DJT and TDS

[oxmixmudd]

Thinking that Bad Orange Man is more of a threat than Stumblin' Stammerin' Sniffin' Ol' Joe is a sign of TDS.

Or, thinking that Joe is worse than Trump is evidence of serious delusion.

From what I can see, the latter is where reality sits. Re-read Carpe's opening post. There simply is no real world scenario where Joe can match Trump in the corruption and disrespect for the constitution categories. To make that work, real events, real consequences must be denied.

[Mountain Man]

Apparently the manufacture of the outfit she claims she was wearing says that it hadn't been made at the time of the accusation.

Yep. It's like Christine Blaisey Fraud's accusations against Kavanaugh, where she had trouble "remembering" specific details, and when she did try to be specific, it would fail under scrutiny.

[Mountain Man]

There simply is no real world scenario where Joe can match Trump in the corruption and disrespect for the constitution categories.

[Mountain Man]

"Apparently" is doing an intense amount of work here for a claim that, as far as I can see, originated from the thin air of online forums.

-Sam

You have no excuse for being ignorant on this point considering the fact that in a previous response to you, I posted a link to credible source that confirmed the designer dress Carroll claimed she wore when she was supposedly assaulted was not even available at the time.

[Sam]

You have no excuse for being ignorant on this point considering the fact that in a previous response to you, I posted a link to credible source that confirmed the designer dress Carroll claimed she wore when she was supposedly assaulted was not even available at the time.

An unevidenced comment by Boris Epshteyn that winds its way back to The Gateway Pundit?

As I wrote: "a claim that, as far as I can see, originated from the thin air of online forums". When E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of raping her in her article in The Cut in 2019, she recounted that she told him, answering a question, that she was 52. Born in 1943, that would place the time of the attack in 1995 or 1996, as Carroll has testified.

Using Epshteyn and Jim Hoft as sources to advance factual claims is disqualifying in itself but y'all should have some sense of shame for basic facts that, were you the least bit interested, you could check in a matter of minutes.

-Sam

[Mountain Man]

An unevidenced comment by Boris Epshteyn that winds its way back to The Gateway Pundit?

As I wrote: "a claim that, as far as I can see, originated from the thin air of online forums". When E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of raping her in her article in The Cut in 2019, she recounted that she told him, answering a question, that she was 52. Born in 1943, that would place the time of the attack in 1995 or 1996, as Carroll has testified.

Using Epshteyn and Jim Hoft as sources to advance factual claims is disqualifying in itself but y'all should have some sense of shame for basic facts that, were you the least bit interested, you could check in a matter of minutes.

-Sam

Ah, yes, the genetic fallacy. Well played.

[Sam]

Ah, yes, the genetic fallacy. Well played.

Source: Pierian Spring. Alexander Pope

A little learning is a dang'rous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again.

© Copyright Original Source

Knowing the term "genetic fallacy" is different from knowing how to use the term correctly. Explaining how, in the same post, why Epshteyn & Hoft are perpetually lousy sources of fact does not a genetic fallacy make.

-Sam

[Mountain Man]

Source: Pierian Spring. Alexander Pope

A little learning is a dang'rous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again.

© Copyright Original Source

Knowing the term "genetic fallacy" is different from knowing how to use the term correctly. Explaining how, in the same post, why Epshteyn & Hoft are perpetually lousy sources of fact does not a genetic fallacy make.

-Sam

The genetic fallacy is discounting the truth of a claim based only on the source, which is precisely what you did. A proper rebuttal would be to show that the dress Carroll claimed she wore on the day she was supposedly assaulted actually was available at the time.

[Sam]

The genetic fallacy is discounting the truth of a claim based only on the source, which is precisely what you did. A proper rebuttal would be to show that the dress Carroll claimed she wore on the day she was supposedly assaulted actually was available at the time.

You didn't read your own sources. Epshteyn parroted Hoft, who claimed that Carroll first claimed in The Cut article that Trump raped her in 1994, later changing her story to a later 1995-1996 date because (as the two notorious liars allege) the dress she was purportedly wearing wasn't sold in 1994. But Carroll, in that article, attested that she was 52 when the rape took place, which would date the incident to 1995 or 1996. And since neither Epshteyn nor Hoft gave the least bit of evidence for their claim that the dress wasn't manufactured in 1994 before you lapped it up as true, I don't know why you're demanding more evidence than what you've already accepted as sufficient.

You weren't looking for a factual rebuttal to Carroll's claim in the first place so it's hardly surprising that you didn't pay attention to even what your sources were alleging. I'd lean even harder on the element of shame in all this but, at the point where you're mindlessly parroting whatever bogus allegation might cast doubt on a rape claim proved in court ... what sense of shame can still be vulnerable to irritation?

-Sam

[Cow Poke]

Pretty stupid - strategically, if nothing else - for a pastor to join in qubbiling over whether digital penetration really counts as rape.

Did no such thing, FibberMcSam.

[Cerebrum123]

Or, thinking that Joe is worse than Trump is evidence of serious delusion.

From what I can see, the latter is where reality sits. Re-read Carpe's opening post. There simply is no real world scenario where Joe can match Trump in the corruption and disrespect for the constitution categories. To make that work, real events, real consequences must be denied.

Of course, Joe doesn't look worse when you handwave away all of the horrible things he does and says.

[Sam]

Did no such thing, FibberMcSam.

Going to recommend, as always, that you actually go and read and understand the posts to which you're responding, especially if you're going to use them to commiserate.

Though, in this case, the problem was that you, like CivilDiscourse, were just looking for a chance to get a jab in and you didn't care that the vehicle for doing it was an argument that digital rape doesn't count as rape.

So really less of a "didn't read" problem and more of a "disordered morality" problem, I suppose.

-Sam

[Juvenal]

Concerning your last quote, I am very familiar with the first two lines, but the second two are entirely new to me. The first Franklin response to Ms. Powel is documented in James Henry's (one of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention) journal, and I have found the original manuscript. I cannot find the second half you cite here, however. Can you point me to your source? I find these kinds of things fascinating.

While I previously provided only a single link, my comments were informed by an estimable sequence of entries in the blog: Boston 1775, as follows:

SATURDAY, MARCH 25, 2017

“A republic…if you can keep it.”

SUNDAY, MARCH 26, 2017

“This prophetic answer of the Doctor”

MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2017

How Dr. McHenry Operated on His Anecdote

TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2017

“We pronounce it to be an impudent forgery”

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2017

“Dr. Franklin…met with Mrs. Powel”

THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2017

“The all important Subject was frequently discussed at our House”

FRIDAY, MARCH 31, 2017

“The story is told…”

As an aside, it's interesting to me that the self-same Dr. James McHenry, in acknowledgment of his service as Secretary at War to our first two presidents, was the namesake of the eponymous Fort McHenry charged with the defense of the Port of Baltimore. The recently departed Key bridge is the proximate location of the ship on which Francis Scott Key watched the battle that inspired his poem, Defence of Fort Mchenry, later adopted as our national anthem, the Star-Spangled Banner.

[Mountain Man]

You didn't read your own sources. Epshteyn parroted Hoft, who claimed that Carroll first claimed in The Cut article that Trump raped her in 1994, later changing her story to a later 1995-1996 date because (as the two notorious liars allege) the dress she was purportedly wearing wasn't sold in 1994. But Carroll, in that article, attested that she was 52 when the rape took place, which would date the incident to 1995 or 1996. And since neither Epshteyn nor Hoft gave the least bit of evidence for their claim that the dress wasn't manufactured in 1994 before you lapped it up as true, I don't know why you're demanding more evidence than what you've already accepted as sufficient.

You weren't looking for a factual rebuttal to Carroll's claim in the first place so it's hardly surprising that you didn't pay attention to even what your sources were alleging. I'd lean even harder on the element of shame in all this but, at the point where you're mindlessly parroting whatever bogus allegation might cast doubt on a rape claim proved in court ... what sense of shame can still be vulnerable to irritation?

-Sam

You bring up another point which challenges Carroll's credibility: She can't even settle on a specific year when the supposed assault took place, let alone a specific month or day. Of course she only changed her story after she learned the dress she claimed to wear wasn't available in 1994.

According to court documents reviewed by The Gateway Pundit, Miss Carroll admitted during questioning that she may have bought it in 1995 because Donna Karan did not make the dress in 1994 as she believed. She only came to this realization after New York Magazine corrected her!

Before the magazine published the article, they helped E. Jean Carroll figure out that the dress was not made in 1994 as she originally stated.

Based on what she said as she was sitting for the deposition, E. Jean Carroll has no recollection of when the alleged assault occurred. All she can say today is that it happened sometime after 1995.

It is so vague and nonspecific that her story ultimately lacks credibility. Her lack of knowledge of this critical piece of information about her Donna Karan dress makes this case utterly ridiculous.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...layed-crazy-e/

[Sam]

You bring up another point which challenges Carroll's credibility: She can't even settle on a specific year when the supposed assault took place, let alone a specific month or day. Of course she only changed her story after she learned the dress she claimed to wear wasn't available in 1994.

According to court documents reviewed by The Gateway Pundit, Miss Carroll admitted during questioning that she may have bought it in 1995 because Donna Karan did not make the dress in 1994 as she believed. She only came to this realization after New York Magazine corrected her!

Before the magazine published the article, they helped E. Jean Carroll figure out that the dress was not made in 1994 as she originally stated.

Based on what she said as she was sitting for the deposition, E. Jean Carroll has no recollection of when the alleged assault occurred. All she can say today is that it happened sometime after 1995.

It is so vague and nonspecific that her story ultimately lacks credibility. Her lack of knowledge of this critical piece of information about her Donna Karan dress makes this case utterly ridiculous.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...layed-crazy-e/

Carroll has been clear, from the beginning, that she was 52 when Trump raped her and has consistently said that the assault occurred in late 1995 or early 1996. You haven't read the relevant portion of her deposition; instead, you take at full value the say-so of notorious fabricator Jim Hoft that Carroll misstated when she bought the dress in question and that, only after being corrected, changed the date of the assault to match.

But her article in The Cut — the first time she alleged that Trump raped her — disproves this allegation. This point of fact has been explained multiple times now. Carroll wrote that she was 52 at the time of her rape, which places the date sometime between December 1995 and December 1996, with even a bit of latitude on the side of both extremes.

But you didn't pick up Hoft's claim because it was strong or because it could withstand even moderate scrutiny. You chose to repeat it, even though it was completely unsupported and even after it had been refuted, because it's useful. They say "You can't fix stupid" and that's wrong — even the smallest children get smarter and wiser. What you can't fix is a dedication to stupidity in service of evil, the obstinate holding-on of something false so you can still say and do whatever you want. You need a way to discredit Carroll and so you'll find it — even if you have to go to a known serial liar to get it and even if you have to stubbornly refuse to process chronological math.

What makes that particularly intolerable, in this case, is that you're doing so in service to a confessed sexual abuser, a man with dozens of assault and rape allegations against him. You're picking up his effort to defame and discredit a woman who not only has a credible claim of sexual assault but who has submitted her case to the scrutiny of a court and won the unanimous confidence of a jury.

You've lent yourself in service to a rapist and staying stupid about the facts won't absolve you.

-Sam