The Angry Bunch HAHAHAHAHAHA
Comments
-
Last night, in all places, my hometown of Council Bluffs, Iowa, without his rebuke or caution against such summary judgment, the president's audience yelled "Lock her up!" in response to his take on Sen. Diane Feinstein's handling of Dr Ford's confidential letter about her assault at the hands of Brett Kavanaugh. Was that an "angry mob"?
Last week, the president, majority leader McConnell, most GOP senators, and, I think, you yourself, demanded due process and a presumption of innocence for Kavanaugh. Was the president right not to interject into his crowd's demands a call for similar treatment of Sen. Feinstein?
During the 2016 campaign, then-candidate Trump's audiences frequently yelled "Lock her up!" in response to references to then-candidate Hillary Clinton, never to the candidate's disapproval or concern for due process, and frequently with his or his surrogates' overt consent. Were THOSE campaign moments examples of angry mobs? Were candidate Trump and his surrogates right not to remind their audiences of the importance of due process or the presumption of Secretary Clinton's innocence?
And while I have your attention, reformed, I will remind you of a question to which you have no responded to-date:
In THIS POST yesterday I asked...
"Is it true, as President Trump claimed (the other night), that Justice Kavanaugh was "proven innocent" of the allegations of sexual assault made against him? If you agree with me that the new justice was NOT "proven innocent," then what for you explains the president's false statement?"
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Last night, in all places, my hometown of Council Bluffs, Iowa, without his rebuke or caution against such summary judgment, the president's audience yelled "Lock her up!" in response to his take on Sen. Diane Feinstein's handling of Dr Ford's confidential letter about her assault at the hands of Brett Kavanaugh. Was that an "angry mob"?No, that is not an angry mob. They aren't chasing down senators in food establishments, hurting them in their neighborhoods, or shooting at them at baseball practices.
Last week, the president, majority leader McConnell, most GOP senators, and, I think, you yourself, demanded due process and a presumption of innocence for Kavanaugh. Was the president right not to interject into his crowd's demands a call for similar treatment of Sen. Feinstein?
I agree that Feinstein is innocent until proven guilty. Although, in her case, there is actual evidence of wrongdoing.
During the 2016 campaign, then-candidate Trump's audiences frequently yelled "Lock her up!" in response to references to then-candidate Hillary Clinton, never to the candidate's disapproval or concern for due process, and frequently with his or his surrogates' overt consent. Were THOSE campaign moments examples of angry mobs? Were candidate Trump and his surrogates right not to remind their audiences of the importance of due process or the presumption of Secretary Clinton's innocence?
Again, actual evidence of wrongdoing, and in Clinton's case, it actually has been proven (and admitted to) that she broke federal law. So in that case LOCK HER UP.
And while I have your attention, reformed, I will remind you of a question to which you have no responded to-date:
In THIS POST yesterday I asked...
"Is it true, as President Trump claimed (the other night), that Justice Kavanaugh was "proven innocent" of the allegations of sexual assault made against him? If you agree with me that the new justice was NOT "proven innocent," then what for you explains the president's false statement?"
I agree he was not proven innocent. That was probably just a misstep for the President, though not as serious as you try to make it out to be.
-
In fairness to taxpayers, Feinstein and Hillary should be put in a cell together with a live video cam. The public could subscribe to pay to view the Kilkenny madness which should pay for their keep and help toward restitution of their damages to the American public.
-
@reformed said:
No, that is not an angry mob. They aren't chasing down senators in food establishments, hurting them in their neighborhoods, or shooting at them at baseball practices.Because facts matter:
1. Which senators got "chased down" in food establishments? I know of a group of protesters who found Ted Cruz in a restaurant - they did not chase him in there. Once they found him, a protester said the following to him:"Hi, I’d love to talk to you about Brett Kavanaugh tonight. I’m a constituent, love to know what your vote is going to be tonight. I know that you’re very close friends with Mr. Kavanaugh."
"God bless you, ma’am," Cruz says. Then a dozen protesters gathered near him shout and record video of the senator's departure. Again, not "chased."
"“Bless you as well, I really appreciate you,” the woman continues. “I’m a survivor of sexual assault. I believe all survivors. There are now three people who have come forward and who have said that Brett Kavanaugh has attacked them. I know that you’re close friends with him. Could you talk to him about that? Could you talk to him about his position?”
Do those sound like the rantings of an "angry mob"? More angry than thousands of people repeatedly screaming nothing but "Lock her up!"?
Which other senators got "chased down" in food establishments?
- Which senators were "hurt" in their neighborhoods?
- The Steve Scalise shooting was the work of one person, not a "mob." It occurred more than a year ago, not since the president announced the Kavanaugh nomination. Similarly, the shooting of Gabbie Giffords (Dem- AZ) was the work of a single person, not a "mob," and occurred nearly eight years ago, in January 2011. So who are the "angry mobs" who who have shot members of Congress at baseball practices?
- And what about the Tea Party protests/disruptions of congressional town hall meetings in 2009? Were THOSE "angry mobs"?
I agree that Feinstein is innocent until proven guilty. Although, in her case, there is actual evidence of wrongdoing.
"Illegal" wrongdoing? (e.g. sexual assault is "illegal" wrongdoing) There WAS "actual evidence of wrongdoing" in the Kavanaugh case. Police and prosecutors EVERY DAY consider the statements of alleged victims of assault to be evidence. Their statements are not the only evidence collected in assault investigations, but they ARE evidence.
Again, actual evidence of wrongdoing, and in Clinton's case, it actually has been proven (and admitted to) that she broke federal law. So in that case LOCK HER UP.
You would lock up someone who has not been charged - in fact, was investigated and specifically judged not to be the subject of prosecution. It doesn't matter whether you agreed with the decision. That WAS the decision of our justice system, and yet, you would STILL lock her up. You are a Trumpster through and through, reformed.
I agree he was not proven innocent. That was probably just a misstep for the President, though not as serious as you try to make it out to be.
No misstep. He included it in prepared remarks. Someone - at least he, but I'm guessing also a speechwriter - reviewed that claim and decided to leave it in his statement to the nation. It was intentional. It was false. I contend it was knowingly false. That makes it a lie.
But I ask you: Do you believe that when he asserted Kavanaugh's proven innocence, the president knew as a matter of fact that his nominee had not been "proven innocent" by the Senate confirmation process? Or rather, do you believe when the president made his statement, he did not know that he was making a false statement? In other words, do you believe the president lied to the nation when he asserted Kavanaugh's "proven" innocence"?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
No, that is not an angry mob. They aren't chasing down senators in food establishments, hurting them in their neighborhoods, or shooting at them at baseball practices.Because facts matter:
1. Which senators got "chased down" in food establishments? I know of a group of protesters who found Ted Cruz in a restaurant - they did not chase him in there. Once they found him, a protester said the following to him:"Hi, I’d love to talk to you about Brett Kavanaugh tonight. I’m a constituent, love to know what your vote is going to be tonight. I know that you’re very close friends with Mr. Kavanaugh."
"God bless you, ma’am," Cruz says. Then a dozen protesters gathered near him shout and record video of the senator's departure. Again, not "chased."
"“Bless you as well, I really appreciate you,” the woman continues. “I’m a survivor of sexual assault. I believe all survivors. There are now three people who have come forward and who have said that Brett Kavanaugh has attacked them. I know that you’re close friends with him. Could you talk to him about that? Could you talk to him about his position?”
Do those sound like the rantings of an "angry mob"? More angry than thousands of people repeatedly screaming nothing but "Lock her up!"?
It does when you see the video of what they did to Senator Cruz and his wife. They couldn't even enjoy their meal. Yes, angry mob. And yes, more angry then people at a rally being civil.
Which other senators got "chased down" in food establishments?
- Which senators were "hurt" in their neighborhoods?
Rand Paul
- The Steve Scalise shooting was the work of one person, not a "mob." It occurred more than a year ago, not since the president announced the Kavanaugh nomination. Similarly, the shooting of Gabbie Giffords (Dem- AZ) was the work of a single person, not a "mob," and occurred nearly eight years ago, in January 2011. So who are the "angry mobs" who who have shot members of Congress at baseball practices?
All part of the same thinking incited by Democrat Senators and House Members.
- And what about the Tea Party protests/disruptions of congressional town hall meetings in 2009? Were THOSE "angry mobs"?
Can't see the YouTube video. But yes, if they indeed were interuppting that is an angry mob. Interestingly enough the media was perfectly ok to call them such back then. Double standard.
I agree that Feinstein is innocent until proven guilty. Although, in her case, there is actual evidence of wrongdoing.
"Illegal" wrongdoing? (e.g. sexual assault is "illegal" wrongdoing) There WAS "actual evidence of wrongdoing" in the Kavanaugh case. Police and prosecutors EVERY DAY consider the statements of alleged victims of assault to be evidence. Their statements are not the only evidence collected in assault investigations, but they ARE evidence.
Only if the evidence is corroborated. So I'll revise my statement, corroborated evidence. The letter was leaked and we know who was holding the letter.
Again, actual evidence of wrongdoing, and in Clinton's case, it actually has been proven (and admitted to) that she broke federal law. So in that case LOCK HER UP.
You would lock up someone who has not been charged - in fact, was investigated and specifically judged not to be the subject of prosecution. It doesn't matter whether you agreed with the decision. That WAS the decision of our justice system, and yet, you would STILL lock her up. You are a Trumpster through and through, reformed.
By a highly partisan investigation who declared her innocent before even doing the investigation.
I agree he was not proven innocent. That was probably just a misstep for the President, though not as serious as you try to make it out to be.
No misstep. He included it in prepared remarks. Someone - at least he, but I'm guessing also a speechwriter - reviewed that claim and decided to leave it in his statement to the nation. It was intentional. It was false. I contend it was knowingly false. That makes it a lie.
That doesn't mean it isn't a misstep just because it was prepared. And I bet sometimes he makes edits to speeches without the consent/knowledge of the writer. You always think he lies so that's not surprising. At this point your "President Trump Lies" complex is laughable.
But I ask you: Do you believe that when he asserted Kavanaugh's proven innocence, the president knew as a matter of fact that his nominee had not been "proven innocent" by the Senate confirmation process? Or rather, do you believe when the president made his statement, he did not know that he was making a false statement? In other words, do you believe the president lied to the nation when he asserted Kavanaugh's "proven" innocence"?
Probably did not know he was making a false statement.
-
But I ask you: Do you believe that when he asserted Kavanaugh's proven innocence, the president knew as a matter of fact that his nominee had not been "proven innocent" by the Senate confirmation process? Or rather, do you believe when the president made his statement, he did not know that he was making a false statement? In other words, do you believe the president lied to the nation when he asserted Kavanaugh's "proven" innocence"?
I am pretty sure we all know exactly what Trump meant, even if technically incorrect. Bill, did you, honestly, in fact, not understand?
-
@GaoLu said:
But I ask you: Do you believe that when he asserted Kavanaugh's proven innocence, the president knew as a matter of fact that his nominee had not been "proven innocent" by the Senate confirmation process? Or rather, do you believe when the president made his statement, he did not know that he was making a false statement? In other words, do you believe the president lied to the nation when he asserted Kavanaugh's "proven" innocence"?
I am pretty sure we all know exactly what Trump meant, even if technically incorrect. Bill, did you, honestly, in fact, not understand?
Exactly
-
@reformed said:
It does when you see the video of what they did to Senator Cruz and his wife. They couldn't even enjoy their meal. Yes, angry mob. And yes, more angry then people at a rally being civil.I don't endorse the group's yelling. I do endorse the woman's respectful approach to the senator, just as I endorse the approach of the two women in the elevator in the capitol. I don't believe the woman's words to Sen Cruz can be read as anything other than respectful. I believe the women who approached Sen Flake were similarly respectful, if also more passionate.
- Which senators were "hurt" in their neighborhoods?
Rand Paul
First you cite Steve Scalise as an example of the actions of the current "mob rule," when in fact Scalise was shot by a lone gunman almost 16 months ago. NOW you cite Rand Paul's assault at the hands of A NEIGHBOR related to a property dispute that happened nearly a year ago (November 3, 2017). According to the Department of Justice, Paul's assailant had no political motivation whatsoever. Instead, "(he) allegedly witnessed (Sen Paul) stack brush onto a pile near the (Paul’s) property and 'had enough.'"
Two examples. Neither reflective of the "mob rule" you protest.
All part of the same thinking incited by Democrat Senators and House Members.
First, neither the Scalise nor the Giffords shooting was a "mob" event. I think we call such people lone wolves.
And your claim that both shooters - including the man who shot the Democratic Congresswoman - did so, incited by the thinking of Democratic members of Congress is baseless. But I am open to correction. Prove your claim.
Can't see the YouTube video. But yes, if they indeed were interuppting that is an angry mob. Interestingly enough the media was perfectly ok to call them such back then. Double standard.
Are you saying you denounce as the actions of angry mobs the Tea Party's tactics in response to the Affordable Care Act in 2009 and 2010, when they disrupted townhalls across the country? Did you denounce their tactics as the actions of angry mobs at the time, or did you support their actions back then, and only later - say, for the purposes of this thread - decide to denounce their actions as the actions of angry mobs? (BTW, I didn't then and I don't now consider the Tea Partiers to have been angry mobs. They were angry and rude and pre-meditated and well over the line, but they also were American citizens expressing their views to public officials. Their tactics were indefensible, but I don't think they were mobs.)
Only if the evidence is corroborated. So I'll revise my statement, corroborated evidence. The letter was leaked and we know who was holding the letter.
It's good that you've finally acknowledged that victim statements are in fact evidence. Your past insistence that they weren't was quite astonishing to me.
By a highly partisan investigation who declared her innocent before even doing the investigation.
At the time of the July 2016 Comey press conference at which he announced the Bureau would not recommend charges against Secretary Clinton, the FBI probe of her handling of email had been going on for nearly a year. Hence, your claim that she was "declared... innocent before even doing the investigation" is false.
That doesn't mean it isn't a misstep just because it was prepared. And I bet sometimes he makes edits to speeches without the consent/knowledge of the writer. You always think he lies so that's not surprising. At this point your "President Trump Lies" complex is laughable.
The president has a cadence when he's reading from the teleprompter that's VERY different from the cadence he uses when he's off script. Watch the video. He was reading the words when he claimed Kavanaugh had been "proven innocent."
Was his claim a lie? To my understanding, a lie is a knowingly false statement. So, if the president knew that Kavanaugh had not been proven innocent, but said so anyway, he lied. So, did the president know the truth? Neither option is good for Trumpsters United. Either he DID know, and therefore he lied, or he DIDN'T know, in which case he didn't lie, but he also doesn't know much about the American justice system, particularly for being the president of the United States. If you're telling me that we have a president who doesn't understand that our justice seeks to prove guilt, not innocence, and that therefore his comment came from his lack of knowledge, I will back away from my claim.
Probably did not know he was making a false statement.
So he just doesn't understand our justice system? (Come to think of it, given his ugly attitudes toward the Central Park Five even after they were exonerated by DNA evidence, I think it's a pretty sure bet he doesn't understand. And/Or, he is in fact the racist so many of his other words and actions prove him to be.)
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
It does when you see the video of what they did to Senator Cruz and his wife. They couldn't even enjoy their meal. Yes, angry mob. And yes, more angry then people at a rally being civil.I don't endorse the group's yelling. I do endorse the woman's respectful approach to the senator, just as I endorse the approach of the two women in the elevator in the capitol. I don't believe the woman's words to Sen Cruz can be read as anything other than respectful. I believe the women who approached Sen Flake were similarly respectful, if also more passionate.
You and I have very different opinions of respect. Interupting a Senator's family time is never respectful.
- Which senators were "hurt" in their neighborhoods?
Rand Paul
First you cite Steve Scalise as an example of the actions of the current "mob rule," when in fact Scalise was shot by a lone gunman almost 16 months ago. NOW you cite Rand Paul's assault at the hands of A NEIGHBOR related to a property dispute that happened nearly a year ago (November 3, 2017). According to the Department of Justice, Paul's assailant had no political motivation whatsoever. Instead, "(he) allegedly witnessed (Sen Paul) stack brush onto a pile near the (Paul’s) property and 'had enough.'"
Related to a property dispute? That's the first I have heard of that.
Two examples. Neither reflective of the "mob rule" you protest.
All part of the same thinking incited by Democrat Senators and House Members.
First, neither the Scalise nor the Giffords shooting was a "mob" event. I think we call such people lone wolves.
And your claim that both shooters - including the man who shot the Democratic Congresswoman - did so, incited by the thinking of Democratic members of Congress is baseless. But I am open to correction. Prove your claim.
I never made such a claim Bill.
Can't see the YouTube video. But yes, if they indeed were interuppting that is an angry mob. Interestingly enough the media was perfectly ok to call them such back then. Double standard.
Are you saying you denounce as the actions of angry mobs the Tea Party's tactics in response to the Affordable Care Act in 2009 and 2010, when they disrupted townhalls across the country? Did you denounce their tactics as the actions of angry mobs at the time, or did you support their actions back then, and only later - say, for the purposes of this thread - decide to denounce their actions as the actions of angry mobs? (BTW, I didn't then and I don't now consider the Tea Partiers to have been angry mobs. They were angry and rude and pre-meditated and well over the line, but they also were American citizens expressing their views to public officials. Their tactics were indefensible, but I don't think they were mobs.)
Yes. That is what I am saying.
Only if the evidence is corroborated. So I'll revise my statement, corroborated evidence. The letter was leaked and we know who was holding the letter.
It's good that you've finally acknowledged that victim statements are in fact evidence. Your past insistence that they weren't was quite astonishing to me.
When I say evidence I mean verifiable facts. I never stated that witness statements were never used.
By a highly partisan investigation who declared her innocent before even doing the investigation.
At the time of the July 2016 Comey press conference at which he announced the Bureau would not recommend charges against Secretary Clinton, the FBI probe of her handling of email had been going on for nearly a year. Hence, your claim that she was "declared... innocent before even doing the investigation" is false.
Before key witnesses, including Clinton, were ever spoken to. So fine, there was an "investigation", but it was not allowed to be concluded. Comey even went out and showed how she broke the law and then they didn't press further on it.
That doesn't mean it isn't a misstep just because it was prepared. And I bet sometimes he makes edits to speeches without the consent/knowledge of the writer. You always think he lies so that's not surprising. At this point your "President Trump Lies" complex is laughable.
The president has a cadence when he's reading from the teleprompter that's VERY different from the cadence he uses when he's off script. Watch the video. He was reading the words when he claimed Kavanaugh had been "proven innocent."
Did I say he wasn't reading his speech? No. I said he may have changed the speech.
Was his claim a lie? To my understanding, a lie is a knowingly false statement. So, if the president knew that Kavanaugh had not been proven innocent, but said so anyway, he lied. So, did the president know the truth? Neither option is good for Trumpsters United. Either he DID know, and therefore he lied, or he DIDN'T know, in which case he didn't lie, but he also doesn't know much about the American justice system, particularly for being the president of the United States. If you're telling me that we have a president who doesn't understand that our justice seeks to prove guilt, not innocence, and that therefore his comment came from his lack of knowledge, I will back away from my claim.
It's really a stupid thing to get bent out of shape about Bill. The fact you are so concerned about it astounds me.
Probably did not know he was making a false statement.
So he just doesn't understand our justice system? (Come to think of it, given his ugly attitudes toward the Central Park Five even after they were exonerated by DNA evidence, I think it's a pretty sure bet he doesn't understand. And/Or, he is in fact the racist so many of his other words and actions prove him to be.)
Now the President is a racist? Let me mail you a tin foil hat.
-
@reformed said:
You and I have very different opinions of respect. Interupting a Senator's family time is never respectful.I think your point is reasonable, but I side with the woman who had THAT point to make in that way. I do not side with the larger group.
- Which senators were "hurt" in their neighborhoods?
Related to a property dispute? That's the first I have heard of that.
Since a day or two after the assault, I've understood the attack on Sen Paul to have been the result of a dispute between neighbors that had something to do with property. The Justice Department statement confirms the reporting I've seen all along. What reporting did you see that led you to some other conclusion, and what was that other conclusion?
And your claim that both shooters - including the man who shot the Democratic Congresswoman - did so, incited by the thinking of Democratic members of Congress is baseless. But I am open to correction. Prove your claim.
I never made such a claim Bill.
But in fact you did.. in THIS POST. Responding to these words of mine...
The Steve Scalise shooting was the work of one person, not a "mob." It occurred more than a year ago, not since the president announced the Kavanaugh nomination. Similarly, the shooting of Gabbie Giffords (Dem- AZ) was the work of a single person, not a "mob," and occurred nearly eight years ago, in January 2011. So who are the "angry mobs" who who have shot members of Congress at baseball practices?
... you replied...
All part of the same thinking incited by Democrat Senators and House Members.
The Scalise and Giffords shooting were, so you claimed, "all part of the same thinking incited by Democrat Senators and House members. "
Before key witnesses, including Clinton, were ever spoken to. So fine, there was an "investigation", but it was not allowed to be concluded. Comey even went out and showed how she broke the law and then they didn't press further on it.
If you're trying to acknowledge that your previous claim - that the FBI declared Clinton innocent "before even doing the investigation" - was in fact false, we agree.
Did I say he wasn't reading his speech? No. I said he may have changed the speech.
So your view is the president himself may have inserted into the written text of his remarks the false claim that Kavanaugh was "proven innocent." If the president did so, then he and he alone is responsible for the falsehood he spoke.
It's really a stupid thing to get bent out of shape about Bill. The fact you are so concerned about it astounds me.
I think the president of the United States ought to tell the truth when speaking to the American people, when speaking to media, when speaking to foreign leaders... whenever he or she is serving in his or her role as president of the United States. If the president wants to lie to his or her family or friends, that's his or her business. But when speaking or writing as president, he or she should tell the truth all the time. (Google the fact checker's trouncing of the president's lie-filled op-ed in Wednesday's USA Today about the Affordable Care Act. The paper printed the president's words, but added hyperlinks to several bits of his text, hyperlinks to sources that demonstrated the falsehood of many of his claims.)
How do you characterize a president's obligation to tell the truth when in his or her official capacity?
Now the President is a racist? Let me mail you a tin foil hat.
There's so much evidence of the president's racism, I don't know where to begin.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
You and I have very different opinions of respect. Interupting a Senator's family time is never respectful.I think your point is reasonable, but I side with the woman who had THAT point to make in that way. I do not side with the larger group.
So you think it is ok to bombard Senators when they are out with their families? That's despicable.
- Which senators were "hurt" in their neighborhoods?
Related to a property dispute? That's the first I have heard of that.
Since a day or two after the assault, I've understood the attack on Sen Paul to have been the result of a dispute between neighbors that had something to do with property. The Justice Department statement confirms the reporting I've seen all along. What reporting did you see that led you to some other conclusion, and what was that other conclusion?
I read something jut the other day about it. I'll have to find it.
And your claim that both shooters - including the man who shot the Democratic Congresswoman - did so, incited by the thinking of Democratic members of Congress is baseless. But I am open to correction. Prove your claim.
I never made such a claim Bill.
But in fact you did.. in THIS POST. Responding to these words of mine...
The Steve Scalise shooting was the work of one person, not a "mob." It occurred more than a year ago, not since the president announced the Kavanaugh nomination. Similarly, the shooting of Gabbie Giffords (Dem- AZ) was the work of a single person, not a "mob," and occurred nearly eight years ago, in January 2011. So who are the "angry mobs" who who have shot members of Congress at baseball practices?
... you replied...
All part of the same thinking incited by Democrat Senators and House Members.
The Scalise and Giffords shooting were, so you claimed, "all part of the same thinking incited by Democrat Senators and House members. "
No, I never even brought up the Giffords shooting so you really need to rethink this. You are LYING.
Before key witnesses, including Clinton, were ever spoken to. So fine, there was an "investigation", but it was not allowed to be concluded. Comey even went out and showed how she broke the law and then they didn't press further on it.
If you're trying to acknowledge that your previous claim - that the FBI declared Clinton innocent "before even doing the investigation" - was in fact false, we agree.
I clarified my statement. They declared her innocent before the investigation was complete.
Did I say he wasn't reading his speech? No. I said he may have changed the speech.
So your view is the president himself may have inserted into the written text of his remarks the false claim that Kavanaugh was "proven innocent." If the president did so, then he and he alone is responsible for the falsehood he spoke.
It's really a stupid thing to get bent out of shape about Bill. The fact you are so concerned about it astounds me.
I think the president of the United States ought to tell the truth when speaking to the American people, when speaking to media, when speaking to foreign leaders... whenever he or she is serving in his or her role as president of the United States. If the president wants to lie to his or her family or friends, that's his or her business. But when speaking or writing as president, he or she should tell the truth all the time. (Google the fact checker's trouncing of the president's lie-filled op-ed in Wednesday's USA Today about the Affordable Care Act. The paper printed the president's words, but added hyperlinks to several bits of his text, hyperlinks to sources that demonstrated the falsehood of many of his claims.)
He doesn't tell falshoods nearly as much as you try to claim. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but most of your "falsehoods" are because you spin them that way.
How do you characterize a president's obligation to tell the truth when in his or her official capacity?
It depends on the situation.
Now the President is a racist? Let me mail you a tin foil hat.
There's so much evidence of the president's racism, I don't know where to begin.
There is not a shred of it. Just liberal nonsense. There is as much evidence that Trump is a racist that there is for Dr. Ford's story being remotely true...oh wait...
-
@reformed said:
So you think it is ok to bombard Senators when they are out with their families? That's despicable.
I think it's acceptable for citizens to approach publicly elected officials with the respectful tone and message given to Sen Cruz during at the restaurant. I disagree with the group's involvement at the restaurant.
What was "despicable," in my view, was a presidential candidate in 2016 on at least two occasions offering to pay the legal bills of any rally participant arrested for assaulting other audience members.
I read something jut the other day about it. I'll have to find it.
Please share a link to the story about the assault on Paul when you find it. I've never heard any explanation for that violence other than that it was a dispute between neighbors.
No, I never even brought up the Giffords shooting so you really need to rethink this. You are LYING.
You're right that I brought up the Giffords shooting. You're wrong that I'm "LYING."
I encourage you to revisit the paragraph I quoted in my previous post, where I first mentioned the Scalise shooting THEN mentioned the Giffords shooting. In response to my mention of those TWO shootings, you replied "All part of the same thinking incited by Democrat Senators and House Members." So YES, you did link the two shootings, and NO, I was not "LYING."
I clarified my statement. They declared her innocent before the investigation was complete.
You didn't just clarify your statement; you changed it - from "before even doing the investigation" to "before the investigation was complete." There's about a year's worth of difference between those two claims.
He doesn't tell falshoods nearly as much as you try to claim. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but most of your "falsehoods" are because you spin them that way.
This is the kind of claim that's easy to make when you don't prove them. So, name one Trump "falsehood" that I, the Washington Post, or any other fact checker has called out as false or misleading that objectively was not actually false or misleading.
How do you characterize a president's obligation to tell the truth when in his or her official capacity?
It depends on the situation.
We can't get a much higher level of disagreement than we have here. I think the president's obligation to tell us the truth is almost without exception. And if there IS an exception, it surely isn't when speaking about the American justice system at the ceremonial swearing-in of a new Supreme Court justice.
There is not a shred of it. Just liberal nonsense. There is as much evidence that Trump is a racist that there is for Dr. Ford's story being remotely true...oh wait...
- Housing discrimination fines in the 1970's
- The Central Park Five
- 1992: $200,000 fine for removing African American and female casino employees from certain casino gaming tables to accommodate a high stakes gambler
- Five years of birtherism
- "S**thole countries"
- U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel
- June 2017: immigrants from Haiti “all have AIDS;” 40,000 Nigerians, once seeing the United States, would never “go back to their huts” in Africa
- Retweets of white nationalists
- Reluctance to disavow David Duke and other white nationalists
- Embrace of Steve Bannon, Joe Arpaio, Roy Moore, to name three
- Senator Elizabeth Warren as "Pocahontas"
- Incidence of comments about intelligence of African Americans (Maxine Waters and Frederica Wilson, for example)
- Mexicans are "rapists"
- Charlottesville: "Fine people on both sides," the white nationalists and the counter-protesters
You're right, reformed. There's no evidence of the president's racism.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
So you think it is ok to bombard Senators when they are out with their families? That's despicable.
I think it's acceptable for citizens to approach publicly elected officials with the respectful tone and message given to Sen Cruz during at the restaurant. I disagree with the group's involvement at the restaurant.
I'm confused by what you mean here.
What was "despicable," in my view, was a presidential candidate in 2016 on at least two occasions offering to pay the legal bills of any rally participant arrested for assaulting other audience members.
agree
I read something jut the other day about it. I'll have to find it.
Please share a link to the story about the assault on Paul when you find it. I've never heard any explanation for that violence other than that it was a dispute between neighbors.
I'll look for it and get back to you.
No, I never even brought up the Giffords shooting so you really need to rethink this. You are LYING.
You're right that I brought up the Giffords shooting. You're wrong that I'm "LYING."
I encourage you to revisit the paragraph I quoted in my previous post, where I first mentioned the Scalise shooting THEN mentioned the Giffords shooting. In response to my mention of those TWO shootings, you replied "All part of the same thinking incited by Democrat Senators and House Members." So YES, you did link the two shootings, and NO, I was not "LYING."
Then it was despicable for you to slip that in there. Shame on me for not reading more closely for your set trap. I never linked the two together because I never saw the part about Giffords.
I clarified my statement. They declared her innocent before the investigation was complete.
You didn't just clarify your statement; you changed it - from "before even doing the investigation" to "before the investigation was complete." There's about a year's worth of difference between those two claims.
Only in Bill's world does this matter.
He doesn't tell falshoods nearly as much as you try to claim. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but most of your "falsehoods" are because you spin them that way.
This is the kind of claim that's easy to make when you don't prove them. So, name one Trump "falsehood" that I, the Washington Post, or any other fact checker has called out as false or misleading that objectively was not actually false or misleading.
Name any one of them. It's probably on that list.
How do you characterize a president's obligation to tell the truth when in his or her official capacity?
It depends on the situation.
We can't get a much higher level of disagreement than we have here. I think the president's obligation to tell us the truth is almost without exception. And if there IS an exception, it surely isn't when speaking about the American justice system at the ceremonial swearing-in of a new Supreme Court justice.
Do you think if there is a top secret mission going on and the president is asked directly if it is going on. Does he have to say yes? Can he say no?
There is not a shred of it. Just liberal nonsense. There is as much evidence that Trump is a racist that there is for Dr. Ford's story being remotely true...oh wait...
- Housing discrimination fines in the 1970's
Not familiar
- The Central Park Five
Not familiar
- 1992: $200,000 fine for removing African American and female casino employees from certain casino gaming tables to accommodate a high stakes gambler
Not familiar
- Five years of birtherism
How is this racist exactly?
- "S**thole countries"
Accurate statement. Not racist.
- U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel
What are you referring to?
- June 2017: immigrants from Haiti “all have AIDS;” 40,000 Nigerians, once seeing the United States, would never “go back to their huts” in Africa
The first comment is hyperbole, not racist, the second is accurate.
- Retweets of white nationalists
Not familiar, what exactly was retweeted?
- Reluctance to disavow David Duke and other white nationalists
That doesn't make someone racist Bill.
- Embrace of Steve Bannon, Joe Arpaio, Roy Moore, to name three
How is any of that racist?
- Senator Elizabeth Warren as "Pocahontas"
That's not racist. That's making fun of her false claims.
- Incidence of comments about intelligence of African Americans (Maxine Waters and Frederica Wilson, for example)
Not familiar
- Mexicans are "rapists"
Not familiar
- Charlottesville: "Fine people on both sides," the white nationalists and the counter-protesters
I am sure this is probably an accurate statement.
You're right, reformed. There's no evidence of the president's racism.
I haven't seen any yet.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
"Illegal" wrongdoing? (e.g. sexual assault is "illegal" wrongdoing) There WAS "actual evidence of wrongdoing" in the Kavanaugh case. Police and prosecutors EVERY DAY consider the statements of alleged victims of assault to be evidence. Their statements are not the only evidence collected in assault investigations, but they ARE evidence.Since when are statements concerning one case evidence for another case ???? Also, a victim's statement is not evidence but an accusation, and it rather needs evidence in order to become a proven accusation.
On the other hand, perhaps the judicial system to which you refer has an entirely different approach ? -
@Wolfgang said:
@Bill_Coley said:
"Illegal" wrongdoing? (e.g. sexual assault is "illegal" wrongdoing) There WAS "actual evidence of wrongdoing" in the Kavanaugh case. Police and prosecutors EVERY DAY consider the statements of alleged victims of assault to be evidence. Their statements are not the only evidence collected in assault investigations, but they ARE evidence.Since when are statements concerning one case evidence for another case ???? Also, a victim's statement is not evidence but an accusation, and it rather needs evidence in order to become a proven accusation.
On the other hand, perhaps the judicial system to which you refer has an entirely different approach ?I think you responded to my reference first to the Kavanaugh case then to the actions of prosecutors "EVERY DAY." I did not mean to connect one case to others. I meant only to say it happens every day that victims statements are accepted as evidence, so it wouldn't be unusual to consider Dr Ford's testimony as evidence. (in the Kavanaugh case, not "evidence" in the criminal trial sense of the word, of course, but in the sense of information relevant to the pursuit of truth)
OF COURSE a victim's statement is evidence. When victims of sexual assault take the stand and other oath testify that they were assaulted by defendants, they are not only accusing the defendants, they are providing sworn testimony about the actions of those defendants. Sexual assaults tend not to be crimes witnessed by lots of people, so the testimony of victims is crucial.
I don't know what system of justice you're used to, Wolfgang, but in this country, crime victim statements are in fact evidence.
-
Not all evidence is of equal value. People lie. They are mistaken. The fact that people take oaths in court implies that the "evidence" of accusations offered in court is unreliable.
-
@GaoLu said:
Not all evidence is of equal value. People lie. They are mistaken. The fact that people take oaths in court implies that the "evidence" of accusations offered in court is unreliable.Which means, in your view, EVERY bit of testimony in EVERY criminal trial in the US is "unreliable" because EVERY bit of testimony in EVERY criminal proceeding is taken under oath. And it ALSO means that in your view the fact that Brett Kavanaugh testified under oath "implies" that his "evidence" of accusation-denial was also "unreliable."
We strongly disagree.
-
You are telling me what I mean in contradiction to what I said I mean.
You know, I recall you doing that sort of things on the Logos forums years ago. Didn't work so well there did it.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
OF COURSE a victim's statement is evidence.Sorry ... over here a victim's statement (claim, accusation) has to be supported by evidence. Otherwise, any one can make a statement and bring an accusation against anyone and this is regarded as evidence and the accused is guilty and can say whatever they want to say ???
When victims of sexual assault take the stand and other oath testify that they were assaulted by defendants, they are not only accusing the defendants, they are providing sworn testimony about the actions of those defendants.
Even sworn testimony is NOT evidence ... it is a testimony (I don't think I need to remind you that there have been plenty of cases of sworn false testimonies ? )
Sexual assaults tend not to be crimes witnessed by lots of people, so the testimony of victims is crucial.
You know, murders often tend not to be crimes witnessed by a lot of people, the same goes for many and even most other type of crimes ... why single out "sexual assault" (especially so, since just about anything nowadays may be called "sexual assault" which does not even have to do with "assault" in its normal sense) ?
I don't know what system of justice you're used to, Wolfgang, but in this country, crime victim statements are in fact evidence.
See above ... accusation = evidence =>guilty verdict ?? No wonder, quite a number of women in your country are now coming out with "statements" concerning alleged "assaults" by men .... interestingly, by far most of such "statements" seem to only be made if the male has had some career which promises a lot of money to be awarded for "emotional damages" of many moons ago ...
-
@Wolfgang It isn't true in America either, but that doesn't stop people from saying so.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
Not all evidence is of equal value. People lie. They are mistaken. The fact that people take oaths in court implies that the "evidence" of accusations offered in court is unreliable.Which means, in your view, EVERY bit of testimony in EVERY criminal trial in the US is "unreliable" because EVERY bit of testimony in EVERY criminal proceeding is taken under oath. And it ALSO means that in your view the fact that Brett Kavanaugh testified under oath "implies" that his "evidence" of accusation-denial was also "unreliable."
We strongly disagree.
Testimony that is uncorroborated or outright contradicted by others is unreliable every time without physical evidence. Yes, that is absolutely true. Testimony that changes every time you talk to the person is unreliable. Absolutely.
@Wolfgang said:
@Bill_Coley said:
OF COURSE a victim's statement is evidence.Sorry ... over here a victim's statement (claim, accusation) has to be supported by evidence. Otherwise, any one can make a statement and bring an accusation against anyone and this is regarded as evidence and the accused is guilty and can say whatever they want to say ???.
That's our laws too. Only liberals seem to think otherwise.
When victims of sexual assault take the stand and other oath testify that they were assaulted by defendants, they are not only accusing the defendants, they are providing sworn testimony about the actions of those defendants.
Even sworn testimony is NOT evidence ... it is a testimony (I don't think I need to remind you that there have been plenty of cases of sworn false testimonies ? )
In my opinion, this includes Dr. Ford.
Sexual assaults tend not to be crimes witnessed by lots of people, so the testimony of victims is crucial.
You know, murders often tend not to be crimes witnessed by a lot of people, the same goes for many and even most other type of crimes ... why single out "sexual assault" (especially so, since just about anything nowadays may be called "sexual assault" which does not even have to do with "assault" in its normal sense) ?
It was a Red Herring argument. Testimony is the same weight and value in ANY crime in the criminal justice system.
-
@GaoLu said:
You are telling me what I mean in contradiction to what I said I mean.You know, I recall you doing that sort of things on the Logos forums years ago. Didn't work so well there did it.
YOUR ORIGINAL POST: (emphasis added)
"Not all evidence is of equal value. People lie. They are mistaken. The fact that people take oaths in court implies that the "evidence" of accusations offered in court is unreliable."
MY SUBSTITUTION INTO THE BOLD-FACED PORTION OF YOUR ORIGINAL POST:
"The fact that people take oaths in court implies that the "evidence" of anyone's court testimony offered in court (since it's ALL under oath) is unreliable."
To my reading, your original post claimed that in court settings, oath-taking implies evidence unreliability, which logically leads to the conclusion that the unreliability of all court testimony is implied because it's all given under oath. If that's NOT what your words meant, please tell us what they DID mean.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Bill_Coley said:
OF COURSE a victim's statement is evidence.Sorry ... over here a victim's statement (claim, accusation) has to be supported by evidence. Otherwise, any one can make a statement and bring an accusation against anyone and this is regarded as evidence and the accused is guilty and can say whatever they want to say ???
No. A victim's testimony IS evidence. It may not be ENOUGH evidence. It may not result in the defendant's conviction. Its credibility may be damaged greatly by police investigation and/or under defense cross-examination. But the quality of evidence does NOT determine whether it's evidence.
The fact that you think the song you just heard on the radio is a terrible does not mean it wasn't a song! Similarly, whether any given evidence is found by law enforcement, prosecutors, or juries not to be valuable or credible does not mean it wasn't evidence.
And no, the existence of evidence - in the form of victim accusations, other witnesses, or crime scene evidence - does NOT mean the accused is guilty. In our system, people charged with crimes must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (in criminal proceedings).
Even sworn testimony is NOT evidence ... it is a testimony (I don't think I need to remind you that there have been plenty of cases of sworn false testimonies ? )
Whether testimony is true or false does NOT decide whether that testimony is evidence. Evidence can be believed or not, found credible or not, found relevant or not, found decisive or not - but it's STILL evidence.
You know, murders often tend not to be crimes witnessed by a lot of people, the same goes for many and even most other type of crimes ... why single out "sexual assault" (especially so, since just about anything nowadays may be called "sexual assault" which does not even have to do with "assault" in its normal sense) ?
How many rapes have you personally witnessed, Wolfgang? I haven't witnessed any. People who commit sexual assaults usually like to be alone with their victims precisely because the lack of corroborating witnesses increases their odds if accused, AND reduces the chances of being detained for law enforcement by any witnesses who intervene on the victims' behalf.
See above ... accusation = evidence =>guilty verdict ?? No wonder, quite a number of women in your country are now coming out with "statements" concerning alleged "assaults" by men .... interestingly, by far most of such "statements" seem to only be made if the male has had some career which promises a lot of money to be awarded for "emotional damages" of many moons ago ...
Again, accusations do NOT mean guilt. They mean someone is accusing someone else of assault. Guilt is decided, NOT by the claims of accusers, but by courts of law, should law enforcement and prosecutors decide the case merits charges.
Your observation "by far most of such 'statements'" has no basis in fact, to my knowledge. If you have links to empirical data, I'd welcome them.
Since I have your attention: Nearly two weeks ago, on September 30, in THIS POST I asked you two questions, questions I repeated in a post created later that same day. As of today, I don't believe you have addressed them, so I present one of them here, asking you to address it now:
In response to your description of women who approached Sen Jeff Flake as he entered an elevator as "hysterical," I asked: The women who spoke to Senator Flake in the elevator told their painful personal stories of sexual assault in an angry, tearful manner. In his appearance before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Kavanaugh loudly, angrily, and tearfully asserted his innocence, at a couple of points asking committee members about their alcohol consumption, and in one case, whether a senator had ever experienced memory loss due to her consumption of alcohol. In light of the nature of his presentation, and in the name of consistency, do you characterize Kavanaugh as having been a "hysterical man" during his testimony?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
You are telling me what I mean in contradiction to what I said I mean.You know, I recall you doing that sort of things on the Logos forums years ago. Didn't work so well there did it.
YOUR ORIGINAL POST: (emphasis added)
"Not all evidence is of equal value. People lie. They are mistaken. The fact that people take oaths in court implies that the "evidence" of accusations offered in court is unreliable."
MY SUBSTITUTION INTO THE BOLD-FACED PORTION OF YOUR ORIGINAL POST:
"The fact that people take oaths in court implies that the "evidence" of anyone's court testimony offered in court (since it's ALL under oath) is unreliable."
To my reading, your original post claimed that in court settings, oath-taking implies evidence unreliability, which logically leads to the conclusion that the unreliability of all court testimony is implied because it's all given under oath. If that's NOT what your words meant, please tell us what they DID mean.
Remember when I said this?
Advice: Never engage a Bad Faith Argument on the terms of the person making it.
I don't have any sense you ask such questions in Good Faith. I am not stupid and have high confidence that my meaning is abundantly clear.
If you are unable to grasp the meaning, I will not consider it my job to educate you further. If you are trying merely to twist things up (the Old Bill shining in full glory) then I am not interested in playing your game. I won't waste time forcing an untwist of your every twist. You can do the twist on your own dime, buddy.
Anyone can go check out your comments on the Logos forums dating back to 2010 or so and see that you have been at this a long time.
-
@GaoLu said:
Remember when I said this?
Advice: Never engage a Bad Faith Argument on the terms of the person making it.
I don't have any sense you ask such questions in Good Faith. I am not stupid and have high confidence that my meaning is abundantly clear.
If you are unable to grasp the meaning, I will not consider it my job to educate you further. If you are trying merely to twist things up (the Old Bill shining in full glory) then I am not interested in playing your game. I won't waste time forcing an untwist of your every twist. You can do the twist on your own dime, buddy.
Anyone can go check out your comments on the Logos forums dating back to 2010 or so and see that you have been at this a long time.
OR, you could have used your post to tell me what you meant by your previous post, which could have resolved the entire matter.
The fact that you chose not to clarify the issue, but instead to criticize me, is not surprising. But it's also suggestive that I was in fact correct to draw the conclusion I did from your previous post: The logic of your post was you believe the fact that all court testimony is given under oath "implies" that all such testimony is "unreliable." You may well not actually believe that to be true! But that WAS the logic of your post.
-
Bill, remember how people responded to you on the main Logos forums? Anyone now can go there and read your posts. You did not do well there. Remember at the old CD? The Twister theme associated with Bill got so overused, that it became trite and less used when we migrated to the new CD. Remember how many times you got tagged (rightly so) with a number of Mister Twister descriptors--Tornado Man or whatever? There is rock-solid reason.
You do not come across as authentic or honest. I for one have no interest in addressing your Bad Faith Arguments, engaging with disproving (using your only source of proof: internet links) your apparently intentional twisted logic.
I wouldn't respond at all except I hope there is value in periodically enticing you up front and center so you will reveal your true character in the light, so others can take your arguments for what they are worth.
Maybe that happens with more regularity than needed.
-
Wow, I just looked up some things from Bill in the Logos forums...yeah they didn't take too kindly to your positions....
I also noticed a pattern between there and here. You @Bill_Coley OFTEN twist things people say, read into them, etc, and use that to incite anger/frustration/etc. It's like you get off on arguments for the sake of arguments and cause division with a self-righteous attitude.
I also noticed there you harped on guidelines, just like you do here, while simultaneously breaking those guidelines. Those posts went back as far as 2010 so I see your character has not changed a bit in almost a decade.
-
@GaoLu said:
Bill, remember how people responded to you on the main Logos forums? Anyone now can go there and read your posts. You did not do well there. Remember at the old CD? The Twister theme associated with Bill got so overused, that it became trite and less used when we migrated to the new CD. Remember how many times you got tagged (rightly so) with a number of Mister Twister descriptors--Tornado Man or whatever? There is rock-solid reason.@reformed said:
Wow, I just looked up some things from Bill in the Logos forums...yeah they didn't take too kindly to your positions....I also noticed a pattern between there and here. You @Bill_Coley OFTEN twist things people say, read into them, etc, and use that to incite anger/frustration/etc. It's like you get off on arguments for the sake of arguments and cause division with a self-righteous attitude.
As either of you decides to post about issues rather than me, I'll welcome the chance to join you in the discussions.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
Bill, remember how people responded to you on the main Logos forums? Anyone now can go there and read your posts. You did not do well there. Remember at the old CD? The Twister theme associated with Bill got so overused, that it became trite and less used when we migrated to the new CD. Remember how many times you got tagged (rightly so) with a number of Mister Twister descriptors--Tornado Man or whatever? There is rock-solid reason.@reformed said:
Wow, I just looked up some things from Bill in the Logos forums...yeah they didn't take too kindly to your positions....I also noticed a pattern between there and here. You @Bill_Coley OFTEN twist things people say, read into them, etc, and use that to incite anger/frustration/etc. It's like you get off on arguments for the sake of arguments and cause division with a self-righteous attitude.
As either of you decides to post about issues rather than me, I'll welcome the chance to join you in the discussions.
Ok @Bill_Coley how about you tackle the issue of Justice Ginsberg and her judicial temperament which no liberal seems to want to touch?
-
@reformed said:
Ok @Bill_Coley how about you tackle the issue of Justice Ginsberg and her judicial temperament which no liberal seems to want to touch?Welcome back to discussions of issues rather than me, reformed.
To my understanding, Justice Ginsburg gave three interviews in the period of July 7-11, 2016:
- July 7, to the AP, in which she said, among other things, she didn't want to think about the possibility of a Trump presidency.
- July 8, to The New York Times, in which she said, among other things, that when she thought of a potential Trump presidency, she thought of a saying of her late husband's: It's time to move to New Zealand.
- July 11, to CNN, in which she claimed, among other things, that Trump had an ego, and would say whatever came into his mind at the moment.
There's no doubt that Justice Ginsburg expressed partisan political views in those three interviews, views the likes of which we all know ALL Supreme Court justices have - some in support of the Trump presidency, others against it. While none of us expects Supreme Court justices not to have partisan political views, it was clearly inappropriate for Justice Ginsburg to declare hers in those interviews.
If the story of the Ginsburg "judicial temperament" display stopped there, her expression of partisanship, while clearly less angry and more mild-mannered than Kavanaugh's, could fairly be equated to his. But there was more to the Ginsburg display.
On July 14, 2016, multiple media outlets reported the justice's apology - not for having partisan political views, but having expressed them.
"On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” Ginsburg said in a statement. "Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect."
That means if Kavanaugh's judicial temperament as expressed in his partisan political views declared to the Senate Judiciary Committee is to remain approximately comparable to Justice Ginsburg's, then we need to see his public apology, his recognition that he in fact publicly declared his partisan political views, and that such a declaration was inappropriate. Where is that apology?
In his Wall Street Journal Op-Ed? I don't see it there. He admitted to having possibly been "too emotional" at times, and having "said a few things (he) should not have said," but nowhere in the article does he acknowledge that among the "things (he) should not have said" were his partisan political views.
So I think both Justice Ginsburg and then-judge Kavanaugh inappropriately expressed their partisan political views. I think Ginsburg's expression was more controlled and decent than Kavanaugh's, but it was inappropriate nonetheless. Where their two expressions differ, in my view, is that Ginsburg specifically identified her mistake - she admitted to a partisan political expression - whereas Kavanaugh copped only to a cover-all-bases "some things I should not have said" confession. In view of that difference, I contend, AT BEST Kavanaugh's "apology" was in no way better than Ginsburg's, and much more likely than not did not measure up to hers.
NOW it's your turn. Remember, reformed, we're talking about issues here, not about me.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)