Let me say at the outset that I am saying nothing one way or the other about the particular circumstances concerning the murder of Seth Rich—other than the obvious fishiness of the thing. I don’t know anywhere near enough to talk about the case itself in any detail. But we do know that Julian Assange hinted that Rich was a source, one investigator has claimed that there is proof that Rich sent northwards of 40,000 emails to Wikileaks, and we know that Rich was shot down in the streets of Washington D.C. by assailant/s unknown. Turning to another channel, we also know that Hillary blamed her spectacular loss on Trumpian collusion with Russia. That’s her story and she’s sticking to it. Three guesses which one got the special counsel working on the case.
So what I am in a position to comment on is the disparity of behavior on what it takes to get a special counsel appointed. What does it take to get something investigated in that town?
But the upside is that Mueller, being a cracker-jack lawman, solemnly appointed to investigate the Russian deal, might have an idea in the shower one morning. “Hey! Maybe Seth Rich was Russia! Maybe we should send some men over that way . . .”
You will know this has happened if a New York Times editorial starts lamenting our renegade special prosecutor. And if Mueller has an accident in the shower the next morning, you may consider this post a total fluke. I don’t think anything of the kind.
Oh there’s an overwhelming underbelly of criminals in our nation’s capitol, not just in the two houses, but out on the streets known as fixers. And like good mechanics they fix things regardless of cost.
Did Trump really tell the Russians in his office that he fired “nut job” Comey? Much as I am addicted to the news right now, is it time to wish that Pence could take over? Or will this all settle down?
jillybean wrote:
Is jillybean starting to question the mainstream media narrative, or is she just spreading that narrative here? It’s hard to tell.
In any case, I doubt this will all settle down until the media starts reporting something other than anonymous narratives and spin.
Have I ever said that I never question the mainstream media? I find myself not knowing what to believe and what to hope for.
But that would be far too charitable an interpretation to lend any words of mine. Why don’t you simply block my posts? So simple a remedy might have a beneficial effect on your disposition.
jillybean wrote: Why don’t you simply block my posts? So simple a remedy might have a beneficial effect on your disposition. Block her posts? Hmm. jillybean wrote: But that would be far too charitable an interpretation to lend any words of mine. I did put forward the possibility that jillybean could have been injecting the latest juicy media gossip about Trump for its own tasty effect, but, at the same time, I acknowledged that wasn’t the only possibility. I didn’t jump to any conclusion. Does jillybean judge this anonymous report credible enough that Trump should be replaced by Pence? Or… Read more »
When I first heard that report, I did not believe it. I thought it was “jumping the shark” in terms of the narrative, and I wondered what other people thought. Now that the WH has not denied it but rather discussed Trump’s problems with Comey, I think it is likely to be true. I find Trump’s sharing the “nut job” comment with Russian diplomats very bizarre and also troubling. My sense is that the government is in chaos, waiting for the next disclosure to drop. I wondered if anyone else is concerned about where this is going. I am addicted… Read more »
I recommend that you don’t put your trust in any man, but enjoy the story that is being written. Do you think that God is smiling or wringing His hands in worry?
Thank you!
But is it something that an American president should be sharing with the Russians?
I think I could have lived the rest of my life without knowing that about LBJ! But I did know what he reportedly said when asked why he chose HHH as his running mate: “I want a VP who will kiss my a@@ in Macy’s window and swear that it smells like a rose.”
Hey Jilly! A secret source of mine, who has so much personal integrity and bravery that he can’t be named or cross examined, read me a memo over the phone that said Katecho came to work sober today! ; – )
My secret source is unassailable, but not in a good and honest way! ; – )
Can I find it in The Enquirer?
CNN. ; – )
Hey Jilly! I just figured “it” out!
Trump phones in the leaks himself, after Steve Bannon uses his Seinfeld writing experience to write the most George Costanza-like fake comment / line.
If the New York Times, Wapo and all the networks pick up the line, Bannon and his family get a week-end B-52 flight to a destination of their choice!
Finally, Trump is not being paid by the “Russians” for all this. He is being paid by Kim Basinger, as part of some weird revenge plan to get back at Alec Baldwin! ; – )
From what I recall, there weren’t 73 new stories per hour on Yahoo News about Obama, were there? With “collusion,” “conspiracy” and “impeachment” generously sprinkled in each headline?
There have been similar issues with previous presidents, but the MSM didn’t go hog wild with 24/7 conspiracy theories and impeachment talk.
But we heard how fabulous Michelle looked in that dress at the party….like about 2,000 times.
This is where I miss 40 Acres. He would have an outrageous conspiracy theory involving Jews, interracial marriage, gays, and the NWO.
Yeah, this time it was only Kim Basinger! ; – )
All the articles I have read about Comey that actually get into his background and those who know him suggest that he is a straight shooter and not stupid or compromised. Even articles put out by liberal publications after the election, when liberals were the most upset and claimed his actions were wrong, went in that direction when they delved into his background. I can see the justification for the deputy AG’s finding “He made a bad mistake here”. But everything I’ve seen indicates that it was an honest error by a competent man in a difficult circumstance, not a… Read more »
What was the “honest” error, in your opinion? For the HRC emails, the statute for prosecution is negligence, aka “even by accident”, where “intent” is not required. No “reasonable” person thinks that the criminal standard of “negligence” requires intent, rather, the reasonable person knows that intent is specifically not required, for a criminal act to be negligent. “Most crimes involve intentional conduct……….. But some crimes involve reckless or negligent, rather than intentional, conduct. The term “reckless” essentially describes a defendant’s simultaneous understanding and disregard of a substantial risk of harm. An example is a defendant having previous DUI convictions and… Read more »
What was the “honest” error, in your opinion? Taking almost directly from Rosenstein’s memo (the one that Trump claims to be standing on), that he shouldn’t have held that July 5th press conference and spoke in a derogatory manner about the subject of a criminal investigation without the authority of the Justice Department, and that it was not necessary to write a letter to Congress about reopening the investigation on October 28th. In both cases I believe he was honestly trying to cover all his bases, to speak the truth and not be open to attacks from any side that… Read more »
Again J’, correct me if I am wrong, but I thought AG Lynch was “waiting” for Comey to recommend prosecution? It seems like an investigation determines probable cause, the AG typically agrees, and then the AG takes on the case and prosecutes it. (?) In any case, my view is that Comey malfeasantly invented a false statutory requirement for intent, in order to prosecute, when no intention is needed, to prosecute for negligence in handling classified info. Oh! And “opine”, as you use the word above, would seem to reference public comment, and does not preclude development of a professional… Read more »
This is something I am no way an expert on and really didn’t know anything about before the time. From my amateur perspective, I actually was happy with the June speech (I thought that Clinton’s image as deceptive and untrusting of ‘the public’ is partially deserved and the attention on it was justified), though it appeared that the November memo was a poor decision because nothing had actually emerged to change the decision, but the announcement would cause a certain % of the public to assume it had, thus leading the matter to be prosecuted in the public sphere without… Read more »
Sounds like we actually agree, and that this issue was not handled “by the book” by Comey or Lynch. I’ll read the full memo except when I have a chance.
Thanks!????
Speaking of jumping the shark, katecho is turning more into a scowling caricature every day. I think this is what our AI future will bring. Being bombarded by with tight internal logic tangential to the point at hand. Constantly rehashing arguments fit for Chesterton’s mad men. I think the matrix would be more fun.
The Whitehouse isn’t denying the report (which would be quite easy to do).
I’m tired of hearing conservatives complain about the big mean media when it isn’t the media tweeting felony accusations at 4am (without proof to follow it up). It isn’t the media grandstanding for the Russians. The media didn’t go out of their way to humiliate the FBI director. The media didn’t stop the Republicans from writing a healthcare bill for 8 years. I can go on…
Tired?
Sounds like you need a nap! ; – )
Well Trump’s a fool, so probably. If you have any affinity for the GOP, you should hope that he stays afloat. Going down in the first 6 months is unprecedented, to say the least, and would herald a real slamming for the GOP in 2018. But really, you know, Trump is a total moron and shoots himself in the foot constantly, but other than being a boorish nincompoop what has he really done? Take ComeyGate for example. He has the right to fire Comey, Comey was not respected by either party, and the only issue is the timing, which is… Read more »
“. . . Trump is a total moron and shoots himself in the foot constantly . . .” Matt
I’m not sure that he is any worse than Ford or Carter. For insider sabotage it is going to be really difficult to get anyone worse than Kissinger or the Clintons.
It’s just that we now have hourly stories with “bombshell” and “devastating” describing every action Trump has done. And the MSM is now using “people familiar with the matter” as sources. This is an all-time low.
Do you actually doubt their sources are legitimate? Internal leaks from the White House are being confirmed quite regularly at this point.
If someone from the White House leaks something, what do you believe the reporter should refer to them as?
Yes, I do. I’ve never seen non-stop headlines like this based on so little. When pressed, even Diane Feinstein, Maxine Waters, John Brennan and James Clapper say there’s no real evidence of Trump/Russian collusion. Take the Reuters hit piece titled ““Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians sources.” Those who actually read the article find this: “In January, the Trump White House initially denied any contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign. The White House and advisers to the campaign have since confirmed four meetings between Kislyak and Trump advisers during that time. The people… Read more »
Not only that, one can’t say that the Democrats are not leading the way in demonstrating a correct response to proven crimes!
Mini Schumer, I mean Anthony Weiner just plead guilty to his Federal Obscenity crime today!
Trump is not a fool, but he is playing poker while the politicos are playing chess. That chaos is what we should expect when we elect an ‘outsider’.
Once in DC Trump finds he is not the most cunning beast in the jungle.
Yes, he’s in the jungle when he thought it was going to be another big city environment.
Here’s a thought experiment: reverse the location, and put the politicos in a business environment. How well would they hold up? Who would look like a fool, then? Now add an incredibly critical media.
I completely disagree that Trump is a moron.
Trump is highly intelligent, but he is under-informed on many issues, impulsive, and immature. That leads him to do things that are foolish.
Trump is shrewd, with a showman’s instinct for what the audience wants and a con man’s instinct for what the suckers will buy, but that doesn’t make him highly intelligent. A highly intelligent person would not persist in being under-informed when they had a choice. Either Trump is unwilling to know the things he needs to know or is unable to grasp what he needs to know – neither possibility says “intelligent”.
I think people vastly overrate intelligence. No amount of intelligence in the world can defend you from arrogance, laziness, and narcissism. I’ve known people with high intelligences who said, did, and believed some very, very stupid things. Everything I have seen of Trump’s background, he really is intelligent. He is incredibly intuitive about certain things. He has tended to get what he wants for a reason – yes, the wealth and political connections he started with have helped a lot, as well as his willingness to do whatever it takes to succeed, but I think there’s a lot of things… Read more »
You’re probably correct about intelligence being overrated, if you mean what we commonly refer to as IQ. I’m not entirely convinced intelligence is something that can be quantified, though it can be recognized. I’m not convinced relative degree of intelligence is entirely fixed either. I believe intelligence can, to some degree, be developed, by exercise, so to speak. Trump is intellectually flabby, if nothing else. Anyway what do you see or hear that you think he is highly intelligent? I’m not kidding when I say he sounds like a babbling idiot to me. I think that even when he manages… Read more »
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Anyone without the fear of the Lord is foolish, no matter how intelligent they are. Trump’s intelligence strikes me as a kind of animal cunning.
I agree with @JonathanDnk:disqus that he is intelligent in a worldly sense, and I agree with you that he sounds the opposite of intelligent when he speaks. There are different kinds of smarts, no question. Trump might be among the least scholarly presidents the world has ever seen, but he has a clever knack of getting his own way.
High IQ does correlate with academic and professional success, as long as you’re not so freakishly intelligent that you have psychological problems. I think that a president with a super high IQ might be unelectable unless he had the ability to cover it up in public.
Certainly people can get brighter over time if they work at it.
I believe he is intelligent because I’ve read that opinion among several of those who know him best, because he appears rather good at manipulating people, and because he often appears able to get what he wants in scenarios when others would count him out. I do believe a good deal of his “success” in financial/political life has been due to financial advantages and political connections. But he has often been able to exploit these advantages well. Where he has failed, I believe it has often been do to his lack of interest in the things necessary for “success” in… Read more »
Terms I, and some others, have used include “shrewd”, and “cunning”, so yes, I recognize there is a sharp instinct, or an a aptitude of some type, that half accounts for his success. Politically, I guess it was just the right moment for whatever kind of aptitude it is. I still don’t see it translating to what I, or most people, ordinarily mean by intelligence.
I don’t see the intelligence. I see instinct. He doesn’t read. He has the attention span of a hummingbird. He is inarticulate, and he doesn’t seem to have much in the way of common knowledge. He seems really intellectually incurious. And he doesn’t seem to have much ability to predict how incautious speech may come back to bite him. And he’s been in the WH long enough to know the difference between counsel and council.
I saw a cerebral, academic intelligence. I think it made it hard for him to connect to people.
I too saw a cerebral, academic intelligence when Obama said things like: “When I meet with world leaders, what’s striking — whether it’s in Europe or here in Asia…” –In a press conference outside Honolulu, Nov. 16, 2011 “We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad.” –Cincinnati, OH, Sept. 22, 2011 “The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries.” –Tampa, Fla., Jan. 28, 2010 “It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There’s a lot of — I don’t know what the… Read more »
I really like the last one! However, I still think he is highly intelligent. I am not sure what his core principles are–I had trouble figuring those out.
I have a very hard time believing that people who never read are highly intelligent. How can a person have the world at his fingertips and never read?
I saw his reading list once (I don’t remember which year) and wasn’t impressed. Nor did his palling around with the likes of Beyonce make me think he was in the high culture set.
But was that because he liked her, or because Michelle and the kids really liked her? I think it’s hard to know with presidents because they have to appear to like such a broad range of arts and entertainment. I’m trying to think of the last First Lady who could have been called truly high culture. The Bush ladies, or would we have to go back to Jackie Kennedy?
That must have been awful for him. Was he in a POW camp? My dad was in a Stalag in Poland from 1942 to 1945, and he always said how grateful he was not to have been in Japanese hands. He said he was well treated, and he learned to play world class bridge!
That was amazing; I didn’t know much about the fighting in Burma. I can’t think of a much worse place to be, although all of southeast Asia sounds unpleasant as a combat zone. I hadn’t realized that Lord Louis Mountbatten was involved in that. Canadians of my dad’s generation took a dim view of him because he was responsible for the ordering the disastrous Dieppe raid in August 1942. They decided to send 6,000 soldiers, of whom 5,000 were Canadian, to see if they could penetrate German defenses on the French coast. But they didn’t give them adequate air cover,… Read more »
Did your Dad talk about his experiences? My father only mentioned things that he thought were humorous. I think that’s common. My grandfather was drafted during WWII, but hadn’t shipped out yet when the war ended. However, he stayed in the service, eventually became an officer, and served in Korea. The only stories I ever heard about it were a couple of humorous ones, both self-deprecating. My father entered the service during Vietnam (wasn’t drafted, but would have been), and through a remarkable series of fortuitous events never shipped out, even though he really should have at least twice, maybe… Read more »
Hey gfkdzdds,
The humor thing you mentioned is common among vets. My Dad and uncle who were Vietnam vets did the same thing (except when they were drunk and then it was all tears and drama, which scared me as a kid). Otherwise, they just didn’t talk about it. I think it is a way of trying to remember the experience in a way that keeps it from being traumatic.
My brother-in-law is obviously highly intelligent as you quickly find out if you speak to him — that is, he has a facility with words and a quickness of thought, and he has a degree in engineering, and so forth. I disagree with him on a lot of things and the way he processes some ideas, but that’s quite obviously the wisdom thing, not an intelligence thing. Yet he’s never seen with a book, magazine, or any printed matter in his hand. I chalk it up to personality. A generation later, and he probably would have been tagged ADHD, but… Read more »
Yeah, my husband’s an engineer, and he’s quite bookish, and not that much of a tinkerer. I think he’s always liked the theory of how stuff works more than the hands-on aspect. But he realizes he’s an exception, too.
Two things: First, that was by no means an exhaustive list. Nonetheless, I am sympathetic to the fact that whoever occupies the office of POTUS is under an intense microscope. What bothers me isn’t so much that Obama made those gaffes, it’s the way the gaffes were handled by the media. I remember when Dan Quayle misspelled “potato” and the media relentlessly lambasted him; yet when Obama misspelled “respect” (and c’mon, it’s hard to goof up that word when there’s a well-known song that spells it out), the media collectively yawned. I don’t think Obama’s stupid, but I also don’t… Read more »
That could certainly be true, although I did think a couple of the campaign speeches were very good. Who wrote them, who knows? There is undeniably a double standard. If Biden had been a Republican, he could not have survived his early comments about Obama: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate
and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” Biden said. “I mean,
that’s a storybook, man.”
Dean Barnett was a conservative blogger and occasional radio host (filled in for the quite partisan Republican Hugh Hewitt). He described himself as a Republican partisan. He once ran for office as a Republican, and worked with vigor on the Mitt Romney presidential campaign in 2007-2008. He wrote the following article about Obama in the Weekly Standard, a very conservative journal. I’m saying all that to point out that this is about as clearly conservative media, and not liberal biased, as you can get. In fact, he wrote it when it looked like there was a good chance Romney would… Read more »
Apparently, a lot of students did well there: Barack Obama did not graduate with honors at Columbia and so his acolytes make much of his time at Harvard where he was president of the Harvard Law Review and where he graduated magna cum laude. Many ignore that his magna cum laude honors may well not been magna cum laude today. Under the system in place when Obama was a student, only one third of a graduating class did not receive honors. For the class of ’95, a whopping 71.3 percent of the student body graduated with honors, doubling the number… Read more »
Buried in there is:
“Receiving magna cum laude may be impressive, but it is less so, if one in six students win it.”
Being in the top 1/6th of students who got into Harvard Law is impressive by any criteria.
Even more so considering, as his election to the presidency of the Harvard Law Review and the accounts of all his fellow students confirm, he was extremely well respected while he was there.
Jonathan wrote:
By any criteria? Obama’s grasp of Constitutional law can’t be that impressive, given such embarrassments as individually mandated health insurance. Jonathan may simply be informing us of how easily he is impressed by credentials and honors. Although some of us may have already been aware based on his prior interactions on the topic of climate doom and evolution.
The penultimate one is just a slip of the tongue that anyone could make, substituting “Israel” for “the U.S.” in the first instance. But the others….I read them as the words of someone who thinks he’s so smart he doesn’t have to think about what he’s going to say and just lets it flow. And that kind of glibness is what got the media running around calling him a “great orator” in 2008. He wasn’t a great orator; his speeches never had any substance. But he was smooth in his flow.
“He wasn’t a great orator; his speeches never had any substance. But he was smooth in his flow.”
Yep. The black, er, 1/2 black version of Slick Willie Clinton.
The thing is that Clinton’s oratorical skills were something of a joke right up until he was elected President. He was known for being rambling and undisciplined in his speech-making. That’s pretty much down the memory hole but I have a very clear memory of it.
His off-the-cuff reactions, though, were where he shone. That’s where the “slick” came through.
Obama graduated magna cum laude by all accounts, a fact even Breitbart agrees with. Now magna cum laude is the top 1/10 of the graduating class, back then it was apparently the top 1/6. Combined with the fact that Harvard was already known for a degree of grade inflation, to finish in the top sixth among inflated grades must mean that his grades there were very, very good. So no, there’s no reasonable Harvard transcript conspiracy that would show in any way that Obama was unintelligent. I believe the main issue behind not releasing it was feeling that it was… Read more »
Bush never released his grades, going so far to blot them out when the transcripts were part of a 2004 release. And he was right not to. Kerry was justifiably embarrassed by his hypocrisy when he tried to take that route. I’ve already posted quite clear verification that Obama was an excellent and highly respected student at Harvard Law, and there’s a lot more where that came from from many quarters. I believe that a fair look at his academics, first book (he likely team-wrote the second), interviews, and the testimony of practically everyone who has known him confirms that.… Read more »
How can this be an echo chamber, when you are here, an articulate and prolific contributor, generally taking a more or less contrary position?
Taking more or less the doctrinaire leftist position, as much as he denies it. His views on race and defenses of Obama are straight out of HuffPo, Slate and the DailyBeast.
Because the chamber appears shaped to ensure that certain positions will be immediately parroted by numerous other voices, while nothing I’m saying bounces back off the walls. :)
Cute elaboration on the metaphor, but idiomatically “echo chamber” usually means “place where you hear no challenging ideas.” :-)
I have always considered it a good thing to attempt to influence a group of people to uniformly identify certain positions as wrong and respond accordingly. If there is such a thing as objective truth (which can be known), then this seems clearly more desirable than the sort of agnosticm which is always willing to entertain a bad idea.
Further, if I do interact with a group of people who seem to be thoroughly catechized in positions that I believe to be wrong, then I am generally not surprised when the herd is not open to my strange new thoughts.
Well, if conservative political positions and corporate capitalist economic dogma are objective truth, and quoting from the Gospels and scientific data are strange new thoughts, then I guess it all makes sense now.
Sure. You have obviously taken opposing positions from the general consensus here on the issues that you have outlined and attempted to ground your viewpoint in your interpretation of Scripture and understanding of science.
However, do you disagree with the logic of what I have just said?
In principle, is the objective of good communication to create a herd?
Clearly, this can be done by honorable means or dishonorable means.
I do disagree with the logic somewhat. For instance, the best book on Biblical ethics that I’ve ever read was Richard B. Hays’s “The Moral Vision of the New Testament”. He spends the majority of the book developing a framework for how to derive ethics from the New Testament and showing how his framework for deriving ethics differs from some other authors, giving a fair presentation of their views. Only in the last part of the book does he actually apply his framework to five “test issues” to show how it works in practice when looking at a particular issue.… Read more »
One case in point. Pastor Wilson attempted to make a statistical case in favor of concealed carry. He cited three rather odd, ultra-specific statistics. I did a bit of research and found that two of his statistics were wildly wrong due to errors he had made, and the third was so minutely cherry-picked from a much larger set of data as to be meaningless. When I posted that, I got very strongly attacked by the two most prolific commenters on the site. Both of them continuously argued that I couldn’t prove that Pastor Wilson was wrong even though I kept… Read more »
Perhaps the word “herd” is bringing to your mind connotations that I do not intend, or you have a much more individualistic perspective of the Christian life than I do, or something else. It seems like your responses are largely interacting with methodology (notice that I allowed for the fact that herds that could be created honorably or dishonorably) as compared to an ultimate objective. But, I could be mistaken. As far as I understand my own motives, I would say that because I am a “truth person,” I do not see the presence of uniformity of thought in a… Read more »
It should be noted that The New Yorker published Bush’s grades without his permission.
That’s happened a number of times. I’m sure they (or another MSM rag) could’ve dug around and found Obama’s records as well. But they coddled Obama like no other president.
Whether Obama was highly respected (by whom?) is a matter of opinion. However, the only objective way (at least as close as we can get, given the grade inflation of the time) to truly verify whether Obama was an excellent student is more heavily guarded than Fort Knox.
“Whether Obama was highly respected (by whom?)
Maybe professors who think the answer to every question involves racism, sexism, class warfare or redistribution of wealth?
If he’d done really well in the hard sciences at MIT, that would be a totally different story.
Have we ever had a president whose intelligence was displayed in the really hard sciences? I wonder if that kind of person would have any interest in political office.
Even if we did, his opponents would call him stupid, especially here. Scientists are pretty much broadly assumed to be 90+% composed of liars or useful idiots. Two recent examples of what would happen to someone in the sciences come to mind here. Dr. Ernest Moniz had a Ph.D. in physics from Stanford, was a physics professor at MIT for forty years, was the head of the physics department at MIT and headed several major initiatives there. Yet multiple Republican politicians basically tried to claim they knew more about nuclear weaponry than he did, including Senator Ted Cruz’s ridiculous and… Read more »
Jimmy Carter was an aspiring nuclear engineer when that was just beginning to be a thing. I just looked him up in Wikipedia; I never realized he never completed Naval Nuclear Power School (where my son is at this very moment!) because when his father died he requested a discharge to take over the family farm. He did receive a BS in engineering, however, from the Naval Academy. I want to say some earlier presidents also had a scientific background, though I can’t think of examples; Jefferson at the least was a polymath of sorts. But in modern times, they’ve… Read more »
Herbert Hoover was a mining engineer.
Herbert Hoover had a degree in geology and worked as a mining engineer. I don’t think he did particularly well in school though.
I don’t think Carter’s degree was in engineering. I believe it was a “war science” degree. Really an unspecified BS.
Jefferson could, I think, be considered a scientist.
I don’t find this site to be overly conservative especially since you rush to defend any liberal who is even remotely criticized. There are a wide variety of opinions here but unless they fit your narrative you seem to find them “stupid.” While at least half-a-dozen people have called me “stupid” or otherwise insulted my intellect here, I don’t believe I have done that to anyone else. The fact that you don’t find this site overly conservative is telling. Pastor Wilson stated last year that he was more conservative than the most conservative presidential candidate in the mix, and the… Read more »
How did I misquote you when what I said was an exact copy-and-paste of your entire second paragraph?
You started with: We spent 8 years watching a man who seemed unable to speak unless he had a teleprompter in front of him. Then you went on for an extensive paragraph detailing why you don’t think we can trust reports of Obama’s strong academic credentials. Then you ended with: His actions certainly failed to show any intelligence or wisdom. I replied: But if you get your impression of his eight years from a critical echo-chamber I can see how you would think him stupid. It looked to me that saying “failed to show any intelligence or wisdom” and “unable… Read more »
Bush’s transcripts were released in 1999 by The New Yorker and they were hardly blotted out. Only Bush’s transcript from his undergraduate time at Yale was published, and it was done without his approval, not because he released it. He never agreed to release it. Bush’s grades at Harvard Business School were never released. When his transcripts were released voluntarily in 2004, all the grades were blacked out, even the Yale grades which had already been released by other sources. That is what I was referring to. In eight years, Bush never agreed to release his grades despite whining from… Read more »
“We have no such tradition of revealing college grades” One way or another, the following were released: Bush and Gore’s college grades and SAT scores; Kerry’s college grades; McCain’s class rank; Perry’s college grades, JFK’s high school grades and test scores; Romney’s college GPA, rank at Harvard Business School, and honors at Harvard Law School. And playing the race card (inappropriate to release a black candidate’s academic record?) is ridiculous. You certainly showed your left-leaning cards again. If you simply judge Obama by his non-teleprompted speeches and writings (with no ghost writer involved), he’s simply not impressive. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/08/early_obama_letter_confirms_inability_to_write.html He and… Read more »
One way or another, the following were released: Bush and Gore’s college grades and SAT scores; Kerry’s college grades; McCain’s class rank; Perry’s college grades, JFK’s high school grades and test scores; Romney’s college GPA, rank at Harvard Business School, and honors at Harvard Law School. “One way or another” meaning in many cases without their permission and against their desire. Pointing out that something got leaked against someone’s desires is not an argument that someone else should submit to pressure to release voluntarily. I notice in there you listed Romney’s “college GPA” and “honors at Harvard Law School”. Which… Read more »
Okay, I coincidentally saw a different claim today that Trump was entering early dementia, and the article linked the following quote. I’m not sure what this is evidence of, and I think dementia claims are often stupid and mean-spirited (such as the ones that were made against Bush). But I quote this here because it is of such a different nature than the minor verbal slips that you’re trying to use as “gotcha” moments against Obama. Trump bragging about his own intelligence during a campaign stop in South Carolina: Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and… Read more »
Jonathan wrote:
And Jonathan wants to lecture Wilson about “ridiculously partisan claims”?
Yes, I agree with you. I am not sure what Obama stood for other then getting elected.
Making America great again!
I agree that he doesn’t appear intellectually curious, don’t have a strong attention span, doesn’t have much knowledge on important issues. I don’t think any of those things define “intelligence”, at least in terms of IQ.
I would say that he appears to be a far better predictor of how incautious speech will affect him than most of his critics are. Over and over and over again, he has said things that his critics predict will be a death blow, only to actually see his position either holding steady or almost improving in the long term.
“Moron” doesn’t actually refer to intelligence-as-IQ-score, but things more like “keeping your story straight”, “not letting security details slip in the process of bragging about how much classified info you have”, and “not firing the FBI director because you’re mad about being investigated”. Those things may not impact on “intelligence” technically–I agree that Trump is at least of average intelligence anyway–but they reflect a general unfitness for office.
But my whole point there was only that Trump hasn’t actually committed any crimes, so all the talk of stepping down and impeachment is premature.
IOW, some intelligent people can be pretty stupid, because stupidity isn’t always a lack of intelligence, it’s often a more willful refusal to think.
The mainstream media carries on about Russian influence in our beloved democratic process as if it was an established fact. Yet no one has ever produced any material evidence that is conclusive of any actual interference in our election by Russia. It appears to be just a hopeful narrative that the media seems to think will become true by shear volume of repetition. On the other hand, we actually do have direct material evidence that the Democratic National Committee colluded with the Hillary campaign to sideline Bernie Sanders. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the DNC, resigned in the wake of… Read more »
Considering that Clinton, as Secretary of State sold a bunch of the mining rights to US Uranium deposits to a Russian company, there should really be more investigation of her connections to Russia.
The media clearly has a double-standard when it comes to the requirements that would ordinarily demand an investigation.
We in the UK haven’t forgotten Obama’s interference in the Brexit referendum last year, either.
“Hillary blamed her spectacular loss on Trumpian collusion with Russia”
Wait! What????
I thought Hillary said she lost because of deplorable misogynists? You know!
Like Bill Clinton and Anthony Wiener! ; – )
Why do people always complain about not having a tinfoil hats? This is certainly not the fault of the Aluminum Corporation of America, for I’d guess that 90 percent of the kitchens of American have rolls of tinfoil in them. A bit of searching the kitchen cabinets — et voila! — plenty of tinfoil.
Ah, but that’s really aluminum foil, not tin, and seems much less effective at blocking the thought control rays.
I have always found stainless steel saucepans to be much more effective in keeping out the control waves.
I heard that having a couple of drinks and wearing a toilet seat around one’s neck works almost as well!
????
A Tiffany lampshade on one’s head is just a tad more upscale.
I’ve been reading the wiki for the Unabomber for the past 20 minutes because of this comment.
The Radiolab “Oops” episode had a very interesting spot on his background (it starts at the 4:00 mark).
I’ve been walking around with a lead cap on for years now and it hasn’t done me any harm!
Has it?
No! In fact, I think I am going to try that myself! ; – )
Oh! Are lead caps the proper attire for travel in Led Zeppelins?
What you need is a lead suite of plate armour.
Good point!
Certainly not.
So what I am in a position to comment on is the disparity of behavior on what it takes to get a special counsel appointed. What does it take to get something investigated in that town? There are hundreds of thousands of people in D.C. working in politics. The only thing that makes Seth Rich different from them is that a private investigator, paid by an unnamed third party (has anyone ferreted out who is paying him yet?), claims he has a connection to Russia. Even if there is something that needs to be investigated (and the FBI is indeed… Read more »
J’, seriously, is Trump being investigated?
Apparently, alleged “Russian” influence is being investigated.
The other thing that distinguishes Seth Rich from other political workers in D.C., is that he was murdered.
On the plus side, I do not suspect Wendell Berry!????
Maybe they could have “A”dad be their special instigator.
Inspector Clouseau and I would make a great team!????????
I don’t have the slightest idea whether Trump is being investigated, but his campaign and administration are certainly being investigated.
I would expect that investigation of the Clinton foundation would result in the most endictments.????
Jonathan wrote: To suggest there is some sort of disparity is indeed tinfoil level, or more to the point, a ridiculously partisan claim. With no access to any additional information, Jonathan simply pronounces that everything smells like roses to him. He declares from his unprivileged vantage point that there is nothing to see here but “ridiculously partisan claims”. How reassuring. Jonathan wrote: The reason a special investigator was appointed here is because Trump compromised the independence of the investigation by firing the person leading it. It’s a pretty clear rationale. Except that the investigation was being carried out below Comey’s… Read more »
https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-of-anti-trump-media-bias/
“Just say no” to MSM.
Fox News has now formally retracted the Seth Rich story. It continues to appear to be based on absolutely nothing but partisan speculation. The family says they believe his death was a failed robbery.
But I’m sure it’s still a problem that the Justice Department hasn’t appointed a special investigator to take over a case based on a theory that not even Fox News will stand by.
This is what I’m talking about when I refer to the ridiculous level of partisanship that occupies this blog at times.
Jonathan wrote: It continues to appear to be based on absolutely nothing but partisan speculation. Actually, the Seth Rich story was based on statements made by an investigator who was under contract working directly on behalf of the Rich family. Rod Wheeler claimed the existence of material evidence linking Seth Rich to wikileaks. Once Wheeler retracted his claim, there was no longer a basis to stand behind the report. On the other hand, we’ve had a stream of unnamed government informants and anonymous leaks that fuel the media buzz about Trump and the Russians. Jonathan has been all over that.… Read more »
“It continues to appear to be based on absolutely nothing but partisan speculation.”
Sounds like the 24/7 “Everything’s a Russian conspiracy” coverage.
Well, which part particularly? That Russia was responsible for the election hacks, that Trump campaign and administration figures had undisclosed meetings with the Russians, and that Russia had influence with such people is all beyond any reasonable doubt now, to the point that Congressional Republicans, Trump’s own intelligence agencies, and even the White House itself has admitted such. On top of that, we know that Trump and his family have lied about their connections to Russia. We know that Russian intelligence officials bragged about being able to use certain staff to get to Trump. We know that last year, Flynn… Read more »
And Jonathan wants to lecture others about partisanship?
Hannity isn’t backing down and is now picking a fight with Media Matters and the Sith Lord (https://twitter.com/seanhannity).
In his interview with Hannity in Oct?, Assange basically said “We don’t reveal our sources, our source for the DNC leaks wasn’t Russia, and, by the way, someone should investigate the Seth Rich murder.”
You are aware that Assuage has hated Clinton and been calling for her resignation since 2010, and that his friends were bragging that he would be “Hillary’s worst nightmare” in 2016 as far back as 2014-2015, right? Assuage is trolling you. He didn’t even say anything about the Rich murder, he purposely stayed vague. And of course he can say that “Russia wasn’t our source” – do you think Russia submitted the emails to Wiki links with state letterhead on the submission form? Fox News had retracted the report and apologized. Their “expert” has admitted that the only place he… Read more »
Speaking of trolls, are you Tom, Bert or William?
Found another level to this just now. Apparently, the “family investigator” that made the claims was a Fox News contributor himself. Who is paying him has not been made public, but the family’s real lawyer says it is a Pro-Trump Breitbart writer who pays that guys’ bills (the Breitbart guy denies it). The family never once gave the investigator access to any of Seth Rich’s laptops. So a rundown of the series of events. 1. Some unknown person, alleged by the real lawyer to be a Breitbart writer, pays a Fox News contributor to begin “investigating” Seth Rich’s murder. 2.… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: Apparently, the “family investigator” that made the claims was a Fox News contributor himself. Who is paying him has not been made public, but the family’s real lawyer says it is a Pro-Trump Breitbart writer who pays that guys’ bills (the Breitbart guy denies it). At least Jonathan isn’t being partisan in his tell-all reporting of the affiliations of the messenger. Right? In the meantime, Wilson wrote: Let me say at the outset that I am saying nothing one way or the other about the particular circumstances concerning the murder of Seth Rich—other than the obvious fishiness of… Read more »
“Jonathan’s” real name is Bill Huggins and he prefers man-flesh to mutton.
I do appreciate when you choose to respond to strong arguments with stuff like this. It helps draw the distinctions clearly.
Hmmm..so you are interested in drawing distinctions. Wonder why?
How bad and desperate is the MSM? This sums it up:
http://conservativetribune.com/press-freak-out-white-house-light/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=conservativetribune&utm_content=2017-05-29&utm_campaign=manualpost