinton’s false statements or anyone else’s false statements, then it can be concluded that they are either liars or fools?

I say no. I say as Catholics, we have to insist on the truth. Maybe I’m tilting at windmills, but I think the general public has an unprecedented ability to fact-check themselves without having to rely on a limited number of media sources. We have the internet, we have the Freedom of Information Act, we have ways to fact-check. We need to do it, and we need to resist the temptation to fear that defending the truth is too dangerous or impossible to even try.