Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Who's got time to listen to all that crap?

In short, the best way to stop a bad man with hate speech, is a good man with hate speech.

And the best way to stop a Christian cheerleader for Trump, is a Christian cheerleader against Trump.

Thanks, I was too polite. Looks like you have gone full NRA on us.

[zeek]

Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said the administration's trade war "is cutting the legs out from under farmers and White House's 'plan' is to spend $12 billion on gold crutches." He added, "This administration's tariffs and bailouts aren't going to make America great again, they're just going to make it 1929 again."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said the administration's trade war "is cutting the legs out from under farmers and White House's 'plan' is to spend $12 billion on gold crutches." He added, "This administration's tariffs and bailouts aren't going to make America great again, they're just going to make it 1929 again."

But Sasse ........ we have already heard countless times that Trump has triggered nuclear war, another holocaust, Hitler and the Nazis, murder of all women, death to all immigrant children, destruction of our democracy, yada yada ... and now the next Depression.

CNN, MSNBC, and MSM have lost the ability to alarm us. They cry wolf every day, all day long.

Nobody listens to these nuts anymore.

When will we hold these doomsday quacks accountable?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But Sasse ........ we have already heard countless times that Trump has triggered nuclear war, another holocaust, Hitler and the Nazis, murder of all women, death to all immigrant children, destruction of our democracy, yada yada ... and now the next Depression.

CNN, MSNBC, and MSM have lost the ability to alarm us. They cry wolf every day, all day long.

Nobody listens to these nuts anymore.

When will we hold these doomsday quacks accountable?

...asks the newly converted free speech advocate. Lock em all up! What a joke!

[ZNPaaneah]

China has about 1/5 of the world's population that it needs to feed.

However, it only has 8% of the world's arable land, and 20% of that has been polluted.

The US exports $25 billion in food to China.

Now they can slap tariffs on it, they can buy food from other countries, but both of those solutions merely raise the cost of food, they don't decrease the demand.

Also, if China buys $25 billion in food from someone else we'll simply sell our food to new markets at a higher price.

By comparison Trump is putting tariffs on $200 billion in goods that we import from China. It will be much easier for us to weather their tariffs than for them to weather ours. Electronics and beauty aids could all be manufactured in Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, etc. If they don't resolve this quickly we could develop new suppliers. China's economy desperately depends on that $200 billion. Even if this only lasts for six months they'll have tens of millions of people out of work and displaced.

His proposed tariffs would raise $20 billion, much more than what he is proposing to give to the farmers to help them out.

This is a battle that we can and should win.

Trump was elected on a platform to address the inequities in the trade policies, that is what he is doing.

[zeek]

“I’ve spoken to Allen Weisselberg about how to set the whole thing up,” Cohen tells Trump. “So, I’m all over that. And, I spoke to Allen about it.”

Trump really is helping to drain the swamp - the one in his own backyard.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...a-bigger-catch

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

China has about 1/5 of the world's population that it needs to feed.

However, it only has 8% of the world's arable land, and 20% of that has been polluted.

The US exports $25 billion in food to China.

Now they can slap tariffs on it, they can buy food from other countries, but both of those solutions merely raise the cost of food, they don't decrease the demand.

Also, if China buys $25 billion in food from someone else we'll simply sell our food to new markets at a higher price.

By comparison Trump is putting tariffs on $200 billion in goods that we import from China. It will be much easier for us to weather their tariffs than for them to weather ours. Electronics and beauty aids could all be manufactured in Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, etc. If they don't resolve this quickly we could develop new suppliers. China's economy desperately depends on that $200 billion. Even if this only lasts for six months they'll have tens of millions of people out of work and displaced.

His proposed tariffs would raise $20 billion, much more than what he is proposing to give to the farmers to help them out.

This is a battle that we can and should win.

Trump was elected on a platform to address the inequities in the trade policies, that is what he is doing.

It's a good thing the only country Trump is slapping tariffs on is China. Cuz otherwise he might have started a trade War in which no one benefits ultimately. Right?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's a good thing the only country Trump is slapping tariffs on is China. Cuz otherwise he might have started a trade War in which no one benefits ultimately. Right?

The issues with the European union, by comparison are minor, and I imagine will be easily resolved. It would be hypocrisy to try and negotiate with them without putting sanctions on China. But, putting sanctions on China threatens an all out worldwide trade war. Everyone knows that would provoke a worldwide recession.

My guess is (my hope) that many of the countries we are negotiating with will quickly offer some concessions so that both countries can walk away with a "win". Meanwhile that gives us even more leverage to turn the screws on China.

Let's be realistic, if Trump can give $12 or 13 billion to the farmers, that will easily cover them for an entire year. Can China really play hard ball that long?

[awareness]

This just in:

He condemned Bill Clinton, saying he disgraced the office. But those principles he now is willing to compromise for Trump. Methinks, if God's is going to pour out wrath, it will be on Franklin ... and Trump :

Franklin Graham warns ‘media spin masters’ to shut up about Trump’s Playmate payoff or face God’s wrath

"The right-wing Christian has defended Trump’s affair with another mistress, porn actress Stormy Daniels, as “nobody’s business” — although he insisted in 1998 that Bill Clinton’s “sins are not private.”"
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/fra...ce-gods-wrath/

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

This just in:

He condemned Bill Clinton, saying he disgraced the office. But those principles he now is willing to compromise for Trump. Methinks, if God's is going to pour out wrath, it will be on Franklin ... and Trump :

Franklin Graham warns ‘media spin masters’ to shut up about Trump’s Playmate payoff or face God’s wrath

"The right-wing Christian has defended Trump’s affair with another mistress, porn actress Stormy Daniels, as “nobody’s business” — although he insisted in 1998 that Bill Clinton’s “sins are not private.”"
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/fra...ce-gods-wrath/

Graham apparently didn't receive Jordan Peterson's free speech talking points memo.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's a good thing the only country Trump is slapping tariffs on is China. Cuz otherwise he might have started a trade War in which no one benefits ultimately. Right?

You obviously never studied Economics 101.

The US lost the trade war long ago.

Under Obama, the US treated every other nation as our colonial power. He went around apologizing to them all, and allowed them to rob our country blind.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You obviously never studied Economics 101.

The US lost the trade war long ago.

Under Obama, the US treated every other nation as our colonial power. He went around apologizing to them all, and allowed them to rob our country blind.

Did Obama change the trade policies and treaties? If you don't consider the Marshall plan as "robbing our country blind" then it is obvious that at some point we would have to renegotiate these treaties, which is what Trump is doing.

We signed very favorable trade deals with China to encourage them to move from Communist to Capitalist. That was a huge gamble for them and it is only right that we encouraged them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's a good thing the only country Trump is slapping tariffs on is China. Cuz otherwise he might have started a trade War in which no one benefits ultimately. Right?

Shortest Trade War in History Over: President Trump and E.U. Come to Agreement

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Shortest Trade War in History Over: President Trump and E.U. Come to Agreement

The pressure is on China.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Shortest Trade War in History Over: President Trump and E.U. Come to Agreement

So Trump said. But he often gets it wrong ... specially if it makes him look good. Time will tell. Just like his $12 billion farmer welfare promise.

[zeek]

Oh look at that. Weisselberg, the finance guy Cohen mentioned on the tape with Trump has been subpoenaed to testify to the Federal grand jury that should be interesting. He's been working for the Trump family for decades. Bet you he knows a lot about Trump's finances over the years. Follow the money. Tick tock tick tock. Of course Trump knew about the payoff. He lied about that and Sarah Sanders backed him up of course. Cohen said he got tired of being a punching bag.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Oh look at that. Weisselberg, the finance guy Cohen mentioned on the tape with Trump has been subpoenaed to testify to the Federal grand jury that should be interesting. He's been working for the Trump family for decades. Bet you he knows a lot about Trump's finances over the years. Follow the money. Tick tock tick tock. Of course Trump knew about the payoff. He lied about that and Sarah Sanders backed him up of course. Cohen said he got tired of being a punching bag.

But I caught a Fox pundit excusing Trump with, "Everyone lies about affairs."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Oh look at that. Weisselberg, the finance guy Cohen mentioned on the tape with Trump has been subpoenaed to testify to the Federal grand jury that should be interesting. He's been working for the Trump family for decades. Bet you he knows a lot about Trump's finances over the years. Follow the money. Tick tock tick tock. Of course Trump knew about the payoff. He lied about that and Sarah Sanders backed him up of course. Cohen said he got tired of being a punching bag.

Where's the Russian collusion?

Your post exposes that this was never about the 2016 election. Even you can figure that out.

Muller is a thug, pure and simple, just keep digging until someone "sings and composes." But look what the impeachment did for Bill Clinton.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Where's the Russian collusion?

Your post exposes that this was never about the 2016 election. Even you can figure that out.

Muller is a thug, pure and simple, just keep digging until someone "sings and composes." But look what the impeachment did for Bill Clinton.

Muellar is a conservative republican of long standing.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

But I caught a Fox pundit excusing Trump with, "Everyone lies about affairs."

...and everyone breaks campaign finance laws and tries to avoid getting caught by paying cash like Trump said on the tape. I know I always do that when I'm running for President. I'm like "Campaign finance laws?! Pffft! No big deal! Pay cash. $150 Grand. Weisselberg'll take care of it. Cohen is on it. I got this." That's what say when I break campaign finance laws. After all, everybody does it. That cash thing works real well as long as my lawyer isn't taping me surreptitiously. I hate when that happens. Then I have to get a thug attorney like Giuliani to go on TV and use obfuscation tactics. If I had any shame I would be embarrassed. It's a good thing I don't. Did I mention that everybody's doing this? Clinton Bush Obama everybody.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Muellar is a conservative republican of long standing.

Yeah, that explains why he stacked his entire team with with Trump-hating Democrats like Peter Strzok!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

...and everyone breaks campaign finance laws and tries to avoid getting caught by paying cash like Trump said on the tape. I know I always do that when I'm running for President. I'm like "Campaign finance laws?! Pffft! No big deal! Pay cash. $150 Grand. Weisselberg'll take care of it. Cohen is on it. I got this." That's what say when I break campaign finance laws. After all, everybody does it. That cash thing works real well as long as my lawyer isn't taping me surreptitiously. I hate when that happens. Then I have to get a thug attorney like Giuliani to go on TV and use obfuscation tactics. If I had any shame I would be embarrassed. It's a good thing I don't. Did I mention that everybody's doing this? Clinton Bush Obama everybody.

Giuliani is "America's Mayor."

Hey zeek, you getting a little self-righteous on us? You can now throw the first stone. Your hate bias is coming thru.

And what is the penalty for breaking campaign finance laws?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Giuliani is "America's Mayor."

Hey zeek, you getting a little self-righteous on us? You can now throw the first stone. Your hate bias is coming thru.

And what is the penalty for breaking campaign finance laws?

What happened to "Lock him up? and "Drain the swamp"?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yeah, that explains why he stacked his entire team with with Trump-hating Democrats like Peter Strzok!

Muellar is investigating the attack on America by Russia. Anyone opposing his investigation is unpatriotic, and is being complicit with Russia.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Muellar is investigating the attack on America by Russia. Anyone opposing his investigation is unpatriotic, and is being complicit with Russia.

Yeah and upon learning of his text messages, Mueller removed Strzok from the investigation. He's on notice the FBI is going to fire him and he's appealing it according to Federal law. Plus, Congress is reviewing the whole process. Messy, but, the system is working.

[zeek]

Speaking of messy, Cohen reportedly claims the president knew in advance about the infamous 2016 Trump Tower meeting in which Russians had promised his campaign dirt about Hillary Clinton. However, Cohen's legal team insists they did not leak the revelation, raising the possibility it came from the Trump team to weaken Cohen’s bargaining hand should he decide to flip and speak to special counsel Robert Mueller. They are biting and devouring one another, as Paul would say.

[ZNPaaneah]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/amazon-fa...161615378.html

Lock em up!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Where's the Russian collusion?

Cohen's latest testimony ties Trump to a meeting seeking help from Russia. According to Guiliani there are "no corroborating witnesses" yet some of those who might be witnesses have not denied this, they simply refused to answer the questions.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/michael-c...012322373.html

Giuliani says that Cohen is just not credible! Wow! How uncredible do you have to be for Giuliani to have an issue! Incredible! (This is the guy who assured us repeatedly despite evidence to the contrary that Trump did not know about payments to Stormy Daniels).

[ZNPaaneah]

Can we give Trump credit for all the good things he has done this week?

1. The farmers were suffering from a trade war with China, Trump got them billions of dollars to make up for their losses.

2. There were a lot of kids torn from their parents at the border, Trump got them reunited.

3. Just two weeks ago Europe was an enemy, this week Trump signs a new trade agreement with them, making them allies once again.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Can we give Trump credit for all the good things he has done this week?

1. The farmers were suffering from a trade war with China, Trump got them billions of dollars to make up for their losses.

2. There were a lot of kids torn from their parents at the border, Trump got them reunited.

3. Just two weeks ago Europe was an enemy, this week Trump signs a new trade agreement with them, making them allies once again.

Europe was never an enemy...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Europe was never an enemy...

Really? I'm pretty sure the President of the US knows better than you.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Can we give Trump credit for all the good things he has done this week?

1. The farmers were suffering from a trade war with China, Trump got them billions of dollars to make up for their losses.

Yeah ... Trump, in order to brag on himself, will lie knowing full well the lie will be broadcasted within days. Take the claim that the EU will be buying soybeans :
EU says farming 'not part' of US trade deal, contradicting Trump
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/gov...adicting-trump

[awareness]

Bahahahahaha !!!!

Now:

Giuliani: ‘Collusion is not a crime’
http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...is-not-a-crime

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bahahahahaha !!!!

Now:

Giuliani: ‘Collusion is not a crime’
http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...is-not-a-crime

Brilliant defense strategy. Derivative of the "deny everything" strategy. Can't deny collusion, so deny that collusion is a crime.

The crime was when the Russians hacked the DNC and manipulated the election. Colluding with them was not a crime. This is Alice in Wonderland.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is Alice in Wonderland.

Can you imagine what it would be like if Obama went thru all this?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Brilliant defense strategy. Derivative of the "deny everything" strategy. Can't deny collusion, so deny that collusion is a crime.

The crime was when the Russians hacked the DNC and manipulated the election. Colluding with them was not a crime. This is Alice in Wonderland.

The DNC colluding with the Russians is not a crime. There is no law on the books.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Can you imagine what it would be like if Obama went thru all this?

Far worse than election fraud ...

Obama administration approved $200G grant to group with Al Qaeda ties

The Obama administration approved a $200,000 grant to a group in Sudan with ties to Al Qaeda even though it had been designated a terrorist-financing organization by the U.S. years earlier, a conservative think tank revealed this week.

Further, an agency official acknowledged the prior administration allowed taxpayer money to flow to the group even after its designation was discovered.

The 2014 grant to the Islamic Relief Agency, through the U.S. Agency for International Development, was revealed by Sam Westrop of the Middle East Forum in a story for the National Review.

“More stunningly, government officials specifically authorized the release of at least $115,000 of this grant even after learning that it was a designated terror organization,” Westrop wrote in the article.

USAID has since reviewed its policies, though the Trump administration stressed this all occurred in the Obama years.

[Ohio]

Five Clues Don Jr.’s Trump Tower Meeting Was Set Up as Democratic Dirty Trick

1 – Rob Goldstone, the English publicist and music manager, admitted that when he wrote Donald Trump Jr. to set up the meeting with a Russian attorney at Trump Tower he used deliberately hyperbolic language to ensure that the meeting took place. In testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee reviewed in full by Breitbart News, Goldstone further said that he believes the meeting was a “bait and switch” by a Russian lobbyist seeking a meeting on another matter by misleadingly claiming to be bringing the Trump campaign dirt on Hillary Clinton.

2 – All participants in the meeting who have spoken publicly say no Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton was discussed.

3 – Two Russians at the meeting evidenced a larger relationship with Fusion GPS and the controversial firm’s co-founder Glenn Simpson. The Russia collusion conspiracy theory was sparked by the discredited dossier produced by Fusion GPS, which was paid for its anti-Trump work by Trump’s primary political opponents, namely Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) via the Perkins Coie law firm.

4 – A key participant at the Trump Tower meeting said that he “knows” Hillary Clinton and has a personal relationship with her that dates back to the late-1990s. Besides describing a direct connection to Clinton, Russian-born Washington lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin also testified that he “knew some people who worked on” Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Akhmetshin further revealed that the same day of the Trump Tower meeting he met with a Clinton associate after the confab and possibly also just before.

5 – Akhmetshin admits to being present at the same security conference in Canada where Sen. John McCain was reportedly first informed about the anti-Trump dossier. Akhmetshin says he might have spoken to McCain and the senator’s assistant David J. Kramer at the Halifax International Security Forum in 2016.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Can you imagine what it would be like if Obama went thru all this?

Oh please. I work in an area where Obama is revered almost at the same level as the prophet Mohammed. Everyone was stunned, considering it sacrilegious when he was criticized and attacked. I thought that was funny but had the good sense to keep that to myself. Anyone who is elected president in this country is going to have a very well funded political apparatus set up that wants to discredit him and bring him down. If a republican wins then the democrats will go after him, if a democrat wins the republicans.

Beginning with Nixon they started to undermine the power of the press. Today with Trump it is scary, 1984 scary, how they are trying to destroy a free press.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Five Clues Don Jr.’s Trump Tower Meeting Was Set Up as Democratic Dirty Trick

I'm not clear what you are saying.

Trump has denied collusion with the Russians 105 times (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.acda71932350)

Don Jr. said the meeting was about Russian adoption

Kellyanne Conway denied the Trump campaign had links to Carter page

Hope Hicks denied Trump officials met with officials from the Kremlin.

Kellyane Conway said that no one from the campaign met with anyone from Russia who hoped to meddle in the election.

Reince Priebus denied they had any contact.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders said no contact took place.

Sean Spicer said there was no contact.

Don Jr. denied meeting with Russians about the campaign.

But then emails showed that the meeting Don Jr. claimed was about Russian adoption actually was billed as a meeting with compromising information about Clinton.

Cohen says there was a strategy meeting prior to this meeting with the Russians which included Trump.

And now Giuliani says that "collusion is not a crime".

So for two years we have heard every denial in the books about how "there is no collusion", "fake news" and "witch hunt". But now it seems that both Cohen and Manafort are going to confirm that there was in fact collusion, and Giuliani is tasked, not with denying that, but with saying "collusion is not a crime".

We know the Russians hacked the election, we know that this involves a number of crimes (hacking, election fraud, defrauding the American public, etc) and we now have evidence of a conspiracy with the Trump campaign. So what is the defense now? Let's play the name game. Yes, conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime, aiding and abetting a fraud is a crime, obstruction of justice is a crime, but since we haven't used the term "collusion" well, I guess Giuliani is confused.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Oh please. I work in an area where Obama is revered almost at the same level as the prophet Mohammed. Everyone was stunned, considering it sacrilegious when he was criticized and attacked. I thought that was funny but had the good sense to keep that to myself. Anyone who is elected president in this country is going to have a very well funded political apparatus set up that wants to discredit him and bring him down. If a republican wins then the democrats will go after him, if a democrat wins the republicans.

Beginning with Nixon they started to undermine the power of the press. Today with Trump it is scary, 1984 scary, how they are trying to destroy a free press.

It is the extreme left that is destroying the Press.

Trump is right to call out the lies, the bias, and the fake news.

If the Press really cared for their 1st Amendment rights, they would strive for accuracy and all the established principles of real journalism.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I'm not clear what you are saying.

Trump has denied collusion with the Russians 105 times (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.acda71932350)

Don Jr. said the meeting was about Russian adoption

Kellyanne Conway denied the Trump campaign had links to Carter page

Hope Hicks denied Trump officials met with officials from the Kremlin.

Kellyane Conway said that no one from the campaign met with anyone from Russia who hoped to meddle in the election.

Reince Priebus denied they had any contact.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders said no contact took place.

Sean Spicer said there was no contact.

Don Jr. denied meeting with Russians about the campaign.

But then emails showed that the meeting Don Jr. claimed was about Russian adoption actually was billed as a meeting with compromising information about Clinton.

Cohen says there was a strategy meeting prior to this meeting with the Russians which included Trump.

And now Giuliani says that "collusion is not a crime".

So for two years we have heard every denial in the books about how "there is no collusion", "fake news" and "witch hunt". But now it seems that both Cohen and Manafort are going to confirm that there was in fact collusion, and Giuliani is tasked, not with denying that, but with saying "collusion is not a crime".

We know the Russians hacked the election, we know that this involves a number of crimes (hacking, election fraud, defrauding the American public, etc) and we now have evidence of a conspiracy with the Trump campaign. So what is the defense now? Let's play the name game. Yes, conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime, aiding and abetting a fraud is a crime, obstruction of justice is a crime, but since we haven't used the term "collusion" well, I guess Giuliani is confused.

Little obfuscation anyone?

If someone denies meeting with the "Russians," they are referring to the Russian government, ie the Kremlin.

If they sit down and talk to a Russian, living in America, about Russian adoptions, is that then a lie? During the campaign isn't it to be expected by the Trump Team that Russians in the US were vetted by the Obama Administration? Instead, Obama set up this meeting to frame Trump.

Once again I am surprised that a forensics teacher gets fooled by this stuff.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Little obfuscation anyone?

If someone denies meeting with the "Russians," they are referring to the Russian government, ie the Kremlin.

If they sit down and talk to a Russian, living in America, about Russian adoptions, is that then a lie? During the campaign isn't it to be expected by the Trump Team that Russians in the US were vetted by the Obama Administration? Instead, Obama set up this meeting to frame Trump.

Once again I am surprised that a forensics teacher gets fooled by this stuff.

Good point -- Hope Hicks is all about obfuscation.
Last July, Hope Hicks was with Donald Drumpf aboard Air Force One when they created a statement in response to press inquiries about a mysterious June 2016 meeting at Drumpf Tower between Donald Drumpf Jr., other top campaign officials and a Russian lawyer promising dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The statement said the meeting was about Russian adoptions.

I find this discussion disgusting. For two years you have been claiming "no collusion", now when Cohen testifies that there is collusion and it seems other evidence will fall as well, then Giuliani claims that "collusion is not a crime".

There may be many, many liars outside of Trumps whitehouse, campaign and family. But that is irrelevant. Trump's campaign, his son, his spokespeople, his chief of staff are all proven to be liars, bold faced liars, liars who don't have the slightest respect for the american people.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Good point -- Hope Hicks is all about obfuscation.
Last July, Hope Hicks was with Donald Drumpf aboard Air Force One when they created a statement in response to press inquiries about a mysterious June 2016 meeting at Drumpf Tower between Donald Drumpf Jr., other top campaign officials and a Russian lawyer promising dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The statement said the meeting was about Russian adoptions.

I find this discussion disgusting. For two years you have been claiming "no collusion", now when Cohen testifies that there is collusion and it seems other evidence will fall as well, then Giuliani claims that "collusion is not a crime".

There may be many, many liars outside of Trumps whitehouse, campaign and family. But that is irrelevant. Trump's campaign, his son, his spokespeople, his chief of staff are all proven to be liars, bold faced liars, liars who don't have the slightest respect for the american people.

Welcome to politics my friend!

I found so many liars in the Nobama (I can play with letters too) WH, that I constantly turned them off for my own conscience sake.

Of course, they all lie to gain political advantage, but which side has weaponized our intelligence and justice?

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

[awareness]

DOJ forms Religious Liberty Task Force to protect freedom of religion

“A dangerous movement, undetected by many, but real, is not challenging and eroding a great tradition of religious freedom,” Mr. Sessions said announcing the task force. “There can be no doubt it’s no little matter. It must be confronted intellectually and politically and defeated.”

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2...-task-force-t/

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

DOJ forms Religious Liberty Task Force to protect freedom of religionanthropogenic

“A dangerous movement, undetected by many, but real, is not challenging and eroding a great tradition of religious freedom,” Mr. Sessions said announcing the task force. “There can be no doubt it’s no little matter. It must be confronted intellectually and politically and defeated.”

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2...-task-force-t/

I think there is a typo there. It should say “A dangerous movement, undetected by many, but real, is now challenging and eroding a great tradition of religious freedom...” Right?

[zeek]

@realDonaldTrump who has been repeating "No Collusion" incessantly since 2016 now tweets for the first time that "Collusion is not a crime." Do you see a little shift there? Why would he make that shift today? It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort is scheduled to testify today, could it?

[zeek]

How long before the first child dies from a 3D plastic gun?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

How long before the first child dies from a 3D plastic gun?

It will happen far later than the first kid killed in a car accident, or that drowned in a pool, or that was killed by a knife. So why no outrage about making cars, pools and knives illegal?

Since a "gun" is dangerous there will certainly be a kid killed by one.

But that isn't the question. The real question is if the US govt actually has the power to make them "illegal".

Do you want 3d printers to be illegal? If not then it would be, for all practical purposes, to make the access to the plans for them to be illegal.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It will happen far later than the first kid killed in a car accident,

I made this argument about 9/11. 3000 died and panic and alarm resulted in a clamp down on our privacy, and police become military -- the Patriot Act -- like never seen before.

Yet over 40,000 die from car accidents a year, and where's the alarm?

Now more die from opioids each year, than car accidents. There is alarm over that. Now people in real need of pain medication are being denied.

Personally, people can make guns in their garage. And bombs. We're never gonna stop that. (The gun manufacture's are most alarmed over 3D printed guns).

I'm more alarmed over human nature ... and ... the power of mythology & religion. But even Jesus couldn't do anything about that ... so far.

If we reacted to mythology and religion, like we did to 9/11, we would ban all of them forever.

Oh ... I forgot ... religion is protected by the constitution ... like guns. What was our founding fathers thinkin'?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

If we reacted to mythology and religion, like we did to 9/11, we would ban all of them forever.

Spoken like a true...Stalinist.

Oh ... I forgot ... religion is protected by the constitution ... like guns. What was our founding fathers thinkin'?

Maybe they were thinking that since we don't have all the answers we should keep an open mind and an open system to allow for pursuit of the truth. Religionists and anti-religionists who think they have all the answers never want to do that.

[zeek]

According to the New York Times the Trump Administration is mulling over another unilateral tax cut for the rich. They say a proposal under consideration at the Treasury Department would bypass Congress and use federal regulation to index capital gains for inflation, a $100 billion boost for high earners. Do you think the rich need another tax cut? I don't.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

How long before the first child dies from a 3D plastic gun?

How long before the first 3D gun takes out a terrorist?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How long before the first 3D gun takes out a terrorist?

Which will come first, dead child or dead terrorist? And, more importantly what will be the ratio of dead children to dead terrorists? What is the ratio of dead children to dead terrorsts by guns in America today? We can use that as a baseline. Oh, I forgot, you only care about the unborn. Sorry.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Which will come first, dead child or dead terrorist? And, more importantly what will be the ratio of dead children to dead terrorists? What is the ratio of dead children to dead terrorsts by guns in America today? We can use that as a baseline. Oh, I forgot, you only care about the unborn. Sorry.

Don't ever forget that I do care for the unborn.

Totally pathetic that you care nothing about them.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Don't ever forget that I do care for the unborn.

Totally pathetic that you care nothing about them.

You're not big on the born though, I notice.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Don't ever forget that I do care for the unborn.

Then I guess it all boils down to, who controls a woman's womb.?????

[awareness]

Trump to Attorney General Jeff Sessions: Stop Mueller probe 'right now'

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Which will come first, dead child or dead terrorist? And, more importantly what will be the ratio of dead children to dead terrorists? What is the ratio of dead children to dead terrorsts by guns in America today? We can use that as a baseline. Oh, I forgot, you only care about the unborn. Sorry.

Why not outlaw internet trolls? How about cancer, make that illegal?

The point is please tell us how the US government is going to actually enforce this law?

You would have to outlaw 3d printers, censor the entire internet, and prohibit travel outside of the US. Is that what you are saying the govt should do? If not, how exactly does the US govt outlaw downloadable plans that would work on a 3d printer?

Also, if there is no rifling on these guns they are not going to be anymore accurate than a zip gun which anyone can make, and can make out of plastic if they choose. So then, how is this any worse than zip guns which are a tiny fraction of the cost of these things?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why not outlaw internet trolls? How about cancer, make that illegal?

The point is please tell us how the US government is going to actually enforce this law?

You would have to outlaw 3d printers, censor the entire internet, and prohibit travel outside of the US. Is that what you are saying the govt should do? If not, how exactly does the US govt outlaw downloadable plans that would work on a 3d printer?

Also, if there is no rifling on these guns they are not going to be anymore accurate than a zip gun which anyone can make, and can make out of plastic if they choose. So then, how is this any worse than zip guns which are a tiny fraction of the cost of these things?

Great argument, bro. Why did Moses bother bringing the 10 commandments down the mountain? Those laws didn't stop murder or the other nine crimes on the tablets. By your reasoning God was just wasting our precious time by listing laws that were not enforceable. If children kill themselves or blow their hands off with defective 3-D plastic guns, that's their problem. Nothing society can do about it. You have come up with many, sometimes far-fetched ideas to solve all kinds of other problems on this forum. But, on this issue, you acquiesce helplessly . I wonder why?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Great argument, bro. Why did Moses bother bringing the 10 commandments down the mountain? Those laws didn't stop murder or the other nine crimes on the tablets. By your reasoning God was just wasting our precious time by listing laws that were not enforceable. If children kill themselves or blow their hands off with defective 3-D plastic guns, that's their problem. Nothing society can do about it. You have come up with many, sometimes far-fetched ideas to solve all kinds of other problems on this forum. But, on this issue, you acquiesce helplessly . I wonder why?

No one has convinced me it is an issue, that is why. If someone wants to sell the plastic gun then by all means we can have regulations to make sure it isn't going to blow up in your hand. But we sell all kinds of dangerous things, even things that do blow up in your hand (ask Pierre Paul on the Giants). A pdf file on the internet that gives instructions to a 3d printer is not one of them. When I look at these plastic guns they look stupid. They are bulky (so harder to hide). Don't work as well, cost thousands of dollars (when the cost of the printer is factored in) which is much, much more than a far more effective gun. They will almost certainly last far less than a typical metal gun, and probably jam and deform much easier. To my knowledge they don't have rifling so they are far less accurate. Like I said, you can make a zip gun for less than $100 which would work every bit as well as one of these. Also, they are not able to be snuck past a metal detector because you still need metal bullets and a metal firing pin. The idea that these are "ghost" guns is to me very disingenuous. If someone used a plastic gun made on a 3d printer I think it would be far easier to trace than any other gun (how many people have these printers? check the computer record, did they download the plans, did the printer print one of these). A zip gun is a real "ghost" gun and the US has no way to make them illegal. Therefore if I was the US govt I would prefer a criminal to use a 3d gun over a zip gun. So then is there any reason why a criminal would want one of these toy guns? I can't think why. How about an assassin or terrorist? Maybe the underwear bomber who had an IQ of 80, but can't think of anyone else.

On the flip side censoring the internet and searching everyones computers and flash drives seems an incredibly high price to pay to keep these out of the US, and even if you did that it wouldn't work.

And it is wrong to say that we cannot enforce laws against murder and theft.

[awareness]

As McConnell said in 1999:

[The president’s] decisions have led the United States Senate to its own critical crossroads. And now we must choose our path. We can do the right thing. Or we can lower our standards and allow [the president] to cling to public office ― regardless of the consequences to our nation, to our system of justice, and to our future generations...

So what will we do this day? Will we rise above or will we sink below? Will we condone this president’s conduct or will we condemn it? Will we change our standards or will we change our president?

I guess with Trump Mitch will change his standards.

[zeek]

In the last five days, President Trump has thanked Kim Jong-un of North Korea for his “nice letter,” reminisced about his “great meeting” with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and offered to meet Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, without any preconditions.

During those same five days, the Treasury Department imposed sanctions on a Russian bank accused of helping North Korea with weapons-related activities. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo listed stringent preconditions for any engagement with Iran. And the administration’s top intelligence and law enforcement officials vowed to combat Russian interference in the midterm elections, while Senate Republicans pushed a bill that would impose harsh new sanctions on Moscow.

There is Mr. Trump’s foreign policy, and then there is the foreign policy of the rest of the Trump administration, backed by the Republican Party. This week, the two were openly at odds with each other. Be it Russia, NATO, Iran or North Korea, Mr. Trump’s staff and his party projected a radically different message than the president himself.

On Thursday, the White House produced an array of top officials to dramatize the (Russian) threat and explain the nation’s countermeasures. The president was conspicuously absent. Yet at a rally in Pennsylvania hours later, Mr. Trump dismissed the special counsel’s investigation of Russian interference as a “hoax” that was impeding his efforts to nurture a constructive relationship with the Russian president. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/03/u...39ries&ref=cta

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

There is Mr. Trump’s foreign policy, and then there is the foreign policy of the rest of the Trump administration, backed by the Republican Party. This week, the two were openly at odds with each other. Be it Russia, NATO, Iran or North Korea, Mr. Trump’s staff and his party projected a radically different message than the president himself.

On Thursday, the White House produced an array of top officials to dramatize the (Russian) threat and explain the nation’s countermeasures. The president was conspicuously absent. Yet at a rally in Pennsylvania hours later, Mr. Trump dismissed the special counsel’s investigation of Russian interference as a “hoax” that was impeding his efforts to nurture a constructive relationship with the Russian president. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/03/u...39ries&ref=cta

zeek's blind and willful ignorance on full display here colluding with the NYTimes.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

zeek's blind and willful ignorance on full display here colluding with the NYTimes.

When Trump says "no collusion," he means he's not colluding with his national intelligence, or even with his own aids.

[zeek]

"Putin’s Russia is creating a new Reactionary International built around nationalism, a critique of modernity and a disdain for liberal democracy. "

"Its central mission includes wrecking the Western alliance and the European Union by undermining a shared commitment to democratic values. "

"Putin saw that what he and parts of the right share is a hatred of liberalism."

https://lacrossetribune.com/opinion/...d210fa471.html

Trump was recruited by Russian intelligence and is following Putin's script.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

When Trump says "no collusion," he means he's not colluding with his national intelligence, or even with his own aids.

With comments like this, posting here is a total waste of time.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

"Putin’s Russia is creating a new Reactionary International built around nationalism, a critique of modernity and a disdain for liberal democracy. "

"Its central mission includes wrecking the Western alliance and the European Union by undermining a shared commitment to democratic values. "

"Putin saw that what he and parts of the right share is a hatred of liberalism."

https://lacrossetribune.com/opinion/...d210fa471.html

Trump was recruited by Russian intelligence and is following Putin's script.

Putin's Russia is built around nationalism?

Stupidest thing I ever heard! Every nation on earth was built around nationalism. The Declaration of Independence resounds with "NATIONALISM."

Have you guys lost your minds?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Putin's Russia is built around nationalism?

Stupidest thing I ever heard! Every nation on earth was built around nationalism. The Declaration of Independence resounds with "NATIONALISM."

Have you guys lost your minds?

I see what you did there taking the word nationalism out of the context.

So while you claim to be a student of history you're ignorant of the downside of nationalism. Really?

And you are unaware that the American Revolution began as a protest against the abuses of power of King George not as nationalistic fervor? Are you also unaware of the role of nationalism in the world wars of the 20th century?

You are perhaps aware that Trump has made globalism a dirty word. In his Twitter attack he called Charles Koch a former political Ally a globalist.

As a Christian Fundamentalist your sympathy with Putin's anti modernity is understandable, and of course your mentor theocrat Witness Lee was no fan of liberal democracy.

Did you notice how Trump attacked NATO and the European Union before his Infamous secret meeting with Putin in Helsinki? Even Secretary of State Pompeo can't say what transpired in that meeting which was supposedly conducted on behalf of the interests of the United States. If you believe that you've taken it on faith.

Free Speech Advocate that you are did you rejoice when the judge in Paul Manafort trial forbade the prosecution from using the term Russian oligarch which is exactly what those Russians are?

Nixon was a crook but at least he wasn't a traitor like Trump. Putin shares your hatred of liberalism. He shares Trump's hatred for the Free Press guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. So to be called crazy by you is an honor bro. thanks

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I see what you did there taking the word nationalism out of the context.

So while you claim to be a student of history you're ignorant of the downside of nationalism. Really?

And you are unaware that the American Revolution began as a protest against the abuses of power of King George not as nationalistic fervor? Are you also unaware of the role of nationalism in the world wars of the 20th century?

You are perhaps aware that Trump has made globalism a dirty word. In his Twitter attack he called Charles Koch a former political Ally a globalist.

As a Christian Fundamentalist your sympathy with Putin's anti modernity is understandable, and of course your mentor theocrat Witness Lee was no fan of liberal democracy.

Did you notice how Trump attacked NATO and the European Union before his Infamous secret meeting with Putin in Helsinki? Even Secretary of State Pompeo can't say what transpired in that meeting which was supposedly conducted on behalf of the interests of the United States. If you believe that you've taken it on faith.

Free Speech Advocate that you are did you rejoice when the judge in Paul Manafort trial forbade the prosecution from using the term Russian oligarch which is exactly what those Russians are?

Nixon was a crook but at least he wasn't a traitor like Trump. Putin shares your hatred of liberalism. He shares Trump's hatred for the Free Press guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. So to be called crazy by you is an honor bro. thanks

You are welcome!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Have you guys lost your minds?

What guys who?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

zeek's blind and willful ignorance on full display here colluding with the NYTimes.

Sorry, it is not collusion. Some top level Republican explained this to me. Apparently it is only collusion if you do it secretly, if you are very public and open about collusion and obstruction of justice, then it can't be a crime because you wouldn't have been so open and transparent about it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Nixon was a crook but at least he wasn't a traitor like Trump. Putin shares your hatred of liberalism. He shares Trump's hatred for the Free Press guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. So to be called crazy by you is an honor bro. thanks

Who would have thought that "draining the swamp" would include restoring Nixon's reputation.

[awareness]

Don Lemon responds to Trump attack on Lebron

That's right. Trump has nothing better to do than to attack a couple of black guys.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/40...the-real-dummy

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Who would have thought that "draining the swamp" would include restoring Nixon's reputation.

Let me be clear. Trump not the media is the Enemy of the State.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Let me be clear. Trump not the media is the Enemy of the State.

Tell that to Will Smith

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Sorry, it is not collusion. Some top level Republican explained this to me. Apparently it is only collusion if you do it secretly, if you are very public and open about collusion and obstruction of justice, then it can't be a crime because you wouldn't have been so open and transparent about it.

Hillary paid for the Dirty Dossier put together by Chris Steele, but since she dwells in the stratosphere above the Law, it is not collusion with the Russians.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hillary paid for the Dirty Dossier put together by Chris Steele, but since she dwells in the stratosphere above the Law, it is not collusion with the Russians.

Every single political campaign at this level employs private investigators to dig dirt on their opponents. If Trump has ties to Russia and is compromised we, the American voter, needed to know that before the election.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Every single political campaign at this level employs private investigators to dig dirt on their opponents. If Trump has ties to Russia and is compromised we, the American voter, needed to know that before the election.

Hilary et. al. have proven ties to Putin and Russia thru the Rosacom Uranium One transactions which brought the Clinton Foundation hundreds of millions of dollars and then you say it is good to investigate Trump.

Yet we have not seen one piece of evidence connecting Trump to election interference! Manafort's crimes are tax evasion going back 10-15 years when he was in cahoots with the Podesta group, who by the way have immunity.

With forensics guys like you, I would prefer the keystone cops.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Tell that to Will Smith

No, Steven Seagal.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

With forensics guys like you, I would prefer the keystone cops.

It is a common misunderstanding about forensic guys based on these cop shows on TV where the crime is solved in the 20 minutes given to a 30 min show.

I just finished reading about the investigation that brought down the Silk Road, a billion dollar dark web version of Amazon.com.

Unlike most criminals, this guy was very smart, Phd in physics smart. And, unlike most criminals he built the entire site himself with almost no outside help. Only two people knew he had anything to do with it and he really minimized how much they knew. Also, he used the TOR network and onion routing which is designed to be untraceable. Transactions were done in bitcoin, also untraceable.

Yet here is the thing, regardless of how smart you are and how careful you are everyone leaves traces. He left a tiny little trace of himself when he first started because he was the first reference to the Silk Road on the internet.

That one little mistake was enough for the "keystone cops" to catch him.

Second problem is that he was very well coached on how to avoid prosecution if he ever were caught. He never left his computer open and when it was closed it was encrypted. All he had to do was hit one key on the keypad and it would be encrypted. Since all the evidence of him being a criminal was on that laptop the cops had to arrest him with the laptop open to every single area of the site.

Yet the cops caught him and got his laptop and were able to take down every key player in the site.

But here is the common misunderstanding, they didn't do it in 20 minutes, it took two years of this guy being on their most wanted list. Baltimore Pd, FBI, DEA, IRS and Homeland security were all involved. That is not how long it took to convict him, only how long it took to find and arrest him. The trial itself probably added another year to that.

When Bozo's like Trump are screaming that Mueller is on a "witch hunt" it demonstrates that they are clueless about how a forensic investigation is carried out. It can take years.

But after everyone was arrested and the site was shut down and the IRS was doing their analysis guess what. They discovered two dirty cops who were acting as informants and getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. On the one hand these investigations take longer than people think it should take, on the other hand they wind up getting every single criminal and every single crime.

[awareness]

QAnon ..... bahahahahahaha ... Trump supporters ??????? A crazy bunch.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When Bozo's like Trump are screaming that Mueller is on a "witch hunt" it demonstrates that they are clueless about how a forensic investigation is carried out. It can take years.

Crazy like a fox that is. Whenever he says stuff, he's undermining the investigation and stirring up his troops of faithful believers like Ohio.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Crazy like a fox that is. Whenever he says stuff, he's undermining the investigation and stirring up his troops of faithful believers like Ohio.

I think he has stirred up many more than just his "faithful believers". This last swipe he took at Lebron was like hitting a hornets nest. Even his wife and daughter are publicly standing against him.

His minions have had to walk back his statements saying that we should ignore his tweets (because otherwise it is clearly obstruction of justice) but in so doing they are telling us to ignore POTUS, that trivializes him and makes him a byword. In addition even top Republicans come out publicly and make it clear that Mueller's investigation is not a witch hunt, is valid and should continue.

Crazy like a fox or crazy like a cornered dog?

It seems certain that Manafort is going down for fraud and tax evasion. One wonders if Manafort has anything he can offer up on Trump to reduce his sentence. Banion has made it clear that there was 0% chance that Trump was not aware of that meeting with Russians, hence that public comment supports Cohen. All they will need is one more person who refused to respond to confirm this. What is clear is that Cohen is flipping and if anyone has dirt on Trump it is Cohen. Do not trivialize some of that dirt, it could easily be the reason that his wife and daughter are beginning to distance themselves from him. Also, it looks like Don Jr. might be an easier target than Trump. Will he really sacrifice his own son to save himself?

Also, this last summit with Putin has many, many high level officials and Republicans expressing concern that the Russians have compromised Trump. National security is one valid reason to override political alliance.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When Bozo's like Trump are screaming that Mueller is on a "witch hunt" it demonstrates that they are clueless about how a forensic investigation is carried out. It can take years.

Forgive me if I miss the connection. These guys just went digging for years because they had nothing else to do? What was the crime on Silk Road?? Why dig in the first place?

The only crime was that Trump won the election against all odds.

Show me another case where the Feds went digging for years to find a crime, when there was no crime in the first place?

Why don't the Feds investigate you or zeek? If they spend enough time or money, they will find something. They might have to go back 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 years but they will find something.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think he has stirred up many more than just his "faithful believers". This last swipe he took at Lebron was like hitting a hornets nest. Even his wife and daughter are publicly standing against him.

His minions have had to walk back his statements saying that we should ignore his tweets (because otherwise it is clearly obstruction of justice) but in so doing they are telling us to ignore POTUS, that trivializes him and makes him a byword. In addition even top Republicans come out publicly and make it clear that Mueller's investigation is not a witch hunt, is valid and should continue.

Crazy like a fox or crazy like a cornered dog?

It seems certain that Manafort is going down for fraud and tax evasion. One wonders if Manafort has anything he can offer up on Trump to reduce his sentence. Banion has made it clear that there was 0% chance that Trump was not aware of that meeting with Russians, hence that public comment supports Cohen. All they will need is one more person who refused to respond to confirm this. What is clear is that Cohen is flipping and if anyone has dirt on Trump it is Cohen. Do not trivialize some of that dirt, it could easily be the reason that his wife and daughter are beginning to distance themselves from him. Also, it looks like Don Jr. might be an easier target than Trump. Will he really sacrifice his own son to save himself?

Also, this last summit with Putin has many, many high level officials and Republicans expressing concern that the Russians have compromised Trump. National security is one valid reason to override political alliance.

Hilary and Obama met with the Russians. How is that a crime?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hilary and Obama met with the Russians. How is that a crime?

It depends on the content of the meeting. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 its a crime for a foreign national to spend money to influence a federal election. And if a U.S. citizen coordinates, conspires or assists in that spending, that's a crime too.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hilary and Obama met with the Russians. How is that a crime?

Yes but because Trump has harped on collusion thousands of times, we know that it was collusion. Otherwise why bring it up so much?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

It depends on the content of the meeting. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 its a crime for a foreign national to spend money to influence a federal election. And if a U.S. citizen coordinates, conspires or assists in that spending, that's a crime too.

She conspired to sell our Uranium assets to the Russians for hundreds of millions in donations to her foundation. Her crimes are thousand times worse than Manafort's.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes but because Trump has harped on collusion thousands of times, we know that it was collusion. Otherwise why bring it up so much?

Huh?

Treason, selling American intelligence, etc. Crimes which your favorite Trump hating Press refuses to cover.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Huh?

Treason, selling American intelligence, etc. Crimes which your favorite Trump hating Press refuses to cover.

Trump calls it collusion. He must know.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Forgive me if I miss the connection. These guys just went digging for years because they had nothing else to do? What was the crime on Silk Road?? Why dig in the first place?

The crime on the Silk road was that American citizens could purchase illegal substances on the internet and have them shipped via US mail to their home.

The crimes that this recent investigation has uncovered have only recently begun to surface. Manafort is being tried for tax evasion and fraud. 12 Russians have been indicted for fraud, hacking and tampering with our election. Cohen is clearly facing the possibility of life in prison (for all practical purposes) hence his willingness to flip. There are other members of Trump's campaign that will also be tried or else will cut deals. Now it looks like Don Jr. will be charged as well.

The crimes we are looking at are foreign powers interfering with the US election for president and possible collusion with the Trump campaign to influence the election. If other crimes are discovered that are outside the purview of Mueller, he will refer them to the proper authorities (NYS DA, etc.) That is standard practice. We don't wink at evil simply because it is not in our jurisdiction (if you see something, say something).

There may also be evidence that is uncovered that is not a crime, as in the Stormy Daniels case but may benefit those involved in civil suits.

The reason we are digging is that America wants to trust in the process of electing a president and trust that the president we have has not been bought by a foreign entity.

Although I would hate to think that Mueller looking through 20 years of my past, Zeek's past or even your past would find anything but a shining example of Jesus Christ, I do agree with you that most billionaires would be terrified to have Mueller looking through 20 years of their past. But, Trump is not like most anything.

[Ohio]

FAR LEFT MOBS RIOT In 3 Major US Cities — NOT ONE Mainstream Outlet Reports on the Widespread Leftist Violence

Far left violent Antifa mobs rioted in three Major US cities this past weekend.
Antifa mobs attacked police and conservatives in Portland, Providence and Berkeley.
Antifa cracked skulls and beat protesters and attacked grandmothers in Portland, Oregon on Saturday.

They still talk and distort Charlottesville, VA but mum's the word when their own are violent.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

FAR LEFT MOBS RIOT In 3 Major US Cities — NOT ONE Mainstream Outlet Reports on the Widespread Leftist Violence

Far left violent Antifa mobs rioted in three Major US cities this past weekend.
Antifa mobs attacked police and conservatives in Portland, Providence and Berkeley.
Antifa cracked skulls and beat protesters and attacked grandmothers in Portland, Oregon on Saturday.

They still talk and distort Charlottesville, VA but mum's the word when their own are violent.

I've been reading about this for days. All the news outlets have been reporting on it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I've been reading about this for days. All the news outlets have been reporting on it.

The link didn't work for me, but I did see on the news about the antifa mob and the pro Trump mob facing off and that the antifa protest was in response to the Trump rally.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The link didn't work for me, but I did see on the news about the antifa mob and the pro Trump mob facing off and that the antifa protest was in response to the Trump rally.

Do you support ANTIFA taking away the 1A rights of Trump supporters to rally?

Rap Sheet: ***544** Acts of Media-Approved Violence and Harassment Against Trump Supporters

The evidence is overwhelming: To support the Progressive Left is to support violence and taking away our free speech rights.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Do you support ANTIFA taking away the 1A rights of Trump supporters to rally?

No, why would you ask?

[awareness]

This seems so Jesus like to me. These UUs seem to be real Christians:

Arizona clergy call activists to support migrants on border

Arizona clergy are calling activists to gather this weekend at the state’s border with Mexico and leave large jugs of water on remote trails for migrants who continue to cross the desert during the dangerously hot summer.

https://www.apnews.com/e9db10622f294...ants-on-border

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No, why would you ask?

Obviously that is the logical conclusion of one who reads your posts.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

This seems so Jesus like to me. These UUs seem to be real Christians:

Arizona clergy call activists to support migrants on border

Arizona clergy are calling activists to gather this weekend at the state’s border with Mexico and leave large jugs of water on remote trails for migrants who continue to cross the desert during the dangerously hot summer.

https://www.apnews.com/e9db10622f294...ants-on-border

What if I left food and water on your property to entice trespassers and squatters, would you then consider me a "real" Christian?

[Ohio]

Democrat Senator from Connecticut, Chris Murphy: ‘Survival of Our Democracy’ Depends on Banning Conservative Websites From Social Media' because they "destroy our democracy."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Do you support ANTIFA taking away the 1A rights of Trump supporters to rally?

Rap Sheet: ***544** Acts of Media-Approved Violence and Harassment Against Trump Supporters

The evidence is overwhelming: To support the Progressive Left is to support violence and taking away our free speech rights.

History shows that in large scale political conflicts there are usually some on both sides that resort to violence. Who but a bias partisan would maintain that violence came only from his opposition?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Democrat Senator from Connecticut, Chris Murphy: ‘Survival of Our Democracy’ Depends on Banning Conservative Websites From Social Media' because they "destroy our democracy."

"No company is compelled to smear the reputations of dead kids' parents [is that an approved conservative tactic?], and no elected official (even Democrats) are required to stand idly by."

Colorful graphic mistakes plurality for division.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obviously that is the logical conclusion of one who reads your posts.

No problem, just direct me to any post that I wrote that would logically lead to that conclusion and I'll rectify that.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What if I left food and water on your property to entice trespassers and squatters, would you then consider me a "real" Christian?

If they were people, human beings, that needed help, YES! I don't know about subhumans. Are those coming in subhuman? What color are they?

[awareness]

Here's a word from George Soros, about Corey Stewart, GOP running for senate in Virginia :

Virginia GOP Senate Candidate Says He's 'Very Proud' the State Joined the Confederacy During the Civil War

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-po...ederacy-during

That's racism ... not even trying to hide. Proud of it actually. Campaigning on it, for the white vote.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Here's a word from George Soros, about Corey Stewart, GOP running for senate in Virginia :

Virginia GOP Senate Candidate Says He's 'Very Proud' the State Joined the Confederacy During the Civil War

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-po...ederacy-during

That's racism ... not even trying to hide. Proud of it actually. Campaigning on it, for the white vote.

The civil war was not simply about slavery, it was also about State's rights versus Federal govt's power. It was also about the change from an agricultural society to an industrial one. It is insulting, simplistic and wrong to say those in the North were fighting to abolish slavery and those in the South were fighting to preserve it.

When the decision to join the confederacy was made that was certainly not the only factor in the decision. There is overwhelming evidence that many in the North were every bit as racist as many in the South. Many in the North were very clear that they were not fighting to abolish slavery, therefore it is ridiculous to conclude that those in the South had to be fighting to keep it. Likewise, 75% of those in the South did not own slaves, and only about 5% owned more than two. It is naive to think that 75% of those in the South were willing to die so that plantation owners could keep their plantation.

This suggestion that the South was racist and the North was not is divisive. If the South is so racist why did so many freed slaves stay? The reality in the South, just like the North, is that about a third of the people are fleshly, a third are spiritual and about a third are in between.

It is also very possible that the monster created (US Federal govt) can end up committing more heinous crimes than even the South did. I am not excusing the sins of the South, only cautioning against the arrogance of those in the North with their "holier than thou" attitude.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am not excusing the sins of the South, only cautioning against the arrogance of those in the North with their "holier than thou" attitude.

Yeah, and John Brown wasn't an abolitionist, neither was the underground rail road, nor the Federal Act. And the Southern Baptist's were formed against slavery.

And: "Corey Stewart, the Republican nominee for a U.S. Senate seat in Virginia, praised former slave-state Virignia's secession effort in 1861 to protect slavery."

[awareness]

A closer look at America’s rapidly growing religious ‘nones’

Religiously UnaffiliatedReligious “nones” – a shorthand we use to refer to people who self-identify as atheists or agnostics, as well as those who say their religion is “nothing in particular” – now make up roughly 23% of the U.S. adult population. This is a stark increase from 2007, the last time a similar Pew Research study was conducted, when 16% of Americans were “nones.” (During this same time period, Christians have fallen from 78% to 71%.)

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ligious-nones/

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yeah, and John Brown wasn't an abolitionist, neither was the underground rail road, nor the Federal Act. And the Southern Baptist's were formed against slavery.

And: "Corey Stewart, the Republican nominee for a U.S. Senate seat in Virginia, praised former slave-state Virignia's secession effort in 1861 to protect slavery."

The quotation marks you put in could be misinterpreted to be quoting Corey Stewart, they weren't, they were quoting the author* of the article.

This is his quote: "But it's also the state of Robert E. Lee, and Stonewall Jackson, and J.E.B. Stuart. Because, at the base of it, Virginians, we think for ourselves," he said. "And if the established order is wrong, we rebel. We did that in the Revolution, we did it in the Civil War, and we're doing it today. We're doing it today because they're trying to rob us of everything that we hold dear: our history, our heritage, our culture."

Once again, my point is very simple, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were two of America's greatest generals on the battlefield and I have no issue with someone from Virginia being proud of them. Not to mention George Washington and some of the other names he mentioned.

I think the South and the entire US had very heinous sins to atone for as a result of slavery and the Civil war is the cost we paid for that unrighteousness and sin.

That said, the claim that someone from Virginia is a racist because they are proud to be from Virginia is repulsive.

*Chris Sosa, the author of the article is clearly a very biased reporter. One article of his refers to the "Trump cult" and "magical thinking". Another says that the Trump GOP is the modern day KKK and that the grand wizard is in the Whitehouse. A third talks about Trump's mental decline as being obvious and undeniable. A fourth says that Nixon was never publicly unhinged like Trump. This article says that a man running for public office in Virginia and who is unashamed to be from Virginia, even proud to be from Virginia must a racist. Let the reader beware.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obviously that is the logical conclusion of one who reads your posts.

Again, I have not found a single post of mine that supports Antifa, so please help me out (there are over 5,000 posts), what post are you referring to?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The link didn't work for me, but I did see on the news about the antifa mob and the pro Trump mob facing off and that the antifa protest was in response to the Trump rally.

Here you called the Trump rally a "mob" but referred to the real antifa mob -- now with hundreds of attacks on citizens in public eateries -- as protests, as if those are normal 1A actions.

Namcy Pelosi and Maxine Waters have incited their base to violent protest. The recent breakfast attack in Philly on Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk shows that the Left is now using orchestrated social media in all the major cities to target and harass conservatives.

Whether you like it or not, this culture war is forcing everyone to choose sides.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

If they were people, human beings, that needed help, YES! I don't know about subhumans. Are those coming in subhuman? What color are they?

What are subhumans? This post makes no sense.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What are subhumans? This post makes no sense.

Put your thinking cap on brother. Trump has called 'em animals. It's an old motif. Demonizing those that aren't in our tribe is how we keep them out. In other words, we have to depict them as subhuman ... and even keep their children in cages like animals.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Put your thinking cap on brother. Trump has called 'em animals. It's an old motif. Demonizing those that aren't in our tribe is how we keep them out. In other words, we have to depict them as subhuman ... and even keep their children in cages like animals.

This is quite deceptive. WHO IS "THEM?"

Trump called MS13 animals. Have you not read how they murder their victims? Twist the facts and believe a lie?

It was the Obama Admin that put kids in cages. That widely circulated pic was from 2014. Typical media smear job, eh?

This one post of yours is proof positive of our biased media. Unfortunately, what you hold so dear, are just falsehoods.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Put your thinking cap on brother. Trump has called 'em animals. It's an old motif. Demonizing those that aren't in our tribe is how we keep them out. In other words, we have to depict them as subhuman ... and even keep their children in cages like animals.

This one post seems to characterize all I have been saying about fake news media and the progressives who drink their Kool-Aid. You don't think about what they tell you, rather look down at conservatives as thought-less followers of Trump who need to put on their "thinking cap."

• Obama put these children in "cages," yet no one said a word
• The media had pics of these cages in 2014, yet kept silent
• The media used this pic to smear Trump, and you believed it
• Media acts like this policy started under Trump
• Media smears Trump every day inciting antifa groups to action
• Why not, since Obama was your savior and Trump is Hitler

Secondly ...

• Obama opened the borders allowing unvetted MS-13 gangs to spread like wildfire
• The media keeps quiet about criminal activities of illegal immigrants
• The media promotes sanctuary cities as "real love"
• But no "real love" for citizen victims like Kate Steinle
• Trump highlights the dangers of these policies, citing the need for border security
• Discussing the dangers, Trump calls tatted MS-13 gang members "animals"
• Media distorts his word, saying Trump calls all immigrants "animals"
• You believe these media lies and keep gulping the Kool-Aid
• You then join in to condemn all Trump supporters with the same lies inventing new words like "subhuman"

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This one post seems to characterize all I have been saying about fake news media and the progressives who drink their Kool-Aid. You don't think about what they tell you, rather look down at conservatives as thought-less followers of Trump who need to put on their "thinking cap."

• Obama put these children in "cages," yet no one said a word
• The media had pics of these cages in 2014, yet kept silent
• The media used this pic to smear Trump, and you believed it
• Media acts like this policy started under Trump
• Media smears Trump every day inciting antifa groups to action
• Why not, since Obama was your savior and Trump is Hitler

Secondly ...

• Obama opened the borders allowing unvetted MS-13 gangs to spread like wildfire
• The media keeps quiet about criminal activities of illegal immigrants
• The media promotes sanctuary cities as "real love"
• But no "real love" for citizen victims like Kate Steinle
• Trump highlights the dangers of these policies, citing the need for border security
• Discussing the dangers, Trump calls tatted MS-13 gang members "animals"
• Media distorts his word, saying Trump calls all immigrants "animals"
• You believe these media lies and keep gulping the Kool-Aid
• You then join in to condemn all Trump supporters with the same lies inventing new words like "subhuman"

Goodness! I guess I struck a nerve.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Goodness! I guess I struck a nerve.

What a copout.

Put your thinking cap on and address the facts.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What a copout.

Put your thinking cap on and address the facts.

Are you talking about the MAGA cap?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here you called the Trump rally a "mob" but referred to the real antifa mob -- now with hundreds of attacks on citizens in public eateries -- as protests, as if those are normal 1A actions.

Namcy Pelosi and Maxine Waters have incited their base to violent protest. The recent breakfast attack in Philly on Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk shows that the Left is now using orchestrated social media in all the major cities to target and harass conservatives.

Whether you like it or not, this culture war is forcing everyone to choose sides.

I see your error in logic here. Referring to a Trump "mob" does not logically equate to support for Antifa, though the mistake might have been understandable had the quote not also referred to the Antifa as a "mob" as well.

Logically speaking you cannot possibly be offended by the reference to the "Trump mob" and then at the same time logically equate my reference to the Antifa mob as support.

The definition of mob is -- a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence.

Yes, it is fair to say that many of Trump's rallies do not fit that description, but you cannot possibly say that they all don't. Especially the ones with maniacs driving their car through the protesters.

Nor can you claim that they are simply "bad apples" that do not represent Trump when He is calling for people at his rallies to violently attack protesters with the promise of paying their legal bills.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

[*]Obama opened the borders allowing unvetted MS-13 gangs to spread like wildfire[*]The media keeps quiet about criminal activities of illegal immigrants

It seems to me everything hinges on these two points.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...sa-since-1990/

According to the national average we had around 458 violent offenses per 100,000 people when Obama first became president and in his last year that was down close to 386. That is a decrease of 16% in 8 years which follows the trend of the last 25 years. So it doesn't seem to make any sense to say that "gangs spread like wildfire" when Obama was president.

Likewise one main reason everyone is talking about gang violence is that the media does cover it. The second reason is that organized crime has been severely crippled due to a variety of forensic tools we didn't have 30 or 40 years ago. Gangs are basically kids, no one is getting to the "wise guy" level, much less the Don level anymore. The reason we talk about the "Cartels" is that you have to go to the third world to find organized crime on that level anymore.

[awareness]

=Ohio]Namcy Pelosi and Maxine Waters have incited their base to violent protest.

I know. They've got 'em worked up into a real granny-get-yer-gun frenzy. Almost like a Trump rally.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here you called the Trump rally a "mob" but referred to the real antifa mob -- now with hundreds of attacks on citizens in public eateries -- as protests, as if those are normal 1A actions.

Namcy Pelosi and Maxine Waters have incited their base to violent protest. The recent breakfast attack in Philly on Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk shows that the Left is now using orchestrated social media in all the major cities to target and harass conservatives.

Whether you like it or not, this culture war is forcing everyone to choose sides.

I've only seen you condemn violence when it comes from the Left and condone it when it occurs on the Right. So it seems you have taken your own advise and chosen a side.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Namcy Pelosi and Maxine Waters have incited their base to violent protest. The recent breakfast attack in Philly on Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk shows that the Left is now using orchestrated social media in all the major cities to target and harass conservatives.

Whether you like it or not, this culture war is forcing everyone to choose sides.

I haven't chosen a side. I condemn Maxine Waters for her comments that were inflammatory and incendiary. I have condemned Antifa for acting like a mob and not standing on righteousness. I have condemned Trump for inciting his crowds to violence and promising to pay legal fees for people who attack protesters.

I do not agree that you fight fire with fire, nor do I agree that you fight fire with gasoline. Donald Trump uses gasoline, Maxine Waters stupidly tried to "fight fire with fire". Neither is standing on righteousness.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I haven't chosen a side. I condemn Maxine Waters for her comments that were inflammatory and incendiary. I have condemned Antifa for acting like a mob and not standing on righteousness. I have condemned Trump for inciting his crowds to violence and promising to pay legal fees for people who attack protesters.

I do not agree that you fight fire with fire, nor do I agree that you fight fire with gasoline. Donald Trump uses gasoline, Maxine Waters stupidly tried to "fight fire with fire". Neither is standing on righteousness.

Good post. I agree with everything you said except that I don't condemn those people. I just oppose, and don't support or go along with their actions when they incite or participate in or act out violence.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Good post. I agree with everything you said except that I don't condemn those people. I just oppose, and don't support or go along with their actions when they incite or participate in or act out violence.

Fair enough, condemn the action, not the person.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I've only seen you condemn violence when it comes from the Left and condone it when it occurs on the Right. So it seems you have taken your own advise and chosen a side.

Hard to find violence on the right.

Violence on the campus from antifa shuts down conservatives -- as planned, violating 1A right to free speech -- so that nearly all universities now control the speech their students can hear.

Recent protests in Portland were leftist violence.

Maxine's call for public harassment continues in all major cities. The left has developed social media sites to gather forces whenever a conservative is seen in public.

Trump's cabinet and staff all require security due to continued threats of violence. Sarah Sanders' liberal in-laws were even accosted at a second restaurant even after she went home.

But I'm sure you can find a few conservatives who get out of control. You can then justify thousands of cases of harassment and violence against conservatives with that one loudmouth that got punched at a Trump rally.

Is it too hard for you to see the difference between Trump supporters at a Trump rally shouting at CNN's Acosta, and dozens of progressives throwing water and shouting thru bullhorns at Candace Owens eating in a Philly breakfast joint?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I've only seen you condemn violence when it comes from the Left and condone it when it occurs on the Right. So it seems you have taken your own advise and chosen a side.

Plus, by taking a anti antifa position, means you're talking a pro-Alt-right position ... and they've got White Supremacists, nationalists, and the KKK and Neo-Nazi's.

I don't support violence on either side, but I also don't support the White Race thing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I see your error in logic here. Referring to a Trump "mob" does not logically equate to support for Antifa, though the mistake might have been understandable had the quote not also referred to the Antifa as a "mob" as well.

Logically speaking you cannot possibly be offended by the reference to the "Trump mob" and then at the same time logically equate my reference to the Antifa mob as support.

The definition of mob is -- a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence.

Yes, it is fair to say that many of Trump's rallies do not fit that description, but you cannot possibly say that they all don't. Especially the ones with maniacs driving their car through the protesters.

Nor can you claim that they are simply "bad apples" that do not represent Trump when He is calling for people at his rallies to violently attack protesters with the promise of paying their legal bills.

It seems that the posters here cannot distinguish between a "Trump rally" and a "Trump mob." It's all playing with words.

Let me suggest that a "mob" will not be confined to a rally auditorium, rather will be on the streets often with masked men, weapons, and violence.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It seems that the posters here cannot distinguish between a "Trump rally" and a "Trump mob." It's all playing with words.

Let me suggest that a "mob" will not be confined to a rally auditorium, rather will be on the streets often with masked men, weapons, and violence.

Takes for the lesson bro Ohio, but I was talking about the frenzy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It seems to me everything hinges on these two points.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...sa-since-1990/

According to the national average we had around 458 violent offenses per 100,000 people when Obama first became president and in his last year that was down close to 386. That is a decrease of 16% in 8 years which follows the trend of the last 25 years. So it doesn't seem to make any sense to say that "gangs spread like wildfire" when Obama was president.

Likewise one main reason everyone is talking about gang violence is that the media does cover it. The second reason is that organized crime has been severely crippled due to a variety of forensic tools we didn't have 30 or 40 years ago. Gangs are basically kids, no one is getting to the "wise guy" level, much less the Don level anymore. The reason we talk about the "Cartels" is that you have to go to the third world to find organized crime on that level anymore.

In this regard both sides highlight the kind of violence which they use to fear monger. The left uses school violence to promote gun control. The right uses terrorism by illegal immigrants to protect the borders.

I have concerns with both extremes. One of the necessary evils of our society is the excessive police presence and invasion of our civil liberties. Without a doubt there are trigger happy and abusive police who seem to get away with murder.

Yet what has happened to Chicago is liberal policies run rampant. I heard a debate last night with two black leaders discussing the violence there. One called for increased 4th amendment protections, the other called for increased police presence. Chicago's mayor seems to believe that the violence is unavoidable -- just so that no one's "rights" are violated.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Takes for the lesson bro Ohio, but I was talking about the frenzy.

Frenzy? Hardly!

Frenzy means "a state or period of uncontrolled excitement or wild behavior." It's not just excitement, but uncontrolled excitement.

I have never seen a Trump rally reach the level of an NFL game. I went to one in 2010 and almost lost my life to some crazy drunks.

You obviously are persuaded by media biased reporting. They used to condemn Tea Party rallies as "frenzied, uncontrolled, dangerous, etc." yet when it was all over, there was even very little litter on the ground.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It seems that the posters here cannot distinguish between a "Trump rally" and a "Trump mob." It's all playing with words.

Let me suggest that a "mob" will not be confined to a rally auditorium, rather will be on the streets often with masked men, weapons, and violence.

Fine, the white supremacist rallies for Trump and the KKK support for Trump would then fall under your definition for a "Trump mob". The post in question that you quoted was in fact based on that context. The pro Trump mob was outside, and involved a car running over protesters, unconfined, on the street, with weapons and violence.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I haven't chosen a side. I condemn Maxine Waters for her comments that were inflammatory and incendiary. I have condemned Antifa for acting like a mob and not standing on righteousness. I have condemned Trump for inciting his crowds to violence and promising to pay legal fees for people who attack protesters.

I do not agree that you fight fire with fire, nor do I agree that you fight fire with gasoline. Donald Trump uses gasoline, Maxine Waters stupidly tried to "fight fire with fire". Neither is standing on righteousness.

I too condemn Trump's comments in that one rally. But where did Trump "incite his crowds to violence?" Gross exaggerations are falsehoods too, eh?

How about we also compare the amount of violence on both sides.

We had one guy punched at a Trump rally. Isn't this almost expected? If I went to a Democratic rally shouting epithets at the speakers and the attendants, I would expect some to get upset with me. If I got hurt, it would be my own damn fault. Make sense?

We have hundreds of conservatives whose lives are now endangered. They are not at rallies, they are in public spaces. Conservatives need a security entourage to speak on universities.

I don't see how you can compare what is happening with "fairness."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Fine, the white supremacist rallies for Trump and the KKK support for Trump would then fall under your definition for a "Trump mob". The post in question that you quoted was in fact based on that context. The pro Trump mob was outside, and involved a car running over protesters, unconfined, on the street, with weapons and violence.

I hate these neo-KKK types, but that city gave them a permit to protest.

Antifa showed up to fight. Should have just ignored the KKK's. Who were they hurting? If ANTIFA comes to fight, they bear the brunt of the responsibility and should not be endorsed by the Press or you.

Today, the biggest danger we have is not these KKK's, but the ANTIFA's. ANTIFA attacked the Portland Patriot Prayer rally. Once we allow ANTIFA to shutdown speakers on the Berkley campus or a Prayer in Portland rally, what good are our 1st Amendment rights to free speech?

No, my friend, the violence we have today is one-sided. Just look at who is wearing the masks.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I too condemn Trump's comments in that one rally. But where did Trump "incite his crowds to violence?" Gross exaggerations are falsehoods too, eh?

How about we also compare the amount of violence on both sides.

We had one guy punched at a Trump rally. Isn't this almost expected? If I went to a Democratic rally shouting epithets at the speakers and the attendants, I would expect some to get upset with me. If I got hurt, it would be my own damn fault. Make sense?

We have hundreds of conservatives whose lives are now endangered. They are not at rallies, they are in public spaces. Conservatives need a security entourage to speak on universities.

I don't see how you can compare what is happening with "fairness."

You are right, which proves the point.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I hate these neo-KKK types, but that city gave them a permit to protest.

Antifa showed up to fight. Should have just ignored the KKK's. Who were they hurting? If ANTIFA comes to fight, they bear the brunt of the responsibility and should not be endorsed by the Press or you.

Today, the biggest danger we have is not these KKK's, but the ANTIFA's. ANTIFA attacked the Portland Patriot Prayer rally. Once we allow ANTIFA to shutdown speakers on the Berkley campus or a Prayer in Portland rally, what good are our 1st Amendment rights to free speech?

No, my friend, the violence we have today is one-sided. Just look at who is wearing the masks.

Once again, you are right, proving the point.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hard to find violence on the right.

Terrorists inspired by Nationalist and Right Wing ideology have killed about 10 times as many people as Left Wing terrorists since 1992. https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi.../#12c463ba1e74

"The far left is very active in the United States, but it hasn't been particularly violent for some time," says Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism.

He says the numbers between the groups don't compare.

"In the past 10 years when you look at murders committed by domestic extremists in the United States of all types, right-wing extremists are responsible for about 74 percent of those murders," Pitcavage says.
https://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/53325...iolence-rising

Violence has been ratcheting up on all sides during white supremacist rallies in recent months — but "antifa" is not planning the rallies, and statistically poses a lesser danger.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/...ually-violent/

"US government data revealed a long record of homicides inspired by Far Right extremism: 106 people died in 62 attacks from 2001 to the end of 2016. Far Left groups over that same period caused no fatalities." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziZNro3uric

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Terrorists inspired by Nationalist and Right Wing ideology have killed about 10 times as many people as Left Wing terrorists since 1992. https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi.../#12c463ba1e74

"The far left is very active in the United States, but it hasn't been particularly violent for some time," says Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism.

He says the numbers between the groups don't compare.

"In the past 10 years when you look at murders committed by domestic extremists in the United States of all types, right-wing extremists are responsible for about 74 percent of those murders," Pitcavage says.
https://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/53325...iolence-rising

Violence has been ratcheting up on all sides during white supremacist rallies in recent months — but "antifa" is not planning the rallies, and statistically poses a lesser danger.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/...ually-violent/

According to a 2017 survey from Pew Research Center, gun owners are more likely to live in rural areas and vote Republican. This rural tilt helps explain why guns kill so many people in Republican-leaning counties.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0732b144992e

Not to hear Fox News and bro Ohio tell it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Terrorists inspired by Nationalist and Right Wing ideology have killed about 10 times as many people as Left Wing terrorists since 1992. https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi.../#12c463ba1e74

"The far left is very active in the United States, but it hasn't been particularly violent for some time," says Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism.

He says the numbers between the groups don't compare.

"In the past 10 years when you look at murders committed by domestic extremists in the United States of all types, right-wing extremists are responsible for about 74 percent of those murders," Pitcavage says.
https://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/53325...iolence-rising

Violence has been ratcheting up on all sides during white supremacist rallies in recent months — but "antifa" is not planning the rallies, and statistically poses a lesser danger.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/...ually-violent/

"US government data revealed a long record of homicides inspired by Far Right extremism: 106 people died in 62 attacks from 2001 to the end of 2016. Far Left groups over that same period caused no fatalities." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziZNro3uric

That is the problem when you fashion your message to the lowest common denominator.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is the problem when you fashion your message to the lowest common denominator.

And everybody knows that Hitler's National Socialistic Party of "Right Wing" Christian conservatives killed millions, thus "proving" how well behaved all socialists, communists, and fascists are.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And everybody knows that Hitler's National Socialistic Party of "Right Wing" Christian conservatives killed millions, thus "proving" how well behaved all socialists, communists, and fascists are.

Without a doubt Hitler's message was directed at the lowest common denominator. He was especially bitter about the loss in WWI. Just like today, there are losers in the trade agreements made between nations like NAFTA, the losers in those deals are all big supporters of Trump.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Without a doubt Hitler's message was directed at the lowest common denominator. He was especially bitter about the loss in WWI. Just like today, there are losers in the trade agreements made between nations like NAFTA, the losers in those deals are all big supporters of Trump.

I get it -- in your mind Christians are the lowest common denominator, makes them all fascists, racists, etc.

Back to today's violent protesters. Just ask the police who they would rather see protest -- the right or the left.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And everybody knows that Hitler's National Socialistic Party of "Right Wing" Christian conservatives killed millions, thus "proving" how well behaved all socialists, communists, and fascists are.

That's your partisan spin. I cited information from the Global Terrorism Database, the RAND Corporation, Cato institute and other sources. You ignored it and chose to resort to an ironic straw-man argument rather than look at facts. That's an unprincipled thing to do. If everybody does that, this country is screwed. We should oppose violence as far as possible regardless of which side of the political debate we are on.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I get it -- in your mind Christians are the lowest common denominator, makes them all fascists, racists, etc.

Back to today's violent protesters. Just ask the police who they would rather see protest -- the right or the left.

I often disagree with ZNP, but he's a sincere and thoughtful guy who is well read, weighs facts and works at problem-solving to find solutions. You're simply distorting his position.

[zeek]

WP editor criticizes NPR's interview of Jason Kessler. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.be5812f8dd6f

The interviewer could have done better. But, not every interview of any news organization is going to be superlative. The important point is that they did interview Kessler so that people could get and idea of what he stands for as the leader of Unite the Right before their rally in Washington, D.C today.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I get it -- in your mind Christians are the lowest common denominator, makes them all fascists, racists, etc.

Back to today's violent protesters. Just ask the police who they would rather see protest -- the right or the left.

What is it a part of our faith that NAFTA is an unfair trade agreement? Once again, you continue to make logical errors.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What is it a part of our faith that NAFTA is an unfair trade agreement? Once again, you continue to make logical errors.

The discussion was about how the media condones violence on the left, yet blames the right. NAFTA was just a distraction.

See any news reports from Wash DC protests over the weekend?

Once again, let me restate my position -- I disagree with all KKK and white supremacy gatherings and messaging, though they do have 1st Amendment rights in the US, so let them protest, and ignore them.

ANTIFA however uses this as a guise for violence. Who out there is condemning their actions? Media? Democrats? ANTIFA attacks black police officers as KKK white supremacists. Does that make sense?

The facts point to a simple conclusion -- ANTIFA is the real danger to America. They are anarchists, pure and simple. The media often promotes their cause. Democrats incite them. Most law enforcement refuse to arrest them. Most courts do not file charges against them.


Then zeek deceptively digs up 25 year old stats using the OKC bombing (anti-govt backlash for Waco and Ruby Ridge) to "prove" that today Portland "Patriot Prayer" and such are more violent.

[zeek]

Violence against police and journalists doing their jobs is wrong. Vox documented it.
"Antifa clashes with police and journalists in Charlottesville and DC
Antifa says it fights fascists and neo-Nazis. But this weekend, members attacked cops and journalists." https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/...nite-the-right

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

"Antifa clashes with police and journalists in Charlottesville and DC
Antifa says it fights fascists and neo-Nazis. But this weekend, members attacked cops and journalists."

Are you now actually beginning to understand that ANTIFA has little to do with supposed anti-racism, and has everything to do with anarchy and the rule of law? The message coming out of Charlottesville last year was merely a ruse to attack Trump.

Look at ANTIFA's chants and messaging:

• Antifa Chants Death to America: ‘No Borders! No Wall! No USA at All!’
• Antifa Counter-Protester Rages Against D.C. Police: ‘You’re All Ameri-KKK, Fascist Pieces of Sh*t!’

[Ohio]

FACT CHECK: Brit Hume Claims That The Number Of Unaccompanied Minors Dwarfs The Number Separated At The Border

“I wonder if the journalists working this story are aware that the overwhelming majority of immigrant minors separated from their families arrived at the border without families,” he tweeted Wednesday.

“There are far more children separated from parents who arrive that way then there are children separated at the border,” he elaborated in a tweet Thursday.

Verdict: True

Yet 50% of Americans believe the initial lies that were spread.

Even supposedly "enlightened, unbiased, Christian" posters here on the forum still believe these lies.

Why? Simple. Hatred for Trump has blinded them.

This story has been repeated a hundred times the last two years.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

FACT CHECK: Brit Hume Claims That The Number Of Unaccompanied Minors Dwarfs The Number Separated At The Border
Yet 50% of Americans believe the initial lies that were spread.

Even supposedly "enlightened, unbiased, Christian" posters here on the forum still believe these lies.

Why? Simple. Hatred for Trump has blinded them.

This story has been repeated a hundred times the last two years.

This appears to me to just be an asinine attempt to attack what you perceive to be liberals out here ... and everywhere.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

FACT CHECK: Brit Hume Claims That The Number Of Unaccompanied Minors Dwarfs The Number Separated At The Border
Yet 50% of Americans believe the initial lies that were spread.

Even supposedly "enlightened, unbiased, Christian" posters here on the forum still believe these lies.

Why? Simple. Hatred for Trump has blinded them.

This story has been repeated a hundred times the last two years.

C'mon, man. You know what the Bible says. "Whatever a man sows he will also reap." Trump sows hate. So, it shouldn't be surprising to you that that's what he reaps.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

C'mon, man. You know what the Bible says. "Whatever a man sows he will also reap." Trump sows hate. So, it shouldn't be surprising to you that that's what he reaps.

C'mon man you know what the Bible says. "The god of this age has blinded their minds."

The Dems, the Obama deep state intelligentia, and the media have mounted a coup since the day Trump won the Republican nomination.

All the facts confirm what I have been saying. To disprove my statement all you need to do is show me one piece of evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.

Are you also blaming Trump "hate" for the firing of Strzok, who exonerated Clinton and launched the investigation into Trump?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

This appears to me to just be an asinine attempt to attack what you perceive to be liberals out here ... and everywhere.

Why is it when evidence reaches you to change your point of view about Trump you see it as an "attack" on all liberals?

This to me is a little scary. What frightens the liberals the most is the truth. When it comes to the unending media smear campaign against Trump, you gleefully gulp in down. When ... Over time ... The actual facts become known, then you become fearful.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

C'mon man you know what the Bible says. "The god of this age has blinded their minds."

Oh that's right! You have your special local church insights.

The Dems, the Obama deep state intelligentia, and the media have mounted a coup since the day Trump won the Republican nomination.

All the facts confirm what I have been saying. To disprove my statement all you need to do is show me one piece of evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.

"Let patience have her perfect work" James 1:4. Kenneth Starr's investigation took how long? To date, special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian "meddling" has led to the indictment of 25 Russians and three Russian companies. Five people have pleaded guilty, including former Trump campaign official Mike Flynn, who was fired as national security adviser after he admitted lying about his contacts with Russians on the campaign trail.

When Trump publicly said "Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” it was the first time I know of that a major presidential candidate had actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent.

If you cared about the integrity of our democracy you would have been outraged at that. But, you weren't cuz you hate the Clintons. Hell, you hate all liberals and all things liberal as you have often expressed on ths thread. You're basically a theocrat, and fascist dictator types like Trump and Putin cater to you guys. So it's no surprise if you support the dismantling of the US's alliance with liberal democracies world-wide and a new alignment with Russia and other authoritarian states.

Are you also blaming Trump "hate" for the firing of Strzok, who exonerated Clinton and launched the investigation into Trump?

No. Strzok compromised the integrity of his job, the reputation of the FBI and the investigations he was participating in. Which is sad for him because apparently he had been a talented and dedicated agent. Commentators are saying that the firing goes beyond customary FBI policy, but this investigation is of the highest of profiles so there is justification for concluding the "usual and customary" rules don't apply. People were fired for much less when I was doing routine government work without top security clearance.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

If you cared about the integrity of our democracy you would have been outraged at that. But, you weren't cuz you hate the Clintons. Hell, you hate all liberals and all things liberal as you have often expressed on ths thread. You're basically a theocrat, and fascist dictator types like Trump and Putin cater to you guys. So it's no surprise if you support the dismantling of the US's alliance with liberal democracies world-wide and a new alignment with Russia and other authoritarian states.

Interesting how you can denounce 60 million voters who elected Trump as fascist dictator types, claiming it is we Christians who are theocratic haters.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Interesting how you can denounce 60 million voters who elected Trump as fascist dictator types, claiming it is we Christians who are theocratic haters.

No. You misread the post. Try again. The fascist-dictator types are manipulating public opinion. The "theocrat" descriptor I applied to you alone. Unlike yourself I try to avoid sweeping generalization. Not all conservatives are the same just like not all liberals are the same. In fact, none of them are the same. If you dig down deep, political identities fall away. No two people are the same.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

No. You misread the post. Try again. The fascist-dictator types are manipulating public opinion. The "theocrat" descriptor I applied to you alone. Unlike yourself I try to avoid sweeping generalization. Not all conservatives are the same just like not all liberals are the same. In fact, none of them are the same. If you dig down deep, political identities fall away. No two people are the same.

Read what a theocrat is. Nothing I have written demands that. Today Sharia Law is the closest thing we have to theocracy. I support Trump for secular policy, without any religious demand on him. You are defined by "sweeping generalization" whether you admit it or not.

Look at who is today defining and manipulating public opinion -- it is the media, Hollywood, the deep state, and the Democrats.

Of course, no two people are identical, we have DNA do we not? But the LEFT you are apart of is characterized by a hatred of Trump, and look at what happens when someone like Kanye decides to differ. Look at how Omarosa is now their heroine. The media defines people -- loving or hating them -- by their connection with Trump.

You are doing the same with me. You are unable to objectively discuss the facts of issues, rather you espouse the media line wholeheartedly. Case in point was Charlottesville. You joined the media craze in deciding that Trump and all his supporters are affirmed racists, nazis, bigots, supremacists, KKK, etc. You have no evidence of this -- but neither do you need it -- because you just swallow the media message without discernment. Apparently you lost all your discernment when you left the faith -- yet you condemn all others like me for what you do. Romans 2.1

Look at how many Dems and Repubs have flipped their position just in the last decade in order to support Obama Progressivism and oppose Trump. At one time many supported secure borders, wanted a wall, opposed gay marriage, opposed abortion, supported marriage, embassy in Jerusalem, strong military, support for police, support for ICE, etc ... the list goes on and on.

You many say that there is diversity on both sides, but on major issues the Left are like lemmings headed towards the cliff. To be a conservative today often one must be willing to be an outcast from their own society.

[Ohio]

Here's a peek into the mind of a liberal -- only 3 minutes long

https://youtu.be/ybJCUvJwSkA

"If it sounds like a diabolical puppet show, that's because it is!"

I dare any of my liberal friends to rebut this.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

To be a conservative today often one must be willing to be an outcast from their own society.

Goodness brother. I don't want any part of making you feel like an outcast. I'm sorry for every time I've made you feel that way.

I'll try to do better. That's why in general to be congenial out in public it's best to stay away from discussing politics (and religion).

These days are days of extreme division. Passions are high. To me it looks like a pressure cooker, that's about to blow.

But didn't Jesus live in very divided times. In Matthew the crowds from all over are following Jesus. So he goes up on a mountain and speaks to "the crowds." This is after he healed all that were brought to him.

So the diverse and divided crowds were hanging on his every word. What did he teach, among many other wonderful things Matthew records him as teaching :

But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

Jesus wasn't for anyone being outcasts. Don't let politics make you feel that way brother.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Read what a theocrat is. Nothing I have written demands that. Today Sharia Law is the closest thing we have to theocracy. I support Trump for secular policy, without any religious demand on him. You are defined by "sweeping generalization" whether you admit it or not.

Look at who is today defining and manipulating public opinion -- it is the media, Hollywood, the deep state, and the Democrats.

Of course, no two people are identical, we have DNA do we not? But the LEFT you are apart of is characterized by a hatred of Trump, and look at what happens when someone like Kanye decides to differ. Look at how Omarosa is now their heroine. The media defines people -- loving or hating them -- by their connection with Trump.

You are doing the same with me. You are unable to objectively discuss the facts of issues, rather you espouse the media line wholeheartedly. Case in point was Charlottesville. You joined the media craze in deciding that Trump and all his supporters are affirmed racists, nazis, bigots, supremacists, KKK, etc. You have no evidence of this -- but neither do you need it -- because you just swallow the media message without discernment. Apparently you lost all your discernment when you left the faith -- yet you condemn all others like me for what you do. Romans 2.1

Look at how many Dems and Repubs have flipped their position just in the last decade in order to support Obama Progressivism and oppose Trump. At one time many supported secure borders, wanted a wall, opposed gay marriage, opposed abortion, supported marriage, embassy in Jerusalem, strong military, support for police, support for ICE, etc ... the list goes on and on.

You many say that there is diversity on both sides, but on major issues the Left are like lemmings headed towards the cliff. To be a conservative today often one must be willing to be an outcast from their own society.

Well I'm happy to learn that you're not a Theocrat. Cuz I was under the impression that you voted for Donald Trump mainly because in order to get elected he said he would nominate judges and support legislation favored by your brand of Christianity including discriminating against lgbtq people, ending women's right to choose to have abortions, and widespread repression of non-believers. That sounds like a Theocratic legislative and judicial agenda to me. If you weren't a blind partisan you would see that both sides of the political spectrum are manipulating public opinion. It's ironic to me that you accuse me of being unable to objectively discuss facts because when I post facts you don't respond. You just skip over those posts. Like when I showed that the right-wing extremists have committed far more violence than antifa. You just ignored the post. Oh by the way that lemmings story that you used as a metaphor is fake news.

Lemmings have become the subject of a widely popular misconception that they commit mass suicide when they migrate by jumping off cliffs. This urban myth became widespread after this behavior was shown in the Walt Disney documentary White Wilderness (film) in 1958. However, the animals in the film are not wild animals jumping off the cliff voluntarily, rather they were bought by the producers and pushed over the edge of the cliff. Instead of suicidal behavior, what explains the drastic fluctuations in population size are environmental factors such as whether the right kind of snow is available. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemming#Misconceptions

If it were true you would be a lemming living in a glass house throwing a stone.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here's a peek into the mind of a liberal -- only 3 minutes long

https://youtu.be/ybJCUvJwSkA

"If it sounds like a diabolical puppet show, that's because it is!"

I dare any of my liberal friends to rebut this.

This is a propagandistic attempt to tar a large segment of the American population with the vandalism of one or possibly two individuals. It's the same kind of over-generalization that you condemn when the mainstream media does it. And yeah Hollywood celebrities shouldn't encourage vandalism as neither should anybody else.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

This is a propagandistic attempt to tar a large segment of the American population with the vandalism of one or possibly two individuals. It's the same kind of over-generalization that you condemn when the mainstream media does it. And yeah Hollywood celebrities shouldn't encourage vandalism as neither should anybody else.

One or two individuals?

How about all those who supported this action? You conveniently forget about them. Of course.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here's a peek into the mind of a liberal -- only 3 minutes long

https://youtu.be/ybJCUvJwSkA

"If it sounds like a diabolical puppet show, that's because it is!"

I dare any of my liberal friends to rebut this.

Thanks for a peek into the mind of a liberal. I know that it was just a peek, and there's lots of other scary stuff in there, but the peek allowed us to see that they are creeps. Oooooo, those scary creeps! And you can spot 'em. Every creepy person is a liberal. You can count on it. Even creepy conservatives, so called.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

One or two individuals?

How about all those who supported this action? You conveniently forget about them. Of course.

How many were there and how exactly did they support the perpetrators?

[ZNPaaneah]

Ever since Trump's campaign we have asked and wondered what era in US history "make America great again" was referring to. Now we know, McCarthy's era.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Read what a theocrat is. Nothing I have written demands that. Today Sharia Law is the closest thing we have to theocracy. I support Trump for secular policy, without any religious demand on him. You are defined by "sweeping generalization" whether you admit it or not.

Although this thread is "Politics and the Church" it seems to me that "Politics and Religion" should be addressed here as well.

Personally I feel the whole idea that the US govt can be separated from religion is bogus. Whether or not you agree with Sharia Law the one thing I think everyone should be able to see is that admitting your religion is part of how your society and govt are run is honest.

I consider those abortionists who claim "freedom of religion" are simply dishonest. A promiscuous lifestyle is a religion. In the OT the priests of Baal and the priests of Molech were the ones that did the abortions. I interpret Baal to indicate the worship of your career and Molech to be the worship of fornication. Therefore legalizing abortion is the establishment of these religions and is prohibited by the constitution. The federal government has violated their jurisdiction when the Supreme court made this ruling.

Everyone lives their life in a way that values certain things and that can be seen as the things they worship and sacrifice for. If you claim my worship of God violates the freedoms given to you by the constitution the remedy is not to allow your worship of your career or fornication to violate my freedoms.

So then, "freedom of religion" indicates that our constitution provides an opportunity for everyone to be a citizen regardless of their religion, to practice that religion, speak about that, worship, meet, etc. Likewise they can vote. It doesn't mean that our govt is anti religion, or atheistic, nor does it mean that those who are elected have to deny or hide their religion.

The Federal govt has no right to establish a religion, and that is what legalizing abortion does. Instead this matter should be decided by each and every state.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Although this thread is "Politics and the Church" it seems to me that "Politics and Religion" should be addressed here as well.

Personally I feel the whole idea that the US govt can be separated from religion is bogus. Whether or not you agree with Sharia Law the one thing I think everyone should be able to see is that admitting your religion is part of how your society and govt are run is honest.

I consider those abortionists who claim "freedom of religion" are simply dishonest. A promiscuous lifestyle is a religion. In the OT the priests of Baal and the priests of Molech were the ones that did the abortions. I interpret Baal to indicate the worship of your career and Molech to be the worship of fornication. Therefore legalizing abortion is the establishment of these religions and is prohibited by the constitution. The federal government has violated their jurisdiction when the Supreme court made this ruling.

Everyone lives their life in a way that values certain things and that can be seen as the things they worship and sacrifice for. If you claim my worship of God violates the freedoms given to you by the constitution the remedy is not to allow your worship of your career or fornication to violate my freedoms.

So then, "freedom of religion" indicates that our constitution provides an opportunity for everyone to be a citizen regardless of their religion, to practice that religion, speak about that, worship, meet, etc. Likewise they can vote. It doesn't mean that our govt is anti religion, or atheistic, nor does it mean that those who are elected have to deny or hide their religion.

The Federal govt has no right to establish a religion, and that is what legalizing abortion does. Instead this matter should be decided by each and every state.

This is basically the argument of Francis Schaeffer that secular humanism is religion. As you have framed it, it's an argument against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and as such an argument against religious freedom. Perhaps it's impossible to be a Christian partisan and a small d democrat at the same time. If this is the way Christians think their only limits will be scriptural supports for subjection to authority or and the rule of law. Pluralism will always be an affront to the absolute truth they believe that only they possess.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Although this thread is "Politics and the Church" it seems to me that "Politics and Religion" should be addressed here as well.

Personally I feel the whole idea that the US govt can be separated from religion is bogus. Whether or not you agree with Sharia Law the one thing I think everyone should be able to see is that admitting your religion is part of how your society and govt are run is honest.

I consider those abortionists who claim "freedom of religion" are simply dishonest. A promiscuous lifestyle is a religion. In the OT the priests of Baal and the priests of Molech were the ones that did the abortions. I interpret Baal to indicate the worship of your career and Molech to be the worship of fornication. Therefore legalizing abortion is the establishment of these religions and is prohibited by the constitution. The federal government has violated their jurisdiction when the Supreme court made this ruling.

Everyone lives their life in a way that values certain things and that can be seen as the things they worship and sacrifice for. If you claim my worship of God violates the freedoms given to you by the constitution the remedy is not to allow your worship of your career or fornication to violate my freedoms.

So then, "freedom of religion" indicates that our constitution provides an opportunity for everyone to be a citizen regardless of their religion, to practice that religion, speak about that, worship, meet, etc. Likewise they can vote. It doesn't mean that our govt is anti religion, or atheistic, nor does it mean that those who are elected have to deny or hide their religion.

The Federal govt has no right to establish a religion, and that is what legalizing abortion does. Instead this matter should be decided by each and every state.

How about the matter should be decided by each and every woman?

The rest of your post, where you take it on yourself to define religions for other people, willy-nilly is : whack-a-noodle.

Did you mean it to be that way? Are you playing with us?

[zeek]

Thanks to everyone who made the cancellation of Trump's parade possible!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Thanks to everyone who made the cancellation of Trump's parade possible!

You can thank Trump. Cuz he cancelled it, he says in a tweet this morning (prolly on the toilet):

"The local politicians who run Washington, D.C. (poorly) know a windfall when they see it. When asked to give us a price for holding a great celebratory military parade, they wanted a number so ridiculously high that I cancelled it. Never let someone hold you up! I will instead..." - 4:57am August 17, 2018

....attend the big parade already scheduled at Andrews Air Force Base on a different date, & go to the Paris parade, celebrating the end of the War, on November 11th. Maybe we will do something next year in D.C. when the cost comes WAY DOWN. Now we can buy some more jet fighters!
7:10 AM - Aug 17, 2018 (maybe on the toilet again)

Toilet tweets? Whatever will we do with them? It is kinda fun keeping up with our clown president. Who will he attack today? Oh wait, he attacked "politicians who run Washington, D.C. (poorly)" ; he attacked everyone in Washington. But the day just got started. Who else will he attack today? It's hard to keep up with.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

This is basically the argument of Francis Schaeffer that secular humanism is religion. As you have framed it, it's an argument against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and as such an argument against religious freedom. Perhaps it's impossible to be a Christian partisan and a small d democrat at the same time. If this is the way Christians think their only limits will be scriptural supports for subjection to authority or and the rule of law. Pluralism will always be an affront to the absolute truth they believe that only they possess.

What is impossible is to pretend that your beliefs and values don't shape your politics.

Likewise, it is ridiculous to say that an atheist doesn't worship something or is somehow immune from religion or that "freedom of religion" implies that the constitution supports atheism.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

How about the matter should be decided by each and every woman?

Actually we are a democracy, so the matter should be decided by every man and woman. Second, if you read my post which your response indicates you didn't, I said this should be decided by the State, not the Supreme court. If all the residents in the State vote to legalize abortion in that State then that would be constitutional. It is difficult to believe based on various polling data that at least 40% of states wouldn't legalize this. So then if a woman lived in a state where this was illegal, say Mississippi, she would simply drive an hour into Georgia where it might be legal. Doesn't seem like such an inconvenience to uphold our constitution.

The woman has the right to decide whether or not to have sex. She has the right to decide whether or not to use contraception. She has the right to decide whether or not to live in a state where it is illegal or legal and she has the right to travel to a state where it is legal. So how is any of this violating a woman's right to choose?

Originally Posted by awareness

The rest of your post, where you take it on yourself to define religions for other people, willy-nilly is : whack-a-noodle.

Did you mean it to be that way? Are you playing with us?

I define religion as a lifestyle. Everyone has a lifestyle, everyone sacrifices for something, worships something.

What is whack a doodle is this pretense that since my beliefs and faith and values shape my politics that somehow they are unconstitutional or that this somehow indicates a support for theocracy.

Every single person has a god, even the atheists. It may be their stomach, it may be Jehovah, or Jesus or Mohammed, or it may be their career, or money, or pleasure, or fornication, etc.

Consider the bank robber, murderer who thinks he doesn't care about God and is atheistic/agnostic. Why are you robbing and murdering? Obviously he values the money in a bank above human life and social norms. That is his god.

[awareness]

Okay bro ZNP I get it. Everybody is religious.

That's a far cry from the definition you've used in the past, that you were so fond of :

Jas_1:27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

[awareness]

Today Trump is attacking Social Media. Eventually he's gonna run out of enemies.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay bro ZNP I get it. Everybody is religious.

That's a far cry from the definition you've used in the past, that you were so fond of :

Jas_1:27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

Not different.

Pure and undefiled religion does not refer to the religion of atheists and hedonists.

This definition is based on the Lord's 2 major commandments. Any religion will talk about their love for God, but religion is what man sees, which is their love for their fellow man.

blowing yourself up based on some religious dogma is "defiled" and it isn't pure, you are being manipulated by those with a political agenda.

The best test for your love for God, the father of all, is that you do unto others as you would have them do to you. Particularly widows and orphans.

But murdering and robbing banks also reveals what you love. It is your religion, but is defiled and impure. The love of money is a root of all sorts of evil.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The love of money is a root of all sorts of evil.

But it says right there on our money : In God we Trust.

[awareness]

The Trump swamp is getting drained, of Trump swamp creatures :

Cohen, Trump’s Ex-Lawyer, Investigated for Bank Fraud in Excess of $20 Million


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/19/n...s&ref=headline

[zeek]

Giuliani : "truth isn't truth". That can't be true. Because if it is it isn't. That's absurd, contradictory, and illogical. Trump's defense is the stuff of post-truth double-talk.

[ZNPaaneah]

I agree with Ohio that there is a lot of fake news on these cable news networks. For example, I heard many people on CNN and MSNBC say that Trump was "petty" for revoking the security clearance of one of his critics. How do they know its petty? How do they know that Trump isn't planning on authorizing some very disturbing clandestine operations and doesn't need someone who is critical of him reading about it?

If Obama did this no one would be saying it was "petty". Imagine if Clinton did this during the Whitewater investigation or Nixon did this after Watergate.

This is certainly every bit as chilling as what McCarthy did. What an insult to characterize what McCarthy did as "petty". And words matter. If the President is indeed "petty" then suing him over this would also be deemed petty. This is not simply a constitutional matter and a first amendment matter, it could very well be a national security issue.

[zeek]

Breaking News: Russian hackers appear to have a new target: conservative U.S. think tanks that have broken with President Trump, a report by Microsoft found. In a report scheduled for release on Tuesday, Microsoft Corporation said that it detected and seized websites that were created in recent weeks by hackers linked to the Russian unit formerly known as the G.R.U.

The sites appeared meant to trick people into thinking they were clicking through links managed by the Hudson Institute and the International Republican Institute, but were secretly redirected to web pages created by the hackers to steal passwords and other credentials.
NYTimes.com News Alert 12:04 AM

[awareness]

Good for them. Celebrating Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac.

Muslims Hold Massive Rally at Vikings USBank Stadium — Chanting “Allahu Akbar”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...u-akbar-video/


It's good to live in the land of the freedom of religion.

[zeek]

Manafort guilty; Cohen guilty. And Cohen implicates Trump. Trump may have to testify under oath after all. What do you think?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Manafort guilty; Cohen guilty. And Cohen implicates Trump. Trump may have to testify under oath after all. What do you think?

I agree with Trump "its a disgrace". I'm glad he is ashamed of his actions and associations with felons.

I also agree with Giuliani that the charges do not name Trump, that needs to be rectified now that we have Cohen's confession. Kudos for Giuliani pointing this out.

I think the best thing for the country is for Trump to resign so that he can focus his full attention on his legal woes. Especially since he has already confirmed that he was the one that directed Michael Cohen to make that payment and his lawyer Giuliani has also confirmed that he was the one that reimbursed Cohen. It is nice that in this case Cohen, Trump and Giuliani all agree about Trump's involvement in these felonies. The good news is that Pence is not implicated in any of this.

[awareness]

It's not a witch hunt. It's witches hunting :

Alabama pastor asks church to pray for Trump, against witchcraft attacking him
https://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/...ource=rawstory

[zeek]

Why Trump Supporters Believe He Is Not Corrupt
What the president’s supporters fear most isn’t the corruption of American law, but the corruption of America’s traditional identity.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...uption/568147/

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Why Trump Supporters Believe He Is Not Corrupt
What the president’s supporters fear most isn’t the corruption of American law, but the corruption of America’s traditional identity.

Trump, even if he's more crooked than crooked Hillary, represents American traditional identity. After president Blackenstein, he's the last great white hope. That's more important than corrupt law.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Why Trump Supporters Believe He Is Not Corrupt
What the president’s supporters fear most isn’t the corruption of American law, but the corruption of America’s traditional identity.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...uption/568147/

What an amazing story of connecting the dots. Fox news runs a story about the breaking news in the Mollie Tibbits case and the Atlantic is able to see the true inference behind this story, that what Americans are really afraid of is the corruption of America's traditional identity. I get it. Wow! So that is why Fox ran with this story.

One question, why did CNN cover this story? Also, why did ABC news? One other question, why did PBS and the BBC?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What an amazing story of connecting the dots. Fox news runs a story about the breaking news in the Mollie Tibbits case and the Atlantic is able to see the true inference behind this story, that what Americans are really afraid of is the corruption of America's traditional identity. I get it. Wow! So that is why Fox ran with this story.

One question, why did CNN cover this story? Also, why did ABC news? One other question, why did PBS and the BBC?

Did any of those networks run the Tibbits case as their lead story as the writer says Fox News did? The author is taking a stab at understanding why people who used to call themselves "The Moral Majority" and who once claimed to have "Family Values" have forsaken their supposed moral high ground to support a philandering, traitorous flim-flam man who with his attorney Michael Cohen is now apparently an unindicted co-conspirator to defraud the American people in the 2016 election. Got a better hypothesis?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Did any of those networks run the Tibbits case as their lead story as the writer says Fox News did? The author is taking a stab at understanding why people who used to call themselves "The Moral Majority" and who once claimed to have "Family Values" have forsaken their supposed moral high ground to support a philandering, traitorous flim-flam man who with his attorney Michael Cohen is now apparently an unindicted co-conspirator to defraud the American people in the 2016 election. Got a better hypothesis?

So then why not actually listen to what these supporters have said, like Ohio.

1. They are not supporting his philandering, instead they are willing to say that not voting or giving your vote to Clinton because this candidate is a philanderer is foolish.

2. Many of those who have pushed family values have made it clear that they are not ignorant of who he is, nor do they approve, but the reality is there are two choices and the one they made was based on policies, not other requirements.

3. The term "traitorous" is unfair on two levels. First, there was no indication of any of the inferred collusion when they voted. So your reference to "support" should not be understood as "voted for". Second, as real, undeniable evidence of crimes (not traitorous, but impeachable crimes) has come out many of the strong supporters have pulled that support. Therefore the support you are talking about is simply supporting a guy who is being attacked.

4. Flim flam man. That is my impression, but lets be realistic, the economy is as good as anyone could have hoped. Also, he has followed through on his promises unlike virtually all other politicians including Obama. Finally, those who voted for him were the victims of the previous administrations of film flam men who have shipped their jobs overseas.

Yes, I have a much better hypothesis. During the Nov election the Democrats will win and then the impeachment process will begin. Why will they win in Nov because they finally can see the outcome of Mueller's investigation and have undeniable evidence of something they will not tolerate. This is not based simply on Cohen's confession, but rather the CFO of Trump's organization has been given immunity. Why would he ask for or need immunity if he didn't have evidence of crimes that he helped Trump commit.

This guys theory in the Atlantic is as hateful, insulting and divisive as anything I have ever seen. Perhaps there are 10% of Trump supporters who are "hard core" and this does apply to, but since that represents 5% of the voters and that in turn represents about 2.5% of the eligible voters in the US I find it completely unhelpful.

[zeek]

If Trump wanted Hillary locked up so badly he should have hired her.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

If Trump wanted Hillary locked up so badly he should have hired her.

[awareness]

Bahahahahaha ...

Now Trump is going to prosecute Google :

Trump accuses Google of RIGGING search results to only show 'fake news' that makes him look 'bad' as he threatens to prosecute the tech giant

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...fake-news.html

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bahahahahaha ...

Now Trump is going to prosecute Google :

Trump accuses Google of RIGGING search results to only show 'fake news' that makes him look 'bad' as he threatens to prosecute the tech giant

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...fake-news.html

If I understand correctly the algorithm that Google uses for search results is a trade secret on the order of the formula for Coca Cola.

It is well known and understood that google "rigs" the search results because their algorithm will determine the order. So then, the only way Trump would have a case is if Google has changed this algorithm since Trump began running for president with the specific intent of favoring negative news about Trump.

That is incredibly narcissistic and paranoid, is there any evidence?

So let's put this in perspective -- all discussion of Russia hacking our election and rigging the outcome is "fake news" even though we know that it is true and is confirmed by all of our intelligence agencies. But instead of receiving that he is claiming that google has compromised there multi billion dollar formula for doing searches to make sure negative news about Trump is front and center.

[zeek]

NYT, Sunday, August 26, 2018 10:13 AM EST

BREAKING NEWS

An archbishop claimed that Pope Francis was complicit in covering up abuses by a U.S. prelate, clouding the pontiff's trip to Ireland.

On a day when Pope Francis begged “the Lord’s forgiveness” at a shrine in Ireland for the clerical sexual abuse scandals that threaten his church, a former top-ranking Vatican official alleged that Francis himself knew about the abuses of a now-disgraced American prelate years before they became public.

This will come as no surprise to local churchers and others who view the RCC as the Harlot in the Book of Revelation. Score one for the anti-catholic apocalypticists. Oh that's right, it's in the New York Times, ergo, fake news. My bad.

[awareness]

“To my brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ our savior and Lord, My name is John D. Carothers and I believe the Bible is about white people and for white people,” the handwritten letter said. “I am in Rutherford County jail for burning a black man. I set him on fire with lighter fluid poured on his head.”

https://www.newschannel5.com/news/to...ilhouse-letter

[zeek]

Monday, Aug. 27, 2018

Trump lied again:

In a closed-door meeting with evangelical leaders Monday night, President Donald Trump repeated his debunked claim that he had gotten "rid of" a law forbidding churches and charitable organizations from endorsing political candidates, according to recorded excerpts reviewed by NBC News.

In fact, the law remains on the books, after efforts to kill it in Congress last year failed.

He also stoked the fire of violence again:

"The level of hatred, the level of anger is unbelievable," he said. "Part of it is because of some of the things I've done for you and for me and for my family, but I've done them. … This Nov. 6 election is very much a referendum on not only me, it's a referendum on your religion, it's a referendum on free speech and the First Amendment."

If the GOP loses, he said, "they will overturn everything that we've done and they'll do it quickly and violently, and violently. There's violence. When you look at Antifa and you look at some of these groups — these are violent people."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ele...e-didn-n904471

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

If the GOP loses, he said, "they will overturn everything that we've done and they'll do it quickly and violently, and violently. There's violence. When you look at Antifa and you look at some of these groups — these are violent people."

When Trump speaks against Antifa he's really speaking for the White Supremacists they stand against. And they are the ones that got violent enough to kill a Antifa. Trump is just fear-mongering, using those that stand against his racism.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

When Trump speaks against Antifa he's really speaking for the White Supremacists they stand against.

It is an ugly road to go down when you start telling people what Trump "is really saying".

[zeek]

"I’m an evangelical Christian, and ever since I was a young man, two Bible verses have tugged at my soul. The first comes from the Book of James, and defines “pure” religious practice in part as looking after “widows and orphans in their distress.” The second, from the Book of Galatians, declares an eternal truth: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” As a result, my wife and I not only felt called to adopt, but we believed that race was no barrier to unity for a family of genuine faith."

"But then came a backlash. Claims of cultural imperialism, wounded national pride, and rare, sad horror stories of exploitation or abuse soured foreign nations against American families. And at home, identity politics and even outright hostility against the Christian adoption movement triggered attacks from some on the left—attacks that were soon to be matched and exceeded by attacks from a racist right."

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/a...family/567994/

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

"I’m an evangelical Christian, and ever since I was a young man, two Bible verses have tugged at my soul. The first comes from the Book of James, and defines “pure” religious practice in part as looking after “widows and orphans in their distress.” The second, from the Book of Galatians, declares an eternal truth: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” As a result, my wife and I not only felt called to adopt, but we believed that race was no barrier to unity for a family of genuine faith."

"But then came a backlash. Claims of cultural imperialism, wounded national pride, and rare, sad horror stories of exploitation or abuse soured foreign nations against American families. And at home, identity politics and even outright hostility against the Christian adoption movement triggered attacks from some on the left—attacks that were soon to be matched and exceeded by attacks from a racist right."

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/a...family/567994/

"In 1972 the National Association of Black Social Workers famously declared white adoption of black children to be a form of “cultural genocide.” But that was decades ago. By the 21st century, American churches were fully engaged in an adoption movement. Families continued to adopt domestically, but they also reached out (like we did) overseas. By 2004, the peak of international adoption, Americans brought home 22,884 children, many of them with special needs, many of them of different races from their new parents." (same article)

I wonder if that is what the movie "Get Out" was saying. The movie describes blacks whose bodies are inhabited by white souls.

You could argue that the movie is a sci fi thriller about rich people being able to inhabit the bodies of healthy younger people, but that would not explain why there are no other races involved -- simply rich suburban whites, and inner city blacks.

[awareness]

Now this is interesting ; A Christian leader that sees thru Trump :

Is Trump “Our Cyrus?” A Critical American-Christian Explanation and Response

"Personally, speaking only for myself, I believe President Trump only cares about power. I have not seen any real principles—other than “Make American great again” (with an implied “and me, too”). I strongly suspect that he is manipulating his conservative Christian “base” and would turn on them in a moment if it suited his agenda to be powerful."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereo...-and-response/

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is an ugly road to go down when you start telling people what Trump "is really saying".

Good point. Basically when Trumps speaks we should consider it a lie until proven differently.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good point. Basically when Trumps speaks we should consider it a lie until proven differently.

Fair point, he treats everything that the news agencies say as lies. Only problem is that you have been defeated by evil, rather than having good conquer evil.

[zeek]

No wonder Trump was threatening Evangelical leaders on Monday. "Donald Trump has slumped to the lowest approval rating of his presidency, with 60% disapproving of his performance as the US president, according to a new national survey."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...his-presidency

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

No wonder Trump was threatening Evangelical leaders on Monday. "Donald Trump has slumped to the lowest approval rating of his presidency, with 60% disapproving of his performance as the US president, according to a new national survey."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...his-presidency

Fake news, Fake books, Fake Google searches, Fake social media, and now Fake Polls. <-click>

Will the real Fake please step down?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Fake news, Fake books, Fake Google searches, Fake social media, and now Fake Polls. <-click>

Will the real Fake please step down?

The illusion that we are voting for who we want is fake.

The reality is that those with money control all politics. They are very concerned about Christians because we are the overwhelming majority in this country.

Therefore Democrats are pro Black Lives Matter, pro poor, pro immigrant, pro human rights. All things that could be seen as things Jesus would do. However, they are also pro abortion, pro gay rights, and never say a word about Christians.

On the other hand Republicans are against abortion, they support Christians in other countries that are persecuted, and they espouse a fiscally conservative stance. All things that could be seen as scriptural and Biblical. However, they are anti immigrant, and push many policies that could be seen as biased against the poor and the minorities, or at the very least pro big business.

If Christians are an overwhelming majority in this country why is there no party that pushes "Christian" policies exclusively? The system is designed to divide Christians so that their power and influence would be negated.

[awareness]

The Mueller investigation will go nowhere. Trump will use Executive Privilege to block any incriminating evidence from reaching the light of day.

"But Giuliani pointed out a little-known aspect of the agreement that Trump’s original legal team struck with Mueller: the White House reserved the right to object to the public disclosure of information that might be covered by executive privilege."

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...o-trumps-clown

[awareness]

Leave the criminals alone. We've got a midterm to win :

Trump slams Sessions on Twitter, says AG is hurting GOP in midterms

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...-midterms.html

[ZNPaaneah]

Great idea for a sci fi psycho thriller:

A 5th grader has a dream where he is the "greatest president ever". When he wakes up he is still the 5th grader but is now in the body of the President of the US. The place is in chaos, his advisors realize they have a president with the understanding of a 5th grader, they are secretly hiding documents from him for the good of the country. Meanwhile there are numerous investigations going on into this kids bullying, yet incredibly he is connecting with a large portion of the electorate which also has the brain of a 5th grader.

[ZNPaaneah]

“Isn’t it a shame that someone can write an article or book, totally make up stories and form a picture of a person that is literally the exact opposite of the fact,” the president tweeted Wednesday, “and get away with it without retribution or cost.”

Is this a mea culpa?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

“Isn’t it a shame that someone can write an article or book, totally make up stories and form a picture of a person that is literally the exact opposite of the fact,” the president tweeted Wednesday, “and get away with it without retribution or cost.”

Is this a mea culpa?

No. It's a projection.

[ZNPaaneah]

While the notion of having a resistance inside the administration may comfort some, Kerry said the need for such a group disturbs him: “You’re not supposed to have a resistance in the White House to prevent your president from breaking the law and doing something irrational and dangerous.”

I completely disagree. That was precisely the point of the Nuremberg trials. Each person is accountable and cannot cede their authority with the excuse "I was following orders".

"Many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump's more misguided impulses until he is out of office."

I expected this to happen. Just because some nitwit is elected to office (which happens all the time) doesn't mean that career people in govt are going to leave their brain at the door.

Are they "treasonous"? Depends on if they are right or wrong. If "many" have vowed then the chances they are wrong are far less. History has taught us that we are often confronted with difficult choices and it often will take decades before we can judge.

Some online commentators are leaning toward Vice President Mike Pence based on just one word in the piece.

The unidentified author singles out the late Arizona Sen. John McCain as “a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue.”

It would be fascinating if it was Pence because he was elected and could not be "fired" by Trump.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

While the notion of having a resistance inside the administration may comfort some, Kerry said the need for such a group disturbs him: “You’re not supposed to have a resistance in the White House to prevent your president from breaking the law and doing something irrational and dangerous.”

I completely disagree. That was precisely the point of the Nuremberg trials. Each person is accountable and cannot cede their authority with the excuse "I was following orders".

"Many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump's more misguided impulses until he is out of office."

I expected this to happen. Just because some nitwit is elected to office (which happens all the time) doesn't mean that career people in govt are going to leave their brain at the door.

Are they "treasonous"? Depends on if they are right or wrong. If "many" have vowed then the chances they are wrong are far less. History has taught us that we are often confronted with difficult choices and it often will take decades before we can judge.

Yes and with Woodward's book and the anonymous op-ed we now have significant evidence that the resistance has bubbled up beyond the so-called deep state to include those very close if not the closest to the president himself. No wonder he flew into a raging public tirade yesterday in front of that herd of sycophantic sheriff sheep. May God have mercy on America as this pathetic wreck of a man self-destructs.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

While the notion of having a resistance inside the administration may comfort some, Kerry said the need for such a group disturbs him: “You’re not supposed to have a resistance in the White House to prevent your president from breaking the law and doing something irrational and dangerous.”

I completely disagree. That was precisely the point of the Nuremberg trials. Each person is accountable and cannot cede their authority with the excuse "I was following orders".

"Many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump's more misguided impulses until he is out of office."

I expected this to happen. Just because some nitwit is elected to office (which happens all the time) doesn't mean that career people in govt are going to leave their brain at the door.

Are they "treasonous"? Depends on if they are right or wrong. If "many" have vowed then the chances they are wrong are far less. History has taught us that we are often confronted with difficult choices and it often will take decades before we can judge.

Some online commentators are leaning toward Vice President Mike Pence based on just one word in the piece.

The unidentified author singles out the late Arizona Sen. John McCain as “a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue.”

It would be fascinating if it was Pence because he was elected and could not be "fired" by Trump.

My money says John Brennan wrote or had the piece written.

It's dissembling at it's best. Leave a marker that implicates the most unsuspecting source.

I understand Vegas bookies got into it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My money says John Brennan wrote or had the piece written.

It's dissembling at it's best. Leave a marker that implicates the most unsuspecting source.

I understand Vegas bookies got into it.

It seems the person who wrote this has political ambitions and doesn't want to be tarnished for being Trump's lackey. If it is Pence it is cowardly since he could have put his name on it without Trump being able to fire him. Also inferring that he is an appointee is deceptive. If it isn't Pence the person selected key words like "lodestar" to be deceptive. Either way this is a weasel of a person.

If people in the Whitehouse do feel this way which is certainly a reasonable conclusion from the op ed, then they are in a very tough predicament. They might not be able to do anything other than fall on their sword.

According to the letter they accepted Trump's appointment because of his conservative rhetoric, but then discovered that he is not true to what they understood. Generally if you felt this strongly you should resign, the only exception is if you truly feel you are protecting the country. But in that case it really is "treason" or Nurembergesque.

I am wondering if this was a coordinated attack with the Woodward books release, and if that is true it would be very likely that Woodward's book was actually engineered by these insiders seeking a credible journalist to tell this story. Politics at its ugliest. But if they are right it demonstrates that our system of govt can respond to powerful leaders who have been compromised in one way or another. If it is true that there are a significant number of insiders who have "vowed" to thwart Trump, and these insiders are powerful enough to "be the adult in the room with Trump" then there is nothing Trump can do. Even if he figures out who they are and fires them it will only cause a much greater rift. If this "weasel" and "deceptive, cowardly person" is in fact telling the truth Trump's administration is doomed.

One thing is for sure, this has been great press for Woodward's book.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNP

It would be fascinating if it was Pence because he was elected and could not be "fired" by Trump.

It was Melania ....

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

It was Melania ....

Nope:

First Lady Melania Trump also weighed in, releasing a lengthy statement chastising the person behind the blind editorial.

“Freedom of speech is an important pillar of our nation’s founding principles and a free press is important to our democracy,” she said. “The press should be unbiased and responsible. Unidentified sources have become the majority of the voices people hear about in today’s news. People with no names are writing our nation’s history.”

“Words are important,” she continued, “and accusations can lead to severe consequences. If a person is bold enough to accuse people of negative actions, they have a responsibility to publicly stand by their words and people have the right to be able to defend themselves. The writer of the oped — you are not protecting this country, you are sabotaging it with your cowardly actions.”

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My money says John Brennan wrote or had the piece written.

It's dissembling at it's best. Leave a marker that implicates the most unsuspecting source.

I understand Vegas bookies got into it.

So the guy who is no longer in the room is trying to comfort the rest of the country that there are adults in the room? Pretty scary, but I do agree that it is something you would expect of the CIA. Also, even if he is outed he has no risk of "treason" or "losing his job". Pretty cowardly if it is him.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So the guy who is no longer in the room is trying to comfort the rest of the country that there are adults in the room? Pretty scary, but I do agree that it is something you would expect of the CIA. Also, even if he is outed he has no risk of "treason" or "losing his job". Pretty cowardly if it is him.

No comfort here. Writer's goal was two-fold. Sow further discord in the country, and cause the administration to be suspicious of one another. Classic intelligence misinformation tactics.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

It was Melania ....

Barron Trump just now was indicted for high treason.

[awareness]

“Fake America Great Again.”

[zeek]

Donald J. Trump
‏
Verified account

@realDonaldTrump

10h10 hours ago

Kim Jong Un of North Korea proclaims “unwavering faith in President Trump.” Thank you to Chairman Kim. We will get it done together!

Like the anonymous Op-Ed writer said: "In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations." He loves tyrants and they love him back. They've got his number.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No comfort here. Writer's goal was two-fold. Sow further discord in the country, and cause the administration to be suspicious of one another. Classic intelligence misinformation tactics.

Good theory except it is based on the assumption that the writer and NYTimes were intent on undermining the US govt.

If this is not a high level official working in the Whitehouse then the NYTimes is complicit in some very evil behavior that will certainly be the end of the NYTimes. I don't believe that is the case. I speak from my own perspective, my Dad used to be a VP at the NYTimes and both my father and mother were journalists.

I don't believe a guy with Woodward's reputation or the NYTimes reputation would throw it all away for this.

[ZNPaaneah]

Elizabeth Warren Calls For Use Of 25th Amendment To Remove Trump

That is not what she said. What she said is here:

“If senior administration officials think the president of the United States is not able to do his job, then they should invoke the 25th Amendment,” Warren said.

She is not calling for the use of the 25th amendment based on an anonymous op ed. What she is saying is that the op ed purports to be the opinion of a "senior administration official" who is authorized to use the 25th amendment and who clearly thinks the president is not able to do their job, therefore instead of writing anonymous hatchet pieces, do your job. She is basically confirming Trump's view that this person is a gutless coward.

It does support Trump's assertion that the person is committing treason. The US constitution provides the 25th amendment so that those who feel this way do not have to undermine the administration.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Good theory except it is based on the assumption that the writer and NYTimes were intent on undermining the US govt.

If this is not a high level official working in the Whitehouse then the NYTimes is complicit in some very evil behavior that will certainly be the end of the NYTimes. I don't believe that is the case. I speak from my own perspective, my Dad used to be a VP at the NYTimes and both my father and mother were journalists.

I don't believe a guy with Woodward's reputation or the NYTimes reputation would throw it all away for this.

I'm sure your insider parents were professionals and would be shocked by what is happening at the Times. The credibility they and CNN and WaPo and others once enjoyed is no longer in effect. It means nothing anymore. It's like comparing the Sears of today with their reputation throughout the 20th century. Today these media titans of old don't bother even correcting past errors anymore.

None of these reporters like Woodward or Bernstein risk anything by deceptive writings. Look at Cory Booker's grandstanding in the Kavanaugh hearings, claiming an historic "I am Spartacus" moment, when he knew all along that (1) the documents were already cleared for release, and (2) the documents actually exposed his racist claims against the nominee.

The liberal Press will never expose their own, so what "risk" do any of them really have? Their viewing public only remember or get to see the initial accusations.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm sure your insider parents were professionals and would be shocked by what is happening at the Times. The credibility they and CNN and WaPo and others once enjoyed is no longer in effect. It means nothing anymore. It's like comparing the Sears of today with their reputation throughout the 20th century. Today these media titans of old don't bother even correcting past errors anymore.

None of these reporters like Woodward or Bernstein risk anything by deceptive writings. Look at Cory Booker's grandstanding in the Kavanaugh hearings, claiming an historic "I am Spartacus" moment, when he knew all along that (1) the documents were already cleared for release, and (2) the documents actually exposed his racist claims against the nominee.

The liberal Press will never expose their own, so what "risk" do any of them really have? Their viewing public only remember or get to see the initial accusations.

I am the "viewing public" and the democrats have come across to me as disingenuous. Not just Corey Booker, but I would definitely include him.

This whole question about his email questioning Roe V. Wade comes across as total bull. The email says that you can challenge precedent. Obviously you can challenge precedent, if you couldn't you are elevating the Supreme Court to infallibility. It is so obvious no one asked him that question.

This is a sad indictment of the NYTimes though the comparison to Sears seems fair. Surely there will be some media outlets that rise to the top as having journalistic integrity.

I don't doubt that Woodward is happy to sell books, but my guess is that he was approached by those who wanted this book written and they chose him because of his credibility, and knowing that they were using him he required excellent access to numerous very credible resources.

[zeek]

Mike Pence Condemns Atheists, Homosexuals, And Feminists For Role In Forcing God To Punish America On 9/11

https://politics.theonion.com/mike-p...ist-1828976967 satire

[awareness]

!!! Breaking News !!!

'He’s got the maturity of an eight-year-old boy with the insecurity of a teenage girl': Former Secretary of State John Kerry hits back after Trump accused him of 'illegal meetings' with Iran

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

!!! Breaking News !!!

'He’s got the maturity of an eight-year-old boy with the insecurity of a teenage girl': Former Secretary of State John Kerry hits back after Trump accused him of 'illegal meetings' with Iran

Looks like everyone is studying from the book of insults.

[zeek]

Don't you suppose that Kavanaugh probably confessed his sin to his priest right after he tried to rape her? So he was already absolved years ago. What's the big deal now?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...isconduct.html

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Don't you suppose that Kavanaugh probably confessed his sin to his priest right after he tried to rape her? So he was already was absolved years ago. What's the big deal now?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...isconduct.html

Haven't we seen these tactics before from activist professors?

The classmate who supposedly rescued the professor from Kavanaugh calls the allegations "absolutely nuts."

Didn't you know that Leftist accusers don't have to be truthful because all conservatives are "evil" and probably "Nazis." For the Left, the ends justify the means -- the atheist's religion of Consequentialism.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Haven't we seen these tactics before from activist professors?

The classmate who supposedly rescued the professor from Kavanaugh calls the allegations "absolutely nuts."

Didn't you know that Leftist accusers don't have to be truthful because all conservatives are "evil" and probably "Nazis." For the Left, the ends justify the means -- the atheist's religion of Consequentialism.

No no it's the liberals who are evil Communists as you have said many times on this forum.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

No no it's the liberals who are evil Communists as you have said many times on this forum.

Apparently you don't think it's serious that Socialist Leftists, who hate the constitution, our national borders, capitalism, patriotism, faith, Judeo-Christian values, conservatism, free speech, white people, and western civilization in general are just like the Communists.

But that's just who you have become.

[ZNPaaneah]

I think we can all agree that accusing someone of this crime 30 years after the "fact" on the eve of the vote for their confirmation with an anonymous accusation has the appearance of evil.

If a crime was committed I'd like to see the result of the police investigation. If no crime was committed then why is anyone bringing this up. If the person never filed a police report it seems very strange that now, 30 years later, they see the need to make this accusation.

It also seems to suggest even less credibility to this that this Democrat sat on this for 2 months and waited to the last second to spring it.

Without solid evidence it does have the appearance of a false witness brought in by desperate democrats.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Apparently you don't think it's serious that Socialist Leftists, who hate the constitution, our national borders, capitalism, patriotism, faith, Judeo-Christian values, conservatism, free speech, white people, and western civilization in general are just like the Communists.

But that's just who you have become.

Nothing hateful about that little diatribe. Do you feel better?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Nothing hateful about that little diatribe. Do you feel better?

Even your good friend awareness has told me how difficult it is to converse with you. I am wasting my time. And yours.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Even your good friend awareness has told me how difficult it is to converse with you. I am wasting my time. And yours.

How spiteful to sow discord between friends. Ask yourself why you needed to do that. It will easier to converse with people who think like you do. Unlike you I learn from people who think differently than I do including you. But those with closed minds are wasting their time wherever they go. Godspeed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

How spiteful to sow discord between friends. Ask yourself why you needed to do that. It will easier to converse with people who think like you do. Unlike you I learn from people who think differently than I do including you. But those with closed minds are wasting their time wherever they go. Godspeed.

Unless you are willing to hear a little feedback from your friends, then you are clueless to the frustrations others have.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Unless you are willing to hear a little feedback from your friends, then you are clueless to the frustrations others have.

I know you're frustrated. But where do you get off speaking for Awareness?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I know you're frustrated. But where do you get off speaking for Awareness?

Sorry, I should not speak for him.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry, I should not speak for him.

Okay then let's get back to the usual mayhem.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Okay then let's get back to the usual mayhem.

Mayhem is everywhere. Are you in good hands?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Mayhem is everywhere. Are you in good hands?

You mean Allstate? No, I have Progressive. Really

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

You mean Allstate? No, I have Progressive. Really

Good hands are His hands.

But, I would never buy insurance from a company that regularly insults my intelligence with their incessant stupid commercials. What a waste of money!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good hands are His hands.

But, I would never buy insurance from a company that regularly insults my intelligence with their incessant stupid commercials. What a waste of money!

I don't watch TV so stupid TV commercials don't bother me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't watch TV so stupid TV commercials don't bother me.

You're still paying for their stupidity whether you "enjoy" it or not.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You're still paying for their stupidity whether you "enjoy" it or not.

So I should pay higher premiums so that your intelligence doesn't get insulted when you watch TV; is that what you're suggesting? What about all those stupid drug ads that big Pharma runs we're all paying for those too, if we use their products. It's marketing which is used to create, keep and satisfy the customers in our capitalist economy. You don't have a problem with that do you?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I know you're frustrated. But where do you get off speaking for Awareness?

No need to apologize. You can speak for me any time. You'll prolly be better at it than I.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

So I should pay higher premiums so that your intelligence doesn't get insulted when you watch TV; is that what you're suggesting? What about all those stupid drug ads that big Pharma runs we're all paying for those too, if we use their products. It's marketing which is used to create, keep and satisfy the customers in our capitalist economy. You don't have a problem with that do you?

Originally Posted by awareness

No need to apologize. You can speak for me any time. You'll prolly be better at it than I.

Thet's doubtful awareness, but maybe you can help zeek get some better insurance, and perhaps some generic meds.

So you hate capitalism zeek? Show me one successful Socialist country in history. In capitalist economies we will always have poor people, but in socialist economies everybody is poor. Think about what happened to Venezuela.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thet's doubtful awareness, but maybe you can help zeek get some better insurance, and perhaps some generic meds.

So you hate capitalism zeek? Show me one successful Socialist country in history. In capitalist economies we will always have poor people, but in socialist economies everybody is poor. Think about what happened to Venezuela.

We are not a purely capitalist society. The fire dept does not work as a function of capitalism (we tried that). Likewise with the police dept and school system.

"Obama Care" and "Medicare" are clearly socialist policies.

Social Security is clearly a socialist policy.

We also have some communist laws, we believe beaches should be "common", likewise with some parks, air, water, etc.

[awareness]

Let's just not have Christian values :

Franklin Graham on Judge Kavanaugh Accusation: 'Not Relevant'
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2018/se...n-not-relevant

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Let's just not have Christian values :

Franklin Graham on Judge Kavanaugh Accusation: 'Not Relevant'
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2018/se...n-not-relevant

By "christian values" are you referring to where he says he did things as a teenager he is now ashamed of and has since repented of?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

By "christian values" are you referring to where he says he did things as a teenager he is now ashamed of and has since repented of?

Good point. Christian values do include controlling women's bodies. And that's what Kav did by holding Ford down and trying to rape her, and obviously what he believes. Do we really want someone like that on the supreme court for life ... FOR LIFE?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Let's just not have Christian values :

Franklin Graham on Judge Kavanaugh Accusation: 'Not Relevant'
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2018/se...n-not-relevant

How many times do we need to see some Leftist activist "professor" show up at the last minute with accusations against a SCOTUS appointment before we suspect that something is seriously amiss?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How many times do we need to see some Leftist activist "professor" show up at the last minute with accusations against a SCOTUS appointment before we suspect that something is seriously amiss?

It is a very ugly situation.

Facts:

1. Kavanaugh has had background checks done on him 6 times. These involve talking to coworkers, classmates, professors, neighbors, friends and family. It is very difficult to imagine that someone in his position, with his power, would not have manifested this behavior repeatedly and that this behavior would have been discovered in previous background checks.

2. This woman didn't ever report a crime.

3. This woman does not have any physical evidence (ripped blouse, DNA, photograph of her after the "attack")

4. She doesn't remember the party or the day

5. The other person she claims saw it says he didn't, however he has previously written a book about him being an alcoholic and drunken HS parties. This would have been common knowledge to anyone looking to discredit Kavanaugh.

6. They knew about this claim two months before dropping it at the last moment supporting the assertion that this is a desperate attempt to delay the process.

7. No corroborating witnesses have come forward to support this assertion.

8. Many people have stepped forward to provide positive character witness for Kavanaugh.

On the other hand

1. Kavanaugh is quoted in a speech where he quotes a Dean from that HS that "what happens in that school stays in that school" supporting the assertion that he did things in HS he is not proud of.

2. Kavanaugh's friend in HS was a drunk who attended many wild, drunken parties.


There are two possible "truths".

1. This woman is telling the truth, in which case this kid did something he was not proud of, but didn't rise to the level of a crime.

2. This woman is a false witness brought in by the Democrats in a desperate attempt to slow down the process.

Conclusion

We are choosing someone to be on the Supreme court for possibly 30+ years. Therefore if this is true it is relevant for the Senators to make a decision. On the other hand if this woman is a false witness I would want a full investigation by the FBI, determine this and then convict everyone involved in this crime of slander.

Therefore I support the request for a full FBI investigation and I agree that delaying this process a few weeks is a minor inconvenience.

[Ohio]

The #MeToo movement has a few notable characteristics:

• In every #MeToo case the perpetrator used, not just physical strength, but perceived "power" (jobs, careers, opportunities, etc.) over the vulnerable victim, explaining why the victim remained silent
• In every #MeToo case the perpetrator was a serial offender
• In every #MeToo case many more victims came out of the shadows once the perpetrator got exposed
• In every #MeToo case the victims had an enormous amount of detailed information, often with corroborating witnesses for circumstantial evidence

None of this exists for the accusations against Kavanaugh or Thomas.

We should also note that Clarence Thomas, by many metrics, has become the most conservative Justice in SCOTUS history. The boomerang effect.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How many times do we need to see some Leftist activist "professor" show up at the last minute with accusations against a SCOTUS appointment before we suspect that something is seriously amiss?

How many times do we need to see a rightist activist seek to control women's bodies, but never the same to men's bodies? When it's men that are to blame for abortion.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

How many times do we need to see a rightist activist seek to control women's bodies, but never the same to men's bodies? When it's men that are to blame for abortion.

What are you talking about. We already have laws where men convicted of sexual crimes can choose to be castrated. That is far more control than we exert on women.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

How many times do we need to see a rightist activist seek to control women's bodies, but never the same to men's bodies? When it's men that are to blame for abortion.

Folks ... here we see virtue signaling in action ... prompted by an acute case of white guilt, brought on by Leftist dissemblers.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Folks ... here we see virtue signaling in action ... prompted by an acute case of white guilt, brought on by Leftist dissemblers.

We see no such thing. Only you do. Like Trump seeing larger crowds that aren't there.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

We see no such thing. Only you do. Like Trump seeing larger crowds that aren't there.

That's interesting. So you have been to Trump rallies? Good for you. So you do have an open mind!


*** The real Trump in action! ***

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thet's doubtful awareness, but maybe you can help zeek get some better insurance, and perhaps some generic meds.

So you hate capitalism zeek? Show me one successful Socialist country in history. In capitalist economies we will always have poor people, but in socialist economies everybody is poor. Think about what happened to Venezuela.

You were the one that was complaining about TV advertising. All I did was point out that that's part of so called free enterprise capitalism. To jump from that to accuse me of hating capitalism is irrrational.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

You were the one that was complaining about TV advertising. All I did was point out that that's part of so called free enterprise capitalism. To jump from that to accuse me of hating capitalism is irrrational.

I thought you were denigrating our evil capitalistic economy. My bad.

I did say that having conversations with you is a challenging endeavor.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I thought you were denigrating our evil capitalistic economy. My bad.

No problem.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I did say that having conversations with you is a challenging endeavor.

Sorry. I realize it's tough for you because my thinking doesn't fit neatly into your pigeonholes.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Sorry. I realize it's tough for you because my thinking doesn't fit neatly into your pigeonholes.

O zeek, is there really no place here for your thinking?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

O zeek, is there really no place here for your thinking?

No it looks like every pigeonhole is occupied.

[zeek]

Trump used hateful Nazi anti-Semitic rhetoric with his "lingering stench" metaphor.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Trump used hateful Nazi anti-Semitic rhetoric with his"lingering stench" metaphor.

Right. I believe this nonsense because Trump's speech writer, Stephen Miller, is an anti-Semitic Jew. Try again matey! Let's put this nonsense from your twisted mind in a pigeon hole.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Right. I believe this nonsense because Trump's speech writer, Stephen Miller, is an anti-Semitic Jew. Try again matey! Let's put this nonsense from your twisted mind in a pigeon hole.

Trump didn't need a speech writer to dehumanize Rosenstein by calling him "stench". His disgust for those he considers impure races is spontaneous and visceral. http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.o...71091.full.pdf

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Trump didn't need a speech writer to dehumanize Rosenstein by calling him "stench".

This is pure nonsense identity politics. If you can't recognize this, it's not worth talking to you. You have pigeonholed your own brain cells.

Since the day Trump won the election, reports of FBI/DOJ/CIA high level operatives attempting a coup d'etat have constantly surfaced. The evidence is overwhelming. Comey, McCabe, Yates, Page, Strozk are just a few of the people involved who have been removed from office. There definitely is a lingering "stench" in the higher echelons of intelligentsia.

But by your addiction to identity politics, if the culprit is a woman, then Trump is a misogynist. If the traitor is Jewish, then Trump is anti-semitic. If the felon is Asian, then Trump is a racist.

Oh the evil white man! Only he is guilty of crimes. All others are innocent, by definition. Thus zeek's justice system is no more blind, it only seeks out the white man. Careful what you wish for zeek, one day they will turn on you too.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is pure nonsense identity politics. If you can't recognize this, it's not worth talking to you. You have pigeonholed your own brain cells.

Since the day Trump won the election, reports of FBI/DOJ/CIA high level operatives attempting a coup d'etat have constantly surfaced. The evidence is overwhelming. Comey, McCabe, Yates, Page, Strozk are just a few of the people involved who have been removed from office. There definitely is a lingering "stench" in the higher echelons of intelligentsia.

But by your addiction to identity politics, if the culprit is a woman, then Trump is a misogynist. If the traitor is Jewish, then Trump is anti-semitic. If the felon is Asian, then Trump is a racist.

Oh the evil white man! Only he is guilty of crimes. All others are innocent, by definition. Thus zeek's justice system is no more blind, it only seeks out the white man. Careful what you wish for zeek, one day they will turn on you too.

That's a whole lot of nonsense. You're projecting your own identity politics on me. Trump unlike any president in memory uses hate and fear rhetorical language to stir the passions of his followers. That's the definition of demagoguery. With your warning to me it seems like you're trying to use a fear tactic too. By following guys like Lee and Trump you're learning from the masters.

[awareness]

There's obviously a stench in Washington, and it ain't Rosenstein.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

There's obviously a stench in Washington, and it ain't Rosenstein.

That's why it is code for 2,000 pounds of dirty laundry.

[zeek]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...share_facebook

By all means rush this guy into the Supreme Court as soon as possible to rule on the law of the land for the rest of his natural life before we find anything more about his sleazy past. What do you say, Merrick B. Garland?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...share_facebook

By all means rush this guy into the Supreme Court as soon as possible to rule on the law of the land for the rest of his natural life before we find anything more about his sleazy past. What do you say, Merrick B. Garland?

Brett obviously believes that men should have a right to control women's bodies. Which is why the pubbies want him so bad cuz that's what they too believe --> Roe v. Wade ; but not controlling men's bodies, who produce unwanted pregnancies, by not wearing a condom.

Let's just blame the women ... they are lesser than men. They aren't even a complete human. They're missing the necessary body part that men have, who are whole humans.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...share_facebook

By all means rush this guy into the Supreme Court as soon as possible to rule on the law of the land for the rest of his natural life before we find anything more about his sleazy past. What do you say, Merrick B. Garland?

Let's put this into perspective:

1. He has gone through this process of background checks 6 times. One would think that the FBI would have uncovered something from friends, family, neighbors and coworkers during these investigations.

2. This woman has given 3 witnesses to help corroborate her account and all 3 have denied having any knowledge of the party, Kavanaugh, or the alleged incident.

3. This woman has not provided any physical evidence (ripped blouse, photograph of her afterwards, DNA, corroborating witness, etc).

4. Even though this took place before digital cameras and smart phones we could be very confident there would have been a lot of pictures taken at this party, but she can't tell us when or where it took place. If we knew that we could search through these photos and help corroborate this.

5. Kavanaugh has an alibi for most of the time frame indicated by this woman since he was out of town on trips with his family. Since she does not have access to his calendar it would make sense that she refuses to give a date if it is a false account.

Even so, they are going to let her speak at this hearing. According to the Bible you should not accept an accusation against an elder except at the hand of two or three witnesses. I agree that at this point she needs to be heard, but I also feel that this appears to be the lowest and ugliest desperate attempt to smear someone by the Democrats.

6. The one thing this woman has referred to is a man who has previously written a book about being a drunk at these parties and doing shameful things. This was not some "revelation" but something that was public knowledge. It appears to me at this moment based on the very poor case made, that this is an attempt to smear Kavanaugh based on the bad behavior of other students at his high school.

7. Democrat who put this forward waited until the eve of the vote and didn't show it to anyone else, holding it for 6 weeks or longer. That seems to be a blatant attempt at delaying the process.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Let's put this into perspective:

1. He has gone through this process of background checks 6 times. One would think that the FBI would have uncovered something from friends, family, neighbors and coworkers during these investigations.

2. This woman has given 3 witnesses to help corroborate her account and all 3 have denied having any knowledge of the party, Kavanaugh, or the alleged incident.

3. This woman has not provided any physical evidence (ripped blouse, photograph of her afterwards, DNA, corroborating witness, etc).

4. Even though this took place before digital cameras and smart phones we could be very confident there would have been a lot of pictures taken at this party, but she can't tell us when or where it took place. If we knew that we could search through these photos and help corroborate this.

5. Democrat who put this forward waited until the eve of the vote and didn't show it to anyone else, holding it for 6 weeks or longer. That seems to be a blatant attempt at delaying the process.

Even so, they are going to let her speak at this hearing. According to the Bible you should not accept an accusation against an elder except at the hand of two or three witnesses. I agree that at this point she needs to be heard, but I also feel that this appears to be the lowest and ugliest desperate attempt to smear someone by the Democrats.

6. The one thing this woman has referred to is a man who has previously written a book about being a drunk at these parties and doing shameful things. This was not some "revelation" but something that was public knowledge. It appears to me at this moment based on the very poor case made, that this is an attempt to smear Kavanaugh based on the bad behavior of other students at his high school.

Your "perspective" doesn't include recognizing "this woman" as a person with a name. Are you referring to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez or has someone else come forward with complaints about Kavanaugh?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Your "perspective" doesn't include recognizing "this woman" as a person with a name. Are you referring to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez or has someone else come forward with complaints about Kavanaugh?

I identified her as the one scheduled to testify before a hearing on Thursday, obviously Dr. Ford. If you look at the evidence it appears to be nothing but a false witness. If that is the case then are you allowing liars and cheats to come forward one at a time to railroad the legislative process?

We don't need two rapes to disqualify him, one is good enough. But if they sat on this bogus claim for 6 weeks and then are able to delay the process for 2 weeks then a second false claim can easily delay it for another 2 weeks.

So I stand by my original position -- at this point this woman should be heard and her claim fully investigated. If it turns out to be dirty tricks by the Democrats all involved should be prosecuted and go to jail for slander. Then this case can be a precedent that these hearings do not allow anyone to make a charge without at least 2 witnesses (physical evidence is a witness).

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I identified her as the one scheduled to testify before a hearing on Thursday, obviously Dr. Ford. If you look at the evidence it appears to be nothing but a false witness. If that is the case then are you allowing liars and cheats to come forward one at a time to railroad the legislative process?

We don't need two rapes to disqualify him, one is good enough. But if they sat on this bogus claim for 6 weeks and then are able to delay the process for 2 weeks then a second false claim can easily delay it for another 2 weeks.

So I stand by my original position -- at this point this woman should be heard and her claim fully investigated. If it turns out to be dirty tricks by the Democrats all involved should be prosecuted and go to jail for slander. Then this case can be a precedent that these hearings do not allow anyone to make a charge without at least 2 witnesses (physical evidence is a witness).

Exactly! Remember Anita Hill? Women are such liars they should all be kept silent like in Paul's churches right?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Exactly! Remember Anita Hill? Women are such liars they should all be kept silent like in Paul's churches right?

Wow! Sounds like you have some unresolved issues you need to deal with.

My point is simple: Rape is a terrible crime, we certainly don't want to appoint a Supreme court justice who is guilty of this crime, regardless of how long ago. Since Rape is such a terrible crime the false accusation of rape should also be viewed as a terrible crime. We have had DNA evidence used to convict people of rape for more than 36 years, therefore the claim that "I was afraid no one would believe me" is very weak and getting weaker every year. Between rape kits and DNA we can virtually prove rape in every instance.

I want to know the truth. I am in full agreement that a crime has been committed. If it is rape, prove it. If it is slander, prove it. But one way or another I want one of these two to be held fully accountable to Dr. Ford's claim.

(As for your backhanded swipe at Paul's epistles, you have twisted his word about dealing with Kings and the local government. When the church is dealing with human government authorities there should only be one designated spokesman and everyone else needs to keep quiet. Second, you need to be sympathetic to the mores of the local government, just as we are today. This is why our political leaders will go to Saudi Arabia and cover their heads if they are women. It is a matter of respect. If the church is located in a country that would view a woman spokesman as disrespectful, then use a brother. If it is possible we need to be at peace with all people. However, in a church meeting the woman should have their head covered, just like every single member should, even Jesus was subject and learned submission. Paul taught that the sisters could pray (with their head covered), teach the younger sisters, and be ministry leaders.)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I want to know the truth. I am in full agreement that a crime has been committed. If it is rape, prove it. If it is slander, prove it. But one way or another I want one of these two to be held fully accountable to Dr. Ford's claim.

I also am in full agreement. Had they held Anita Hill accountable, we would not be in this situation today. If they repeat history ... again ... then Democrats will continue to play these dirty tricks with every nomination.

Look at the charges against Keith Ellison, running for MN AG. His accuser, his former girlfriend is also a democrat, now smeared by her own party. Her charges are specific, detailed, and recent.

Where's all the outcry from zeek and awareness for this Muslam who treats his women as less than human.

With his posts zeek constantly slams both conservatives, men, and Christians. This is a constant theme of both him and the LEFT.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I also am in full agreement. Had they held Anita Hill accountable, we would not be in this situation today. If they repeat history ... again ... then Democrats will continue to play these dirty tricks with every nomination.

Dirty tricks. They don't play as dirty as the pubbies did with Obama's supreme picks.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Dirty tricks. They don'y play as dirty as the pubbies did with Obama's supreme picks.

There were no dirty tricks. Have you not read that Harry Reid changed the Senate rules and went nuclear? Just because his short-sighted rules change has backfired, don't blame those Republicans you seem to hate.

I thought you didn't like Obama. And I thought you cared for the lives of the innocent unborn.

You do know that the LEFT has made this all about abortion, even though Roe/Casey is settled law, as Kavanaugh himself says, "precedent upon precedent."

[Ohio]

The swamp rats are now scrambling for cover.

Rosenstein got McCabe fired and now McCabe leaks info to NY Times that forces Rosenstein to resign ???

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The swamp rats are now scrambling for cover.

Yeah, Trump is scrambling.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yeah, Trump is scrambling.

Yeah, he's criss-crossing the country trying to gin up the votes.

[zeek]

"Anita Hill Says Kavanaugh Accuser Hearing 'Cannot Be Fair'"

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/25/65148..._medium=social

"A fair process would start with a "real investigation," Hill tells All Things Considered, saying the absence of other witnesses raises concerns about a he-said-she-said situation."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

"Anita Hill Says Kavanaugh Accuser Hearing 'Cannot Be Fair'"

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/25/65148..._medium=social

"A fair process would start with a "real investigation," Hill tells All Things Considered, saying the absence of other witnesses raises concerns about a he-said-she-said situation."

It's clearly rigged. More dirty tricks from the pubbies.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

"Anita Hill Says Kavanaugh Accuser Hearing 'Cannot Be Fair'"

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/25/65148..._medium=social

"A fair process would start with a "real investigation," Hill tells All Things Considered, saying the absence of other witnesses raises concerns about a he-said-she-said situation."

No, a fair process would begin with at least 2 witnesses. There is no reason that the FBI needs to jump around like a puppet with every accusation. If that were true we would have someone claim that they were black out drunk but knew for sure Kavanaugh did something because as he was doing something someone yelled out his full name. After the 2 week investigation proves that is false, the woman says my bad, I guess I was so drunk I just thought this was the case. Then another person comes forward, ad infinitum.

Please note, the crime of sexual abuse almost always will have lots of physical evidence as a witness. DNA (which we have used for over 36 years), witnesses (if this was a party surely there were other people there), photographs (if you thought you were going to die then surely a photograph will show that you were harmed), ripped clothing, etc. Of course we are usually shown police reports and criminal charges that were dropped or settled out of court. Likewise there is usually other evidence that a life changing event took place (girl left the school, maybe got into fights at school, rumors were floated, she began seeing a therapist, etc). Apparently this woman began seeing a therapist 10 years ago, 26 years after this event?

This is a hearing, not a court. If this were a court I would refuse to press charges based on a lack of evidence. But since it is a hearing we do want to hear from her, who knows when she speaks others might also come forward.

Sure enough she has spoken and we do have some evidence as a result. First, she wants Kavanaugh to go first, that is absurd. He should know what he is being charged with before having to respond. However, it does indicate that she is concerned about the veracity of her own testimony. For example, if she says the party was in July and Kavanaugh can prove he was out of the country with his family then it would prove she was wrong.

She also insists that the senators ask her the questions and not a lawyer designated by them. That proves clearly that her motive is political.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No, a fair process would begin with at least 2 witnesses. There is no reason that the FBI needs to jump around like a puppet with every accusation. If that were true we would have someone claim that they were black out drunk but knew for sure Kavanaugh did something because as he was doing something someone yelled out his full name. After the 2 week investigation proves that is false, the woman says my bad, I guess I was so drunk I just thought this was the case. Then another person comes forward, ad infinitum.

Please note, the crime of sexual abuse almost always will have lots of physical evidence as a witness. DNA (which we have used for over 36 years), witnesses (if this was a party surely there were other people there), photographs (if you thought you were going to die then surely a photograph will show that you were harmed), ripped clothing, etc. Of course we are usually shown police reports and criminal charges that were dropped or settled out of court. Likewise there is usually other evidence that a life changing event took place (girl left the school, maybe got into fights at school, rumors were floated, she began seeing a therapist, etc). Apparently this woman began seeing a therapist 10 years ago, 26 years after this event?

This is a hearing, not a court. If this were a court I would refuse to press charges based on a lack of evidence. But since it is a hearing we do want to hear from her, who knows when she speaks others might also come forward.

Sure enough she has spoken and we do have some evidence as a result. First, she wants Kavanaugh to go first, that is absurd. He should know what he is being charged with before having to respond. However, it does indicate that she is concerned about the veracity of her own testimony. For example, if she says the party was in July and Kavanaugh can prove he was out of the country with his family then it would prove she was wrong.

She also insists that the senators ask her the questions and not a lawyer designated by them. Grassley released a note from his counsel that said the panel would not "hand over its constitutional duties to attorneys for outside witnesses."
"The Committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, in what order to call them, and who will question them," the note read. "These are non-negotiable."

The Senate Judiciary Committee refuses to invite other witnesses who are essential for a fair hearing that arrives at the truth about the sexual assault. Senator Chuck Grassley released a note from his counsel that said the panel would not "hand over its constitutional duties to attorneys for outside witnesses." "The Committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, in what order to call them, and who will question them," the note read. "These are non-negotiable." That shows that Grassley's motives are purely political.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Senate Judiciary Committee refuses to invite other witnesses who are essential for a fair hearing that arrives at the truth about the sexual assault. Senator Chuck Grassley released a note from his counsel that said the panel would not "hand over its constitutional duties to attorneys for outside witnesses." "The Committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, in what order to call them, and who will question them," the note read. "These are non-negotiable." That shows that Grassley motives are purely political.

On the contrary. Grassley is just carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, to "advise and consent."

But let me quote Senator Maize Hirono for you zeek,

"Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Senate Judiciary Committee refuses to invite other witnesses who are essential for a fair hearing that arrives at the truth about the sexual assault. Senator Chuck Grassley released a note from his counsel that said the panel would not "hand over its constitutional duties to attorneys for outside witnesses." "The Committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, in what order to call them, and who will question them," the note read. "These are non-negotiable." That shows that Grassley motives are purely political.

It is a hearing and it is highly publicized. If hearing this woman speak encourages others to come forward then it can create a snowball effect. It is difficult to imagine that anyone abused by this man is not aware of what is going on. Likewise anyone who has anything of note could contact a democratic senator who would make sure it was heard. Obviously the committee needs to control the process, someone will and if not them then who?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is a hearing and it is highly publicized. If hearing this woman speak encourages others to come forward then it can create a snowball effect. It is difficult to imagine that anyone abused by this man is not aware of what is going on. Likewise anyone who has anything of note could contact a democratic senator who would make sure it was heard. Obviously the committee needs to control the process, someone will and if not them then who?

No more justice here? No more presumption of innocence?

Look what they did to Clarence Thomas. Look what they did to Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson. Look what they did to Roy Moore.

If these women refuse to speak up for 36 years, and then remain silent when the FBI did those 6 exhaustive background checks on Kavanaugh, when will we begin to identify false witnesses and punish them?

The #MeToo movement was entirely predicated on powerful men preying on young women vying for jobs which these same powerful men could provide them. Think Harvey Weinstein of Miramax. That is the sole reason these young girls remained silent. Their careers were at stake.

A teenage Kavanaugh, however, had nothing to offer these woman to prevent them from reporting these crimes. Even if similar sexual "crimes" were reported, or any crime for that matter, and Kavanaugh was acquitted, either as a juvenile or an adult, then there would be some credibility to their complaints. But there has been none of that. By every account, examined 6x by the best investigative agents in the world, this judge led an exemplary and perfectly squeaky clean life until Senate hearings were concluded.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No more justice here? No more presumption of innocence?

Look what they did to Clarence Thomas. Look what they did to Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson. Look what they did to Roy Moore.

If these women refuse to speak up for 36 years, and then remain silent when the FBI did those 6 exhaustive background checks on Kavanaugh, when will we begin to identify false witnesses and punish them?

The #MeToo movement was entirely predicated on powerful men preying on young women vying for jobs which these same powerful men could provide them. Think Harvey Weinstein of Miramax. That is the sole reason these young girls remained silent. Their careers were at stake.

A teenage Kavanaugh, however, had nothing to offer these woman to prevent them from reporting these crimes. Even if similar sexual "crimes" were reported, or any crime for that matter, and Kavanaugh was acquitted, either as a juvenile or an adult, then there would be some credibility to their complaints. But there has been none of that. By every account, examined 6x by the best investigative agents in the world, this judge led an exemplary and perfectly squeaky clean life until Senate hearings were concluded.

I informed 3 students today that their actions had eliminated them from any chance of being appointed to the Supreme Court 40 years from now.

I'm sorry I was not aware that Kavanaugh had been accused of a crime. Just saw the news, wow! Imagine the restraint of this woman knowing that the man involved in having her gang raped was being nominated to the Supreme court and not saying anything for 2 months.

Imagine how totally inept our FBI is that they never picked up on this!

The presumption of innocence does not work here. If Kavanaugh is innocent these women are guilty, if they are innocent he is guilty. This has to be investigated and the guilty parties must be held accountable.

But the days of civility are done, henceforth indiscretions committed by 15 year olds will be part of these hearings.

[Ohio]

I don't get it.

Are you breathing sarcasm or shock?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I don't get it.

Are you breathing sarcasm or shock?

I am trying my best to be open.

1. If someone were lying they would be afraid of being caught in the lie and being convicted of the crime. As a result you would expect vague responses like they don't remember the party or the date. Sounds to me like they are laying the groundwork for reasonable doubt. Likewise if they say they were blackout drunk. Both of these accounts would be ripped to shreds in a court of law with a top notch attorney. It sounds utterly absurd to me to have a drunken orgy with Brett taking his pants off, this girl being blackout drunk, and then incredibly she comes to at the same time someone calls out his entire name "Brett Kavanaugh". The third accusation is one I have only just heard and haven't had time to examine. But it also sounds incredible. How could the FBI have missed this? Surely if this woman was raped there is a police record. If she was gang raped at a bar then one would think the police had collected a list of everyone there. Then what exactly is the accusation, no one is accusing him of rape, rather they are saying he got women drunk who were then raped by others. What does that mean? He was at a bar buying drinks for himself and women. Is that a crime? Also I am unclear if these other women will go on the record, if they won't, then I don't consider these to be anything that should be considered. I also wonder why someone who claims he was involved in a gang rape would keep that to themselves all these years? Did the FBI ever hear this in the 6 background checks they did? None of this makes sense. What about the last two months? Why is this being dropped at the last minute. It has the appearance of a desperate attempt to delay the vote.

2. Prior to the accusation of the gang rape my attitude was that Kavanaugh had not yet been accused of a crime. Rather some term about sexual behavior was being used by the media. But as you pointed out it wasn't an abuse of power, the accusation was that as a teenage drunk he was a jerk. Since then we have changed the drinking age from 18 to 21 for exactly this reason. So your "presumption of innocence" would only apply to the accusers since if they were lying that would be a crime. There is a biologic reason why we treat teenagers differently from adults. As a HS teacher the jerk comments you see from him on his yearbook are so common it would be absurd to make this a basis to deny approval of nominees.

3. The precedent here is horrifying. Instead of looking at this man's credentials, resume, and professional behavior he is being accused of getting drunk as a kid, being obnoxious when he is drunk, and OMG buying drinks for women at bars.

So, I am hopeful there is actually more to it than this and will come out today. But at the moment my impression of the Democrats has plummeted. Another great example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[ZNPaaneah]

IMO the testimony of Ford was believable, and it does add a little information that I would say strongly implied the party was at Kavanaugh's friend's house, the kid named Judge. That would explain why they treated the bedroom as their room while everyone else there was downstairs.

I also agree with the assessment that the Democrats behavior in all of this was heinous. This should have been handled in private, behind closed doors. The blame for the damage to both of these people as a result of the way it was released should be fully assigned to the Democrats. The notion that this senator sat on it because the woman wanted anonymity is, to my opinion, completely bogus. It still could have been raised with specific questions in closed door sessions.

We will now see if obnoxious and offensive behavior done by a teenager is a valid reason to not approve an appointment 36 years later, especially given the scarcity of evidence. (Even after her testimony it all boils down to a single witness without any corroboration.) If so, it is going to get really ugly.

[zeek]

With his raging tantrum and partisan attack on the Democrats yesterday, Brett Kavanaugh revealed that he lacks the judicial temperament and unbiased perspective necessary to be a judge on the highest court in the land.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

With his raging tantrum and partisan attack on the Democrats yesterday, Brett Kavanaugh revealed that he lacks the judicial temperament and unbiased perspective necessary to be a judge on the highest court in the land.

Wow, what a surprise! Who could have predicted you judging in this way!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

With his raging tantrum and partisan attack on the Democrats yesterday, Brett Kavanaugh revealed that he lacks the judicial temperament and unbiased perspective necessary to be a judge on the highest court in the land.

Another high tech lynching. Reminds me of Clint Eastwood's hanging in the movie Hang 'em High.

And how dare Clint got a little upset with that! Definitely disqualified from being a "real" cowboy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

With his raging tantrum and partisan attack on the Democrats yesterday, Brett Kavanaugh revealed that he lacks the judicial temperament and unbiased perspective necessary to be a judge on the highest court in the land.

Few noteworthy comments ...

The hearing yesterday was a shameful exercise in abuse, unspeakable abuse by Democrats, of both Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh. Blasey Ford did show up and testify, her two Democrat activist lawyers, Debra Katz and Michael Bromwich, by her side. She was not credible, but we should all feel sorry for her.

She is fifty-two years old but seemed childlike. She speaks in a child’s voice, which rose in pitch at the end of every sentence as though she is unsure about the validity of her own words. She was at times cheerful and giddy, which was off-putting, given the reason she was there: to shatter a fine man’s life’s work. She has traveled the world but had told the committee she was afraid to fly. So she is not an honest person. But she is clearly damaged, and those lawyers and whoever recruited them should be indicted for cruelty to an unstable person. Her lawyers and Dianne Feinstein have abused her horribly and used her as their tool to ruin Kavanaugh.

The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee revealed their inner selves yesterday, and it was an ugly, ugly picture. Every one of them attacked, demeaned, and verbally assaulted Judge Kavanaugh. Not one of them was civil or respectful to this man, who has led a life of high achievement, service, grace, and class. Booker, Harris, Durbin, Blumenthal, et al. are thugs. They are bullies in search of power with no regard for the truth or decency. No one should ever again vote for any of them. Every one of them has permanently stained their committee and the confirmation process. They have also forever destroyed their own legacies. Their performances today are what each of them will be remembered for.

Ford’s original letter to Feinstein is so badly written that it is hard to believe it was drafted by an educated person. Dr. Ford did not know the word “exculpatory” but has a Ph.D. Ford seemed as though she was in a dissociative state. She was reciting a studied script, blanks and all, as though she had been hypnotized. She had no reasonable explanation for why each of the witnesses she named denies ever being at such a party. She did not address the fact that one them, her girlfriend, made a statement under oath that she had never met Kavanaugh and remembered no such gathering. The Democrats in the room badgered Kavanaugh relentlessly but ignored the fact that there is still no corroborating evidence, no witnesses, no proof that the incident ever happened. There is only this sad woman’s distant, incomplete, and flawed memory. The Democrats don’t care. All they care about is keeping that seat vacant.

When asked who paid for her polygraph and who was paying her lawyers, Ford said she did not know. She said she thought there were some GoFundMe pages, but she had no idea how to manage them. She said she did not know that Sen. Grassley had offered to come to California to interview her. Her head must have been in the sand. Most likely, her lawyers wanted the spectacle we saw. They have been certain they could force Kavanaugh to withdraw. They badly misjudged the man they have tried to destroy. Kavanaugh rightly eviscerated them. It was his testimony that was truly heart-wrenching. It is likely that the millions of those who watched cried more than the judge did.

That any of this happened is the historical low point in American politics – and make no mistake: this was all about politics, not Kavanaugh. If there was any doubt before, there is no longer: the American left today is malevolent.

The Democratic Party has demonstrated for all to see just how soulless it has become. The Democrats on the committee disgraced themselves. The two youngsters, Harris and Booker (neither of them will ever be president), are callow, shallow, rude, and power-mad. We have seen what they are made of: pure narcissism.

What we saw today was the judiciary committee Democrats mercilessly abusing Kavanaugh, again, having already abused Blasey Ford into a stupor. Kavanaugh was justifiably enraged and fought hard against his abusers. He did a magnificent job. So did Sen. Graham in defense of Kavanaugh.

Any senator who votes against Kavanaugh now is betraying his own inability to see the truth when it is sitting right in front of him. Any senator who votes against this man now is signaling his approval of wholesale character assassination for sordid political purposes. The Democrats in the Senate might consider that.

A no vote is a vote for more of the horrific circus we saw today. Redeem yourselves, Democrats. Vote to confirm this good man.

By Patricia McCarthy

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Few noteworthy comments ...

Apparently yesterday's proceedings did not change Ohio's opinion, nor did it change Zeek's opinion.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Apparently yesterday's proceedings did not change Ohio's opinion, nor did it change Zeek's opinion.

Even the president now disagrees with Patricia McCarthy's characterization of Christine Ford's testimony. And it's starting to look like there might be an FBI investigation after all which the American Bar Association and Yale University called for and now might occur before the whole Senate votes. The president wanted Kavanaugh to look strong yesterday but he came off belligerent and out of control. And what's with the pouty face? Apparently nobody told him this was going to be difficult. You'd think a guy so close to Washington DC would have more political awareness. Plus, his characterization of his youth as squeaky clean conflicts with the evidence in his yearbook and elsewhere of the hard partying he and the boys we're engaged in. His definitions of those street terms in his yearbook were pure canard. And, of course, he could claim he was a virgin, but even if he never achieved penetration, it doesn't mean he didn't try. Didn't his evasive b******* remind you of Bill Clinton's at points? I think Kavanaugh's candidacy for the SCOTUS may be toast after yesterday. And he may have to visit the confessional after Kennedy pushed him to swear to God, don't you think? Who's up next? The handmaiden?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Even the president now disagrees with Patricia McCarthy's characterization of Christine Ford's testimony. And it's starting to look like there might be an FBI investigation after all which the American Bar Association and Yale University called for and now might occur before the whole Senate votes. The president wanted Kavanaugh to look strong yesterday but he came off belligerent and out of control. And what's with the pouty face? Apparently nobody told him this was going to be difficult. You'd think a guy so close to Washington DC would have more political awareness. Plus, his characterization of his youth as squeaky clean conflicts with the evidence in his yearbook and elsewhere of the hard partying he and the boys we're engaged in. His definitions of those street terms in his yearbook were pure canard. And, of course, he could claim he was a virgin, but even if he never achieved penetration, it doesn't mean he didn't try. Didn't his evasive b******* remind you of Bill Clinton's at points? I think Kavanaugh's candidacy for the SCOTUS may be toast after yesterday. And he may have to visit the confessional after Kennedy pushed him to swear to God, don't you think? Who's up next? The handmaiden?

Now I understand Jesus' word about not casting your pearls before the swine.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Even the president now disagrees with Patricia McCarthy's characterization of Christine Ford's testimony. And it's starting to look like there might be an FBI investigation after all which the American Bar Association and Yale University called for and now might occur before the whole Senate votes. The president wanted Kavanaugh to look strong yesterday but he came off belligerent and out of control. And what's with the pouty face? Apparently nobody told him this was going to be difficult. You'd think a guy so close to Washington DC would have more political awareness. Plus, his characterization of his youth as squeaky clean conflicts with the evidence in his yearbook and elsewhere of the hard partying he and the boys we're engaged in. His definitions of those street terms in his yearbook were pure canard. And, of course, he could claim he was a virgin, but even if he never achieved penetration, it doesn't mean he didn't try. Didn't his evasive b******* remind you of Bill Clinton's at points? I think Kavanaugh's candidacy for the SCOTUS may be toast after yesterday. And he may have to visit the confessional after Kennedy pushed him to swear to God, don't you think? Who's up next? The handmaiden?

Why not have an investigation? I'm all for it. Not in any rush.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think Kavanaugh's candidacy for the SCOTUS may be toast after yesterday. And he may have to visit the confessional after Kennedy pushed him to swear to God, don't you think? Who's up next? The handmaiden?

I think all future candidates for SCOTUS will be given the same treatment. Pity the next nominee from a Democrat.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think all future candidates for SCOTUS will be given the same treatment. Pity the next nominee from a Democrat.

No evidence here.

The Republicans have never treated a Democratic nominee as the Democrats have -- Bork, Thomas, Kavanaugh.

[Ohio]

What makes Cory Booker's groping incident different than the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh

That's easy.

Booker is a black man, and has the support of the media, the deep state, and the lawless Democrats.


Same goes for Keith Ellison. Plus he has the protected status of being Muslam.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think all future candidates for SCOTUS will be given the same treatment. Pity the next nominee from a Democrat.

So said Lindsey Graham. But, Neil Gorsuch went to the same high school as Kavanaugh. Yet no such accusation surfaced against him and he breezed through the hearings with relative ease. As agonizing as it is, I think the problem is the man not the process.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What makes Cory Booker's groping incident different than the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh

That's easy.

Booker is a black man, and has the support of the media, the deep state, and the lawless Democrats.


Same goes for Keith Ellison. Plus he has the protected status of being Muslim.

Are those guys on the Supreme Court? I didn't know that. You're forgetting the elephant in the room : Groper and Chief Donald Trump. Your explanation explains nothing except your prejudices.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

So said Lindsey Graham. But, Neil Gorsuch went to the same high school as Kavanaugh. Yet no such accusation surfaced against him and he breezed through the hearings with relative ease. As agonizing as it is, I think the problem is the man not the process.

Drinking beer with Mark Judge leaves him open to accusation.

Republicans must be perfect, Dems can get away with murder.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drinking beer with Mark Judge leaves him open to accusation.

Republicans must be perfect, Dems can get away with murder.

"Politics is always changing. Sometimes it's my guy, and sometime it's your idiots." - Tim Allen is back. Last Man Standing, Season 7, Episode 1 is a must see. It's a message to everyone of us, no matter how polarized we are.

I might even go so far as to call it a hippie message. Then again, Tim Allen.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drinking beer with Mark Judge leaves him open to accusation.

Republicans must be perfect, Dems can get away with murder.

Gorsuch went to the same Catholic prep school. It wasn't a problem for him. Kavanaugh misrepresented himself as squeaky clean and threw a temper tantrum in the senate chamber when his story was challenged. The guy is emotionally volatile. Not Supreme Court material.

Kavanaugh has been quoted as saying 'What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep," Wishful thinking on his part. Too bad for him it didn't work out that way.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

So said Lindsey Graham. But, Neil Gorsuch went to the same high school as Kavanaugh. Yet no such accusation surfaced against him and he breezed through the hearings with relative ease. As agonizing as it is, I think the problem is the man not the process.

If you don't see a problem with this process as it just played out then I am flabbergasted. Regardless of how this plays out, whether or not he is confirmed, I think it is abundantly clear this entire thing should have been done behind closed doors and should have been done a month ago. This process has irreparably harmed both reputations. I would also add that I expect this to absolutely mobilize those that support Trump and/or Kavanaugh during this mid term election. This process has been extremely polarizing to the entire country.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Are those guys on the Supreme Court? I didn't know that. You're forgetting the elephant in the room : Groper and Chief Donald Trump. Your explanation explains nothing except your prejudices.

Donald Trump's groping were made well known prior to the election. So how is he relevant. The voters were aware of every allegation prior to voting.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drinking beer with Mark Judge leaves him open to accusation.

Republicans must be perfect, Dems can get away with murder.

Once Mark Judge published that book it opened the door. Anything to connect Mark Judge to Kavanaugh would tarnish Kavanaugh and would be credible.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Kavanaugh has been quoted as saying 'What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep," Wishful thinking on his part. Too bad for him it didn't work out that way.

That is a misrepresentation. Kavanaugh quoted a dean as saying "what happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown prep". If I quote Zeek as saying something it doesn't make it my quote.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Once Mark Judge published that book it opened the door. Anything to connect Mark Judge to Kavanaugh would tarnish Kavanaugh and would be credible.

Isn't that guilt by association 35 years removed. I think we are all in trouble.


Since Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. control the history of every Millennial's social media actions, they will be able to blackmail conservatives for decades.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drinking beer with Mark Judge leaves him open to accusation.

Republicans must be perfect, Dems can get away with murder.

Can we be a little more reasonable? I don't think anyone is taking issue with the fact that he drank, or went to parties, or portrayed himself as a choirboy.

It is hardly demanding "perfection" that we might be concerned about an assault on a 15 year old girl and want to investigate. Certainly you can understand why a woman who is a victim of a sexual assault would not want to have to try her case before a judge who himself did the same things.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is a misrepresentation. Kavanaugh quoted a dean as saying "what happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown prep". If I quote Zeek as saying something it doesn't make it my quote.

Isn't that "guilt by quoting, once removed"?


To all Lefties like zeek, that is all they need to convict someone in their heart. Think about how many in America now truly believe that Kavanaugh is worse than Bill Cosby, drugging and gang-raping women every weekend.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Isn't that guilt by association 35 years removed. I think we are all in trouble.


Since Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. control the history of every Millennial's social media actions, they will be able to blackmail conservatives for decades.

They will blackmail everyone. I made this point in a previous post. Instead of looking at his professional record, his coworkers, and his resume with his credentials, we are now going to use the fact that one of his friends over the last 36 years was a drunk to reject someone.

Think of what one of the questions was in the hearing "have you ever been blackout drunk". If he says yes, then they can say that any denial he gives is invalid since he might have simply "blacked out". If he says no then they can argue that he drank and at times was drunk. So getting witnesses to describe every encounter they ever had with him that is unflattering becomes part of the process.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Can we be a little more reasonable? I don't think anyone is taking issue with the fact that he drank, or went to parties, or portrayed himself as a choirboy.

It is hardly demanding "perfection" that we might be concerned about an assault on a 15 year old girl and want to investigate. Certainly you can understand why a woman who is a victim of a sexual assault would not want to have to try her case before a judge who himself did the same things.

I disagree. He repeatedly admittied to "liking beer," and told us he was "not perfect." That went over like a lead zeppelin.

Sen Hirono demands to know about all the parties he had in school.

He has been condemned for Judge's party ways.

The Democrats never gave him the presumption of innocence. They demanded more than perfection.

Btw, even if Kavanaugh had been disciplined for "groping" in High School, would that even have been reported to the police? If he was "convicted," what would be the charge? Aggressive play? Would not juvenile incidents like that also be expunged? Just sayin.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

They will blackmail everyone. I made this point in a previous post. Instead of looking at his professional record, his coworkers, and his resume with his credentials, we are now going to use the fact that one of his friends over the last 36 years was a drunk to reject someone.

Think of what one of the questions was in the hearing "have you ever been blackout drunk". If he says yes, then they can say that any denial he gives is invalid since he might have simply "blacked out". If he says no then they can argue that he drank and at times was drunk. So getting witnesses to describe every encounter they ever had with him that is unflattering becomes part of the process.

Kavanaugh said he "fell asleep" after drinking. "Blackout" is now in the eyes of the beholder.

The real issue here is that this woman Dr. Ford was never cross-examined. They have never examined her life and background. She has mental health issues. Was she hypnotized into remembering Kavanaugh? Why are her lawyers Democratic operatives? There are serious legal issues here unresolved.

Without due process, every so-called government "job interview" can be squashed by one person's accusation, even if you never met the person. All they have to prove is that they once lived in the same state.

[zeek]

Brett Kavanaugh "lied on that Fox News interview" about who he was, a former Yale classmate said, adding that the person he professed to be wasn't the one she knew. "This is about the integrity of the Supreme Court," she said. "I know that Brett mischaracterized himself, and it's incredibly disappointing that despite that this man could be elevated to the Supreme Court."

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/kava...ry?id=58143025

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Kavanaugh said he "fell asleep" after drinking. "Blackout" is now in the eyes of the beholder.

The real issue here is that this woman Dr. Ford was never cross-examined. They have never examined her life and background. She has mental health issues. Was she hypnotized into remembering Kavanaugh? Why are her lawyers Democratic operatives? There are serious legal issues here unresolved.

Without due process, every so-called government "job interview" can be squashed by one person's accusation, even if you never met the person. All they have to prove is that they once lived in the same state.

I don't think any of that is "the real issue". To me the real issue is this process. A person is nominated to this post, obviously a great honor for someone who is a judge. The criteria for confirmation should not be a political football. They should create the prerequisites they are expecting in a Supreme Court Justice, and they should identify Felonies and maybe even misdemeanors as being cause for rejection.

IMO one week from now nothing will have changed. The FBI will not present a report that makes their previous background checks look like keystone cops, so no allegation will be substantiated. He will not be accused or tried for any crime. Yet his name and reputation will be forever damaged, as will Dr. Ford's. No Democrat is going to change their position because all the allegations will still be out there and the cry will be that one week is not enough time. All but 2 Republicans will not change their opinion. So then if he is approved all the Pro choicers will be screaming in outrage when in reality this should never have been done in public. If he is denied confirmation the Pro Life, Pro Trump portion of the US will be screaming in outrage and there is nothing that could have motivated them to come out and vote and ignore all the convictions of Cohen, etc. like this.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Brett Kavanaugh "lied on that Fox News interview" about who he was, a former Yale classmate said, adding that the person he professed to be wasn't the one she knew. "This is about the integrity of the Supreme Court," she said. "I know that Brett mischaracterized himself, and it's incredibly disappointing that despite that this man could be elevated to the Supreme Court."

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/kava...ry?id=58143025

That is ridiculous. That would be like someone asking Zeek who he was and then Ohio accusing Zeek of being a liar because it differs from his view. Ohio has his view of who Zeek is, Zeek has his. Just because these two views differ doesn't make Zeek a liar.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is ridiculous. That would be like someone asking Zeek who he was and then Ohio accusing Zeek of being a liar because it differs from his view. Ohio has his view of who Zeek is, Zeek has his. Just because these two views differ doesn't make Zeek a liar.

I agree.


But this is the kind of stuff (fake news) out there that the media uses all the time to rack up "lies" for Trump. In today's highly partisan climate, I'm sure many from Georgetown Prep will bad-mouth Kavanaugh because of their politics.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't think any of that is "the real issue". To me the real issue is this process. A person is nominated to this post, obviously a great honor for someone who is a judge. The criteria for confirmation should not be a political football. They should create the prerequisites they are expecting in a Supreme Court Justice, and they should identify Felonies and maybe even misdemeanors as being cause for rejection.

IMO one week from now nothing will have changed. The FBI will not present a report that makes their previous background checks look like keystone cops, so no allegation will be substantiated. He will not be accused or tried for any crime. Yet his name and reputation will be forever damaged, as will Dr. Ford's. No Democrat is going to change their position because all the allegations will still be out there and the cry will be that one week is not enough time. All but 2 Republicans will not change their opinion. So then if he is approved all the Pro choicers will be screaming in outrage when in reality this should never have been done in public. If he is denied confirmation the Pro Life, Pro Trump portion of the US will be screaming in outrage and there is nothing that could have motivated them to come out and vote and ignore all the convictions of Cohen, etc. like this.

All but 2 Republicans will not change their opinion?

Ignore all the convictions of Cohen, etc.

Explain.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

All but 2 Republicans will not change their opinion?

Ignore all the convictions of Cohen, etc.

Explain.

There were two Republicans that are considered on the fence, they are the only two that I see who might not vote for Kavanaugh for the Republicans, and if they don't, then he won't be confirmed. That is the sum total of this investigation, what will these two do?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There were two Republicans that are considered on the fence, they are the only two that I see who might not vote for Kavanaugh for the Republicans, and if they don't, then he won't be confirmed. That is the sum total of this investigation, what will these two do?

Three. Flake, Murkowski, Collins.

I could see Flake switching parties (or being independent) had he more time in the Senate. Many in WashDC become more liberal over time, especially in the SCOTUS.

Fortunately John Kyl replaced McCain, otherwise McCain would knife Trump again.

Roberts is not the conservative people make him out to be. E.G. ObamaCare vote. He will be the next "swing" vote if Kavanaugh is elected. I doubt Roberts would ever vote to overturn Roe/Casey.

If the Senate flips, and RBG resigns or dies, I can see Trump nominating Merrick Garland. Trump would do that because Garland is moderate, and the Democratic Senate would be forced to confirm him after whining for a few years. It's kind of like when Trump offered to raise the DACA from 800K to 1,800K. Trump wants solutions, even if they are not his first choice.

[zeek]

A Catholic magazine, America: The Jesuit Review, revoked its endorsement of Brett Kavanaugh after the Senate hearing.

https://www.americamagazine.org/poli...n-be-withdrawn

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

A Catholic magazine, America: The Jesuit Review, revoked its endorsement of Brett Kavanaugh after the Senate hearing.

https://www.americamagazine.org/poli...n-be-withdrawn

Anyone with half a brain, who saw Kav's performance at the hearing, wouldn't endorse Kav, to the highest judicial position, for life.

As I see it, both parties have lost it. And truth no longer matters for our highest judges.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

A Catholic magazine, America: The Jesuit Review, revoked its endorsement of Brett Kavanaugh after the Senate hearing.

https://www.americamagazine.org/poli...n-be-withdrawn

The Catholic Church weighing in on sexual abuse? That's rich!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Catholic Church weighing in on sexual abuse? That's rich!

I think the author addresses that problem. Anyway, without them your anti-abortion stance is greatly weakened.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think the author addresses that problem. Anyway, without them your anti-abortion stance is greatly weakened.

Huh?

If I were the only person on earth, I would still declare that abortion murders defenseless and innocent unborn lives.

Stray dogs and feral cats have more rights than the unborn.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Huh?

If I were the only person on earth, I would still declare that abortion murders defenseless and innocent unborn lives.

Stray dogs and feral cats have more rights than the unborn.

Bro Ohio I'm surprised that with your deep abiding passion against abortion, that you're not advocating condom use, and passing them out at schools and the like.

What is responsible for the killing of the unborn are men ; men that produce unwanted pregnancies, by not wearing a condom ... well. and women, that don't use the many options of birth control.

I'm glad you never ever got an abortion. At least that aligns with your passion against abortion ... you've never had one ... or needed to.

So get on your soapbox, in the public square, and shout out against it ... but at least be consistent enough to pass out condoms while your at it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Huh?

If I were the only person on earth, I would still declare that abortion murders defenseless and innocent unborn lives.

Stray dogs and feral cats have more rights than the unborn.

I agree with you, how many Christians in this country are influenced by the Catholic Church on their stance on Abortion? Other than the Catholics, next to none.

Also, has the Catholic church changed their stance on abortion?

rejecting Kavanaugh has nothing to do with abortion.

I think there has been persuasive evidence given that Kavanaugh was known to drink a lot in HS and college. That undermines his testimony. Granted there can be two different views on what "a lot" means. Likewise "passed out drunk" is not the same as "black out drunk". I agree with Awareness (both sides have lost it and the truth no longer matters) that the questions asked at the hearing were too vague making it too easy for each side to distort the testimony.

For example, why didn't they look at the calendar, figure out which days were parties and tried to quantify exactly how many of these drinking parties he went to. Why not ask him how many beers or drinks he would drink. If he said no more than two that could be easily debunked. If he said 6-8 then most of us could assume he was getting drunk at each of these parties.

So I think the questions were too vague to be useful for anything but distortion. Some people may think he was "black out drunk" but how would you know that unless you actually talked to him the next day and he had no recollection. I think they are confusing passed out with black out.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

rejecting Kavanaugh has nothing to do with abortion.


For example, why didn't they look at the calendar, figure out which days were parties and tried to quantify exactly how many of these drinking parties he went to. Why not ask him how many beers or drinks he would drink. If he said no more than two that could be easily debunked. If he said 6-8 then most of us could assume he was getting drunk at each of these parties.

So I think the questions were too vague to be useful for anything but distortion. Some people may think he was "black out drunk" but how would you know that unless you actually talked to him the next day and he had no recollection. I think they are confusing passed out with black out.

Rejecting Kavanaugh has everything to do with abortion -- numerous from the left have told us this exactly.



First, I did hear questions by Sen. Whitehouse and others about specific calendar dates, notably July 1, 1982. Kavanaugh did say he never blacked out, but did fall asleep.

Secondly, there is no way to have a decent "trial" unless they actually were brought to trial, with evidence examined, witnesses questioned and cross-examined, etc.

If all it takes to convict people is to examine teenage drinking, we would have no unsolved crimes. I am as guilty as the next guy, definitely moreso than Kavanaugh. By this flawed logic, I could be "convicted" of murder, rape, conspiracy, every crime in the book. There is no way on earth I could go back to every day of my life and "prove" I was perfectly innocent. By that standard, I could not even "prove" my innocence for last week.

Regarding Ford's claims, there are up to 5 witnesses who supposedly were there who refute her claims. How many witnesses does one need? Look at how vulnerable you also are ZNP? What if some former HS classmate was in marital counseling because she wanted "two front doors" on her house. Using questionable memory devices, suddenly her political therapist helps her to "remember" that her life-long problems were all due to inappropriate contact with some ZNP guy decades ago. Enter WaPo with a wealthy owner hell-bent on destroying friends of Trump, and now your employer has serious misgivings about you interfacing with students.

If every "female survivor" must automatically be believed, then God save our country.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Rejecting Kavanaugh has everything to do with abortion -- numerous from the left have told us this exactly.



First, I did hear questions by Sen. Whitehouse and others about specific calendar dates, notably July 1, 1982. Kavanaugh did say he never blacked out, but did fall asleep.

Secondly, there is no way to have a decent "trial" unless they actually were brought to trial, with evidence examined, witnesses questioned and cross-examined, etc.

If all it takes to convict people is to examine teenage drinking, we would have no unsolved crimes. I am as guilty as the next guy, definitely moreso than Kavanaugh. By this flawed logic, I could be "convicted" of murder, rape, conspiracy, every crime in the book. There is no way on earth I could go back to every day of my life and "prove" I was perfectly innocent. By that standard, I could not even "prove" my innocence for last week.

Regarding Ford's claims, there are up to 5 witnesses who supposedly were there who refute her claims. How many witnesses does one need? Look at how vulnerable you also are ZNP? What if some former HS classmate was in marital counseling because she wanted "two front doors" on her house. Using questionable memory devices, suddenly her political therapist helps her to "remember" that her life-long problems were all due to inappropriate contact with some ZNP guy decades ago. Enter WaPo with a wealthy owner hell-bent on destroying friends of Trump, and now your employer has serious misgivings about you interfacing with students.

If every "female survivor" must automatically be believed, then God save our country.

I am not one of the senators voting. So in my opinion it will really depend on the three that are potential swing votes. Those three are not going to reject Kavanaugh because of abortion. Perhaps this can act as cover to allow them to reject him, avoiding a contentious vote. But Trump can still nominate the next potential candidate. That candidate could be equally pro life, so again, this is not about abortion the Democratic party that will come out.

No doubt much of the protests from the minority are about abortion, but unless you subscribe to the idea that this is a big conspiracy from the left then there is no basis for that. If you do subscribe to that then it should come out in an FBI investigation. It is extremely difficult to hide a conspiracy from experienced investigators who are focusing in on just that. for example, it is highly unlikely Dr. Ford conspired with the Left without leaving a huge paper trail of emails, text messages and phone calls. I would expect the FBI to go through all of her emails, texts and phone calls. If they found connection to pro choice activists and

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am not one of the senators voting. So in my opinion it will really depend on the three that are potential swing votes. Those three are not going to reject Kavanaugh because of abortion. Perhaps this can act as cover to allow them to reject him, avoiding a contentious vote. But Trump can still nominate the next potential candidate. That candidate could be equally pro life, so again, this is not about abortion the Democratic party that will come out.

No doubt much of the protests from the minority are about abortion, but unless you subscribe to the idea that this is a big conspiracy from the left then there is no basis for that. If you do subscribe to that then it should come out in an FBI investigation. It is extremely difficult to hide a conspiracy from experienced investigators who are focusing in on just that. for example, it is highly unlikely Dr. Ford conspired with the Left without leaving a huge paper trail of emails, text messages and phone calls. I would expect the FBI to go through all of her emails, texts and phone calls. If they found connection to pro choice activists and

Huh? Both Collins and Murkowski have made Roe their litmus test.

Did you see Ted and Heidi Cruz recently get targeted at a DC restaurant? If their is no "conspiracy" in operation, how do you explain the fact that the LEFT can assemble seriously dangerous protesters in every city in a moments' notice? Hundreds of these events have occurred.

Why would these activities "come out in an FBI investigation?" Did not Senator Graham call for an investigation into illegalities related to Dr. Ford's lawyers? And how do you explain Feinstein's actions? How do explain these “politically connected lawyers” hired for Ford? Even Brennan and Comey are screaming for Kavanaugh's neck.

What Left-wing conspiracy? This could never be!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Huh? Both Collins and Murkowski have made Roe their litmus test.

Did you see Ted and Heidi Cruz recently get targeted at a DC restaurant? If their is no "conspiracy" in operation, how do you explain the fact that the LEFT can assemble seriously dangerous protesters in every city in a moments' notice? Hundreds of these events have occurred.

Why would these activities "come out in an FBI investigation?" Did not Senator Graham call for an investigation into illegalities related to Dr. Ford's lawyers? And how do you explain Feinstein's actions? How do explain these “politically connected lawyers” hired for Ford? Even Brennan and Comey are screaming for Kavanaugh's neck.

What Left-wing conspiracy? This could never be!

I do not doubt that the pro choice faction is doing everything thinkable to stop Kavanaugh. That is not the issue. The issue is Dr. Ford's testimony and if the FBI investigation uncovers anything. If not he can be confirmed and the Democrats will look bad.

Likewise, if the FBI uncovers a conspiracy to defraud Kavanaugh that also will make the Democrats look bad. It will be very simple to find.

1. Did Dr. Ford have any contact with this group (very hard to imagine she would allow herself to be this exposed for some kind of scam without a lot of cajoling). All of that contact would be easy to find for the FBI.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If every "female survivor" must automatically be believed, then God save our country.

And if female survivor's are dismissed, things will continue on as it has ; where men think they have a right to abuse women. I suppose that's fine with you, and maybe even with the libtard cucks.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Ohio I'm surprised that with your deep abiding passion against abortion, that you're not advocating condom use, and passing them out at schools and the like.

Condoms are a total farse. Talk about deceiving an entire generation of kids.

Condoms do nothing to prevent the spread of dozens of STD's.

And take a minute to think about the only two options which the Left provides to their people. First, believe all women, without evidence, without facts, without corroboration. Second, allow all men to continually abuse women.

Oh the binary world of a devoted lefty!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I do not doubt that the pro choice faction is doing everything thinkable to stop Kavanaugh. That is not the issue. The issue is Dr. Ford's testimony and if the FBI investigation uncovers anything. If not he can be confirmed and the Democrats will look bad.

Likewise, if the FBI uncovers a conspiracy to defraud Kavanaugh that also will make the Democrats look bad. It will be very simple to find.

1. Did Dr. Ford have any contact with this group (very hard to imagine she would allow herself to be this exposed for some kind of scam without a lot of cajoling). All of that contact would be easy to find for the FBI.

The media will never let the Democrats look bad. Serious?

Look at all the fake news allegations against Trump to date. They all have come and gone, without any actual evidence, yet the Media ran with the story until another one came along.

Name me one conspiracy lie that proved false and the Democrats "looked bad." You have hundreds to choose from. Collusion anyone?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

And if female survivor's are dismissed, things will continue on as it has ; where men think they have a right to abuse women. I suppose that's fine with you, and maybe even with the libtard cucks.

Whoa!

Any woman who is abused should seek out legal counsel or the police at the earliest possible moment. We have a tremendous arsenal of forensic tools which can prove and confirm these allegations. Using an uncorroborated claim that is 36 years old has been proven to very often be false. Check the records there have been many instances of therapists "discovering" past trauma and then accusing people whose lives are ruined only to later be proven innocent.

Don't ever throw away physical evidence. Even 36 years later we could have found Kavanaugh's DNA on a ripped blouse.

Take photos. Write as much down as you can -- who was at the party, when, why did you go, what was the invitation, address, time, etc.

It is blatantly unfair to someone to accuse them of this 36 years later and say I don't remember the date, I don't remember who was there, I don't remember the address, I don't have any physical evidence, and the only witnesses I have referred to have denied any knowledge of it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The media will never let the Democrats look bad. Serious?

Look at all the fake news allegations against Trump to date. They all have come and gone, without any actual evidence, yet the Media ran with the story until another one came along.

Name me one conspiracy lie that proved false and the Democrats "looked bad." You have hundreds to choose from. Collusion anyone?

You quoted me talking about an FBI investigation and go off on a rant about the media. If Ford was in contact with pro choice and/or democratic operatives it will be revealed in the FBI investigation.

What the media does with it is another issue. But Trump and many Republicans will have access to the findings. Perhaps Trump could tweet about it doing an end run on the media? Or maybe he could get Shawn Hannity to do a story? If only there was something the President of the US could do to get the truth out.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You quoted me talking about an FBI investigation and go off on a rant about the media. If Ford was in contact with pro choice and/or democratic operatives it will be revealed in the FBI investigation.

What the media does with it is another issue. But Trump and many Republicans will have access to the findings. Perhaps Trump could tweet about it doing an end run on the media? Or maybe he could get Shawn Hannity to do a story? If only there was something the President of the US could do to get the truth out.

I do tend to rant on about the media, don't I? Perhaps I have been "traumatized" by them.

Yet you have gone on a rant of your own here on Trump and Hannity. I guess we all do it, just favoring our own side.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Using an uncorroborated claim that is 36 years old has been proven to very often be false. Check the records there have been many instances of therapists "discovering" past trauma and then accusing people whose lives are ruined only to later be proven innocent.

Julie Swetick has shown us that the Left have moved on from the #MeToo to the #CosbyToo movement. If you are going to make false accusations, may as well make them whoppers. Convicted Cosby, however, has more honor in the media than Kavanaugh.


This whole ordeal of the smearing and character assassination of Kavanaugh is igniting the #UsToo movement which may just work out for good in November.

[awareness]

A new movie about Bible prophecy :

THE TRUMP PROPHECY is an inspirational message of Hope

https://www.thetrumpprophecymovie.com/about

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Julie Swetick has shown us that the Left have moved on from the #MeToo to the #CosbyToo movement. If you are going to make false accusations, may as well make them whoppers. Convicted Cosby, however, has more honor in the media than Kavanaugh.


This whole ordeal of the smearing and character assassination of Kavanaugh is igniting the #UsToo movement which may just work out for good in November.

Yes, her accusation appears to be a smear, but has it been proven? Once again, a relatively simple process for the FBI to confirm that she was gang raped, that it took place in a bar, and who was present. Smart phones confirm your gps location at specific times, so if Kavanaugh or others had phones it would be simple to confirm much of the accusation or disprove it. Most people use credit cards, again physical evidence that someone was there.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, her accusation appears to be a smear, but has it been proven? Once again, a relatively simple process for the FBI to confirm that she was gang raped, that it took place in a bar, and who was present. Smart phones confirm your gps location at specific times, so if Kavanaugh or others had phones it would be simple to confirm much of the accusation or disprove it. Most people use credit cards, again physical evidence that someone was there.

This FBI investigation is a sham. They don't have the time to do a through investigation, and their scope was restricted for days out of the shoot.

McConnell is going to push Kav thru come hell or high water, no matter if he's a lying scumbag.

The investigation is for show, out of the pubbies worrying about the mid-terms.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

This FBI investigation is a sham. They don't have the time to do a through investigation, and their scope was restricted for days out of the shoot.

McConnell is going to push Kav thru come hell or high water, no matter if he's a lying scumbag.

The investigation is for show, out of the pubbies worrying about the mid-terms.

I can see how unbiased and objective you are in this matter.

Perhaps just virtue signaling?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can see how unbiased and objective you are in this matter.

Perhaps just virtue signaling?

Thanks bro Ohio. What do you expect from a libtard cuck?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks bro Ohio. What do you expect from a libtard cuck?

Objectivity and the presumption of innocence.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

This FBI investigation is a sham. They don't have the time to do a through investigation, and their scope was restricted for days out of the shoot.

McConnell is going to push Kav thru come hell or high water, no matter if he's a lying scumbag.

The investigation is for show, out of the pubbies worrying about the mid-terms.

Entire process has been politicized. If at any time Senator Feinstein cared about truth and justice, FBI would have had something to investigate back in July.
Did Kavanaugh do as alleged or didn't he? I don't know. I'm sure as certain no one will be happy with any outcome. Innocent or guilty, he's certainly guilty in the court of public opinion.
What if he's innocent? It doesn't change anything. Perception becomes reality. Examine last 28 years in the local churches. Allegations don't require validation.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

This FBI investigation is a sham.

So it was outrageous that the Republicans wouldn't put off the vote, but then when they did it was a sham. It was outrageous that they would vote the day after rather than have an investigation, but when they agreed to the FBI investigation it was a sham. It seems to me that you are going to blame the Republicans regardless of what they do.

Originally Posted by awareness

They don't have the time to do a through investigation, and their scope was restricted for days out of the shoot.

Let's see, Feinstein held the letter for months, but it is the republicans fault that there isn't enough time? Sounds to me like all you want is to delay.

Originally Posted by awareness

McConnell is going to push Kav thru come hell or high water, no matter if he's a lying scumbag.

The investigation is for show, out of the pubbies worrying about the mid-terms.

What was for show was making this public. It should have been done behind closed doors six weeks ago. That in turn could have triggered an FBI investigation for weeks without it being a circus. The entire circus and damage to the reputations of both people (Ford and Kavanaugh). That is the responsibility of Feinstein.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So it was outrageous that the Republicans wouldn't put off the vote, but then when they did it was a sham. It was outrageous that they would vote the day after rather than have an investigation, but when they agreed to the FBI investigation it was a sham. It seems to me that you are going to blame the Republicans regardless of what they do.

Wow! I do believe you have this thing figured out. I'm proud of you bro!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Objectivity and the presumption of innocence.

Objectivity is a goal to strive for that is seldom achieved with certainty. After his tirade against the Democrats last Thursday, I doubt Kavanaugh will ever achieve it on the bench in any case where the Democrats are involved.

Presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial. But, this is not a criminal trial. It's about appointment to the highest court in the USA.

So, the standard should be the among highest for any position in the land. Therefore, the presumption of innocence principle doesn't apply. Kavanaugh knew that. Which is why he tried to portray himself as above reproach.

If he had been more honest, he might have portrayed himself as a reformed bad boy like George W. Bush. But, then he would have risked rejection.

He was too ambitious for that. So he misrepresented himself. At least that's how it looks to me given the evidence I've seen at this point.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Objectivity is a goal to strive for that is seldom achieved with certainty. After his tirade against the Democrats last Thursday, I doubt Kavanaugh will ever achieve it on the bench in any case where the Democrats are involved.

Presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial. But, this is not a criminal trial. It's about appointment to the highest court in the USA.

So, the standard should be the among highest for any position in the land. Therefore, the presumption of innocence principle doesn't apply. Kavanaugh knew that. Which is why he tried to portray himself as above reproach.

If he had been more honest, he might have portrayed himself as a reformed bad boy like George W. Bush. But, then he would have risked rejection.

He was too ambitious for that. So he misrepresented himself. At least that's how it looks to me given the evidence I've seen at this point.

We share a lot of common ground.

1. I agree that objectivity was not achieved, but I don't think anyone in a position of power strived for it.

2. I don't disagree with the idea that the standard in this decision needs to be much higher than "reasonable doubt". That is why I believe it should have been done behind closed doors. It is unlikely that any DA would have brought a case against Kavanaugh based on Ford's testimony, so that clearly didn't rise the standard required in a criminal trial. Yet this trial is televised and discussed ad nauseum, any reasonable person in authority would understand the need to prevent anyone from just slandering the person due to their objection to them being confirmed.

3. I also agree that the evidence is mounting that his behavior in HS and college involved many drunken parties. That doesn't necessarily mean that he misrepresented himself. He did go to Yale which does imply a serious, studious side. His calendar does support the idea that he was a serious, motivated student. He did go to a Catholic school and his portrayal as being a "choir boy" is probably true (I also sang in my church's choir). Being a "choir boy" doesn't mean he didn't go to parties. Also, one would expect in a hearing like this the focus would be on your professional career. For all we know he may have stopped drinking and therefore might not have seen this as relevant.

4. One thing that stands out to me is the focus on his HS, which tells me the opposition cannot say a word against his professional record. That is something I find ugly and disingenuous about the whole thing and agree with him.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Objectivity is a goal to strive for that is seldom achieved with certainty. After his tirade against the Democrats last Thursday, I doubt Kavanaugh will ever achieve it on the bench in any case where the Democrats are involved.

Presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial. But, this is not a criminal trial. It's about appointment to the highest court in the USA.

So, the standard should be the among highest for any position in the land. Therefore, the presumption of innocence principle doesn't apply. Kavanaugh knew that. Which is why he tried to portray himself as above reproach.

If he had been more honest, he might have portrayed himself as a reformed bad boy like George W. Bush. But, then he would have risked rejection.

He was too ambitious for that. So he misrepresented himself. At least that's how it looks to me given the evidence I've seen at this point.

The Senate Democrats also knew that, and that's why they worked with other Leftist operatives to orchestrate this smear job.

Evidence? What evidence have you seen beyond uncorroborated accusations 35 years old?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We share a lot of common ground.

1. I agree that objectivity was not achieved, but I don't think anyone in a position of power strived for it.

2. I don't disagree with the idea that the standard in this decision needs to be much higher than "reasonable doubt". That is why I believe it should have been done behind closed doors. It is unlikely that any DA would have brought a case against Kavanaugh based on Ford's testimony, so that clearly didn't rise the standard required in a criminal trial. Yet this trial is televised and discussed ad nauseum, any reasonable person in authority would understand the need to prevent anyone from just slandering the person due to their objection to them being confirmed.

3. I also agree that the evidence is mounting that his behavior in HS and college involved many drunken parties. That doesn't necessarily mean that he misrepresented himself. He did go to Yale which does imply a serious, studious side. His calendar does support the idea that he was a serious, motivated student. He did go to a Catholic school and his portrayal as being a "choir boy" is probably true (I also sang in my church's choir). Being a "choir boy" doesn't mean he didn't go to parties. Also, one would expect in a hearing like this the focus would be on your professional career. For all we know he may have stopped drinking and therefore might not have seen this as relevant.

4. One thing that stands out to me is the focus on his HS, which tells me the opposition cannot say a word against his professional record. That is something I find ugly and disingenuous about the whole thing and agree with him.

Sorry, I guess I missed the point where he characterized himself as a goody-two-shoes "choir boy." He did say that he was not sexually active, yet also admitted that "he liked beer." They should have focused on his underage drinking.

I remember when I was in HS, we had this somewhat flamboyant guy in leisure suits from the Projects that would buy us beer. We called him "pretty boy." Except for numerous false accusations and sleazy lawyering, that is the only "crime" I have seen -- who bought them beer?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry, I guess I missed the point where he characterized himself as a goody-two-shoes "choir boy." He did say that he was not sexually active, yet also admitted that "he liked beer." They should have focused on his underage drinking.

I remember when I was in HS, we had this somewhat flamboyant guy in leisure suits from the Projects that would buy us beer. We called him "pretty boy." Except for numerous false accusations and sleazy lawyering, that is the only "crime" I have seen -- who bought them beer?

McConnell says public won't see FBI report. We'll see the result. If lying under oath is found, he's gone. If not, he's in.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

McConnell says public won't see FBI report. We'll see the result. If lying under oath is found, he's gone. If not, he's in.

A little sanctimonious preening my friend?

Have you no concern about all the Ford, Swetnick, and Ramirez lies? Numerous articles are being written to discredit the allegations by these false witnesses.

I think the best course of action is to let these 3 Rinos (Collins, Flake, Murkowski) fade into the sunset, let the Senate vote fail, renominate Kavanaugh, and let November's elections be a referendum on him.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

A little sanctimonious preening my friend?

Have you no concern about all the Ford, Swetnick, and Ramirez lies? Numerous articles are being written to discredit the allegations by these false witnesses.

I think the best course of action is to let these 3 Rinos (Collins, Flake, Murkowski) fade into the sunset, let the Senate vote fail, renominate Kavanaugh, and let November's elections be a referendum on him.

Good idea. You've been listening to Fox.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Senate Democrats also knew that, and that's why they worked with other Leftist operatives to orchestrate this smear job.

Evidence? What evidence have you seen beyond uncorroborated accusations 35 years old?

He was on the Basketball team and was known by all his friends as one who drinks a lot. In my experience college basketball teams and their parties were similar to what is describe.

His best friend describes a similar lifestyle. Hard to imagine being best friends with someone like that where you also weren't doing pretty much the same.

It is not hard for me to imagine, though I doubt it will be confirmed due to the legal consequences, that he went out drinking with buddies from the basketball team who then raped a girl. Doesn't mean he knew this was the plan or that he did any thing more than buy a girl drinks at a bar.

[ZNPaaneah]

I think the media bias that has been repeatedly bandied about is due to something that Awareness said "who has time for all this crap". People who have time to watch this TV are often those without careers (job at McDonalds rather than their ultimate career) or those who are retired.

In other words the "liberal media bias" is directed towards the 20 something crowd and the Fox news is directed towards retirees.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

He was on the Basketball team and was known by all his friends as one who drinks a lot. In my experience college basketball teams and their parties were similar to what is describe.

His best friend describes a similar lifestyle. Hard to imagine being best friends with someone like that where you also weren't doing pretty much the same.

It is not hard for me to imagine, though I doubt it will be confirmed due to the legal consequences, that he went out drinking with buddies from the basketball team who then raped a girl. Doesn't mean he knew this was the plan or that he did any thing more than buy a girl drinks at a bar.

Wow! And you teach forensics? You have just convicted every Basketball team in the country.

"Known by all his friends as one who drinks a lot?" Seriously? You been watching too much CNN. His one friend from HS went on to have a serious addiction. He must be a drunk too!

Hey ZNP, with similar amounts of attention, do you think any of your HS classmates could be bribed to talk about your worst behavior?

Have you heard Obama's own autobiography? Did you hear about his own drug and alcohol habits? Why is it the media never was alarmed with that? Trump has never once touched drugs or alcohol, yet no one gives him any credit for that.

Hey ZNP, any idea what "double standards" mean?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the media bias that has been repeatedly bandied about is due to something that Awareness said "who has time for all this crap". People who have time to watch this TV are often those without careers (job at McDonalds rather than their ultimate career) or those who are retired.

In other words the "liberal media bias" is directed towards the 20 something crowd and the Fox news is directed towards retirees.

Apparently Fox hasn't done well with any of the posters here. You work at McDonald's?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Wow! And you teach forensics? You have just convicted every Basketball team in the country.

"Known by all his friends as one who drinks a lot?" Seriously? You been watching too much CNN. His one friend from HS went on to have a serious addiction. He must be a drunk too!

Hey ZNP, with similar amounts of attention, do you think any of your HS classmates could be bribed to talk about your worst behavior?

Have you heard Obama's own autobiography? Did you hear about his own drug and alcohol habits? Why is it the media never was alarmed with that? Trump has never once touched drugs or alcohol, yet no one gives him any credit for that.

Hey ZNP, any idea what "double standards" mean?

These are different questions. In HS you could certainly condemn me for my behavior, though it didn't rise to anything near what Kavanaugh is accused of. However, I had a friend whose behavior was far worse (drug dealer) who later became Madelline Allbright's assistant secretary of State. I asked how he got the position and I learned that he was honest and forthright about his background.

You asked what evidence I had seen besides the accusations. I gave it. Now you are changing the goal post as though I have convicted him rejected his confirmation because I think he attended a lot of drunken parties that included shameful behavior. I have made it clear repeatedly that I am uncomfortable skipping back to HS behavior to determine if we confirm a judge.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Apparently Fox hasn't done well with any of the posters here.

to quote the MOTA "whose got time for that crap".

Originally Posted by Ohio

You work at McDonald's?

to misquote the MOTA "who could eat that crap".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

These are different questions. In HS you could certainly condemn me for my behavior, though it didn't rise to anything near what Kavanaugh is accused of. However, I had a friend whose behavior was far worse (drug dealer) who later became Madelline Allbright's assistant secretary of State. I asked how he got the position and I learned that he was honest and forthright about his background.

As long as the Press only investigates one party, the other party can get away with anything. It has nothing to do with honesty. Does it not concern you in the least that only one party is made accountable for what they have done ... and have not done?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

As long as the Press only investigates one party, the other party can get away with anything. It has nothing to do with honesty. Does it not concern you in the least that only one party is made accountable for what they have done ... and have not done?

The tack that sticks up gets hammered. What party has majority?

[awareness]

The server of The National Council of Churches website is overloaded. Had to settle for this :

National Council Of Churches Calls For Brett Kavanaugh’s Withdrawal

"According to its website, the organization represents over 40 million people and 38 Christian denominations."

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b028e1fe3a4a19

[ZNPaaneah]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.25a0d4fb9532

The article describes testimony from those that know Julie Swetnick being released to the public as "slut shaming". Think of the hypocrisy here. She publicly accuses Kavanaugh of gang rape, so everyone in the country hears this accusation, but now those same people who assisted in making that unverified accusation public are now outraged that witnesses that can defend Kavanaugh are being made public as well.

Once again, all of this should have been done behind closed doors. But the minute Swetnick decided to go public with her accusations it is perfectly justified that any and all witnesses for the defense are also made public.

Once again this is looking more and more like the Democrats seizing defeat from the jaws of victory. They are coming across as hypocritical liars with the most defamatory slander conceivable.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Senate Democrats also knew that, and that's why they worked with other Leftist operatives to orchestrate this smear job.

Evidence? What evidence have you seen beyond uncorroborated accusations 35 years old?

I've seen the man have a temper tantrum and act disrespectfully towards United States Senators especially female ones. I imagine he's worse when he's inebriated. Kavanaugh should have watched video tapes of Clarence Thomas's response to the Senate when he was accused of sexual harassment. Unlike Kavanaugh when Thomas defended himself he displayed an attitude of respect toward the co equal branch of government, and maintained a demeanor of decorum and gravitas.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I've seen the man have a temper tantrum and act disrespectfully towards United States Senators especially female ones. I imagine he's worse when he's inebriated. Kavanaugh should have watched video tapes of Clarence Thomas's response to the Senate when he was accused of sexual harassment. Unlike Kavanaugh when Thomas defended himself he displayed an attitude of respect toward the co equal branch of government, and maintained a demeanor of decorum and gravitas.

Kav, by his own testimony, doesn't have the temperament to be a supreme.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I've seen the man have a temper tantrum and act disrespectfully towards United States Senators especially female ones. I imagine he's worse when he's inebriated. Kavanaugh should have watched video tapes of Clarence Thomas's response to the Senate when he was accused of sexual harassment. Unlike Kavanaugh when Thomas defended himself he displayed an attitude of respect toward the co equal branch of government, and maintained a demeanor of decorum and gravitas.

Why is it that any push back against the Democrats is considered inappropriate?

If you no longer suspect Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, shouldn't you be meekly seeking his forgiveness for these horrible accusations rather than whining about how he defended himself?

Zeek, most people can forgive occasional mistakes, but you lose all credibility when you side with endless and baseless attacks without ever making things right.

And btw are you still clinging to the Russian collusion hoax? You got hundreds of posts to recant, my friend.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Kav, by his own testimony, doesn't have the temperament to be a supreme.

I thought the key criteria to be a supreme was singing and dancing, that and your stance on abortion.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And btw are you still clinging to the Russian collusion hoax? You got hundreds of posts to recant, my friend.

Maybe you should start a new thread -- Posts I regret

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Wow! And you teach forensics? You have just convicted every Basketball team in the country.

Only would be true if I knew every basketball team in the country. My post clearly stated that this was consistent with the team I was familiar with.

So yes, the basketball team at my university was guilty of drunken orgy parties to the best of my knowledge (hearsay and 2nd hand conversations overheard).

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why is it that any push back against the Democrats is considered inappropriate?

If you no longer suspect Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, shouldn't you be meekly seeking his forgiveness for these horrible accusations rather than whining about how he defended himself?

Zeek, most people can forgive occasional mistakes, but you lose all credibility when you side with endless and baseless attacks without ever making things right.

And btw are you still clinging to the Russian collusion hoax? You got hundreds of posts to recant, my friend.

It's easy for me to forgive Kavanaugh. After all he didn't jump my bones. I think he lacks the judicial disposition to be on the Supreme Court. And he displayed an animus toward Democratic Senators that I think it is safe to assume will prejudice his decisions going forward. Plus, I believe Christine Ford. Show me the posts I need to recant. Or are you just blowing smoke again?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Maybe you should start a new thread -- Posts I regret

Kav is in. Bet that won't be on that thread.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Maybe you should start a new thread -- Posts I regret

Thanks. Needed a good laugh.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Only would be true if I knew every basketball team in the country. My post clearly stated that this was consistent with the team I was familiar with.

So yes, the basketball team at my university was guilty of drunken orgy parties to the best of my knowledge (hearsay and 2nd hand conversations overheard).

Answer your phone. Avenatti is calling.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's easy for me to forgive Kavanaugh. After all he didn't jump my bones. I think he lacks the judicial disposition to be on the Supreme Court. And he displayed an animus toward Democratic Senators that I think it is safe to assume will prejudice his decisions going forward. Plus, I believe Christine Ford. Show me the posts I need to recant. Or are you just blowing smoke again?

Disregarding your gutter smear ...

I do hope you are right about about Coach K's decisions going forward. Fiery trials of faith and character have a way of affecting one's thinking going forward. Look what happened to Clarence Thomas. I think these two justices may become like-minded, and Thomas is the only justice in SCOTUS history not to become more liberal over time.

Originally Posted by zeek

Show me the posts I need to recant. Or are you just blowing smoke again?

Apparently your memory skills are right up there with Ford, Ramirez, and Swetnick, so I doubt if I could help you out.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's easy for me to forgive Kavanaugh. After all he didn't jump my bones. I think he lacks the judicial disposition to be on the Supreme Court. And he displayed an animus toward Democratic Senators that I think it is safe to assume will prejudice his decisions going forward. Plus, I believe Christine Ford. Show me the posts I need to recant. Or are you just blowing smoke again?

If the past few weeks is any guide Senators will vote along strict party lines unless there is evidence uncovered in the FBI probe of lying under oath or of any other crime.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Disregarding your gutter smear ...

I do hope you are right about about Coach K's decisions going forward. Fiery trials of faith and character have a way of affecting one's thinking going forward. Look what happened to Clarence Thomas. I think these two justices may become like-minded, and Thomas is the only justice in SCOTUS history not to become more liberal over time.


Apparently your memory skills are right up there with Ford, Ramirez, and Swetnick, so I doubt if I could help you out.

And that is the risk of this entire enterprise. If you "win" it appears worth the risk, but if you lose he is now forged in the fire of the Democrats hypocrisy and lies.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Kav is in. Bet that won't be on that thread.

Democrats are angry there is only 1 copy to view. Clearly that is a response to previous leaks of confidential documents. They are simply reaping what they sowed in not being trustworthy.

Democrats are angry that Kavanaugh and Ford were not questioned. Really? If Ford had anything more to say she should have said it during the hearing. If there was anything based on what Ford said and Kavanaugh responded with as well as any of the other people questioned that would support her testimony it might have meant they would need to question him. Clearly there wasn't.

Finally a sober minded assessment of what is and what is not a crime. I doubt the FBI is called in very often to investigate teenage drinking from 36 years previously without a crime. Second, it is very difficult to see from Ford's testimony that there is the accusation of a crime, and even if you give her that much it seems clear to me that there was no corroboration of the "criminal allegation".

Finally, was his outburst a sign of lacking the right "disposition" or is it the outrage at the ridiculousness of even pursuing these allegations without evidence or corroborating witnesses?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Democrats are angry there is only 1 copy to view. Clearly that is a response to previous leaks of confidential documents. They are simply reaping what they sowed in not being trustworthy.

Democrats are angry that Kavanaugh and Ford were not questioned. Really? If Ford had anything more to say she should have said it during the hearing. If there was anything based on what Ford said and Kavanaugh responded with as well as any of the other people questioned that would support her testimony it might have meant they would need to question him. Clearly there wasn't.

Finally a sober minded assessment of what is and what is not a crime. I doubt the FBI is called in very often to investigate teenage drinking from 36 years previously without a crime. Second, it is very difficult to see from Ford's testimony that there is the accusation of a crime, and even if you give her that much it seems clear to me that there was no corroboration of the "criminal allegation".

Finally, was his outburst a sign of lacking the right "disposition" or is it the outrage at the ridiculousness of even pursuing these allegations without evidence or corroborating witnesses?

No reason to carry on. Kav is in.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

And that is the risk of this entire enterprise. If you "win" it appears worth the risk, but if you lose he is now forged in the fire of the Democrats hypocrisy and lies.

Remember when Obama shamed the Supreme Court at the SOTU Address?

He singed Samuel Alito for life. He never again went to Obama's show.

Looking back, Obama's comments about "opening the floodgates of special interests and foreign corporations to spend without limits in our election," one cannot help but think about the $145 Million Russian Rosatom Atomic Energy gave to the Clinton Foundation. And millions more for a few speeches.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Remember when Obama shamed the Supreme Court at the SOTU Address?

He singed Samuel Alito for life. He never again went to Obama's show.

Looking back, Obama's comments about "opening the floodgates of special interests and foreign corporations to spend without limits in our election," one cannot help but think about the $145 Million Russian Rosatom Atomic Energy gave to the Clinton Foundation. And millions more for a few speeches.

Let's impeach them.

[ZNPaaneah]

Collins: fairness and presumption of innocence.

Two very good points.

[awareness]

I'm making a prediction : Kav is in.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm making a prediction : Kav is in.

Wow, you called it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm making a prediction : Kav is in.

These are those SCOTUS appointments by Republican Presidents over several decades who were *supposed* to overturn Roe vs. Wade, according to all the noisy radicals:

1. Scalia nominated by Reagan
2. Kennedy nominated by Reagan
3. Souter nominated by Bush Sr.
4. Thomas nominated by Bush Sr.
5. Roberts nominated by Bush Jr.
6. Alito nominated by Bush Jr.
7. Gorsuch nominated by Trump
8. Kavanaugh nominated by Trump

40 years of noisy scare tactics and scary fear mongering by Leftist media, protesters, and media types.

Results: Nothing, but precedence upon precedence confirming Roe.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

These are those SCOTUS appointments by Republican Presidents over several decades who were *supposed* to overturn Roe vs. Wade, according to all the noisy radicals:

1. Scalia nominated by Reagan
2. Kennedy nominated by Reagan
3. Souter nominated by Bush Sr.
4. Thomas nominated by Bush Sr.
5. Roberts nominated by Bush Jr.
6. Alito nominated by Bush Jr.
7. Gorsuch nominated by Trump
8. Kavanaugh nominated by Trump

40 years of noisy scare tactics and scary fear mongering by Leftist media, protesters, and media types.

Results: Nothing, but precedence upon precedence confirming Roe.

Maybe that's cuz women have inalienable rights over her own body .... duh ...

Don't conservatives value the rights of the individual?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe that's cuz women have inalienable rights over her own body .... duh ...

Don't conservatives value the rights of the individual?

I think you are looking at this wrong. Why is it that 5 of the Supreme Court nominations are from Republicans and Ginsburg will have to serve until she is 90, and Breyer about 85 before retiring (that is on the hope that a democrat wins the next election and Trump is not reelected). Sorry, impeachment doesn't change that equation. You have railed against Trump for the last two years but the primary reason he was elected was because of the Supreme court.

Many, many people mock and insult, but the reality is the Supreme court began writing the constitution and stopped interpreting it, the majority knows it, and the majority has had enough.

Look at this mid term election. It seemed a sure thing that the Democrats would get a big win, but the whole confirmation process is surely going to motivate those who voted for Trump to turn out.

How many are shocked at how decent, upstanding people could vote for Trump, to me it is quite obvious. Look at how despicable the Supreme court has become. Do you really think the battle would have been this partisan and this ugly if the Supreme court was really just determining constitutionality of laws and not writing them?

So keep pushing that line and no doubt a republican will win in two years and nominate two more Supreme court justices.

[ZNPaaneah]

Let's give credit where credit is due.

1. Trump has honored his campaign promises and done what he said he would do. He has fought bloody confirmations to get nominees onto the Supreme court, he has gone toe to toe with trade partners, and he should now be given credit for the good economic news.

Generally speaking voters vote nationally based on three key factors:

Economy -- good marks

Peace -- good marks

SCOTUS -- Everyone who voted for Trump should be happy.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think you are looking at this wrong. Why is it that 5 of the Supreme Court nominations are from Republicans and Ginsburg will have to serve until she is 90, and Breyer about 85 before retiring (that is on the hope that a democrat wins the next election and Trump is not reelected). Sorry, impeachment doesn't change that equation. You have railed against Trump for the last two years but the primary reason he was elected was because of the Supreme court.

Many, many people mock and insult, but the reality is the Supreme court began writing the constitution and stopped interpreting it, the majority knows it, and the majority has had enough.

Look at this mid term election. It seemed a sure thing that the Democrats would get a big win, but the whole confirmation process is surely going to motivate those who voted for Trump to turn out.

How many are shocked at how decent, upstanding people could vote for Trump, to me it is quite obvious. Look at how despicable the Supreme court has become. Do you really think the battle would have been this partisan and this ugly if the Supreme court was really just determining constitutionality of laws and not writing them?

So keep pushing that line and no doubt a republican will win in two years and nominate two more Supreme court justices.

Citizens United

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe that's cuz women have inalienable rights over her own body .... duh ...

Don't conservatives value the rights of the individual?

Women do have inalienable rights over their own bodies.

But the unborn have inalienable rights over their own bodies too.

And conservatives value the rights of all individuals!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Citizens United

Basic law of physics, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

[ZNPaaneah]

I saw some woman complaining about the Kavanaugh ruling because according to her there are usually not two witnesses to a sexual crime. Why do major networks allow these bozos to fill their broadcasts with erroneous drivel?

First, during a sexual crime it is impossible to prevent many "witnesses" from testifying what took place. In any criminal investigation physical evidence is seen as a much better witness than eye witnesses.

1. A ripped blouse -- that would be evidence of assault and we could also pull epithelial cells from the shirt. DNA would be a second witness.
2. A hair can be linked directly to a single person now.
3. Fibers can be linked to the perpetrators clothes.
4. DNA, hair and fibers on the suspects clothes can tie them to the scene.
5. Smart phones can prove precisely both time and gps where they were at a certain time.
6. Phone calls and text messages can also tie a person to a location in both time and space.
7. Rape kits performed in hospitals can confirm assault charges, rape charges and provide other evidence (DNA, Fibers, etc) linking a suspect to a crime.
8. How did these people meet? At a party -- you can gather every single person at that party and provide many eyewitness accounts. Perhaps they didn't witness the assault but surely they witnessed the suspect at the party, they saw the victim when they left, they saw the behavior of both of them, etc. We used to have chaperones, people rebelled against the need for a chaperone, and now they are crying that there are no witnesses present.
9. These days there will be twenty or thirty pictures at least taken at a party. They all become physical evidence.
10. Credit cards -- if the venue is a bar the credit cards will usually confirm who was there and what time they were there.
11. One of the absolutely best pieces of evidence is to scratch the perpetrator. This proves the assault was not consensual. We can get DNA from under the woman's fingernails, and when the police question the suspect they can photograph the scratch marks.
12. Police can also find evidence at the scene. In this case with Ford they could have found her hair in the bed she said she was pushed into.

All of this evidence can also be used to exonerate a person. You say the attack took place at 10pm, but this person was withdrawing money from an ATM cross town at 9:45, etc.

Shouldn't these news outlets be educating women at all the witnesses they are surrounded by, instead of pushing a false narrative that we need to convict a man based on the testimony of a single witness?

For example, you are going to a party with your friends. 1. Take a picture of your group outside the door. This shows what everyone looked like prior to anything. 2. Take many pictures within the party and post/email them as you take them. 3. Use credit cards and ATM cards. 4. In the event that someone is attacked have your friends take a picture of them (bruised face, scratches, ripped clothes, etc). 5. Tell your friends what happened. 6. Go to the hospital and have a rape kit done, etc. 6. The sooner the better. If the woman waits a day they cannot test her blood alcohol. This is very important because one common defense is that "it was consensual" and that "she was drunk". If you go the same night you can easily destroy both of those arguments with physical evidence. When you accuse someone 36 years later this might simply be regret. But if you are in the hospital at 2am 3 hours later this was clearly not consensual.

It seems to me this is a much more valuable lesson for #MeToo movement than trying to convict a man who was 17 of an alleged event 36 years ago, in which it isn't even clear if the police would have considered it a crime at the time, and which you cannot give the time or place. All of the evidence you could have is a two edged sword. On one hand it can be used to convict the guilty on the other it can be used to exonerate the innocent.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Shouldn't these news outlets be educating women at all the witnesses they are surrounded by, instead of pushing a false narrative that we need to convict a man based on the testimony of a single witness?

Sorry Bro, but while you were not paying attention, these "news outlets" became nothing more than Tabloid Rags.

Why should they care about "educating women?"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry Bro, but while you were not paying attention, these "news outlets" became nothing more than Tabloid Rags.

Why should they care about "educating women?"

Both of my parents are journalists. So, sorry bro, I am aware that Tabloid rags have their place, and real journalism also has its place.

For example there are many watching these events play out like myself. We have no dog in the fight. We don't want a sexual predator named to the Supreme court, we also don't want people convicted based on uncorroborated hearsay in which they are not given any possibility of clearing their name.

After watching this we will make our judgements. 1. Democrats need to be held accountable for the entire circus. 2. Certain news outlets are biased and did a shoddy job of reporting.

We will then act on our judgements -- turning certain news outlets off and voting in a month.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

2. Certain news outlets are biased and did a shoddy job of reporting.

It was a more than a shoddy job it was a coordinated and intentional attack on their opposing ideology. They used that poor woman to advance their agenda without regard for her best interests, safety, or cause.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Both of my parents are journalists. So, sorry bro, I am aware that Tabloid rags have their place, and real journalism also has its place.

For example there are many watching these events play out like myself. We have no dog in the fight. We don't want a sexual predator named to the Supreme court, we also don't want people convicted based on uncorroborated hearsay in which they are not given any possibility of clearing their name.

After watching this we will make our judgements. 1. Democrats need to be held accountable for the entire circus. 2. Certain news outlets are biased and did a shoddy job of reporting.

We will then act on our judgements -- turning certain news outlets off and voting in a month.

Real journalism is a dying profession. Most of the formerly respected news outlets now hold periodic purges to root out conservatives. All of America's major cities have done the same.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Real journalism is a dying profession. Most of the formerly respected news outlets now hold periodic purges to root out conservatives. All of America's major cities have done the same.

I know. That's why conservatives aren't the majority.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Real journalism is a dying profession. Most of the formerly respected news outlets now hold periodic purges to root out conservatives. All of America's major cities have done the same.

I don't believe it.

Plato said no one is more hated than the one who tells you the truth. It has been that way for thousands of years, so if "real journalism is a dying profession" it would have already died out long ago. Which doesn't explain many of the real journalists today like Frontline a few years ago, 60 minutes back in the day when they broke the story on cigarettes, or Spotlight breaking the story on the Catholic church.

If respected news outlets purge their ranks of real journalists then they won't be respected for long.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I know. That's why conservatives aren't the majority.

Being part of the "majority" is no boast. The majority of Americans score in the bottom 60% on all exams including basic reading, knowledge of history, understanding of the constitution, and scientific literacy. This "majority" also has the lowest percent of those that actually vote.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't believe it.

Plato said no one is more hated than the one who tells you the truth. It has been that way for thousands of years, so if "real journalism is a dying profession" it would have already died out long ago. Which doesn't explain many of the real journalists today like Frontline a few years ago, 60 minutes back in the day when they broke the story on cigarettes, or Spotlight breaking the story on the Catholic church.

If respected news outlets purge their ranks of real journalists then they won't be respected for long.

You only explained that it is not dead, but I said it was a dying profession, citing conservative purges in the profession.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You only explained that it is not dead, but I said it was a dying profession, citing conservative purges in the profession.

Yes, but if it has been dying for thousands of years it can hardly be said to be "dying".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, but if it has been dying for thousands of years it can hardly be said to be "dying".

Why do you say thousands of years?

Can you really say that CNN and WaPo do honest political journalism?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why do you say thousands of years?

Can you really say that CNN and WaPo do honest political journalism?

What I can say is that for thousands of years those in power wanted to write the history to say what they wanted it to say. The fact that we have been able to get a relatively accurate picture of history proves that the truth cannot be covered up with darkness.

History has shown us various leaders manipulating the press like Hitler did. Doesn't mean real journalists weren't out there. The real journalists are not motivated by money, but have a sense of mission, perhaps because of some corrupt leaders influence on their own family. That is how things work, the corrupt leaders get power through lies and abusive practices. But those they abuse have children who then feel a divine commission to expose the lies and corruption.

Until the US constitution is rewritten, taking away "freedom of speech" I don't believe you can hide the truth by doing "purges" of the major news outlets.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You only explained that it is not dead, but I said it was a dying profession, citing conservative purges in the profession.

What? Liberals can't be professional objective journalists?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

What? Liberals can't be professional objective journalists?

I found one!

Check it out!

CNN President Brian Stelter Schooled by Veteran Journalist Ted Koppel

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I found one!

Check it out!

CNN President Brian Stelter Schooled by Veteran Journalist Ted Koppel

Yes, he made my point. He gets 250,000 viewers within 24 hours of posting a video on Youtube from his kitchen. CNN gets 500,000 or less for their shows. If CNN loses credibility people will go to Youtube, or other internet outlets. They'll get their news from Australia, of the BBC, or dare I even say it, FOX.

He also points out that FOX has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined. So why the crying about the liberal media, the conservative media is quite capable of balancing out the liberal media.

There is one hysterically funny portion where he shows a clip from CNN with their breaking news that Kavanaugh once threw ice at someone in a bar and he asked the talking head if this were disqualifying and she responded "This is why we need an FBI investigation"!?!

I am now going to use that line at school every chance I can -- "This is why we need an FBI investigation" that is hysterical. Yes, call the FBI a kid in college 35 years ago is accused of throwing ice in a bar. Like I said the Democrats have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Ohio]

Here is Nancy Pelosi describing established Democratic smear tactics, colluding with the liberal Press.

Former Speaker Pelosi: "The Republicans don’t want the voters to see that contrast, so they focus on something else."

"It’s a diversionary tactic. It’s a self-fulfilling prophesy. You demonize them. We call it the wrap-up smear . . . You smear somebody with falsehoods and all the rest and then you merchandise it."

"And then you [speaking to the press] write it, and they’ll say, see it’s reported in the press . . . so they have that validation, that the press reported the smear, and then it’s called the ‘wrap-up smear.’"

"And now I’m going to merchandize the press’s report on the smear that we made. [Shrugging and smirking] It’s a tactic. And it’s, it’s self-evident."

There you have it folks. Caught on video. Let's see how it works.

Demonize Kavanaugh, check.
Smear somebody with falsehoods “and all the rest,” check.
Merchandize falsehoods-based smear, check.
Get press to report falsehoods-based smear, check.
Merchandize “validation” of press reports on falsehoods-based smear, check.

And posters here wonder why I say real journalism is dying, and the Democratic Party is totally corrupt.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here is Nancy Pelosi describing established Democratic smear tactics, colluding with the liberal Press.

Former Speaker Pelosi: "The Republicans don’t want the voters to see that contrast, so they focus on something else."

"It’s a diversionary tactic. It’s a self-fulfilling prophesy. You demonize them. We call it the wrap-up smear . . . You smear somebody with falsehoods and all the rest and then you merchandise it."

"And then you [speaking to the press] write it, and they’ll say, see it’s reported in the press . . . so they have that validation, that the press reported the smear, and then it’s called the ‘wrap-up smear.’"

"And now I’m going to merchandize the press’s report on the smear that we made. [Shrugging and smirking] It’s a tactic. And it’s, it’s self-evident."

There you have it folks. Caught on video. Let's see how it works.

Demonize Kavanaugh, check.
Smear somebody with falsehoods “and all the rest,” check.
Merchandize falsehoods-based smear, check.
Get press to report falsehoods-based smear, check.
Merchandize “validation” of press reports on falsehoods-based smear, check.

And posters here wonder why I say real journalism is dying, and the Democratic Party is totally corrupt.

If all these people in power only spoke the truth there would be no need for real journalists. Real journalism is not simply taking the word of those in power, it is about finding the truth when they are trying to lie to you.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If all these people in power only spoke the truth there would be no need for real journalists. Real journalism is not simply taking the word of those in power, it is about finding the truth when they are trying to lie to you.

You keep saying the right things at the wrong time.

What about an entire room of journalists being instructed by Pelosi how to destroy someone, and then watching it play out with Kavanaugh?

What would happen if some journalist at NYT, WaPo, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, AP, CNN, etc. brought this story to their boss?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You keep saying the right things at the wrong time.

What about an entire room of journalists being instructed by Pelosi how to destroy someone, and then watching it play out with Kavanaugh?

What would happen if some journalist at NYT, WaPo, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, AP, CNN, etc. brought this story to their boss?

Those are not "real journalists" they are false prophets. We saw in the OT The Kings surrounded by false prophets. This has been what it has been about for thousands of years, stop trying to think that things are worse now than before. This is why it is the honor of God's people to speak the truth.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Those are not "real journalists" they are false prophets. We saw in the OT The Kings surrounded by false prophets. This has been what it has been about for thousands of years, stop trying to think that things are worse now than before. This is why it is the honor of God's people to speak the truth.

I stand corrected!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I stand corrected!

If you want to be heavyweight champion stop crying about the contenders hitting you.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here is Nancy Pelosi describing established Democratic smear tactics, colluding with the liberal Press.

Former Speaker Pelosi: "The Republicans don’t want the voters to see that contrast, so they focus on something else."

"It’s a diversionary tactic. It’s a self-fulfilling prophesy. You demonize them. We call it the wrap-up smear . . . You smear somebody with falsehoods and all the rest and then you merchandise it."

"And then you [speaking to the press] write it, and they’ll say, see it’s reported in the press . . . so they have that validation, that the press reported the smear, and then it’s called the ‘wrap-up smear.’"

"And now I’m going to merchandize the press’s report on the smear that we made. [Shrugging and smirking] It’s a tactic. And it’s, it’s self-evident."

There you have it folks. Caught on video. Let's see how it works.

Demonize Kavanaugh, check.
Smear somebody with falsehoods “and all the rest,” check.
Merchandize falsehoods-based smear, check.
Get press to report falsehoods-based smear, check.
Merchandize “validation” of press reports on falsehoods-based smear, check.

And posters here wonder why I say real journalism is dying, and the Democratic Party is totally corrupt.

Pelosi was talking about what she claimed was a tactic Republicans are using. The video was edited to remove the context and thus distort what she was saying. If you watch the C-SPAN video the excerpt was cut from you can see what she was actually saying in context and how it was distorted by the editor of the clip and then put out to smear her...an ironic case in point.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Pelosi was talking about what she claimed was a tactic Republicans are using. The video was edited to remove the context and thus distort what she was saying. If you watch the C-SPAN video the excerpt was cut from you can see what she was actually saying in context and how it was distorted by the editor of the clip and then put out to smear her...an ironic case in point.

The bottom line is smear, innuendo, and false witnesses are as old as the books of Moses. Or, as old as Potipher's wife. Claiming that the Republicans invented this or the Democrats invented this is indicative of someone who is clueless about history.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I stand corrected!

The real journalists, whether Saudi Arabian or Bulgarian are being murdered.

[awareness]

Just to announce. Bro zeek will likely be offline for awhile. As the evil archangel hurricane Michael is bearing down on him. Keep him in your prayers, for reasons other than he's a heathen.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The real journalists, whether Saudi Arabian or Bulgarian are being murdered.

Trump would love to be able to do that. Why are the Saudi's still allies?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Trump would love to be able to do that. Why are the Saudi's still allies?

Really! How do you know that! Do you realize how outrageous your comments about someone else's country are?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Really! How do you know that! Do you realize how outrageous your comments about someone else's country are?

I'm generalizing and hypothesizing, that if Trump was in charge of Saudi Arabia.... I should have said some Trump supporters who take his views too seriously, he himself would never do that. Trump hates the fake news media however.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I'm generalizing and hypothesizing, that if Trump was in charge of Saudi Arabia.... I should have said some Trump supporters who take his views too seriously, he himself would never do that. Trump hates the fake news media however.

I missed the hypothesis. Trump's accusations of "fake news" are not without merit. NYT and many media outlets were completely wrong about the election, so much so that it does smack of bias.

The NYT is "failing" and Trump's election has helped their circulation.

CNN is also failing and can attribute a virtual doubling of their ratings to Trump.

That said, he has shown an unrealistic bias against anything that is critical of him or his administration. Anyone elected president whether Obama or Trump should expect that half the country will not be happy and will be inclined to criticize.

The founders of the US were not so naive as to not realize the media is used as a mouthpiece for the rich and powerful. However, they felt the best defense was not the common practice of the "king" imprisoning and executing any and all who were critical. Rather they felt let everyone have the freedom to speak. 67% will be variations of lies, innuendo, inference and various forms of brainwashing and spin. However for the most part they will cancel each other out. Then with the remaining third you will have those who are not the mouthpiece, nor are they well paid, nor are they "elite media" but they are motivated for the truth. So whereas the elites have a top education in training how to push your agenda while appearing unbiased, these ones have the truth. Our system is based on the belief that the "darkness shall not overcome the light".

It takes a top notch education to figure out how to make Satan look like an angel of light, on the other hand speaking the truth does not require it but not being ignorant of Satan's devices does.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I'm generalizing and hypothesizing, that if Trump was in charge of Saudi Arabia.... I should have said some Trump supporters who take his views too seriously, he himself would never do that. Trump hates the fake news media however.

Why are you not "generalizing and hypothesizing" that the Australian Government is responsible for what happened in Turkey?

Millions of people hate "fake news," the staple of hypocrites and their ilk.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why are you not "generalizing and hypothesizing" that the Australian Government is responsible for what happened in Turkey?

Obama did it.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why are you not "generalizing and hypothesizing" that the Australian Government is responsible for what happened in Turkey?

Millions of people hate "fake news," the staple of hypocrites and their ilk.

CNN news says "Trump reluctant to punish Saudis over reporter". "In response to the disappearance of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, President Trump signaled he was not interested in taking steps to punish Saudi Arabia."

Maybe CNN is biased, but News is news.

Anyhow I think Trump is right not to punish Saudis over a reporter. Saudi is a free country. Why should the US "punish the Saudis", is the US responsible for Saudi governments decisions? Did I miss the news where Trump became the ruler of Saudi? It is not like the US to meddle in the affairs of sovereign and independent nations.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

CNN news says "Trump reluctant to punish Saudis over reporter". "In response to the disappearance of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, President Trump signaled he was not interested in taking steps to punish Saudi Arabia."

Maybe CNN is biased, but News is news.

Anyhow I think Trump is right not to punish Saudis over a reporter. Saudi is a free country. Why should the US "punish the Saudis", is the US responsible for Saudi governments decisions? Did I miss the news where Trump became the ruler of Saudi? It is not like the US to meddle in the affairs of sovereign and independent nations.

He was probably killed as a result of articles he wrote for the Washington Post. One can easily understand why the Washington Post feels guilty and asks our government to get involved, which is standard procedure if the journalist were an American Citizen. This man wasn't, but he did live in the US.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

CNN news says "Trump reluctant to punish Saudis over reporter". "In response to the disappearance of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, President Trump signaled he was not interested in taking steps to punish Saudi Arabia."

Maybe CNN is biased, but News is news.

Anyhow I think Trump is right not to punish Saudis over a reporter. Saudi is a free country. Why should the US "punish the Saudis", is the US responsible for Saudi governments decisions? Did I miss the news where Trump became the ruler of Saudi? It is not like the US to meddle in the affairs of sovereign and independent nations.

What I have seen is that Trump is very concerned about American citizens, pastors, and journalists mistreated overseas -- far more than his predecessor.

Just about everything you read about Trump is biased.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Just about everything you read about Trump is biased.

This is true now of all those in power. "Just about everything" is influenced by power and money.

With Obama there was a small hiatus. With Bush and Clinton they were political enough to hide the growing divide in the country. But Trump lacks that political veneer and the rift in the country has become exceedingly obvious to all. If there is a crack in the foundation of a house you don't say "this side of the crack is good, and that side is wrong". Rather the issue is the foundation. The foundation of a country is righteousness. What we are witnessing now is a symptom of unrighteousness.

[Ohio]

Taylor Swift is celebrated as a national icon for coming out and supporting the Democratic candidate for TN senator.

Kanye West is vilified as mentally deranged "token Negro" disgracing the White House for meeting with Trump and Jim Brown, the Cleveland NFL GOAT.

But we all know that this cannot be media "bias."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Taylor Swift is celebrated as a national icon for coming out and supporting the Democratic candidate for TN senator.

Kanye West is vilified as mentally deranged "token Negro" disgracing the White House for meeting with Trump and Jim Brown, the Cleveland NFL GOAT.

But we all know that this cannot be media "bias."

Has Swift admitted to being bipolar? Did she say stupid put-foot-in-mouth statements like "abolishing the 13th Amendment?"

Shame on her for not being Trump's token Caucasian. But of course. She didn't slobber all over Trump, calling him her father.

[zeek]

The Florida Panhandle was devastated by a hurricane. Where is the malicious clown Trump with his paper towels?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Florida Panhandle was devastated by a hurricane. Where is the malicious clown Trump with his paper towels?

Just wait .... you get paper towels ... you get paper towels ... you get paper towels ... etc.

But y'all prolly would rather toilet paper ...

[zeek]

The Florida Panhandle was devastated by historic hurricane. Where is the malicious clown Trump with his paper towels?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Florida Panhandle was devastated by historic hurricane. Where is the malicious clown Trump with his paper towels?

See that evil archangel hurricane Michael has bro zeek all kattywompus, and repeating himself.

God forbid, it might have turned him into a Trumpite.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Florida Panhandle was devastated by historic hurricane. Where is the malicious clown Trump with his paper towels?

awareness is right, zeek has diarrhea of the mouth and a constipation of ideas needing an endless supply of cheap toilet paper.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

See that evil archangel hurricane Michael has bro zeek all kattywompus, and repeating himself.

God forbid, it might have turned him into a Trumpite.

Or a rapper like Kanye?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

awareness is right, zeek has diarrhea of the mouth and a constipation of ideas needing an endless supply of cheap toilet paper.

Ah, the personal attack. A Mr. Ohio forte. Your use of scatology reflects strong hostile feelings. You seem to be so closely identified with Mr. Trump that you take criticism of him personally and strike out verbally at the 'offender' as if you yourself had been attacked. Interesting.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

See that evil archangel hurricane Michael has bro zeek all kattywompus, and repeating himself.

God forbid, it might have turned him into a Trumpite.

If I repeat it one more time I might be accused of imitating the rhetorical method that Luke used in the Book of Acts. [See the thread "Poor poor Christianity" on this forum.]

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

If I repeat it one more time I might be accused of imitating the rhetorical method that Luke used in the Book of Acts. [See the thread "Poor poor Christianity" on this forum.]

But it might be like saying Beetlejuice three times.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Ah, the personal attack. A Mr. Ohio forte. Your use of scatology reflects strong hostile feelings. You seem to be so closely identified with Mr. Trump that you take criticism of him personally and strike out verbally at the 'offender' as if you yourself had been attacked. Interesting.

Sounds like you need a box of Kleenex to go with your Bounty paper towels.

Thank God we have a President who puts America first! Eh?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sounds like you need a box of Kleenex to go with your Bounty paper towels.

Thank God we have a President who puts America first! Eh?

From the standpoint of water, your post is all wet.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

From the standpoint of water, your post is all wet.

After watching the news concerning the impact of the recent hurricane, I would speculate that you are merely projecting here.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

After watching the news concerning the impact of the recent hurricane, I would speculate that you are merely projecting here.

I feel like Superman when I'm wearing my MAGA hat.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I feel like Superman when I'm wearing my MAGA hat.

Your favorite Super Hero?

Time for you to show some luv to Trump.

[zeek]

Time for Trump to pay up:

It was just a few months ago when Donald Trump presented a new idea about how he’ll attack Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), whose Native American ancestry has long been a point of preoccupation for the president. Imagining a 2020 debate, Trump told an audience of supporters about his future plan.

“I’m going to get one of those little [DNA testing] kits and in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims she’s of Indian heritage…,” Trump said. “And we will say, ‘I will give you a million dollars, paid for by Trump, to your favorite charity, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian.’ And we’ll see what she does. I have a feeling she will say no, but we will hold it for the debates.”

The president may need to track down his checkbook. The Boston Globe reported overnight:

Senator Elizabeth Warren has released a DNA test that provides “strong evidence” she had a Native American in her family tree dating back 6 to 10 generations, an unprecedented move by one of the top possible contenders for the 2020 Democratic nomination for president.

Warren, whose claims to Native American blood have been mocked by President Trump and other Republicans, provided the test results to the Globe on Sunday in an effort to defuse questions about her ancestry that have persisted for years. She planned an elaborate rollout Monday of the results as she aimed for widespread attention.

As the Globe reported, the analysis was conducted by Stanford University’s Carlos Bustamante, a renowned scholar and expert in the field, who concluded that the results “strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor.”
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Time for Trump to pay up:

She is 0.1% Indian.

I have that much in me too!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

She is 0.1% Indian.

I have that much in me too!

Shall I call you Hiawatha from now on?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Shall I call you Hiawatha from now on?

Aren't you a Seminole, or perhaps just naive?

Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., who studies the genetic ancestry of Americans, wrote in 2013 (citing Ancestry.com) that the average African-American genome is 2% Native American. In 2014, the genetics website 23andMe said the average black American genome is 0.8% Native American, while Latinos have 18% Native American ancestry, on average. Among white Americans, there is considerable variation: 8% of whites in Louisiana have at least 1% Native American ancestry, for example, according to 23andMe.

The New York Times, citing the 23andMe data, reported: “The researchers found that European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American.”

That falls within Warren’s reported range, and suggests she may be no more Native American than the average white American.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Aren't you a Seminole?

How much do you want to bet?

[TLFisher]

Something my brother in Birmingham got me started on......
Q-anon - facts or speculations?
Surely seems like a conspiracy theory, but what if there is some elements of facts to it?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

Something my brother in Birmingham got me started on......
Q-anon - facts or speculations?
Surely seems like a conspiracy theory, but what if there is some elements of facts to it?

"At recent Trump rallies, people have been observed publicly expressing support for “Q”: An anonymous person or group that claims to have access to top-level security information about a secret cabal of corrupt elites, intellectuals, left-wing politicians and celebrities conspiring to exploit and even enslave people. President Donald Trump, apparently, is one of the few people willing and able to fight this secret conspiracy, often referred to as “Qanon.""

I don't trust conspiracy theories that combine remote groups working together. It doesn't make sense. It's like saying all the scientists are conspiring to bring the Bible down.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Time for Trump to pay up:

"president will write $1 million charity check only 'if I can test her personally'"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Time for Trump to pay up:

It was just a few months ago when Donald Trump presented a new idea about how he’ll attack Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), whose Native American ancestry has long been a point of preoccupation for the president. Imagining a 2020 debate, Trump told an audience of supporters about his future plan.

“I’m going to get one of those little [DNA testing] kits and in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims she’s of Indian heritage…,” Trump said. “And we will say, ‘I will give you a million dollars, paid for by Trump, to your favorite charity, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian.’ And we’ll see what she does. I have a feeling she will say no, but we will hold it for the debates.”

The president may need to track down his checkbook. The Boston Globe reported overnight:

Senator Elizabeth Warren has released a DNA test that provides “strong evidence” she had a Native American in her family tree dating back 6 to 10 generations, an unprecedented move by one of the top possible contenders for the 2020 Democratic nomination for president.

Warren, whose claims to Native American blood have been mocked by President Trump and other Republicans, provided the test results to the Globe on Sunday in an effort to defuse questions about her ancestry that have persisted for years. She planned an elaborate rollout Monday of the results as she aimed for widespread attention.

As the Globe reported, the analysis was conducted by Stanford University’s Carlos Bustamante, a renowned scholar and expert in the field, who concluded that the results “strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor.”
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow

What a disaster. Even Warren's own party is calling this a PR nightmare, for her to come out with this right before the midterms.

Now the Cherokee Indian nation has called out this whole stunt too. The test was bogus too. It's truly amazing how all these Leftists can be so intellectually smart, and yet have zero common sense.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

"At recent Trump rallies, people have been observed publicly expressing support for “Q”: An anonymous person or group that claims to have access to top-level security information about a secret cabal of corrupt elites, intellectuals, left-wing politicians and celebrities conspiring to exploit and even enslave people. President Donald Trump, apparently, is one of the few people willing and able to fight this secret conspiracy, often referred to as “Qanon.""

I don't trust conspiracy theories that combine remote groups working together. It doesn't make sense. It's like saying all the scientists are conspiring to bring the Bible down.

That makes sense. Why shouldn't we believe all these scientists who claim we evolved from monkeys?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What a disaster. Even Warren's own party is calling this a PR nightmare, for her to come out with this right before the midterms.

Now the Cherokee Indian nation has called out this whole stunt too. The test was bogus too. It's truly amazing how all these Leftists can be so intellectually smart, and yet have zero common sense.

I agree, she has been fully exposed with her bogus claim of being a "Native American" to get into college. At best she is 1/64th, that means one of her great, great grandparents was a native American (at best) and it is much more likely that this person was only partially Native American, perhaps 1/16th. This justifies Trump calling her out on this.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That makes sense. Why shouldn't we believe all these scientists who claim we evolved from monkeys?

Well there are a number of issues that haven't been explained:

1. Why no fur? Why would we evolve to be "naked apes" when that is clearly not an evolutionary advantage. Fur protects us from insects and other injuries as well as keeping us warm and protecting us from the sun.

2. Why do we have the ability to read and write? This is not a minor change, we lost the "photographic memory" portion of our brain, a huge advantage for hunter gatherers and instead got the ability to read when there was nothing to read, and the ability to write when there were no others who could read. In addition our brain now uses a tremendous amount of energy compared to other species. It was a very expensive evolutionary change that had little or no return on investment for thousands of years.

3. Because of the heavy demand from our brain for energy it is hypothesized that we became physically weaker. Similar sized chimpanzees are much stronger than us and yet require less energy on a daily basis. Again, hard to see how this is an evolutionary advantage.

4. The big question of course is how does a species evolve from apes which are not eusocial and become eusocial. We are not genetically wired to be eusocial like the other 18 species that are. Instead, we alone teach our children to be eusocial, creating a civilization, laws, ethics and mores in order to accomplish that. There is no other example in all of nature where this has happened.

So one has to wonder if there is another motive since anyone who questions the theory is ridiculed as being unscientific, believing in fairy tales rather than facts. Even Dr. E.O. Wilson is attacked for his research. It is as though those claiming to stand on facts and the truth are trying to prevent those who are doing research and trying to find the truth.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So one has to wonder if there is another motive since anyone who questions the theory is ridiculed as being unscientific, believing in fairy tales rather than facts. Even Dr. E.O. Wilson is attacked for his research. It is as though those claiming to stand on facts and the truth are trying to prevent those who are doing research and trying to find the truth.

Evolution, abortion, and hatred of conservatives are the sacred tenets of Leftist radical fundamentalists.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Time for Trump to pay up:

It was just a few months ago when Donald Trump presented a new idea about how he’ll attack Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), whose Native American ancestry has long been a point of preoccupation for the president. Imagining a 2020 debate, Trump told an audience of supporters about his future plan.

“I’m going to get one of those little [DNA testing] kits and in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims she’s of Indian heritage…,” Trump said. “And we will say, ‘I will give you a million dollars, paid for by Trump, to your favorite charity, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian.’ And we’ll see what she does. I have a feeling she will say no, but we will hold it for the debates.”

The president may need to track down his checkbook. The Boston Globe reported overnight:

Senator Elizabeth Warren has released a DNA test that provides “strong evidence” she had a Native American in her family tree dating back 6 to 10 generations, an unprecedented move by one of the top possible contenders for the 2020 Democratic nomination for president.

Warren, whose claims to Native American blood have been mocked by President Trump and other Republicans, provided the test results to the Globe on Sunday in an effort to defuse questions about her ancestry that have persisted for years. She planned an elaborate rollout Monday of the results as she aimed for widespread attention.

As the Globe reported, the analysis was conducted by Stanford University’s Carlos Bustamante, a renowned scholar and expert in the field, who concluded that the results “strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor.”
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow

zeek this is what happens when you listen to MS media before getting the facts. (I've seen this happen to you a hundred times in the last 2 years.)

Cherokee Nation Blasts Elizabeth Warren’s DNA Test as ‘Mockery’ and ‘Inappropriate’

Buried in the Boston Globe story is this bombshell: “To make up for the dearth of Native American DNA, Bustamante used samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to stand in for Native American.” In other words, all Warren’s DNA test really proves is that she might be 1/64 to 1/1024 Mexican, Peruvian, or Colombian.

Elizabeth Warren Melts Down in Wake of DNA Disaster

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) launched a bizarre Twitter rant late Monday afternoon following the disastrous rollout of DNA results that further debunked her decades-long claim to American Indian ancestry.

Warren’s thread of 20-plus (and counting) tweets began at about 5:30 p.m. ET, where she attempted to both insult President Trump and defend herself.

In her first tweet, and without any evidence, Warren made the outlandish claim that Trump “makes creepy physical threats about me.” The truth is that all Trump has ever done is ridicule her false claims about being Cherokee.

Trump is already eliminating 2020 Democratic rivals. Warren is toast.

[Ohio]

Where are all of zeek's old posts claiming assuredly that Stormy will take down the President?

BREAKING … Judge Throws Out Porny Daniels Lawsuit Against Trump … ‘Stormy Must Pay ALL President’s Legal Fees’
Ouch! Maybe Avenatti will pay her bills? I doubt it!

And where are all of zeek's old posts claiming assuredly about Russian collusion?

We could go on'n'on'n'on here on this topic.

[zeek]

WASHINGTON — The federal budget deficit has surged to $779 billion in fiscal 2018, its highest level in six years as President Donald Trump’s tax cuts caused the government to borrow more heavily in order to cover its spending.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy...2IbYr5MvuKfelw

[zeek]

"Today, President Trump seems intent on withdrawing the US from the entire post–World War II structure of interlocking diplomatic, military, and economic agreements and organizations that have preserved peace, stability, and prosperity since 1945. His preference for bilateral relations, conceived as zero-sum rivalries in which he is the dominant player and “wins,” overlaps with the ideological preference of Steve Bannon and the so-called alt-right for the unfettered self-assertion of autonomous, xenophobic nation-states—in short, the pre-1914 international system. That “international anarchy” produced World War I, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Great Depression, the fascist dictatorships, World War II, and the Holocaust, precisely the sort of disasters that the post–World War II international system has for seven decades remarkably avoided."

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/201...8KXJ_siEQfN3L8

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Trump is already eliminating 2020 Democratic rivals. Warren is toast.

Hillary is also toast.

Hillary Clinton contradicts Monica Lewinsky’s claim that affair with Bill Clinton was ‘gross abuse of power’

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

"Today, President Trump seems intent on withdrawing the US from the entire post–World War II structure of interlocking diplomatic, military, and economic agreements and organizations that have preserved peace, stability, and prosperity since 1945. His preference for bilateral relations, conceived as zero-sum rivalries in which he is the dominant player and “wins,” overlaps with the ideological preference of Steve Bannon and the so-called alt-right for the unfettered self-assertion of autonomous, xenophobic nation-states—in short, the pre-1914 international system. That “international anarchy” produced World War I, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Great Depression, the fascist dictatorships, World War II, and the Holocaust, precisely the sort of disasters that the post–World War II international system has for seven decades remarkably avoided."

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/201...8KXJ_siEQfN3L8

The system set up after WWII was supposed to be temporary until Europe could get back on their feet. There is no reason for us to keep an army in Germany or Japan, just as there is no reason for them to keep their armies in our country.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

"Today, President Trump seems intent on withdrawing the US from the entire post–World War II structure of interlocking diplomatic, military, and economic agreements and organizations that have preserved peace, stability, and prosperity since 1945. His preference for bilateral relations, conceived as zero-sum rivalries in which he is the dominant player and “wins,” overlaps with the ideological preference of Steve Bannon and the so-called alt-right for the unfettered self-assertion of autonomous, xenophobic nation-states—in short, the pre-1914 international system. That “international anarchy” produced World War I, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Great Depression, the fascist dictatorships, World War II, and the Holocaust, precisely the sort of disasters that the post–World War II international system has for seven decades remarkably avoided."

Just another NYTimes fake news story, twisting the facts for evil, when all Trump is doing is looking out for America's interests related to fair trade, jobs, and others paying their fair share.

Everything is distorted in MediaLand. Why not report how Trump pressured the Saudi's to fess up to killing Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi? Even though WaPo has never written one good thing about Trump, he still did the right thing.

"Blessed are those who suffer for righteousness sake."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Where are all of zeek's old posts claiming assuredly that Stormy will take down the President?

BREAKING … Judge Throws Out Porny Daniels Lawsuit Against Trump … ‘Stormy Must Pay ALL President’s Legal Fees’
Ouch! Maybe Avenatti will pay her bills? I doubt it!

And where are all of zeek's old posts claiming assuredly about Russian collusion?

We could go on'n'on'n'on here on this topic.

I knew that case wouldn't go anywhere. And Stormy can't bring Trump down because Melania don't care, and neither do those in majority in Washington. Trump could shoot someone on 5th street, and they still wouldn't care .... just like you.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Where are all of zeek's old posts claiming assuredly that Stormy will take down the President?

BREAKING … Judge Throws Out Porny Daniels Lawsuit Against Trump … ‘Stormy Must Pay ALL President’s Legal Fees’

Ouch! Maybe Avenatti will pay her bills? I doubt it!

I can't imagine Trump's legal fees will be cheap.

Poor Stormy. Should have kept her money and kept quiet. One more sucker crunched up and spit out by the corrupt Democratic smear machinery. Worst thing that ever happened to her was meeting Avenatti.


Avenatti 2020!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I knew that case wouldn't go anywhere. And Stormy can't bring Trump down because Melania don't care, and neither do those in majority in Washington. Trump could shoot someone on 5th street, and they still wouldn't care .... just like you.

After two years, with hundreds of accusations proven false, will you ever "consider your ways?" (Haggai 1.7)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The system set up after WWII was supposed to be temporary until Europe could get back on their feet. There is no reason for us to keep an army in Germany or Japan, just as there is no reason for them to keep their armies in our country.

Move the base to Poland.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That makes sense. Why shouldn't we believe all these scientists who claim we evolved from monkeys?

We should believe scientists because they have the preponderance of evidence. Being an intelligent primate is nobler than being animated dirt which is what Genesis claims we are.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

We should believe scientists because they have the preponderance of evidence. Being an intelligent primate is nobler than being animated dirt which is what Genesis claims we are.

Huh? And I thought you were a redeemed human being.

Now I find out that you are nothing more than an intelligent primate who believes whatever they serve you in quantity all in the name of science. Not good.

News flash! Primates cannot believe. Only man, made in His image, can believe in God.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Huh? And I thought you were a redeemed human being.

Now I find out that you are nothing more than an intelligent primate who believes whatever they serve you in quantity all in the name of science. Not good.

News flash! Primates cannot believe. Only man, made in His image, can believe in God.

... Said a dirt bag full of wind. The idea of being created in the image of God would be helpful if we knew what God looks like. Since we don't, the implication seems to be that God looks like us. That in turn implies that the universe was created by something like a human primate. That is most probably an anthropocentric projection. Who says primates can't believe? That's just another unsupported declaration. You are a primate. Your DNA is greater than 99% identical to a chimpanzee. You believe don't you? Therefore a primate can believe. Your dogma requires you to deny biological facts. If your beliefs didn't endanger yourself and others I wouldn't have any problem with them. But they do so I do.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

... Said a dirt bag full of wind.

As the MOTA of AltVs I'd chastise you, but it's Biblical. We are dirt bags, full of God's breath.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The system set up after WWII was supposed to be temporary until Europe could get back on their feet. There is no reason for us to keep an army in Germany or Japan, just as there is no reason for them to keep their armies in our country.

Just like the Romans did, this is about America training up local forces in foreign countries to protect its interests or be called upon if necessary. In turn, they receive training from their allies who are sometimes better equipped and trained, which can be cheaper than living and training in America.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

... Said a dirt bag full of wind. The idea of being created in the image of God would be helpful if we knew what God looks like. Since we don't, the implication seems to be that God looks like us. That in turn implies that the universe was created by something like a human primate. That is most probably an anthropocentric projection. Who says primates can't believe? That's just another unsupported declaration. You are a primate. Your DNA is greater than 99% identical to a chimpanzee. You believe don't you? Therefore a primate can believe. Your dogma requires you to deny biological facts. If your beliefs didn't endanger yourself and others I wouldn't have any problem with them. But they do so I do.

Show me one primate, besides yourself I guess, that has ever exhibited the tendency to "believe" in the unseen Creator.

You may judge man by dirt and DNA, but I don't and neither does the scripture. So much for your "science." You obviously have missed out on all the important things in life.

At conception God breathes into man a soul, and he becomes a living person, a unique individual made in His own image and likeness, which will live for eternity. Sorry if that is not good enough for you, and you prefer living in the dirt.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I knew that case wouldn't go anywhere. And Stormy can't bring Trump down because Melania don't care, and neither do those in majority in Washington. Trump could shoot someone on 5th street, and they still wouldn't care .... just like you.

Melania never said she didn't care, she said she had more important things to be concerned with. When asked what that was she mentioned her son and her position as first lady. For all we know Donald Trump and her marriage do not rank as things important to her.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

We should believe scientists because they have the preponderance of evidence. Being an intelligent primate is nobler than being animated dirt which is what Genesis claims we are.

Bible never claims we are animated dirt, it uses the term dust, not dirt. Second, the theory of evolution also says that we are animated dust, so you are really off base limiting evolution to apes. What, God created the apes, and then from there we evolved?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Just like the Romans did, this is about America training up local forces in foreign countries to protect its interests or be called upon if necessary. In turn, they receive training from their allies who are sometimes better equipped and trained, which can be cheaper than living and training in America.

The Roman system was a failed system. Therefore we need to make adjustments. Like anything you cannot take it to the extreme. Cooperating with other countries so that you work together is economic and efficient. Avoiding war is sound policy. But putting your own soldiers in all these other countries is unsustainable and has to stop.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The Roman system was a failed system. Therefore we need to make adjustments. Like anything you cannot take it to the extreme. Cooperating with other countries so that you work together is economic and efficient. Avoiding war is sound policy. But putting your own soldiers in all these other countries is unsustainable and has to stop.

Indeed it would be cheaper for America and cheaper for the countries that have to accommodate them, a win-win for all. These days remote warfare is possible so a physical presence in those countries is less important.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Bible never claims we are animated dirt, it uses the term dust, not dirt. Second, the theory of evolution also says that we are animated dust, so you are really off base limiting evolution to apes. What, God created the apes, and then from there we evolved?

Your point about dust vs. dirt I regard as trivial quibbling. I'm not a Hebrew scholar. Nevertheless here's one that thinks the word in genesis 2:7 is better translated dirt.

What is the Dust of the Ground from which Man is Formed?
Genesis 2:7, according to the KJV, has the creation of man “from the dust of the ground.” But why “dust”?

The Hebrew here is afar, and it doesn’t seem to mean “dust.”

From Genesis 2:7, we know that it’s something on the ground, but we don’t know what. “Dust” is a possibility, just from this verse, but — again, just from this verse — so is “grass,” “rocks,” “lichen,” “mud,” etc. So we look further.

Genesis 13:16 helps us a little. There we read that Abram’s descendants will be like the afar on the earth, so that if the afar can be counted, so can Abram’s descendants. So afar can’t mean “mud” or “clay.” It seems to refer to particles of some sort.

Genesis 18:27 is helpful in a different way. There we see afar used as a metaphor of humility. (The full phrase is “afar and efer.” I’ve explained elsewhere that the English “dust and ashes” doesn’t do justice to the repetition of sounds in afar and efer: “Doublets Are Part And Parcel of Bible Translation.”) I Samuel 2:8 emphasizes the connotation of lowliness: God “raises the poor from afar, lifts up the needy from the trash.” And the vivid imagery of Isaiah repeatedly uses afar to represent humility.

But next we look at Genesis 26:15, which explains that the Philistines had filled Abram’s wells with afar. And here we see the problem with “dust” for afar, because one would use “dirt,” not “dust,” to plug up a well. (And, indeed, the KJV goes with “earth” here for afar.)

The basic problem is this: “Dust” in English refers specifically to particularly fine-grained particles, of earth or otherwise. “Dirt,” by contrast, is just what’s on the ground, and we seem to be talking about dirt here.

In Numbers 5:17, the priest is instructed to take afar form the floor of the Tabernacle, so again afar seems to be “dirt,” not “dust” Dust would have been swept away as part of regular cleaning (I presume).

In Greek for afar we usually find gi, a word that pretty clearly means “land,” both in the sense of “dirt” and of “country.” So in addition to its use as the substance that filled the wells, we read that Jacob lived in the gi of his ancestors, the gi of Canaan (Genesis 37:1). The Greek gi also means “(the entire) Earth,” a usage we find, for instance, in Genesis 6:11.

So far we have yet to see any indication that afar is particularly fine-grained, so we see no support for “dust.” We do see “fine as afar” in Deuteronomy 9:21, but there the fineness is in reference to the golden calf. “As fine as dirt” works as well as “as fine as dust.” (Though if the calf was made of gold, I’m not clear how it was burned into dust or ash or whatnot. Why didn’t it melt? But I guess that’s for another time.)

And in II Samuel 16:13, we see that afar can be flung along with rocks, again arguing for “dirt” and not “dust.”

Similarly, afar is a common image in Job, and there the word is frequently translated “earth.”

But “dirt” or “earth” isn’t quite right, either, because afar isn’t limited to what’s on the ground. In Leviticus 14:41, concerning a contaminated house, scraping a house produces afar — perhaps “debris,” in English. It’s probably not “dust” because the afar can be collected and poured out outside the city. (You won’t find “dust” in most English translations here, so if you’re not reading the Hebrew, it’s hard to know that it’s the same word.)

But then in the very next verse, “other stones” and “other afar” are supposed to be used to rebuild the house. (I don’t know of any English translation that uses “dust” here.) Is this just poetic symmetry? (Leviticus 14:40 refers to stones, so both “stones” and afar in 14:42 might refer to that which was discarded.) Or does afar also metonymically refer to “plaster,” made from earth and water? This latter possibility is consistent with Leviticus 14:45, where houses seem to be made of “wood, stones, and afar.” Or, perhaps, is the idea here that new stones, wood, and dirt are supposed to gathered, and then worked in the way that stones, wood and dirt usually are?

Also moving away from “dirt” for afar is Numbers 19:17, where we see that afar is the result of burning a sacrificial animal. Most translations have “ashes” here, not “dust.”

So afar seems to refer generally to any granular material, and in particular to the granular material on the surface of the earth. Additionally, it symbolizes humility. In English, we usually call that “dirt.”

So I think Genesis 2:7 should read, “The Lord God formed man from the dirt of the ground.”

Joel M. Hoffman, who holds a PhD in theoretical linguistics, has taught Bible in religious settings and translation theory at Brandeis University and at HUC-JIR in New York City. He is the chief translator of the widely read My People’s Prayer Book series (winner of the National Jewish Book Award), and author of both the critically acclaimed In the Beginning: A Short History of the Hebrew Language (NYU Press) and the popular And God Said: How Translations Conceal The Bible’s Original Meaning (Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin’s Press).

If you wish to read evolution into Genesis 2:7, I have no problem with that as long as you admit that that is what you're doing. Before I accept that evolution is somehow implied by the text, I require evidence that supports that proposition. That only seems reasonable.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Show me one primate, besides yourself I guess, that has ever exhibited the tendency to "believe" in the unseen Creator.

You may judge man by dirt and DNA, but I don't and neither does the scripture. So much for your "science." You obviously have missed out on all the important things in life.

At conception God breathes into man a soul, and he becomes a living person, a unique individual made in His own image and likeness, which will live for eternity. Sorry if that is not good enough for you, and you prefer living in the dirt.

"The Hominidae, whose members are known as great apes or hominids, are a taxonomic family of primates that includes eight extant species in four genera: Pongo, the Bornean, Sumatran and Tapanuli orangutan; Gorilla, the eastern and western gorilla; Pan, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo; and Homo, which includes modern humans and its extinct relatives (e.g., the Neanderthal), and ancestors, such as Homo erectus." Groves, C.P. (2005). Wilson, D.E.; Reeder, D.M., eds. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 181–184. ISBN 0-801-88221-4. OCLC 62265494

So, I show you yourself--a primate who believes in an unseen Creator.

I don't consider man dirt, Genesis 2:7 does. See post #4489.

The Hebrew terms נפש‬ nefesh means literally "living being". Zohar, Rayah Mehemna, Terumah 158b. See Leibowitz, Aryeh (2018). The Neshamah: A Study of the Human Soul. Feldheim Publishers. Pages 27 and 110. ISBN 1680253387. The Latin word for nefesh is anima so my paraphrase animated dirt was quite literally correct from the standpoint of Latin.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Your point about dust vs. dirt I regard as trivial quibbling.

The distinction is simple. There was rock and Earth prior to life. We had minerals. We had oceans, water, ice, wind, and other forces of nature.

Dust does not imply simple elements, but microscopic life.

Soil is also something distinct and more complicated still. Soil has three basic zones, the first is weathered rock which could refer to the Earth before there was life. The top zone refers to decomposed organic matter which obviously has to include the concept of life. The middle zone is a mixing of the two layers.

So the theory of evolution does not include the theory on how life was first formed, which is based on chemistry, not genetics. So the theory of evolution is how a single cell organism becomes multicellular and ever more complex.

Therefore if something is sitting upon the Earth, especially after we already have life on the planet, then we know this thing is composed of billions of microscopic bacteria and other forms of life per teaspoon. The mention of
"dust" cannot possibly be referring to weathered rock. Dirt is a very vague term, but the humble particles sitting on top of the ground is not vague. Once we had all the other beasts described in Genesis these humble particles had to include microscopic life.

Dirt is an all inclusive term and is very vague. For example, what does "dirty" mean? Is sand dirt? Is mulch dirt? Is a cow patty dirt?

But if I am referring to any and all tiny particles sitting upon the ground, these particles regardless of the origin (sand, organic remains, excrement, etc) will be home to millions of microscopic organisms.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

"The Hominidae, whose members are known as great apes or hominids, are a taxonomic family of primates that includes eight extant species in four genera: Pongo, the Bornean, Sumatran and Tapanuli orangutan; Gorilla, the eastern and western gorilla; Pan, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo; and Homo, which includes modern humans and its extinct relatives (e.g., the Neanderthal), and ancestors, such as Homo erectus." Groves, C.P. (2005). Wilson, D.E.; Reeder, D.M., eds. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 181–184. ISBN 0-801-88221-4. OCLC 62265494

So, I show you yourself--a primate who believes in an unseen Creator.

I don't consider man dirt, Genesis 2:7 does. See post #4489.

The Hebrew terms נפש‬ nefesh means literally "living being". Zohar, Rayah Mehemna, Terumah 158b. See Leibowitz, Aryeh (2018). The Neshamah: A Study of the Human Soul. Feldheim Publishers. Pages 27 and 110. ISBN 1680253387. The Latin word for nefesh is anima so my paraphrase animated dirt was quite literally correct from the standpoint of Latin.

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will bring to nothing the understanding of the experts.

Where are the wise? Where are the scholars? Where are the philosophers?

Has not God turned the wisdom of the world into nonsense?" -- I Cor 1.19-20

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will bring to nothing the understanding of the experts.

Where are the wise? Where are the scholars? Where are the philosophers?

Has not God turned the wisdom of the world into nonsense?" -- I Cor 1.19-20

Those are default verses you whip out whenever you're stymied. They could apply to you as well as anyone else.
You're a science denier like your current idol Trump.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Show me one primate, besides yourself I guess, that has ever exhibited the tendency to "believe" in the unseen Creator.

That's easy bro Ohio, all believers in the unseen creator are human primates. Here's what the Smithsonian has to say about it (Warning : Scientific content) :

Why Are Humans Primates?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...ates-97419056/

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Those are default verses you whip out whenever you're stymied. They could apply to you as well as anyone else.
You're a science denier like your current idol Trump.

And you whip out the "idol" charge every time you are stuck in the mud.

You and your scientific ilk view man as primates, little different than apes. You can believe anything you want, but your faith is not on anything solid. One day all your trust and faith in science will fail you because your faith is shipwrecked.

The Bible says "as a man thinks, so he is." You think you are just mud, and thus you live with your head in the dust, thinking that evolutionary science will do you more good than faith in His word. Good Luck!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Bible never claims we are animated dirt, it uses the term dust, not dirt. Second, the theory of evolution also says that we are animated dust, so you are really off base limiting evolution to apes. What, God created the apes, and then from there we evolved?

Signs at the Scopes Trial (1925) : "Don't make a monkey outta me."

Here's another one :

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And you whip out the "idol" charge every time you are stuck in the mud.

You and your scientific ilk view man as primates, little different than apes. You can believe anything you want, but your faith is not on anything solid. One day all your trust and faith in science will fail you because your faith is shipwrecked.

The Bible says "as a man thinks, so he is." You think you are just mud, and thus you live with your head in the dust, thinking that evolutionary science will do you more good than faith in His word. Good Luck!

You've become confused. You're the one attached the dust/mud metaphor. I'm the primate guy. Remember? It's not a matter of faith though; just acceptance of overwhelming evidence.

Your buddy Jordan Peterson gets this. That's why he posits the relevance of the lobster dominance hierarchy to human social organization. How can you understand politics without comprehending our animal nature?

But, Genesis 2:7 is relevant too. It's a metaphoric expression of the paradox of human experience. The self is at once symbolic and embodied.

Your massive denial of this--your own psychological situation-- seems to be the basis for your holier-than-thou-attitude towards most of your species. No wonder you defend it so vociferously.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

You've become confused. You're the one attached the dust/mud metaphor. I'm the primate guy. Remember? It's not a matter of faith though; just acceptance of overwhelming evidence.

Your buddy Jordan Peterson gets this. That's why he posits the relevance of the lobster dominance hierarchy to human social organization. How can you understand politics without comprehending our animal nature?

But, Genesis 2:7 is relevant too. It's a metaphoric expression of the paradox of human experience. The self is at once symbolic and embodied.

Your massive denial of this--your own psychological situation-- seems to be the basis for your holier-than-thou-attitude towards most of your species. No wonder you defend it so vociferously.

I'm confused? You're all over the map. My buddy Peterson? I'm in denial?

Genesis 2:7 is not metaphorical. Genesis 2:7 is an historical record. Genesis 2:7 separates man from all of creation. Genesis 2:7 is what you and Darwin and evolutionary science completely missed.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Those are default verses you whip out whenever you're stymied. They could apply to you as well as anyone else.
You're a science denier like your current idol Trump.

But you have not explained why we are so different from all other primates. All the other primates that you have put man with are not eusocial, they all have fur, and none of them have the genetic differences to their brain that we have.

You cannot attribute being eusocial to genetics since we do not appear to be hard wired for it but rather have to learn it. Hence the role of religion. This makes religion "the missing link" and yet no other species on earth has religion.

The default of scientists is to dismiss religion as superstition, they do this whenever they are stymied. You are a truth denier.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Signs at the Scopes Trial (1925) : "Don't make a monkey outta me."

Here's another one :

No need, you've done that yourself. MOTA -- moderator of the Apes.