It's incredibly difficult to figure out how to do this, and it's especially hard when quite a few people want the accused taken down whether the accusations are true or not, and they can and do intimidate those who want to put the accuser to the test. Christine Blasey Ford testified in a supportive environment, and those who hope she's wrong were afraid do anything to test her credibility.
But Trump isn't one to be intimidated, and he is plunging in, attacking the credibility of Christine Blasey Ford. I'm reading "Trump Taunts Christine Blasey Ford at Rally" (NYT):
Playing to the crowd of thousands gathered to cheer him on [at a rally in Mississippi], the president pretended to be Dr. Blasey testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday. “Thirty-six years ago this happened. I had one beer, right? I had one beer,” said Mr. Trump, channeling his version of Dr. Blasey. His voice dripping with derision, he then imitated her being questioned at the hearing, followed by her responses about what she could not recall about the alleged attack."Dripping with derision"? "Pretended to be" her — but did he imitate her voice and mannerisms? I don't see video of this at the NYT, and I haven't tracked it down myself, so I don't know if that is accurate. Is Trump showing people the way to challenge an accuser or engaging in antics that no one else should attempt and that Trump alone seems able to get away with?
“How did you get home? I don’t remember. How’d you get there? I don’t remember. Where is the place? I don’t remember. How many years ago was it? I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. What neighborhood was it in? I don’t know. Where’s the house? I don’t know. Upstairs, downstairs, where was it? I don’t know,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd applauded. “But I had one beer. That’s the only thing I remember.”
I suspect the latter. But there's one thing he's plainly done wrong. Christine Blasely Ford did not wonder if it was upstairs or downstairs. She clearly testified that it happened upstairs. You're critiquing someone else's presentation of the facts. You'd better get your own in order!
ADDED: Here's how WaPo presents the "imitation" in video (along with other Trump imitations):
So there you can see that Trump absolutely does not attempt to copy Ford's voice. It's full-on Trump voice. He does not use any mannerisms to depict Ford. It's all in words, the text you see above. WaPo's other examples are all different, not much of a pattern. There's the problematic gesturing while copying the words of a disabled reporter, but really nothing else. The rest is just dramatic speaking and gesturing. He is mocking people, but there should be mockery in politics — not mockery of anyone's disability or possible victimhood — but mockery of the arguments and statements that you're trying to refute.
Posts
322 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 322 of 322If Balsey Ford can change her story and get things wrong, so can Trump.
He's only re-acting to her shape shifting nonsense.
Every perpetrator of this libelous travesty should be fined, jailed and run out of politics.
“Someone should be attacking her credibility at this point. If we had real reporters in this country, this story would not have lived 24 hours. This is the worst kind of sham.”
I suspect that many female reporters are — like Althouse — afraid of crossing the sisterhood. And the men — if we can call them men — are afraid of not getting laid ever again.
I can't spare this man; he fights.
Trump has been adjusting his comments on Ford to minimize pushback.
Initially Ford came across as pathetic, and something happened, with an emotional charged senate statement and Q&A that gave her a lot of sympathy. She was a victim, just don’t know of what, in the public eye.
Now, her story keeps unraveling. Air travel, 2nd door, polygraph, no witnesses. And the other accuser stories are collapsing. Now Trump is not attacking her, but her inconsistencies.
Trump has been incredibly disciplined. He seems to have a tactic of saying one small mistake, the media then pounced on that, and in the process spread the other 95% that was correct. End result is Trump gets his message out.
Finally, another Ray commenting here. I made my profile private due to fear of being doxed. Now I just need to worry about all those amazingly Googlers that could pierce my privacy. I’ll need to see how to adjust my name to something unique, hmm.
Christine Blasey-Ford Friend In Delaware Was Career FBI Agent and Likely Together During Accusation Letter Construct…
Christine Blasey Ford was assisted by Monica McLean in writing her accusatory letter in late July. The two women knew each other since they attended Holton-Arms High School together.
McLean resigned from the FBI in 2016 (soon after the election?).
I wonder if McLean resigned from the FBI in order to devote herself fully to opposing any future Supreme Court nominations that might happen during the Trump Administration.
Her "credibility" is suspect. Highly suspect. The Democrat hack press assumes she is honorable and truthful despite all the holes and the RIDICULOUS TIMING.
Credit to Trump for showing backbone when most people would cower. Which is the game the leftwing hacks are playing.
Fuck the left. Fuck the MSM-(D)
Robert Cook said...
"...I think Ms. Ford experienced some sort of sexual encounter that was, from her perspective, coerced, that is, an assault.
"...I believe Ms. Ford is convinced it was Kavanaugh..."
Why?
They're all a bunch of big phonies, right, Holden?
Nice reference.
It's occurred to me that the conflict of the Senators against the ghost of Kavanaugh's Christmas past has a kind of Holden vs. the phonies aspect to it.
And yes, they're all a bunch of phonies.
Humperdink said...
@Chuck. This message wasn't to the base. This message was to Tester, Manchin and Heidi Hide. Air Force One will be circling your respective states for the next month. Your only shot at reelection is to confirm.
You Trump lovers are so dumb. Tester, Manchin and Heitkamp are luxury items. The votes Trump has to have, are Flake (who is not running), Collins (who is not running until 2020, and even then might not run again by choice), and Murkowski (who just won reelection and won't run again until 2022). And Trump seems to be doing nothing to win them over. Trump is only making life more difficult for Mitch McConnell.
Trump has been in Montana, campaigning for Tester's opponent and trashing Tester. Heidi Heitkamp is up for reelection this year like Joe Manchin and Joe Donnelly. She's one of the less-likely 'Yes' votes for Kavanaugh. She wants and needs the money from the DSCC. She's got to play ball with her party in such a narrow contest as S. Dakota.
"Now CBS has Chelsea Clinton on for an interview to trash Kavanaugh. I can’t take much more. Hope my wife comes out shortly so I can get out of here."
Oh, c'mon. That had to be hilarious. Whoever in the Democrat Party decided it was a good idea to trot the Clintons out to comment on this thing should probably have their head examined.
Jeff Flake. Lets sue him after he becomes a K Street whore.
If he had done this out of the gate (so to speak) then I think it would have been a problem. Since he is only mocking after she has been discredited on many fronts, not sure it has any impact anymore except to the #believethewomen priestesses
Ray said...
Trump has been adjusting his comments on Ford to minimize pushback.
Initially Ford came across as pathetic, and something happened, with an emotional charged senate statement and Q&A that gave her a lot of sympathy. She was a victim, just don’t know of what, in the public eye.
Now, her story keeps unraveling. Air travel, 2nd door, polygraph, no witnesses. And the other accuser stories are collapsing. Now Trump is not attacking her, but her inconsistencies.
Trump has been incredibly disciplined. He seems to have a tactic of saying one small mistake, the media then pounced on that, and in the process spread the other 95% that was correct. End result is Trump gets his message out.
…
So why did Trump start out this post-hearing period by saying how credible Dr. Ford was, and how compelling her story was?
"I think Kavanaugh was a privileged teenage drunken punk..."
Who somehow managed to graduated first in his class at Prep. That's an impressive drunken punk!
Ford was a privileged teenage drunken cum dumpster.
Kavanaugh easily wins that exchange.
Blogger David Begley said...
I wondered at the time why CBF was asked about polygraphs. Mitchell knew the true answer. Perfect perjury trap!
Good point. I was once asked to lie under oath by prosecutors in a murder case I was testifying in. It was just about drugs in the perp's system. The prosecutors are all cops who went to law school and street smart.
I managed to evade that question but I was very aware of it.
"The “one beer” is total bullshit. Trump knows what buttons to push."
That was when much of America knew that she was lying, at least a little. We were all teenagers at one time, and many of us related to a drunk 17 year old boy with a drunk 15 year girl on a bed at a small party, when someone's parents were out for the evening. There are those who had been involved in those situations as teenagers, those who had wished that they had been, and maybe 5% who were too sanctimonious or too religious. The reality that much of adult America recognized was that underclass Ford was trying to impress the upperclass guys, and Kavenaugh was trying to get to second base, using that he was a couple years older to his advantage. He failed of course. If you watch the video of Trump, he repeated the One Beer line several times, mixed in with examples of her tactical memory losses that night to make the point that she was obviously lying through her teeth. One Beer was the punch line, which he repeated for comedic effect, since we all know that it was a lie, that much of America has used at one time or another, when dealing with parents or the cops, or been on the other side, and had our kid tell that lie to us.
His presentation at that rally was pure Trump. He was working the crowd, and they were enthusiastic participants. And this was a classic situation where the left finds something small that is literally false with what Trump says, and his supporters see how he is figuratively correct, and ignore the minor inaccuracies. It reminds me a bit of the discipline hearing in Animal House, where the guy representing the house gets some major historical details wrong, one of them complains about such, and the response was to ignore it, he was on a roll. So, Trump gets carried away sometimes, esp, as here, when he is performing in public, and exaggerates a bit, for effect. His supporters understand the show and what he is doing, and marvel that his opponents still, after better than two years, try to take him down through identification of minor inaccuracies, and end up just sounding stupid themselves, because they (intentionally) don't understand his jokes.
Where are the calls for Due Process now? Jus fuckin wid u.
It's a mistake to assume Trump has stumbled here. If he has one facet of genius, it's knowing exactly what to say to the punters to keep them riled up and hungry for more raw hamburger.
So why did Trump start out this post-hearing period by saying how credible Dr. Ford was, and how compelling her story was?
I don't watch TV so maybe you are right that he called her "credible." I suspect the proper term is "sympathetic " or "compelling."
She has no evidence or witnesses.
We are now learning, not through the media, that she has serious problems, such as perjury.
Howard, what are your feelings about perjury ?
Just "raw hamburger?"
"They're all a bunch of big phonies, right, Holden?"
No, they're not phonies. They're openly assholes and criminals. It's just that the people who don't see it are dopes.
Trump always trips up linear thinkers when he speechifies to non-thinkers. See Chuck's comment above
his opponents still, after better than two years, try to take him down through identification of minor inaccuracies,
Laura Ingraham had a professor on last night who is such a Trump hater, it was hilarious.
He would not stop talking about Trump's "4000 lies."
I thought may be she would cut off his mike but she let him ramble. It made her point better.
My wife has the TV on all day and I see it only at dinner time.
"Learning" about perjury is not evidence, it is the result of your confirmation bias. Is this something Sarah Hoyt told you to repeat?
So now you abandon your recovered false memory theory?
Blogger Howard said...
Trump always trips up linear thinkers when he speechifies to non-thinkers
Howard has such contempt for those of us with more than one degree.
You Trump lovers are so dumb. Tester, Manchin and Heitkamp are luxury items. The votes Trump has to have, are Flake (who is not running), Collins (who is not running until 2020, and even then might not run again by choice), and Murkowski (who just won reelection and won't run again until 2022). And Trump seems to be doing nothing to win them over. Trump is only making life more difficult for Mitch McConnell.
Re-election is not the only stick the President has. If Murkowski cares about that bill concerning Alaska's Native Eskimo's she desperately needs the cooperation of other Republicans and the President. Sitting in DC with no Republican Support, and locked out of the White House is a very stupid strategy.
Howard, calm down. I have speculated that she had recovered memories and I am not the only one.
There is also the possibility that she is a pure liar. Perjury on the polygraph thing is evidence.
By leaving CBF's statements about polygraph tests out there without challenge, Mitchell denied her the opportunity to correct her lies.
Perfect perjury trap.
He is mocking people, but there should be mockery in politics — not mockery of anyone's disability or possible victimhood — but mockery of the arguments and statements that you're trying to refute.
Why should disabled people--and self-identified 'victims'--be sacrosanct? Don't disabled folk want to be treated like everyone else? Professional victimhood and those who choose it as a career should be mocked, and roundly. Why should we be asked to coddle someone whose 'traumatic' experience happened over 35 years ago, during which time nothing was said because it wasn't remembered? Much of Freudian theory has been discredited, you know.
Mike: You employ the most pathetic argument strategies. This one is appeal to authority of your education. That is just an unconscious expression of your deep insecurity. For reference, appeal to authority is the #1 argument used by global warming alarmists
By leaving CBF's statements about polygraph tests out there without challenge, Mitchell denied her the opportunity to correct her lies.
Perfect perjury trap.
Yep. Once we get some distance from this event, we'll see how valuable Mitchell really was.
OK Mike, better. possibility of perjury. can't argue with that.
Just an observation of the NAFTA press conference and now this: Trump seems to be getting his stride in this new President game he is in. He appears very formidable. The press seems especially outmatched. He has zero fear of them and bats them around like a cat bats a half-dead mouse. Again, just a sense from watching.
@Quayle, lost down the memory hole is Trump’s meeting with the Times shortly after his election to bury the hatchet. They chose to pick the fight with him, not him with them. It isn’t just that he’s beating them like a drum, it’s that it was their decision that it ought to be a fight.
Jersey Fled observes: By leaving CBF's statements about polygraph tests out there without challenge, Mitchell denied her the opportunity to correct her lies.
Perfect perjury trap.
Excellent point.
Mike: You employ the most pathetic argument strategies. This one is appeal to authority of your education. That is just an unconscious expression of your deep insecurity. For reference, appeal to authority is the #1 argument used by global warming alarmists
And attacking the person rather than the substance? There must be a word for that? I'm not as smart as you, but it seems like its a pretty common tactic for a person losing the debate of substance. There must be word. Maybe something Latin sounding?
Blogger Mr. Majestyk said...
The sad thing is that in a few years (2 or 6), Trump won't be President. Who will call out BS like this then? President Pence? President Cruz?
President Nikki Haley. Guaranteed.
but there should be mockery in politics — not mockery of anyone's disability or possible victimhood — but mockery of the arguments and statements that you're trying to refute.
How about the politics of personal destruction through last minute character assassination?
Howard is butt hurt. Howard, "appeal to authority" is not an illustration of credible perjury charges.
You are the one who used the usual leftist slur on Trump voters, "when he speechifies to non-thinkers."
See how that works?
Did Ford really take a lie detector test? She was give two questions. This is nothing like a real examination which can last a long time. She was never challenged in the test. She wrote out what happened and was asked if it was true.
Law enforcement uses lie detectors to sit down and ask lots of questions to challenge the witness.
Her test was a sham.
MITCHELL: Have you ever had discussions with anyone, beside your attorneys, on how to take a polygraph?
FORD: Never.
MITCHELL: And I don’t just mean countermeasures, but I mean just any sort of tips, or anything like that.
FORD: No. I was scared of the test itself, but was comfortable that I could tell the information, and the test would reveal whatever it was going to reveal. I didn’t expect it to be as long as it was going to be, so it was a little bit stressful.
MITCHELL: Had — have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?
FORD: Never.
Would it be ungracious of me to say "I told you so?"
@Quayle, lost down the memory hole is Trump’s meeting with the Times shortly after his election to bury the hatchet. They chose to pick the fight with him, not him with them
He tried to work with/cut deals with the Democrats in Congress too. They're too hysterical to take advantage of that.
iowan2: no one here knows the facts, therefore, there was no substance to argue. doc mike admitted it when he backed down to "possibility of perjury", which can be said about Bart O'K as well.
Trump targets low information voters in under-educated backwaters like Mississippi. He is a TV star and famous con man who successfully sells sizzle to the mass of idiots who salivate over lifestyles of the rich and famous. You are stuck with those allies of convenience just like democrats are saddled with commies and antifa. your weak ego keeps showing.
If there are no facts to argue, Kavanaugh would be at work in the Supreme Court this morning. What you say is true. Please tell the Democrats.
doc mike admitted it when he backed down to "possibility of perjury",
Come on, Howard. "Possibility of perjury" just means she hasn't yet been charged. It has been proven by the boyfriend's letter, which is almost certainly why Mitchell asked those questions.
You silly accusation about Kavanaugh is just repeating Democrats talking points.
I'm sure you must know why they have switched to the "drinking" story, She is losing credibility.
You are making a fool of yourself. Do you really want to look like Inga who spouts DNC talking points like she just thought of them?
No, Iowan2. There are questions, not facts and the FBI is tasked with answering them, if they can. I think it called Due Process
Blogger Howard said...
Trump targets low information voters in under-educated backwaters like Mississippi.
Howard has just made his in-kind contribution to Trump 2020.
These guys are hilarious, like the professor last night who wouldn't stop talking about Trump's "lies."
He is a TV star and famous con man
I have never seen a con man get results like he has
the U.S. economy appears to be in the midst of a “remarkably positive” period that is unprecedented in modern history.
Mike K: Argument by authority, then saying I'm butt hurt, then comparing me with Inga. Weak weaker weakest poor old Mike can't survive without his insecurity blanket.
I've never accused Bart of anything other than losing his cool (which I empathized with) which may have been the fatal blow to his nomination.
No, Iowan2. There are questions, not facts and the FBI is tasked with answering them, if they can. I think it called Due Process
The FBI does not do criminal investigations. Does not provide answers, That you fail to understand basic things, makes a lot of your other questionable conclusions come into focus.
As I've said before, I like Trump better than his supporters. I don't care if he is a con man as long as he is successful and keeps us outta war, good for him and us. Just Win, Baby.
Michael K said...
Blogger Howard said...
"Trump targets low information voters in under-educated backwaters like Mississippi."
Howard has just made his in-kind contribution to Trump 2020.
These guys are hilarious, like the professor last night who wouldn't stop talking about Trump's "lies."
Michael, that was Allan Lichtman, on Ingraham's show. The same guy who predicted Trump's win in 2016. He predicted the Trump win based on historical trends. Not on any personal magic that Trump possessed.
Of course, Althouse, your readers are pointing out how dishonest Ford has been. And what manipulative liars the Democrats are. Those observations are correct; you've made many of those observations yourself. But Trump, as usual, is incompetent in the effort.
Most of Chuck's comments come down to, "I agree completely with Trump on this, but I don't want him to be the one saying it."
If other people had the balls, Trump wouldn't be President.
Gilbert Pinfold said...
Ford coa ched a lifelong friend by the name of McLean about taking a polygraph. Same person is ex-FBI under McCabe and SDNY. McCabe’s attorney (Bromwich) represents Ford as well. And, letter to Feinstein written at McLean’s beach house on July 26 in Delaware. Coincidence much?
How do you know this? Interested.
(also, Mike Sylvester writes the most interesting stuff)
grackle excerpted..."Why would Trump imitate a man who has difficulty moving at least one of his limbs by madly thrashing his own?"
--
Dementia!!!
Though It gets little coverage, unexpectedly..Trump's comment (within a riff on "dangerous time for young men") about this charade being bigger than the Supreme Court needed to be said.
Howard said...
No, Iowan2. There are questions, not facts and the FBI is tasked with answering them, if they can.
It's revealing Howard claims to believe facts do not exist independently. Apparently facts are created by authorized questioners rather than by the events themselves. Weird.
Chuck
Trump after the hearing said the most supportive statements for Kavanaugh politically advantageous. At the time appeared there were multiple accusations, and the only positive was Kavanaugh’s response.
Trump now can go further on his attacks on Ford, because the accusations against Kavanaugh have imploded.
Trump has been incredibly disciplined during the Kavanaugh nomination (to my surprise).
I read someplace the reason Kavanaugh finally became Clarence Thomas 2.0, was the over the top accusations from Avenatti. And the more he got questioned on them, the more upset he became.
It seems the ex fbi lawyer was the reason Ford was so careful on what she wrote, and how she submitted the letter. How she avoided details that could be checked.
Amazing soap opera - one I never would have imagined possible in us politics.
If a person is an expert in how to lie during a lie detector test and get away with it, it is likely that person has mastered the skill to lie during a public hearing and get away with it.
The people who were breathlessly reporting Trump lacked the mental facilities to be president were the ones asking him questions about Kavanaugh's fitness for office at the press conference announcing the new trade deal to replace NAFTA.
It's not just CBF who has a credibility problem, it's the people who think they get to decide who does and does not have a credibility problem.
So why did Trump start out this post-hearing period by saying how credible Dr. Ford was, and how compelling her story was?
@Chuck, I don’t know the answer, but plausible explanations include luring his enemies into a misstep, or perhaps he thought Kavanaugh or the GOP establishment (or both) would fold. But Kavanaugh came out fighting and even Lady Lindsey let the Democrats have it. Trump respects people who fight, and that may have tipped the scales a bit.
Or Trump might just have been stalling until more information about Christine Blasey Ford came out, and the tide turned.
Kavanaugh might still lose, but I suspect that behind the scenes enormous pressure is being put on Flake, Collins, and Murkowski. I can picture Flake’s Republican colleagues telling him that if he doesn’t vote for Kavanaugh then the word will go out to K Street that neither he nor the firm that hired him will be welcome in any Republican senator’s office. Not a good start for a lobbying career.
Now let’s look at the Democrats. Heitkamp is not only 10 points behind, but Cramer is now comfortably above 50% in the polls. That race is over so she will vote against Kavanaugh. Nelson and Donnelly hold very narrow leads in the polls, and McCaskill is tied. They face a stark choice between their party and their voters just one month from now. Over in West (by God!) Virginia Joe Manchin has to be thinking about that poll last July that gave him a 29 point lead if he votes to affirm Kavanaugh, only 2% if he votes against. Back then, before the primary, he was polling 15 to 20 points ahead of any Republican challenger; today it’s just 8.
It's amazing people haven't figured out Trump uses his rallies to test lines and get reactions. He doesn't just look at polls people give him, he tests and challenges their assertions when he goes off script at these events.
He's literally looking into the eyes of average Americans to see how they react to certain lines and topics.
If it hadn't been well received, he would have cut it short and made a comment to blunt the impact.
But in middle America, it was received very well.
"Trump targets low information voters in under-educated backwaters like Mississippi."
Feinstein is from Mississippi? News to me.
The two biggest stories concerning the survival of our federal govt is the fact that:
1. The party in power actively spied on the opposing campaign before and after the election.
2. The ranking leader of Senate Judiciary Committee suborned perjury in order to kill a SCOTUS candidate.
But "boof" somehow focuses the combined brain power of the Democrat Party
A "misstep". Gracious. I think around here Trump could even make "missteps" in the middle of 5th Avenue..
To the other Ray,
I've been reading Althouse 8-10 years. left when she shut down comments. I've been back for at least the last four. I don't comment much. I'll change my name if you want? Your call.
The other Ray
If it's in the NYT, I don't believe it/them.
It isn't that Trump is mean (he is). It is that Trump is ACCURATE and EFFECTIVE.
And unlike SNL, he is actually watched by people outside the Bubble. The ones who might be persuaded.
His characterization is on point so what is the response of Althouse:
"He should have been more sensitive and gracious to a 'victim'."
This is Civility Bullshit in Feminist Drag. You don't get to say 'Oh those Harvard girls are SUCH WIMPS', but then excoriate Trump for noting that Ford has SERIOUS DEEP credibility issues.
Not with any consistency.
Poor Howard, He sees the train pulling out of the station and he is not on it.
Howard my estimate is that this circus has lost the House for the Democrats.
I am reluctant to predict but the polling seems to be turning away from their case.
Big Mike has it.
Nelson and Donnelly hold very narrow leads in the polls, and McCaskill is tied. They face a stark choice between their party and their voters just one month from now. Over in West (by God!) Virginia Joe Manchin has to be thinking about that poll last July that gave him a 29 point lead if he votes to affirm Kavanaugh, only 2% if he votes against. Back then, before the primary, he was polling 15 to 20 points ahead of any Republican challenger; today it’s just 8.
I think much the same is happening in the House but it is harder to measure. This afternoon I will go down to volunteer for the AZ CD2 seat. That was Martha McSally's seat and should lean left what with the university in the district.
We''ll see.
"As I've said before, I like Trump better than his supporters. I don't care if he is a con man as long as he is successful and keeps us outta war, good for him and us. Just Win, Baby."
We're still at war.
Humperdink at 5:46 a.m.: Interesting that on Horny Joe this morning, they have switched gears to Kavy's judicial temperament .... for defending himself. MSLSD must have reached the conclusion this sexual assault thingy will not hold water.
Even more interesting is the big NYT story about Trump not paying income taxes when he was three years old. Or something like that.
They're trying to change the subject.
Humperdink said...
@Chuck. This message wasn't to the base. This message was to Tester, Manchin and Heidi Hide. Air Force One will be circling your respective states for the next month. Your only shot at reelection is to confirm.
Chuck said:"You Trump lovers are so dumb. Tester, Manchin and Heitkamp are luxury items. The votes Trump has to have, are Flake (who is not running), Collins (who is not running until 2020, and even then might not run again by choice), and Murkowski (who just won reelection and won't run again until 2022)."
Chuck, did you fail math? Trump can not count on Flake, Collins or Murk. Tester, Manchin and Heidi-Ho are not luxury items. I suspect he will get one or two from each of the aforementioned groups. And of the six, I think Flake is the least likely to support Kavy. Luxury items? Hardly.
“We're still at war.”
Those were just the appetizers.
That was Martha McSally's seat and should lean left what with the university in the district.
Just remind the university men that if the Democrats win the House, then the men risk losing a future promotion if they’ve had a couple beers and made out with some chick who later claims she was groped.
"Trump targets low information voters in under-educated backwaters like Mississippi"
Also Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
Roberrt Cook
Yes, but not war war.
not mockery of anyone's...possible victimhood
POSSIBLE? Since everyone is a POSSIBLE victim, this is special pleading for 'no mockery at all'.
But we know you don't believe that. It means 'females and minorities'.
Special protection for the 'right kind of witnesses'.
No. Either it's equal or it's bullshit.
If you put yourself on that platform, you get the balls thrown to knock you off of it.
If you don't want hardballs thrown at you, than you aren't interested in justice as much as comfort.
I remember a grand jury case. A lady was raped at knifepoint with her son in the next room. And she was ANGRY! She didn't care about what questions were asked at trial. She would have dragged herself over broken glass to get to that witness stand.
Compare that to Fibbing Ford, who won't even allegedly take a plane ride.
> I'll change my name if you want? Your call.
No, please don't.
I'll figure out how to change mine to add something to Ray.
Michael said...
Roberrt Cook
Yes, but not war war.
10/3/18, 12:12 PM
It's true. You know it's true because if we were at war the story in the papers every day would be the rising casualty count.
Wait - bacause Trump was incorrect in one small detail of his accusation, we shouldn't credit the rest of his accusations? Hmm.
Where else could we apply this rule? Show else could be criticized using it?
Or does this "one small error" rule of dismissing an entire criticism as invalid, or a life's work as a lawyer as inadequate, only apply to Republicans, like so very many other rules of modern politics?
Oh my my!
“The other interesting information in the boyfriend’s letter was that Ford was unfaithful when she was in Hawaii and this is why he broke it off. He also stated that they had a joint credit card and a year later, she charged 600.00 worth of merchandise on it. When confronted, he states Ford denied using it and only admitted it when he was going to get fraud prevention involved.”
Men have a lot more experience with lying women than women do. Women just write it off as SOP, I guess.
So why did Trump start out this post-hearing period by saying how credible Dr. Ford was, and how compelling her story was?
Pacing. Show you agree with the opposition and then subsequent stuff is more persuasive. Oh I agree with this guy and look what else he's saying.
Rush took credit for the term today, but it's standard in persuasion theory, if Scott Adams is right. I wonder if Rush has been listening to Adams; unlikely or Rush wouldn't have said "what I call pacing."
Too many comments to read before I comment on this. Apologies if this is old ground.
Trump say "outrageous" things to draw attention from the press as a pipeline to the public.
How many main stream news articles have highlighted the holes in Ford's testimony?
Damn few.
Now the MSM will show that video clip and loudly condemn the President.
But some people will be exposed for the first time to the obvious gaps in the story.
I know what is happening here. Althouse is picking up on the media's attempt to create a narrative that is false but defamatory.
Remember GW Bush and the plastic turkey? That incorrect story lived for years, as documented by Tim Blair: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/the-press-the-president-and-the-plastic-turkey/news-story/9bb30317632f75e1355a3c19827368f7 The story was meant to demean Bush as a fraud, when he'd visited troops in a war zone.
This story - TRUMP IMITATES & DEMEANS RAPE VICTIM! - will now, and forever more, be the story about what he said, not that he pointed out that Dr. Ford's story has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese. That narrative will be used to attempt to inspire women to vote anti-Republican in November by Democrats. What a game!
Women, including our blog host Althouse, should realize the behavior of the Democrats in this instance has been so shamelessly vile that it will set back women in the workplace, in politics and in universities, heck, in public, for as long as The Democrats continue to use it.
2:18PM EST- first test of the Presidential Alert System. Only a test. Triggered snowflakes falling everywhere...
Why did she go upstairs to use the bathroom? Did she go upstairs to a bedroom with a boy? Where are the inquiring minds?
Nobody comes here because they respect the opinions of a third rate affirmative action hire at a middling public law school. They come for the commenters, to make fun of a few libtard punching bags, and to mock Althouse when she posts retarded opinions or cries at dinner parties if there is a Libertarian there.
Sorry, this is idiotic. Althouse is brilliant at many things. One of her best skills is to inspire commentary in other people by provoking them.
I imagine that would make her a great law professor too, since the mark of a great one is to inspire thought in other people.
@dreams, I have been asking that same thing for weeks, but I had the advantage of having formerly lived in Montgomery County, MD, so I was aware of what the rich chippies from Holton-Arms were like. Daddy always had the money to fix things.
Name changes - I just changed mine from Ray to Ray SoCa.
On old posts it does not change the name.
And I enabled my profile, hopefully revealing enough to show I am a real person, and not enough to get Doxed. Yes, I am paranoid on the subject. I'm surprised at Michael K. being brave enough to give enough information to show whom he is. It's a shame this is even a worry.
So repeating someone's actual words is now taunting them?
Good lord.
No, please don't.
I'll figure out how to change mine to add something to Ray.
Ray SoCa?
Dang, I was hoping for Ray Gun.
@Humperdink, Flake will vote to affirm Kavanaugh, for the reasons I outlined in my comment at 10:15.
Can someone tell me whether a roll call vote in the Senate is by state or is it alphabetic by senator’s name? If by state then we will know after Arizona, looking at how Murkowski and Flake have voted. If by name, then all eyes will be on Collins, though Flake is early in the alphabet too. If Flake votes ‘no,’ then Kavanaugh is out and Flake’s best opportunity for a job after November will be cleaning septic tanks ($15 per hour and all you can eat!).
But I think enough Democrat senators in tight races will remember all the Democrat Congressmen who sacrificed their careers to push through Obamacare, and wonder whether Kavanaugh is a good hill to die on, given that (1) Trump can just turn around and nominate someone even more conservative, and (2) if a couple of them lose in November then Trump’s next nominee is certain to pass, with or without Collins and Murkowski.
Big Mike said...
@Humperdink, Flake will vote to affirm Kavanaugh, for the reasons I outlined in my comment at 10:15.
Can someone tell me whether a roll call vote in the Senate is by state or is it alphabetic by senator’s name? If by state then we will know after Arizona, looking at how Murkowski and Flake have voted. If by name, then all eyes will be on Collins, though Flake is early in the alphabet too. If Flake votes ‘no,’ then Kavanaugh is out and Flake’s best opportunity for a job after November will be cleaning septic tanks ($15 per hour and all you can eat!).
…
Big Mike:
1. I agree with you; I think Senator Flake will vote for the nominee. I think that Murkowski will also vote for him. And I think that another vote will come from Collins, or Manchin, or both. (Either a deal to trade votes between Manchin and Collins, or else once it is clear that Manchin's vote is meaningless, he will be released by the Dem whips to go ahead and vote his conscience. My guess however is that Collins votes "Yes." And Manchin might vote "No" anyway.)
2. The Senate roll call is alphabetical. But if a Senator doesn't respond, they just keep circulating through the list until time expires which is whenever Mitch McConnell says. Flake could be the last to vote this week, like McCain was (I think) third from last to vote on the Obamacare bill.
So repeating someone's actual words is now taunting them?
It's reminiscent of the playground taunt: why are you hitting yourself.
In retrospect, it was probable a mistake for the diversity racket, female chauvinists, and press to weaponize the use of language.
Nobody comes here because they respect the opinions of a third rate affirmative action hire at a middling public law school. They come for the commenters, to make fun of a few libtard punching bags
Well, Althouse graduated first in her class from NYU, a Law School that to my knowledge has never been ranked lower than sixth in the country. Joining Wisconsin in 1983 or thereabouts, yeah, the school may have thought of her as an affirmative action hire, but at the time she retired Althouse held an endowed chair, which is a prestigious academic honor. What she got, I am sure she earned.
I don’t always agree with Althouse, and sometimes I let her have it in my comments. But I respect her intelligence.
Sorry, this is idiotic. Althouse is brilliant at many things. One of her best skills is to inspire commentary in other people by provoking them.
I agree. She is the quintessential teacher, and we her willing students. This is neither a captive nor closed environment. Read. Think. Grow.
I'm surprised at Michael K. being brave enough to give enough information to show whom he is. It's a shame this is even a worry.
I'm retired and heavily armed.
Just remind the university men that if the Democrats win the House, then the men risk losing a future promotion if they’ve had a couple beers and made out with some chick who later claims she was groped.
My youngest daughter graduated for U of A and is very pretty like her sisters and saw none of the "rape culture" nonsense.
U of A is definitely a lefty campus. One of her instructors taught that the "silent majority" is made up of white people who did not accept the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I suspect the faculty is farther left than the students. At least that was true when she graduated.
I don’t always agree with Althouse, and sometimes I let her have it in my comments. But I respect her intelligence.
Same here. I just wish she'd rely more on her intelligence and less on her emotions.
And I enabled my profile, hopefully revealing enough to show I am a real person, and not enough to get Doxed.
We know where you live.
@Chuck, thank you for the clarification. My guess is that Nelson, McCaskill, and Donnelly have more to worry about than Joe Manchin and more likely to flip. If Donnelly and McCaskill vote against confirmation then it means they’ve given up reelection despite what the polls say about their chances (or their internal polling is crappy). OTOH I live very close to West Virginia and I suspect that if Joe votes against Kavanaugh then Morrisey will surely tie that back to the ridiculous video of him coming to his feet during the State of the Union and meekly sitting down at a glare from Chuck Schumer. Joe’s nightmare scenario has to be West Virginia voters thinking of him as Schumer’s puppet. If that happens then it’s ‘game over.’
I will be interested to see how Doug Jones votes. I assume he will vote his party because he doesn’t perceive much chance of getting re-elected in a state as crimson as Alabama.
I'm retired and heavily armed.
Me too.
@gahrie, me too. We men get blamed for “having two heads and thinking with the little one,” and there are plenty of guys like that, but for sheer inability to override emotions with rational thought it’s hard to beat the average woman. Freeman Hunt and DNQ excepted.
Blasey Ford can rest assured no one will ever try to grab either of her boobs again.
DBQ!!! DNQ means “did not qualify.”
CBF and her lawyers are terrible liars. Did they not think anyone would check? Did they think Kavanaugh would withdraw?
1. Lied about flying. 2. Lied about 2 front doors and timing of their construction. Building permits refute her story. 3. Lied about polygraph experience.
If a young woman in Nebraska can go to the state pen for lying about the Omaha police chief, Omaha businessmen and a district court judge, CBF and her lawyers deserve the same.
Not sure who posted this link in another thread, but it is
Frightenly Hilarious
Thesis: That men frequent “breasturants” like Hooters because they are nostalgic for patriarchal dominance and enjoy being able to order attractive women around. The environment that breastaurants provide for facilitating this encourages men to identify sexual objectification and sexual conquest, along with masculine toughness and male dominance, with “authentic masculinity.” The data are clearly nonsense and conclusions drawn from it are unwarranted by it. (NB. One reviewer did raise concerns about the rigor of the data)
Purpose: To see if journals will publish papers that seek to problematize heterosexual men’s attraction to women and will accept very shoddy qualitative methodology and ideologically-motivated interpretations which support this.
Selected Reviewer Comments:
“The reviewers and I were positive about many aspects of the manuscript, and we believe that it could make an important contribution to the field.” -Editor, Sex Roles
“I agree that the breastaurant is an important site for critical masculinities research that has been neglected in the extant literature and this study has the potential to make a significant contribution.” -Reviewer 2, Sex Roles
“While the author clearly has a solid grasp of the relevant research and scholarly works related to breastaurants and male subcultures where traditional forms of masculinity are embraced and promoted, it is not presented in a way that is easy to follow and understand.” -Reviewer 2, Sex Roles
“I thank the authors for addressing an important and interesting issue in gender research viewed through a masculine perspective.” -Reviewer 3, Sex Roles
“Following external review of the manuscript, we have decided not to publish it. However, the material you write about is certainly interesting and will doubtless find a receptive audience in another publication.” -Editor, Men & Masculinities
“This article is certainly interesting to read and to think about, and I can imagine this article being valuable in an undergraduate or graduate class on masculinities.” -Reviewer 1, Men & Masculinities
“Overall, this article is an interesting contribution that provides much to think about and through.” -Reviewer 1, Men & Masculinities
"'Michael said...
Roberrt Cook
Yes, but not war war.
10/3/18, 12:12 PM'
"It's true. You know it's true because if we were at war the story in the papers every day would be the rising casualty count.
10/3/18, 12:42 PM"
What differentiates "war" from "war war?" How much money squandered, how many people murdered or mutilated, how many towns and cities destroyed, how many refugees produced?
Our papers aren't reporting our wars because the casualties are residents of the countries we've invaded. Americans don't give a shit about them, and stories about them won't sell papers or dinner time viewers. More U.S. soldiers die from suicide than from battle injuries. That's also not a stirring topic for our corporate-owned media to cover.
On this thing about being "right wing" and uninformed, as repeated by the left incessantly, I am prochoice and think the Iraq War was a mistake. I did support Bush going in at forest because it seemed worth the effort to see if Arabs could rule themselves without tyrants. They can't. I have been wanting us to get out of Afghanistan for years.
This was from 2009.
The Republicans have been lying to their voters since GHW Bush. When they took over Congress in 1994, I had hopes, and so did the stock market which set off the bull market of the 90s.
Then the Dims drive Gingrich out, aided by his own missteps. Hastert was a crook and reform had to wait until Trump.
I was leery of Trump at first but soon saw a preference cascade forming around him
That was February 2016,
We see a lot of opinions here, some of us have had them for a while and are not responding to "propaganda."
Trump targets low information voters in under-educated backwaters like Mississippii. - Howard
Well, that would certainly explain why he won states like Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Michigan ... whereas all those smart-talkin' guys like Romney and McCain couldn't.
Keep spewing your insults. It's working.
Althouse always gives the left the benefit of the doubt.
Murkowski may vote no, due to her need to placate Alaskan Indian Tribes whom do not like Kavanaugh's stance on their rights... She was a write in candidate, since she lost the Republican Nomination, so she may need to placate Democratic Voters on the issue. But, then there is the danger she will make Trump into an enemy, and she may judge he is a shoe in for a 2nd term. And the Senate may have a Red Wave, and that would diminish her power. Or she could abstain, saying there needs to be more time for an investigation.
Flake may vote no. I don't see a downside for him. He harped on the issue that Kavanaugh was a big Meanie to his fellow senators in the 60 Minutes Interview. This is a great way to virtue signal to everybody, except the GOP. And the GOP, with the exception of Trump, historically does not hold grudges.
Indiana's Senator is changing his vote from No, to undecided, so there may be a push back about the high tech linching of Kavanaugh.
Joe Manchin I think will vote yes if he wants to get re-elected. There is a danger of upsetting some Democrats, but overall it will help him.
North Dakota and Missouri's Female Senators are a No.
Fun thing is we will know the Vote soon, and nobody really knows till it is held.
The NY Times just releasing the story on Trump's Father's Taxes was strange timing, and perhaps was meant as a distraction from Trumps NAFTA triumph, or the Kavanaugh accusations falling apart.
"My youngest daughter graduated for U of A and is very pretty like her sisters."
Nothing finer than a proud parent. I myself rarely comment on looks but let me say, nice beard!
"On this thing about being 'right wing' and uninformed, as repeated by the left incessantly, I am prochoice and think the Iraq War was a mistake. I did support Bush going in at forest because it seemed worth the effort to see if Arabs could rule themselves without tyrants. They can't. I have been wanting us to get out of Afghanistan for years."
Not a mistake, but a crime, founded on lies. Also, it's not our responsibility or our right to invade another country to overthrow its government, unless it has attacked us or is about to attack us, (or unless sanctioned by the UN Security Council). None of these justifications existed. And there there are our actions in the rest of the mid-east, none legal.
Also, it's not our responsibility or our right to invade another country to overthrow its government, unless it has attacked us or is about to attack us,
This is not a complete list of reasons. Afghanistan harbored a group which attacked us which is the same justification. You don't get to protect them and pretend you're not involved. If you protect a criminal it's perfectly justifiable for cops to break into your home to get him, then to charge you with a crime.
As always Cook will lie in any way necessary to smear those he hates.
It's my private contention that radical Islam fears Hooters and other freedoms of choice and behavior available to Western women as a direct threat to their dominance over Islamic women.
I think Kavanaugh was a privileged teenage drunken punk
Well, that’s sorta the point. Privileged, yes, but so was any young woman whose parents could afford Holton-Arms School. Drunken, yes, now and again, but no different from myriads of other teenagers in the 1980s, and also the 1990s, 21st century, 1970s, 1960s, 1950s, ... Holton-Arms pulled its yearbooks for 1982 and 1983 offline, but not before some enterprising individuals downloaded copies and extracted pictures of young, wasted-looking, Chrissy Blasey at a party surrounded by classmates and empty liquor (not just beer!) bottles. Punk? He was an honor student and varsity athlete. Can you say as much?
What does privileged even mean in this context?
Temujin: I understand your comment, but how can anyone -- even Ann -- honestly consider her even minimally sympathetic let alone pathetic? Taking only what she said, and exactly as she said it, she's a person so vile that she - slightly rumpled but not discernibly otherwise the worse for wear - ABANDONED HER BEST FRIEND in a nest of rapists. Leland was the only other girl there, and she spared not a single thought for her, couldn't even be arsed to find and warn her. What kind of horrible thing does that? I wonder if that thought has occurred to Leland?
Bet it has.
Soap Opera Women
The SOWs
> Pacing. Show you agree with the opposition and then subsequent stuff is more persuasive. Oh I agree with this guy and look what else he's saying.
Known in sales as the Feel Felt Found strategy
http://www.tomhopkins.com/blog/presentation/the-feel-felt-found-strategy
Trump is master salesman.
Post a Comment