|
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 19:46 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 19:41 Wegandi wrote: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.
Your ignorance is bliss. The very fact that something like this exists is evidence enough:
Hate crime investigators were alerted to the presence of the slur and charged Russell with "sending a grossly offensive message by means of a public electronic communications network"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html
Then there is the previous poster and countless other articles. I'm sure you'll make some remark about how damn right saying not nice things should be illegal (not in such a direct manner mind you) without one iota of recognition of cognitive dissonance. Maybe, I'm wrong though.....
|
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.
They're amazing at missing the message of these kinds of movements, whether it's pushing against Black Lives Matter with Blue/ All Lives Matter, or overgeneralizing #MeToo to try and sympathize with sexual harassers and assaulters.
|
On September 26 2018 19:54 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 19:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2018 19:41 Wegandi wrote: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. Your ignorance is bliss. The very fact that something like this exists is evidence enough: Show nested quote +Hate crime investigators were alerted to the presence of the slur and charged Russell with "sending a grossly offensive message by means of a public electronic communications network" Then there is the previous poster and countless other articles. I'm sure you'll make some remark about how damn right saying not nice things should be illegal (not in such a direct manner mind you) without one iota of recognition of cognitive dissonance. Maybe, I'm wrong though.....
Nah, I think the law can go too far, but there is debate in parliament, in law and in public on this issue. We don't just treat something someone said a few hundred years ago as the word of God.
When I say that I can say pretty much anything I want, its true, because I don't want to abuse people, bully people, harass people, or threaten people online.
I suppose if you enjoy that kind of thing these laws would be a restriction on your freedom of speech. The rest of us (the vast majority in the UK) don't really give a shit about someone's supposed freedom to be a cunt.
I don't understand why you have used the phrase cognitive dissonance here though, it doesn't really apply. Its a nice buzzword though so well done for that.
|
This fictional version of authoritarian UK makes me think someone watch V for Vendetta to many times.
|
A few years ago someone was arrested in the UK for saying soldiers should “all die and go to hell”. The UK is also notorious for its libel laws, the reech of its secret police, its prison population, its inequality, its tight-wing tabloids, its surveillance capability. There is enough there to be very worried, although it’s not that bad yet in practice for most of the population.
|
Thing is that europeans don’t have at all the same conception of free speech than americans; it’s a cultural differences that many in the US seem not to understand. I assume that what europe went through in the 30’s has been a clear antidote against the idea that unrestricted totally free speech is good for democracy.
Personally I find extremely shocking, for example, that the Westboro baptist church can shout that gays will go to hell during people funerals. Don’t think this is free speech; it’s abuse and I sincerely believe such behaviour should be punished by law. I don’t think either that one should have the right to spread propaganda saying that the Holocaust didn’t happen or that Hitler was right.
I don’t think it will or should change at either side of the pond. We just have different norms. Of course, the american far right milking it by saying that the UK is totalitarian is as grotesque as, well, most things they say.
|
The conservative Supreme Court has already gone about distorting the First Amendment in grotesque ways, so this "ermagerd, free speech" sentiment makes very little sense. The moment non-human entities were conferred human speech rights was the moment anyone on the right ceded the high ground with regards to anything regarding free speech and/or the First Amendment.
|
On September 26 2018 19:36 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 16:40 Aquanim wrote: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.
I'm not yet convinced that Kavanaugh is in fact a rapist or what have you, but to dismiss it as purely "petty character assassination" seems like a very loaded description. If the event occured, is the woman supposed to not raise the issue just because she can't unequivocally prove it? (She would also not have exactly known what other people did or didn't remember or possess.)
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.
I don't see what any of this has to do with science at all. Speaking as a scientist, something can be not proved (or not provable) to a scientific standard and still be worth acting on.
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.
I agree that the Democrats are hardly blameless, but if you want me to agree that they are (approximately) equally to blame you have more work to do.
|
i’m coming more around to the idea that McConnell is shooting himself in the foot here. it’s becoming increasingly riskier to put their eggs in the Kav basket. I’m only 50/50 on whether this confirmation goes through at this point, whichll put him in the ugly position of having to confirm someone else in the lame duck session.
but unfortunately i’m 80% that he’d eagerly shove through the next nomination regardless.
|
On September 26 2018 20:59 brian wrote:
i’m coming more around to the idea that McConnell is shooting himself in the foot here. it’s becoming increasingly riskier to put their eggs in the Kav basket. I’m only 50/50 on whether this confirmation goes through at this point, whichll put him in the ugly position of having to confirm someone else in the lame duck session.
but unfortunately i’m 80% that he’d eagerly shove through the next nomination regardless.
Well, lame duck is going to be very tricky and damaging for 2020. They shot down Merrick Garland because Obama was a "lame duck", very very much stretching the meaning of that phrase. Yet they themselves have the right to make such an important decision with actual lame ducks? Following that logic, even the Kavanaugh hearings are on thin ice, but Democrats should take the high ground: what the republicans did was wrong, and Kavanaugh deserves the hearning, because nobody there is a lame duck (yet), but once they actually are... they need to throw up as many procedural roadblocks as they possibly can. Even if they don't win the senate (as they probably won't).
|
for that to hold any water, McConnell would need integrity.
|
This is going to be a big problem for Kavanaugh down the line. He is presenting a narrative about his past that is easily prove be false. And because he went to Ivy League schools, the people contradicting his claims often creditable Republicans, not democrats.
|
United States43860 Posts
On September 26 2018 10:08 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 09:39 micronesia wrote:Let's break this down. On September 26 2018 09:31 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 26 2018 08:58 Doodsmack wrote:
Strange that they scheduled the vote for so soon after. Its not like they are fooling anybody into thinking they care whether the allegations are true. Might as well have some spine and not hold the hearing in that case. Neither party cares. If democrats cared, they would have brought it 6 weeks ago before the infinite written and presencial hearings with him, instead of the last moment possible. How many democrats knew about the accusations 6 weeks ago? There are quite a lot of democrats who did not know then and do know know and care. There are also non-democrats who care. All they care is about stalling and it's pretty fucking transparent. Who is they? You seem to be assuming there is some coordinated effort on the part of the Democrats and while, there may be some level of coordination, I doubt it is anywhere near as much as you are implying. Republicans have no other option than hear and hold the vote The concern isn't that the Republican leadership plans to hold the vote at some point after the hearing, it's that they have already announced their intention to hold the vote one day after the hearing. If the vote can be scheduled for three days from now, it could also be entered on to the schedule immediately after the hearing (presuming the hearing turns up nothing) for three days later (such as Monday or Tuesday). it has to be done before the midterms for more than obvious reasons. It only has to be done before the midterms if you assume that Kavanaugh should be confirmed, without complete information on whether he should be or not. I'm also not convinced it has to be before the midterms. Also, honestly, if the worse this guy did was what that woman alleges 35 YEARS AGO AS A MINOR DRUNK, he is a saint compared to pretty much every senator in there. I know this has already been discussed in this thread, but sexual assault, even 35 years ago, should be disqualifying for SCOTUS. Maybe not for all government jobs, but certainly that one. I also have no idea what you mean by 'as a minor drunk.' Also, if most/all of the Senators really are as dirty as you claim, then it's all the more reason why we need an untainted SCOTUS to keep them in check, not more of the same. Sorry for ignoring your other points, will adress later. So Bill Clinton should have resigned? Allow me to remind you that Bret Kavanaugh at the moment IS AN UNTAINTED SCOTUS candidate vetted 6 times by the FBI. Do you believe in due process at all? You can't destroy a mans life with an unverified acussation, specially one that provides no exact place, time and which all alleged witnesess have denied happened.
There’s a difference between “destroying someone’s life” and not appointing them to the Supreme Court. Surely you can see that. You have a right to due process before being punished for a crime, you don’t have a right to due process when being considered for a job. Surely it wouldn’t be too hard to find someone conservative to put on the bench that doesn’t have this reputation.
|
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 love that you think this is a comeback when the USA government was recently outed as spying on its own people.
We have a lot of cameras, that's true, but police state? hardly. I've not spoken to a cop save in a professional capacity (when they were investigating crimes in the area and wanted access to our CCTV) even once in my life. As for free speech... it mostly comes down to: "Don't be a raging fucking dickhead in public and expect no repercussions."
Maybe if the same was true in the US you'd be able to do something about cancerous cockweasels like Alex Jones. And I pity you - genuinely - if you believe his existence is some triumph of American free speech laws.
On September 26 2018 20:35 Grumbels wrote:A few years ago someone was arrested in the UK for saying soldiers should “all die and go to hell”. The UK is also notorious for its libel laws, the reech of its secret police, its prison population, its inequality, its tight-wing tabloids, its surveillance capability. There is enough there to be very worried, although it’s not that bad yet in practice for most of the population.
She told Ahmed: "You posted the message in response to tributes and messages of sympathy. You knew at the time that this was an emotive and sensitive issue.
"With freedom of speech comes responsibility. On March 8 you failed to live up to that responsibility."
I refer to 'don't be a raging fucking dickhead in public and not expect consequences' comment earlier.
Our tabloids are bad, that's for sure. I'm not saying we're a squeaky clean perfect image of all that is great. We're just a ton better than the US.
|
On September 26 2018 22:08 Plansix wrote:This is going to be a big problem for Kavanaugh down the line. He is presenting a narrative about his past that is easily prove be false. And because he went to Ivy League schools, the people contradicting his claims often creditable Republicans, not democrats. https://twitter.com/asmamk/status/1044914507066347520
Yeah, this chosen strategy by Kav is a firm indictment of his general reasoning skills. "No one's perfect" is so much easier to defend than "I was pretty close to perfect!"
|
It also only takes a single one night stand or fling to disprove his "I was a virgin for a very long time" schtick.
|
United States43860 Posts
On September 26 2018 22:20 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 22:08 Plansix wrote:This is going to be a big problem for Kavanaugh down the line. He is presenting a narrative about his past that is easily prove be false. And because he went to Ivy League schools, the people contradicting his claims often creditable Republicans, not democrats. https://twitter.com/asmamk/status/1044914507066347520 Yeah, this chosen strategy by Kav is a firm indictment of his general reasoning skills. "No one's perfect" is so much easier to defend than "I was pretty close to perfect!"
No-ones perfect is a shitty argument to get onto SCOTUS though. I read an idiotic op-ed this morning saying that most men won’t make it through their teenage years without some sort of inappropriate act that could subsequently be used like this. The obvious rebuttal is that perhaps the majority of American men shouldn’t be appointed to the Supreme Court. Arguing that you’re not perfect opens yourself up to “well he agrees that he’s not a perfect candidate, let’s look at other possible options”.
|
On September 26 2018 22:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 22:20 farvacola wrote:On September 26 2018 22:08 Plansix wrote:This is going to be a big problem for Kavanaugh down the line. He is presenting a narrative about his past that is easily prove be false. And because he went to Ivy League schools, the people contradicting his claims often creditable Republicans, not democrats. https://twitter.com/asmamk/status/1044914507066347520 Yeah, this chosen strategy by Kav is a firm indictment of his general reasoning skills. "No one's perfect" is so much easier to defend than "I was pretty close to perfect!" No-ones perfect is a shitty argument to get onto SCOTUS though. I read an idiotic op-ed this morning saying that most men won’t make it through their teenage years without some sort of inappropriate act that could subsequently be used like this. The obvious rebuttal is that perhaps the majority of American men shouldn’t be appointed to the Supreme Court. Arguing that you’re not perfect opens yourself up to “well he agrees that he’s not a perfect candidate, let’s look at other possible options”.
Oh I agree, the overarching takeaway from all this is that these schmucks should have gone with a better candidate.
|
On September 26 2018 22:08 Plansix wrote:This is going to be a big problem for Kavanaugh down the line. He is presenting a narrative about his past that is easily prove be false. And because he went to Ivy League schools, the people contradicting his claims often creditable Republicans, not democrats. https://twitter.com/asmamk/status/1044914507066347520
It's obvious that he is lying about his past in general but it's still not clear the Republicans care. I'm curious to see how the Dems push this issue on Thursday when they question him.
As for the piece of shi... err McConnell, my guess is that the gameplan is to try and force a vote to get everyone on record. If Kavanaugh loses then they have the excuse to drop him and pick someone else.
|
On September 26 2018 22:20 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 22:08 Plansix wrote:This is going to be a big problem for Kavanaugh down the line. He is presenting a narrative about his past that is easily prove be false. And because he went to Ivy League schools, the people contradicting his claims often creditable Republicans, not democrats. https://twitter.com/asmamk/status/1044914507066347520 Yeah, this chosen strategy by Kav is a firm indictment of his general reasoning skills. "No one's perfect" is so much easier to defend than "I was pretty close to perfect!"
While "no one's perfect" is shitty, as already argued above, that isn't even necessary. All he needs to do is own the parts of the truth that are obvious from his yearbook and college stories: he was generally a popular guy who went to all the parties and did well with the ladies. You know, living the American Pie. Not a "nobody's perfect", but rather "hey, I was young and have no regrets". And then, claim that he would never force himself upon a girl, and anybody saying so is "confused".
Then pray it stays put as a he-said-she-said with just one victim, and it all blows over quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/fL9lcmd.png)
