|
On October 04 2018 11:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2018 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2018 02:33 xDaunt wrote:
Trump's rally last night is a good example of what the GOP should be doing versus what it has done historically. During the rally, he pointed out all of the inconsistencies in Ford's testimony at the hearing. Now he's being criticized by moderates and Democrats for "mocking" Ford. That criticism is utterly insane. Since when is it out of bounds to point out the inconsistencies and other holes in an accusation? Everyone who is against Trump to this extent on the Kavanaugh issue has clearly lost their marbles. They better get their shit straight fast, because, if the recent "tightening" of the polls is any indication, voters are getting ready to punish them. I think pretty much everyone thinks Ford experienced a sexual assault (lots of women have), so it is messed up, even if she somehow her being 100% sure it was Kavanaugh is wrong, for Trump to target her like that. Punching down to a citizen is pathetic for a president. It's gross really. I understand the "what about our boys" argument, but the fact of the matter is a LOT more women are attacked/abused and their attackers go without being held accountable, whereas false accusations are far more rare. These types of arguments "what about the boys" are completely devoid of recognition of the context. The justice system was set up by slave owning rapists, so that colors the "justice" it deals out. Ironically the thing that stuck out to me about the whole Kavadrama was that he's going to be a SC justice when other kids had their lives ruined just for doing the same things he proudly admits as a kid. Horseshit. Since when is telling the truth a bad thing? Since when should the truth be ignored for political expediency or “feelings?” The truth is that Ford’s story has huge internal credibility problems. The truth is that is there is no reason to even believe that Ford was sexually assaulted by anyone — much less by Kavanaugh — other than her own mentally ill presentation. The truth is that there is good reason to believe that Ford perjured herself on multiple points during the hearing on Friday (polygraphs, the second door, and fear of flying). All of that should be accounted for and openly discussed.
why do you thinks she perjured herself? i am not familiar w problems regarding any of the issues you list. yeah she probably doesnt have a phobia of flying but her saying she doesnt like flying is similar to kavanaugh saying he likes beer. both lack candor but dont seem to amount to perjury
|
On October 04 2018 21:00 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2018 11:45 xDaunt wrote:On October 04 2018 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2018 02:33 xDaunt wrote:
Trump's rally last night is a good example of what the GOP should be doing versus what it has done historically. During the rally, he pointed out all of the inconsistencies in Ford's testimony at the hearing. Now he's being criticized by moderates and Democrats for "mocking" Ford. That criticism is utterly insane. Since when is it out of bounds to point out the inconsistencies and other holes in an accusation? Everyone who is against Trump to this extent on the Kavanaugh issue has clearly lost their marbles. They better get their shit straight fast, because, if the recent "tightening" of the polls is any indication, voters are getting ready to punish them. I think pretty much everyone thinks Ford experienced a sexual assault (lots of women have), so it is messed up, even if she somehow her being 100% sure it was Kavanaugh is wrong, for Trump to target her like that. Punching down to a citizen is pathetic for a president. It's gross really. I understand the "what about our boys" argument, but the fact of the matter is a LOT more women are attacked/abused and their attackers go without being held accountable, whereas false accusations are far more rare. These types of arguments "what about the boys" are completely devoid of recognition of the context. The justice system was set up by slave owning rapists, so that colors the "justice" it deals out. Ironically the thing that stuck out to me about the whole Kavadrama was that he's going to be a SC justice when other kids had their lives ruined just for doing the same things he proudly admits as a kid. Horseshit. Since when is telling the truth a bad thing? Since when should the truth be ignored for political expediency or “feelings?” The truth is that Ford’s story has huge internal credibility problems. The truth is that is there is no reason to even believe that Ford was sexually assaulted by anyone — much less by Kavanaugh — other than her own mentally ill presentation. The truth is that there is good reason to believe that Ford perjured herself on multiple points during the hearing on Friday (polygraphs, the second door, and fear of flying). All of that should be accounted for and openly discussed. why do you thinks she perjured herself? i am not familiar w problems regarding any of the issues you list. yeah she probably doesnt have a phobia of flying but her saying she doesnt like flying is similar to kavanaugh saying he likes beer. both lack candor but dont seem to amount to perjury
The fear of flying is the weakest one, but her ex-boyfriend expressly refuted it. The loophole, of course, is that this may be of more recent onset -- not that it jives with her travel to Hawaii and other places.
She testified -- when expressly asked -- that the second door in her home was a direct result of the emotional trauma/feeling unsafe from the Kavanaugh incident. Independent investigators have found that she, in fact, installed the door in 2007-2008 to sublease space in her home.
The polygraph one is really big. She was asked multiple questions by Mitchell about whether she had ever coached anyone on how to take a polygraph test. She answered "never." The ex-boyfriend says he witnessed her coach someone on how to take one. The answer also seems inconsistent with Ford's academic background, but I haven't looked at that one closely enough.
It is probable that Mitchell knew all of this information before the hearing on Friday and asked the questions with the express intent of giving Ford an opportunity to wreck her own credibility.
|
It looks like McConnell is sticking to cloture vote Friday, and final vote on the weekend or Monday. I pray his spine does not weaken in the next 72 hours, and that Flake, Collins, Murkowski, Donnely, and Manchin make the right choice when the vote comes. I've basically given up on Heitkamp. She can die on this hill and get her just desserts from the voters for all I care.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 04 2018 15:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2018 14:38 LegalLord wrote:On October 04 2018 13:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2018 11:45 xDaunt wrote:On October 04 2018 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2018 02:33 xDaunt wrote:
Trump's rally last night is a good example of what the GOP should be doing versus what it has done historically. During the rally, he pointed out all of the inconsistencies in Ford's testimony at the hearing. Now he's being criticized by moderates and Democrats for "mocking" Ford. That criticism is utterly insane. Since when is it out of bounds to point out the inconsistencies and other holes in an accusation? Everyone who is against Trump to this extent on the Kavanaugh issue has clearly lost their marbles. They better get their shit straight fast, because, if the recent "tightening" of the polls is any indication, voters are getting ready to punish them. I think pretty much everyone thinks Ford experienced a sexual assault (lots of women have), so it is messed up, even if she somehow her being 100% sure it was Kavanaugh is wrong, for Trump to target her like that. Punching down to a citizen is pathetic for a president. It's gross really. I understand the "what about our boys" argument, but the fact of the matter is a LOT more women are attacked/abused and their attackers go without being held accountable, whereas false accusations are far more rare. These types of arguments "what about the boys" are completely devoid of recognition of the context. The justice system was set up by slave owning rapists, so that colors the "justice" it deals out. Ironically the thing that stuck out to me about the whole Kavadrama was that he's going to be a SC justice when other kids had their lives ruined just for doing the same things he proudly admits as a kid. Horseshit. Since when is telling the truth a bad thing? Since when should the truth be ignored for political expediency or “feelings?” The truth is that Ford’s story has huge internal credibility problems. The truth is that is there is no reason to even believe that Ford was sexually assaulted by anyone — much less by Kavanaugh — other than her own mentally ill presentation. The truth is that there is good reason to believe that Ford perjured herself on multiple points during the hearing on Friday (polygraphs, the second door, and fear of flying). All of that should be accounted for and openly discussed. Are you unfamiliar with the term "punching down" or do you just reject the concept? I understand your perspective on Ford's culpability should she be intentionally misleading folks. Seems like this would be more of a Pence thing for several reasons anyway. Except Pence and Trump have switched traditional optics roles where Pence is the measured and cordial one with Trump being the attack dog. I don't buy into the civility argument enough to say whether that really matters much though. On the one hand, I can definitely understand why you see this as a problem - she's probably genuinely been sexually assaulted before, and it isn't proper to make light of that. On the other... this is clearly a pretty flimsy allegation directed towards Kavanaugh, played deliberately off of the court of public opinion rather than through any of the more impartial channels of justice, and clearly abusing the existence of an automatic sympathy for the alleged victim to gain political points without ever needing to provide proof. That abuse of sympathetic sentiment is a pretty disgusting thing when it is used, and in that light I can see merit in Dauntless' "all she earned was hundreds of image macros of her face on a green cartoon frog" approach to this. As something of a parallel case that I'm certain you have some personal thoughts on, I'd like to know what you thought of the "if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon" quip from Obama early in that Zimmerman investigation. Is that something you think was appropriate for the president to say, or was that "punching down" in the same sense of attacking a citizen for whom there was a perception, but not proof, of wrongdoing? That was empathy with his family more than anything else, which had Trump kept it at empathy for Kavanaugh I don't think it would be a big problem. The closer one would be the "Cambridge police acted stupidly" which while a statement of fact (imo), probably does qualify as punching down. Though in this case (or even the Zimmerman one) the person getting punched down on and their relative position in society matters as well. In the case of Trump specifically and punching down on a sexual assault victim for no one believing her (especially on whatever chance it did happen as she says) it's just tasteless and a little pathetic in my opinion. Just take the win and move on. EDIT: Here's the comments you're referencing: + Show Spoiler +Remember how Republicans reacted to those comments? Now here's Trump again, imagine Obama laying out his interpretation of Zimmerman killing Trayvon like that. "Oh he was scared so he went towards him and fought him? Then when this grown ass man lost a fight with a kid, he shot him? HmmmMMmmm?!?" + Show Spoiler +Hard time believing that anyone genuinely thinks Obama's comments were clearly much worse than Trump's, though xDaunt seems to have inadvertently made that argument.
The tone and method is undeniably less professional from Trump than Obama. The effect is similar: it shows where the president stands on the issue and gives credibility to the aggressive elements.
I’d be inclined towards saying both were poorly conceived commentaries than that both are justified. The Trump one is more fun to listen to, the Obama one is more professional. Both are things that people in high positions should be careful with saying.
|
On October 05 2018 00:46 Danglars wrote:
It looks like McConnell is sticking to cloture vote Friday, and final vote on the weekend or Monday. I pray his spine does not weaken in the next 72 hours, and that Flake, Collins, Murkowski, Donnely, and Manchin make the right choice when the vote comes. I've basically given up on Heitkamp. She can die on this hill and get her just desserts from the voters for all I care.
I think that the 51 republicans, plus Manchin and Heitkamp, will vote for Kavanaugh.
|
The curious thing is where the Never Trumpers land on this issue. It's a tough fight between their commitment to oppose Trump, and recognize that the Democrats will do this to any high court nominee if they think it can be successful.
For the first time since Donald Trump entered the political fray, I find myself grateful that he’s in it. I’m reluctant to admit it and astonished to say it, especially since the president mocked Christine Blasey Ford in his ugly and gratuitous way at a rally on Tuesday. Perhaps it’s worth unpacking this admission for those who might be equally astonished to read it.
I’m grateful because Trump has not backed down in the face of the slipperiness, hypocrisy and dangerous standard-setting deployed by opponents of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. I’m grateful because ferocious and even crass obstinacy has its uses in life, and never more so than in the face of sly moral bullying. I’m grateful because he’s a big fat hammer fending off a razor-sharp dagger.
A few moments have crystallized my view over the past few days.
The first moment was a remark by a friend. “I’d rather be accused of murder,” he said, “than of sexual assault.” I feel the same way. One can think of excuses for killing a man; none for assaulting a woman. But if that’s true, so is this: Falsely accusing a person of sexual assault is nearly as despicable as sexual assault itself. It inflicts psychic, familial, reputational and professional harms that can last a lifetime. This is nothing to sneer at.
The second moment, connected to the first: “Boo hoo hoo. Brett Kavanaugh is not a victim.” That’s the title of a column in the Los Angeles Times, which suggests that the possibility of Kavanaugh’s innocence is “infinitesimal.” Yet false allegations of rape, while relatively rare, are at least five times as common as false accusations of other types of crime, according to academic literature.
Since when did the possibility of innocence become, for today’s liberals, something to wave off with an archly unfeeling “boo hoo”?
A third moment, connected to the second: Listening to Cory Booker explain on Tuesday that “ultimately” it doesn’t matter if Kavanaugh is “guilty or innocent,” because “enough questions” had been raised that it was time to “move on to another candidate.”
This is a rhetorical sleight of hand in three acts: Elide the one question that really matters; raise a secondary set of “questions” that are wholly the result of the question you’ve decided to ignore; call for “another candidate” because it will push confirmation hearings past the midterms, which was the Democratic objective long before most anyone had ever heard of Blasey’s allegation. NYT
They lost Bret Stephens. He was pretty outspoken in opposition to Trump. He can't spin it away.
The other question is to what extent will dissatisfaction with the left's insanity on Kavanaugh translate to enthusiasm to showing up to vote in the midterms. Trump is not on the ballot. The donation story is giving us the first hint.
Finally, news from Collins is that the FBI report was thorough. Not whining that the FBI was arbitrarily hamstrung (DNC talking point). It was thorough. She had time to lay the groundwork for her no vote, and she chose not to. This is probably the end. Thank God too.
|
On October 05 2018 03:09 Danglars wrote:The curious thing is where the Never Trumpers land on this issue. It's a tough fight between their commitment to oppose Trump, and recognize that the Democrats will do this to any high court nominee if they think it can be successful. Show nested quote +For the first time since Donald Trump entered the political fray, I find myself grateful that he’s in it. I’m reluctant to admit it and astonished to say it, especially since the president mocked Christine Blasey Ford in his ugly and gratuitous way at a rally on Tuesday. Perhaps it’s worth unpacking this admission for those who might be equally astonished to read it.
I’m grateful because Trump has not backed down in the face of the slipperiness, hypocrisy and dangerous standard-setting deployed by opponents of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. I’m grateful because ferocious and even crass obstinacy has its uses in life, and never more so than in the face of sly moral bullying. I’m grateful because he’s a big fat hammer fending off a razor-sharp dagger.
A few moments have crystallized my view over the past few days.
The first moment was a remark by a friend. “I’d rather be accused of murder,” he said, “than of sexual assault.” I feel the same way. One can think of excuses for killing a man; none for assaulting a woman. But if that’s true, so is this: Falsely accusing a person of sexual assault is nearly as despicable as sexual assault itself. It inflicts psychic, familial, reputational and professional harms that can last a lifetime. This is nothing to sneer at.
The second moment, connected to the first: “Boo hoo hoo. Brett Kavanaugh is not a victim.” That’s the title of a column in the Los Angeles Times, which suggests that the possibility of Kavanaugh’s innocence is “infinitesimal.” Yet false allegations of rape, while relatively rare, are at least five times as common as false accusations of other types of crime, according to academic literature.
Since when did the possibility of innocence become, for today’s liberals, something to wave off with an archly unfeeling “boo hoo”?
A third moment, connected to the second: Listening to Cory Booker explain on Tuesday that “ultimately” it doesn’t matter if Kavanaugh is “guilty or innocent,” because “enough questions” had been raised that it was time to “move on to another candidate.”
This is a rhetorical sleight of hand in three acts: Elide the one question that really matters; raise a secondary set of “questions” that are wholly the result of the question you’ve decided to ignore; call for “another candidate” because it will push confirmation hearings past the midterms, which was the Democratic objective long before most anyone had ever heard of Blasey’s allegation. NYTThey lost Bret Stephens. He was pretty outspoken in opposition to Trump. He can't spin it away.
The other question is to what extent will dissatisfaction with the left's insanity on Kavanaugh translate to enthusiasm to showing up to vote in the midterms. Trump is not on the ballot. The donation story is giving us the first hint. https://twitter.com/katieglueck/status/1047894979178385408
Finally, news from Collins is that the FBI report was thorough. Not whining that the FBI was arbitrarily hamstrung (DNC talking point). It was thorough. She had time to lay the groundwork for her no vote, and she chose not to. This is probably the end. Thank God too.
that’s the beauty of not being a caricature of a pundit. you can hold two different opinions on two different things. It can be a good thing to not back down in the face of potentially false allegations, while still being god awful on numerous other things. one can see a thorough investigation and it’s conclusion in favor of Kav and say ‘well, it’s good that we finally got here.’
and it’s good we got here, and i would still say it was absolutely necessary. i’d still call myself a never trumper all the same (though if i’m understanding correctly you apply this only to cons, so maybe you wouldn’t call me one per se.)
|
The only party that's going to get throttled worse than the Democrats over the Kavanaugh nomination is the #NeverTrump movement. Trump's tactics and approach to politics have been wholly vindicated.
And now that Kavanaugh is about to be put behind us, the FBI/Russia stuff is starting to roll again. This may be a very bad month for Democrats.
|
On October 05 2018 03:30 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 03:09 Danglars wrote:The curious thing is where the Never Trumpers land on this issue. It's a tough fight between their commitment to oppose Trump, and recognize that the Democrats will do this to any high court nominee if they think it can be successful. For the first time since Donald Trump entered the political fray, I find myself grateful that he’s in it. I’m reluctant to admit it and astonished to say it, especially since the president mocked Christine Blasey Ford in his ugly and gratuitous way at a rally on Tuesday. Perhaps it’s worth unpacking this admission for those who might be equally astonished to read it.
I’m grateful because Trump has not backed down in the face of the slipperiness, hypocrisy and dangerous standard-setting deployed by opponents of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. I’m grateful because ferocious and even crass obstinacy has its uses in life, and never more so than in the face of sly moral bullying. I’m grateful because he’s a big fat hammer fending off a razor-sharp dagger.
A few moments have crystallized my view over the past few days.
The first moment was a remark by a friend. “I’d rather be accused of murder,” he said, “than of sexual assault.” I feel the same way. One can think of excuses for killing a man; none for assaulting a woman. But if that’s true, so is this: Falsely accusing a person of sexual assault is nearly as despicable as sexual assault itself. It inflicts psychic, familial, reputational and professional harms that can last a lifetime. This is nothing to sneer at.
The second moment, connected to the first: “Boo hoo hoo. Brett Kavanaugh is not a victim.” That’s the title of a column in the Los Angeles Times, which suggests that the possibility of Kavanaugh’s innocence is “infinitesimal.” Yet false allegations of rape, while relatively rare, are at least five times as common as false accusations of other types of crime, according to academic literature.
Since when did the possibility of innocence become, for today’s liberals, something to wave off with an archly unfeeling “boo hoo”?
A third moment, connected to the second: Listening to Cory Booker explain on Tuesday that “ultimately” it doesn’t matter if Kavanaugh is “guilty or innocent,” because “enough questions” had been raised that it was time to “move on to another candidate.”
This is a rhetorical sleight of hand in three acts: Elide the one question that really matters; raise a secondary set of “questions” that are wholly the result of the question you’ve decided to ignore; call for “another candidate” because it will push confirmation hearings past the midterms, which was the Democratic objective long before most anyone had ever heard of Blasey’s allegation. NYTThey lost Bret Stephens. He was pretty outspoken in opposition to Trump. He can't spin it away.
The other question is to what extent will dissatisfaction with the left's insanity on Kavanaugh translate to enthusiasm to showing up to vote in the midterms. Trump is not on the ballot. The donation story is giving us the first hint. https://twitter.com/katieglueck/status/1047894979178385408
Finally, news from Collins is that the FBI report was thorough. Not whining that the FBI was arbitrarily hamstrung (DNC talking point). It was thorough. She had time to lay the groundwork for her no vote, and she chose not to. This is probably the end. Thank God too. that’s the beauty of not being a caricature of a pundit. you can hold two different opinions on two different things. It can be a good thing to not back down in the face of potentially false allegations, while still being god awful on numerous other things. one can see a thorough investigation and it’s conclusion in favor of Kav and say ‘well, it’s good that we finally got here.’ and it’s good we got here, and i would still say it was absolutely necessary. i’d still call myself a never trumper all the same (though if i’m understanding correctly you apply this only to cons, so maybe you wouldn’t call me one per se.)
You hint at the thing about Never Trumpers. Their members have a habit of proving the stereotype that they can't give Trump credit, because they think it would undermine their opposition to decorum and the rest. This is really the step too far for Dems that even Stephens is turning over.
The term applies to conservatives (and RINOs, and other factions in the Republican tent) that are highly opposed to Trump and it clouds their evaluations of his presidency. The corresponding term for the other side of the aisle is Democrats. They're a little too horrified by Trump to rationally examine his presidency at the moment, though some moderate Democrats are starting to see that their own party has drifted too far to the left to represent them.
|
On October 05 2018 03:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 03:30 brian wrote:On October 05 2018 03:09 Danglars wrote:The curious thing is where the Never Trumpers land on this issue. It's a tough fight between their commitment to oppose Trump, and recognize that the Democrats will do this to any high court nominee if they think it can be successful. For the first time since Donald Trump entered the political fray, I find myself grateful that he’s in it. I’m reluctant to admit it and astonished to say it, especially since the president mocked Christine Blasey Ford in his ugly and gratuitous way at a rally on Tuesday. Perhaps it’s worth unpacking this admission for those who might be equally astonished to read it.
I’m grateful because Trump has not backed down in the face of the slipperiness, hypocrisy and dangerous standard-setting deployed by opponents of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. I’m grateful because ferocious and even crass obstinacy has its uses in life, and never more so than in the face of sly moral bullying. I’m grateful because he’s a big fat hammer fending off a razor-sharp dagger.
A few moments have crystallized my view over the past few days.
The first moment was a remark by a friend. “I’d rather be accused of murder,” he said, “than of sexual assault.” I feel the same way. One can think of excuses for killing a man; none for assaulting a woman. But if that’s true, so is this: Falsely accusing a person of sexual assault is nearly as despicable as sexual assault itself. It inflicts psychic, familial, reputational and professional harms that can last a lifetime. This is nothing to sneer at.
The second moment, connected to the first: “Boo hoo hoo. Brett Kavanaugh is not a victim.” That’s the title of a column in the Los Angeles Times, which suggests that the possibility of Kavanaugh’s innocence is “infinitesimal.” Yet false allegations of rape, while relatively rare, are at least five times as common as false accusations of other types of crime, according to academic literature.
Since when did the possibility of innocence become, for today’s liberals, something to wave off with an archly unfeeling “boo hoo”?
A third moment, connected to the second: Listening to Cory Booker explain on Tuesday that “ultimately” it doesn’t matter if Kavanaugh is “guilty or innocent,” because “enough questions” had been raised that it was time to “move on to another candidate.”
This is a rhetorical sleight of hand in three acts: Elide the one question that really matters; raise a secondary set of “questions” that are wholly the result of the question you’ve decided to ignore; call for “another candidate” because it will push confirmation hearings past the midterms, which was the Democratic objective long before most anyone had ever heard of Blasey’s allegation. NYTThey lost Bret Stephens. He was pretty outspoken in opposition to Trump. He can't spin it away.
The other question is to what extent will dissatisfaction with the left's insanity on Kavanaugh translate to enthusiasm to showing up to vote in the midterms. Trump is not on the ballot. The donation story is giving us the first hint. https://twitter.com/katieglueck/status/1047894979178385408
Finally, news from Collins is that the FBI report was thorough. Not whining that the FBI was arbitrarily hamstrung (DNC talking point). It was thorough. She had time to lay the groundwork for her no vote, and she chose not to. This is probably the end. Thank God too. that’s the beauty of not being a caricature of a pundit. you can hold two different opinions on two different things. It can be a good thing to not back down in the face of potentially false allegations, while still being god awful on numerous other things. one can see a thorough investigation and it’s conclusion in favor of Kav and say ‘well, it’s good that we finally got here.’ and it’s good we got here, and i would still say it was absolutely necessary. i’d still call myself a never trumper all the same (though if i’m understanding correctly you apply this only to cons, so maybe you wouldn’t call me one per se.) You hint at the thing about Never Trumpers. Their members have a habit of proving the stereotype that they can't give Trump credit, because they think it would undermine their opposition to decorum and the rest. This is really the step too far for Dems that even Stephens is turning over. The term applies to conservatives (and RINOs, and other factions in the Republican tent) that are highly opposed to Trump and it clouds their evaluations of his presidency. The corresponding term for the other side of the aisle is Democrats. They're a little too horrified by Trump to rationally examine his presidency at the moment, though some moderate Democrats are starting to see that their own party has drifted too far to the left to represent them.
Gotcha. Sorry, i had misunderstood the point entirely.
|
On October 05 2018 00:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2018 15:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2018 14:38 LegalLord wrote:On October 04 2018 13:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2018 11:45 xDaunt wrote:On October 04 2018 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2018 02:33 xDaunt wrote:
Trump's rally last night is a good example of what the GOP should be doing versus what it has done historically. During the rally, he pointed out all of the inconsistencies in Ford's testimony at the hearing. Now he's being criticized by moderates and Democrats for "mocking" Ford. That criticism is utterly insane. Since when is it out of bounds to point out the inconsistencies and other holes in an accusation? Everyone who is against Trump to this extent on the Kavanaugh issue has clearly lost their marbles. They better get their shit straight fast, because, if the recent "tightening" of the polls is any indication, voters are getting ready to punish them. I think pretty much everyone thinks Ford experienced a sexual assault (lots of women have), so it is messed up, even if she somehow her being 100% sure it was Kavanaugh is wrong, for Trump to target her like that. Punching down to a citizen is pathetic for a president. It's gross really. I understand the "what about our boys" argument, but the fact of the matter is a LOT more women are attacked/abused and their attackers go without being held accountable, whereas false accusations are far more rare. These types of arguments "what about the boys" are completely devoid of recognition of the context. The justice system was set up by slave owning rapists, so that colors the "justice" it deals out. Ironically the thing that stuck out to me about the whole Kavadrama was that he's going to be a SC justice when other kids had their lives ruined just for doing the same things he proudly admits as a kid. Horseshit. Since when is telling the truth a bad thing? Since when should the truth be ignored for political expediency or “feelings?” The truth is that Ford’s story has huge internal credibility problems. The truth is that is there is no reason to even believe that Ford was sexually assaulted by anyone — much less by Kavanaugh — other than her own mentally ill presentation. The truth is that there is good reason to believe that Ford perjured herself on multiple points during the hearing on Friday (polygraphs, the second door, and fear of flying). All of that should be accounted for and openly discussed. Are you unfamiliar with the term "punching down" or do you just reject the concept? I understand your perspective on Ford's culpability should she be intentionally misleading folks. Seems like this would be more of a Pence thing for several reasons anyway. Except Pence and Trump have switched traditional optics roles where Pence is the measured and cordial one with Trump being the attack dog. I don't buy into the civility argument enough to say whether that really matters much though. On the one hand, I can definitely understand why you see this as a problem - she's probably genuinely been sexually assaulted before, and it isn't proper to make light of that. On the other... this is clearly a pretty flimsy allegation directed towards Kavanaugh, played deliberately off of the court of public opinion rather than through any of the more impartial channels of justice, and clearly abusing the existence of an automatic sympathy for the alleged victim to gain political points without ever needing to provide proof. That abuse of sympathetic sentiment is a pretty disgusting thing when it is used, and in that light I can see merit in Dauntless' "all she earned was hundreds of image macros of her face on a green cartoon frog" approach to this. As something of a parallel case that I'm certain you have some personal thoughts on, I'd like to know what you thought of the "if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon" quip from Obama early in that Zimmerman investigation. Is that something you think was appropriate for the president to say, or was that "punching down" in the same sense of attacking a citizen for whom there was a perception, but not proof, of wrongdoing? That was empathy with his family more than anything else, which had Trump kept it at empathy for Kavanaugh I don't think it would be a big problem. The closer one would be the "Cambridge police acted stupidly" which while a statement of fact (imo), probably does qualify as punching down. Though in this case (or even the Zimmerman one) the person getting punched down on and their relative position in society matters as well. In the case of Trump specifically and punching down on a sexual assault victim for no one believing her (especially on whatever chance it did happen as she says) it's just tasteless and a little pathetic in my opinion. Just take the win and move on. EDIT: Here's the comments you're referencing: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1grt1G_us3A Remember how Republicans reacted to those comments? Now here's Trump again, imagine Obama laying out his interpretation of Zimmerman killing Trayvon like that. "Oh he was scared so he went towards him and fought him? Then when this grown ass man lost a fight with a kid, he shot him? HmmmMMmmm?!?" + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/pEogfGZYizw?t=6s Hard time believing that anyone genuinely thinks Obama's comments were clearly much worse than Trump's, though xDaunt seems to have inadvertently made that argument. The tone and method is undeniably less professional from Trump than Obama. The effect is similar: it shows where the president stands on the issue and gives credibility to the aggressive elements. I’d be inclined towards saying both were poorly conceived commentaries than that both are justified. The Trump one is more fun to listen to, the Obama one is more professional. Both are things that people in high positions should be careful with saying.
One of them was careful and avoided saying anything problematic, the other one said nothing but problematic stuff I don't find them remotely comparable.
There's simply no way in my mind (or argument I've seen) to square the idea that Obama's was the problematic one and Trump's was the perfectly fine one. That's without even accounting for the historical context of the different situations, and how that makes them even less comparable.
Trumps was undeniably bad, what exactly was bad about Obama showing empathy with an American family that lost their son?
Seems like you guys would really like to believe that the history of this country doesn't make the Kavadrama and the Obama comment not even in the same ballpark.
|
On October 05 2018 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 00:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 04 2018 15:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2018 14:38 LegalLord wrote:On October 04 2018 13:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2018 11:45 xDaunt wrote:On October 04 2018 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2018 02:33 xDaunt wrote:
Trump's rally last night is a good example of what the GOP should be doing versus what it has done historically. During the rally, he pointed out all of the inconsistencies in Ford's testimony at the hearing. Now he's being criticized by moderates and Democrats for "mocking" Ford. That criticism is utterly insane. Since when is it out of bounds to point out the inconsistencies and other holes in an accusation? Everyone who is against Trump to this extent on the Kavanaugh issue has clearly lost their marbles. They better get their shit straight fast, because, if the recent "tightening" of the polls is any indication, voters are getting ready to punish them. I think pretty much everyone thinks Ford experienced a sexual assault (lots of women have), so it is messed up, even if she somehow her being 100% sure it was Kavanaugh is wrong, for Trump to target her like that. Punching down to a citizen is pathetic for a president. It's gross really. I understand the "what about our boys" argument, but the fact of the matter is a LOT more women are attacked/abused and their attackers go without being held accountable, whereas false accusations are far more rare. These types of arguments "what about the boys" are completely devoid of recognition of the context. The justice system was set up by slave owning rapists, so that colors the "justice" it deals out. Ironically the thing that stuck out to me about the whole Kavadrama was that he's going to be a SC justice when other kids had their lives ruined just for doing the same things he proudly admits as a kid. Horseshit. Since when is telling the truth a bad thing? Since when should the truth be ignored for political expediency or “feelings?” The truth is that Ford’s story has huge internal credibility problems. The truth is that is there is no reason to even believe that Ford was sexually assaulted by anyone — much less by Kavanaugh — other than her own mentally ill presentation. The truth is that there is good reason to believe that Ford perjured herself on multiple points during the hearing on Friday (polygraphs, the second door, and fear of flying). All of that should be accounted for and openly discussed. Are you unfamiliar with the term "punching down" or do you just reject the concept? I understand your perspective on Ford's culpability should she be intentionally misleading folks. Seems like this would be more of a Pence thing for several reasons anyway. Except Pence and Trump have switched traditional optics roles where Pence is the measured and cordial one with Trump being the attack dog. I don't buy into the civility argument enough to say whether that really matters much though. On the one hand, I can definitely understand why you see this as a problem - she's probably genuinely been sexually assaulted before, and it isn't proper to make light of that. On the other... this is clearly a pretty flimsy allegation directed towards Kavanaugh, played deliberately off of the court of public opinion rather than through any of the more impartial channels of justice, and clearly abusing the existence of an automatic sympathy for the alleged victim to gain political points without ever needing to provide proof. That abuse of sympathetic sentiment is a pretty disgusting thing when it is used, and in that light I can see merit in Dauntless' "all she earned was hundreds of image macros of her face on a green cartoon frog" approach to this. As something of a parallel case that I'm certain you have some personal thoughts on, I'd like to know what you thought of the "if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon" quip from Obama early in that Zimmerman investigation. Is that something you think was appropriate for the president to say, or was that "punching down" in the same sense of attacking a citizen for whom there was a perception, but not proof, of wrongdoing? That was empathy with his family more than anything else, which had Trump kept it at empathy for Kavanaugh I don't think it would be a big problem. The closer one would be the "Cambridge police acted stupidly" which while a statement of fact (imo), probably does qualify as punching down. Though in this case (or even the Zimmerman one) the person getting punched down on and their relative position in society matters as well. In the case of Trump specifically and punching down on a sexual assault victim for no one believing her (especially on whatever chance it did happen as she says) it's just tasteless and a little pathetic in my opinion. Just take the win and move on. EDIT: Here's the comments you're referencing: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1grt1G_us3A Remember how Republicans reacted to those comments? Now here's Trump again, imagine Obama laying out his interpretation of Zimmerman killing Trayvon like that. "Oh he was scared so he went towards him and fought him? Then when this grown ass man lost a fight with a kid, he shot him? HmmmMMmmm?!?" + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/pEogfGZYizw?t=6s Hard time believing that anyone genuinely thinks Obama's comments were clearly much worse than Trump's, though xDaunt seems to have inadvertently made that argument. The tone and method is undeniably less professional from Trump than Obama. The effect is similar: it shows where the president stands on the issue and gives credibility to the aggressive elements. I’d be inclined towards saying both were poorly conceived commentaries than that both are justified. The Trump one is more fun to listen to, the Obama one is more professional. Both are things that people in high positions should be careful with saying. One of them was careful and avoided saying anything problematic, the other one said nothing but problematic stuff I don't find them remotely comparable. There's simply no way in my mind (or argument I've seen) to square the idea that Obama's was the problematic one and Trump's was the perfectly fine one. That's without even accounting for the historical context of the different situations, and how that makes them even less comparable. Trumps was undeniably bad, what exactly was bad about Obama showing empathy with an American family that lost their son? Seems like you guys would really like to believe that the history of this country doesn't make the Kavadrama and the Obama comment not even in the same ballpark.
I have to go back and look at what Obama said, but my recollection is that his statement wasn't factual in the least. It was pure advocacy.
|
On October 05 2018 07:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2018 00:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 04 2018 15:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2018 14:38 LegalLord wrote:On October 04 2018 13:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2018 11:45 xDaunt wrote:On October 04 2018 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2018 02:33 xDaunt wrote:
Trump's rally last night is a good example of what the GOP should be doing versus what it has done historically. During the rally, he pointed out all of the inconsistencies in Ford's testimony at the hearing. Now he's being criticized by moderates and Democrats for "mocking" Ford. That criticism is utterly insane. Since when is it out of bounds to point out the inconsistencies and other holes in an accusation? Everyone who is against Trump to this extent on the Kavanaugh issue has clearly lost their marbles. They better get their shit straight fast, because, if the recent "tightening" of the polls is any indication, voters are getting ready to punish them. I think pretty much everyone thinks Ford experienced a sexual assault (lots of women have), so it is messed up, even if she somehow her being 100% sure it was Kavanaugh is wrong, for Trump to target her like that. Punching down to a citizen is pathetic for a president. It's gross really. I understand the "what about our boys" argument, but the fact of the matter is a LOT more women are attacked/abused and their attackers go without being held accountable, whereas false accusations are far more rare. These types of arguments "what about the boys" are completely devoid of recognition of the context. The justice system was set up by slave owning rapists, so that colors the "justice" it deals out. Ironically the thing that stuck out to me about the whole Kavadrama was that he's going to be a SC justice when other kids had their lives ruined just for doing the same things he proudly admits as a kid. Horseshit. Since when is telling the truth a bad thing? Since when should the truth be ignored for political expediency or “feelings?” The truth is that Ford’s story has huge internal credibility problems. The truth is that is there is no reason to even believe that Ford was sexually assaulted by anyone — much less by Kavanaugh — other than her own mentally ill presentation. The truth is that there is good reason to believe that Ford perjured herself on multiple points during the hearing on Friday (polygraphs, the second door, and fear of flying). All of that should be accounted for and openly discussed. Are you unfamiliar with the term "punching down" or do you just reject the concept? I understand your perspective on Ford's culpability should she be intentionally misleading folks. Seems like this would be more of a Pence thing for several reasons anyway. Except Pence and Trump have switched traditional optics roles where Pence is the measured and cordial one with Trump being the attack dog. I don't buy into the civility argument enough to say whether that really matters much though. On the one hand, I can definitely understand why you see this as a problem - she's probably genuinely been sexually assaulted before, and it isn't proper to make light of that. On the other... this is clearly a pretty flimsy allegation directed towards Kavanaugh, played deliberately off of the court of public opinion rather than through any of the more impartial channels of justice, and clearly abusing the existence of an automatic sympathy for the alleged victim to gain political points without ever needing to provide proof. That abuse of sympathetic sentiment is a pretty disgusting thing when it is used, and in that light I can see merit in Dauntless' "all she earned was hundreds of image macros of her face on a green cartoon frog" approach to this. As something of a parallel case that I'm certain you have some personal thoughts on, I'd like to know what you thought of the "if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon" quip from Obama early in that Zimmerman investigation. Is that something you think was appropriate for the president to say, or was that "punching down" in the same sense of attacking a citizen for whom there was a perception, but not proof, of wrongdoing? That was empathy with his family more than anything else, which had Trump kept it at empathy for Kavanaugh I don't think it would be a big problem. The closer one would be the "Cambridge police acted stupidly" which while a statement of fact (imo), probably does qualify as punching down. Though in this case (or even the Zimmerman one) the person getting punched down on and their relative position in society matters as well. In the case of Trump specifically and punching down on a sexual assault victim for no one believing her (especially on whatever chance it did happen as she says) it's just tasteless and a little pathetic in my opinion. Just take the win and move on. EDIT: Here's the comments you're referencing: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1grt1G_us3A Remember how Republicans reacted to those comments? Now here's Trump again, imagine Obama laying out his interpretation of Zimmerman killing Trayvon like that. "Oh he was scared so he went towards him and fought him? Then when this grown ass man lost a fight with a kid, he shot him? HmmmMMmmm?!?" + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/pEogfGZYizw?t=6s Hard time believing that anyone genuinely thinks Obama's comments were clearly much worse than Trump's, though xDaunt seems to have inadvertently made that argument. The tone and method is undeniably less professional from Trump than Obama. The effect is similar: it shows where the president stands on the issue and gives credibility to the aggressive elements. I’d be inclined towards saying both were poorly conceived commentaries than that both are justified. The Trump one is more fun to listen to, the Obama one is more professional. Both are things that people in high positions should be careful with saying. One of them was careful and avoided saying anything problematic, the other one said nothing but problematic stuff I don't find them remotely comparable. There's simply no way in my mind (or argument I've seen) to square the idea that Obama's was the problematic one and Trump's was the perfectly fine one. That's without even accounting for the historical context of the different situations, and how that makes them even less comparable. Trumps was undeniably bad, what exactly was bad about Obama showing empathy with an American family that lost their son? Seems like you guys would really like to believe that the history of this country doesn't make the Kavadrama and the Obama comment not even in the same ballpark. I have to go back and look at what Obama said, but my recollection is that his statement wasn't factual in the least. It was pure advocacy.
I linked it above, I think you'll be surprised to see it in context with Trump's. It wasn't advocacy in the slightest, whereas Trump's was not just advocacy but berating the alleged victim.
|
On October 05 2018 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 07:09 xDaunt wrote:On October 05 2018 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2018 00:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 04 2018 15:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2018 14:38 LegalLord wrote:On October 04 2018 13:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2018 11:45 xDaunt wrote:On October 04 2018 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2018 02:33 xDaunt wrote:
Trump's rally last night is a good example of what the GOP should be doing versus what it has done historically. During the rally, he pointed out all of the inconsistencies in Ford's testimony at the hearing. Now he's being criticized by moderates and Democrats for "mocking" Ford. That criticism is utterly insane. Since when is it out of bounds to point out the inconsistencies and other holes in an accusation? Everyone who is against Trump to this extent on the Kavanaugh issue has clearly lost their marbles. They better get their shit straight fast, because, if the recent "tightening" of the polls is any indication, voters are getting ready to punish them. I think pretty much everyone thinks Ford experienced a sexual assault (lots of women have), so it is messed up, even if she somehow her being 100% sure it was Kavanaugh is wrong, for Trump to target her like that. Punching down to a citizen is pathetic for a president. It's gross really. I understand the "what about our boys" argument, but the fact of the matter is a LOT more women are attacked/abused and their attackers go without being held accountable, whereas false accusations are far more rare. These types of arguments "what about the boys" are completely devoid of recognition of the context. The justice system was set up by slave owning rapists, so that colors the "justice" it deals out. Ironically the thing that stuck out to me about the whole Kavadrama was that he's going to be a SC justice when other kids had their lives ruined just for doing the same things he proudly admits as a kid. Horseshit. Since when is telling the truth a bad thing? Since when should the truth be ignored for political expediency or “feelings?” The truth is that Ford’s story has huge internal credibility problems. The truth is that is there is no reason to even believe that Ford was sexually assaulted by anyone — much less by Kavanaugh — other than her own mentally ill presentation. The truth is that there is good reason to believe that Ford perjured herself on multiple points during the hearing on Friday (polygraphs, the second door, and fear of flying). All of that should be accounted for and openly discussed. Are you unfamiliar with the term "punching down" or do you just reject the concept? I understand your perspective on Ford's culpability should she be intentionally misleading folks. Seems like this would be more of a Pence thing for several reasons anyway. Except Pence and Trump have switched traditional optics roles where Pence is the measured and cordial one with Trump being the attack dog. I don't buy into the civility argument enough to say whether that really matters much though. On the one hand, I can definitely understand why you see this as a problem - she's probably genuinely been sexually assaulted before, and it isn't proper to make light of that. On the other... this is clearly a pretty flimsy allegation directed towards Kavanaugh, played deliberately off of the court of public opinion rather than through any of the more impartial channels of justice, and clearly abusing the existence of an automatic sympathy for the alleged victim to gain political points without ever needing to provide proof. That abuse of sympathetic sentiment is a pretty disgusting thing when it is used, and in that light I can see merit in Dauntless' "all she earned was hundreds of image macros of her face on a green cartoon frog" approach to this. As something of a parallel case that I'm certain you have some personal thoughts on, I'd like to know what you thought of the "if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon" quip from Obama early in that Zimmerman investigation. Is that something you think was appropriate for the president to say, or was that "punching down" in the same sense of attacking a citizen for whom there was a perception, but not proof, of wrongdoing? That was empathy with his family more than anything else, which had Trump kept it at empathy for Kavanaugh I don't think it would be a big problem. The closer one would be the "Cambridge police acted stupidly" which while a statement of fact (imo), probably does qualify as punching down. Though in this case (or even the Zimmerman one) the person getting punched down on and their relative position in society matters as well. In the case of Trump specifically and punching down on a sexual assault victim for no one believing her (especially on whatever chance it did happen as she says) it's just tasteless and a little pathetic in my opinion. Just take the win and move on. EDIT: Here's the comments you're referencing: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1grt1G_us3A Remember how Republicans reacted to those comments? Now here's Trump again, imagine Obama laying out his interpretation of Zimmerman killing Trayvon like that. "Oh he was scared so he went towards him and fought him? Then when this grown ass man lost a fight with a kid, he shot him? HmmmMMmmm?!?" + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/pEogfGZYizw?t=6s Hard time believing that anyone genuinely thinks Obama's comments were clearly much worse than Trump's, though xDaunt seems to have inadvertently made that argument. The tone and method is undeniably less professional from Trump than Obama. The effect is similar: it shows where the president stands on the issue and gives credibility to the aggressive elements. I’d be inclined towards saying both were poorly conceived commentaries than that both are justified. The Trump one is more fun to listen to, the Obama one is more professional. Both are things that people in high positions should be careful with saying. One of them was careful and avoided saying anything problematic, the other one said nothing but problematic stuff I don't find them remotely comparable. There's simply no way in my mind (or argument I've seen) to square the idea that Obama's was the problematic one and Trump's was the perfectly fine one. That's without even accounting for the historical context of the different situations, and how that makes them even less comparable. Trumps was undeniably bad, what exactly was bad about Obama showing empathy with an American family that lost their son? Seems like you guys would really like to believe that the history of this country doesn't make the Kavadrama and the Obama comment not even in the same ballpark. I have to go back and look at what Obama said, but my recollection is that his statement wasn't factual in the least. It was pure advocacy. I linked it above, I think you'll be surprised to see it in context with Trump's. It wasn't advocacy in the slightest, whereas Trump's was not just advocacy but berating the alleged victim.
Obama gave a meandering statement calling for an investigation and showing support for Trayvon by linking Trayvon to his kids. No show of support or empathy whatsoever was given to Zimmerman. He most certainly did not wait for any facts to surface before showing this support.
Trump, in contrast, recited the facts as they had been confirmed by Ford's testimony. And he only did this after she testified -- ie after the evidence was known.
|
On October 05 2018 07:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2018 07:09 xDaunt wrote:On October 05 2018 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2018 00:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 04 2018 15:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2018 14:38 LegalLord wrote:On October 04 2018 13:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2018 11:45 xDaunt wrote:On October 04 2018 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I think pretty much everyone thinks Ford experienced a sexual assault (lots of women have), so it is messed up, even if she somehow her being 100% sure it was Kavanaugh is wrong, for Trump to target her like that. Punching down to a citizen is pathetic for a president.
It's gross really.
I understand the "what about our boys" argument, but the fact of the matter is a LOT more women are attacked/abused and their attackers go without being held accountable, whereas false accusations are far more rare.
These types of arguments "what about the boys" are completely devoid of recognition of the context. The justice system was set up by slave owning rapists, so that colors the "justice" it deals out.
Ironically the thing that stuck out to me about the whole Kavadrama was that he's going to be a SC justice when other kids had their lives ruined just for doing the same things he proudly admits as a kid. Horseshit. Since when is telling the truth a bad thing? Since when should the truth be ignored for political expediency or “feelings?” The truth is that Ford’s story has huge internal credibility problems. The truth is that is there is no reason to even believe that Ford was sexually assaulted by anyone — much less by Kavanaugh — other than her own mentally ill presentation. The truth is that there is good reason to believe that Ford perjured herself on multiple points during the hearing on Friday (polygraphs, the second door, and fear of flying). All of that should be accounted for and openly discussed. Are you unfamiliar with the term "punching down" or do you just reject the concept? I understand your perspective on Ford's culpability should she be intentionally misleading folks. Seems like this would be more of a Pence thing for several reasons anyway. Except Pence and Trump have switched traditional optics roles where Pence is the measured and cordial one with Trump being the attack dog. I don't buy into the civility argument enough to say whether that really matters much though. On the one hand, I can definitely understand why you see this as a problem - she's probably genuinely been sexually assaulted before, and it isn't proper to make light of that. On the other... this is clearly a pretty flimsy allegation directed towards Kavanaugh, played deliberately off of the court of public opinion rather than through any of the more impartial channels of justice, and clearly abusing the existence of an automatic sympathy for the alleged victim to gain political points without ever needing to provide proof. That abuse of sympathetic sentiment is a pretty disgusting thing when it is used, and in that light I can see merit in Dauntless' "all she earned was hundreds of image macros of her face on a green cartoon frog" approach to this. As something of a parallel case that I'm certain you have some personal thoughts on, I'd like to know what you thought of the "if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon" quip from Obama early in that Zimmerman investigation. Is that something you think was appropriate for the president to say, or was that "punching down" in the same sense of attacking a citizen for whom there was a perception, but not proof, of wrongdoing? That was empathy with his family more than anything else, which had Trump kept it at empathy for Kavanaugh I don't think it would be a big problem. The closer one would be the "Cambridge police acted stupidly" which while a statement of fact (imo), probably does qualify as punching down. Though in this case (or even the Zimmerman one) the person getting punched down on and their relative position in society matters as well. In the case of Trump specifically and punching down on a sexual assault victim for no one believing her (especially on whatever chance it did happen as she says) it's just tasteless and a little pathetic in my opinion. Just take the win and move on. EDIT: Here's the comments you're referencing: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1grt1G_us3A Remember how Republicans reacted to those comments? Now here's Trump again, imagine Obama laying out his interpretation of Zimmerman killing Trayvon like that. "Oh he was scared so he went towards him and fought him? Then when this grown ass man lost a fight with a kid, he shot him? HmmmMMmmm?!?" + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/pEogfGZYizw?t=6s Hard time believing that anyone genuinely thinks Obama's comments were clearly much worse than Trump's, though xDaunt seems to have inadvertently made that argument. The tone and method is undeniably less professional from Trump than Obama. The effect is similar: it shows where the president stands on the issue and gives credibility to the aggressive elements. I’d be inclined towards saying both were poorly conceived commentaries than that both are justified. The Trump one is more fun to listen to, the Obama one is more professional. Both are things that people in high positions should be careful with saying. One of them was careful and avoided saying anything problematic, the other one said nothing but problematic stuff I don't find them remotely comparable. There's simply no way in my mind (or argument I've seen) to square the idea that Obama's was the problematic one and Trump's was the perfectly fine one. That's without even accounting for the historical context of the different situations, and how that makes them even less comparable. Trumps was undeniably bad, what exactly was bad about Obama showing empathy with an American family that lost their son? Seems like you guys would really like to believe that the history of this country doesn't make the Kavadrama and the Obama comment not even in the same ballpark. I have to go back and look at what Obama said, but my recollection is that his statement wasn't factual in the least. It was pure advocacy. I linked it above, I think you'll be surprised to see it in context with Trump's. It wasn't advocacy in the slightest, whereas Trump's was not just advocacy but berating the alleged victim. Obama gave a meandering statement calling for an investigation and showing support for Trayvon by linking Trayvon to his kids. No show of support or empathy whatsoever was given to Zimmerman. He most certainly did not wait for any facts to surface before showing this support. Trump, in contrast, recited the facts as they had been confirmed by Ford's testimony. And he only did this after she testified -- ie after the evidence was known.
An empathetic statement of fact isn't supporting a dead person, it's empathizing with the family. What Trump did was stupidly suggest that not remembering details of a high school party (besides the part of you being attacked) had anything to do with his job as president.
You can view Trump's comments as fine (I obviously disagree), but thinking Obama's comments were inappropriate is ridiculous.
|
On October 05 2018 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On October 05 2018 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2018 07:09 xDaunt wrote:On October 05 2018 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2018 00:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 04 2018 15:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2018 14:38 LegalLord wrote:On October 04 2018 13:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2018 11:45 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Horseshit. Since when is telling the truth a bad thing? Since when should the truth be ignored for political expediency or “feelings?” The truth is that Ford’s story has huge internal credibility problems. The truth is that is there is no reason to even believe that Ford was sexually assaulted by anyone — much less by Kavanaugh — other than her own mentally ill presentation. The truth is that there is good reason to believe that Ford perjured herself on multiple points during the hearing on Friday (polygraphs, the second door, and fear of flying). All of that should be accounted for and openly discussed. Are you unfamiliar with the term "punching down" or do you just reject the concept? I understand your perspective on Ford's culpability should she be intentionally misleading folks. Seems like this would be more of a Pence thing for several reasons anyway. Except Pence and Trump have switched traditional optics roles where Pence is the measured and cordial one with Trump being the attack dog. I don't buy into the civility argument enough to say whether that really matters much though. On the one hand, I can definitely understand why you see this as a problem - she's probably genuinely been sexually assaulted before, and it isn't proper to make light of that. On the other... this is clearly a pretty flimsy allegation directed towards Kavanaugh, played deliberately off of the court of public opinion rather than through any of the more impartial channels of justice, and clearly abusing the existence of an automatic sympathy for the alleged victim to gain political points without ever needing to provide proof. That abuse of sympathetic sentiment is a pretty disgusting thing when it is used, and in that light I can see merit in Dauntless' "all she earned was hundreds of image macros of her face on a green cartoon frog" approach to this. As something of a parallel case that I'm certain you have some personal thoughts on, I'd like to know what you thought of the "if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon" quip from Obama early in that Zimmerman investigation. Is that something you think was appropriate for the president to say, or was that "punching down" in the same sense of attacking a citizen for whom there was a perception, but not proof, of wrongdoing? That was empathy with his family more than anything else, which had Trump kept it at empathy for Kavanaugh I don't think it would be a big problem. The closer one would be the "Cambridge police acted stupidly" which while a statement of fact (imo), probably does qualify as punching down. Though in this case (or even the Zimmerman one) the person getting punched down on and their relative position in society matters as well. In the case of Trump specifically and punching down on a sexual assault victim for no one believing her (especially on whatever chance it did happen as she says) it's just tasteless and a little pathetic in my opinion. Just take the win and move on. EDIT: Here's the comments you're referencing: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1grt1G_us3A Remember how Republicans reacted to those comments? Now here's Trump again, imagine Obama laying out his interpretation of Zimmerman killing Trayvon like that. "Oh he was scared so he went towards him and fought him? Then when this grown ass man lost a fight with a kid, he shot him? HmmmMMmmm?!?" + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/pEogfGZYizw?t=6s Hard time believing that anyone genuinely thinks Obama's comments were clearly much worse than Trump's, though xDaunt seems to have inadvertently made that argument. The tone and method is undeniably less professional from Trump than Obama. The effect is similar: it shows where the president stands on the issue and gives credibility to the aggressive elements. I’d be inclined towards saying both were poorly conceived commentaries than that both are justified. The Trump one is more fun to listen to, the Obama one is more professional. Both are things that people in high positions should be careful with saying. One of them was careful and avoided saying anything problematic, the other one said nothing but problematic stuff I don't find them remotely comparable. There's simply no way in my mind (or argument I've seen) to square the idea that Obama's was the problematic one and Trump's was the perfectly fine one. That's without even accounting for the historical context of the different situations, and how that makes them even less comparable. Trumps was undeniably bad, what exactly was bad about Obama showing empathy with an American family that lost their son? Seems like you guys would really like to believe that the history of this country doesn't make the Kavadrama and the Obama comment not even in the same ballpark. I have to go back and look at what Obama said, but my recollection is that his statement wasn't factual in the least. It was pure advocacy. I linked it above, I think you'll be surprised to see it in context with Trump's. It wasn't advocacy in the slightest, whereas Trump's was not just advocacy but berating the alleged victim. Obama gave a meandering statement calling for an investigation and showing support for Trayvon by linking Trayvon to his kids. No show of support or empathy whatsoever was given to Zimmerman. He most certainly did not wait for any facts to surface before showing this support. Trump, in contrast, recited the facts as they had been confirmed by Ford's testimony. And he only did this after she testified -- ie after the evidence was known. An empathetic statement of fact isn't supporting a dead person, it's empathizing with the family. What Trump did was stupidly suggest that not remembering details of a high school party (besides the part of you being attacked) had anything to do with his job as president. You can view Trump's comments as fine (I obviously disagree), but thinking Obama's comments were inappropriate is ridiculous.
Obama showed one-sided empathy for Trayvon before anything was known about the case, thereby contributing to the dramatic, one-sided perception of the case before it went to trial. Let me remind you that this is a case that should never have been prosecuted given that the only eyewitness to the altercation between Zimmerman and Trayvon testified that Trayvon was beating the shit out of Zimmerman.
|
On October 05 2018 07:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2018 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On October 05 2018 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2018 07:09 xDaunt wrote:On October 05 2018 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2018 00:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 04 2018 15:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2018 14:38 LegalLord wrote:On October 04 2018 13:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Are you unfamiliar with the term "punching down" or do you just reject the concept?
I understand your perspective on Ford's culpability should she be intentionally misleading folks. Seems like this would be more of a Pence thing for several reasons anyway. Except Pence and Trump have switched traditional optics roles where Pence is the measured and cordial one with Trump being the attack dog. I don't buy into the civility argument enough to say whether that really matters much though. On the one hand, I can definitely understand why you see this as a problem - she's probably genuinely been sexually assaulted before, and it isn't proper to make light of that. On the other... this is clearly a pretty flimsy allegation directed towards Kavanaugh, played deliberately off of the court of public opinion rather than through any of the more impartial channels of justice, and clearly abusing the existence of an automatic sympathy for the alleged victim to gain political points without ever needing to provide proof. That abuse of sympathetic sentiment is a pretty disgusting thing when it is used, and in that light I can see merit in Dauntless' "all she earned was hundreds of image macros of her face on a green cartoon frog" approach to this. As something of a parallel case that I'm certain you have some personal thoughts on, I'd like to know what you thought of the "if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon" quip from Obama early in that Zimmerman investigation. Is that something you think was appropriate for the president to say, or was that "punching down" in the same sense of attacking a citizen for whom there was a perception, but not proof, of wrongdoing? That was empathy with his family more than anything else, which had Trump kept it at empathy for Kavanaugh I don't think it would be a big problem. The closer one would be the "Cambridge police acted stupidly" which while a statement of fact (imo), probably does qualify as punching down. Though in this case (or even the Zimmerman one) the person getting punched down on and their relative position in society matters as well. In the case of Trump specifically and punching down on a sexual assault victim for no one believing her (especially on whatever chance it did happen as she says) it's just tasteless and a little pathetic in my opinion. Just take the win and move on. EDIT: Here's the comments you're referencing: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1grt1G_us3A Remember how Republicans reacted to those comments? Now here's Trump again, imagine Obama laying out his interpretation of Zimmerman killing Trayvon like that. "Oh he was scared so he went towards him and fought him? Then when this grown ass man lost a fight with a kid, he shot him? HmmmMMmmm?!?" + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/pEogfGZYizw?t=6s Hard time believing that anyone genuinely thinks Obama's comments were clearly much worse than Trump's, though xDaunt seems to have inadvertently made that argument. The tone and method is undeniably less professional from Trump than Obama. The effect is similar: it shows where the president stands on the issue and gives credibility to the aggressive elements. I’d be inclined towards saying both were poorly conceived commentaries than that both are justified. The Trump one is more fun to listen to, the Obama one is more professional. Both are things that people in high positions should be careful with saying. One of them was careful and avoided saying anything problematic, the other one said nothing but problematic stuff I don't find them remotely comparable. There's simply no way in my mind (or argument I've seen) to square the idea that Obama's was the problematic one and Trump's was the perfectly fine one. That's without even accounting for the historical context of the different situations, and how that makes them even less comparable. Trumps was undeniably bad, what exactly was bad about Obama showing empathy with an American family that lost their son? Seems like you guys would really like to believe that the history of this country doesn't make the Kavadrama and the Obama comment not even in the same ballpark. I have to go back and look at what Obama said, but my recollection is that his statement wasn't factual in the least. It was pure advocacy. I linked it above, I think you'll be surprised to see it in context with Trump's. It wasn't advocacy in the slightest, whereas Trump's was not just advocacy but berating the alleged victim. Obama gave a meandering statement calling for an investigation and showing support for Trayvon by linking Trayvon to his kids. No show of support or empathy whatsoever was given to Zimmerman. He most certainly did not wait for any facts to surface before showing this support. Trump, in contrast, recited the facts as they had been confirmed by Ford's testimony. And he only did this after she testified -- ie after the evidence was known. An empathetic statement of fact isn't supporting a dead person, it's empathizing with the family. What Trump did was stupidly suggest that not remembering details of a high school party (besides the part of you being attacked) had anything to do with his job as president. You can view Trump's comments as fine (I obviously disagree), but thinking Obama's comments were inappropriate is ridiculous. Obama showed one-sided empathy for Trayvon before anything was known about the case, thereby contributing to the dramatic, one-sided perception of the case before it went to trial. Let me remind you that this is a case that should never have been prosecuted given that the only eyewitness to the altercation between Zimmerman and Trayvon testified that Trayvon was beating the shit out of Zimmerman.
According to the law as written possibly, but a better law would not have a grown man vigilante that allegedly loses a fight (he could have avoided) with a kid and get away with killing the kid he chased and confronted.
Empathy for Zimmerman, for what? In what way did you expect Obama to empathize with Zimmerman?
Additionally this confirms you don't have the same appreciation for how the history of this country makes the one and only presidency a president has ever been able to say that about a Black child/family, different than yet another powerful white man with sexual misconduct allegations against them empathizing with another powerful white man over the allegations against them.
|
On October 05 2018 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 07:42 xDaunt wrote:On October 05 2018 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2018 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On October 05 2018 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2018 07:09 xDaunt wrote:On October 05 2018 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2018 00:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 04 2018 15:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2018 14:38 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
On the one hand, I can definitely understand why you see this as a problem - she's probably genuinely been sexually assaulted before, and it isn't proper to make light of that. On the other... this is clearly a pretty flimsy allegation directed towards Kavanaugh, played deliberately off of the court of public opinion rather than through any of the more impartial channels of justice, and clearly abusing the existence of an automatic sympathy for the alleged victim to gain political points without ever needing to provide proof. That abuse of sympathetic sentiment is a pretty disgusting thing when it is used, and in that light I can see merit in Dauntless' "all she earned was hundreds of image macros of her face on a green cartoon frog" approach to this.
As something of a parallel case that I'm certain you have some personal thoughts on, I'd like to know what you thought of the "if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon" quip from Obama early in that Zimmerman investigation. Is that something you think was appropriate for the president to say, or was that "punching down" in the same sense of attacking a citizen for whom there was a perception, but not proof, of wrongdoing? That was empathy with his family more than anything else, which had Trump kept it at empathy for Kavanaugh I don't think it would be a big problem. The closer one would be the "Cambridge police acted stupidly" which while a statement of fact (imo), probably does qualify as punching down. Though in this case (or even the Zimmerman one) the person getting punched down on and their relative position in society matters as well. In the case of Trump specifically and punching down on a sexual assault victim for no one believing her (especially on whatever chance it did happen as she says) it's just tasteless and a little pathetic in my opinion. Just take the win and move on. EDIT: Here's the comments you're referencing: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1grt1G_us3A Remember how Republicans reacted to those comments? Now here's Trump again, imagine Obama laying out his interpretation of Zimmerman killing Trayvon like that. "Oh he was scared so he went towards him and fought him? Then when this grown ass man lost a fight with a kid, he shot him? HmmmMMmmm?!?" + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/pEogfGZYizw?t=6s Hard time believing that anyone genuinely thinks Obama's comments were clearly much worse than Trump's, though xDaunt seems to have inadvertently made that argument. The tone and method is undeniably less professional from Trump than Obama. The effect is similar: it shows where the president stands on the issue and gives credibility to the aggressive elements. I’d be inclined towards saying both were poorly conceived commentaries than that both are justified. The Trump one is more fun to listen to, the Obama one is more professional. Both are things that people in high positions should be careful with saying. One of them was careful and avoided saying anything problematic, the other one said nothing but problematic stuff I don't find them remotely comparable. There's simply no way in my mind (or argument I've seen) to square the idea that Obama's was the problematic one and Trump's was the perfectly fine one. That's without even accounting for the historical context of the different situations, and how that makes them even less comparable. Trumps was undeniably bad, what exactly was bad about Obama showing empathy with an American family that lost their son? Seems like you guys would really like to believe that the history of this country doesn't make the Kavadrama and the Obama comment not even in the same ballpark. I have to go back and look at what Obama said, but my recollection is that his statement wasn't factual in the least. It was pure advocacy. I linked it above, I think you'll be surprised to see it in context with Trump's. It wasn't advocacy in the slightest, whereas Trump's was not just advocacy but berating the alleged victim. Obama gave a meandering statement calling for an investigation and showing support for Trayvon by linking Trayvon to his kids. No show of support or empathy whatsoever was given to Zimmerman. He most certainly did not wait for any facts to surface before showing this support. Trump, in contrast, recited the facts as they had been confirmed by Ford's testimony. And he only did this after she testified -- ie after the evidence was known. An empathetic statement of fact isn't supporting a dead person, it's empathizing with the family. What Trump did was stupidly suggest that not remembering details of a high school party (besides the part of you being attacked) had anything to do with his job as president. You can view Trump's comments as fine (I obviously disagree), but thinking Obama's comments were inappropriate is ridiculous. Obama showed one-sided empathy for Trayvon before anything was known about the case, thereby contributing to the dramatic, one-sided perception of the case before it went to trial. Let me remind you that this is a case that should never have been prosecuted given that the only eyewitness to the altercation between Zimmerman and Trayvon testified that Trayvon was beating the shit out of Zimmerman. According to the law as written possibly, but a better law would not have a grown man vigilante that allegedly loses a fight (he could have avoided) with a kid and get away with killing the kid he chased and confronted.
This is the USA. People are only prosecuted for acts that are crimes at the time the act is committed.
Empathy for Zimmerman, for what? In what way did you expect Obama to empathize with Zimmerman?
Killing someone in self defense is a traumatic experience, known to cause PTSD. And that’s before we even start considering the side effects of the wrongful prosecution.
Additionally this confirms you don't have the same appreciation for how the history of this country makes the one and only presidency a president has ever been able to say that about a Black child/family, different than yet another powerful white man with sexual misconduct allegations against them empathizing with another powerful white man over the allegations against them.
Lady Justice wears a blindfold for a reason.
|
On October 05 2018 08:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2018 07:42 xDaunt wrote:On October 05 2018 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2018 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On October 05 2018 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2018 07:09 xDaunt wrote:On October 05 2018 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2018 00:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 04 2018 15:15 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] That was empathy with his family more than anything else, which had Trump kept it at empathy for Kavanaugh I don't think it would be a big problem. The closer one would be the "Cambridge police acted stupidly" which while a statement of fact (imo), probably does qualify as punching down. Though in this case (or even the Zimmerman one) the person getting punched down on and their relative position in society matters as well. In the case of Trump specifically and punching down on a sexual assault victim for no one believing her (especially on whatever chance it did happen as she says) it's just tasteless and a little pathetic in my opinion. Just take the win and move on. EDIT: Here's the comments you're referencing: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1grt1G_us3A Remember how Republicans reacted to those comments? Now here's Trump again, imagine Obama laying out his interpretation of Zimmerman killing Trayvon like that. "Oh he was scared so he went towards him and fought him? Then when this grown ass man lost a fight with a kid, he shot him? HmmmMMmmm?!?" + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/pEogfGZYizw?t=6s Hard time believing that anyone genuinely thinks Obama's comments were clearly much worse than Trump's, though xDaunt seems to have inadvertently made that argument. The tone and method is undeniably less professional from Trump than Obama. The effect is similar: it shows where the president stands on the issue and gives credibility to the aggressive elements. I’d be inclined towards saying both were poorly conceived commentaries than that both are justified. The Trump one is more fun to listen to, the Obama one is more professional. Both are things that people in high positions should be careful with saying. One of them was careful and avoided saying anything problematic, the other one said nothing but problematic stuff I don't find them remotely comparable. There's simply no way in my mind (or argument I've seen) to square the idea that Obama's was the problematic one and Trump's was the perfectly fine one. That's without even accounting for the historical context of the different situations, and how that makes them even less comparable. Trumps was undeniably bad, what exactly was bad about Obama showing empathy with an American family that lost their son? Seems like you guys would really like to believe that the history of this country doesn't make the Kavadrama and the Obama comment not even in the same ballpark. I have to go back and look at what Obama said, but my recollection is that his statement wasn't factual in the least. It was pure advocacy. I linked it above, I think you'll be surprised to see it in context with Trump's. It wasn't advocacy in the slightest, whereas Trump's was not just advocacy but berating the alleged victim. Obama gave a meandering statement calling for an investigation and showing support for Trayvon by linking Trayvon to his kids. No show of support or empathy whatsoever was given to Zimmerman. He most certainly did not wait for any facts to surface before showing this support. Trump, in contrast, recited the facts as they had been confirmed by Ford's testimony. And he only did this after she testified -- ie after the evidence was known. An empathetic statement of fact isn't supporting a dead person, it's empathizing with the family. What Trump did was stupidly suggest that not remembering details of a high school party (besides the part of you being attacked) had anything to do with his job as president. You can view Trump's comments as fine (I obviously disagree), but thinking Obama's comments were inappropriate is ridiculous. Obama showed one-sided empathy for Trayvon before anything was known about the case, thereby contributing to the dramatic, one-sided perception of the case before it went to trial. Let me remind you that this is a case that should never have been prosecuted given that the only eyewitness to the altercation between Zimmerman and Trayvon testified that Trayvon was beating the shit out of Zimmerman. According to the law as written possibly, but a better law would not have a grown man vigilante that allegedly loses a fight (he could have avoided) with a kid and get away with killing the kid he chased and confronted. This is the USA. People are only prosecuted for acts that are crimes at the time the act is committed. Show nested quote +Empathy for Zimmerman, for what? In what way did you expect Obama to empathize with Zimmerman? Killing someone in self defense is a traumatic experience, known to cause PTSD. And that’s before we even start considering the side effects of the wrongful prosecution. Show nested quote +Additionally this confirms you don't have the same appreciation for how the history of this country makes the one and only presidency a president has ever been able to say that about a Black child/family, different than yet another powerful white man with sexual misconduct allegations against them empathizing with another powerful white man over the allegations against them. Lady Justice wears a blindfold for a reason.
Like I said, a better law. You're fully aware that laws can suck and be bad at holding people accountable. As well as their systems of enforcement frequently failing.
Obviously Obama wouldn't empathize on killing someone? Like seriously? At that point he couldn't color the investigation by suggesting the prosecution was wrongful, you know better than that.
Clearly he's real torn up about the whole thing...
+ Show Spoiler +
Presumably the blindfold is so she does vomit at the sight of what this country calls "justice".
EDIT: I mean I think the sensible thing for you to say here is:
"Republicans overreacted then (you could include yourself if you wanted to be bold), and Democrats are overreacting now"
Trying to make what Obama said worse than Trump's comments is just the worst route imo, but I'm over it.
|
On October 05 2018 01:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 00:46 Danglars wrote:
It looks like McConnell is sticking to cloture vote Friday, and final vote on the weekend or Monday. I pray his spine does not weaken in the next 72 hours, and that Flake, Collins, Murkowski, Donnely, and Manchin make the right choice when the vote comes. I've basically given up on Heitkamp. She can die on this hill and get her just desserts from the voters for all I care. I think that the 51 republicans, plus Manchin and Heitkamp, will vote for Kavanaugh.
Heitkamp is officially a no on Kavanaugh. She's now basically a lame duck Senator. She was already trailing, and her state supports Kavanaugh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.redd.it/nisli0jf9mm11.jpg)
