(02-09-2017 08:53 PM)HappyAppy Wrote: I understand the concept of twisting words. In this case a Republican senator has made almost identical comments. What's his axe to grind?
The closest thing to anything denying the comments, from another Republhcan advising Gorsuch:
Quote:Judge Gorsuch has made it very clear in all of his discussions with senators, including Senator Blumenthal, that he could not comment on any specific cases and that judicial ethics prevent him from commenting on political matters. He has also emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary, and while he made clear that he was not referring to any specific case, he said that he finds any criticism of a judge's integrity and independence disheartening and demoralizing.
Let's say I push an old lady down a flight of stairs. A reporter asks a judge what they think about me, HappyAppy, pushing an old lady down a flight of stairs. The judge says "I can't ethically make a comment about an active case, but anybody who pushes an old lady down a flight of stairs is despicable".
So the judge didn't call my actions despicable? That's the argument here. The mental gymnastics here are unreal. It's not splitting hairs it's splitting molecules.
I haven't seen anyone quote what you've said above. That doesn't mean they didn't... I just haven't seen it.
WHat I've seen is versions of this below... quoted earlier in this thread...
Within a half-hour, Gorsuch spokesman Ron Bonjean, who was tapped by the White House to head communications for Gorsuch, confirmed that the nominee, Gorsuch, used those words in his meeting with Blumenthal. Several other senators, including Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, later relayed similar accounts of Gorsuch forcefully criticizing Trump's public attacks on the judiciary branch.
SO just as in my example, they confirmed he used those words... I saw another report that confirmed he used the words "disenheartening' and 'demoralizing'. So do they mean that he used those two words? Or did they confirm what is said as a 'quote'?
Let me ask you... If someone asks you to confirm a quote, do you say 'he used those words'? Would you confirm that 'he used these two specific words'?
Or would you quote him, in which case the actual sentence would be in quotation marks in the press.
I don't know and once again, don't care what happened... but I have serious distrust for the left AND the media based on the way they have repeatedly twisted words, edited videos and misquoted people... claiming people said things... but rarely actually quoting them... meaning (in the english language which reporters are well above average in using) means that these aren't the exact words the person used... In an effort to rile people up and drive readership.
I HOPE that our justices aren't sitting around loving every word that Trump or Obama or Bush or Clinton or any other politician says or how they handle every aspect of their presidencies... That would cause me to question the separation of powers.
Neither do I look to judges to tell me how I should feel about judges.
IF he had said he finds what Trump says to be refreshing and encouraging, the left would be claiming this completely disqualified him.
(02-09-2017 09:01 PM)EverRespect Wrote: (02-09-2017 04:53 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote: (02-09-2017 04:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: (02-09-2017 03:57 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote: (02-09-2017 03:38 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: You provided an answer to something Trump didnt say. He didnt say the murder rate per 100,000 people was at an all time high.
That's what the murder rate is as defined by the group providing the statistic. And even if you use a different divisor, the fact remains, the murder rate is not the highest it has been in the last 47 year's. It's not even close.
If he wanted to say, total murders are increasing, that's a completely different argument. But he didn't. He has repeatedly used rate when discussing the subject. Call it whatever you want, but to me thats a complete misrepresentation of facts.
Its A RATE as defined by a group. Its not the only rate. A rate can be a total number per year. What your article says is that Trump lied about the rate, but then quotes a rate that he didnt mention. If they want to say he lied, the first thing they have to do is to verify what he actually said, in the context he was saying it.
Let's put the quote up, since you claim they're twisting his words.
Quote:"... the murder rate in our country is the highest it's been in 47 years, right? Did you know that? Forty-seven years. I used to use that — I'd say that in a speech and everybody was surprised, because the press doesn't tell it like it is. It wasn't to their advantage to say that. But the murder rate is the highest it's been in, I guess, from 45 to 47 years."
The murder rate is a statistic compiled by the FBI, that is the number quoted in both source links. Point me to one source, just one, that shows how the murder rate is at its highest in 47 years.
Number of murders is a rate. Number of murders is the highest in 47 years. I know it's difficult for you.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Matt Lauer... a rather left leaning journalist (but not a jerk) suggested that Trump may have meant 'largest single year increase in 47 years'.
Don't know... Don't care. Trump isn't legislating how many murders we can have per year or trying to set some sort of record
This is just more outrage from the left about nothing.
/
Senator Blumenthal Now Wishes He Had Kept His Piehole Shut
