Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:28 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 301 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 21  Next
Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump 
Author Message
Years of membership
Asleep in Reading Chair


Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 194
Location: Texas
Thanks: 7
Thanked: 67 times in 55 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump
Finally we get some movement against the criminals responsible for the bureaucratic coup against Trump.

Trump orders feds to declassify key FISA documents, text messages in FBI Russia probe

President Trump on Monday ordered the declassification of several key documents related to the FBI investigation of Russian actions during the 2016 presidential election, including 21 pages of an application for a renewed surveillance warrant against former campaign aide Carter Page, and text messages from disgraced FBI figures Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Trump had ordered the documents released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Justice Department "[a]t the request of a number of committees of Congress, and for reasons of transparency."

The documents to be declassified also include all FBI reports on interviews with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr and all FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with all other applications to surveil Carter Page.

Trump also ordered the Justice Department to release text messages from a number of the key players in the Russia investigation "without redaction" -- including Ohr, Strzok, Lisa Page, former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe....

foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/17/trump-o ... probe.html

When this information is finally made available to congress, we should see several indictments and charges of treason. Obama OK'd planting FBI agents in the Trump campaign. The FBI then tried to entrap workers into doing various illegal things. And the warrants used to do this were obtained based on the fake Steele dossier, which Hillary Clinton paid for and John McCain jetted from London to Washington DC. The primary actors knew that the dossier was fake and therefore the warrants stemming from it were illegal.

Image

A five-minute video that explains the difference between Liberals and Leftists:

Left or Liberal?
https://www.prageru.com/videos/left-or-liberal


_________________


Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:20 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6127
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1704
Thanked: 1852 times in 1412 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump
You think the documents will prove Trump's accusations? The first time the FISA permits were released, they showed that the FBI had reason to suspect Carter Page was acting as a foreign agent, independent of the Steele dossier. They also showed that the court was told that the Steele dossier came from a biased source--no attempt to conceal that fact. Trump will surely claim the less redacted FISA papers and other documents show he's right about the witch hunt, but let's just see what less biased observers say. Why is Trump's action, declassifying documents that have a direct bearing on himself, not a clear abuse of power?

Let's say we don't see indictments and charges of treason resulting from the document release. Will you be admitting that you were wrong?

The video has some merit. I'm not sure why you posted it, since whether we call them liberals or leftists, you seem to hate both. John McCain fits Prager's definition of liberal pretty well. Does someone like Prager also knock Trump for repudiating the basis of the liberal world order--free trade, a free press, favoring democracy worldwide?



Last edited by DWill on Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:40 am, edited 1 time in total.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
Harry Marks
Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:20 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7018
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1057
Thanked: 2043 times in 1641 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump
geo wrote:
This is a good point. It could be that Trump has a relatively high IQ, but is brought down by a low emotional intelligence.


He suggested Spain build a wall across the Sahara. One of thousands of examples that preclude the need for an IQ test.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:40 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Conversationalist

Book Discussion Leader

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1167
Thanks: 1156
Thanked: 553 times in 455 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump
DWill wrote:
Why is Trump's action, declassifying documents that have a direct bearing on himself, not a clear abuse of power?
If our Dear Leader had the least understanding of transparency, or the least interest in credibility, he would have set up an impartial judicial panel to review which of the material could be declassified without significant harm to counter-intelligence capabilities. But we already know that he judges absolutely everything according to whether it promotes him or opposes him. Some people consider that a good thing.

DWill wrote:
Let's say we don't see indictments and charges of treason resulting from the document release. Will you be admitting that you were wrong?
Speaking of things we already know.



Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:24 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Conversationalist

Book Discussion Leader

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1167
Thanks: 1156
Thanked: 553 times in 455 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump
I've been following the discussion of Dear Leader's intelligence with some interest. I tend to think Ant has the right insight - his Emotional Intelligence is seriously deficient, which causes him not to pay attention to anything he cannot convert into monetary gain.

I do think he has some raw intelligence (i.e. IQ above average). Most of his real screw-ups strike me as due to processing the tribalist symbolism of the matter without regard to the substance, but that is his view of how the world should be interacted with. He thinks Joe Arpaio's human rights abuses are appropriate, because they are against criminals. He thinks separating refugee children from their parents is a feature, not a bug, because it will deter immigration.

On the other hand, if he had better ability to process abstraction and build a mental model of the world, he would have a clue as to why cooperation and human rights are valuable to the U.S., and raw ability to dominate other countries is more likely to be self-defeating than to defend us. His worldview, to borrow Ralph Lewis' phrase in "Finding Purpose in a Godless World", is driven by a Thrifty Brain, which is so driven by his need to accumulate status markers that he has no thought capacity left over for how the world works in general, or for the interests and desires of others.



Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:39 am
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6127
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1704
Thanked: 1852 times in 1412 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump
Robert Tulip wrote:
Really? My impression is that Trump voters hate the Democrats with passion, while they see the Republican Party as having potential to wage culture war on their behalf if its moderate leadership can be corralled by an extremist.

Trump voters certainly hated Hillary Clinton with a passion. My view is that they hated seeing their country overrun by immigrants and their manufacturing jobs disappearing, so naturally they were against the party in power for eight years. They believed Trump when he said he shared their resentments and could fix these problems. The culture war aspect comes in mostly from the evangelicals, I think, and then only on a couple of issues, certainly not on some family values basis. The key thing to recognize is that the Republican party of 2015 wasn't the party that Trump's partisans wanted. They succeeded in making a different Republican party, while the "respectable" party members watched, dumbfounded. The result of all of Steve Bannon's strategy is that now we have a party in which budget deficits don't matter, the free press is vilified, trade protectionism is in, racial animosity is high, and "To Russia With Love" is the movie du jour. These were not hallmarks of either major party, pre-2015. The old GOP accepted those changes because they got to keep their favoritism of the rich and their extreme distaste for benefits for the less well-off.
Quote:
Trump could not have won with any affiliation other than Republican. Conservatives were willing to forgive Trump’s past flirtation with the Democrats as a piece of youthful exuberance, recognising that only the Republicans could be acquired to mobilise a red state majority grounded in their perceived real America.

I would say they didn't care that Trump had changed affiliations five times because they saw both parties, as constituted, as irrelevant.
Quote:
No other Republicans could stand for President without the nomination. My point here was that anyone other than Trump would have ended up with a lacklustre Republican campaign, without the balls to say build the wall or put her in jail. I recall the look of astonishment in Clinton’s eyes in that first debate when Trump showed he had torn up the rule book of politeness and respect. Clinton would definitely have beaten anyone other than Trump.

I don't agree that Clinton would have beaten any other Republican, Robert. Sure, none of the others with the possible exception of Cruz would have spouted fire and brimstone, but none of them had an Access Hollywood tape and a penchant for gratuitous insult, either. The disaffected voters would have been less pleased with the others, but with the alternative being Clinton...they would have settled. A moderate Republican would have been able to draw votes from people who didn't like Clinton but couldn't see a guy like Trump in the WH. Another Republican would also have benefited from the wind at Trump's back. The wind was produced by the typical urge for change after eight years of one party's rule and the worldwide nativist/nationalist phenomenon. Even though Bush, Rubio, and most of the rest were not strongly nativist or nationalistic, they were more so than the Democrats, and they probably would have moved more rightward after being nominated.
Robert Tulip wrote:
DWill wrote:
I remember hearing that Democrats were joyful at the prospect of Trump winning the nomination, as it meant easy victory for Clinton. They would have been more anxious about Rubio, Bush, Kasich, and even Cruz.
Ha ha more fool them. Trump completely wrong-footed the Democrat strategists. They regarded him and his voters with contempt while ignoring the Electoral College voting numbers from Wisconsin.
Yes, the Democrats thought they had an easier path than really existed, because of Trump's negatives (as they viewed them). Would they have felt the need to campaign harder in marginally Democratic states with a different candidate running against them? I don't know, and I don't know if it would have made a difference, anyway. I'm thinking, no.
Robert Tulip wrote:
DWill wrote:
Were social values crucial in the election? Trump himself is not an exemplar of traditional values, and in the past he has even espoused liberal views on abortion and homosexuality.
Clinton made social values central by saying she deplored conservatives, indicating her acceptance of the sneering big city liberalism that sees traditional families as losers rather than social bedrock. My own view is that abortion should be legal, but that the emotional assertion that abortion is not a moral issue and is only a private matter for the mother deserves more debate.
Ok, to be accurate, Clinton said that half of Trump's supporters were deplorable. Is that remark what you're referring to? From that, you can't derive disparagement of traditional families. On the contrary, much of Clinton's rhetoric concerned preserving families and protecting children. It was her thing.
Quote:
Similarly with homosexuality, there is an unstated subtext in gay marriage advocacy that bringing children into the world is immoral so barren relationships are morally superior to traditional families.
Is there really such a subtext? What I see more often is advocacy for gay couples to be able to adopt, which would seem not to indicate a judgment against childbearing.
Robert Tulip wrote:
DWill wrote:
He did very wisely calculate that by promising to nominate conservative SC judges (i.e., ones who would weaken abortion rights and support "religious liberty"), he would get the evangelical block, without which he would have lost decisively.
You make that sound like a tangent, when in fact it is widely recognised as the core issue. Kavanaugh’s alleged fumbling teenage party antics just show the extreme desperation the Democrats are bringing to stopping this nomination.
My point was that Trump's courting of evangelicals might be seen as his main attempt to score political points in the social values realm. Trump does have enduring political values, but right-to-life and maintaining privilege for Christians aren't among them. That's not a knock on him, really. He is a politician, ready to exploit the moment. About Kavanaugh, we shouldn't dismiss the charges so cavalierly. I read an article from Fox News that maintains that if he's lying about nothing at all happening, he should not be confirmed. That seems the right view to me.
DWill wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:
He also brought in "the war on Christmas," but I believe that even his base was not too incensed about that one.
The secular commercial mentality that sees Christmas as only about presents and parties rather than family relationships is a key target for evangelical morality.
His "war on Christmas" alleged a war against the word "Christmas." He objected to "Happy Holidays" and similar salutations devoid of religion. It was a rather lame attack that I don't think he got much mileage from.
Quote:
Yes, it is about the feeling that traditional American culture with roots in local community has been displaced by a globalised cosmopolitan elite. That is much the same culture clash that gave rise to Hitler.

So do we have only Trump's low popularity numbers to thank for such a development still appearing distant?



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
Harry Marks, Robert Tulip
Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:29 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Conversationalist

Book Discussion Leader

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1167
Thanks: 1156
Thanked: 553 times in 455 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump
Robert Tulip wrote:
DWill wrote:
It wasn't primarily party people who brought the energy to Trump's primary campaign. That large group of disaffected voters wasn't much more enamored of the Republican party than of the Democratic.
Really? My impression is that Trump voters hate the Democrats with passion, while they see the Republican Party as having potential to wage culture war on their behalf if its moderate leadership can be corralled by an extremist.
Yes, really, but this is not so easy to sort out as that makes it sound. There are fewer and fewer "party people" in either party. There are many Republicans in the South and Midwest (and some in other areas) who just view liberalism as irredeemable social nihilism and foolish faith in government. But many of those understood opposition to Big Business, Monopoly power and exploitation of the little guy. The more carefully you define a set of views, the more you have chopped up the electorate into smaller and smaller chunks.

The really odd finding was that Bernie Sanders polled better against Trump than Clinton did. Right from the beginning of the campaign. We may only be talking about 3 percent of the electorate shifting away from Trump when Sanders was the alternative, but I think those are the core of the disaffected non-Party people that DWill was referring to. People who would prefer anybody who got out of the establishment orthodoxy of globalism (and, probably, of political correctness).

Robert Tulip wrote:
Trump could not have won with any affiliation other than Republican. Conservatives were willing to forgive Trump’s past flirtation with the Democrats as a piece of youthful exuberance, recognising that only the Republicans could be acquired to mobilise a red state majority grounded in their perceived real America.
Well, it's pretty clearly true that he could only win as a Republican. Your way of explaining that is charitable (especially the "youthful" part - he was still pro-choice 6 or 8 years ago, some would say 2 years ago.) Another way to think about it is Trump's willingness to cut any deal to get his name on something. Still another is his infamous remark to shock jock Howard Stern more than 15 years ago that if he ran for president he would run as a Republican because Republican voters were much more easily fooled.

Robert Tulip wrote:
My point here was that anyone other than Trump would have ended up with a lacklustre Republican campaign, without the balls to say build the wall or put her in jail. I recall the look of astonishment in Clinton’s eyes in that first debate when Trump showed he had torn up the rule book of politeness and respect. Clinton would definitely have beaten anyone other than Trump.
I'm pretty sure Kasich would have beaten her, if only because Ohio is the quintessential swing state and he is popular there. He was certainly not as entertaining and would not have turned out as much of the base, but it is quite possible he would have taken Pennsylvania and Florida as well, though maybe not Michigan and Wisconsin. There is no doubt that Trump turned off some voters, but the women who were nauseated by the "grab 'em" quote may have been counterbalanced by men animated by an aggressive approach to MAGA and to flouting political correctness.
DWill wrote:
Were social values crucial in the election? Trump himself is not an exemplar of traditional values, and in the past he has even espoused liberal views on abortion and homosexuality.

Robert Tulip wrote:
Clinton made social values central by saying she deplored conservatives, indicating her acceptance of the sneering big city liberalism that sees traditional families as losers rather than social bedrock.
The foolish "deplorables" remark was actually aimed at people who, e.g. agreed that Obama was a Muslim, or that Obama was not born in the U.S. People willing to believe any lie, in other words, rather than to accept a black (or, occasionally, a liberal) President. If you don't understand that that perspective was animating the Trump campaign for the nomination, you weren't paying attention. If I was a Republican from a small town in Alabama or West Virginia I probably would have taken umbrage at her remark, but would not have seen it as making "social values" (not even guns and abortion) central. It did, however, tap into the simmering resentment over requiring people to buy high-cost medical insurance and undermining the status of white people as the majority, not to mention over liberal arrogance on social issues, so maybe that is essentially the same thing.

Robert Tulip wrote:
Similarly with homosexuality, there is an unstated subtext in gay marriage advocacy that bringing children into the world is immoral so barren relationships are morally superior to traditional families.
Robert, I think you are having to deal with too many aging Hobart hippies. I never, ever hear Americans suggest that barren relationships or gays are "morally superior" due to fewer children or any other reason. Well, okay, you think the subtext is "unstated" but really, I think it is in your imagination. I have heard some sneering about anyone with more than four kids, and even the occasional accusation that it is abusive to the environment, but really, children are generally celebrated in the U.S. and people who think otherwise usually don't mention it.
Robert Tulip wrote:
Kavanaugh’s alleged fumbling teenage party antics just show the extreme desperation the Democrats are bringing to stopping this nomination.
"Antics"? Did you really say that? Is that how you would characterize it if your daughter was attacked, with a hand over the mouth that made her think she might suffocate, an attempt to take her clothes off, and sexual contact that was more than suggestive? Antics? So the stuff they say about Aussies keeping the Sheilas in line is true? If his equally drunken friend had not broken it up, Brett "Clarence" Kavanaugh might have killed a minor. Obviously we would not be talking about his nomination for the Supreme Court in that case.



Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:39 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Conversationalist

Book Discussion Leader

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1167
Thanks: 1156
Thanked: 553 times in 455 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump
DWill wrote:
I read an article from Fox News that maintains that if he's lying about nothing at all happening, he should not be confirmed. That seems the right view to me.

I totally agree, and would feel just as strongly if he was Merrick Garland or another liberal. We have our representative of Neanderthal Patriarchy on the Court already, and that is enough liars. Honestly, when you think about Kavanaugh's public "What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep" comments
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... 355117002/
you have to ask yourself what that does to his ability to think objectively about law enforcement. I would think it would strongly push a person toward "privilege is nine-tenths of the law."



Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:57 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5655
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2142
Thanked: 2077 times in 1573 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump
Harry Marks wrote:
Kavanaugh might have killed a minor. Obviously we would not be talking about his nomination for the Supreme Court in that case.


Yes, now that we are looking at Charles Manson taking his seat among the Supremes, it sure looks like this lady is helping the US to dodge a bullet. :shock: :? :roll:

The sole agenda here for the Democrats is to delay the nomination until after the mid term election as part of their campaign to deny the legitimacy of the Trump Presidency. A single allegation of drunken teenage groping, which is so long ago and so covered with political bile that we should ask about recovered memory syndrome, is not an excuse to delay the nomination.

Sure the lady was terrified by some incident, but the possibilities include that she conflated, exaggerated and manipulated the memory. It is a very dangerous path in terms of rule of law to use empathy as grounds to say she is obviously telling the truth. Accepting her claims on face value sets a bad precedent for the use of politically motivated lies.

Comments from Mark Judge backing Kavanaugh show that any Republican who uses this Me Too trawl to side with the Dems will face quite a backlash.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:22 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Conversationalist

Book Discussion Leader

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1167
Thanks: 1156
Thanked: 553 times in 455 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump
Robert Tulip wrote:
The sole agenda here for the Democrats is to delay the nomination until after the mid term election as part of their campaign to deny the legitimacy of the Trump Presidency.

I think I'm getting the picture. Turning down a Supreme Court nominee is a way to "deny the legitimacy" of a Presidency. That explains a lot - about 2016.

Robert Tulip wrote:
Accepting her claims on face value sets a bad precedent for the use of politically motivated lies.
Considering the resources that none other than Brett Kavanaugh felt needed to be spent to look into Vince Foster's suicide (1996), I would say that horse has left the barn. The precedent sitting on the Supreme Court had his evil ways confirmed by additional women coming forward
https://www.bustle.com/articles/154816- ... tices-only
but back there in the stone ages, these were not taken seriously. Remember it's a lie to assert that the accuser is lying, too, if she is not. "Politically motivated lies" of that type have a long and successful history.



Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:32 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7018
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1057
Thanked: 2043 times in 1641 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump
Harry wrote:
but back there in the stone ages, these were not taken seriously. Remember it's a lie to assert that the accuser is lying, too, if she is not. "Politically motivated lies" of that type have a long and successful history.


The idea of a politically motivated lie gets more attention than the idea that it might not be a lie. It's as if people think the default is that it's a lie, because there is potential political motive.

But what if it's not a lie?

Shouldn't we hold the people who are given this sort of extreme authority to the highest of standards? Of all the kids partying at Georgetown prep in the 80's, the ones we want are the Neil Gorsuch type(even though I disagree with his views), that eschewed partying in favor of decency and studiousness.

Accusations don't happen in a vacuum. There are facts and circumstances surrounding them, and those matter. The accuser in this case is a college professor whose story lines up with events of the time the event supposedly happened. This isn't a junkie on youtube looking for views. Regardless of party lines, I trust a female professor over an old(53?) white male lawyer any day of the week.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post:
Harry Marks
Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:27 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5655
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2142
Thanked: 2077 times in 1573 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump
Interbane wrote:
what if it's not a lie?
Then we have a problem of interpretation. This story looks like a pair of elite teenagers with no sexual experience, on what was possibly the first sexual encounter for both of them, with the boy expecting the girl to react positively like in a dormitory rumble, and as soon as he encountered resistance he let her go. Her understandable emotional reaction of fear has allowed the incident to grow and fester in her mind, finally now becoming her possible ticket to global political fame, money and influence.

It was definitely Ford, but as to whether it was definitely Kavanaugh there is no way any objective observer would find her motivated political reasoning to be persuasive. Blind hatred of Trump, and of Kavanaugh's previous right wing politics, could easily distort her memory, mixing up some encounter with him with others.

Equating this party fumble with attempted rape or murder is the most absurd political hyperbole you could imagine, and is purely an effort to express Trump Derangement Syndrome, a way to get back at the wewuzrobbed election.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:16 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7018
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1057
Thanked: 2043 times in 1641 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump
Quote:
Then we have a problem of interpretation.


You artfully dodge the intent of my question.

What if it was attempted rape, and Kavanaugh was acting maliciously? Your dodge makes it seem as if this isn't an acceptable answer to you. As if her story MUST be either a lie or a misinterpretation. It seems to me that denial of her telling the truth is more politically motivated than the alternative. A case of projection.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:22 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Conversationalist

Book Discussion Leader

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1167
Thanks: 1156
Thanked: 553 times in 455 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump
Robert Tulip wrote:
This story looks like a pair of elite teenagers with no sexual experience, on what was possibly the first sexual encounter for both of them, with the boy expecting the girl to react positively like in a dormitory rumble, and as soon as he encountered resistance he let her go. Her understandable emotional reaction of fear has allowed the incident to grow and fester in her mind, finally now becoming her possible ticket to global political fame, money and influence.
Sorry, but that creativity is not at all a good fit with what we know. She went from gregarious and social to reserved and solitary in a matter of days - other people noted it at the time. Her memory of the incident is quite good. She shared it with a therapist years back. She wasn't just put off or a little afraid, she was traumatized. It interfered with her schoolwork in the near term, and for years afterward with her relationships with men.

[Edit to add:] And excuse me, but whoever heard of having your first sexual encounter with another guy in the room watching? That's what the tie on the door is for. Sorry, that dodo doesn't fly.

Robert Tulip wrote:
It was definitely Ford, but as to whether it was definitely Kavanaugh there is no way any objective observer would find her motivated political reasoning to be persuasive. Blind hatred of Trump, and of Kavanaugh's previous right wing politics, could easily distort her memory, mixing up some encounter with him with others.
This "it's all politics" may sound plausible to the victim mentality of the right wing, but "no way any objective observer" would be persuaded is, to put it mildly, not objective. The broad middle of the American political spectrum is quickly getting exasperated with the willed blindness of the right wing, and the incessant claims that normal behavior they don't like is "just politically motivated." Dear Leader has been playing that tune through one lie after another, until finally even folks who resent liberal moralism are finding it impossible to make allowances.

The worst paranoid liar America has ever seen has worn out his welcome like the second worst did, referring to Joe McCarthy, and it won't be long til anyone who sticks by the Dear Leader looks like they are wearing their Devin Nunes mask, and has no more credibility than the swamp monster they are trying to defend. Oh, sure, he'll keep 38 to 42 percent approval from people who know which side their bread is buttered on, but that's not the same as having credibility when they defend him.

Robert Tulip wrote:
Equating this party fumble with attempted rape or murder is the most absurd political hyperbole you could imagine, and is purely an effort to express Trump Derangement Syndrome, a way to get back at the wewuzrobbed election.
Still sticking with your "antics" version, I see. I suggest you discuss it with female members of your household. Of course it wasn't attempted murder. But the standard for a Supreme Court nominee is not "he didn't actually rape her."



Fri Sep 21, 2018 5:43 pm
Profile Email
Years of membership
Asleep in Reading Chair


Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 194
Location: Texas
Thanks: 7
Thanked: 67 times in 55 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump
The New York Times is trash. An utter waste of pulp. A couple of weeks ago it ran an "anonymous" piece as a lead item, a piece that described how "crazy" Donald Trump is. The Left is now pinning its hopes on the "incapacitation" clause of the constitution, hoping to remove Trump because he's not a levelheaded crack smokin' Marxist like Obama.

Anyway, bad as it is, the NYTimes makes me smile from time to time. Today:

Rod Rosenstein Suggested Secretly Recording Trump and Discussed 25th Amendment

WASHINGTON — The deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, suggested last year that he secretly record President Trump in the White House to expose the chaos consuming the administration, and he discussed recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from office for being unfit....

...Mr. Rosenstein made the remarks about secretly recording Mr. Trump and about the 25th Amendment in meetings and conversations with other Justice Department and F.B.I. officials. Several people described the episodes in interviews over the past several months, insisting on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The people were briefed either on the events themselves or on memos written by F.B.I. officials, including Andrew G. McCabe, then the acting bureau director, that documented Mr. Rosenstein’s actions and comments....

nytimes.com/2018/09/21/us/politics/rod- ... dment.html

This is grounds for immediate termination. If Rosenstein's boss, Jeff Sessions, doesn't fire him tonight, then Trump will probably do it tomorrow. Or, hopefully. Rosenstein is one of the larger tumors in our body politic, and he needs to go. So does Sessions, but that can wait. It is so, so good to see the swamp rats beginning to chew on one another.

Meanwhile, Democrats are posing as outraged over the Supreme Court nominee. They won't lift a lip against rapist-in-chief Bill Clinton, yet they thrash about like...well like Obama dosed with nose candy...over Brett Kavanaugh. Senator Ted Cruz made some very good points at the beginning of the Kavanaugh hearings. He reminded people that rarely have Americans approved of a president's Supreme Court appointments in the way that we've approved of Trump's. There was a vacancy on the court going into the presidential election. So everybody knew that, immediately, the new president would have to appoint one judge. And given the ages of the others, he would probably have to appoint a couple more. So voters were keenly aware of what was at stake with judicial appointments, and we voted to appoint conservative judges. Cruz's remarks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_6c2101sGE

This Rosenstein thing is very, very good. He's consistently worked to thwart Trump and the will of the American people. There's no way he can survive this. He attempted to lead a coup against the President of the United States.

You'd Better Put Some Ice On That: How I Survived Being Raped by Bill Clinton by Juanita Broaddrick
amazon.com/Youd-Better-Put-Some-That/dp ... 1981229760


_________________


Last edited by KindaSkolarly on Sat Sep 22, 2018 7:02 am, edited 1 time in total.



Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:32 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 301 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 21  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Announcements 

• Promote Your Fiction Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:33 pm

• Promote Your Non-Fiction Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:18 pm



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2018. All rights reserved.


seo for beginners