|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
I just want to know if the girl ever filed charges or if there were any legal proceedings associated with whatever is in that letter. Because if he didn't report that to the FBI when getting his federal job, that is straight up a crime.
|
On September 15 2018 02:12 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 02:07 Doodsmack wrote:On September 14 2018 15:03 Danglars wrote:On September 14 2018 10:13 Introvert wrote:For the purpose of comedy, I sincerely hope the Guardian isn't getting trolled and this is the actual story of the supposed incident. They might be just be embarrassing themselves one last time before this is over. I suppose for context I should add that this is a story from a well-respected news source on the last minute, highly suspicious accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh for some sort of misconduct, with #MeToo overtones. A senior Democratic senator has alerted federal investigators to a confidential letter she received regarding Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump’s conservative nominee for the US supreme court, in an extraordinary move that suggested she had been informed of possible wrongdoing.
Dianne Feinstein, who is the top Democrat on the Senate judiciary committee, said she had received information about Kavanaugh’s nomination from an individual who had strongly requested confidentiality. The letter was likely passed on to the FBI because the bureau is responsible for background checks into judicial nominees.
News of the letter came as Judge Kavanaugh faced fresh scrutiny about his relationship with another judge, who was forced to resign from the bench last year.
“I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court,” Feinstein said in a statement.
“That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities,” she said.
A source who said they were briefed on the contents of the letter said it described an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman that took place when both were 17 years old and at a party. According to the source, Kavanaugh and a male friend had locked her in a room against her will, making her feel threatened, but she was able to get out of the room. The Guardian has not verified the apparent claims in the letter. It is not yet clear who wrote it.
A spokesman for Feinstein declined to comment. The White House did not immediately return a request for comment.
While additional details about the letter were scarce, two media outlets have reported that the person who wrote the letter is being represented by an attorney, Debra Katz, who has been described in media reports as Washington’s #MeToo lawyer.
Katz has not responded to a request for comment from the Guardian. BuzzFeed reported that she was seen on Capitol Hill on Wednesday night, shortly after the Intercept first reported the existence of the letter. And just as the cherry on top, the last ~900 words of the article are all about Kavanaugh's relationship to now-disgraced former Judge Kozinski, which is an obvious attempt to try and make this something, while being a recognition that it's really nothing. It's pretty dirty, really, but it IS funny. www.theguardian.comEdit: or, as one theoy I read says, this is purposely ridiculous so that when the "real story" comes out, it enhances it. Interesting thought. The nomination process is going quite well if Feinstein’s reduced to accusing Kavanaugh of locking someone in a room when he was a teenager. I guess the line is that he made a girl feel threatened when he was young, and now he’s making all women feel threatened about abortion law now. The smear by association is nothing new; they tried the same with the papers that passed his desk from some other Bush administration figure that was misbehaving. The New Yorker reports that the allegation is basically attempted rape. He covered her mouth, attempted to force himself on her, and they turned up the music in the room so others wouldn't hear her protests. This woman first provided the letter to Feinstein in July. No doubt Kavanaugh 's supporters will now argue that the rape accuser must be lying because of x, y, and z. I just want to know why Feinstein sat on this. And when this is eventually shown to be credible, people will talk about how rape is super common in rural communities and how women are expected to stop whining about it for the sake of social cohesion. Which is true, of course, but isn't the kind of standard I have for the supreme court. Even if we were to assume rape is somewhat common, I do not want a somewhat common man on the supreme court.
Eh? Is rape super common is rural communities in the US and it is accepted or something?
|
On September 15 2018 02:13 Plansix wrote:
I just want to know if the girl ever filed charges or if there were any legal proceedings associated with whatever is in that letter. Because if he didn't report that to the FBI when getting his federal job, that is straight up a crime.
I am definitely expecting nothing to have happened. He came from an environment that regularly shames women into keeping quiet.
A description of Kavanaugh's childhood social structure:
Kavanaugh described himself as part of Washington’s vibrant Catholic community, whose members, he noted, may disagree about many things but are united by a commitment to serve.
Taken from: https://www.yahoo.com/news/brett-kavanaughs-religious-upbringing-shaped-thinking-131552610.html
That's not really the kinda community that reports widespread sexual assault. In fact, they are constantly reminded of how important it is to recognize the natural tendencies of men and to not ruin lives over silly little things like rape.
|
On September 15 2018 01:43 On_Slaught wrote:
Update to yesterday's Manafort news... he is officially flipping. To nobodies surprise Guiliani/Trump were wrong again. I've seen some reports that say his cooperation may be focused only on pre-campaign Russian dealings, but The Hill article makes it seem like it could be more. Either way we are now at the point where yet another potential witness is talking to, and sharing documents with, Mueller.
Would love to have seen Trump's reaction to the news. We may get it via twitter I suppose.
Source:
Looks like the cooperation is unrelated to the campaign. It's got to go with his Ukraine lobbying work and other US lobbyists who worked with him I believe.
|
On September 15 2018 02:10 Plansix wrote:
Apparently some Willie Nelson fans are mad that he played a concert for/with Beto O'Rourke. Just think about going through your life thinking that Willie Nelson was a Republican or wasn't super fucking left leaning? Like, he has supported Democrats in the past. Like a lot of them.
It is like this group of people got into politics and didn't brother to find out what everyone else in existence was doing for the majority of their lives.
Which in theory is kind of reasonable. If i don't interact with someone on a policital level, not knowing their politics is kind of normal. I don't know the politics of a lot of entertainment people. The only weird thing is the reaction. If you figure out someone whose music you enjoy has different politics from you, you have multiple choices. Keep enjoying the music and ignore the politics, Stop enjoying the music because the politics in the background reduce your enjoyment of the music. All of that is find. What is weird is getting angry at someone because you didn't know something about them (that they didn't hide)
|
On September 15 2018 02:17 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 01:43 On_Slaught wrote:Update to yesterday's Manafort news... he is officially flipping. To nobodies surprise Guiliani/Trump were wrong again. I've seen some reports that say his cooperation may be focused only on pre-campaign Russian dealings, but The Hill article makes it seem like it could be more. Either way we are now at the point where yet another potential witness is talking to, and sharing documents with, Mueller. Would love to have seen Trump's reaction to the news. We may get it via twitter I suppose. Source: https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1040639078058917888 Looks like the cooperation is unrelated to the campaign. It's got to go with his Ukraine lobbying work and other US lobbyists who worked with him I believe.
The more we learn, the more it appears that part of Manafort's life is the reason he got assigned to Trump in the first place. My prediction is that these two seemingly separate worlds are actually one giant thing.
|
On September 15 2018 02:19 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 02:10 Plansix wrote:
Apparently some Willie Nelson fans are mad that he played a concert for/with Beto O'Rourke. Just think about going through your life thinking that Willie Nelson was a Republican or wasn't super fucking left leaning? Like, he has supported Democrats in the past. Like a lot of them.
It is like this group of people got into politics and didn't brother to find out what everyone else in existence was doing for the majority of their lives. Which in theory is kind of reasonable. If i don't interact with someone on a policital level, not knowing their politics is kind of normal. I don't know the politics of a lot of entertainment people. The only weird thing is the reaction. If you figure out someone whose music you enjoy has different politics from you, you have multiple choices. Keep enjoying the music and ignore the politics, Stop enjoying the music because the politics in the background reduce your enjoyment of the music. All of that is find. What is weird is getting angry at someone because you didn't know something about them (that they didn't hide)
It is nothing new. People get mad at actors for having political opinions all the time, like they are supposed to dance for the entertainment and never have a life outside of that. I just don't know how a US citizens looks at someone like Willie Nelson and think "that man has conservative political opinions like me" or isn't a product of an era of music that was all about activism.
|
On September 15 2018 02:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 02:19 Simberto wrote:On September 15 2018 02:10 Plansix wrote:
Apparently some Willie Nelson fans are mad that he played a concert for/with Beto O'Rourke. Just think about going through your life thinking that Willie Nelson was a Republican or wasn't super fucking left leaning? Like, he has supported Democrats in the past. Like a lot of them.
It is like this group of people got into politics and didn't brother to find out what everyone else in existence was doing for the majority of their lives. Which in theory is kind of reasonable. If i don't interact with someone on a policital level, not knowing their politics is kind of normal. I don't know the politics of a lot of entertainment people. The only weird thing is the reaction. If you figure out someone whose music you enjoy has different politics from you, you have multiple choices. Keep enjoying the music and ignore the politics, Stop enjoying the music because the politics in the background reduce your enjoyment of the music. All of that is find. What is weird is getting angry at someone because you didn't know something about them (that they didn't hide) It is nothing new. People get mad at actors for having political opinions all the time, like they are supposed to dance for the entertainment and never have a life outside of that. I just don't know how a US citizens looks at someone like Willie Nelson and think "that man has conservative political opinions like me" or isn't a product of an era of music that was all about activism.
"Feels like a true American" --> must agree with me and my buddy Cletus on 'bortions and mexicans --> "wait why he s'portin that burrito orourke feller??
User was warned for this post.
|
|
|
On September 15 2018 02:34 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 02:26 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2018 02:19 Simberto wrote:On September 15 2018 02:10 Plansix wrote:
Apparently some Willie Nelson fans are mad that he played a concert for/with Beto O'Rourke. Just think about going through your life thinking that Willie Nelson was a Republican or wasn't super fucking left leaning? Like, he has supported Democrats in the past. Like a lot of them.
It is like this group of people got into politics and didn't brother to find out what everyone else in existence was doing for the majority of their lives. Which in theory is kind of reasonable. If i don't interact with someone on a policital level, not knowing their politics is kind of normal. I don't know the politics of a lot of entertainment people. The only weird thing is the reaction. If you figure out someone whose music you enjoy has different politics from you, you have multiple choices. Keep enjoying the music and ignore the politics, Stop enjoying the music because the politics in the background reduce your enjoyment of the music. All of that is find. What is weird is getting angry at someone because you didn't know something about them (that they didn't hide) It is nothing new. People get mad at actors for having political opinions all the time, like they are supposed to dance for the entertainment and never have a life outside of that. I just don't know how a US citizens looks at someone like Willie Nelson and think "that man has conservative political opinions like me" or isn't a product of an era of music that was all about activism. There is some Jordan quotes that he didn't actually say on the subject. But for a LONG time he kept his mouth shut about everything social and political because everyone buys shoes and he didn't want to the rock the boat. This is why the Nike Kap ad is so shocking, to see a sneaker company get behind someone so controversial.
It is also capitalism and Nike knowing who buys Nike products.
|
|
|
On September 15 2018 02:17 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 01:43 On_Slaught wrote:Update to yesterday's Manafort news... he is officially flipping. To nobodies surprise Guiliani/Trump were wrong again. I've seen some reports that say his cooperation may be focused only on pre-campaign Russian dealings, but The Hill article makes it seem like it could be more. Either way we are now at the point where yet another potential witness is talking to, and sharing documents with, Mueller. Would love to have seen Trump's reaction to the news. We may get it via twitter I suppose. Source: https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1040639078058917888 Looks like the cooperation is unrelated to the campaign. It's got to go with his Ukraine lobbying work and other US lobbyists who worked with him I believe.
Manafort's lawyer was asked if the deal with Mueller's team is a "full cooperation agreement." His response was "it is." That is consistent with with the reports that this includes testimony on events up to even the Trump Tower meeting. NPR said the deal covered anything the government deemed relevant.
If it is only for pre-campaign stuff, which may still hurt Trump as Mohdoo pointed out, then he has a weird definition of "full cooperation."
|
Deal includes a 10 year cap on prison time. Guess Manafort really didn't want to die in a cell.
|
On September 15 2018 03:11 ticklishmusic wrote:
Deal includes a 10 year cap on prison time. Guess Manafort really didn't want to die in a cell.
The importance of the self in the eyes of a desperate man should never be underestimated.
|
I'm not sure if this story ever came up on here, but it sums up what dealing with Trump must be like for most people.
In a meeting with some Vietnam vets he got confused between Agent Orange and napalm and then got furious and refused to admit he was wrong. Afterwards he told them they wrong and it was just because they didn't like the movie Apocalypse Now.
Its exactly like the kind of argument that happens on a daily basis in this thread.
Attendees began explaining to the president that the VA had not made enough progress on the issue at all, to which Trump responded by abruptly derailing the meeting and asking the attendees if Agent Orange was “that stuff from that movie.”
He did not initially name the film he was referencing, but it quickly became clear as Trump kept rambling that he was referring to the classic 1979 Francis Ford Coppola epic Apocalypse Now, and specifically the famous helicopter attack scene set to the “Ride of the Valkyries.”
Source present at the time tell The Daily Beast that multiple people—including Vietnam War veterans—chimed in to inform the president that the Apocalypse Now set piece he was talking about showcased the U.S. military using napalm, not Agent Orange.
Trump refused to accept that he was mistaken and proceeded to say things like, “no, I think it’s that stuff from that movie.”
One clue belying the president’s insistence is that the famous Robert Duvall line from the scene in Apocalypse Now, “I love the smell of napalm in the morning,” is not “I love the smell of Agent Orange in the morning.”
He then went around the room polling attendees about if it was, in fact, napalm or Agent Orange in the famous scene from “that movie,” as the gathering—organized to focus on important, sometimes life-or-death issues for veterans—descended into a pointless debate over Apocalypse Now that the president simply would not concede, despite all the available evidence.
Finally, Trump made eye contact again with Weidman and asked him if it was napalm or Agent Orange. The VVA co-founder assured Trump, as did several before him, that it was in fact napalm, and said that he didn’t like the Coppola film and believed it to be a disservice to Vietnam War veterans.
According to two people in attendance, Trump then flippantly replied to the Vietnam vet, “Well, I think you just didn’t like the movie,” before finally moving on.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-and-omarosa-had-a-fcking-weird-fight-with-vietnam-vets
|
Norway28561 Posts
To my knowledge, Heimdall's lineage is not all that specified in norse mythology, but there are hints towards him being the son of Odin. Loki has 'mixed blood with Odin', but is not his son. The rainbow bridge is actually consistent with norse mythology and not a hippie invention. The Marvel norse gods are heavily inspired by the actual norse mythology, but they deviate from it whenever they feel like it.
Either way, nobody cared about Idris Elba being Heimdall (I mean, cared in the negative sense. Myself, I thought it was funny that a black guy was playing a norse god), and a lot of that boils down to Idris Elba being a fkn badass who makes every scene of every movie or show he is involved in better. Somehow though, I think poles might care slightly more.
|
I just like the part where he stabs the spaceship with a knife right out of the sky and looks at the rest of them like “Yeah, I’d stab you too if you were down here.”
|
|
|
On September 15 2018 02:12 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 02:07 Doodsmack wrote:On September 14 2018 15:03 Danglars wrote:On September 14 2018 10:13 Introvert wrote:For the purpose of comedy, I sincerely hope the Guardian isn't getting trolled and this is the actual story of the supposed incident. They might be just be embarrassing themselves one last time before this is over. I suppose for context I should add that this is a story from a well-respected news source on the last minute, highly suspicious accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh for some sort of misconduct, with #MeToo overtones. A senior Democratic senator has alerted federal investigators to a confidential letter she received regarding Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump’s conservative nominee for the US supreme court, in an extraordinary move that suggested she had been informed of possible wrongdoing.
Dianne Feinstein, who is the top Democrat on the Senate judiciary committee, said she had received information about Kavanaugh’s nomination from an individual who had strongly requested confidentiality. The letter was likely passed on to the FBI because the bureau is responsible for background checks into judicial nominees.
News of the letter came as Judge Kavanaugh faced fresh scrutiny about his relationship with another judge, who was forced to resign from the bench last year.
“I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court,” Feinstein said in a statement.
“That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities,” she said.
A source who said they were briefed on the contents of the letter said it described an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman that took place when both were 17 years old and at a party. According to the source, Kavanaugh and a male friend had locked her in a room against her will, making her feel threatened, but she was able to get out of the room. The Guardian has not verified the apparent claims in the letter. It is not yet clear who wrote it.
A spokesman for Feinstein declined to comment. The White House did not immediately return a request for comment.
While additional details about the letter were scarce, two media outlets have reported that the person who wrote the letter is being represented by an attorney, Debra Katz, who has been described in media reports as Washington’s #MeToo lawyer.
Katz has not responded to a request for comment from the Guardian. BuzzFeed reported that she was seen on Capitol Hill on Wednesday night, shortly after the Intercept first reported the existence of the letter. And just as the cherry on top, the last ~900 words of the article are all about Kavanaugh's relationship to now-disgraced former Judge Kozinski, which is an obvious attempt to try and make this something, while being a recognition that it's really nothing. It's pretty dirty, really, but it IS funny. www.theguardian.comEdit: or, as one theoy I read says, this is purposely ridiculous so that when the "real story" comes out, it enhances it. Interesting thought. The nomination process is going quite well if Feinstein’s reduced to accusing Kavanaugh of locking someone in a room when he was a teenager. I guess the line is that he made a girl feel threatened when he was young, and now he’s making all women feel threatened about abortion law now. The smear by association is nothing new; they tried the same with the papers that passed his desk from some other Bush administration figure that was misbehaving. The New Yorker reports that the allegation is basically attempted rape. He covered her mouth, attempted to force himself on her, and they turned up the music in the room so others wouldn't hear her protests. This woman first provided the letter to Feinstein in July. No doubt Kavanaugh 's supporters will now argue that the rape accuser must be lying because of x, y, and z. I just want to know why Feinstein sat on this. And when this is eventually shown to be credible, people will talk about how rape is super common in rural communities and how women are expected to stop whining about it for the sake of social cohesion. Which is true, of course, but isn't the kind of standard I have for the supreme court. Even if we were to assume rape is somewhat common, I do not want a somewhat common man on the supreme court.
Am i misunderstanding you or are you saying that rape is common in rural area and that women shouldn't speak about it for the sake of social cohesion?
|
On September 15 2018 05:00 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 02:12 Mohdoo wrote:On September 15 2018 02:07 Doodsmack wrote:On September 14 2018 15:03 Danglars wrote:On September 14 2018 10:13 Introvert wrote:For the purpose of comedy, I sincerely hope the Guardian isn't getting trolled and this is the actual story of the supposed incident. They might be just be embarrassing themselves one last time before this is over. I suppose for context I should add that this is a story from a well-respected news source on the last minute, highly suspicious accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh for some sort of misconduct, with #MeToo overtones. A senior Democratic senator has alerted federal investigators to a confidential letter she received regarding Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump’s conservative nominee for the US supreme court, in an extraordinary move that suggested she had been informed of possible wrongdoing.
Dianne Feinstein, who is the top Democrat on the Senate judiciary committee, said she had received information about Kavanaugh’s nomination from an individual who had strongly requested confidentiality. The letter was likely passed on to the FBI because the bureau is responsible for background checks into judicial nominees.
News of the letter came as Judge Kavanaugh faced fresh scrutiny about his relationship with another judge, who was forced to resign from the bench last year.
“I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court,” Feinstein said in a statement.
“That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities,” she said.
A source who said they were briefed on the contents of the letter said it described an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman that took place when both were 17 years old and at a party. According to the source, Kavanaugh and a male friend had locked her in a room against her will, making her feel threatened, but she was able to get out of the room. The Guardian has not verified the apparent claims in the letter. It is not yet clear who wrote it.
A spokesman for Feinstein declined to comment. The White House did not immediately return a request for comment.
While additional details about the letter were scarce, two media outlets have reported that the person who wrote the letter is being represented by an attorney, Debra Katz, who has been described in media reports as Washington’s #MeToo lawyer.
Katz has not responded to a request for comment from the Guardian. BuzzFeed reported that she was seen on Capitol Hill on Wednesday night, shortly after the Intercept first reported the existence of the letter. And just as the cherry on top, the last ~900 words of the article are all about Kavanaugh's relationship to now-disgraced former Judge Kozinski, which is an obvious attempt to try and make this something, while being a recognition that it's really nothing. It's pretty dirty, really, but it IS funny. www.theguardian.comEdit: or, as one theoy I read says, this is purposely ridiculous so that when the "real story" comes out, it enhances it. Interesting thought. The nomination process is going quite well if Feinstein’s reduced to accusing Kavanaugh of locking someone in a room when he was a teenager. I guess the line is that he made a girl feel threatened when he was young, and now he’s making all women feel threatened about abortion law now. The smear by association is nothing new; they tried the same with the papers that passed his desk from some other Bush administration figure that was misbehaving. The New Yorker reports that the allegation is basically attempted rape. He covered her mouth, attempted to force himself on her, and they turned up the music in the room so others wouldn't hear her protests. This woman first provided the letter to Feinstein in July. No doubt Kavanaugh 's supporters will now argue that the rape accuser must be lying because of x, y, and z. I just want to know why Feinstein sat on this. And when this is eventually shown to be credible, people will talk about how rape is super common in rural communities and how women are expected to stop whining about it for the sake of social cohesion. Which is true, of course, but isn't the kind of standard I have for the supreme court. Even if we were to assume rape is somewhat common, I do not want a somewhat common man on the supreme court. Am i misunderstanding you or are you saying that rape is common in rural area and that women shouldn't speak about it for the sake of social cohesion?
It's a good case study:
First, "this is eventually shown to be credible." IE, Mohdoo trusts that an accuser, who wishes to remain confidential, will eventually be shown to have a credible claim against Kavanaugh. Nothing has come to light on police reports or corroborating witnesses. Just Mohdoo's choice to believe the woman and not Kavanaugh.
Second, "people will talk about" deflecting some responsibility for what comes next "how rape is super common in rural communities." This is just a pointed slur. Rape is the presumption in rural communities.
Third, "how women are expected to stop whining about it for the sake of social cohesion. Which is true, of course..." Another attack on rural communities for covering up the "super common rape" because these communities overvalue social cohesion and undervalue rape victims. Pretty vicious, but it's kinda standard for the type of person that flings these sorta statements out there.
Fourth, backtrack. After the "people will talk about how rape is super common," he does middle ground fallacy "if we were to assume rape is somewhat common, I do not want a somewhat common man on the supreme court." Look at these extreme people saying this extreme stuff, but I'm assuming sensible middle ground which should be believed. This puts Mohdoo in a familiar Fox News journalist chair, talking about "some people blame immigrants for the surge in violence within these communities" while simultaneously saying "my assumption is there's somewhat to blame, and I think immigrant violence is too high."
The assumption is these other people, to which he should not be responsible for, brought up these claims, but simultaneously he's the one bringing up extremist rape and coverup claims. It's kind of a left-wing staple if you ask me. The extreme right wing version would be "Some people will say women make up tons of false rape claims, without reporting it to the police, because they want to smear vulnerable men with impunity, just like in the Duke Lacrosse case and University of Virginia Jackie case. Even if we were to assume false rape claims are somewhat common, I do not want our public discourse to be impacted by their influence."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
