Misleading or false claims by the media

[Seriati]

I have not watched the clip, is what you are claiming Trump does any worse than the constant media assertions that his supporters are deplorable, racists that deserve what's coming their way?  That wearing a MAGA hat is a provocation that seemingly justifies a violent response?

[TheDrake]

He's the President. Not Chris Cillizza. So yes, by definition, even equivalent language makes it worse on his part. Except it isn't equivalent. Most press characterizes the majority of Trump supporters as stupid more than evil. Then they talk about that evil streak that is hard to deny, but is a small minority.

I've never heard a member of the press suggest that somebody wearing any kind of hat deserves to be assaulted. They do pose the question as to what motivates the people committing such an assault.

It generally maxes out in this kind of language from CNN:

Still, there's an important element to the relative power represented by the Hebrew Israelites and the students from that mostly-white Catholic high school. Only one of them supports a man who has both spouted hate-filled language and has the power to roll back Obama-era oversight of law enforcement to curtail police brutality and unwanted shootings -- and that's the one those students chose to proudly align with.

You'll hear Trump use language like "I hate them." News pundits use language like "I hate what Trump is doing to this country."

[Seriati]

You did not just say its worse coming from the President than from the media.  The platform is 1000 times bigger for the media.  I can't take your position seriously if you make that argument.

[TheDrake]

Everything Trump says is propagated and multiplied by the media, so how can Trump possibly have a smaller reach?

[Seriati]

Read that back to yourself.  Everything the media magnifies, it also spends 20 times as much time spinning, and it gets to choose the exact things it magnifies and that which it ignores.

Trump is literally one content provider for the media.  Does a YouTube personality really have more reach than YouTube?

[yossarian22c]

Trump is literally one content provider for the media.  Does a YouTube personality really have more reach than YouTube?

A YouTube provider isn't the President of the United States.

[Seriati]

Alright, so you guys are going to double down on the media having less influence than the President.  Make pithy tag lines and sound bites all you want, it's nonsensical on its face.

[D.W.]

I'm still hung up on how words from the president of the United States should not be held to the highest standard let alone a higher one than some attributed nebulously to "the media", let alone a particular participant in "the media". 

The *censored*ing job title allows one to moves economies (ours and others) and makes other countries change their national policies just by nature of trying to interpret what a holder of that office "meant" when they said something. 

I have no idea if you are morning the death of some idealized press with standards beyond reproach, or just defending this president giving him a free pass to spout out whatever pops into his reality tv star attention seeking brain.

[D.W.]

When people criticize him and say he's "not presidential" they see that as kinda a big deal.  It's less forgivable than most of his policy decisions.

[Seriati]

If you want to say the President is the single most influential person, go right ahead.  But the idea that Trump is somehow greater than the entire media is the kind of nonsense you'd expect to hear from Trump not rational people.

In any event, I find it troubling that you are persuaded by a media that's calling out Trump's violent rhetoric while simultaneously more than doubling down on violent rhetoric themselves.  It's almost like you believe that Republicans are not entitled to act the same way as Democrats.

[TheDrake]

Can you give me an example of the press engaging in the kind of violent rhetoric that Trump uses?

Maybe I am blind to it, but I haven't seen it. I have certainly seen other people engaging in violent rhetoric toward Trump himself, and the media does tell people about it, like Kathy Griffin. I don't see them wallowing in it and nodding approvingly. Unlike Trump when he offers to pay the legal bills if one of his followers assaults a protester.

You see very few Democrat politicians calling Trump evil, or disgusting. There is a new crop like AOC who are much more Trump-like in their rhetoric. You're simply not going to hear that from Chuck Schumer, as far as I'm aware.

I will grant that in a philosophy major kind of thinking, I can't be certain that I don't have that impression because of manipulation of my perceptions. Maybe Chuck runs around all day long, talking about how people who wear Maga hats deserve to be taken out on a stretcher because they are so wretched. Maybe he's holding secret rallies that the media refuses to broadcast where he talks about how native born Americans are a bunch of criminals that deserve to be loathed. I have no easy way of disproving that theory, but it's not very plausible.

[Fenring]

I'm still hung up on how words from the president of the United States should not be held to the highest standard let alone a higher one than some attributed nebulously to "the media", let alone a particular participant in "the media". 

The *censored*ing job title allows one to moves economies (ours and others) and makes other countries change their national policies just by nature of trying to interpret what a holder of that office "meant" when they said something. 

I have no idea if you are morning the death of some idealized press with standards beyond reproach, or just defending this president giving him a free pass to spout out whatever pops into his reality tv star attention seeking brain.

If you see the dispute being about who is the most powerful, full stop, then perhaps it could be argued that the President is perhaps a contender with the media. I would highly doubt he's more powerful on the aggregate, although certainly insofar as he has particular powers the media doesn't have he can exert some kinds of direct influence they can't. But I don't think this is what Seriati meant. I understood his point to be that the media is more influential than the President in disseminating information. It's about information and what he public hears. The President by definition can't have more power to inform the people than the very avenues of informing. Now, if he had a direct connection to TV sets in private homes that would be one thing, but as what he says is typically run through the funhouse mirror of "reporting" there is always someone else conveying his message, or at least packaging or interpreting it.

And yeah, I would easily accept the argument that the country can survive a dishonest President, but probably cannot survive a dishonest press. Despite what much hysteria claimed, one main - even Trump - cannot descend America into fascism. But a press united to subvert honesty in favor of dollars? That literally can. I think it was Seriati who just recently expressed that a media either in the bag for private parties, or else expressing partisan political spin, is roughly speaking already a governmental propaganda arm. The difference we're seeing now is that the source of the propaganda doesn't have to be orchestrated centrally to be dangerous. I read a Reddit thread today whose topic was "most significant changes in the world", and one of the top comments was how in less developed countries fake news seems to be so rampant that the populace literally cannot tell the difference anymore between made up stories and real ones, and that this will increasingly cause real turmoil. Well it's happening in America too; the only difference is that America has such a powerful social infrastructure leading into it that it can sustain a great deal of bruising before buckling under.

[D.W.]

I understood his point to be that the media is more influential than the President in disseminating information. It's about information and what he public hears. The President by definition can't have more power to inform the people than the very avenues of informing. Now, if he had a direct connection to TV sets in private homes that would be one thing, but as what he says is typically run through the funhouse mirror of "reporting" there is always someone else conveying his message, or at least packaging or interpreting it.

I can understand that view.  I'm not sure I am wholly in agreement, but it makes a lot more sense now.

I tend to avoid commentary "news" as much as possible and still don't have a very hard time finding out what the president actually said.  Let alone THIS president and his interesting little quirk of tweeting like a jr. high kid. 

I suppose the White House could bombard my phone with transcripts of every public address via text message.  They've got the infrastructure for it now...   

[TheDrake]

To me, commentary "news", aka opinion, aka editorials are like cake - its nice once and a while, but you shouldn't have a steady diet of it.

I guess I could admit that I probably underestimate its impact because I don't expose myself to it very much - and I usually recognize what it is and can separate the wheat from the chaff.

It's like deceptive advertising. "4 out of 5 dentists prefer sugarless gum"

The casual listener is going to remember this as overwhelming support for Trident and not all sugarless gum. And forgetting the essential "for patients who chew gum" - how many dentists would prefer no gum at all, one wonders? It wouldn't work as well written in print - which is why I overwhelmingly prefer transcripts over watching video and prefer to read a variety of sources.

I can definitely see how someone on a steady diet of only one of MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News is going to be much more manipulated than someone who reads both National Review and Washington Post - as an example.

[Crunch]

Within minutes, his special report was the most popular story on Reuters.com here and was picked up by other news outlets. But the origin of the story goes back more than two years.

Members of the group, which calls itself Cult of the Dead Cow, protected O’Rourke’s secret for decades, reluctant to compromise the former Texas Congressman’s political career.

After more than a year of reporting, Menn persuaded O’Rourke to talk on the record. In an interview in late 2017, O’Rourke acknowledged that he was a member of the group, on the understanding that the information would not be made public until after his Senate race against Ted Cruz in November 2018.

So Reuters covered for Beto, protecting him during the senate race by burying information. 

[D.W.]

What secret?  What's the "cult" about?

[LetterRip]

cDc "cult of the dead cow" - is a "hackivist" group, from the time of BBSes (Bulletin Board Systems).    It wasn't a cult at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Dead_Cow

A 'hacktivist' is someone who does 'hacking' as a form of activism.  Beto did some writing for them "back in the day" when he was still a teenager.

I'm not sure why anyone think it is particularly relevant these days given he was a member prior to adulthood (15 years old or thereabouts).  At that time their 'goal' was to fight the actual cult of Scientology and chinese censorship.

WoZ and Steve Jobs did phone phreaking gear as young adults.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/02/the-definitive-story-of-steve-wozniak-steve-jobs-and-phone-phreaking/273331/

[Crunch]

He has confirmed his membership until he left for university. It’s likely he remained involved as an 18 year old adult. Your attempt to minimize this is largely deceptive.  If it’s no big deal, why hide it until after the election? Fan fiction about killing children maybe wouldn’t play well with voters, ya think?

During his time as a member, he has admitted to stealing phone service. At $1,500, that becomes a felony. Many/most members funded their efforts by other illegal means and Beto does not address that although it seems highly likely he was doing what all the other members were doing. He doesn’t deny it for fear it will finally come out and he’ll be caught in the lie.

So why is it relevant? It establishes that from a very young age Beto has repeatedly engaged in illegal behavior. From an early teen to late 20’s, Beto has a habit of thinking the laws that govern you don’t apply to him. Now we’re supposed to think he’s no longer of such a mindset because... reasons!

Actually, we know why. It’s because he’s a Democrat. Kavanaugh drank beer as a teen and it was an outrage. Beto engages repeatedly in illegal behavior and no big deal.

[TheDeamon]

Nah, the media manipulating information to benefit members of the Democratic Party never happens, they're only caught at it every so many years after all.

It's those dastardly Republicans you need to be careful of.

[LetterRip]

He has confirmed his membership until he left for university. It’s likely he remained involved as an 18 year old adult. Your attempt to minimize this is largely deceptive.  If it’s no big deal, why hide it until after the election?

No one "hid" it.  Peoples behavior as teenagers is largely immaterial to their behavior as adults unless they engage in a serious criminal activity such as rape.

During his time as a member, he has admitted to stealing phone service. At $1,500, that becomes a felony.

He was engaged in 'phone phreaking' almost certainly did so via devices similar to the boxes that WoZ and Jobs were selling.  (Of course technically inclined individuals could make their own with a few dollars spent at radioshack and a soldering iron.  Or you could use a whistle from a box of Captain Crunch cereal (which is how one 'hacker' derived his nickname of Captain Crunch).)

https://www.theverge.com/2013/2/5/3951964/what-todays-hackers-owe-phone-phreaks-phil-lapsley-exploding-the-phone

It was something that the majority of teens seriously interested in computers at the time did.  It was not treated as a felony by law enforcement at the time he was involved.

Many/most members funded their efforts by other illegal means  and Beto does not address that although it seems highly likely he was doing what all the other members were doing. He doesn’t deny it for fear it will finally come out and he’ll be caught in the lie.

I'm curious what your source is for this - you seem completely technically illiterate (about the level of my parents) and I'd be shocked if you had any knowledge of the 1980's "hacker" scene.  To my knowledge you are entirely incorrect.  What "funding" do you think was required?  To be involved required a computer and access to a BBS.  Most of those involved in the 'scene' had a family computer or were using there computer access at a university.

Also his involvement was writing and chatting there haven't been any reports that his involvement went beyond that.

So why is it relevant? It establishes that from a very young age Beto has repeatedly engaged in illegal behavior.

Most US children coming of age after the advent of computers have engaged repeatedly in illegal behavior involving computers (have you heard of Napster, LimeWire, BitTorrent?).  I didn't when I was in college, but I was an extreme anomaly - most teens and college students saw nothing wrong with 'file sharing' when they couldn't afford to buy music, movies, etc.  One of the most god fearing individuals I know had copied nearly every piece of software in existence for the mac back in the 1980's.

People - including police and universities - didn't really see computer crimes as crimes back then unless they were engaging in malicious behavior.

From an early teen to late 20’s, Beto has a habit of thinking the laws that govern you don’t apply to him. Now we’re supposed to think he’s no longer of such a mindset because... reasons!

Actually, we know why. It’s because he’s a Democrat. Kavanaugh drank beer as a teen and it was an outrage. Beto engages repeatedly in illegal behavior and no big deal.

Mixtapes were illegal yet I'd bet you most Senators and Congressmen from the time the technology was available engaged in making them as teens and young adults.  It was simply something that was part of the culture of the time that children and young adults gave zero thought about and doesn't at all reflect their views with respect to laws, and no rational person would infer it would significantly influence their behavior 20, 30 or 40 years later.  Similarly the vast majority of teens and young adults have engaged in underage drinking and pot usage - again we don't think that it gives us insight into their behavior as an adult.

Regarding Kavanagauh - the only interest was to the extent that 1) he is alleged to have attempted rape 2) he appears to have engaged in purgery regarding his youthful behavior.

[LetterRip]

And during the time that Beto was active you could install software that would do blue boxing, so you didn't even require soldering skills.

Blue boxing hit the mainstream media when an article by Ron Rosenbaum titled Secrets of the Little Blue Box was published in the October 1971 issue of Esquire magazine.[4] Suddenly, many more people wanted to get into the phone phreaking culture spawned by the blue box, and it furthered the fame of Captain Crunch. Two major amateur radio magazines ('73' and "CQ') published articles on the telephone system in the mid-1970s. CQ Magazine published details on phone phreaking, including the tone frequencies and several working blue box schematics in 1974.[citation needed] The June 1975 issue of '73' featured an article describing the rudiments of the long distance signaling network, how to construct red and blue boxes, and put them into operation.[7]

In November 1988, the CCITT (now known as ITU-T) published recommendation Q.140, which goes over Signaling System No. 5's international functions, once again giving away the 'secret' frequencies of the system. This caused a resurgence of blue boxing incidents with a new generation.[citation needed]

During the early 1990s, blue boxing became popular with the international warez scene, especially in Europe. Software was made to facilitate blue boxing using a computer to generate the signalling tones and play them into the phone. For the PC there were BlueBEEP, TLO, and others, and blue boxes for other platforms such as Amiga were available as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_box

Also regarding your amount for it to be a felony, - I seriously doubt that the laws are written such that independent events over a multiyear span would be cumulative.  So he almost certainly didn't engage in a felony with his phreaking.

[TheDeamon]

Mixtapes were illegal yet I'd bet you most Senators and Congressmen from the time the technology was available engaged in making them as teens and young adults.

Uh, if they ever were(and I could see it as possible), it was by a very technical reading of the law, and one that IIRC, didn't survive its encounter with the Court System, as it was protected under "fair use."

That said, if they were making mix tapes and giving them out to all of their buddies, that's another matter.

[LetterRip]

I meant giving copies of mix tapes to friends, although it was quite common just to straight copy tapes as well.

[TheDrake]

He has confirmed his membership until he left for university. It’s likely he remained involved as an 18 year old adult. Your attempt to minimize this is largely deceptive.  If it’s no big deal, why hide it until after the election? Fan fiction about killing children maybe wouldn’t play well with voters, ya think?

During his time as a member, he has admitted to stealing phone service. At $1,500, that becomes a felony. Many/most members funded their efforts by other illegal means and Beto does not address that although it seems highly likely he was doing what all the other members were doing. He doesn’t deny it for fear it will finally come out and he’ll be caught in the lie.

So why is it relevant? It establishes that from a very young age Beto has repeatedly engaged in illegal behavior. From an early teen to late 20’s, Beto has a habit of thinking the laws that govern you don’t apply to him. Now we’re supposed to think he’s no longer of such a mindset because... reasons!

Actually, we know why. It’s because he’s a Democrat. Kavanaugh drank beer as a teen and it was an outrage. Beto engages repeatedly in illegal behavior and no big deal.

Librul Bad

[DonaldD]

It's weird that crunch equates drinking beer with assaulting people sexually...

[Crunch]

It's weird that crunch equates drinking beer with assaulting people sexually...

It's even weirder that you make up things like that.

[Crunch]

He has confirmed his membership until he left for university. It’s likely he remained involved as an 18 year old adult. Your attempt to minimize this is largely deceptive.  If it’s no big deal, why hide it until after the election?

No one "hid" it.  Peoples behavior as teenagers is largely immaterial to their behavior as adults unless they engage in a serious criminal activity such as rape.

The Reuters reporter hid it. He had an agreement with Beto to do so. As for teenage behavior, you should review recent events to understand why it's important. Your rules, amigo.

During his time as a member, he has admitted to stealing phone service. At $1,500, that becomes a felony.

He was engaged in 'phone phreaking' almost certainly did so via devices similar to the boxes that WoZ and Jobs were selling.  (Of course technically inclined individuals could make their own with a few dollars spent at radioshack and a soldering iron.  Or you could use a whistle from a box of Captain Crunch cereal (which is how one 'hacker' derived his nickname of Captain Crunch).)

https://www.theverge.com/2013/2/5/3951964/what-todays-hackers-owe-phone-phreaks-phil-lapsley-exploding-the-phone

It was something that the majority of teens seriously interested in computers at the time did.  It was not treated as a felony by law enforcement at the time he was involved.

Going over $1,500 when stealing phone service was a felony. People were, in fact, arrested for it and charged.

Many/most members funded their efforts by other illegal means  and Beto does not address that although it seems highly likely he was doing what all the other members were doing. He doesn’t deny it for fear it will finally come out and he’ll be caught in the lie.

I'm curious what your source is for this - you seem completely technically illiterate (about the level of my parents) and I'd be shocked if you had any knowledge of the 1980's "hacker" scene.  To my knowledge you are entirely incorrect.  What "funding" do you think was required?  To be involved required a computer and access to a BBS.  Most of those involved in the 'scene' had a family computer or were using there computer access at a university.

The source is the Reuters reporter and a basic understanding of human nature - it's really not hard if you are reasonable and intelligent. What you don't know about the 1980's and 1990's hacker scene is that long distance was a service you had to pay for in that era. And, this may shock you, many times the BBS you accessed was in another city or even another state. You could easily run up thousands of dollars in long distance in a month if you were a heavy BBS user during that time. I was around for the 1980's and 1990's computer scene, got my computer engineering degree around that time. I have probably forgotten more about that hacking era than you'll ever know but, by all means kid, tell me what it was like.

Also his involvement was writing and chatting there haven't been any reports that his involvement went beyond that.

And stealing phone service.

So why is it relevant? It establishes that from a very young age Beto has repeatedly engaged in illegal behavior.

Most US children coming of age after the advent of computers have engaged repeatedly in illegal behavior involving computers (have you heard of Napster, LimeWire, BitTorrent?).  I didn't when I was in college, but I was an extreme anomaly - most teens and college students saw nothing wrong with 'file sharing' when they couldn't afford to buy music, movies, etc.  One of the most god fearing individuals I know had copied nearly every piece of software in existence for the mac back in the 1980's.

Oh, well, everyone was doing it. Why didn't you say that right up front? Everyone was doing it, that kind of makes it perfectly legal right? You really should stop with the logical fallacy thing.

People - including police and universities - didn't really see computer crimes as crimes back then unless they were engaging in malicious behavior.

Yes they did. People were even arrested and put on trial for it.

From an early teen to late 20’s, Beto has a habit of thinking the laws that govern you don’t apply to him. Now we’re supposed to think he’s no longer of such a mindset because... reasons!

Actually, we know why. It’s because he’s a Democrat. Kavanaugh drank beer as a teen and it was an outrage. Beto engages repeatedly in illegal behavior and no big deal.

Mixtapes were illegal yet I'd bet you most Senators and Congressmen from the time the technology was available engaged in making them as teens and young adults.  It was simply something that was part of the culture of the time that children and young adults gave zero thought about and doesn't at all reflect their views with respect to laws, and no rational person would infer it would significantly influence their behavior 20, 30 or 40 years later.  Similarly the vast majority of teens and young adults have engaged in underage drinking and pot usage - again we don't think that it gives us insight into their behavior as an adult.

Beto's illegal behavior continued into his late 20's. Before you hang your hat on mixtapes, you might read up on something called "fair use".

Regarding Kavanagauh - the only interest was to the extent that 1) he is alleged to have attempted rape 2) he appears to have engaged in purgery regarding his youthful behavior.

When you supported a serial rapist for president, you lost the moral high ground on fake accusations of rape. "Appears" to have engaged in perjury, what a load.

[Crunch]

For those that think they know how it was, 

Here's an article from 1987

"It's what I would call a socially acceptable crime, unfortunately," said Jack Cox, a top Bell Atlantic Corp. security manager. "A lot of people know it's wrong, but it's something everyone does. It's sort of like going 80 miles an hour -- what's wrong with that? It's a crime, period. And if we catch you, you will be charged with a criminal offense."

Ernie Hyers, manager of security for toll fraud at C&P, says abusers are often young and away from home for the first time. The problem is especially noticeable on college campuses and military bases. Hyers believes, however, that young offenders can be educated about long-distance abuse.

"They are lonely, they don't have a lot of money, they want to talk to people they know, and they look at it as really not a crime," he said. C&P is active in the effort to stem abuse by showing videotapes of arrests and giving talks on the subject to junior high schools, high schools, colleges and military bases on behalf of AT&T.

The crime, which can result in up to 10 years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000, can be as simple as dialing a readily available local telephone number to reach MCI, Sprint or another phone company, then randomly punching in secret codes. After enough tries, the caller may luck out and find the right code needed to complete the call.

Please note, that despite claims to the contrary, the defense that "all the other kids are doing it" is not a real legal nor moral defense.

[TheDrake]

Surprise. The guy from Ma Bell is quoted about how this is terrible and illegal. Might as well call the RIAA to ask them about fair use.

The point LR made was that it was widely accepted, for anyone that even knew it was going on.

From your own quote, the very first line acknowledges that it was socially acceptable - much like how people  are using Kodi today over VPN to illegally steal copyrighted content. I don't agree with it, and I'll say so, but I'm pretty much the only one and I won't stop being friends with people who do. It's not like finding out someone you know is engaging in identity theft or stealing packages off people's doorstep.

Most of the people who voted for Beto are unlikely to view his theft of services from AT&T to be a terrible moral failure like you do. The timing of the article was largely irrelevant. Unlike having an editor catch and kill a story, all Beto did on this was refuse to comment unless it was delayed until after the election.

[DonaldD]

People were "outraged" because they believed it possible that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted somebody. Crunch believes that people were "outraged" because Kavanaugh drank beer, whereas nobody else was outraged over his beer drinking. Clearly, crunch equates drinking beer with sexual assaults.

[ScottF]

I won't comment on you trying to read crunch's mind, but really? The beer drinking was hammered pillar to post. It literally came up 96 times during the hearings. Why would it be such a focus if there was no "outrage" associated with it? Unless the claim is that drinking beer as a youth somehow meant something different for Kavanaugh than drinking beer for, well any other young person. Or that something inherent in Kavanaugh meant it was worse than someone like Beto?

According to CNN: "Kavanaugh's drinking and the question of how excessive it was became a key line of questioning for Democrats on the Judiciary Committee last week and a possible credibility test for senators voting on his confirmation."

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/02/653414359/president-trump-brett-kavanaugh-and-beer

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/01/politics/brett-kavanaugh-yale-drinking/index.html

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/3/17928698/brett-kavanaugh-blackout-drinking-alcohol


But yeah, I guess nobody was really focused on the drinking beer part.

[TheDrake]

Focus is different from outrage. It was for two reasons. To show that his memories of the various parties would be unreliable OR to catch him lying about how drunk he got. It's a line of questioning designed with no safe haven. So he wound up walking an absurd tightrope with poor credibility and getting madder and madder about it - which resulted in a third option, deny it in such a way that you look like you came unglued.

The linked articles make that clear. People weren't outraged that he got loaded and puked on the back porch, or that he had a drinking problem. They were outraged that he may have been so drunk on a regular basis that he didn't understand consent and started groping women at parties.

[rightleft22]

If I remember correctly to question on his drinking along with other activities/games hinted at in Kavanaugh's calendar pointed to a person capable of sexual assault and or blacking out the memory of such a assault.
It wasn't the issue of the drinking by itself.
That said his reaction to the question of drinking was odd and funny in a sad way which couldn't help attract media attention.
There was no way he wasn't going to get the nomination and the only thing that almost got him was his reactions to the questions.

That said the DNC made a huge mistake going after him for something they were never going to be able to prove. Just added fuel to the fire and undermined their own positions as Crunch enjoys arguing.

[Seriati]

The retcon on Kavanaugh is absurd.  Drinking was a huge focus of the hearings.  If you don't remember, go back and read the transcripts.  Almost every line of questioning related to his yearbook was about drinking, and I can't even count how many times they asked him about it.

It was especially absurd because at the time the drinking age for beer would have been 18 in the District and either 18 or 19 in most of the surrounding states, and it would barely have been enforced against anyone drinking in high school.  It was only an issue with a backwards eye from the rigid 21+ world of today.

Again though, this is a total farce.   LR's claims that it's only important felonies that matter is absurd on its face.  It's literally only felonies (in K's case, misdemeanors that have no evidence or credible witnesses) that can be tacked to a Republican that are important, it doesn't matter what's tacked to a Dem.  Do you really think Kavanaugh would be on the SC if he'd done what Beto did and tried to flee the scene from a DUI?

[Seriati]

As far as misleading or false claims by the media.  CNN and much of the rest of the leftist tv propaganda spent the weekend trying to claim Trump was responsible for the NZ shootings.  And spared a little bit of time to claim that Trump controls Fox News (by publicaly tweeting at it).  This latter part was especially rich coming from CNN that has a history of coordinating stories with the DNC and even taking talking points from their proxies.

[TheDrake]

Not responsible, but part of the problem. Otherwise, why is the guy going to specifically reference him and his anti-Muslim rhetoric and policy? He basically came out with an all-lives-matter kind of response. Pence too. Neither one could even bring themselves to use the word Muslim, instead using generics of "people of faith".

Would this shooter have gone off if Hillary were President? Yes. But that doesn't change how his remarks provide room for people to wonder how he really feels about Muslims.

It is legitimate to report about both of those aspects of the shooting.

[rightleft22]

CNN and much of the rest of the leftist tv propaganda spent the weekend trying to claim Trump was responsible for the NZ shootings

Why is everything so either or.  It's this type of hyperbole that makes real dialog so difficult. Everyone would be better off if they stopped watching Fox, CNN and talk radio in general

Trump is not responsible for the NZ shootings
Trumps rhetoric style and statements or lack of statement with regards to immigration, white supremacy, Islamophobia is open to a valid debate.

The retcon on Kavanaugh is absurd

I agree and your right about the focus on the drinking was excessive however I think your wrong when you say the drinking was what those questioning him cared about

[rightleft22]

CNN and much of the rest of the leftist tv propaganda spent the weekend trying to claim Trump was responsible for the NZ shootings

Why is everything so either or.  It's this type of hyperbole that makes real dialog so difficult. Everyone would be better off if they stopped watching Fox, CNN and talk radio in general

Trump is not responsible for the NZ shootings
Trumps rhetoric style and statements or lack of statement with regards to immigration, white supremacy, Islamophobia is open to a valid debate.

The retcon on Kavanaugh is absurd

I agree and your right about the focus on the drinking was excessive however I think your wrong when you say the drinking was what those questioning were trying to get to. In that regard your doing the retcon (as mush as anyone anyway)

[Seriati]

Not responsible, but part of the problem. Otherwise, why is the guy going to specifically reference him and his anti-Muslim rhetoric and policy?

As I understand it, CNN and other propagandists love to point out the Trump reference, but specific don't go on to the next few sentences where he says he doesn't support Trump's policies.

Why then do you think he supported Trump's policies?

He basically came out with an all-lives-matter kind of response. Pence too. Neither one could even bring themselves to use the word Muslim, instead using generics of "people of faith".

He specifically condemned the attack in New Zealand and said we stand with them.  Keep in mind, this isn't a blank slate, we had an attack on a Jewish Congregation this year and a black Christian two years back.  Why is condemning attacking people at their religious celebrations off kilter to you?

Would this shooter have gone off if Hillary were President? Yes. But that doesn't change how his remarks provide room for people to wonder how he really feels about Muslims.

It is legitimate to report about both of those aspects of the shooting.

It's not legitimate.  It's just like blaming Chelsea Clinton for it.  The propagandists are hard selling confusion and conflation of responsibility but it's a false story.  We're responsible for our own actions. 

[Seriati]

Trumps rhetoric style and statements or lack of statement with regards to immigration, white supremacy, Islamophobia is open to a valid debate.

They are?  Why?

What is Islamophobia to you that you think Trump should have done more to confront it?  Where is it?  What's the evidence?

White supremacy is a nonsense issue.  It's literally the left trying to force the issue onto the Administration.  Point to the policies that are "white supremicist"  seriously, point to the policies.  The entire point of the propaganda on this is to tar without evidence.  Do you have any evidence?

The retcon on Kavanaugh is absurd

I agree and your right about the focus on the drinking was excessive however I think your wrong when you say the drinking was what those questioning him cared about

I never said it was.  What they cared about was preventing a Justice that believes in enforcing the law from getting to the Supreme Court.  They'd gotten used to using the unelected dictators to force policies on the public when they can't win at the ballot box.  In that game there is no consolation prize.

[DonaldD]

The retcon on Kavanaugh is absurd.  Drinking was a huge focus of the hearings. 

Speaking of Retcon.... The focus on Kavanagh lying about drinking is not the same as caring about his drinking. Like it or not, excessive drinking is almost a right of passage in the USA.

Potentially perjuring oneself denying one's drinking in order to avoid opening oneself up further to accusations of sexual assaults is not.

[TheDrake]

He specifically condemned the attack in New Zealand and said we stand with them.  Keep in mind, this isn't a blank slate, we had an attack on a Jewish Congregation this year and a black Christian two years back.  Why is condemning attacking people at their religious celebrations off kilter to you?

When the Synagogue was attacked, he condemned anti-Semitism. It seems significant to me that he's not calling out Islamophobia, or saying anything positive about supporting the Muslim community. Remember how agitated certain news outlets would get whenever a politician wouldn't use the full phrase "radical Islamic terrorism"? Congruent situation.

It's not legitimate.  It's just like blaming Chelsea Clinton for it.  The propagandists are hard selling confusion and conflation of responsibility but it's a false story.  We're responsible for our own actions.

Maybe if Chelsea Clinton were constantly beating the drum of the danger of Islam. Maybe if she called for total ban on Muslim travel. Maybe if she supported someone who suggested that wearing a hijab is in conflict with the Constitution. Maybe if she were hard-pressed to ever say anything good about a Muslim who is not a Saudi Prince.

[rightleft22]

Trumps rhetoric style and statements or lack of statement with regards to immigration, white supremacy, Islamophobia is open to a valid debate.

They are?  Why?

What is Islamophobia to you that you think Trump should have done more to confront it?  Where is it?  What's the evidence?

White supremacy is a nonsense issue.  It's literally the left trying to force the issue onto the Administration.  Point to the policies that are "white supremicist"  seriously, point to the policies.  The entire point of the propaganda on this is to tar without evidence.  Do you have any evidence?

As TheDrake pointed out what Trump chooses to tweet about and not tweet about is a valid topic to debate. Debating the content of his tweets does not make Trump a 'white supremacist'
That's the problem, we can't seem to debate a issue without it taking a extreme position.

Trump could very easily put any question about his stance on the issue if it served his purpose - it doesn't. Its better for him politically to leave his views questionable (not questionable as in right or wrong but as in not clear) As long as he keeps these door open he gets to claim to be the victim of 'Orange man bad' which keeps his opponents off balance. Its a excellent strategy if IMO a immoral one.

[Wayward Son]

Seriati said:

As I understand it, CNN and other propagandists love to point out the Trump reference, but specific don't go on to the next few sentences where he says he doesn't support Trump's policies.

Why then do you think he supported Trump's policies?

Which policies regarding Muslims did the killer not support?  I'm sure he was all for the Muslim ban (as Trump called it).  What wasn't he for?

Crunch said:

During his time as a member, he has admitted to stealing phone service. At $1,500, that becomes a felony.

So what do you think should be the punishment for a politician that allegedly committed a felony (I note that you have cited no proof that he actually did it) when he was a teenager?

[LetterRip]

I won't comment on you trying to read crunch's mind, but really? The beer drinking was hammered pillar to post. It literally came up 96 times during the hearings. Why would it be such a focus if there was no "outrage" associated with it?

Because he had perjured himself.  The questions were to establish his perjury.

[LetterRip]

The Reuters reporter hid it. He had an agreement with Beto to do so.

No hiding took place, he wanted a comment from Beto and Beto said he wouldn't provide a comment till a later date, which delayed the story.

As for teenage behavior, you should review recent events to understand why it's important. Your rules, amigo.

Rape and attempted rape are extremely serious behaviors.  Also it isn't "my rules" - it is the general view of society as a whole.

Going over $1,500 when stealing phone service was a felony. People were, in fact, arrested for it and charged.

There is no evidence that he went over 1,500$.  Also it was generally only charged against organized crime and as part of other more serious charges.

The source is the Reuters reporter and a basic understanding of human nature

Wrong on both counts, the Reuters article didn't at all say what you seem to think it said.

What you don't know about the 1980's and 1990's hacker scene is that long distance was a service you had to pay for in that era.

I did in fact know that.

And, this may shock you, many times the BBS you accessed was in another city or even another state.

Not shocked or even unaware.  However cDc was local for Beto so his activity likely didn't involve a lot of long distance.

I was around for the 1980's and 1990's computer scene, got my computer engineering degree around that time. I have probably forgotten more about that hacking era than you'll ever know but, by all means kid, tell me what it was like.

And yet you seemed blissfully unaware of phreaking.  So perhaps you have indeed forgotten more about that hacking era, but apparently you seem to have forgotten rather nearly everything.

Also his involvement was writing and chatting there haven't been any reports that his involvement went beyond that.

And stealing phone service.

Yep, it was entirely wrong of him to do.  So is distributing mix tapes.  Also "fair use" is an affirmative defense - it has to be litigated each time and only then can you assert fair use and determined non-infringing.

Oh, well, everyone was doing it. Why didn't you say that right up front? Everyone was doing it, that kind of makes it perfectly legal right? You really should stop with the logical fallacy thing.

I really thought you were smart enough to understand the reasoning, sorry for over estimating you.  I didn't assert it was legal.  I was pointing out that we as a society have legislated certain behaviors to be illegal, but certain subsets of illegal behavior, when engaged in by youths and young adults are fairly normative - and thus not indicative of a lack of morals latter in life.

Generally these behaviors are crimes that we considered 'victimless' (drinking, experimenting with drugs) or where the victim is a corporation and the crime doesn't deprive the corporation of goods, but rather denies them profits on goods or services with little or no marginal cost (such as copyright violation, or service violations such as sharing logins to netflix) - and where the actual losses are largely imaginary or grossly exaggerated.

From an early teen to late 20’s, Beto has a habit of thinking the laws that govern you don’t apply to him. Now we’re supposed to think he’s no longer of such a mindset because... reasons!

Has anyone you known ever consumed alcohol underage (perhaps even yourself?)?  Have all of those individuals turned out to be hardened criminals?  If not, can you perhaps see the flaw in your reasoning?  (Ok, that was a rhetorical question - you are incapable of seeing any flaws in your reasoning - but I think the flaw is obvious to other readers).

Actually, we know why. It’s because he’s a Democrat. Kavanaugh drank beer as a teen and it was an outrage. Beto engages repeatedly in illegal behavior and no big deal.

Again, reasoning skills of a two year old.  Kavanaugh was credibly accused of attempted rape, and in my opinion obviously perjured himself regarding his drinking as a teen and young adult.  The concern was over the credible accusation of attempted rape and his current and past purjury, the alcohol was what he was perjuring himself over.

Beto's illegal behavior continued into his late 20's.

Source?  I don't think there is any source anywhere that claims that.

Before you hang your hat on mixtapes, you might read up on something called "fair use".

I'm familiar with fair use.  I'm also aware that the vast majority of mix tapes (especially when distributed to friends) are not in fact fair use.

When you supported a serial rapist for president, you lost the moral high ground on fake accusations of rape.

I didn't support Trump for President (oh that isn't who you meant by serial rapist?).  If you meant Clinton, I didn't support him for President either although there were no such accusations by his alleged victims against him at the time he was running.  Also there is no evidence Clinton is a serial rapist.  There is one plausible accusation with serious credibility issues that he is a rapist.  I can perfectly understand those who find it credible, but also find it perfectly understandable for those who don't find it credible - it is an issue about which reasonable people can legitimately disagree on the interpretation of the evidence in terms of finding it credible.

"Appears" to have engaged in perjury, what a load.

Yes 'appears' is a dramatic understatement, Kavanaugh by any reasonable standard has perjured himself in my opinion, but I have a tendency to use hedge words when referring to behavior regarding criminal conduct.

[LetterRip]

No hiding took place, he wanted a comment from Beto and Beto said he wouldn't provide a comment till a later date, which delayed the story.

Correction on my behalf.  What actually happened is that he didn't even know it was Beto.  The members of the cDc wouldn't inform him of who it was until he agreed to the condition (they only told the reporter - who was writing a book about cDc, that a current politician was a former member).  He had only vague information prior to that and didn't know it was Beto.  So he traded for a delay of a story that wouldn't be about Beto (essentially a non-story since without knowing who the politician was it was pointless), in exchange for learning it was Beto, but delaying the story.

[TheDeamon]

I won't comment on you trying to read crunch's mind, but really? The beer drinking was hammered pillar to post. It literally came up 96 times during the hearings. Why would it be such a focus if there was no "outrage" associated with it?

Because he had perjured himself.  The questions were to establish his perjury.

In regards to what? That he didn't get drunk enough to pass out, or that he didn't get drunk enough to "blackout" and have no recall of activities he undertook while still conscious?

I think when it comes to a perjury claim, Bill Clinton covered that one fairly well: "That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' (or 'blackout') is."

My understanding of "blackout drunk" always was that the person may have been conscious at the time, but he(or she) was so drunk at that point that they wouldn't remember anything that happened after a certain point in the night. Somebody who drank enough to pass out, "passed out" rather than "blacked out." Of course, you can pass out AND black out, but you also can "pass out" without "blacking out" as a drunk.

Unless I'm missing something, as my own recollection of those hearings seemed to be attempts to catch him in a trap regarding his getting drunk enough that he could have had a memory lapse(black out) due to alcohol, and thus explain "no recollection" of the event he was accused of. But then, how you're going to prove perjury on such a matter without some serious proof is beyond me. As you'd have to establish he knowingly and deliberately lied.

Which is a hard claim to prove if he has no memory of such an event(because he blacked out, and somehow never became aware of "the memory hole" after the fact), and nobody else remembers it either. Except evidently this one person, who can't seem to find anyone else who remembers a scenario resembling the story she gave..

[TheDrake]

You don't have to prove perjury to believe someone is lying. If someone responded like K did in a job interview they wouldn't get hired, which was the context. Just like no one can prove who was in the Klan outfit, but if it is on your yearbook page.

[Seriati]

The retcon on Kavanaugh is absurd.  Drinking was a huge focus of the hearings. 

Speaking of Retcon.... The focus on Kavanagh lying about drinking is not the same as caring about his drinking. Like it or not, excessive drinking is almost a right of passage in the USA.

Potentially perjuring oneself denying one's drinking in order to avoid opening oneself up further to accusations of sexual assaults is not.

"Potentially"?  Do you have any evidence that Kavanaugh perjured himself about drinking, or is this once again wishful thinking and implication?  Guilt by implication is wrong.

If I said we shouldn't listen to you because you are potentially a criminal rapist would that mean you now bear the stink of that "allegation"?