|
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 |
On September 26 2018 13:43 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 13:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 26 2018 12:03 Plansix wrote:
So we are going to hang our hats on something Joe Biden said like 30 years ago? Something a government official said on TV 30 years ago vs something an anti Trump protester claimed happened 36 years ago where all witnesses she claimed were there have no clue what she’s talking about including her lifelong best friend who said she never even met Kavanaugh. You’re hanging your hat on baseless allegations made 36 years ago! Any word on whether she is actually going to testify tomorrow? What state is she in right now? Why the media blackout. Are you forgetting the other accusers? Why are you so desperate to have this piece of trash confirmed? Are you so afraid of getting destroyed in the mid terms and not being able to have trump appoint a breathing pile of excrement to the supreme court so that you can have a chance at getting rights stripped away from women and minorities that you're willing to die on this hill?
lol there goes the narrative
As a conservative I can't wait for Bret to start taking voting rights from woman and dark skinned people
Are you serious?
|
On September 26 2018 12:10 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 11:56 Introvert wrote:
I'm sure you've all seen this by now, but McConnell's staff has been in the archives. Here is former Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden making the same point I did here days ago. An FBI report is a useless stalling tactic, and the Republicans on the Committee are right in trying to keep transparent stalling tactics to a minimum. The fact that this all happened after Feinstein had the letter for months was reason enough to push through this crapshow. An FBI will tell us nothing, and the fact that now Ramirez seems to want one as a condition for talking to the Committee shows what a game this is. They could find out nothing we don't know.
Also, someone else pointed out that Anita Hill, before the FBI "investigation," was already cooperating with the Committee, providing an affidavit, speaking to committee staff, etc. Things neither Ford nor Ramirez are doing.
As an aisde, I'm going to be amused by whatever Avenatti puts out (or how he excuses not doing it). Anyone willing to pick Avenatti, political operative, as their lawyer in this matter, out of thousands in the nation, automatically starts with negative credibility points.
Did you listen to the video? Biden correctly points out that THOMAS cannot rely on the FBI report because it does not reach conclusions. However, it does get the 'he said' 'she said' information that assist the senate in making a decision. You should listen to Anita Hill on this. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/19/anita-hill-good-morning-america-kavanaugh-blasey-ford-hirono-new-day-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct-allegations/EDIT: also, consider Biden's today remarks. Biden was trying to widdle down THOMAS's play towards the FBI not deciding the case. Biden to this day thinks he should have run the hearing differently to shut down his Republican colleagues who were smearing Hill. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/21/biden-anita-hill-hearing-regret-nbc-intv-sot-ath-vpx.cnn
Please tell me you meant whittle and not widdle.
|
Spain17989 Posts
That last paragraph in the cited article is both rather scary and laughably naive. Does the writer not think that in some thirty-odd years someone won't be making a similar statement about how hard it was to track someone's location in the 2010s, whereas a cop "now" (the 2040s) has instant real-time verified location history of all people involved, and access to video footage from ocular implants for any person at any time. Whereas in the 2010s the best they had were traffic and security cams and some shitty device that tracked location, but you had to carry it with you.
Also, yes, the point is clearly not that Ford wants local cops to investigate: the crime as she described it has passed its statute of limitation. But that doesn't mean it can't impact the Senate in deciding whether or not to confirm this guy. And that's why only the second part matters, and for the FBI to do that, all they really need is for the Senate to tell them "start an investigation into that". So why get hung up on that she hasn't filed a report with her local sheriff department, when it is irrelevant?
Whether the FBI would find anything or not is kinda beside the point. If they don't find anything we're stuck with "he said, she said". But questioning alleged witnesses under oath rather than on Fox News is already useful. It establishes who saw what to a far more credible degree. And then the Senate can do its he said she said dance and decide whether Kavanaugh is an innocent fella persecuted by evil liars, or a fuckboy who gets drunk and rapey.
|
United States4748 Posts
On September 26 2018 14:36 Acrofales wrote:
That last paragraph in the cited article is both rather scary and laughably naive. Does the writer not think that in some thirty-odd years someone won't be making a similar statement about how hard it was to track someone's location in the 2010s, whereas a cop "now" (the 2040s) has instant real-time verified location history of all people involved, and access to video footage from ocular implants for any person at any time. Whereas in the 2010s the best they had were traffic and security cams and some shitty device that tracked location, but you had to carry it with you.
Also, yes, the point is clearly not that Ford wants local cops to investigate: the crime as she described it has passed its statute of limitation. But that doesn't mean it can't impact the Senate in deciding whether or not to confirm this guy. And that's why only the second part matters, and for the FBI to do that, all they really need is for the Senate to tell them "start an investigation into that". So why get hung up on that she hasn't filed a report with her local sheriff department, when it is irrelevant?
Whether the FBI would find anything or not is kinda beside the point. If they don't find anything we're stuck with "he said, she said". But questioning alleged witnesses under oath rather than on Fox News is already useful. It establishes who saw what to a far more credible degree. And then the Senate can do its he said she said dance and decide whether Kavanaugh is an innocent fella persecuted by evil liars, or a fuckboy who gets drunk and rapey.
re: the last paragraph.
the statements submitted by Mark Judge, "PJ", Kavanaugh, and the woman who Ford said was there have already fulfilled this purpose. It is a felony to lie in these statements. Kavanaugh has submitted such statements and answered committee questions with this possible penalty multiple times. They will not say anything worthwhile that they did not say in those statements, then, for obvious reasons (e.g., they still aren't going to remember the party). The only person so far who has not submitted to any such question or with any letters of that sort, so far as we are aware, is Ford.
|
On September 26 2018 12:35 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 12:23 Wulfey_LA wrote:On September 26 2018 12:14 Introvert wrote:On September 26 2018 12:10 Wulfey_LA wrote:On September 26 2018 11:56 Introvert wrote:I'm sure you've all seen this by now, but McConnell's staff has been in the archives. Here is former Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden making the same point I did here days ago. An FBI report is a useless stalling tactic, and the Republicans on the Committee are right in trying to keep transparent stalling tactics to a minimum. The fact that this all happened after Feinstein had the letter for months was reason enough to push through this crapshow. An FBI will tell us nothing, and the fact that now Ramirez seems to want one as a condition for talking to the Committee shows what a game this is. They could find out nothing we don't know. Also, someone else pointed out that Anita Hill, before the FBI "investigation," was already cooperating with the Committee, providing an affidavit, speaking to committee staff, etc. Things neither Ford nor Ramirez are doing. https://twitter.com/SenateMajLdr/status/1044735563222437888As an aisde, I'm going to be amused by whatever Avenatti puts out (or how he excuses not doing it). Anyone willing to pick Avenatti, political operative, as their lawyer in this matter, out of thousands in the nation, automatically starts with negative credibility points. Did you listen to the video? Biden correctly points out that THOMAS cannot rely on the FBI report because it does not reach conclusions. However, it does get the 'he said' 'she said' information that assist the senate in making a decision. You should listen to Anita Hill on this. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/19/anita-hill-good-morning-america-kavanaugh-blasey-ford-hirono-new-day-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct-allegations/ He also said" there's no reason you should know that." He was educating him. And now we all know! And now, since we all know, we can all stop calling for an FBI hearing that will tell us nothing new! We already have the he said she said. Well kind of, neither woman will grace us with any sort of statement made under penalty in writing, only those on Kavanaugh's side have done so. We;ll get both sides, there will be no actual evidence, and then they will vote. Still no one can explain what it is the FBI is supposed to find, but no matter. That's not the point. Are you serious? You really think that you cannot find someone to explain to you what the FBI would do? Here is a sample from a 2 second google search. The FBI could get the best possible collection of the facts. Much like in the Anita Hill hearing, it likely would not be conclusive. But it would make sure that the discussion was about at least the things that were known to have happened.
And no less important is the task that many newly-minted special agents are assigned related to judicial nominees. At the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, trainees are immersed in the processes and protocols of a solid and exhaustive background investigation. So, when they arrive in their respective field divisions, they are already familiar with the aforementioned Carla F. Bad.
Who is she? Well, "she" is the readily memorized acronym that reminds investigators of just what to investigate when looking into someone's background. It is an enduring checklist that the FBI utilizes to assess honesty and trustworthiness in someone holding, or seeking to hold, a position of trust in our republic.
The acronym represents character, associates, reputation, loyalty, ability, finances, bias, alcohol and drugs. It was presumably employed during Judge Kavanaugh's multiple background investigations during his tenure in the Bush 43 White House, and when he was appointed a federal appeals judge in 2006.
So, should an accusation this significant be investigated? I certainly think so. Every potential victim deserves to be heard.
...
Not so much, though, when seeking answers from 36 years ago. But the FBI can and should exert due diligence in tracking down any available leads that will be uncovered by a renewed acquaintance with Carla F. Bad. And this would mean no assessments of the veracity of those interviewed, just a straight-down-the-line collection of facts.
Carla F. Bad has a voice and deserves to be heard.
Say her name.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/opinions/kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-process-gagliano/index.htmlEDIT: to put a fine point on it, why are Anita Hill and James A. Gagliano dead wrong about the need for an FBI investigation here? I refuse to believe that people actually want the FBI to investigate so that we can just get a bureaucratic version of what we already know. It was nice of you to leave out the entire section in between. Show nested quote +But Ford needs to file a police report first. Bereft of a complaint, Montgomery County police have already stated an investigation is not forthcoming.
If Ford doesn't file a report, the Senate Judiciary Committee could still request the FBI begin an investigation, if it deems it essential to its confirmation process. And it has done so before -- when it requested an investigation into Anita Hill's claims against then-Judge Clarence Thomas in 1991.
But forewarned is forearmed. With the limited details the accuser has thus far been able to recall, any investigation of an incident purported to occur during the 1980s would be difficult. Investigators would be charged with tracking down external potential witnesses (while conducting a neighborhood canvass) who very well may have moved away from the area, have no recollection of the event or may even have passed away.
And potential party attendees -- if they can actually be found -- may fear the scrutiny of a FBI investigation with such seemingly high stakes. Recall that failure to be forthright, lying to an FBI agent, is a violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and is tantamount to perjury -- bringing with it a sentencing exposure of five years in prison.
Thirty-six years from now, an FBI agent investigating an incident reported in 2018 would have much more to go on. "Digital exhaust" left by personal electronic devices, social media imprints, toll payment trackers, DNA analysis, license plate readers and the proliferation of security cameras would make this infinitely easier in the 21st century. He actually spends most of his time talking about it wouldn't be particularly useful. I object because it's transparent stalling tactic by a side that held onto a letter for 6 weeks then leaked it to the media, forcing the person to out herself when she didn't want to. If your side really believed this essay, that an FBI investigation is almost certainly futile, then they wouldn't have spent so much time harping on it. It would be mere background noise. For your convenience I have also italicized two particular bits that do not get enough attention.
Great. So let's delay the hearings until she files a police report. Remember that Maryland has no statute of limitations.\
EDIT: okay, so the SOL issues are more complicated than they appear. https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/kavanaugh-says-he-wont-let-false-accusations-push-him-out However, the uncertainty around the facts compels more time and more investigation, specifically by a powerful fact finding organization (the FBI). The guy I cited did mention the limitations of such review, but he demanded exactly such FBI review knowing full well of the limitations. Do you not see your motivated reasoning here? You are baldly asserting that somehow the FBI review will be futile. But people in the know (the cited law enforcement experts, Anita Hill), say otherwise. Your motivated reasoning is no match for people with actual experience.
|
United States4748 Posts
On September 26 2018 14:52 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 12:35 Introvert wrote:On September 26 2018 12:23 Wulfey_LA wrote:On September 26 2018 12:14 Introvert wrote:On September 26 2018 12:10 Wulfey_LA wrote:On September 26 2018 11:56 Introvert wrote:I'm sure you've all seen this by now, but McConnell's staff has been in the archives. Here is former Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden making the same point I did here days ago. An FBI report is a useless stalling tactic, and the Republicans on the Committee are right in trying to keep transparent stalling tactics to a minimum. The fact that this all happened after Feinstein had the letter for months was reason enough to push through this crapshow. An FBI will tell us nothing, and the fact that now Ramirez seems to want one as a condition for talking to the Committee shows what a game this is. They could find out nothing we don't know. Also, someone else pointed out that Anita Hill, before the FBI "investigation," was already cooperating with the Committee, providing an affidavit, speaking to committee staff, etc. Things neither Ford nor Ramirez are doing. https://twitter.com/SenateMajLdr/status/1044735563222437888As an aisde, I'm going to be amused by whatever Avenatti puts out (or how he excuses not doing it). Anyone willing to pick Avenatti, political operative, as their lawyer in this matter, out of thousands in the nation, automatically starts with negative credibility points. Did you listen to the video? Biden correctly points out that THOMAS cannot rely on the FBI report because it does not reach conclusions. However, it does get the 'he said' 'she said' information that assist the senate in making a decision. You should listen to Anita Hill on this. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/19/anita-hill-good-morning-america-kavanaugh-blasey-ford-hirono-new-day-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct-allegations/ He also said" there's no reason you should know that." He was educating him. And now we all know! And now, since we all know, we can all stop calling for an FBI hearing that will tell us nothing new! We already have the he said she said. Well kind of, neither woman will grace us with any sort of statement made under penalty in writing, only those on Kavanaugh's side have done so. We;ll get both sides, there will be no actual evidence, and then they will vote. Still no one can explain what it is the FBI is supposed to find, but no matter. That's not the point. Are you serious? You really think that you cannot find someone to explain to you what the FBI would do? Here is a sample from a 2 second google search. The FBI could get the best possible collection of the facts. Much like in the Anita Hill hearing, it likely would not be conclusive. But it would make sure that the discussion was about at least the things that were known to have happened.
And no less important is the task that many newly-minted special agents are assigned related to judicial nominees. At the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, trainees are immersed in the processes and protocols of a solid and exhaustive background investigation. So, when they arrive in their respective field divisions, they are already familiar with the aforementioned Carla F. Bad.
Who is she? Well, "she" is the readily memorized acronym that reminds investigators of just what to investigate when looking into someone's background. It is an enduring checklist that the FBI utilizes to assess honesty and trustworthiness in someone holding, or seeking to hold, a position of trust in our republic.
The acronym represents character, associates, reputation, loyalty, ability, finances, bias, alcohol and drugs. It was presumably employed during Judge Kavanaugh's multiple background investigations during his tenure in the Bush 43 White House, and when he was appointed a federal appeals judge in 2006.
So, should an accusation this significant be investigated? I certainly think so. Every potential victim deserves to be heard.
...
Not so much, though, when seeking answers from 36 years ago. But the FBI can and should exert due diligence in tracking down any available leads that will be uncovered by a renewed acquaintance with Carla F. Bad. And this would mean no assessments of the veracity of those interviewed, just a straight-down-the-line collection of facts.
Carla F. Bad has a voice and deserves to be heard.
Say her name.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/opinions/kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-process-gagliano/index.htmlEDIT: to put a fine point on it, why are Anita Hill and James A. Gagliano dead wrong about the need for an FBI investigation here? I refuse to believe that people actually want the FBI to investigate so that we can just get a bureaucratic version of what we already know. It was nice of you to leave out the entire section in between. But Ford needs to file a police report first. Bereft of a complaint, Montgomery County police have already stated an investigation is not forthcoming.
If Ford doesn't file a report, the Senate Judiciary Committee could still request the FBI begin an investigation, if it deems it essential to its confirmation process. And it has done so before -- when it requested an investigation into Anita Hill's claims against then-Judge Clarence Thomas in 1991.
But forewarned is forearmed. With the limited details the accuser has thus far been able to recall, any investigation of an incident purported to occur during the 1980s would be difficult. Investigators would be charged with tracking down external potential witnesses (while conducting a neighborhood canvass) who very well may have moved away from the area, have no recollection of the event or may even have passed away.
And potential party attendees -- if they can actually be found -- may fear the scrutiny of a FBI investigation with such seemingly high stakes. Recall that failure to be forthright, lying to an FBI agent, is a violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and is tantamount to perjury -- bringing with it a sentencing exposure of five years in prison.
Thirty-six years from now, an FBI agent investigating an incident reported in 2018 would have much more to go on. "Digital exhaust" left by personal electronic devices, social media imprints, toll payment trackers, DNA analysis, license plate readers and the proliferation of security cameras would make this infinitely easier in the 21st century. He actually spends most of his time talking about it wouldn't be particularly useful. I object because it's transparent stalling tactic by a side that held onto a letter for 6 weeks then leaked it to the media, forcing the person to out herself when she didn't want to. If your side really believed this essay, that an FBI investigation is almost certainly futile, then they wouldn't have spent so much time harping on it. It would be mere background noise. For your convenience I have also italicized two particular bits that do not get enough attention. Great. So let's delay the hearings until she files a police report. Remember that Maryland has no statute of limitations.
She won't, unless maybe Thursday isn't looking so good. Maybe a back pocket delay plan. but that's only one thing from the article you mentioned, not like the Maryland police are going to find any more. We already have statements from the other alleged attendees.
Edit: remember when the FBI said this isn't their thing? How's that for experience? Accusing me of motivated reasoning and then citing Anita Hill is as tone deaf as you can get, though.
edit2: and still everyone pretends like this ISN'T stalling. First, it was do what the FBI did with Anita Hill. That would take 3 days, get you nothing. Now, we want the FBI to find everyone who lived in this neighborhood between the year 1982 and 1983. Yeah, sounds reasonable.
And on a final note:
in the CNN peice the guy lays out all the problems but says "So, should an accusation this significant be investigated? I certainly think so. Every potential victim deserves to be heard."
and "Carla F. Bad has a voice and deserves to be heard.
Say her name."
This isn't based on his experience, this is his opinion, given the stakes and that "everyone deserves to be heard." That's not a $%@*ing experiential claim. That's his opinion. That can be disagreed with much more easily by an average American than what he details as the "difficult" process.
|
If you can't handle hearing things from non_conservatainment/party_line sources, Here are two right of center takes backing me up here on the FBI investigation being the best course of action.
Opponents of having the FBI investigate have often said — rightly — that all the FBI can do is what the Senate is going to do: Ask the relevant parties what happened. That’s right. So have the FBI ask away — quickly. I know that lying to the Senate is a crime just like lying to the FBI, but, culturally and politically, people do think the FBI actually is the super-serious police, and since doing background checks is part of its portfolio, having the FBI do a seventh or add an addendum to the sixth background check of Brett Kavanaugh doesn’t seem crazy to me.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-fbi-investigation/
Maybe the opposite, in fact: A parade of allegations afterward replete with a promise to impeach him from the bench next year if Democrats retake the Senate is good turnout fuel for liberals. The one thing that might deflate the attacks is the FBI turning around and saying, “We talked to people and couldn’t find anything.”
Anyway, here’s Scarborough. Exit quotation: “I would like to meet the people who say that succumbing this time will invite more, shadier attacks in the future don’t *already* think the shadiest of attacks will be used no matter what.”
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/09/24/side-benefit-fbi-investigation-point/
Note that Allahpundit says exactly what I said a few pages back: that KAVANAUGH would be the first real impeachment bait justice. The parade of accusers is going to get longer, and a Democratic senate would paint a fat target on his back.
|
United States4748 Posts
On September 26 2018 15:09 Wulfey_LA wrote:If you can't handle hearing things from non_conservatainment/party_line sources, Here are two right of center takes backing me up here on the FBI investigation being the best course of action. Show nested quote +
Opponents of having the FBI investigate have often said — rightly — that all the FBI can do is what the Senate is going to do: Ask the relevant parties what happened. That’s right. So have the FBI ask away — quickly. I know that lying to the Senate is a crime just like lying to the FBI, but, culturally and politically, people do think the FBI actually is the super-serious police, and since doing background checks is part of its portfolio, having the FBI do a seventh or add an addendum to the sixth background check of Brett Kavanaugh doesn’t seem crazy to me.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-fbi-investigation/Show nested quote +
Maybe the opposite, in fact: A parade of allegations afterward replete with a promise to impeach him from the bench next year if Democrats retake the Senate is good turnout fuel for liberals. The one thing that might deflate the attacks is the FBI turning around and saying, “We talked to people and couldn’t find anything.”
Anyway, here’s Scarborough. Exit quotation: “I would like to meet the people who say that succumbing this time will invite more, shadier attacks in the future don’t *already* think the shadiest of attacks will be used no matter what.”
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/09/24/side-benefit-fbi-investigation-point/Note that Allahpundit says exactly what I said a few pages back: that KAVANAUGH would be the first real impeachment bait justice. The parade of accusers is going to get longer, and a Democratic senate would paint a fat target on his back.
Those are only marginally relevant. Goldberg thinks, and AP is speculating, that it's better to have the FBI deal with it and take a way a talking point. I think it's worse to give in to obvious BS tactics.
I mean, this is the start of the NR article:
Should there be an FBI investigation into the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh?
On the merits, I still think the answer is No — for reasons discussed quite a bit around here already.
But the merits are at best just one consideration among many in this mess.
and both articles assume the FBI "investigation" that we were talking about last week, i.e., taking statements. They aren't defending what the author of your CNN piece says should happen.
edit: from the HA piece
Remember, it’s *very unlikely* that Kavanaugh can dig his way out of the suspicion that’s been piled on him through his own efforts at Thursday’s hearing. Ford’s allegations are so thin on specifics that there’s next to nothing by way of hard evidence he can provide to clear himself. He’ll spend hours being grilled about teenaged partying, whether he ever waved his schwanz in a Yale classmate’s face, etc, while Ford will be questioned very respectfully about her story. All she has to do is prove that she believes that it happened, not that it actually happened, and he’ll end up damaged. It may be that an FBI investigation, as silly as it seems under the circumstances, is the one thing that can lend some independent nonpartisan authority to his claims of innocence.
They both make the same point. These aren't discussions on the merits (which on the right are pretty much assumed right now), these are political questions.
|
Eye witness testimony is notoriously bad at being credible/conclusive evidence. It's why in the sciences eye-witness testimony is the lowest form of evidence and is basically mocked as "evidence". If you want to see how bad it is in our criminal system look at the rate of innocent people who have been either on death row or killed by the State. Now, we're going to rely on eye witness accounts of an event over 40 years ago - and that goes for either side? Lol. You really gotta be kidding me here. This show is nothing more than political theater where partisans either want to use or tear down depending on what aisle you happen to self-impose. To say you're some justice or morality crusader is laughable (to those who use that argument). This is just about who controls the SCOTUS since it has warped into nine-robed authoritarians who ordain to themselves more power than either the Executive or Legislative branches. As much power as the Executive has usurped in the last 80 years it's become a mere tool to wrest majority control of the SCOTUS. Both sides are guilty and both sides appear perfectly fine with this status quo battle. Neither particularly willing to drop the One Ring into Mount Doom. Do any of you step back for a second and reflect? How absurd this whole theater is?
Here I am, stuck between ping-ponging two wings of the same bird. The break up of this dysfunctional union can't come soon enough.
|
On September 26 2018 15:27 Wegandi wrote:
Eye witness testimony is notoriously bad at being credible/conclusive evidence. It's why in the sciences eye-witness testimony is the lowest form of evidence and is basically mocked as "evidence". If you want to see how bad it is in our criminal system look at the rate of innocent people who have been either on death row or killed by the State. Now, we're going to rely on eye witness accounts of an event over 40 years ago - and that goes for either side?
...
You're not wrong really, but unfortunately the question
"is Kavanaugh an appropriate person to put on the Supreme Court?"
still needs to be answered even if the evidence supporting either answer is inconclusive.
|
On September 26 2018 13:51 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 13:43 hunts wrote:On September 26 2018 13:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 26 2018 12:03 Plansix wrote:
So we are going to hang our hats on something Joe Biden said like 30 years ago? Something a government official said on TV 30 years ago vs something an anti Trump protester claimed happened 36 years ago where all witnesses she claimed were there have no clue what she’s talking about including her lifelong best friend who said she never even met Kavanaugh. You’re hanging your hat on baseless allegations made 36 years ago! Any word on whether she is actually going to testify tomorrow? What state is she in right now? Why the media blackout. Are you forgetting the other accusers? Why are you so desperate to have this piece of trash confirmed? Are you so afraid of getting destroyed in the mid terms and not being able to have trump appoint a breathing pile of excrement to the supreme court so that you can have a chance at getting rights stripped away from women and minorities that you're willing to die on this hill? lol there goes the narrative As a conservative I can't wait for Bret to start taking voting rights from woman and dark skinned people Are you serious?
You do realise that plenty of conservatives have expressed these exact desires, right? Not nice ones, admittedly, but those ideas are out there and being spoken about. Maybe less on the women, but definitely dark skinned people, because those people almost always vote Democrat.
EDIT: In 'My, things are very different at my side of the pond' news, I saw this little gem at the end of an article discussing an ongoing legal case against Scottish MP Kezia Dugdale (she accused a blogger of being homophobic in a manner that included a slightly backhanded crack at his gay dad): When approached for comment, a UK Labour Party spokesman, said: “It would be inappropriate to comment on a live, ongoing legal case.”
Wouldn't it be wonderful if both the Democrats and Republicans came together to take the same stance?
|
On September 26 2018 13:51 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 13:43 hunts wrote:On September 26 2018 13:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 26 2018 12:03 Plansix wrote:
So we are going to hang our hats on something Joe Biden said like 30 years ago? Something a government official said on TV 30 years ago vs something an anti Trump protester claimed happened 36 years ago where all witnesses she claimed were there have no clue what she’s talking about including her lifelong best friend who said she never even met Kavanaugh. You’re hanging your hat on baseless allegations made 36 years ago! Any word on whether she is actually going to testify tomorrow? What state is she in right now? Why the media blackout. Are you forgetting the other accusers? Why are you so desperate to have this piece of trash confirmed? Are you so afraid of getting destroyed in the mid terms and not being able to have trump appoint a breathing pile of excrement to the supreme court so that you can have a chance at getting rights stripped away from women and minorities that you're willing to die on this hill? lol there goes the narrative As a conservative I can't wait for Bret to start taking voting reproductive rights from woman and dark skinned people jeopardizing LGBT rights. Are you serious?
Fixed that for you; I'm not sure why you'd strawman the multiple legitimate concerns that Democrats have with Kavanaugh's conservative (or ambiguous-at-best) ideology by implying that voting rights are the main (only?) concern here. There are, in fact, multiple issues this country has made progress on that could be undone with enough conservative SCJs.
|
More checking in with The_Donald:
"Kavenaugh now being mocked for his private sexual history, that he was forced to divulge on live tv to clear his character and his families name. Is this #metoo?"
This is how conservatives think. They totally despise the #metoo movement, to the point that creeps like Kavanaugh become the real victim. They have no problems supporting Trump despite his sexual history.
I thought this was funny as well:
+ Show Spoiler +
Either they're all bots or they're very good at getting on message in a way that's almost admirable.
|
On September 26 2018 18:34 Grumbels wrote:More checking in with The_Donald: "Kavenaugh now being mocked for his private sexual history, that he was forced to divulge on live tv to clear his character and his families name. Is this #metoo?" This is how conservatives think. They totally despise the #metoo movement, to the point that creeps like Kavanaugh become the real victim. They have no problems supporting Trump despite his sexual history. I thought this was funny as well: + Show Spoiler +Either they're all bots or they're very good at getting on message in a way that's almost admirable.
Considering The_Donald is part state sponsored russian trolls and part angsty alt-right morons, I wouldn’t pay too much attention.
|
On September 26 2018 18:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 18:34 Grumbels wrote:More checking in with The_Donald: "Kavenaugh now being mocked for his private sexual history, that he was forced to divulge on live tv to clear his character and his families name. Is this #metoo?" This is how conservatives think. They totally despise the #metoo movement, to the point that creeps like Kavanaugh become the real victim. They have no problems supporting Trump despite his sexual history. I thought this was funny as well: + Show Spoiler +Either they're all bots or they're very good at getting on message in a way that's almost admirable. Considering The_Donald is part state sponsored russian trolls and part angsty alt-right morons, I wouldn’t pay too much attention.
It's not just a handful of Russian trolls, these people are representative for the republican base of which 85-90% approves of Trump. Together with his support among independents that's about 25-30% of the US population. These people might not be particularly bright, but I think it's useful to check. Conservatives do hold various beliefs that change over time, for instance they have become less homophobic in the past decade and that tells you something about the possibility of social progress.
Women can not have true equality if 25% of the population reflexively dismisses sexual assault allegations. I'm not sure of the social science behind such matters, I guess if an insignificant portion of the population holds a fringe belief then it can be considered irrelevant because of the institution of taboos and such, but 25% doesn't seem to be below that threshold.
+ Show Spoiler +
As an example of this, I found that ~10% of the population beliefs in 9/11 trutherism or finds it credible. But that's a complete fringe belief which you will never find discussed in polite conversation except to mock it.
But if you go outside the US then it's not a fringe belief at all and significant majorities think that somehow the US or Israel were behind the attacks. This is probably related both to lack of information and distrust of the US. But it immediately means that any support for the US war on terror will be lower.
Similarly, a clear majority of the population believed Saddam Hussein to be somehow involved in the attack, or that he had weapons of mass destruction. These were government-sponsored conspiracy theories that very effectively shored up support for the war.
And well, in general this seems to be a complex topic and I can't really discuss it within a single post. And there are differences between things which are believed to be true and things which can be discussed in polite conversation. Or in beliefs that can influence public or private policy. Or which groups hold which beliefs etc. But regardless of the exact nuances behind this, I would still be very confident to claim that the numbers of Trump/Kavanaugh/GOP supporters present a credible barrier to equality for women, minorities, trans people.
|
The real shame in that picture is internet explorer
|
On September 26 2018 19:33 solidbebe wrote:
The real shame in that picture is internet explorer
I'm only allowed to use IE at work.
|
On September 26 2018 16:40 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 15:27 Wegandi wrote:
Eye witness testimony is notoriously bad at being credible/conclusive evidence. It's why in the sciences eye-witness testimony is the lowest form of evidence and is basically mocked as "evidence". If you want to see how bad it is in our criminal system look at the rate of innocent people who have been either on death row or killed by the State. Now, we're going to rely on eye witness accounts of an event over 40 years ago - and that goes for either side?
... You're not wrong really, but unfortunately the question "is Kavanaugh an appropriate person to put on the Supreme Court?" still needs to be answered even if the evidence supporting either answer is inconclusive.
Sure, that's an appropriate question, so go after his resume and judicial opinions. Attack him on his poor 4th Amendment record and his decisions during the Bush years. This allegation non-sense is just petty character assassination that cannot be proven one way or the other. If you had DNA evidence, then boom, go after the shithead, but eye witness of an event 40 years ago? Don't make me laugh. The left says they believe in science except when it contradicts their ideology (namely, in this case, neuroscience, psychology, etc. as well as economics in general, but I digress), or doesn't help them advance a political narrative. For all the waxing and waning about being different, ya'll (inasmuch as you self-identify with) just the flipside of the same coin. Same tactics, same agenda (of using State power to enforce edicts), same partisan bickering. The very fact that there is so much hubbabaloo about a SCOTUS appointment is self-evident that these nine-robed dickheads wield far far too much power, but power is the name of the game. Ya'll lost for these few years, but it always ping pongs. Then the GOP will be bitching and the Democrats will pull the same shit as the GOP right now. It's dysfunctional as fuck.
|
On September 26 2018 17:24 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 13:51 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 26 2018 13:43 hunts wrote:On September 26 2018 13:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 26 2018 12:03 Plansix wrote:
So we are going to hang our hats on something Joe Biden said like 30 years ago? Something a government official said on TV 30 years ago vs something an anti Trump protester claimed happened 36 years ago where all witnesses she claimed were there have no clue what she’s talking about including her lifelong best friend who said she never even met Kavanaugh. You’re hanging your hat on baseless allegations made 36 years ago! Any word on whether she is actually going to testify tomorrow? What state is she in right now? Why the media blackout. Are you forgetting the other accusers? Why are you so desperate to have this piece of trash confirmed? Are you so afraid of getting destroyed in the mid terms and not being able to have trump appoint a breathing pile of excrement to the supreme court so that you can have a chance at getting rights stripped away from women and minorities that you're willing to die on this hill? lol there goes the narrative As a conservative I can't wait for Bret to start taking voting rights from woman and dark skinned people Are you serious? You do realise that plenty of conservatives have expressed these exact desires, right? Not nice ones, admittedly, but those ideas are out there and being spoken about. Maybe less on the women, but definitely dark skinned people, because those people almost always vote Democrat. EDIT: In 'My, things are very different at my side of the pond' news, I saw this little gem at the end of an article discussing an ongoing legal case against Scottish MP Kezia Dugdale (she accused a blogger of being homophobic in a manner that included a slightly backhanded crack at his gay dad): When approached for comment, a UK Labour Party spokesman, said: “It would be inappropriate to comment on a live, ongoing legal case.”Wouldn't it be wonderful if both the Democrats and Republicans came together to take the same stance?
Wonderful if the GOP and Democrats came together to gut the 1st amendment and be feckless petty authoritarians like your police State in the UK? No, thanks. We all ready have it bad enough, let's not chuck the few good things we have out the window. Ya'll need to remember what free speech and self-ownership means in the UK. Too much thought police going on over on your side of the pond.
|
On September 26 2018 19:41 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 17:24 iamthedave wrote:On September 26 2018 13:51 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 26 2018 13:43 hunts wrote:On September 26 2018 13:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 26 2018 12:03 Plansix wrote:
So we are going to hang our hats on something Joe Biden said like 30 years ago? Something a government official said on TV 30 years ago vs something an anti Trump protester claimed happened 36 years ago where all witnesses she claimed were there have no clue what she’s talking about including her lifelong best friend who said she never even met Kavanaugh. You’re hanging your hat on baseless allegations made 36 years ago! Any word on whether she is actually going to testify tomorrow? What state is she in right now? Why the media blackout. Are you forgetting the other accusers? Why are you so desperate to have this piece of trash confirmed? Are you so afraid of getting destroyed in the mid terms and not being able to have trump appoint a breathing pile of excrement to the supreme court so that you can have a chance at getting rights stripped away from women and minorities that you're willing to die on this hill? lol there goes the narrative As a conservative I can't wait for Bret to start taking voting rights from woman and dark skinned people Are you serious? You do realise that plenty of conservatives have expressed these exact desires, right? Not nice ones, admittedly, but those ideas are out there and being spoken about. Maybe less on the women, but definitely dark skinned people, because those people almost always vote Democrat. EDIT: In 'My, things are very different at my side of the pond' news, I saw this little gem at the end of an article discussing an ongoing legal case against Scottish MP Kezia Dugdale (she accused a blogger of being homophobic in a manner that included a slightly backhanded crack at his gay dad): When approached for comment, a UK Labour Party spokesman, said: “It would be inappropriate to comment on a live, ongoing legal case.”Wouldn't it be wonderful if both the Democrats and Republicans came together to take the same stance? Wonderful if the GOP and Democrats came together to gut the 1st amendment and be feckless petty authoritarians like your police State in the UK? No, thanks. We all ready have it bad enough, let's not chuck the few good things we have out the window. Ya'll need to remember what free speech and self-ownership means in the UK. Too much thought police going on over on your side of the pond.
I often hear this, and yet I'm free to say pretty much anything I want over here.
Its almost as if the right wing in the US has been allowed to dictate a completely fucked up, warped version of the truth and their right wing friends in the US can't wait to believe it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/fL9lcmd.png)
