|
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 28 2018 04:55 nojok wrote:
Did not expect so many mobs on liquid who already made their opinion without any proof.
Fact is there is no proof and the story has appeared out of the blue before Kavanaugh could get an important position. Frightening for your democracy, really.
It's the Supreme Court my dude, we're not putting him in jail. And Kavanaugh should already have been disqualified before all of this came out so yeah, if they confirm him to that position when on top of the rest there's an at least 50% chance that he's committed all this shit, they are going to look extremely bad.
|
On September 28 2018 04:55 nojok wrote:
Did not expect so many mobs on liquid who already made their opinion without any proof.
Fact is there is no proof and the story has appeared out of the blue before Kavanaugh could get an important position. Frightening for your democracy, really. yes out of the blue.
6 years ago to her therapist.
|
On September 28 2018 04:55 nojok wrote:
Did not expect so many mobs on liquid who already made their opinion without any proof.
Fact is there is no proof and the story has appeared out of the blue before Kavanaugh could get an important position. Frightening for your democracy, really.
And this is exactly why sexual assault allegations are so hard to prove. They are usually not in broad daylight with witnesses, and the trauma plus often long delay makes everything so hard to prove.
"He said, she said" is shitty, and an excellent reason why lots of women don't go public... It's not really about democracy itself... I would be awfully pissed if some person that assaulted me and I had to cope with all my life, trying to forget, would be on the frontlines to get in one of the top positions in the country. Yet going public would be hugely damaging. What does the accuser gains if coming forward with false claims ?
|
On September 28 2018 04:57 dankobanana wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 04:55 nojok wrote:
has appeared out of the blue before Kavanaugh could get an important position. Frightening for your democracy, really. this is NOT true. it was know while he was on the short list already
That's debatable. Fact is you're dodging the lack of proof which is very very disturbing and most of you formed an opinion just because you don't like Kavanaugh, totally ignoring facts.
There is no way to defend yourself 40 years later against a woman you saw at a party which claims you raped her. It's impossible so you either say stupid things or stay silent but I don't think silence was an option for him as he was summoned to this court.
|
On September 28 2018 04:55 nojok wrote:
Did not expect so many mobs on liquid who already made their opinion without any proof.
Fact is there is no proof and the story has appeared out of the blue before Kavanaugh could get an important position. Frightening for your democracy, really.
Have you been sexually assaulted? Because as a person who has, it's not very easy to provide proof you were assaulted in a bathroom, 22 years ago.
|
On September 28 2018 04:56 On_Slaught wrote:
I am absolutely shocked that they are still having Mitchell ask questions. She is an ex prosecutor who put people like this in jail. She isnt going to provide a defense of Kavanaugh anywhere close to what the senators would.
@nojok your post reveals how little you have followed this case.
Maybe he is just not into bullshit reality shows... Seriously, this could be straight out of big brother or some crap like that.
|
Holy shit Mitchell's questioning is going horrible. This is going to blow up on the Republicans like it did earlier. With Ford she asked softball questions while the Dems helped her case. Now she likely is going to throw out softball questions to Kavanaugh, which barely help, if at all, while the Dems tear into him.
|
Ford also testified directly to the fact that she informed the SJC about her allegation once Kav made the shortlist, so it appears nojok is not only not following this story, he's not even paying attention today. Is that you pretending to be a TLer, Senator Graham?
|
On September 28 2018 05:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 04:55 nojok wrote:
Did not expect so many mobs on liquid who already made their opinion without any proof.
Fact is there is no proof and the story has appeared out of the blue before Kavanaugh could get an important position. Frightening for your democracy, really. Have you been sexually assaulted? Because as a person who has, it's not very easy to provide proof you were assaulted in a bathroom, 22 years ago.
Same. I have absolutely no way of proving mine either. It feels like some people have the impression most sexual assault is captured on video with multiple eyewitnesses. Weird.
|
Hi senator who has been doing this job forever. Let me tell you how the FBI works !
|
On September 28 2018 05:02 farvacola wrote:
Ford also testified directly to the fact that she informed the SJC about her allegation once Kav made the shortlist, so it appears nojok is not only not following this story, he's not even paying attention today. Is that you pretending to be a TLer, Senator Graham?
Would McConnell know that, then? Would explain why he was against the Kavanaugh nomination and he invoked some bs paperwork reason.
|
Grassley would be the gatekeeper of any info disclosed to the SJC, but I think it's fair to assume he and McConnell share practically everything pertinent to their control of the Senate.
|
On September 28 2018 05:00 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 04:57 dankobanana wrote:On September 28 2018 04:55 nojok wrote:
has appeared out of the blue before Kavanaugh could get an important position. Frightening for your democracy, really. this is NOT true. it was know while he was on the short list already That's debatable. Fact is you're dodging the lack of proof which is very very disturbing and most of you formed an opinion just because you don't like Kavanaugh, totally ignoring facts. There is no way to defend yourself 40 years later against a woman you saw at a party which claims you raped her. It's impossible so you either say stupid things or stay silent but I don't think silence was an option for him as he was summoned to this court.
This is categorically false. You can defend yourself. To start, call for an investigation and hold on the nomination proceedings, saying you don’t want to be nominated under a cloud of suspicion and rumor.
There is only one side of this asking for investigations, the accusers. They want investigations. They want the FBI to look into their past. They asked for it over and over. Brent has not.
|
|
|
Kavanaugh doesn't like Mitchells question.
Edit: He looks pissed.
|
Brett Kavanaugh claiming that he's never passed out from drinking, only going to sleep after having too many of them.
|
He's just going to say No to everything; it's almost like him saying "i plead the fifth"...
|
On September 28 2018 05:03 IyMoon wrote:
Hi senator who has been doing this job forever. Let me tell you how the FBI works !
Then again, he asked for an immediate hearing, which is NOT how you investigate. An investigation takes quite a lot of time...
In this case : interrogate alleged witnesses, cross-check testimonies to try and find out where/when that party was, search archives...
Asking for an hearing on the next day of the allegations does not answer the question he was asked : "do you want a full blown investigation"... I think this plays against him. It is understandable in order to try and protect/salvage his family, but is not a good answer.
|
On September 28 2018 05:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 04:55 nojok wrote:
Did not expect so many mobs on liquid who already made their opinion without any proof.
Fact is there is no proof and the story has appeared out of the blue before Kavanaugh could get an important position. Frightening for your democracy, really. Have you been sexually assaulted? Because as a person who has, it's not very easy to provide proof you were assaulted in a bathroom, 22 years ago.
Wth is this question?
You just can't provide proof and it's terribly unfair but it mostly means you can't prosecute someone like that. If you just need the lack of proof in either way to accuse someone, it can go terribly wrong.
|
On September 28 2018 05:11 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 05:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:On September 28 2018 04:55 nojok wrote:
Did not expect so many mobs on liquid who already made their opinion without any proof.
Fact is there is no proof and the story has appeared out of the blue before Kavanaugh could get an important position. Frightening for your democracy, really. Have you been sexually assaulted? Because as a person who has, it's not very easy to provide proof you were assaulted in a bathroom, 22 years ago. Wth is this question? You just can't provide proof and it's terribly unfair but it mostly means you can't prosecute someone like that. If you just need the lack of proof in either way to accuse someone, it can go terribly wrong.
There's no prosecution going on. So no problem then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
