Misleading or false claims by the media

[TheDrake]

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"?

Would you hire someone if you heard rumors that they had done something unethical or illegal, and they broke down when you asked them about it during an interview? Or would you move on to another candidate?

[Seriati]

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.

He's said plenty positive about the community.  He's made it clear on multiple occasions that this is not about religion it's about radical elements in religion.  Here's just one quote, "This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects or different civilizations, this is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life and decent people, all in the name of religion."

You only hear what you want on this topic (and the media and search algorythms help to ensure it's only what you/they want.  Why wouldn't he or any one else use "radical Islamic terrorism" it's still responsible for the majority of terror in the world. 

I can't speak to the overall quality of this, but it is interesting in giving a sense of the scale here.   https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism  It does one glaring omission, it excludes state sponsored terrorism, which depending on the the definition either heavily skews the results to be even more about radical Islam, or pretty much counts the US as on of the big sponsors.

Why are you anti-science?  Radical Islam in fact has a terrorism problem.  Where it's active it creates new attacks and prompts reprisals. 

That has nothing to do with this attack.  This rightfully condemned.  But the idea that because of this attack we should ignore reality makes zero sense.

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.

You do know that was not hypothetical.  She was shouted at by people blaming her, because any statement, no matter how inocuos, is considered somehow causation.  What ever happened to understanding of correlation? 

Trump criticizing a real factual state, that radical Islam is responsible for, or directly involved in a majority of the world's terrorism is somehow "causing" people to attack Muslims?

Maybe if she were hard-pressed to ever say anything good about a Muslim who is not a Saudi Prince.

Again, you're only choosing what you want to see.

[TheDrake]

Anyway, we've already explored that in depth, didn't mean to rehash it. The more appropriate question here is whether it was a legitimate news topic. It certainly was, even if only to highlight the degree of desperation or nefariousness of the Democrats. Was it fair to have a discussion about whether K was lying? It certainly seemed that commentators from the right thought it was fair enough to assume Ford a liar with equally little proof that she was lying.

[Seriati]

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"?

Would you hire someone if you heard rumors that they had done something unethical or illegal, and they broke down when you asked them about it during an interview? Or would you move on to another candidate?

Are you saying, you wouldn't hire someone based on a 30 year old rumor that they denied and no one put any proof on, after hearing multiple testimonials from everyone who knows the person?  Where they had sterling job recommendations from every employer and a history of promoting diversity that flew directly in the face of the rumor?

In any event, I've approved the hiring of felons before (you know people that were actually convicted of crimes) because they deserve a second chance.

And I guaranty you have a friend out there that's been more sexually aggressive than Kavanaugh was accused of being.

[TheDrake]

Why are you anti-science?  Radical Islam in fact has a terrorism problem.  Where it's active it creates new attacks and prompts reprisals. 

Are you anti-science? The world, in fact, has an Islamophobia problem as well. Where it's active it creates new attacks and prompts reprisals.

I'm not saying anyone can't say "radical Islamic terrorism" and have a very legitimate point. There's certainly nothing inherently wrong with that phrase, and it is fairly limited as opposed to "Islamic terrorism" or "the Muslim threat" which should not be condoned.

I'm talking about the very big deal that was made of people who condemned attacks by Muslims while omitting their religion.

I see it equally relevant to ask why Trump doesn't reach out to Muslim groups and express sympathy without having to dilute them and combine them with other groups. The conclusion to that discussion can be fairly debated, but it is news and there's nothing misleading about exploring the question.

[Seriati]

As TheDrake pointed out what Trump chooses to tweet about and not tweet about is a valid topic to debate.

Agreed.  What I don't find valid is CNN and the rest of the propagandists immediately running with the "it's not enough" when Trump tweets support for the people of NZ.  The fact is that nothing ever would be enough to them because it doesn't fit their desired story.

When he sends out positive messages they never report them, or they let them die. 

This is the epitome of fake news.  There's no world where Obama sends out the same message and the media puts up one second of criticism.  It's a lie that "Trump is a special case" because of his past actions.

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.

I didn't start there.  But I done with not calling out the left when they lie and manipulate.  I am done playing the game where the left pretends to a moral high ground when they are the most corrupt people in the game.

Trump could very easily put any question about his stance on the issue if it served his purpose - it doesn't.

No he couldn't.  There is no phrase on Earth that could "put it to rest."  Even if he did a day long seminar of apology, the media would run with a story of how it was all a big lie and cover for his true message of hate.  They'd find some random one toothed racist in the middle of no where to say he knows the President is just lying to provide cover and it'd still be the story.  Except the media would now call him a liar on top of it.

Its better for him politically to leave his views questionable (not questionable as in right or wrong but as in not clear)

His views are not unclear.  He condemns radicalism by everyone.  He's flat out said it's not about religion.

[TheDrake]

In any event, I've approved the hiring of felons before (you know people that were actually convicted of crimes) because they deserve a second chance.

And I guaranty you have a friend out there that's been more sexually aggressive than Kavanaugh was accused of being.

You missed the whole second half of my proposition. The way he reacted. Would I hire a formerly violent felon without having a discussion about it? No. If they got aggressive and belligerent when I asked, would that increase my concern? If they got evasive, might I start to wonder if they had really been rehabilitated.

I have a number of social acquaintances that I would disqualify from employment based on racial attitudes, misogyny, or inappropriate behavior - either past or present, and I'm not hiring a judge to a lifetime appointment.

[TheDrake]

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

Backing up for a minute, I'll make no apologies or defense for CNN. Their talking heads have achieved Breitbart levels of partisanship.

As for the other punditry, I can't really say. I don't normally watch multiple TV news sources. I generally go by what their websites post, because if I watched it on TV my brains would turn to mush and run out my ears.

Maybe that's part of our disconnect. I have no way of knowing if they schedule 8 guests on 8 shows that all disparage Trump and assume the worst of him. Just like I don't really know if Fox has 4 hosts that all disparage the people disparaging Trump.

To me, "the media" is an amalgam of BBC, WaPo, CNN, Breitbart, and a blend of others found ad hoc through google or cross reference. I don't really know if "Is Trump Racist?" is scrolling by 7 times per minute at the bottom of the screen. As rightleft posted earlier, people would be much better off not exposing themselves to those sources on a regular bases - especially Trump himself.

[rightleft22]

To clarify I don't view CNN as representative of most people I know on the left, just as Fox is not Representative of most people on the right. I also don't view the majority of their programming as news. Opinion, speculation and punditry is not news and my worry is that two many people can't tell the difference anymore. Its unfortunate that any concerns we might like to debate are warped by that.

I'd like to address why I think Trump could do a better job at 'clear up' his message and why I think political it serves him better if he doesn't but I have to get to work.  I think CNN "reporting" works in Trump's favor

[Seriati]

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.

So the story goes.  If Fox had an interview with someone that proves Russian collusion and is sitting on it so the author can write a book after the Trump Presidency is over do you feel the same way?

The timing on the hold and the release is nonsense.  It was held to protect the Senate race, and it's being released now so it can be old news when the voting starts.  It's blatant manipulation.

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.

I didn't think Beto was accused of Rape, where did you get that?

Once again, I'm going to assume you are implying Kavanaugh.  The elements alleged were for groping, not rape or attempted rape.  Which makes this assertion a bit of lie.

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

I'm just curious, where are you going with this?  Are you going to 'splain anything and everything he does cause he's the man?  In this world, if he were a Republican anyone of the following would be a disqualifier:  drunk driving, participation in hacking group, writing short fiction about killing kids (I mean my goodness, Beto shouldn't be allowed to visit a school on the see something say something modern standard).

Meanwhile, Romney was attacked for an unproven assertion of high school bullyling, and you won't let anything go on Kavanaugh even though there's no proof and most every assertion was absurd. 

On the whole hacker thing, I'm assuming this was between 83 and 95, that's exactly the time window (post War Games) when enforcement and legal actively ramped up consistently every year.  And yes, the feds did take it seriously, though back then they were almost completely focused on government systems.

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.

I'm not aware of any serious litigation related to personal use of mixtapes.  Nor of any non-commercial use.   Selling a mixtape, sure.  I'm not even aware of anything related to using them at a public venue (it's whether you have the right to use the songs at all, not whether you copied them onto a single tape that mattered).  I mean heck, virtually every tape player in the 80s had 2 tape decks specifically to copy songs.

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?)?

So you have no problem moving groping to rape, and no problem moving drunk driving to underage consumption (even though he was 26 at the time of the DWI)?  I mean if I had to guess, Beto acted like an entitled white kid, because that's exactly what he was. 

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).

Can you see your own flaw?

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.

Reasoning skills?  You're kidding right?

Credible, per Merriam Webster, "offering reasonable grounds for being believed."  Kavanaugh was accused, period.  The only thing you found credible was what?  That Ford spoke well?  She had no details - at all, her friend who she said was at the party said she believed her, but personally she had never been a party with Kavanaugh and didn't know him.  She never told anyone any details for decades.  She didn't remember, the day, the year or any details about how she got there or left.  That is not credible.

Second, what the elements of rape and attempted rape?  The accusation was of groping, there are no elements present that even plausible move it to rape or attempted rape.  That's just a libel you won't let go. 

There's no applicable statute of limitations on rape.  If it were credible, MD could pursue the charges with or without Ford.  Yet MD has not done so, and Ford has not filed charges.  Why not?

You've laid out the perjury nonsense before and it's a big nothing burger.  You can go to his actual quotes and see what you'd have to prove and you've never shown that anyone can demonstrate that what he said was untrue. 

In fact, its very certain that he didn't perjure himself.  He answered more interrogotaries than any SC before, in fact I think he answered more than all combined. Turned over more documents than anyone before, and the incredible partisan Democratic Senators couldn't find the evidence of perjury.  I'm guessing you don't have it either, you've just convinced yourself without evidence.

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

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

He was borne in 72, his burglary arrest (granted seems minor) was in 95 and his DWI was in 98.  That'd be when he was 23 and 26 respectively.  Did you look for a source, or are you limiting your call to the hacking?

I didn't support Trump for President (oh that isn't who you meant by serial rapist?).

Again, you make up an allegation and act like it's real.  Do you have some evidence that Trump is a rapist, let alone a serial rapist?  I think there's some people in Congress that'd be interested.

LR why do you keep saying things you have to know are not true?

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.

There were rumors of Broaddrick's story before he was first elected in 1992.  You can go to her Wiki and see that she was talking to people before then and that it even went to the NYT's and LA Times in 1992 but she wouldn't go on record and they dropped (lol, innocent times, not like today where they'd print it before they even spoke to her).  There was even a secret tape of her story. 

There were stories all over the place by his second election. 

And to even get to this point you have to ignore the rumors from his time as governor.  It was a different era then and a lot of this was swept under the rug, but the idea that it wasn't out there at the time of his election is untrue.

Also there is no evidence Clinton is a serial rapist.  There is one plausible accusation with serious credibility issues that he is a rapist.

There are multiple accusers, who can name specific days and times, who were known to be linked directly to the Clintons, who had immediate falling outs.  All of which is in the public record.  There are photos linking them.  There are witnesses to various things Hillary and Bill said that while ambiguous support the story.  And of course, there's that he got caught lying about sexual situation (you know actual perjury).

I can't even imagine the mental gymnatistics you're doing to believe that Kavanaugh is an attempted rapist and Clinton is somehow not 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.

No.  Reasonable people can't disagree on credibility here.  They can disagree on whether he's guilty.

"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.

We've been through your evidence before.  It's not the hedge words that are the problem it's when you use "perjury" when you mean "you don't like him and wish you could show he lied."

[Seriati]

Are you anti-science? The world, in fact, has an Islamophobia problem as well. Where it's active it creates new attacks and prompts reprisals.

I'm not anti-science, show me this evidence that the world has an Islamophobia problem.  Seriously, where did you find it?

Why do you find yourself not capable of separating a condemnation of "radical Islamic terrorism" from "Islamophobia"?  Do you find yourself unable to separate Eco terrorists from the Green movement?

Why when confronted with facts about terrorism, is the response to jump to the irrational?  Millions of American Muslims are not involved in terrorism and are not being harrassed on a daily basis.  Same in most of the west.  Why is that not evidence - to you - that this isn't about Islamophobia?  Anyone that did harrass them would find themselves on the wrong side of the law and social condemnation immediately.

I'm not saying anyone can't say "radical Islamic terrorism" and have a very legitimate point.

I think you should rethink this claim.  That's exactly why you're saying it.

I'm talking about the very big deal that was made of people who condemned attacks by Muslims while omitting their religion.

Again, we're back to ignoring science.  If I say, young men commit the vast majority of violent crimes, it's not because I'm a man hater, it's because it's a fact.

In what way would it be legitimate for you to come back and say, "but you're omitting all the other demographics that commit crimes?"

We've fallen so far down the rabbit hole that we can't even have a facts based conversation because of sensitivities.  This kind of thinking muddles the waters and prevents real progress on the areas that actually have the issues.

Show me the science - the stats - that show the other religions have radicalized terrorist threats.  Or are you asserting there's some Christian denomination that is radicalizing in the west?

I see it equally relevant to ask why Trump doesn't reach out to Muslim groups and express sympathy without having to dilute them and combine them with other groups. The conclusion to that discussion can be fairly debated, but it is news and there's nothing misleading about exploring the question.

That's a fair criticism. 

But the way the media runs it is not.

[Seriati]

You missed the whole second half of my proposition. The way he reacted. Would I hire a formerly violent felon without having a discussion about it? No. If they got aggressive and belligerent when I asked, would that increase my concern? If they got evasive, might I start to wonder if they had really been rehabilitated.

I didn't miss it.  If a company acted the way the Senate did they'd be sued into bankruptcy for the violation of rights.

If you ask a felon about their crimes, they walk you through them matter of factly.  They know you'll be checking their references and sometimes their parole officer and it doesn't pay to deceive.

But honestly it's a nonsensical hypothetical you're putting forward, and a poor analogy I'm describing.  If you sat down accross the desk at an interview, and I decided to confront you about allegations that you are a rapist, what would you do?  I'd be pretty pissed off, so would you. 

Thinking you can deduce K's character by how he reacted to that reality tv garbage is a sick joke.  Fact is, if he hadn't gotten pissed the media would have run with a story about how he was a pyschopath who must of done it because no one could be that calm.

It's quite like a Kafka trap and he walked out of it about as best as one could manage in that format.

I have a number of social acquaintances that I would disqualify from employment based on racial attitudes, misogyny, or inappropriate behavior - either past or present, and I'm not hiring a judge to a lifetime appointment.

Neither was the Senate.  They are not a hiring committee.  The President is the hiring committee.

Nor was the Senate doing anything remotely legitimate in how they conducted that hearing.  We have 250 years of judicial hearing precedent and that one was a black mark from day one. 

And don't lie to yourself, it wasn't Ford's accusation that caused it to go that way, we had days of public hearing before Ford ever came forward where we saw how abusive and farcical it was.

There is zero question that Kavanaugh qualified, with a sterling record in every way that matters.  It should have been a 100 - 0 vote.  Yet, you had Senators release statements that they would never support him within minutes, with "fill in the blank" announcements that they hadn't even taken the time to proof.   

There's nothing legitimate about how that process went, so I reject your attempt at implying they were doing their job.  It was never about doing their jobs.

[TheDeamon]

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.

People can lie without committing perjury. It's called giving out incorrect information without intent to deceive.

Perjury requires intent to deceive, while under oath in a legally binding proceeding no less.

So about moving the goal posts...

[TheDeamon]

Once again, I'm going to assume you are implying Kavanaugh.  The elements alleged were for groping, not rape or attempted rape.  Which makes this assertion a bit of lie.

You're forgetting the definition was altered by "Women's Rights activists" during the Obama Administration.

Any unwanted touching, which the "victim" considers to possibly be of a sexual nature now qualifies as a sexual assault. Much like previously the legal definition of (simple) assault is any unwelcome touch.

And since there are few to no laws that deal with "rape" but rather address "sexual assault" instead, that means all sexual assaults can now be called rapes. Even without any attempt to penetrate, or even really any attempt to "handle the goods" in regards to certain anatomical regions. Just touching somebody's hand can qualify you for committing sexual assault in the eyes of some of the more extreme people out there these days.

[Seriati]

TheDeamon the Constitution leaves you stuck with the laws on the books at the time of the conduct in question.  At best it's a grope, and even there it's impossible to prove and would never have been brought up.

I said it before, the entire Democrat plan on this blew up in their face when Kavanaugh admitted to being a virgin (a possibility that never even crossed their minds) and then completely fell apart when he managed to alibi out for virtually the whole summer (which totally undermined the ability to slide from day to day if anyone day was asserted as "the day" and turned out not to have been plausible).

[Fenring]

Are you anti-science? The world, in fact, has an Islamophobia problem as well. Where it's active it creates new attacks and prompts reprisals.

I'm not anti-science, show me this evidence that the world has an Islamophobia problem.  Seriously, where did you find it?

Why do you find yourself not capable of separating a condemnation of "radical Islamic terrorism" from "Islamophobia"?  Do you find yourself unable to separate Eco terrorists from the Green movement?

Why when confronted with facts about terrorism, is the response to jump to the irrational?  Millions of American Muslims are not involved in terrorism and are not being harrassed on a daily basis.  Same in most of the west.  Why is that not evidence - to you - that this isn't about Islamophobia?  Anyone that did harrass them would find themselves on the wrong side of the law and social condemnation immediately.

It's funny how the opposition on topics like this seems to result in adopting positions that are...well...opposite. I guess on this topic I feel like both of your statements somewhat miss the point. Or rather, they're both playing in a sandbox whose constraints are arbitrary and, I think, not much reflective of the reality on the ground. Media narratives create the sandbox and I suppose it's easy to pick sides within it rather than to realize that the sandbox is made-up and irrelevant.

I'll explain: the whole "Islamophobia" narrative is just weird to me. Even its name presupposes that there is a 'condition' wherein people are afraid of Islam, presumably for irrational reasons. Then the debate goes on about whether there in fact is Islamophibia - which ends up encompassing anything from irrational fear of Islam itself, to distrust of Muslims, to antagonism towards Islamic states - or whether there is no such 'condition' and it's a liberal delusion. Both sides seem to omit what seems to be a real-world fact: that several nations at present have extremely theocratic and oppressive laws in place; that many people there (not just some few) subscribe enthusiastically to these rules; that many people there (not most, but still many) do endorse violence against both infidels and apostates; and that a huge amount of terrorism comes out of these states. These appear to me to be facts, and it strikes me as being a mis-characterization to call deep concern for these facts "Islamophobia". Perhaps we can call it "Sharia-phobia" but even that doesn't do justice to it, because if you've heard stories about what life on the ground there is like you'd know that it's not even a phobia, but a completely rational concern. Calling antagonism to that a "phobia" would be like calling WWII "Nazi-phobia", which really undermines the legitimacy of that position.

Now I also agree with Seriati that it's probably true that the average Muslim in America isn't facing any kind of retributive attitude from your average American, or harassmant, although from what my Iranian friend says they face plenty of harassment from the law. Perhaps other minorities could make that same claim, although I somehow doubt it's to the same level. But as he's not Muslim but just ethnically Persian this would in fact not be evidence of Islamophobia, but rather of anti-Semitism (in its correct usage). And again I think that this seems mostly to be restricted to law enforcement, although it's probably also true that the more rural you get the more an ethnic-looking person will be subject to more quizzical scrutiny, compared to a big city.

But this "Islamophobia" thing strikes me as being a canard; a red herring, where a strawman under the rubrik of bigotry can be levied against people who have legitimate grievances with what the Muslim communities around the world seem to perpetuate. And to me the biggest difficulty here is in separating the wheat from the chaff; to know how many in those communities say what they say out of fear of persecution, and how many have drunk the Kool Aid. And in fact in 1984-type thought control environments there is no clear dividing line between these groups, and no real way to ask whether someone "really" loves Big Brother or not. However I have heard first-hand accounts of how even your average citizen there will demand complete fealty to even the smallest things (such as how many times a person prays a week), where even the most innocent question about why things are the way they are will very likely be met by even your best friend reporting you to the thought police, and tough guys appearing in the street and roughing you and your family up. Sometimes it involves weapons or guns. It's pure Orwell, full stop, but with more brutality and less finesse. No kidding people would fear this when seeing it from afar, and have it in for words like "Sharia law". But to call a hatred of tyranny with the label of "Islamophobia" and argue about who is or isn't Islamophobic is to miss the whole issue, which is in what way the knowledge of the state of those countries should affect American policy; and perhaps about questions (which we've even asked here, some years ago) about whether there's a natural connection between the religion itself and the state of those nations, or whether the two are separable. These are serious matters, but the strawman of "the Islamophobia problem" sidesteps the real issues, but no more than does skirting around the fact that there are real issues and that it isn't just an illusion that there's a problem in that department in the world.

So I do take issue with Seriati's argument that it's *only* about Islamic terrorism. It really isn't, because frankly the normal day-to-day conditions in the sharia countries are more troubling to me than discrete acts of terrorism.

[Seriati]

Media manipulation even works on me, this is literally the first I heard this:

Hemingway interjected, telling Thiessen what he said was “not true” and pointed to Trump’s remarks after Charlottesville where he said, “I am not talking about neo-Nazis and white nationalist because they should be condemned totally,” something she noted was from the same event as his “both sides” comments.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/for-the-media-to-say-that-trump-hasnt-condemned-neo-nazis-and-white-supremacists-is-not-true-mollie-heminway

Were you under the impression that Trump flat out said that Neo-Nazis and white nationalists should be condemned totally?

Cause it seems like an awful lot of people keep claiming that he could "make it clear" and is choosing not to, when in fact he is clear and the media is choosing to prevent you from seeing it.

[Seriati]

Fen, there is not a single thing in your post that I don't completely agree with.  Sorry for the short hand I was using.  When I said I don't see a scientific basis for thinking Islamophobia is real, I just meant that, we're not reacting out of fear or hatred of Islam.  We're barely reacting at all, and as you noted, there are very real problems and concerns involved.

But mostly, I was pointing out that I don't think anyone's seen evidence on this anyway.  They've heard it repeated that Islamophobia is a concern from so many talking aheads that they've internalized it without actually seeing evidence of it.

[TheDrake]

Again, we're back to ignoring science.  If I say, young men commit the vast majority of violent crimes, it's not because I'm a man hater, it's because it's a fact.

The vast majority of crimes in this country are also committed by self-identified Christians, but it would be unhelpful and derogatory to express it that way. It might even work out that way on a per-capita basis.

This is also the problem with depicting immigrants to be rapists, murderers, fraudsters, and traffickers. It's not being "PC" to corral and quantify the small portion of a population that deserves scrutiny, attention, and opposition and reaffirm that most of the people in that population are none of those things.

Fenring made some good points. I should reiterate that I don't consider concern about radical Islamic movements anything other than legitimate. Certain Islamic countries treatment of their people, especially women and definitely homosexuals, are abhorrent and disgusting. It is perfectly appropriate to reject that, it doesn't make one Islamophobic.

Thinking that Obama is a secret Muslim is Islamophobic. Trying to stop someone from building a Mosque is also. Trying to outlaw hijabs, same thing. Being so bizarrely terrified that someone's going to put Sharia law on you that your State passes laws to prevent it from taking over is. Those are my opinions, I know some people think that those are super-rational measures and concerns.

The amount of physical attacks, property damage, and intimidation remain relatively low. The number of people who feel comfortable expressing their hatred of Muslims including violent content is growing strong.

Documented anti-mosque activity ranges from silly to terrorism.

[rightleft22]

I agree with what Fenring posted

Curious what word should we use to describe a set of beliefs that lead people to deface churches, mosque's or synagogues. Or belittle its members.
How do we talk about such behavior and push back against it if we feel that such behavior is wrong.

[Seriati]

Thinking that Obama is a secret Muslim is Islamophobic.

It's literally not.  It's just a silly and pointless question of religious interpretation.  Some religions pass religion down through the mother or the father even if they convert. 

While I agree, some took it way too seriously, part of that was the fact that the media was in full on white wash (if you'll forgive the term) mode with Obama to hide everything and anything they thought would make him unelectable in middle America (real truth seekers there).  Against a back ground of active cover ups and lies conspiracy theories are going to abound.

But to your point its not Islamphobic without something more.

Trying to stop someone from building a Mosque is also.

Is it though?  Trying to stop a Mosque next to the location of Twin Towers, is that really Islamophobia? 

Was it insensitive to propose to put a Mosque there?  If not, are other people seeking to put buildings in places that are racially insensitive also to be welcomed?  What was the stink over Confederate monuments then? 

It's just bizarre to me that if any other group tried to build something in an area that was culturally offensive to an identifiable group (even if only part of that group was upset), the whole view of it would be flipped on its head.

Trying to outlaw hijabs, same thing.

Anti-Muslim or Pro-Women?  Boys are rude to even look at girls in short skirts, because they aren't there to be your eye candy, but totally okay for dad's to insist their daughters where hijabs?

Being so bizarrely terrified that someone's going to put Sharia law on you that your State passes laws to prevent it from taking over is.

We have multiple communities that have non-legal court systems in the US.  None of them should be encouraged, and they should all be undermined.

The protests are on US courts agreeing through arbitration laws to apply religious laws.  Not sure how this remotely gets a pass from the freedom from religion crowd (oh yes I am, they're hypocrites).

The amount of physical attacks, property damage, and intimidation remain relatively low. The number of people who feel comfortable expressing their hatred of Muslims including violent content is growing strong.

You keep "asserting" this.  Where is the evidence?

[rightleft22]

Thinking that Obama is a secret Muslim is Islamophobic.

It's literally not.  It's just a silly and pointless question of religious interpretation

I disagree. The statement may or may not be Islamophobic however to know if it was or if it was not you need to understand the motivation behind the one saying it.
This is were I have the most trouble following your arguments lately as they suggest a closed mind which I know is't true.. yet your rhetoric suggest to me that you don't think Islamophobia exists at all? 

[TheDrake]

The Islamophobia in the Obama thing was the part about how he was conspiring with Muslims to bring down the country, not just the people who wondered about his personal religious practice.

48% of Muslims have reported racial or religious discrimination.

If someone is forced to wear a hijab, its the force that's important. We don't outlaw tattoos because abusive people force someone to get one. We don't talk about outlawing yarmulkes, despite societal religious pressure to wear one.

As far as proof, I linked a bunch of incidents. I'm not talking about the one cherry-picked example in Manhattan.

US family courts have included religion in their considerations, including Judaism and Christianity - right or wrong. If you're against all of it, I'm with you. Craft your law properly, and while we're on the subject, take Under God out of the pledge given in schools.

It's just bizarre to me that if any other group tried to build something in an area that was culturally offensive to an identifiable group (even if only part of that group was upset), the whole view of it would be flipped on its head.

So if my neighbors and I are offended by a Christian church, society is going to be on our side if we get our anti-Christian councilman to block the zoning for it?

Since the 2016 presidential election, President Trump's views expressed on the campaign trail and from the Oval Office have stoked the fire of Islamophobic rhetoric in the political mainstream, proliferating hate speech and anti-Muslim sentiment. According to a leading Muslim advocacy group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes in the U.S. rose 91 percent in the first half of 2017, compared with the same period in 2016. The most frequent type of incidents, documented by CAIR in the second quarter of 2017 involved harassment, defined as a non-violent or non-threatening incident. The second most common type of bias incidents was hate crimes and involved physical violence or property damage. CAIR said the most prevalent trigger of anti-Muslim bias incidents in 2017 remains the victim's ethnicity or national origin, accounting for 32 percent of the total.

The number of assaults against Muslims in the United States rose significantly between 2015 and 2016, easily surpassing the modern peak reached in 2001, the year of the September 11 terrorist attacks, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of new hate crimes statistics from the FBI. In 2016, there were 127 reported victims of aggravated or simple assault, compared with 91 the year before and 93 in 2001.

Certain types of crimes that damage or destroy property, including vandalism, also have risen, from 70 cases against Muslims in 2015 to 92 last year.

Sources include CAIR, FBI and Pew Research.

Emphasis mine. But I'm sure you'll reject this out of hand.

[TheDrake]

Thinking that Obama is a secret Muslim is Islamophobic.

It's literally not.  It's just a silly and pointless question of religious interpretation

I disagree. The statement may or may not be Islamophobic however to know if it was or if it was not you need to understand the motivation behind the one saying it.
This is were I have the most trouble following your arguments lately as they suggest a closed mind which I know is't true.. yet your rhetoric suggest to me that you don't think Islamophobia exists at all?

I'm talking about the group that thought that Obama was secretly plotting with Muslims to bring down America and turn it into an Islamic State.

[Wayward Son]

Trying to stop a Mosque next to the location of Twin Towers...

How many blocks away from the Twin Towers' location would it take to be not "next" to it?

[rightleft22]

A FBU Report shows nearly 23% increase in religion-based hate crimes last year and 37% spike in anti-Jewish hate crimes
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2017

Asked by a reporter on Friday if he saw an increase globally in the threat of white nationalism, the US president responded: “I don’t really. I think it’s a small group of people that have very, very serious problems. I guess, if you look at what happened in New Zealand, perhaps that’s a case. I don’t know enough about it yet.”

This does not make Trump Islamophobic. I suspect that he is certain in his outlook on the matter, however that does not mean we can't debate the matter and ask the question of our leaders that if hate crime is on the rise should we do something about it.
The when you compare Trumps tweets about what Jussie Smollett and what the NZ shooter did it does 'beg the question'. But again not Islamophobic it what Trump believes and is willing to defend or do something about. He dons't see hate crime as a problem and that is that. I don't know if he's right, I'd like to see some good debates on it, Debates the don't come down to name calling but that's not going to happen. Love to see Trump debate the issue but on't think he has the skill and even if he did if anyone could hear him. But as I said I think that works for him more then it hurts him

[rightleft22]

I'm talking about the group that thought that Obama was secretly plotting with Muslims to bring down America and turn it into an Islamic State.

That group I would agree qualifies for the label of Islamophobic

[Wayward Son]

Both sides seem to omit what seems to be a real-world fact: that several nations at present have extremely theocratic and oppressive laws in place; that many people there (not just some few) subscribe enthusiastically to these rules; that many people there (not most, but still many) do endorse violence against both infidels and apostates; and that a huge amount of terrorism comes out of these states. These appear to me to be facts, and it strikes me as being a mis-characterization to call deep concern for these facts "Islamophobia".

Here's the thing, Fenring: what do these things have to do with Islam itself?

What does the actions of theocratic countries have to do with Muslims in New Zealand?  Or in Indonesia?  Or the Phillipines?  Or the U.S.?

What does the terrorists from Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan have to do with the guy at my local mosque?  My coworker on the other side of the cubicle wall?  My manager?  Can I draw any conclusions about what they think or feel from the fact they are Muslim?

There are a number of backward countries that think their culture and religion are ordained by God and everyone else should bow to them.  But what does it matter which religion those countries subscribe to?  Do you think for one moment that if they were Christian, or Buddhist, or Islam, or Jewish, or Zoroastrian, that it would make much difference?  Do you seriously believe that it is the religion that causes the violence, or the religion is used as an excuse for the violence?  That those who advocate violence couldn't twist the words of any of those religions to justify their hate and murder?

When people think that these countries justify their fear of Islam is when they are practicing Islamophobia.  When the President enacts a "Muslim ban" that we see Islamophobia.  When we think the hatred and violence comes from the religion, and not the particular practitioners and their particular culture, is when we cross over from reasonable concern into a fear of the other--the other religion, in this case.

[Fenring]

Here's the thing, Fenring: what do these things have to do with Islam itself?

Isn't that the same question I asked, and that we've addressed here before? Good luck answering it. Maybe nothing, maybe a lot. It's really a tough one.

What does the actions of theocratic countries have to do with Muslims in New Zealand?  Or in Indonesia?  Or the Phillipines?  Or the U.S.?

I think you are drastically overestimating how much national borders mean in subjects like this one.

What does the terrorists from Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan have to do with the guy at my local mosque?  My coworker on the other side of the cubicle wall?  My manager?  Can I draw any conclusions about what they think or feel from the fact they are Muslim?

Are you implying definitively that they have *nothing* to do with any of these people? That would be a gross overbid, just as much as it would be to suppose that any given person is suspect because they're Muslim. Neither claim holds water. I can give an anecdotal example:

I know a Muslim refugee who fled because of persection, when he was questioning some tenets of his religion (not rejecting them, just asking questions). There were incidents that brought his whole family close to death. He has a strong awareness that many people where he lives now have ties to people from his original country, and he is seriously concerned that the people hunting him down back there will get in touch with people here and finish the job. I don't think he's wrong. There are connections between groups, organizations, private families, and all sorts of other connections that don't care about borders but rather have other allegiances. This fellow I refer to isn't interested in your idea that the guy in your local mosque has nothing to do with it all; he knows that's not a safe assumption, and he's not being paranoid, and certainly not going to stake his life to it.

There are a number of backward countries that think their culture and religion are ordained by God and everyone else should bow to them.  But what does it matter which religion those countries subscribe to?  Do you think for one moment that if they were Christian, or Buddhist, or Islam, or Jewish, or Zoroastrian, that it would make much difference?  Do you seriously believe that it is the religion that causes the violence, or the religion is used as an excuse for the violence?  That those who advocate violence couldn't twist the words of any of those religions to justify their hate and murder?

I don't disagree that many sorts of zealous belief systems could introduce Orwellian measures to ensure control. We may well ask whether there are certain categories of belief systems that align better with such a system than others, and in fact that goes back to your first question. But this is a subject well beyond our ability to study in any meaningful way right now. Remaining agnostic is the safest course if you wanted to avoid error; otherwise you can play a hunch in either the direction that Islam itself may be problematic, or that it isn't.

When people think that these countries justify their fear of Islam is when they are practicing Islamophobia.  When the President enacts a "Muslim ban" that we see Islamophobia.  When we think the hatred and violence comes from the religion, and not the particular practitioners and their particular culture, is when we cross over from reasonable concern into a fear of the other--the other religion, in this case.

Are you quite sure these measures aren't a reaction to a real problem, and that the reaction itself may simply be wrong-headed or ineffective? I have no doubt that government is capable of addressing a legitimate problem stupidly, but that doesn't imply that "the people" are Islamophobic particularly. And btw I'm not denying that there really are anti-Islam bigots out there; of course there are, just like every other kind. But what I'm addressing is whether "Islamophobia" is a real concern to battle, or an illusory topic meant to further the right vs left divide in America. I don't like wedge issues that exist *only to be* wedge issues and serve no other purpose.

[TheDeamon]

Of note on "religious discrimination" and polling methodologies, keep in mind that Islam is not monolithic and a fair bit of the discrimination they are reporting may actually involve other Muslims.

As a Mormon. I was on the receiving end of a fair bit of religious discrimination while in the Navy as well, from people who claimed to be Christian no less. I don't think the world's falling apart because of it.

[TheDrake]

I know a Muslim refugee who fled because of persection, when he was questioning some tenets of his religion (not rejecting them, just asking questions). There were incidents that brought his whole family close to death. He has a strong awareness that many people where he lives now have ties to people from his original country, and he is seriously concerned that the people hunting him down back there will get in touch with people here and finish the job. I don't think he's wrong.

If you are him, Salman Rushdie, or Jamal Khashoggi, okay maybe you have a reason to fear random Muslims on the street. Just like if you have osteoporosis or hemophilia, you have a rational increased fear of heights. The fact that those kind of revenge attacks could be a real part of his life doesn't have anything to do with justifying an average person's fear.

[TheDeamon]

Since the 2016 presidential election, President Trump's views expressed on the campaign trail and from the Oval Office have stoked the fire of Islamophobic rhetoric in the political mainstream, proliferating hate speech and anti-Muslim sentiment. According to a leading Muslim advocacy group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes in the U.S. rose 91 percent in the first half of 2017, compared with the same period in 2016. The most frequent type of incidents, documented by CAIR in the second quarter of 2017 involved harassment, defined as a non-violent or non-threatening incident. The second most common type of bias incidents was hate crimes and involved physical violence or property damage. CAIR said the most prevalent trigger of anti-Muslim bias incidents in 2017 remains the victim's ethnicity or national origin, accounting for 32 percent of the total.

Ah, statistics, how I love them. A 91 percent increase nationwide you say? That sounds ghastly and grim. Better declare a national emergency.

The number of assaults against Muslims in the United States rose significantly between 2015 and 2016, easily surpassing the modern peak reached in 2001, the year of the September 11 terrorist attacks, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of new hate crimes statistics from the FBI. In 2016, there were 127 reported victims of aggravated or simple assault, compared with 91 the year before and 93 in 2001.

Certain types of crimes that damage or destroy property, including vandalism, also have risen, from 70 cases against Muslims in 2015 to 92 last year.

So, about small sample sizes and how that translates into reality....

Starting with the last item first. Going from 70 to 92 incidents in 3 years, nationally, does not an epidemic make.  Although I could generate a headline that reads "Vandalism hate crimes against Muslims are now at 131% of the level seen in 2015." Sounds nice and alarming, but doesn't mean much in a population of millions. The people who did it need to be found, and need to be stopped. but it is not verging on "a National Identity Crises."

Likewise you're talking about 127 aggravated/simple assaults that were considered hate crimes against Muslims in 2016, compared to 91 in 2015 or 93 such incidents in 2001. So they saw a nearly 40% increase in "hate motivated assaults" between 2015 and 2016.

In both cases the raw % of increase presents a bigger number than the actual increase in the number of actual events. (31% increase with 22 additional cases over the prior year, and a 40% increase with 26 additional cases over the prior year.)

So for a population of some 3.45 Million Muslims in the United States,  that in the year of "VERY EMBOLDENED RACISTS" only a few dozen additional incidents happened "above the baseline" tends to say something about how small the population of overtly racist and hate filled people really is.

Other things to consider is not everything happens in a vacuum. Some of this stuff was probably on a time-lag that was years in the making, so Trump had little to do with what happened beyond bad timing. While in other cases they're probably not reacting to Trump, but instead reacting to some of the screwball stuff that passes for Anti-Trump. I could see some Anti-Trumpers pushing people over the edge who could give a *bleep* about Donald Trump.

And of course, then there is Mr Smollet and company.

[TheDeamon]

There are a number of backward countries that think their culture and religion are ordained by God and everyone else should bow to them.  But what does it matter which religion those countries subscribe to?  Do you think for one moment that if they were Christian, or Buddhist, or Islam, or Jewish, or Zoroastrian, that it would make much difference?  Do you seriously believe that it is the religion that causes the violence, or the religion is used as an excuse for the violence?  That those who advocate violence couldn't twist the words of any of those religions to justify their hate and murder?

Islam is a special case, in that their Holy Book is a LOT more militant than the holy book/works of any other major denomination out there. In that respect, it is far easier to twist Islam into achieving violent ends than most others.

[TheDrake]

I figured when I came up with support, I would get a multiplicity of reasons why it was wrong or didn't matter. Even when the stats come from the FBI. Probably some secret Muslims in there filing reports.

I'm sorry there are no ready statistics on the number of anti-Muslim statements on social media, right wing news, or private conversations. But I'm sure those would turn out to be wrong also.

[TheDeamon]

I figured when I came up with support, I would get a multiplicity of reasons why it was wrong or didn't matter. Even when the stats come from the FBI. Probably some secret Muslims in there filing reports.

I'm sorry there are no ready statistics on the number of anti-Muslim statements on social media, right wing news, or private conversations. But I'm sure those would turn out to be wrong also.

Anti-Muslim statements on Social Media? Better make sure they're not Russian Bots first. 

[Wayward Son]

I know a Muslim refugee who fled because of persection, when he was questioning some tenets of his religion (not rejecting them, just asking questions). There were incidents that brought his whole family close to death. He has a strong awareness that many people where he lives now have ties to people from his original country, and he is seriously concerned that the people hunting him down back there will get in touch with people here and finish the job. I don't think he's wrong. There are connections between groups, organizations, private families, and all sorts of other connections that don't care about borders but rather have other allegiances. This fellow I refer to isn't interested in your idea that the guy in your local mosque has nothing to do with it all; he knows that's not a safe assumption, and he's not being paranoid, and certainly not going to stake his life to it.

I hear you, Fenring.  That's why you need to be careful around Italians; they may have Mafia connections.  Among Russians, because they may have Oligarch connections.  Among Mexicans, because they may have Mexican cartel connections.  And among white Christians, because they may have Aryan Nation connections.  One can never be too careful.

Are you quite sure these measures aren't a reaction to a real problem, and that the reaction itself may simply be wrong-headed or ineffective?

There is a problem out there.  But if you mislabel the problem and misbelieve the source of the problem (like it being simply a "Muslim" problem), then you can't help but come up with wrong-headed and ineffective solutions.

[Wayward Son]

Islam is a special case, in that their Holy Book is a LOT more militant than the holy book/works of any other major denomination out there. In that respect, it is far easier to twist Islam into achieving violent ends than most others.

Difficulty in twisting has never been a problem.  After all, the Old Testament describes a God that commanded genocide.  Doesn't take much to say that He also wants you to kill the stranger next door.  All you need is the desire to kill.

[Seriati]

Likewise you're talking about 127 aggravated/simple assaults that were considered hate crimes against Muslims in 2016, compared to 91 in 2015 or 93 such incidents in 2001. So they saw a nearly 40% increase in "hate motivated assaults" between 2015 and 2016.

Good write up.  I'd add that there is in fact a rising statistical trend for hate crimes.  There's also substantial evidence that the trend is at least in part a consequence of changes in how people report and categorize the events.  That really confounds determining if there has been any objective increase.

[LetterRip]

So the story goes.  If Fox had an interview with someone that proves Russian collusion and is sitting on it so the author can write a book after the Trump Presidency is over do you feel the same way?

The timing on the hold and the release is nonsense.  It was held to protect the Senate race, and it's being released now so it can be old news when the voting starts.  It's blatant manipulation.

The reporter didn't discover a fact and then plan not to release it.  He didn't have the fact and was incapable of discovering it without a prior commitment of not releasing the fact until after a specified time.  There is a world of difference between the two scenarios.  The most ethical scenario would have been for him to request not being told the fact until the specified time, but it then would have delayed the publication of his book.  As a journalist he can't violate the trust of his sources, so it was either not know the fact or delay reporting it - he didn't have the option of finding a source for the fact and then reporting it because the only ones who knew were the cDc members he was interviewing for his book.

Since the fact is pretty silly and unimportant there wasn't much issue with delaying it.  For something serious there might be some rational for violating ones journalistic ethics and violating a promise - for something silly and trivial like this there isn't any reason.

I didn't think Beto was accused of Rape, where did you get that?

Once again, I'm going to assume you are implying Kavanaugh.  The elements alleged were for groping, not rape or attempted rape.  Which makes this assertion a bit of lie.

He is accussed of sexual assault, and particularly attempted rape.  I'm not sure how you misremembered them.  The most definitely were not for groping.  She alleges he held her down, forcefully tried to remove her clothes, and convered her mouth when she tried to scream.

Here are her accussations, to be clear

Ford publicly came forward in a Washington Post story last Sunday; she accused Kavanaugh of forcing himself on her while the two were at a party in high school. She says he pinned her down on a bed, attempted to remove her clothing, and covered her mouth when she tried to scream. Kavanaugh has unequivocally denied these allegations.
Ford says she did not talk about the allegations with anyone until 2012, during a couples therapy session with her husband. She provided the Post with notes from therapy sessions in 2012 and 2013 when she described an attempted rape that she experienced while she was in high school.

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/22/17886814/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-deborah-ramirez

I'm just curious, where are you going with this?  Are you going to 'splain anything and everything he does cause he's the man?

No, I'm for accurate accussations.  He was suggesting Beto must have used a lot of long distance, rising to the level of felony.  I was pointing out that isn't the case.  He was stating that many had been charged with felonies for similar behavior - in fact under Texas law minors could not be charged with a felony for his behavior.  Crunch said that Beto engaged in criminal behavior till his late 20's, the sources I see suggest that he largely ceased involvement with the cDc upon entering college and that his one actual alleged crime (theft of phone service) likely didn't go on after he entered college.

In this world, if he were a Republican anyone of the following would be a disqualifier:  drunk driving, participation in hacking group, writing short fiction about killing kids (I mean my goodness, Beto shouldn't be allowed to visit a school on the see something say something modern standard).

Drunk driving as a teen might or might not be a disqualifier for me (depends on the level of intoxication, circumstances, behavior since).  Participation in a 'hacking' group might or might not (again depends on the specifics) though generally wouldn't be unless it was malicious hacking.  Writing *censored*ty fiction as a 15 year old?  Almost definitely not.  Only morons would find that disqualifing (admittedly there are plenty of morons who vote).

Meanwhile, Romney was attacked for an unproven assertion of high school bullyling,

I never heard of Romney being a high school bully - depending on the circumstances probably wouldn't be disqualifying. 

and you won't let anything go on Kavanaugh even though there's no proof and most every assertion was absurd.

There was nothing absurd about the claim of attempted rape.  I think reasonable people can disagree as to how well it was substantiated.  I'd say it was better substantiated than the claim against Clinton and there has been far less time and effort expended to substantiate it.

On the whole hacker thing, I'm assuming this was between 83 and 95, that's exactly the time window (post War Games) when enforcement and legal actively ramped up consistently every year.  And yes, the feds did take it seriously, though back then they were almost completely focused on government systems.

As I said - anything malicious was taken seriously.  Low level intrusions that were harmeless were largely ignored.  Phone phreaking - which is the only thing that Beto appears to have done - wasn't prosecutable against teens at that time.

I'm not aware of any serious litigation related to personal use of mixtapes.  Nor of any non-commercial use.   Selling a mixtape, sure.  I'm not even aware of anything related to using them at a public venue (it's whether you have the right to use the songs at all, not whether you copied them onto a single tape that mattered).  I mean heck, virtually every tape player in the 80s had 2 tape decks specifically to copy songs.

The two tapes were officially marketed for making 'backups' - which had been found to be fair use - and for editing.  Now - if purchasers happened to use them to copy a tape borrowed from a friend - then of course the tape player manufacturers certainly condemned such unlawful behavior.

So you have no problem moving groping to rape, and no problem moving drunk driving to underage consumption (even though he was 26 at the time of the DWI)?  I mean if I had to guess, Beto acted like an entitled white kid, because that's exactly what he was.

Personally I'm not particularly interested in Beto - so wasn't aware of his DUI at age 26.  I was instead doing an analogy suggesting that by Crunches reasoning there is noone in the US that shouldn't be a serious criminal because most people (including myself) have engaged in underage drinking; or speeding.  Similarly most have engaged in copyright infringement, and a large percentage have engaged in shoplifting.

Regarding DUI in general - I think it is a pretty stupid thing to do and it is something that requires restitution and regaining trust.  I've no idea whether Beto has rehabilitated that behavior to my satisfaction.  I did feel that GWB Jr. did so to my satisfaction.

Can you see your own flaw?

There wasn't a flaw in my reasoning, you simply assumed I had knowledge of the Beto incident and thus misinterpreted it.  I find DWI as an adult to be pretty serious and irresponsible.  Living in Alaska I know a lot of people who have done so at similar ages.  I have a foster brother who went to jail for a long time for manslaughter because of it (my understanding is that he was drunk, the other driver was drunk and ran a red light, since he was drunk - Alaska law holds him as responsible, even if the other drivers behavior caused the accident).  I have another foster brother who had a major license suspension before turning his life around - i do consider him responsible now.

Basically I view typical teen behavior to not really need to be addressed.  I find serious teen behavior outside the norm needing to be addressed.  I think that adults engaging in certain crimes that we might excuse as 'typical teen behavior' to need greater scrutiny.

That Ford spoke well?  She had no details - at all, her friend who she said was at the party said she believed her, but personally she had never been a party with Kavanaugh and didn't know him.  She never told anyone any details for decades.  She didn't remember, the day, the year or any details about how she got there or left.  That is not credible.

I'm not looking to rehash this discussion, see prior discussions if you like for details.  I'm well aware that you don't think the accussations are credible.  I think reasonable people can disagree.  For instance, I think perjury is a pretty good reason that points to credibility.

Second, what the elements of rape and attempted rape?  The accusation was of groping, there are no elements present that even plausible move it to rape or attempted rape.  That's just a libel you won't let go.

I said above that accussations of rape and attempted rape are serious enough norm violations that they should be investigated.  I have not stated that Kavanuagh has raped someone.

As to the elements of attempted rape, see above - they are clearly met in the description that Ford provided of the events.

There's no applicable statute of limitations on rape.  If it were credible, MD could pursue the charges with or without Ford.  Yet MD has not done so, and Ford has not filed charges.  Why not?

Again, I've never stated that he has raped anyone.  As to why hasn't he been charged.  There are statute of limitations for what attempted rape.  Also credible isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt", I don't think a jury would convinct based on the strength of the evidence.  It is strong enough for a reasonable person to believe it likely, but not strong enough that a reasonable jury should not find sufficient doubt for an acquittal.

You've laid out the perjury nonsense before and it's a big nothing burger.  You can go to his actual quotes and see what you'd have to prove and you've never shown that anyone can demonstrate that what he said was untrue.

I'm familiar with your opinion on the matter.  I think that you are wrong, but I'm not going to take the time to rehash it.  You saying "nothing burger" doesn't make it so.

In fact, its very certain that he didn't perjure himself.

You are free to believe what you will.  I think there is a clear history on this board of me being fairly objective regardless of the political party, whereas you have a tendency to ignore any facts that are unflattering for Republicans, and overstating facts (or ignoring esculpatory facts) that are unflattering to Democrats.\

He was borne in 72, his burglary arrest (granted seems minor) was in 95 and his DWI was in 98.  That'd be when he was 23 and 26 respectively.  Did you look for a source, or are you limiting your call to the hacking?

Ah, yes, I thought he was refering to hacking.  His DWI is definitely serious, if he ends up a candidate that I'm interested in I'll dig into it more, but right now I've not really spent much time looking at him (basically the only thing I've read about is his cDc membership and that he has ran for Senate, I've not payed any attention to him otherwise).

Again, you make up an allegation and act like it's real.  Do you have some evidence that Trump is a rapist, let alone a serial rapist?  I think there's some people in Congress that'd be interested.

Sure.  I think that Ivanka Trump was definitely raped.  There are other allegations that I think are less strong, but plausible.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-traffic-accusations/

LR why do you keep saying things you have to know are not true?

Do you agree that if Ivana's description was accurate, that lawfullymeets all of the legal elements of rape?

There were rumors of Broaddrick's story before he was first elected in 1992.  You can go to her Wiki and see that she was talking to people before then and that it even went to the NYT's and LA Times in 1992 but she wouldn't go on record and they dropped (lol, innocent times, not like today where they'd print it before they even spoke to her).  There was even a secret tape of her story. 

There were stories all over the place by his second election.

And she publicly stated that the rumors were false.  I tend to believe alleged victims without strong evidence to refute it.

And to even get to this point you have to ignore the rumors from his time as governor.  It was a different era then and a lot of this was swept under the rug, but the idea that it wasn't out there at the time of his election is untrue.

I don't or (didn't) have to ignore anything.  I'm not someone who follows newspapers or TV news, and while I was deeply interested in social policy at that time, I didn't follow politics at all.  I think my first Presidential election vote was for Kerry in 2004.

There are multiple accusers, who can name specific days and times, who were known to be linked directly to the Clintons, who had immediate falling outs.  All of which is in the public record.  There are photos linking them.  There are witnesses to various things Hillary and Bill said that while ambiguous support the story.  And of course, there's that he got caught lying about sexual situation (you know actual perjury).

You may be aware of accussations I'm not.  I've never been particularly interested in or fond of Clinton.  The accussations I've been aware of haven't been credible.  Regarding perjury - I agree though I think the argument that "sexual relations" were defined by the judge and the attorney's to exclude receiving oral sex is persuasive as regards to that aspect of the claim of perjury.

I can't even imagine the mental gymnatistics you're doing to believe that Kavanaugh is an attempted rapist and Clinton is somehow not a rapist.

Personally I think that reasonable people can disagree in both cases.

No.  Reasonable people can't disagree on credibility here.  They can disagree on whether he's guilty.

I think they can reasonably disagree on both aspects.

We've been through your evidence before.  It's not the hedge words that are the problem it's when you use "perjury" when you mean "you don't like him and wish you could show he lied."

It is amazing how often you conclude that the only reason someone can believe evidence against a Republican is due to their personal feelings towards the individual or their political leanings.

While I think you are a thoughtful and intelligent man, I don't think you are capable of rational evaluation of evidence when it comes to evaluating politicians that you agree or disagree with.

[cherrypoptart]

"Writing *censored*ty fiction as a 15 year old?  Almost definitely not.  Only morons would find that disqualifing (admittedly there are plenty of morons who vote)."

Was it fiction though or was he writing an actual fantasy of his? Isn't there a difference?

A teen could write a fictional story about a school shooting and that's one thing but if the teen writes it as his personal fantasy isn't that a little different? I don't know maybe it's the same difference but it seems a bit different to me.

[TheDrake]

Sure.  I think that Ivanka Trump was definitely raped.  There are other allegations that I think are less strong, but plausible.

I don't think you meant to say Ivanka. Ivanka is his daughter, the article you linked is about Ivana.

Trump hasn't raped Ivanka, he's just made nauseating comments about how hot his offspring is, and posed for several disturbing photos with her sitting in his lap as a teenager. <OMB>

[TheDrake]

Other evidence.

Religious bias (Based on Table 1.)
Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,679 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-biased offenses showed:

58.1 percent were anti-Jewish.
18.7 percent were anti-Islamic (Muslim).
4.5 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.2 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
2.4 percent were anti-Protestant.
1.8 percent were anti-Other Christian.

Of the total population, 1.9% are Jewish and 0.9% are Muslim. Per-capita that makes an incident targeting the Jewish faith about 50% more likely than Muslim. I'm actually kind of surprised by that ratio, I would have expected that to be roughly flipped.

[LetterRip]

Sure.  I think that Ivanka Trump was definitely raped.  There are other allegations that I think are less strong, but plausible.

I don't think you meant to say Ivanka. Ivanka is his daughter, the article you linked is about Ivana.

Trump hasn't raped Ivanka, he's just made nauseating comments about how hot his offspring is, and posed for several disturbing photos with her sitting in his lap as a teenager. <OMB>

My apologies, I did indeed mean Ivana and not Ivanka.  I do not believe there is anything to suggest that he has ever raped Ivanka.

[TheDeamon]

Of the total population, 1.9% are Jewish and 0.9% are Muslim. Per-capita that makes an incident targeting the Jewish faith about 50% more likely than Muslim. I'm actually kind of surprised by that ratio, I would have expected that to be roughly flipped.

In a twisted way, I'm not. The probability that Muslims with strong views regarding Israel might "act out" towards Jews in the US are probably quite good. Meanwhile, I don't think anyone really knows of many Jews in America who are likely to be targeting Muslims for anything qualifying as a hate-crime inside the US.

[TheDrake]

I think you'll probably find there are a lot more Christians going after the Jews in this country, by the raw numbers. There's no way to know, because a lot of these reported crimes don't have an identified perpetrator. I would probably believe that the more extreme plans might line up that way.

[Seriati]

I think you'll find, if you really look, that hate crime statistics are not consistently recorded at any two points in the US, nor are they consistently recorded year over year.

It'd be like if we wanted to record breakfast meat selection by animal, and one city comes back with no results, the next records bacon and eggs as "pig" but eggs alone as "domestic avian".  While a third records bacon by type of pig, eggs by type of chicken and also adds in separate categories for canadian bacon and ham but only gets records from diners and not from homes, and only on every other Tues (and doesn't extrapolate them), while another does the same but on Friday's and doesn't account for religious persons that don't eat meat on Fridays.

Meanwhile there's tons of dispute about what constitutes a hate crime.  Is every assault on a gay man a hate crime?  Or only those where some one is screaming homophobic slurs?  Is it up to the victim to tell us they felt like it was a hate crime, or some kind of objective proof based on the attacker?  Is a false flag still a hate crime because the victims felt hate, even if another member of the class was the perpetrator?

Couple that with increasing amounts of snowflakes that feel oppression no matter what the circumstances are and you have a questionable set of statistics.

Truth is we don't know how common "hate" crimes are and we certainly don't know how common they were. 

[Wayward Son]

Are you referring to conservative "snowflakes" or liberal "snowflakes" here, Seriati?  Or both types, since they are pretty much the same?

[D.W.]

Are you referring to conservative "snowflakes" or liberal "snowflakes" here, Seriati?  Or both types, since they are pretty much the same?

The increased societal norm that one should be shown respect without having any requirement to show respect in return is a curious one to be sure.  It seems to be bipartisan and span all ages and income levels.  While not universal yet, it sure is widespread in the US.

[TheDeamon]

Are you referring to conservative "snowflakes" or liberal "snowflakes" here, Seriati?  Or both types, since they are pretty much the same?

The increased societal norm that one should be shown respect without having any requirement to show respect in return is a curious one to be sure.  It seems to be bipartisan and span all ages and income levels.  While not universal yet, it sure is widespread in the US.

I'm confused by the whole thing about "I deserve respect simply for being me" because it completely destroys the whole concept of what respect is even supposed to be.

You deserve to be treated with basic human dignity as you're a human being.

You deserve to be treated with respect once you've earned the right to be respected for something.

And of course, if you want to be treated respectfully, that also means you should be respecting others as well.

[TheDrake]

I think you'll find, if you really look, that hate crime statistics are not consistently recorded at any two points in the US, nor are they consistently recorded year over year.

It'd be like if we wanted to record breakfast meat selection by animal, and one city comes back with no results, the next records bacon and eggs as "pig" but eggs alone as "domestic avian".  While a third records bacon by type of pig, eggs by type of chicken and also adds in separate categories for canadian bacon and ham but only gets records from diners and not from homes, and only on every other Tues (and doesn't extrapolate them), while another does the same but on Friday's and doesn't account for religious persons that don't eat meat on Fridays.

Meanwhile there's tons of dispute about what constitutes a hate crime.  Is every assault on a gay man a hate crime?  Or only those where some one is screaming homophobic slurs?  Is it up to the victim to tell us they felt like it was a hate crime, or some kind of objective proof based on the attacker?  Is a false flag still a hate crime because the victims felt hate, even if another member of the class was the perpetrator?

Couple that with increasing amounts of snowflakes that feel oppression no matter what the circumstances are and you have a questionable set of statistics.

Truth is we don't know how common "hate" crimes are and we certainly don't know how common they were.

An awful lot of crime statistics have some give to them. Crimes that are reclassified to make a PD look better. Cities fudging the books to improve their public image. Sometimes a state doesn't provide all the same data, and you can't compare felonies between states because its not consistent. Had the records existed from the 1800's, they wouldn't even have classified killing an Indian for fun to be a crime at all.

Nonetheless, its better than nothing. Hate crimes as reported to the FBI have to meet some basic criteria, it isn't just somebody feeling offended.

Of the 8,437 reported hate crime offenses in 2017:

27.6 percent were destruction/damage/vandalism
27.1 percent were intimidation.
20.7 percent were simple assault.
11.7 percent were aggravated assault.
The remaining offenses included additional crimes against persons, property, and society.

The only one that can be explained with "snowflake" is the intimidation part. It is also possible that somebody got punched and racial slurs were thrown around without any actual bias against that group at large.

Usually, they try to declare that in the methodology, and they even list this warning:

Valid assessments about crime, including hate crime, are possible only with careful study and analysis of the various conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction. (See Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics: Their Proper Use.) In addition, some data in this publication may not be comparable to those in prior editions of Hate Crime Statistics because of differing levels of participation from year to year. Therefore, the reader is cautioned against making simplistic comparisons between the statistical data of this program and that of others with differing methodologies or even comparing individual reporting units solely on the basis of their agency type.

So, yes, I am doing exactly what they say not to do. I'm not sure what the alternative is. Can't fall back on anecdotes and news, because those might just be retransmitted hoaxes. Can't fall back on asking the organizations that advocate for those groups, because they are trying to inflate the problem. Can't impose a uniform data collection from the federal level, that would be interference with local authority via unfunded mandate.

So we should do what? Throw up our hands and say the whole thing is unknowable so we should just pretend it doesn't happen, or continues to happen at the same rate as it always did? Or just stop caring about curbing ethnic and religious violence?