Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - velcro

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: December 31, 2018, 04:35:05 PM »
Quote
There's no reasonable basis against the evidence on record to repeat your false claim that Blumenthal only made those claims on two occasions. 

You are right, I can't prove that he only made two claims.  I can't prove a negative.

But you said he made three claims.  It is monumentally trivial to prove that.  You have declined, repeatedly, without any real justification.

I think your actions speak very clearly to anyone who reads the thread, as do mine.  I will leave it at that.

2
General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: December 31, 2018, 04:16:33 PM »

Quote
Any deaths of children or others at the Border are strictly the fault of the Democrats and their pathetic immigration policies that allow people to make the long trek thinking they can enter our country illegally. They can't. If we had a Wall, they wouldn't even try!”

There's nothing about what they provided that shows what he said was false or misleading.

The deaths of children at the border are strictly the fault of the Democrats?

Nothing to due with parents who took risks to give their children better lives.
Nothing to do with bad luck.
Nothing to do with being separated from parents who might care for them.
Nothing to do with lack of sufficient facilities.
Nothing to do with the previous state of health for the children.

Strictly Democrats, who as of now have absolutely no government power, other than preventing some bills from passing the Senate.

That is what Trump is saying.  Strictly means "no more than, purely".    So "strictly the fault of Democrats" means there are no other factors.

You are really claiming that Trump's statement is true?  Really?

3
General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: December 31, 2018, 04:05:28 PM »
Seriati,

You keep talking about Trump lies.  Could you tell me who calls them lies?  With very few exceptions, I call them false and misleading statements.  Your terminology is very sloppy.

Obama wiretapping Trump's phones:
I have gone through this. Anyone who cares can find out what the FBI said about this, and can look at fact checking from a variety of sources.  Obviously there are some people who don't believe the facts, or choose to spin this hard enough to make it look like it might be true.  (Wiretapping Russian agents and overhearing conversations withTrump campaign members is not wiretapping Trump's phone. Monitoring communications from Trump Tower to Russian banks is not wiretapping Trump's phone.)

I'm not sure what you are talking about with the 3 million illegal votes.  Trump claimed it. I can only say that if it were true, there would likely be evidence.  None has been forthcoming, and people have spent a lot of time looking.  Therefore I say it is false.

I could claim that Trump unquestionably shot someone on 5th Ave last week on live TV.  I produce no evidence, and a search of the internet provides none.  Would you say my claim is false? If not, then I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Quote
I agree, most of the 7,644 statements represent multiple lies by the media.
Sources?

Quote
Quote
We can't choose to stop having him as our president.

Wow that's just false, we can elect someone else.

I will assume you are serious, instead of trolling.  You can stop watching CNN today.  We can't stop having Trump as President today.  That means the country has to deal with his false and misleading statements for two years.

Quote
No matter what lie gets told about Trump it's still his fault, no matter what statement he makes it's a lie, no matter what decision he makes it's wrong.

I understand that your feeling is that is how some people treat Trump.  By all means continue to tell us your feelings.

In the meantime, I will go someplace else to talk about facts and reality.

4
General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: December 31, 2018, 09:26:02 AM »
I agree, the accusation about Cruz is ridiculous.*

It also has no real effect on the country, compared to the accusation that Obama tapped Trump's phones, or that 3 million illegal votes were cast. And it lists 28 stories for the year spread over several news outlets that produce many thousands of stories in a year combined.  Some of these sources may be biased.  You can choose to stop reading them.

Compare to 7,644 false or misleading statements from one person, the person responsible for speaking truthfully to the country, over two years.  We can't choose to stop having him as our president.

But I don't deny the obvious truth that some media stories are false.  I just put it in context.

*Of course, the original quote referred to Gov. Rick Scott, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz.  Only Cruz responded, so they were 2/3 right :)

5
General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: December 31, 2018, 09:07:18 AM »
For the record, I am fine with a merit-based immigration policy.  Did congressional Republicans ever submit a bill for that?  Did Democrats ever vote against it?

Also, I am fine with voter ID, as long as it is not implemented in a way that disadvantages certain groups, or makes it more difficult to vote.  If a new voter ID law requires a 95 year old woman, who has been voting for 70 years, to travel 50 miles to get a valid ID, then I have a problem with that.  If the office is only open every 5th Wednesday and they require a notarized birth certificate, and it cost $25, even worse. But if 70% of those who will have difficulty voting are Democrats, and Republicans are on record saying the new law will help them politically, that is worse still.  And finally, if the law fixes the non-existent problem of in-person voter fraud, but does not address the much larger issues of absentee ballots, it is despicable.

cherrypoptart:
Quote
I'm not going to have some website I can point to and say the quality of life in America is deteriorating but I can look around and see it for myself. I can watch the news and see it there too. Anecdotal for sure

My opinion is that studies and surveys based on tens of thousands of people are a good way to determine the situation for the country as a whole.  Others seem to believe that their individual feelings, and the experiences of their friends as reported on Facebook is a better way.  I guess we will agree to disagree. 

Back to false and misleading statements:

I think it has been firmly established that there is no evidence that Blumenthal made more than the two statements about Vietnam that I quoted.  More importantly, there is absolutely zero evidence, from anywhere in the world, ever, that he made the statements attributed to him by Trump.  Pending any new facts, it is undeniable that Trump's claims about Blumenthal are false.

On to the latest from the Military Times:

Trump speaking to troops stationed in Iraq:
Quote
“You haven’t gotten one in more than 10 years. More than 10 years!” he told a crowd of applauding service members during his remarks at Al Asad Air Base in Iraq on Wednesday. “And we got you a big one. I got you a big one.”

“[People said] we could make it 3 percent. We could make it 2 percent. We could make it 4 percent," he told the troops. “I said, ‘No, make it 10 percent. Make it more than 10 percent.’ Because it’s been a long time. It’s been more than 10 years. That’s a long time.”

The truth:
Quote
Trump has repeatedly claimed that troops hadn’t seen a pay raise during President Barack Obama’s time in the White House. In fact, troops have seen a pay raise of at least 1 percent every year for more than 30 years.

The president also appeared to claim he pushed for a 10 percent pay raise in 2019, even though the actual rate his administration publicly supported and eventually got approved was only 2.6 percent.

Trump’s initial pay raise proposal for 2018 was only 2.1 percent, which would have matched the final pay raise passed during the Obama administration. Lawmakers overrode that proposal by Trump, approving the higher 2.4 percent mark.

Utterly false.
False about the first raise in 10 years.
False about asking for more than 2.6 percent for 2019.
Misleading, since in 2018 he asked for 2.1% and Congress raised it to 2.4%.

The sad part is, all the soldiers there know that they got raises every year, and that Trump was not telling the truth. And next year, they will find out that he was not telling the truth about  their raises for 2019.

6
General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: December 25, 2018, 10:27:05 AM »
Quote
his failure to secure the border and his opening of the floodgates to illegals with his amnesty has most likely doomed our country.

In 1986, 1.6 million people were apprehended at the southwest border of the US.
Last year - 300K.
Source

Open floodgates.  Huh.

To be fair, this is apprehensions.  There could be millions and millions getting through that we are not apprehending. Or it could be zero.
Until then, the data we have shows that the problem has dropped by about 80%.
Any data that shows different would be appreciated.

7
General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: December 24, 2018, 09:58:02 AM »
If walls are a necessary and integral part of a comprehensive border security package, and there is a very good argument that they are, then Trump isn't totally wrong here because although a wall was never specifically mentioned by Reagan as far as I know, as a part of border security it is still greatly implied. He just couldn't say it outright because of what he said about the Berlin Wall.

If you read the quote I provided, it was not "greatly implied".  It was specifically excluded.
Nobody has claimed Reagan tried to build a wall except for Trump.  Major advisors to Reagan on immigration policy are on record saying he never tried to build it.

Your response is in direct contradiction to the facts provided.

Trump's statement is misleading.

8
General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: December 24, 2018, 09:50:03 AM »
So the argument is thst it won’t stop 100% of illegal crossings so let’s do nothing. Right. ::)

Wrong.  Nobody said do nothing. They said don't do stupid useless expensive things when you can do smart, less expensive, useful things.

Let's enforce the laws against hiring undocumented workers so they have less incentive to come here.
Let's have a guest worker program so we can have a lot of people come in legally, but not stay.
Let's actually have Congress talk about immigration reform.
Let's work on helping other countries solve their problems so people will not come here to save their lives, or the lives of their children.

These are all things that rational people agree on.  Trumps new chief of staff is on record saying the wall is a bad idea.

9
General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: December 22, 2018, 08:26:41 AM »
Quote
Even President Ronald Reagan tried for 8 years to build a Border Wall, or Fence, and was unable to do so.
Donald Trump

False.

Quote
“Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems, make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit,”
Ronald Reagan

Quote
“There was not any discussion at the senior policy levels during the Reagan administration about fencing or a wall that I can recall,”
Doris Meissner, who was executive associate commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Reagan administration

Quote
“I don’t think a border wall as such was discussed at the time. Mainly because it hadn’t quite come to that,” “If there were other things contemplated, they were never really acted on.”
Clark Judge, a speechwriter and aide in the Reagan White House.

Quote
“I don’t remember Reagan saying we need a wall,” Simpson said. “Reagan was really sensitive to that stuff.”
Former Sen. Alan Simpson, a Republican from Wyoming and co-author of the 1986 immigration bill

You could argue that in today's environment Reagan would support a wall.  But that argument would not diminish the falsity of Trump's statement.

You could point out that "there were other things contemplated", which included a wall.  Contemplating is not "trying for 8 years" and being unable to do it.

10
I see us more as sitting around the lunch table shooting the breeze and not so much in a courtroom under oath providing evidence on a case. Maybe that's just me though. If I have an issue with something I just state my case and then someone has their rebuttal and usually that's it and it's time to move on. Everyone has their say and it's all good. No need to make a federal case out of everything. But it's all good. If people want to play the paper chase like we're law school students in Harvard, you know whatever floats your boat.

if I am at a lunch table shooting the breeze, and my friend says "Everybody knows that Tom Brady has the most completed passes in the NFL!", I am going to politely point out that he is wrong.  Because he is wrong, and because he is stating it as an obvious hard fact.  If he said "Tom Brady is the best quarterback ever", I wouldn't bat an eye.

That is not making a federal case.  That is not requiring "academic journal writing levels of citation".  That is not "playing the paper chase".  That is calling BS when someone makes stuff up and expects you to just believe it because they said it.

11
Seriati said there were three statements.  Here are two:

Quote
“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

Quote
In 2003, he addressed a rally in Bridgeport, where about 100 military families gathered to express support for American troops overseas. “When we returned, we saw nothing like this,” Mr. Blumenthal said. “Let us do better by this generation of men and women.”

"Sometimes" does not prove 3.
"Other times" does not prove 3.
"unlikely to have resulted from 2 (or 3 statements) never repeated again (your opinion)" does not prove 3.

Seriati still says
Quote
There are more than 2 instances referenced in that link,
and
Quote
And this is why I say you're trolling.  If you read the piece you'd have seen more than two instances.  If you spent anytime actually looking for sources you would have similarly found more than two instances.

I have asked you over and over and over to just list the actual words.  You don't.  You just keep repeating that the proof is in the link.  I think you are mistaken. 

If you provide those words, I will admit I missed an important detail.  I will apologize profusely if you show me the clear link.  I will donate $50 to the charity of your choice if you just type those words.

Or, you can continue your insistence that they exist, but for some reason you don't supply them.

You have absolutely no reason to avoid providing that third statement.  Unless of course, it does not exist.

Prove me wrong.

12
Quote
Relying on the honesty of the other person (while acknowledging they may be wrong or you may disagree with their conclusions) is the basis of conversation.

This is a good starting point.  But when people make claims that are false, "relying on honesty" is no longer the guiding principle.  You may honestly believe your claim is true, but the claim is in fact false.  It is not about your honesty.  It is about the truth or falsity of your claim.

For example:

Seriati wrote:
Quote
Of course, I recommend the original NYT article, in which it is very clear that it's not just "two" occasions.  [that Blumenthal said he served in Vietnam] https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html

...Now that said, it's unclear from the NYT's whether Trump's claim about him telling war stories is supportable or not, but it certainly sounds possible given the number of times he spoke on the issue, the impression given and his deliberate stories about "when we came back."

As far as I can tell, either your research was completely inadequate [finding only two occasions], or this just a false representation.

I searched carefully, and there were just "two occasions".  I say your claim is false. I am focusing "on disputing the actual arguments made"

I do not "rely on your honesty".  I ask that you provide some evidence besides "I read it somewhere".

You may have misremembered.  That is fine. I will not criticize you for that.
You may have some other sources that you have drawn your conclusion from.  Provide the sources and the reasoning, and we can discuss it.

Readers are not expected to trust statements implicitly, with no external verification, simply because a poster “has memories” that back them up.

But in this case, you have provided absolutely no external verification.  If you have something, show it.  If I missed it in your link, pull out the actual quotes.  If it is somewhere else, provide the source.  If you don't, then do not expect anyone to trust your statements.  As the bolded words above say.  The words you "don't disagree with".

I offered $50 to the charity of your choice if you provide evidence for more than two occasions.  Twice.  You never responded.
I will extend that for a week.

I call out people who post things that I believe are false.  I don't have an obsessive focus on you.  You happen to be the person who does it the most often.

13
General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: December 08, 2018, 09:22:46 AM »
Quote
Still, most of the "lies" are quibbles, and many are just antagonistic interpretation.  I mean it's getting rare that people even try to cite to the lies themselves, they just cite to the meme "Trump lies."

You do know that this is a thread devoted to citing the false and misleading statements themselves.

You do know that even if most of the "lies" are just quibbles, there are a large number that have significant impact.

For example:
Trump claiming to have evidence that Obama "tapped my phones", but never providing it.
Or claiming to have evidence that 3 million illegal votes were cast, but never providing it.

This is a pet peeve, claiming to have evidence without providing it.  Which brings me to this thread, back around November 11.

Seriati:
Quote
Of course, I recommend the original NYT article, in which it is very clear that it's not just "two" occasions.  https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html

...Now that said, it's unclear from the NYT's whether Trump's claim about him telling war stories is supportable or not, but it certainly sounds possible given the number of times he spoke on the issue, the impression given and his deliberate stories about "when we came back."

As far as I can tell, either your research was completely inadequate [finding only two occasions], or this just a false representation.

Velcro:
Quote
If you can find a third case, please show me the source.  As far as I can tell, it is not the New York Times article you posted. 
I know that you are busy, and so if you can provide the source for the third case you insist exists, I will donate $50 to the charity of your choice.  Really
.

You must have missed that.  The offer stands for a week.

Am I trolling? Nope.  You made a very explicit claim that I think is false, based on the sources I have found and linked to, and I am asking you to prove it. 


14

You claimed I “rarely fail to make personal attacks”.

Quote one personal attack I made in this thread.  Hell, quote one personal attack I made in the last 6 months.  Then say where I called you a liar.

I will donate $25 to the charity of your choice if you can find one personal attack. $50 if you can find 11 in 6 months, to compare to your 11 in 3 days.

I looked back a few months and the worst I found was that I said that if you made claims and did not provide sources, people on Ornery would not trust you. And I made a crack about “semantic gymnastics” in reference to your distracting from the actual points being made.  After calling me a liar, you attributed a false quote to me, and I replied that if you don't provide sources to back up your quote, I would call you a liar, with a smiley face after.  I never followed through, even though you never provided the documentation for the false quote. 

I also noticed that you called me a liar multiple times, but never actually got around to proving it, or even providing a single quote of where I lied.

Please stop calling me a liar when you have nothing to back it up.
Please stop saying I attack you unless you have quotes to back it up.


With about 2000 words in the last post, Seriati did not address this.

The offer for the $25 donation has been retracted.

Back to the actual argument, Seriati initially said

Quote
Antifa is massive, white nationalists are tiny.

Now he says

Quote
Whether they are larger in raw numbers, I believe so based on indirect reporting and their impact, but I don't have any good direct sources for that proposition.

Thank you for the clarification.  That agrees entirely with my point all along, i.e. you have no solid facts to support the original statement. Memories, claims of reading things (that we have no sources for, so we must trust your interpretation of your readings implicitly), social media feeds, but no facts.

I have polls from respected news organizations/universities to say that the two groups have equivalent size and support.

That simple summary of the situation has not changed.

And please note, despite what Seriati says, I did not claim anything about Antifa, or their non-existent "statement of belief".  I am only saying that Seriati is getting out over his skis when he makes sweeping claims like this without evidence.


15
velcro,

Even if the entire clause following "I think I speak for everyone on Ornery" was a statement that was agreeable to me it would still be true that you don't speak for me when you say it.

That may be your interpretation, but to the best of my knowledge it is in contradiction to common usage. We can agree to disagree on that point.

To avoid the conflict of your interpretation, could you please just tell me if you agree or disagree with the statements?

-Readers are not expected to trust statements implicitly, with no external verification, simply because a poster “has memories” that back them up.

-Readers are not expected to find the external verification when a poster makes a controversial statement.


Quote
you used that deliberately strong language to create the impression that everyone here is united against what you perceive Seriati was doing in his posts, and that is flatly untrue.

Ok, prove that it is flatly untrue.  Find someone besides Seriati who disagrees with the two statements above.  It should be very simple if you know that my statement is flatly untrue.  And note, this is independent of what I perceive Seriati has done.  This is an independent statement of expectations of readers.  So any distractions on this point that Seriati does or does not practice them is worthy of discussion separately, but should not be used to, well, distract.

16
General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: December 03, 2018, 10:24:22 PM »
A little more context:

Quote
Well I told you, General Flynn obviously was dealing [with Russia]. So that’s one person. But he was dealing, as he should have been. . . . Russia is a ruse. I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven’t made a phone call to Russia in years. Don’t speak to people from Russia. I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge, no person that I deal with does.”

— President Trump, in a news conference, on Feb. 16, 2017

About 16 months earlier (October 2015), he signed a letter of intent for the Russia project.  About 8 months earlier (June 2016) his lawyer was still working on the deal.

Technically, at the time he said it, nobody was actively working on a Russian project, that we know of.  But what he said is misleading. He never said "nothing anymore" or "nothing recently". He never was forthcoming about what he had done in the recent past, the specific "deal" that nobody knew about.

His statements strongly imply he had no recent dealings.  His statements are misleading.

17
General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: December 03, 2018, 08:09:22 PM »
I think I was not particularly clear.

There was general knowledge that Trump wanted to build in Russia for decades.  There was no knowledge that any specific deals were being discussed.  There was no public information that there were active discussions during the campaign.

Newspapers did not cover "the project".  Nobody knew about "the project".
The deal was not "a very public deal".

Quote
From Trump's point of view "common knowledge" of his groups interest in placing a Tower in Russia is coverage of the matter, even if the press lacked specific knowledge at the time. It is how the industry works in general. Negotiations "fall through" all the time, even the ones that were about to become legally binding.(And even many that were binding)

From Trump's point of view, exercise is bad for you, so that particular line of reasoning doesn't carry much weight.

From a rational person's point of view, the specific deal had no coverage.
From a rational person's view, Trump's statements give the clear impression that there was plenty of coverage on a specific deal.
Therefore, his statement is misleading.

How the industry works, and whether negotiations "fall through" have nothing to do with the statements above, or whether Trump was misleading.

18
General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: December 02, 2018, 09:40:02 AM »
Donald Trump, on the Moscow Trump Tower project.

Quote
... a project, which was essentially, I guess, more or less of an option that we were looking at in Moscow. Everybody knew about it. It was written about in newspapers. It was a well-known project.

...a project that everybody knew about. I mean, we were very open with it. We were thinking about building a building.

...This deal was a very public deal. Everybody knows about this deal. I wasn’t trying to hide anything. Okay.

It was not covered in any newspaper until well after the election, August 2017.

Quote
The fact that the Trump Organization was negotiating for the development of a Trump Tower in Moscow even during his presidential campaign wasn’t publicly known until Aug. 28, 2017, seven months into Trump’s presidency. As the Washington Post reported at that time, Cohen reached out to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s personal spokesman in mid-January 2016 with an email seeking to revive stalled negotiations over the project.

It was known that Trump was generally interested trying to make deals in Russia for decades.  It was not known that he was trying to make a deal during the campaign of 2016.

Trump is giving the impression that , during the campaign, people knew about the deal.  That is misleading.

19
I'm just checking in to see if Seriati provided any documentation for his claim that I made "personal attacks".  I will check in again in a week, since I did promise to make a donation if he actually provides it.

Other than that, the way it stands is this:

A claim was made that Antifa was much larger than white nationalism.  No evidence was provided to support the claim.

I provided evidence that the size of the groups, and the size of the support, was about equal for both groups, indicating the claim was false. 

My evidence was dismissed as flimsy (I disagree), but no other evidence to support the claim was provided.

I don't think these facts are in dispute.

Somehow my disputation of an unsupported claim was distorted into me insisting everyone agrees with me.

I think I speak for everyone on Ornery

You do not.

What, specifically, do you disagree with?  If you don't give specifics, your response is not particularly informative.

It's sad that you think I need to qualify why you don't speak for everyone on Ornery.

Let me make this clear:

I don't claim to speak for everyone on Ornery as a blanket statement, as your last line implies. You left out the rest of the sentence, which distorts the meaning.  Please try to refrain from doing that.

For example, I think I speak for everyone on Ornery when I say that ad hominem attacks are unacceptable.

Does everyone agree with that statement?  Then I do speak for everyone on Ornery when I say that.  Fact.

I think I speak for everyone on Ornery when I say that

In order to have rational and fact-based discussions:

-Readers are not expected to trust statements implicitly, with no external verification, simply because a poster “has memories” that back them up.

-Readers are not expected to find the external verification when a poster makes a controversial statement.

If you agree, then "I speak for you when I say" them.  That is what that phrase means.

My question was which elements of those specific statements you disagree with, so I could understand why you disagree.  That's all.


20
I think I speak for everyone on Ornery

You do not.

What, specifically, do you disagree with?  If you don't give specifics, your response is not particularly informative.

Quote
Quote
Quote one personal attack I made in this thread.

For reasons that are your own, you seem to have made it a personal project to pick a bone with Seriati. I will grant that there is ample material among the posts of various people here to levy objections or refutations, but little that I can see to have engaged in what looks to my eye like a straight quarrel. You can deny that it's an attack, but it certainly looks personal.

I deny that it is an ad-hominem attack. I was using Seriati's phrasing, which I should not, because it was unclear.
I deny that my asking for sources is personal.  When anyone here makes statements that I believe are false or misleading, and I can't find any corroboration for that statement, I ask for sources.  Seriati does not provide them, and then makes ad-hominem attacks.  Do you deny that?
Once the ad-hominem attacks on me start, yes, that becomes personal.  But again, the record shows who makes the ad-hominem attacks.

Quote
Quote
I don't want to be confrontational.

Lol?

Just bear in mind, velcro, no one here is under any obligation to agree with anything you say, even if it's accurate and reasonable (in your opinion). Someone who disagrees is not obliged to admit you were right all along when you provide a source, and even what you see as irrational defense of indefensible positions it their prerogative so long (IMO) as it remains collegial and civil.

I am perfectly aware of that, thank you. You are implying attitudes that I do not demonstrate. 

I don't expect people to agree with *anything* I say even if it is accurate and reasonable.   
I don't expect people to admit I was right all along when I provide a source
If you have quotes that demonstrate that I believe that, please provide them.  Otherwise, you are making false inferences.  I don't appreciate that.

I expect people to acknowledge that, when I provide a specific link from a reputable source that establishes certain facts, that they stop repeating their claims in direct contradiction to the established facts.

I expect people to acknowledge when they do not have any factual basis for their statements, or at least stop repeating the claims as if they were established facts.

I expect people to defend their positions with sources, not belittle me for declining to believe their memories are infallible.

I have no problem with irrational defense of indefensible positions, when they are stated as opinion, or they are acknowledged as irrational or indefensible.

I do have a problem with irrational defense of indefensible positions when they are stated as fact, and when they are repeated after debunking.  That is called lying, and I have a problem with that. Do you?

I point out the lack of sources or the false claims collegially and civilly.  I receive ad-hominem attacks in return.  Do you deny this?



21

Quote
So going to your fallback position of "numerous statements by those claiming to be part of anti-fa", do you have sources for that, or is it just your opinion?

I have memories, and you have google, knock yourself out. 

I carefully read all your responses, and your explanation for why you don’t provide sources.

I ask this respectfully:

Do you expect readers here to trust your statements implicitly, with no external verification, simply because you “have memories” that back them up?

Do you expect that when you make a controversial statement, we are responsible for finding the external verification, not you?


I think I speak for everyone on Ornery when I say that the answer to those questions need to be “no” in order to have any fact-based and rational discussion here.

You don’t like my “internet poll”, conducted by Reuters/ipsos/University of Virginia?  As I said, show us another one.  But right now that is the only data anyone has provided.

A few more points I would like to make:

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
How do you define "dead"?  Or do you have a different way of measuring "the racist movement"?  Please let us know your reasoning.

Essentially dead?  As no person that openly acknowledged being a racist could function in ordinary society or not suffer extreme ostracization.  As in, even secretly reported numbers had dropped well below 1% of the popoulation (from highs where virtually everyone was a racist).  From the fact that no intellectual movement endorsed any concept of racism, that anti-racism predominated every learning opportunity.

I disagree with just about all of the opinions that make up your statement  I could find the sources that disprove your statements, but the burden is on you to back them up.  As soon as you do, I look forward to the discussion.

That's nice. Of course, very little of that was opinion.

In order to prove that is is not opinion, you need to provide facts to back the statements up.  That is the definition of opinion - if you have no facts, it is opinion.

  • No person that openly acknowledged being a racist could function in ordinary society or not suffer extreme ostracization. Provide facts, not anecdotes, to prove this.
  • Even secretly reported numbers had dropped well below 1% of the popoulation (from highs where virtually everyone was a racist).  Provide facts about the “well below 1%”, and about “virtually everyone was a racist”  Polls, not anecdotes.
  • no intellectual movement endorsed any concept of racism.  Provide facts that “no” intellectual movement did this.  Not a single one.
  • that anti-racism predominated every learning opportunity. Provide facts that “every” learning opportunity had this characteristic.  Every one.
These are perfectly valid opinions.  I would not disagree with some of them, if they were not grossly exaggerated to the point of absurdity.   But they simply are not facts. I pointed out the true characterization, but your reply seems to disagree.  Prove me wrong. Or admit that they are opinions.  I don't care which.

One more thing.

Quote
That's quite the reading comprehension fail.  Is it bad faith or just trolling again?

Really, your entire argument style is burden shifiting, you call me a liar,
I'm giving you an F on your research.

And you wonder why I think you're a troll.  So to translate, you mean to be insulting and disrespectful, so you'll start your statement with the rhetorical equivalent of "I'm not a racist but...."

Do I respond to bad faith ones where the poster is only attempting to undermine my credibility so that he can score a rhetorical point without doing the work

I already know that you've rarely done the homework yourself, that's why you just tell me to prove it and the act like you proven the contrary.

You find a cite that seems to agree with you and declare the matter settled as if it's unimpeachable, with the only medium of argument that you accept another random citation - that you then gleefully tear apart (only other people's sources have credibility problems). 

My thought is that you're still trolling.  You almost always make a personal attack rather than a response to the argument put forward.  You routinely pretend like a lack of citation is proof of the opposite conclusion, where at best there's no logical inference from a lack of citation.  You almost never ask for any clarification in good faith, for example, I've never once seen you say, I did some research on this point, and I think "x".  

You also routinely fail to differentiate between a fact in question and an entire argument, which compounds your habit of believing that you can assume the negative of any statement of fact with which you disagree (usually without any basis).   

What a logic fail.

Facts exist independent of whether I spoon feed them to you.  And they don't become "just an opinion" simply because you decree it
.  Again, and this is basic logic, you can't assume the inverse of a factual claim just because you decide to do so.

 I think you rarely fail to make personal attacks, but you are always quick to claim the high road and claim you are not.

Hard to tell exactly, but I count somewhere around 11 or 12 direct personal attacks.  Certainly false accusations, unsupported in any way. Many of your statements are flatly contradicted by things I have posted.

You claimed I “rarely fail to make personal attacks”.

Here I go claiming the high road:

Quote one personal attack I made in this thread.  Hell, quote one personal attack I made in the last 6 months.  Then say where I called you a liar.

I will donate $25 to the charity of your choice if you can find one personal attack. $50 if you can find 11 in 6 months, to compare to your 11 in 3 days.

I looked back a few months and the worst I found was that I said that if you made claims and did not provide sources, people on Ornery would not trust you. And I made a crack about “semantic gymnastics” in reference to your distracting from the actual points being made.  After calling me a liar, you attributed a false quote to me, and I replied that if you don't provide sources to back up your quote, I would call you a liar, with a smiley face after.  I never followed through, even though you never provided the documentation for the false quote. 

I also noticed that you called me a liar multiple times, but never actually got around to proving it, or even providing a single quote of where I lied.

Please stop calling me a liar when you have nothing to back it up.
Please stop saying I attack you unless you have quotes to back it up.


But back to the actual discussion.

I have linked to a poll. You have explained why you don’t like the poll, but provided no actual data to support your claims. That is how it stands.

You asked a question:
Quote
Are you seriously asserting its not part of their core beliefs?  I don't there's any reasonable basis for that claim, which means this is nothing more than a tactic in an argument and not a serious attempt to add to the knowledge or the debate.  Seriously, it's like calling someone out for spelling.

Nope, I am not seriously asserting that.  I am not jokingly asserting that.  I never asserted anything like that.  You accuse me of a tactic based on behavior that never happened. In essence, you made up a statement and attributed it to me with no evidence at all, then used that as evidence that I am arguing in bad faith.  Kind of funny, if it were the first time you did that.

My statement was not that "violence is not a part of their core beliefs".  It was a question about whether an anarchistic collection of isolated groups had a specific statement of beliefs, as you stated, before you "clarified".  I asked for sources to prove your claim, which you have not provided.  That is all I did.

If you can find where I made the assertion you claim I made, then please quote it.  I fully admit I could be wrong.

If you can’t quote it, then your accusation is false.  Would you admit you are wrong?

Do you wish to clarify your question?

Oh, and this is not trolling.  I simply point out when you say things and can't back them up.  Looking back at your unsubstantiated assertions about Richard Blumenthal's  claims to have served in Vietnam, (another donation to charity in that thread, left unclaimed) your claims about my math errors in the Air Force One thread (you never pointed them out), and others over the years, you do it on a regular basis. 

I don't trust anyone who just types something on a website. You seem to expect that trust.  I trust sources, and you don't provide them when asked.  I provide sources when asked, every time, or I retract the statement.  I made that claim before, and I stand by it.  You don't.

I don't want to be confrontational.  All I ask is that you provide sources for claims you make,  just like I do. Why is that so difficult?

22
I also observe that you do not correct your insinuation that I was trying to hide something, or acknowledge that the survey shows equivalent levels of support for the two groups in question.

You did notice the smiley/winky face immediate after "That insinuation" didn't you? I knew you linked to the study directly, that's why the comment was made toungue-in-cheek. I wasn't aware a retraction was needed for a joke. It still also is correct that you didn't state the 8% numbers "up front"(someone would need to follow the link to find it), but I wasn't really implying and kind of dark or sinister motive behind your having left that one out.


I did not think the smiley/winky implied that your "joke" was completely unserious.  I inferred an insinuation pretending to be a joke.  But even though you brought it up again as not being "up front", I take you at your word that it was not meant to be an accusation.

As I said, the original question was the size of the movement, 12% of people know somebody, not the size of support 8% support it.  So I didn't mention the size of support.  I also didn't mention the number of pages, or the font, because it was not relevant.  Please stop implying that I left out something relevant when I clearly did not.

Quote
As far as I can tell, your survey says nothing about support and only looks at membership, or knowledge of people who are believed to have membership with said groups.

I am really at a loss to explain it any more clearly.  I made it very, very clear in a previous post (November 18, 3:35 PM) and it is right there in the link. I even provided the question number.

I apologize in advance for the shouting ....

Quote
Q4: Do you SUPPORT or oppose the following group or movement...?

8% SUPPORT Antifa
8% SUPPORT white nationalists

Can you please acknowledge that the numbers I provided are, in fact, for support, not membership?

Quote
You're also ignoring a prior post by others pointing out that your study only looked at Anti-Fa specifically in relation to a collection of other groups. So there are valid questions about methodology in play here.

Is your impression that Antifa is a specific group, and white nationalism is a collection of groups? 

Indeed, someone said "Your data compares only one violent leftist group to an entire group of right wing groups." I did not address it, since it had been disproven earlier.  But since it appears to be a thing, I will quote someone on the thread who disagrees with me.

"There is no unitary organization named Antifa"  So it is a collection of groups.

The Wikipedia article that says "The Antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is a conglomeration of left wing autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist militant[7] groups in the United States." 

Do I need to provide more sources?

More importantly, the statement I was disproving was this

Quote
Antifa is massive, white nationalists are tiny.

and later this

Quote
The Neo-Nazi's, white Suprematists, Klansmen, and whatnot may be in the low 10th percentile of the population in general, but they lack any meaningful support base.

Anti-Fa? It's "support base" is massive

So I didn't choose to compare "Antifa specifically [sic] in comparison to a collection of other groups".  That is exactly how it was framed by others.  The survey matches their claims exactly, and proves them wrong. That is my only point, that all the data available right now says these claims are wrong.

Quote
That you also require a survey to demonstrate something which most of us are plainly seeing on our social media feeds and/or daily lives on a regular basis raises other questions but they're not entirely relevant to this board.

I don't require anything.  Please acknowledge that.

And my response is still the same as it was last time.

Quote
I am not trying to troll, or be difficult.  But do you acknowledge that a properly conducted survey has more validity than the opinion of one person of what people think?  If not, please let me know, and I will stop trying to make that point with you.

With all due respect, what you see on your "social media feeds and/or daily lives on a regular basis" is anecdotal. It most emphatically is not reliable data all by itself.

I really don't like getting confrontational like this.  I will politely request that you address this comment so we can move forward respectfully.

When determining the opinions and views of a large, diverse population, a properly conducted survey of over 5000 people has more validity than the opinion of one person based on his or her individual social interactions.

If you disagree with that statement, let me know, and we will agree to disagree.  But please respond one way or the other.

23
General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: November 19, 2018, 07:30:41 PM »
I find it difficult to accept the character trait of excessive exaggeration as an acceptable for any leader. But that me.

Good luck with that.  Me, i’m a 4.5 year recovering alcoholic In my continued Sebright he depends on my excepting reality as it is rather than as I wished it to be. Accept things I cannot change, etc.

I don’t like the fact that Hollywood writers went on strike many years ago and ended up creating a massive genre of reality television. But it happens.

I don’t like that reality television continue does it’s own genre after the writer strike end it. But it did

I don’t like that Jon Stewart retired

I don’t like that Donald Trump is turned into a celebrity and got his own show. But he did.

I don’t like the fact that you guys think that this is important.  Maybe this is one of those things I can change.   Can you anyone explain to me how the question of whether Donald Trump watched the 9/11 attacks on television or actually saw them through binoculars or saw them standing from another building makes 1 g of difference? Even the term “misleading “implies that something could lead us in the wrong direction. I don’t see how it makes any difference.  Is anyone hear denying that 9/11 occurred?

911 was an extremely trauatic event for me. And that’s one of the ways that we use the word “witnessed”.  It means that you saw in the you were affected by a Trumatic event that you took personally. If you say that a child went catatonic after he witnessed the in the brutal slaying of us parents , Nobody bitches in quibbles whether the child saw it in person or over a close circuit television set or on public television.

Pete,

You convinced me.  No sarcasm here.  Trump saying he "witnessed" and "saw" people jumping out of a building 4 miles away is not definitively false, if you widen those terms to include watching it on TV.  So I acknowledged he "witnessed" it on TV.

But look at the context.  Since he only witnessed it on TV, what he actually said is completely misleading.

Quote
"Many people jumped and I witnessed it, I watched that. I have a view -- a view in my apartment that was specifically aimed at the World Trade Center,"

Since he was watching it on TV why would the next words out of his mouth describe the view from his apartment?  Can any of his defenders address that?

Is this particular misleading statement all that important?  Not in and of itself.  But if he is willing to mislead about this, is there anything he is not willing to mislead about?

24
General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: November 19, 2018, 01:18:11 PM »
Quote
“So funny to see little Adam Schitt (D-CA) talking about the fact that Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker was not approved by the Senate, but not mentioning the fact that Bob Mueller (who is highly conflicted) was not approved by the Senate!”

Donald Trump, November 18, 2018

Technically false.  The Senate unanimously confirmed Mueller as FBI director on August 2, 2001, voting 98–0 in favor of his appointment.

But more important, misleading, in that Special Counsel does not require confirmation by law, so bringing it up implies that Mueller is somehow illegitimate for that reason.

The Special Prosector's Office is not subject to Senate Confirmation, so it would be correct to state that Bob Mueller wasn't approved by the Senate for carrying out the role of Special Prosecutor.

And if you're going to pull out Mueller's Senate Confirmation in 2001 as Director of the FBI, then Trump should be able to bring up Whitaker's appointment to the US Attorney's office in 2004, and the requisite Senate Confirmation that happened then. Heck, for that matter, he was reviewed by the Senate Confirmation Committes more recently than Mueller has been. :)

I know that isn't the point you're trying to make, but the arguments you're attempting to make also happen to need some work.

Thank you for the new information. Whitaker was indeed confirmed by the Senate as U.S. Attorney.

However, that does not make Trump's statement about Mueller any less false.  Nor does it make it any less misleading.

I would appreciate the opportunity to clarify or correct my arguments, but I can't do that if you don't provide any details on the shortcomings you see. 

25
General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: November 19, 2018, 01:08:46 PM »

 Please pack up your claim that it’s misleading to say that you witnessed something on television. If you can’t find a federal rules of evidence, I’d be happy to provide a link.
That link would be greatly appreciated, along with where to find evidence supporting your particular claim, that seeing something on TV is witnessing the event itself, not witnessing the TV broadcast of the event itself.


26
General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: November 18, 2018, 09:35:08 PM »
Quote
“So funny to see little Adam Schitt (D-CA) talking about the fact that Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker was not approved by the Senate, but not mentioning the fact that Bob Mueller (who is highly conflicted) was not approved by the Senate!”

Donald Trump, November 18, 2018

Technically false.  The Senate unanimously confirmed Mueller as FBI director on August 2, 2001, voting 98–0 in favor of his appointment.

But more important, misleading, in that Special Counsel does not require confirmation by law, so bringing it up implies that Mueller is somehow illegitimate for that reason.

I'm not sure how to categorize these Trump statements:

Quote
“You have to practice decorum,” Trump told reporters at a bill signing at the White House on Nov. 16. “You have to act with respect.” Trump repeated the call for decorum in a “Fox News Sunday” interview taped Friday.

"little Adam Schitt(D)"

I guess it's just gross hypocrisy, crassness, and obnoxious juvenility, not anything explicitly false or misleading.

I am willing to stipulate that Trump made an error typing Schiff's name.  All I need to see is a correction in his tweet, which he has done many times with previous typos.

27
Did you miss the post I made last night. I seriously doubt that friend of mine is associated with AntiFa. He certainly seems to be sympathetic to "their cause" and methods all the same.

Meanwhile anybody who espouses views that seem either "overly sympathetic" or specifically so on certain items best watch out for how they phrase things. Or everybody and their dog, including most Conservatives, are going to be "after them."

Ergo, AntiFa is massive as support is very easy to find. White Nationalism is tiny, because they're much more likely to be met with condemnation than support, by all quarters except fellow white nationalists.


Starting to feel like broken record here. Which part of "they're not welcome anywhere" with regards to White Nationalists is hard to understand?

Which part of AntiFa sympathizers are "a dime a dozen" in the general population?

I did briefly read about your friend (singular). Had he taken the survey, he would have been one of the 8% who support Antifa.  How does that demonstrate that Antifa support is "massive"?

You can have the opinion that white nationalists are not welcome everywhere, and Antifa sympathizers are a dime a dozen.  You can personally know dozens of Antifa sympathizers, and no white supremacist sympathizers.

I am not sure how to say this more clearly - with all due respect, your personal impressions and opinions are not data, and do not constitute proof.

If you can find actual data about literally thousands of people surveyed in a scientific poll, that supports your claims, please provide them.  I have provided such data saying your claim is clearly false.  Your opinions do not change the data, or the facts they represent.

I am not trying to troll, or be difficult.  But do you acknowledge that a properly conducted survey has more validity than the opinion of one person of what people think?  If not, please let me know, and I will stop trying to make that point with you.

I disagree with your gross generalizations about tolerance and free speech for Conservatives and Liberals.  But please note that my comments here are only addressing the facts, and the validity of specific numerical claims.

I also observe that you do not correct your insinuation that I was trying to hide something, or acknowledge that the survey shows equivalent levels of support for the two groups in question.

28

The Neo-Nazi's, white Suprematists, Klansmen, and whatnot may be in the low 10th percentile of the population in general, but they lack any meaningful support base.

Anti-Fa? It's "support base" is massive

Not to be repetitive, but do you have any sources to support this claim? 

The Ipsos poll I linked to earlier says that 8% support Antifa and 8% support white nationalism.(I used the right column which takes into effect rounding)

Again, find your own poll to support your claim if you can, but so far the data says you are wrong.

I misread your poll, you should have been able to figure it out, as I quoted it, and cited the same number, just in a slightly different way. 12%/13% as AntiFa or White Supremacist was actually "Knows someone who is" although I do now find it interesting that there was an 8% number you didn't share previously. ;)

With all due respect:
I shared the entire report.  It's 5 freaking questions.  It's not like there was some major hidden flaw on page 743 that I was trying to hide. I don't appreciate the insinuation.

But more to the point - you misread it again.  The 8% is
Quote
Q4: Do you support or oppose the following group or movement...?
Second to last column.
Antifa Support (Net) 8%
White nationalism Support (Net) 8%
That disproves your "support" claim.

You are confusing it with
Quote
Q5. Do you personally have...?  no one among your social connections who is an
active supporter of the group or movement.
If 12% say "no", then that 12% has someone they know in the group.
That casts serious doubt on Seriati's "Antifa is massive, white nationalists are tiny" claim, since the same number of people know someone in each of the groups.

Two different questions, two different answers.
But in both cases, the two groups have about the same numbers.

And more importantly, nothing in the poll supports your actual statement, even remotely.

[/quote]The Neo-Nazi's, white Suprematists, Klansmen, and whatnot may be in the low 10th percentile of the population in general, but they lack any meaningful support base.

Anti-Fa? It's "support base" is massive[/quote]

8% can not be "lacking any meaningful support base" for white nationalists, but "massive" support base for Antifa at the same time.
Do you disagree with the mathematics involved here?

Do you have any data to support that statement?

29

The Neo-Nazi's, white Suprematists, Klansmen, and whatnot may be in the low 10th percentile of the population in general, but they lack any meaningful support base.

Anti-Fa? It's "support base" is massive

Not to be repetitive, but do you have any sources to support this claim? 

The Ipsos poll I linked to earlier says that 8% support Antifa and 8% support white nationalism.(I used the right column which takes into effect rounding)

Again, find your own poll to support your claim if you can, but so far the data says you are wrong.

30
You originally cited a statement of beliefs.  Thank you for your clarification that such a statement does not exist.

I have no awareness of Antifa's position, other than, as you admit, they have no position.

So going to your fallback position of "numerous statements by those claiming to be part of anti-fa", do you have sources for that, or is it just your opinion?

This strikes me as an exercise in sophistry to try to make Seriati look like he wasn't making sense. It's entirely consistent to say that a group's message is clear, without also being able to pinpoint a signed affidavit from the headquarters of that group confirming it to the letter. If a group that has a clear set of beliefs and tactics is also de-centralized, that isn't a carte blanche to deny that any statement at all can be attributed to them. That's like saying that despite clear evidence that a swarm of wasps is trying to sting you since there's no official written document drafted by the wasps then it's just hearsay that they like to sting things. "just your opinion" sounds to me like a potential way to minimize a data-based observation.

Two points: 

Seriati said, explicitly, "Antifa's statement of beliefs".  He didn't say message, or clear set of beliefs, the words you are putting in his mouth.  He said "statement".  Words have meaning.  Making interpretations on his behalf so that they mean something other than what he said does not change anything.  I do deny that any statement exists until one is provided.  Seriati has declined to provide it, or any evidence that one exists.  He went to a fallback position, which also requires data, yet to be provided.

There is empirical data that wasps sting things.  Sources can be cited.  But in this case, Seriati did not make a data-based observation, because he provided no data.  Not a drop.  I asked for some.  If he provides some, we can have a discussion.  But until then, it is just his opinion.

Or since you claim there are data-based observations, could you please point out the data you refer to?  Please don't introduce new data, that is not the point.  I respectfully request that you specify the extant data in this thread you refer to.  Or you could simply retract your claim of data-based observation.


31
Oh what the hell, I'll find some sources.

Ipsos poll

Obvious racists: 3% to 16%
All races are equal: Strongly disagree 4%, Somewhat disagree 3%
All races should be treated equally: Strongly disagree 1%, Somewhat disagree 2%
Marriage should only be allowed between people of the same race. Strongly agree 10%, Somewhat agree 6%

You don't like this poll?  Feel free to supply your own.

While I was looking at the poll...

Quote
Scale.  Antifa is massive, white nationalists are tiny.

12% of respondents said they know someone in Antifa.  White nationalists?  13% This is with 2,225 Democrats, 1,915 Republicans, and 689 independents.

I have a serious question. I do not mean to be disrespectful, but in order have meaningful communication, I would like to have a better understanding of your thinking process.

Do you do research before you publish your comments? You sound very confident of your statements, and you appear to be very knowledgeable in general, so readers are inclined to take you at your word.

If this is just an opportunity for you to confidently state your opinion, then I have no issue.  Opine to your heart's content.  But please make that clear so we can treat it as such.  And please note that "My opinion is that Antifa is massive compared to white nationalism" doesn't make sense, since that is not really a matter of opinion, but rather a matter of mathematics.)

If you claim your statements to be fact, then I will continue to research them and point out when they are not.  Nothing personal, as long as there are no personal attacks on me.

It seems that the best way to post is to make factual statements with sources, and then state opinions clearly as such. Stating facts without sources, and having it turn out that they are completely wrong seems like a very inefficient way to have a discussion.  Just my opinion.

Please let me know your thoughts.

32

Antifa's statement of beliefs includes meeting unwelcome speech with violence

Do you have an actual statement by Antifa itself?  Or is this just your opinion?

There is no unitary organization named Antifa, ergo I don't have an actual statement from it.

Is it just my opinion?  No.  There are numerous statements by those claiming to be part of anti-fa and/or organizing events where its "members" showed up specifically endorsing a philosophical right to violence to shut down others speech.

This request seems to be in bad faith, unless you are claiming you have no awareness of Antifa's position, in which case why are you commenting?

You originally cited a statement of beliefs.  Thank you for your clarification that such a statement does not exist.

I have no awareness of Antifa's position, other than, as you admit, they have no position.

So going to your fallback position of "numerous statements by those claiming to be part of anti-fa", do you have sources for that, or is it just your opinion?

Quote
Quote
How do you define "dead"?  Or do you have a different way of measuring "the racist movement"?  Please let us know your reasoning.

Essentially dead?  As no person that openly acknowledged being a racist could function in ordinary society or not suffer extreme ostracization.  As in, even secretly reported numbers had dropped well below 1% of the popoulation (from highs where virtually everyone was a racist).  From the fact that no intellectual movement endorsed any concept of racism, that anti-racism predominated every learning opportunity.

I disagree with just about all of the opinions that make up your statement  I could find the sources that disprove your statements, but the burden is on you to back them up.  As soon as you do, I look forward to the discussion.

33

Antifa's statement of beliefs includes meeting unwelcome speech with violence

Do you have an actual statement by Antifa itself?  Or is this just your opinion?

The most interesting part to me, was of the course the date, 2017, which also supports what I said. The racist movement was essentially dead and ineffective until the media started breathing new life into it, and anti-fa started attacking it.

So if I understand correctly, your premise is that the racist movement was dead in 2017?

In 2017, there were 4235 hate crimes reported based on race in the US. Those were about 60% of all hate crimes.   In 2016, there were 3486, and before that 3444 and 2567.  The percentages varied between 47 and 58%.

How do you define "dead"?  Or do you have a different way of measuring "the racist movement"?  Please let us know your reasoning.



34
General Comments / Re: Jeff Sessions Resigns
« on: November 12, 2018, 12:42:57 PM »
How does this not make it look as if Trump is hiding something?

Honestly, if Mueller came out tomorrow and said there was no collusion, would the matter be over for you?  Clearly wouldn't for Adam Shiff.


Yes, on the collusion front.  Or more accurately, on the conspiring with a foreign government to influence the elections front. To reiterate, if Mueller said that Trump was not guilty, it would be over for me.

But if Mueller simply declines to indict, that proves nothing, since the DOJ says that a sitting President can't be indicted, and Whitaker can keep the details secret.

Then we can move on to see if Mueller says anything about money-laundering, tax fraud, emoluments, campaign finance violations, or perjury.  If Mueller says that Trump is not guilty of any of those, the matter will be over for me.

I'm curious - has Schiff said that explicitly, or are you just stating your opinion?

35
General Comments / Re: What has George Soros done that is so terrible?
« on: November 11, 2018, 09:37:31 PM »
Calling for suppression of free speech, even if enforced by a non government mechanism, should NEVER be compared to the Civil Rights movement.  That's not just false equivalence; that's the vilest, least liberal comparison that I've heard on this board since we lost the Nazi and the Maoist Blayne Bradley.  Please velcro, rethink and repudiate what you just said.  It's beneath you.

Please don't misrepresent what I said.  My analogy was this:

claim to be Jewish so people will not repeat anti-Semitic lies about you::wanting to be black so you will be protected by the Civil Rights act

36
General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: November 11, 2018, 09:21:09 PM »
I've looked at both versions the doctoring claim seems to be nonsense, it's totally designed to pull the focus off how inappropriate Acosta's behavior is in either video.

not to mention the "undoctored" version is in slow motion on your think, kind of odd when the claim about the "doctored" version is that its' sped up.  Lol.

I make no claim about Acosta's behavior.

The video was undeniably altered, speeding up certain portions and adding frames to make the motion more aggressive.

Quote
Side-by-side comparisons support claims from fact-checkers and experts such as Jonathan Albright, research director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, who argued that crucial parts of the video appear to have been altered so as to distort the action.

A frame-by-frame breakdown by Storyful, a social-media intelligence firm that verifies media content, found that the edited video included repeated frames that did not appear in the original footage. The repeated frames were shown only at the moment of contact and made Acosta's arm movement look more exaggerated, said Shane Raymond, a journalist at Storyful.

37
General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: November 11, 2018, 09:02:18 PM »
Quote
"Many people jumped and I witnessed it, I watched that. I have a view -- a view in my apartment that was specifically aimed at the World Trade Center,"

"And I watched those people jump and I watched the second plane hit ... I saw the second plane hit the building and I said, 'Wow that's unbelievable,'"

At the time, Trump lived in Trump Tower. 

Trump Tower is 4 miles from the World Trade Centers.

At the time I was barely south of Trump Tower, and I did not have direct view of the WTC, yet I too would say that I watched the second plane hit and people jump. 

Yes, you watched [on TV] people jump.  Did you see them?  Donald Trump said he saw the plane hit. Did you witness people jumping?  Donald Trump said he witnessed it.  Witnessed is a very strong, specific word.

People may claim to "see" something they saw on TV.  That is misleading, but I will not press the point. 

People don't "witness" things they watch on TV.  That is a false or misleading statement.

38
General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: November 11, 2018, 08:47:01 PM »
This one is personal, malicious, and without any basis in reality.  Trump fabricates a situation that never happened, and says it over and over again.

I would ask for proof that 'Trump fabricated' this situation, which - to my knowledge - was originally reported by Connecticut Newspapers, in Hartford I believe, long before Trump came into the picture.  Reporters that followed Blumenthal gave their accounts that his message and statements changed venue to venue and included things that were misleading.

Heck for someone who thinks anything says should always be interpreted as uncharitably as possible, it seems an odd position not to hold Blumenthal to the same standard.

Quote
Here is the reality:

Richard Blumenthal, Senator from Connecticut, on two occasions said he served in Vietnam.  He was in the Marine Corps Reserve from 1970 to 1976, thus serving during the Vietnam Era, but did not serve in Vietnam.

Here's a fairly neutral account, you'll note that Blumenthal even admits that he has on a "few" occasions mispoke about his service.  https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-richard-blumenthal-vietnam-20181001-story.html  By the standards you are using in this thread to evaluate Trump that makes it "proof" of his lies, does it not?

Of course, I recommend the original NYT article, in which it is very clear that it's not just "two" occasions.  https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html

Now that said, it's unclear from the NYT's whether Trump's claim about him telling war stories is supportable or not, but it certainly sounds possible given the number of times he spoke on the issue, the impression given and his deliberate stories about "when we came back."

Quote
That's it.  That is the sum total of his statements claiming to serve in Vietnam. News organizations have been looking at this for years.  There is nothing else, no allegations of anything else, no accusations of anything else.

As far as I can tell, either your research was completely inadequate, or this just a false representation.  I should note, you could also look for CT residents who heard him speak on the topic.

But I agree, I haven't seen any substantiation in the official media about the war stories Trump claimed Blumenthal told.

Seriati,
I would like to have a rational, respectful, fact-based conversation.  No personal attacks, no name-calling, no snide remarks or belittlement.  When a fact is stated, a source should be provided.
I hope you will do the same.

Let’s start with the facts:

Quote
“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

Quote
In 2003, he addressed a rally in Bridgeport, where about 100 military families gathered to express support for American troops overseas. “When we returned, we saw nothing like this,” Mr. Blumenthal said. “Let us do better by this generation of men and women.”

That is two cases where Blumenthal claimed to serve in Vietnam.

Now there is also this:

Quote
At a 2008 ceremony in front of the Veterans War Memorial Building in Shelton, he praised the audience for paying tribute to troops fighting abroad, noting that America had not always done so.“I served during the Vietnam era,” he said. “I remember the taunts, the insults, sometimes even physical abuse.”

This is not a case where Blumenthal claimed to serve in Vietnam.

If you can find a third case, please show me the source.  As far as I can tell, it is not the New York Times article you posted. 
I know that you are busy, and so if you can provide the source for the third case you insist exists, I will donate $50 to the charity of your choice.  Really.

Given those are the only two times he mentioned serving in Vietnam, there is no substantiation, in “official media” or otherwise about the war stories Trump claimed Blumenthal told.  Quite the opposite. 

The Washington Post said that Trump’s claim was "littered with falsehoods that veer into ridiculous territory."
The Hartford Courant called it “utter nonsense”,  and “hogwash”. 
The New York Times said Trump was “embellishing the senator’s misdeeds far beyond the truth.”

So we have the facts.  I am curious how you came to this conclusion:

Quote
it's unclear from the NYT's whether Trump's claim about him telling war stories is supportable or not.

Blumenthal made two statements, “I served in Vietnam”, and “when we returned [from Vietnam]”.  Nobody, anywhere, supports Trump’s claim that he said more. (If you can find someone, please let me know). Multiple newspapers (the same ones that did the original reporting) say that Trump’s claim is false.  Multiple other sources (provided on request) say that Trump’s claim is false.

Yet you seem to be saying you are unable to determine whether the claim is supportable or not.

What level of evidence do you require for something to be unsupportable?  How do you define something as false?

Some clarification- “the situation” you refer to, brought up in 2010, is that Blumenthal made the two statements I quoted.  You are absolutely correct - Trump did not fabricate that situation.

But the topic was Trump's DaNang story etc.  Trump fabricated that.  I just wanted to point out your conflation between the two “situations”.

Yes, Blumenthal said he misspoke about his service a “few” times.  Definition of few:
Quote
a small number, a handful, one or two, a couple, two or three;

Seriati said
Quote
As far as I can tell, either your research was completely inadequate, or this just a false representation.

I think my research was very thorough.  I would ask you to provide some evidence to justify your claim.
I repeat my offer of $50 to your favorite charity for sources that support a third statement by Blumenthal that he served in Vietnam.

Still waiting to hear your defense of these claims by Trump:
“And when he got out and when he apologized, he was crying. The tears were all over the place.”
Blumenthal “ actually dropped out of the race, and he won anyway because Democrats always win in Connecticut.”,
Blumenthal’s 12 point victory was “very close, probably the closest ever”

39
General Comments / Re: What has George Soros done that is so terrible?
« on: November 09, 2018, 10:56:51 PM »
“I’m concerned that the prevalence of conspiracy theories about Soros which paint him as a larger than life, powerful figure has the effect of shrinking that public space where anti-Semitism is not acceptable,” said the ADL’s Tuchman. “If you have fully embraced the notion that there is a powerful Jewish figure manipulating social and political movements around the world to promote his agenda, you’re inching toward the edges of that space where anti-Semitism is acceptable. Soros is a liminal figure in that way.”

Good article.

40
General Comments / Re: What has George Soros done that is so terrible?
« on: November 08, 2018, 12:45:13 PM »
Pete,

I will repeat the point, yet again.

If you are actually trying to take over the world, you can be accused of trying to take over the world without anti-semitism.

Your "joke" is like saying you should have been a black in Alabama in the 60's so that you could take advantage of the Civil Rights movement.

I'm done.

41
Yes, that is rude, and publishing home addresses is unacceptable.

Violent?  No, not yet.  Pipe bombs?  Just one woman talking about it.  Shooting? Nope. Any arrests? Not that I can tell.

And from a first amendment standpoint, it is horrible that a journalist should be threatened. No question, no matter who does it.

What do you have to say about hundreds of journalists being called "enemy of the people", over and over and over, by the President of the United States?
Yes, I am drawing that equivalence, because pipe bombs were actually sent.  Journalists have been killed.

42
General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: November 08, 2018, 12:32:29 PM »
This is not technically Trump, but Sarah Sanders.

They used a doctored video to justify pulling a press pass for a CNN reporter.

There are links here, you can see for yourself.  Subtle, but doctored to make it look like a more violent motion, instead of a natural motion.




43

 if you accuse a Jew of world domination *then* it invokes the anti-Semitic trope. That's not as ridiculous, but still runs afoul of plain common sense, which says that if a person born to Jewish parents actually is suing for world domination, it cannot be relevant to Jewish people as a whole to accuse that one person of it....

But the "he's a Jew so you can't accuse him of seeking world domination" trope is tired.

You almost have it.

If you accuse a Jew, without any basis whatsoever, of attempting world domination, then it invokes an anti-Semitic trope.

You are missing the bolded section. (I may have deemphasized this in the several iterations and dissections of my original statement, but from the beginning I was assuming the accusations were conspiracy theories without any basis)

If you accuse a blonde of being a stupid bimbo, and she is, you are ok.  But if you have no evidence, you are playing into stereotypes.

If you accuse (person of race X, color Y, creed Z etc.) of being (bigoted stereotype for that group) and they actually have that behavior, you are ok.
But if your accusation is just a conspiracy theory, then you are most definitely reinforcing that stereotype, or anti-X trope, or racism.

Maybe you don't think you are.  Maybe you are not aware of the stereotypes.  But the people who are already sold on the stereotypes see you repeat them, without any basis whatsoever, and their beliefs are reinforced.

And as a side note, the tropes are about Jews as a people, not just one or two.  They pick out one or two as examples to prove the rule.

44
I pointed out that the Protocols talks about world domination.  So world domination is an anti-Semitic trope.  I don't think you can deny that.

You are making this logical connection unironically?

I'm not sure what part of that is not clear.

The Protocols are the boilerplate for much, if not most of anti-Semitism.  It alleges plans for world domination by Jews.  Do you deny that when you say a Jew, or a group of Jews, wants to dominate the world, it is following that model?

If I make fun of a very blonde woman by saying she is stupid, without any real evidence, I think it is fair to say that I am hewing closely to anti-blonde tropes, knowingly or not.  If you never heard that trope before, you would be doubtful.  But if you knew about the thousands of dumb blonde jokes, it would make perfect sense.

45
General Comments / Re: What has George Soros done that is so terrible?
« on: November 06, 2018, 06:35:03 PM »
velcro, I believe I already address those points. But based on what you're demanding, as I said you're going to get no real answers. I hope you don't conclude that since no evidence has been presented that Soros is clean. I don't actually know if he is. But based on your reasoning we're overstepping by suggesting that Al Capone did anything more than tax evasion.  ::)

No offense, but if you addressed it, other than saying "where there's smoke, there's fire", I missed it.  And nobody has shown me any smoke.

I am not actually demanding anything.  If by "real answers" you mean evidence of actual wrongdoing, I don't know - that's why I asked the question.

We are overstepping by suggesting Al Capone did anything that there is absolutely no evidence for.  I will leave it up to you to decide what there is or is not evidence for.

46
General Comments / Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« on: November 06, 2018, 01:01:29 PM »
When I said Trump reinforces anti-Semitic tropes, I did not mean the statements in the OP.  I apologize if that is not clear.

From another thread:

Quote
The far right has ecstatically embraced the spectacle of elected political figures such as Trump and Gaetz theorizing about Soros. After Trump’s Soros tweet about Kavanaugh, the neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer echoed and surpassed Trump’s assertion that anti-Kavanaugh dissent was a nefarious, paid-for plot.

“It is impossible to deny that subversive anti-American Jews were the primary force involved in a sinister plot to destroy Kavanaugh,” Lee Rogers wrote on the site a couple of days later. “These Jews do not represent the interest of America. They represent the interest of their diabolical and evil race first and foremost.”

In response to an Oct. 19 Trump speech in Missoula, Mont., in which Trump again suggested that protesters were paid by “Soros or somebody,” a commenter on anonymous message board 4chan exulted, “TRUMP NAMED THE IMMIGRATION JEW.” (“Naming the Jew” is an anti-Semitic term that refers to pointing out purported nefarious Jewish influence on world events.)

So
[As a businessman he demonstrated even more illegal preference for hiring and housing Jews than illegal prejudice against hiring and housing African Americans.  His favorite daughter converted to Judaism and her Jewish husband is his right-hand man. Sorry, Velcro; Donald Trump loves Jews to the point that most reasonable Jews begin to feel uncomfortable with the intensity of his love.  Netanyahu's halfway to declaring him a righteous gentile. <head explodes> 

My argument is that his rhetoric reinforces anti-Semitic tropes.  The evidence is above.
Your argument is that he can't be anti-Semitic, because he hires Jews, and "some of his best friends" are Jews.

I don't claim he is anti-Semitic.
But just as an exercise in logic, your reasons are not compelling.

Racist NFL owners prefer hiring African Americans.  Doesn't mean they aren't racists.
When bigots actually meet the type of person they are bigoted against, they often like them.  Then they justify their bigotry by saying that their new friend is not a typical (ethnicity).
Netanyahu loves Trump because he and Trump are similar in many ways, not because he treats Jews well.

A few notes:
Trump spoke to the Republican Jewish Coalition in 2015.
Quote
"I'm a negotiator like you folks, we are negotiators," Trump said, drawing laughter before pivoting to how he would renegotiate the Iran deal. "Is there anybody that doesn't renegotiate deals in this room? This room negotiates them -- perhaps more than any other room I've ever spoken in."
Quote
"You're not gonna support me because I don't want your money. You want to control your politicians, that's fine.
Trump's response to Charlottesville was exactly what an anti-Semitic President would say.
His final campaign ad followed anti-Semitic tropes.
Steve Bannon.
Neo-Nazis support him, and feel (rightly or wrongly) that he is "their guy".

So most pro-Jewish president in history?  I don't think so.


47
Pete,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. No hostility or pedantry inferred. But I am curious, are you familiar with the meaning of triple parentheses?

I pointed out that the Protocols talks about world domination.  So world domination is an anti-Semitic trope.  I don't think you can deny that.

So "full blown unfounded conspiracy theories" of Soros controlling the State Department etc. do in fact hew closely to anti-Semitic tropes.  I don't see how that conclusion does not follow directly from the premises.

The theories also are Blofeldian, but that is a tangent you brought up, which does not affect my conclusion.

48
General Comments / Re: What has George Soros done that is so terrible?
« on: November 06, 2018, 12:25:23 PM »
I know the thread topic is about what there's proof for, but it seems to me what it's really asking is why he's the subject of accusations, so the reasons above are partly why. I doubt it's because "he's a Jew." Did he really do those things? I don't know. But if the thread is only about what there's concrete proof for, then it's probably not going to yield anything interesting. For such people that do very bad things (whether or not Soros is one of them) they don't leave proof lying around like in a video game.

Actually, what it's really asking is what there's proof for.  "Actual evidence".  What you provided was exactly what I did not want to deal with, i.e. unfounded theories.

As far as your comment on "not leaving proof around":
I accuse Tom Hanks of horrible crimes. I have no evidence whatsoever, not even hints, but obviously someone as wealthy and influential as him can easily hide all his evil-doing.

Do you see the inherent flaw in the reasoning?  Anyone and everyone can be guilty if they have any capability of hiding guilt.  I addressed that with my Streisand analogy, but not very clearly.

49
General Comments / Re: 2018 Midterm Elections
« on: November 05, 2018, 10:19:46 PM »
I mean, he flat out agreed to make DACA permanent and to reform the immigration system in exchange for reforms that 80% of the country wants

Source, please?

Again, I really am not trolling.  I am not being facetious.  I read things that don't sound right, and want to find out for sure if they are right or wrong.

As far as what the Democrats will do - unless they get the Senate, all they will have is the power to investigate and subpoena.

Quote
They have a negative message.  Stop Trump hold him "accountable."  While you're at it, impeach him for political disagreement.

I think it is pretty clear that holding someone accountable is essentially "draining the swamp".  Was that a negative message?
Is the entire purpose of the House Oversight Committee negative?
Is accountability a bad thing to want?  Has the Republican Congress held the President accountable in any meaningful way, the way the Constitution intends it to be?

Reasons Democrats have discussed impeachment, other than "political disagreement" (not proven, but reasons they have given)
-released classified information to Russia
-asked Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn
-his comments after Charlottesville
-undermining the judiciary
-undermining freedom of press
-undermining the FBI
-emoluments

Note that some of the reasons Republicans included in Nixon's articles of impeachment were:

Quote
making false statements to investigators, withholding relevant evidence, approving or counseling perjury, interfering with the Justice Department's investigation, approving payment of hush money to Watergate defendants, passing on information about the investigation to his aides who were suspects, making false statements to the American people about White House involvement in Watergate and causing defendants to believe they might receive clemency for the silence.

One more time, I am not trolling.  You implied that Democratic reasons for impeachment were "political disagreement".  Maybe I misinterpreted, in which case, I apologize.  But in any case, there are many, many valid reasons to consider impeachment.  I do not claim that any are proven - no need to rebut any or all.  But none are frivolous, so they contradict the sentiment that the reasons are "political disagreement"

And to give you some insight into my thought processes: when someone flippantly makes an unfounded, controversial, and arguably contemptuous statement, I tend to point out the shortcomings of the statement.  The same statement made cogently with facts and sources that support the statement will be helpful and appreciated.

You are a very intelligent, well-informed, analytical person.  I admire that.  I only wish that you would think about what you are writing, make sure it is true to the best of your knowledge, and well thought out.  Throwing random unsupported claims around just causes chaos and prevents real discussion from happening.

Quote
No, we all know what they will actually do.  Their entire "plan" is to cause as much chaos as possible and to prevent anything from happening.  As many investigations as they come up - regardless of merit.

I am asking you to please refrain from this sort of statement.  It serves no purpose except to incite and mislead.  If you think Democrats want gridlock, say so, with your reasons and evidence.  If there are meritless investigations, point them out when they happen and show why they are meritless with facts and sources.  But blanket accusations before the fact, with no factual bases, are just biases and stereotypes.

Respectfully,

V


50
General Comments / What has George Soros done that is so terrible?
« on: November 05, 2018, 09:21:04 PM »
Please help me to learn more about this.

Actual evidence with sources please.  I won't quibble over your definition of terrible, but I will point out unfounded accusations, or distortion of facts and sources.

If the complaint is that he gives money to causes, keep in mind a few things:
-Is he open about where his money goes?  (Sure, if it is really secret, we would have no evidence, but that is not a valid argument.  I could secretly be Barbra Streisand, but absent any evidence, it is ridiculous to make the claim)
-Ignoring his philosophy, how is he different from the Koch brothers, or Sheldon Adelson?

Thanks.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7