Interesting Conversation


It’s no secret I glean a passel of my story ideas from Facebook. Friends post all kinds of stuff, some things I could not make up on my own during my weirdest moments. Here is one posting:

Daniel G. Kuttner

October 8 at 7:27pm ·

Given two evils, I’ll take the guy who 11 years ago talked about consensual touching, over the woman who enabled and covered up her husband’s actual violent assaults on women, and also threatened or publicly humiliated the victims who dared to speak out.

You need some background to know what this is all about. Dan is referring to the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, both running for the office of President of the United States. The “11 years ago” refers to Trump’s recorded remarks about groping women, “Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.” The “woman who enabled and covered up her husband’s actual violent assaults on women” refers to former President Bill Clinton—who had numerous liaisons with women other than his wife, candidate Hillary Clinton—and candidate Clinton’s actions during that time.

There are, of course, problems with Dan’s interpretation.

  • There is no indication Trump’s groping was in any way consensual. Additionally, other women have since come forward to complain specifically of non-consensual groping.
  • Reference to Bill Clinton’s ” violent assaults on women” seems to come out of somebody’s imagination, perhaps Dan’s. Perhaps not.

Anyhow, odd that this was, it needed some response. Here is mine. I have added a line break and the bullets and have corrected the spelling of candidate Carly Fiorina’s name:

John Blanton An excellent selection, Dan. Let’s see what else you get with the package:
This is a man who:

  • Mocked a man with disabilities.
  • Attacked the parents of a fallen American hero.
  • Belittled POWs and the war record of Sen. John McCain.
  • Lied about how much money he raised for veterans.
  • Called a former Miss Universe “disgusting” and fat, telling his Twitter followers to find her non-existent sex tape.
  • Accused an American-born federal judge of being unfit to do his job because of his Mexican heritage.
  • Likely avoided paying taxes for nearly two decades.
  • Called most Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals, even though that’s not remotely factual.
  • Lied about seeing “thousands and thousands” of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11.
  • Lied about getting a letter from the NFL complaining about the debate schedule.
  • Tried to exploit the death of an African American woman in Chicago to say that’s why black voters will support him.
  • Found the “bright side” to tragedies because his poll numbers tend to go up.
  • Settled with the Department of Justice after his company was found guilty of racially discriminating against minorities.
  • Has cheated on at least one wife.
  • Was just discovered on video admitting that he not only tried to cheat on his current wife, but he attempted to do so with another married woman.
  • Had his first wife publicly say that he did nothing when it came to raising their children until they were old enough to talk business.
  • Tweeted that women should have expected to be sexually assaulted when they mixed males and females together in the military.
  • Said he wants to target the families of terrorists.
  • Stated that he wants to ban an entire religion.
  • Praised a Russian president who obviously hates the U.S. and Americans.
  • Encouraged the Russian government to commit espionage against Americans.
  • Insinuated that another Republican’s wife was ugly.
  • Tried to implicate another Republican’s father in JFK’s assassination.
  • Sought out the help of former Fox News CEO Roger Ailes after he was fired following multiple allegations that he had sexually harassed women for years.
  • Made Breitbart’s Steve Bannon one of his top campaign people.
  • Had a former campaign manager abruptly resign after a report came out linking him to pro-Russian groups that were directly trying to undermine U.S. policy in eastern Europe.
  • Called Carly Fiorina ugly.
  • Has said climate change was a hoax created by the Chinese — then denied saying it.
  • Was a leading conspiracy theorist when it came to the racist-driven birther conspiracies against President Obama.
  • Dismissed nearly eight years of accusing the president of not being an American with a less than 30 second statement where he didn’t apologize for any of it.
  • Tried to blame Hillary Clinton for his racism.
  • Re-tweeted anti-African American propaganda created by a white supremacy group.
  • Played dumb about knowing who former Grand Wizard of the KKK David Duke was.
    Skipped a presidential debate because he was scared of a moderator.
  • Has, on several occasions, suggested he finds his daughter attractive.
  • Called a husband doing things like changing diapers and helping with the children, a man “trying to be the wife.”
  • Has said he wants more countries to have nuclear weapons.
  • Said he can’t release his tax returns because they’re currently being audited — even though the IRS said that’s a lie.
  • Feels he has the right to sexually assault women.

That’s some list, and I’m not the one who scanned current and recent news to compile it. I posted it with confidence that just about all of it is demonstrably true. As I suspected, Dan was eager to challenge me on these points. He responded:

Daniel G. Kuttner Interesting talking points from that collectivist/statist site.”

Some seem true, some are exaggerated, some are simple spin on truths, and many unproven allegations.

I still patiently await your same level of skill and effort to focus on the Clintons. Do I hear Crickets?

Remember, though, I say both aren’t hire-able to sweep my driveway.

Maybe they’d have adjoining cells, if we had a real Justice Dept.

Like · Reply · October 9 at 6:13pm · Edited

It is possible some of my points include exaggerations, spin on truths, unproven allegations. It is worth checking out. I challenged Dan to make the case:

John Blanton Please feel free to challenge any one of them. There are more, besides.

And this went back and forth. The dialog is edited:

Daniel G. Kuttner John: I gave the challenge at the same level of detail you used.

Like · Reply · 1 · October 9 at 6:47pm

John Blanton Just take one. Give it a go. If you are correct, then it should not be difficult to refute at least one.

Like · Reply · October 9 at 8:46pm

Daniel G. Kuttner You give me a documented, straight one (not spun) and I will. Chances are, if it’s documented, I won’t refute it, but will agree!

Like · Reply · October 10 at 2:04am

Daniel G. Kuttner Still waiting, 8 days later…

Cricket Sound

Cricket Sound


Like · Reply · Yesterday at 2:06am

John Blanton Dan, the sound of silence you are hearing is yourself, failing to follow-up. I gave you a list of assertions, any one of which you were invited to challenge. Your unwillingness or inability to respond is telling. Shades of AGW?

Like · Reply · 19 hrs

Daniel G. Kuttner John: I don’t know the abbreviation.

Apparently you didn’t read MY answer to your unsupported assertions.

Do you only have an output port? Or is your input filtered to only accept responses which coincide with your “directed skepticism?”

Like · Reply · 19 hrs

John Blanton Dan, the abbreviation stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming . We were discussing it a few weeks ago. Your responses established a baseline against which current conversations are bring measured. And I did read your ANSWER. I’m assuming the word is supposed to be all caps. Yes, I did put up a list of unsupported assertions. Assertions you are unable to refute. If you are unable to put the lie to them, then I’m going to assume you accept them as true. Your recourse is to refute at least one of them. Only one. The ball is in your court. I await.

Daniel G. Kuttner Where’s your science?

It is not one’s burden to disprove a theory or to prove a negative.

The burden is on those proffering the assertion.

The crickets continue to chirp. It’s their job.

Like · Reply · October 20 at 6:05pm

John Blanton The assertions stand. You don’t have to disprove any of them. Just pick one and tell me it is false. If you can’t then don’t.

Like · Reply · 13 hrs

Daniel G. Kuttner They don’t stand, outside of your and other readers of talking points.

However, how ’bout 1/2 of one of them: “…racist-driven birther conspiracies against President Obama. ”

Are you saying Hillary Clinton is a racist? It’s her campaign (Michael Blumenthal and a woman whose name I don’t remember) who researched and started that whole thing.

She only dropped it after she & O left the Bilderberg meeting and she suspended her campaign against O, accepting Sec’y of State if he were elected.

As to its being racist in general, how is questioning anyone’s eligibility under the Constitution racist? I, for one, also questioned Cruz’s… or was I being Canad-o-Phobic for that?

The back and forth continued, with others chiming in:

Jan Robin John, I have found a rediculous amount of information which supports Trump’s defense on the long list of complaints you have against him…but instead of posting them…or even one…I am again drawing the attention back to the pertinent issues that voters need to be focusing on. Even if I posted evidence supporting Trump’s defense on any one of the accusations on your list, it would be a waste of my time…since you would undoubtedly pull something published from Mrs. Cinton’s camp. Instead of wasting our time on criticism of either candidate, why don’t we move forward and instead, focus on the issues at hand. These are the target points of the election which will determine America’s future! I’m afraid with all of this mudslinging that’s gone on…it’s a smoke screen to the true issues…we are on the brink of losing our country! I’ve already voted, so now all I can do is take deep breaths and pray for the United States

Jan’s remarks are interesting on a number of points. I particularly like, “Even if I posted evidence supporting Trump’s defense on any one of the accusations on your list, it would be a waste of my time…since you would undoubtedly pull something published from Mrs. Cinton’s camp.” The “Even if…” part is telling. Jan will not post the evidence, because Jan cannot produce the evidence. And I, in response to Jan’s evidence, “would undoubtedly pull something published from Mrs. Cinton’s camp.” That is, I will go to the Clinton campaign to obtain rebuttal and not rely on the historical record, which would include video interviews featuring Donald Trump.

Anyhow, a summary of the conversation has been captured as best as I was able and is archived here.

Dan professes to be ambivalent about Clinton vs. Trump, vis: “Remember, though, I say both aren’t hire-able to sweep my driveway.” None-the-less, he seems to carry a heavy load of water for Donald Trump and particularly for conservative causes.

The central theme here is the assertion that somehow Clinton and Trump are different sides of a coin—equally disreputable. That gets pushed a lot, and it needs some push back. Donald Trump, whose campaign mantra includes, “lying Hillary” and “lock her up,” is demonstrably the winner in any race to the bottom. The points I have bulleted above will stand up to scrutiny, and they heavily overshadow any and all of Clinton’s actual failings. Readers are challenged to find fault with at least one of these and to post a response. See the comments section below.

Keep reading. And may Jesus have mercy on your soul.


3 thoughts on “Interesting Conversation

  1. Pingback: Don’t Bump The Trump | Skeptical Analysis

  2. Pingback: Interesting Conversation | Skeptical Analysis

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.