EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 744
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 27 2018 23:21 Sbrubbles wrote: It's very interesting that they're straight up claiming they attempted rape. Makes me wonder if this is being misreported. I mean, they could have simply claimed that they were indeed involved with Ford that night but that her recollection was faulty and that it wasn't attempted rape. Wouldn't this have the same effect? That entire thing is very strange and I really can’t wrap my head around it with the information we have. But if they are full of shit, their stories should fall apart pretty quickly. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany12003 Posts
On September 27 2018 22:55 Gahlo wrote: See potato might be tricky, depending on if he has any Irish heritage. Funnily enough, potato is sometimes used as an insult by germans with migrationary backgrounds (usually children of turkish parents, but children of some eastern europeans too) towards germans without any migratory background. I distinctly remember that happening from time to time during my high school days. In that setup, it is, while not technically racist, definitively going into that direction. Also, you are a fool and potatoes are tasty. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On September 27 2018 10:52 Simberto wrote: Also, it is incredibly important to confirm him before the elections. As opposed to in 2016, when it was incredibly important to not even think about a supreme court justice until after the elections. It is very important to have clear principles in those matters as a conservative. Principled conservative, so you must revere the Constitution. The Constitution says that the president and the senate are equally involved in judicial nominations. So in 2016 we had a presidential election, and since the president is involved in nominating judges, we needed to wait until after the election to choose a new Supreme Court judge. Now, in 2018 we have an election that will determine which party controls the Senate. So why does it not follow that we should wait until after the election to choose the judge? | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On September 27 2018 23:44 On_Slaught wrote: Her saying that drunken Judge switched between egging Kavanaugh on and telling him to stop is a super specific detail. I find it hard to believe somebody would add such a detail if they made the story up. This adds credibility to her story imo. Not really, it's a super common detail that happens in these sorts of scenarios. If she WAS a fantasist it's the exact sort of detail to add to make it sound more real. In other words, doesn't mean much in either direction in terms of determining truth. EDIT: Also, I think the 'sentient jar of mayonnaise = racism' track is the single stupidest thing I've read on the internet this year. Awards are in order. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On September 27 2018 23:54 iamthedave wrote: Not really, it's a super common detail that happens in these sorts of scenarios. If she WAS a fantasist it's the exact sort of detail to add to make it sound more real. In other words, doesn't mean much in either direction in terms of determining truth. Lol ok dude. Here goes the cross examination. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12003 Posts
On September 27 2018 23:48 Doodsmack wrote: Principled conservative, so you must revere the Constitution. The Constitution says that the president and the senate are equally involved in judicial nominations. So in 2016 we had a presidential election, and since the president is involved in nominating judges, we needed to wait until after the election to choose a new Supreme Court judge. Now, in 2018 we have an election that will determine which party controls the Senate. So why does it not follow that we should wait until after the election to choose the judge? Sorry, i should have put a /s at the end of that post. As to your question, i don't have the slightest idea how those two things work together into a consistent logical framework. Other than "Winning is more important than anything else" of course. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On September 28 2018 00:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: How did the GOP leadership think this was a good idea. Cross examination of a sexual assualt victim on national television. I think they were hoping she wouldn't show up, honestly. In some ways this has been the GOP taking least worst choice after least worst choice and ending up somewhere probably worse than initial least worst choice. | ||
|
franzji
United States583 Posts
On September 28 2018 00:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: How did the GOP leadership think this was a good idea. Cross examination of a sexual assualt victim on national television. There is a good chance that they knew that there was no way they could come out politically ahead with the #metoo movement in full swing, and with the democrats bringing up this last minute (even though they knew about it since july?) Isn't it all politics? Democrats have the upper hand, and during the vote tomorrow you will either see Republican's siding with the victim for some last minute votes in their states (because the popular opinion will be with the victim or claimed victim), or a republican can claim it's all a democratic hoax to get more votes in their conservative heavy state. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 28 2018 00:07 TheTenthDoc wrote: I think they were hoping she wouldn't show up, honestly. That seemed to be the plan. Ford made it seem like the prosecutor was a deal breaker, so they appeared to double down that they would use one. But then Ford appeared anyways and now the optics are total shit for them. This is a complete circus/kangaroo court. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
franzji
United States583 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Also we really need to voter younger people into office. FFS Grassley is 85. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On September 28 2018 00:28 youngjiddle wrote: Take a shot every time a democrat demands a FBI investigation. You'd die. I'm not sure the female prosecutor thing is working. She cant get any momentum with the constant interruptions. Having said that, it is probably still better than having the Senators question her. The optics on that would be horrible. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 28 2018 00:28 youngjiddle wrote: Take a shot every time a democrat demands a FBI investigation. I’m not prepared for that hang over. And a FBI investigation would likely be the result if any of the senators were accused of the same thing, so their request isn’t that crazy. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
| ||
| ||
