POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

The quoted statistic is from October 5th, 2017, and the citation is from the Department of Homeland Security Website.

Here, let me show them to you, again:

I've bolded the relevant parts, to aide its identification.

Here's an unedited screenshot of the same statistic:


Here's the link to the DHS website, again:
Link: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/07/19/perils-illegal-border-crossing

Here's a corroborating article, further proving the veracity of Trump's comments that 80% of the girls / women who attempt to illegally cross the US border are being raped, published in Oct of 2017:

Again, I've emphasized the relevant bits, for your ease of identification.
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/inequal...ts-reveal-full-horror-of-their-journeys-to-us

Or, if you prefer, here is a liberal media establishment, saying the same thing in December of 2017, with the headline:

I've added no emphasis, here, believing it (hopefully) unnecessary.
Link: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html

You'd really voluntarily prefer obstinate stupidity and be shown to be intellectually dishonest, if such prevented you having to admit that Trump was correct, IP? Honestly, how do you hope for being seen as even resembling a reasonable person, or to even be taken seriously, with shit like this? I simply can't believe that you and your side truly wants to discuss and debate truthful ideas, when you're taking positions such as this.

So, the question again:
Do you now agree that Trump's comments were correct, and that you were wrong in saying they weren't, or not?

Followup: If you're going to disqualify any statistics or accounts of rape that are in anyway less than absolutely contemporaneous, as you claim that they are "not accurate to the present", could you please offer some insight into your many supportive comments and argued positions on Dr. Christine Blassy Ford's 30+ year old sexual assault allegations made against Justice Kavanaugh, during his confirmation process?

 

click on the hyperlink in the 60-80, then admit you are mistaken. 2014.

 

I'm no more sure as to how my posts here could cause you any concern, than I understand how Trump could somehow then be responsible for them.

A great many of those first time voters were just people who had become so egregiously and continuously disappointed by the GOP as to become so utterly disenfranchised, as to remove themselves from the process. In fact, they'd sat out so many previous elections as to allow the the Dems, and admittedly many others, to mistakenly believe that they had ceased to exist. Turns out they likely just didn't see a big reason to support milque-toast GOPe moderates like Mitt Romney, John McCain, and W.

And your analysis is not only unreasonable, but it's baselessly pejorative in nature. In fact, you're committing many of the exact same logical fallacies that you'd ordinarily point out to others.

First, you're painting with the broadest of brushes here, and are making the textbook mistake it so often brings - by believing that one or a few are representative of an entire group. Had a Trump person said and done the same in a similarly derogatory way, but to a woman, a black person or a Muslim, you'd be apoplectic. Then, you presuppose that any meme which you saw on Facebook must have originated from Russian trolls, and which is patently false. And then you wrap up with assigning baselessly sourced vagueties at Trump for the tone and tenor of his speech....and which I can only assume was given the absence of actual examples or proofs. You're essentially saying that all pre-election Facebook memes were the work of Russian trolls, ostensibly based entirely on your own personal Facebook feed, and then somehow linked this to Trump.....for his use of "key phrases" and his "validation" of "darkness".

And Trump has denounced white supremacist and other hate-filled groups on severals occasions in the past.

Trump didn't ignore or treat his supporters with barely-concealed disdain, said the things which had been too long ignored and they'd become desperate to hear, believed that he shared their values and trusted his stated desire and ability to actually do something about it. It's no more complicated than that, really.

 

You act like I only gave you that one (1) link. I didn't even realize those quoted numbers contained hyperlinks, tbh. But, even if this was the only link that I provided, since when did we begin to live in a world where a 5-year old study is considered to be untrustworthy purely on the basis of its age?

Better, what about the other three (3) references, each from reputable outlets, and all reported in 2017, then? Are those wrong, too?

So, Trump, DHS, HuffPo and the Guardian are all wrong in citing these facts, and you're right in refuting them?

So, the question again:
1. Do you now agree that Trump's comments were correct, and that you were wrong in saying they weren't, or not?

2. Followup: If you're going to disqualify any statistics or accounts of rape that are in anyway less than absolutely contemporaneous, as you claim that they are "not accurate to the present", could you please offer some insight into your many supportive comments and argued positions on Dr. Christine Blassy Ford's 30+ year old sexual assault allegations made against Justice Kavanaugh, during his confirmation process?

These are the exact same silly and stupid shenanigans you pull when you get called out on your obvious bullshit. You're about as interested in the truth and honest discussion as Un is, if even that.

 

Guess not.

Potentially one of the biggest international stories out there. Keeping watch on this.

 

the data used for the 60 to 80 % figure is from 2014. this a fact. contact the outlets you listed, they will say this. there is no need to get emotional over it. My point is that they do not reflect the present situation. I have now demonstrated this using the sources you pointed to.

 

I’m aware of the deficiencies of the argument, which I forewarned you of in my post. It has merits, it has problems. The problems are sample size, connecting dots, etc which you pointed out.

I will say that the Russian trolls is not as much the problem. I specifically looked at the examples the government provided of the trolling and recognized some as those I had seen. But I will certainly agree all were not stemming from them. Which is also sad because they generally spread views I don’t think any of us would endorse, or at least not without serious qualification.

As for denouncing the supremecist, I added stubbornly for a reason. I know he has done it. But then usually double talks to leave room.

As much as I call the guy stupid because I don’t like him, he isn’t. I think he misspeaks at time because I’m not sure he has the best attention span, but his gut is the best I’ve seen. And he has a feel for leaving enough room to interpret his words as dog whistle or honest gaffs.

You are going to have a very hard time convincing me he hasn’t validated dark places of xenophobia, racial issues, religious issues in folks that (correctly) felt assaulted for those views previously. They felt this guy got them, IMO. I also believe he knows that and is careful not to disavow them of that notion. My point is that he saw an opportunity to sieze this and feed off of it. It’s not his entire base not a majority of it. But I definitely believe that my cousin’s militia-participating husband that had never voted until he voted for Trump falls in this camp. And he isn’t the only one.

I believe that the way Trump talks about people has given fuel to the same fire the Russians were looking to stoke. It is the main reason I have a hard time being logical about him.

 

President Donald J. Trump made the cited comments on June 16, 2015, IP.

June 16th, 2015. For a study that was conducted in 2014.

Was that a credibly cited study when he said it, and most importantly, was he telling the truth, or not?


How do you explain that you are unwilling accept 1-5 year old data regarding thousands of women who were being raped while illegally entering the US via the Southern border......

...and yet you immediately believed a single and uncorroborated account of a woman who accused Justice Kavanaugh of having raped her thirty (30) years prior, despite her complete inability to recall single salient fact about that alleged incident, and conveniently during his confirmation process?

It's as if you only care about women being raped when it suits you, but not when it doesn't.

 

We agree - other than lacking any proof of you claims, and their having any connection to Trump, you nailed it.

 

Even if Trump sparked a flame, it was SJW's / political correctness which supplied the powder and packed the tinder.

 

I see statistical survey data and personal testimony as separate.

I am not saying rape is acceptable, I am saying that statistic is getting long in the tooth.

it isn't fair or accurate to associate not thinking a wall or a draconic immigration policy is going to solve the issue, with finding rape or crime to be acceptable.

if they were not migrating to the US, it'd be somewhere else or being vulnerable wherever they come from- it is why they leave. the risk is not much different than doing what they were before. so it doesn't seem reasonable to hold up that kind of statistic as a reason why immigrants are violent criminals. they're obviously victims as well by your own stat. And that would still be true if they were not immigrating here.

not saying we have to take them, just pointing out that the argument that 80% of female immigrants in the early 2010's were victims of rape sure doesn't make them scary. It's a humanitarian problem that lends a look to where they come from and why they leave. wonder what can be done about that.

 

don't you think it is odd that I said 2014, and lo, the article linked was from 2014? that wasn't a lucky guess, you can find me talking about this on this very forum in 2014 and 2015.

 

The comment he made was based on a credible study, and that was less than a year old when he made it. He was absolutely correct in citing that statistic, and you said he wasn’t.

You were wrong.

Poor and desperate women leaving their family and familiar surroundings to illegally cross the border surely doesn’t lessen the number of rapes commmitted.

 

review my posts. In reply to you using the present tense in describing 80% of women crossing being raped, I said that isn't backed up. I said it was years old and not accurate to the present. it was during the unaccompanied children surge, and other studies around the same time found lower numbers.

you then said it was on the current website, posted in 2017. irrelevant. I pointed out the source to be 2014.

now you say he said it in 2015. not relevant to me saying it is years old and not accurate to present. right where we started.

I knew where the stat came from before you did. you moved the goal posts from present tense, to 2017, to now 2015. when you said "when he said it," I knew that you knew it was, in fact, years old and not some present statistic.

It doesnt matter how you move the goal posts, who likes your posts and dislikes mine, or when it is referenced. it's from 2014, it was far higher than contemporary studies, and does not speak to the present.

but let's say a study is done and the number is 80%. How does 80% of migrant women being rape victims support those women being themselves violent criminals? are you not instead showing them to be victims of violence, attempting to immigrate?

 

I don't like the report that Devos proposes to cut funding for Special Olympics. There are shitshow programs getting gov't funding that are much less deserving of money than that.

 

Hey IP, how do you feel about the Smollet deal? Was justice served? Closed case?

 

The big problem is these cuts are so superficial as to be comical. The big elephants in the room (Medicare, social security and the military) are sacrosanct.

Cutting special olympics funding is a real big money saver.

 

It's like when my company laid off the 12 coconut an hour janitor, then hired a company to clean the building. He worked ther over 30 years. He was trying to make it to 65 so he could retire with medical.

 

LOL, no way. Sounds like his wealth and fame bought him out of it. I mean, I was told here that a lack of prosecution means TOTAL EXONERATION!, but I know that is obviously not true. It is far more likely factors beyond guilt/innocence influence the people in charge of making the decision.

And the best part? Most of the case/evidence is not public, so we don't even have a clear picture. Sound familiar?

Let's do Epstein next.