|
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 09:06 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:00 Doodsmack wrote:
Basically all the opinions expressed on this are a matter of political bias. The truth is that we don't know one way or another, which means we should presume innocence as a matter of having a good system for resolving these kinds of questions. Exactly, I stand with inocent until proven guilty and not a single piece of evidence has been presented. So when are they voting?
.. in a job interview?
I'm just wondering, because this popped up multiple times in the last few pages - are you guys really that dense or do you just play stupid?
You know full well that this was a job interview, and not an investigation. You know, the kinda thing that republicans made abundantly clear that they don't want that. An investigation produces evidence. Not a job interview. It's really not that hard a concept to grasp. That's why criminals don't just walk after the police came over, telling them that "well someone said you were murdering someone, but seeing that they didn't provide the murderweapon, we think you cool".
Like, what the fuck.
|
On September 28 2018 09:12 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:06 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 28 2018 09:00 Doodsmack wrote:
Basically all the opinions expressed on this are a matter of political bias. The truth is that we don't know one way or another, which means we should presume innocence as a matter of having a good system for resolving these kinds of questions. Exactly, I stand with inocent until proven guilty and not a single piece of evidence has been presented. So when are they voting? .. in a job interview? I'm just wondering, because this popped up multiple times in the last few pages - are you guys really that dense or do you just play stupid? You know full well that this was a job interview, and not an investigation. You know, the kinda thing that republicans made abundantly clear that they don't want that. An investigation produces evidence. Not a job interview. It's really not that hard a concept to grasp. That's why criminals don't just walk after the police came over, telling them that "well someone said you were murdering someone, but seeing that they didn't provide the murderweapon, we think you cool". Like, what the fuck.
What are you talking about. All I see here is a troubled woman exploited by Senator Feinstein and later the democratic party.
Her testimony is contradictory, changes all the time, provides no place, date, and all alleged witnesses deny what she says ever happened. Nothing has corroborated her story.
Because I do not see A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE to make me believe the acussations have substance, I'm ok with this man who has been smeared incessantly by the left and the media over the last 10 days because of Feinstein machinations, recieved DEATH THREAT both him and his family, to join the supreme court.
|
On September 28 2018 09:12 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:06 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 28 2018 09:00 Doodsmack wrote:
Basically all the opinions expressed on this are a matter of political bias. The truth is that we don't know one way or another, which means we should presume innocence as a matter of having a good system for resolving these kinds of questions. Exactly, I stand with inocent until proven guilty and not a single piece of evidence has been presented. So when are they voting? .. in a job interview? I'm just wondering, because this popped up multiple times in the last few pages - are you guys really that dense or do you just play stupid? You know full well that this was a job interview, and not an investigation. You know, the kinda thing that republicans made abundantly clear that they don't want that. An investigation produces evidence. Not a job interview. It's really not that hard a concept to grasp. That's why criminals don't just walk after the police came over, telling them that "well someone said you were murdering someone, but seeing that they didn't provide the murderweapon, we think you cool". Like, what the fuck.
So in a job interview, when you don't know whether something is true, is it appropriate to assume that it is true?
|
On September 28 2018 09:21 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:12 m4ini wrote:On September 28 2018 09:06 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 28 2018 09:00 Doodsmack wrote:
Basically all the opinions expressed on this are a matter of political bias. The truth is that we don't know one way or another, which means we should presume innocence as a matter of having a good system for resolving these kinds of questions. Exactly, I stand with inocent until proven guilty and not a single piece of evidence has been presented. So when are they voting? .. in a job interview? I'm just wondering, because this popped up multiple times in the last few pages - are you guys really that dense or do you just play stupid? You know full well that this was a job interview, and not an investigation. You know, the kinda thing that republicans made abundantly clear that they don't want that. An investigation produces evidence. Not a job interview. It's really not that hard a concept to grasp. That's why criminals don't just walk after the police came over, telling them that "well someone said you were murdering someone, but seeing that they didn't provide the murderweapon, we think you cool". Like, what the fuck. What are you talking about. All I see here is a troubled woman exploited by Senator Feinstein and later the democratic party. Her testimony is contradictory, changes all the time, provides no place, date, and all alleged witnesses deny what she says ever happened. Nothing has corroborated her story. Because I do not see A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE to make me believe the acussations have substance, I'm ok with this man who has been smeared incessantly by the left and the media over the last 10 days because of Feinstein machinations, recieved DEATH THREAT both him and his family, to join the supreme court.
That would be the job of the FBI. The woman is asking for her background and creditable to be questioned by professional investors. Kavanaugh never did. If you want facts, the FBI investigation is the route to get them. Sadly, the Senate will vote without those facts, because they don’t care.
|
United States5574 Posts
On September 28 2018 09:06 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:00 Doodsmack wrote:
Basically all the opinions expressed on this are a matter of political bias. The truth is that we don't know one way or another, which means we should presume innocence as a matter of having a good system for resolving these kinds of questions. Exactly, I stand with inocent until proven guilty and not a single piece of evidence has been presented. So when are they voting?
You have two fundamental misconceptions and I'm going to try to take the politics out of it to show why those are misconceptions so bear with me.
First, this is not a court of law, this is a job interview and in a job interview you have to prove yourself innocent. Let's say you are interviewing for a job with any company and let us say its a very important job at this company; now if it comes out that you may have attempted to rape or sexually assault several women and you can't disprove those allegations you may as well leave the interview on the spot because they will shake your hand, thank you for your time, and then never call you again.
The second misconception is that if we do treat this like a court, we have heard no witnesses when they allegedly exist so how can we say that the process has been followed if that is the true goal?
Imagine if the justice system worked like how this "investigation" that you are seemingly fine with went. Imagine for a moment, god forbid, that something bad happened to you, someone hit your car, someone assaulted you, doesn't matter what, but both you and your wife saw the person who did it, you identify him to the police and they go and the person says of course they didn't do it. The police then decide to search for no evidence, not take your wife's statement and just say "whelp, its a he said, he said, nothing we can do"
|
On September 28 2018 09:12 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:06 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 28 2018 09:00 Doodsmack wrote:
Basically all the opinions expressed on this are a matter of political bias. The truth is that we don't know one way or another, which means we should presume innocence as a matter of having a good system for resolving these kinds of questions. Exactly, I stand with inocent until proven guilty and not a single piece of evidence has been presented. So when are they voting? .. in a job interview? I'm just wondering, because this popped up multiple times in the last few pages - are you guys really that dense or do you just play stupid? You know full well that this was a job interview, and not an investigation. You know, the kinda thing that republicans made abundantly clear that they don't want that. An investigation produces evidence. Not a job interview. It's really not that hard a concept to grasp. That's why criminals don't just walk after the police came over, telling them that "well someone said you were murdering someone, but seeing that they didn't provide the murderweapon, we think you cool". Like, what the fuck.
Convicting people of sexual crimes in court is very difficult all over the world, and almost impossible that far back in time. This is one reason why employers, organisations and social stigma do most of the "judging" in these cases. Accusations with much less evidence than this case have had people fired and careers destroyed. A famous recent story included a man standing up against internet rumors posted by colleagues, demanding them to be removed. As a result, he got suspended from his position "because of the ongoing investigation," even though he claimed to be the victim of false rumor spreading, and none of his supposed victims had come forth.
This should be a test of how he and the Reps handles the acuations more than finding an undisputable truth. As mentioned, this is also not a court.
|
On September 28 2018 09:22 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:12 m4ini wrote:On September 28 2018 09:06 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 28 2018 09:00 Doodsmack wrote:
Basically all the opinions expressed on this are a matter of political bias. The truth is that we don't know one way or another, which means we should presume innocence as a matter of having a good system for resolving these kinds of questions. Exactly, I stand with inocent until proven guilty and not a single piece of evidence has been presented. So when are they voting? .. in a job interview? I'm just wondering, because this popped up multiple times in the last few pages - are you guys really that dense or do you just play stupid? You know full well that this was a job interview, and not an investigation. You know, the kinda thing that republicans made abundantly clear that they don't want that. An investigation produces evidence. Not a job interview. It's really not that hard a concept to grasp. That's why criminals don't just walk after the police came over, telling them that "well someone said you were murdering someone, but seeing that they didn't provide the murderweapon, we think you cool". Like, what the fuck. So in a job interview, when you don't know whether something is true, is it appropriate to assume that it is true?
So, I shouldn't assume that what you say on your resume is true then? As an interviewer, I would assume anything you say is truth, since you know you're applying to a job, and hope to have an honest co-worker.
|
Can someone please elaborate on the outcome of the 4 supposedly corroborating reports made by witnesses, etc.? There was a lot of talk about those being introduced prior to the hearing, but I don't know the whole story behind them and I'm finding conflicting news online. Is it the case that those 4 reports were supposed to corroborate the accuracy of Christine Blasey Ford's account, the night she was allegedly sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh, but instead those reports merely corroborate the fact that CBF told those 4 people it happened after the fact? BK and the Republican senators repeatedly said that not only did the 4 reports not corroborate the actual event, but they ranged from ambiguous to straight-up refuting CBF's account, rather than supporting it.
|
On September 28 2018 09:22 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:12 m4ini wrote:On September 28 2018 09:06 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 28 2018 09:00 Doodsmack wrote:
Basically all the opinions expressed on this are a matter of political bias. The truth is that we don't know one way or another, which means we should presume innocence as a matter of having a good system for resolving these kinds of questions. Exactly, I stand with inocent until proven guilty and not a single piece of evidence has been presented. So when are they voting? .. in a job interview? I'm just wondering, because this popped up multiple times in the last few pages - are you guys really that dense or do you just play stupid? You know full well that this was a job interview, and not an investigation. You know, the kinda thing that republicans made abundantly clear that they don't want that. An investigation produces evidence. Not a job interview. It's really not that hard a concept to grasp. That's why criminals don't just walk after the police came over, telling them that "well someone said you were murdering someone, but seeing that they didn't provide the murderweapon, we think you cool". Like, what the fuck. So in a job interview, when you don't know whether something is true, is it appropriate to assume that it is true?
Generally you err on the side of caution. If someone says 'don't hire Steve to manage our money, he has a gambling problem' you'll probably pass unless the accusation is extremely suspect. Just hire the next person in line.
|
On September 28 2018 09:22 Doodsmack wrote:
So in a job interview, when you don't know whether something is true, is it appropriate to assume that it is true?
In a job interview you don't care because either the candidate is so uniquely qualified that you'll hire them regardless of any baggage, or they aren't and you dump them because you have 10,000 other candidates applying for the same job and it's piss-easy to find someone who doesn't come with any baggage. Whether its true doesn't matter because unless they fit in the first bucket where they're irreplaceable, its not worth the risk.
This political clown show is only going on because of the backdrop of the midterm elections and the timing consequences of moving on to the next guy.
|
On September 28 2018 09:29 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:06 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 28 2018 09:00 Doodsmack wrote:
Basically all the opinions expressed on this are a matter of political bias. The truth is that we don't know one way or another, which means we should presume innocence as a matter of having a good system for resolving these kinds of questions. Exactly, I stand with inocent until proven guilty and not a single piece of evidence has been presented. So when are they voting? You have two fundamental misconceptions and I'm going to try to take the politics out of it to show why those are misconceptions so bear with me. First, this is not a court of law, this is a job interview and in a job interview you have to prove yourself innocent. Let's say you are interviewing for a job with any company and let us say its a very important job at this company; now if it comes out that you may have attempted to rape or sexually assault several women and you can't disprove those allegations you may as well leave the interview on the spot because they will shake your hand, thank you for your time, and then never call you again. The second misconception is that if we do treat this like a court, we have heard no witnesses when they allegedly exist so how can we say that the process has been followed if that is the true goal? Imagine if the justice system worked like how this "investigation" that you are seemingly fine with went. Imagine for a moment, god forbid, that something bad happened to you, someone hit your car, someone assaulted you, doesn't matter what, but both you and your wife saw the person who did it, you identify him to the police and they go and the person says of course they didn't do it. The police then decide to search for no evidence, not take your wife's statement and just say "whelp, its a he said, he said, nothing we can do"
I don't have any misconceptions. I understand this is not a court of law; if it was, there would be nothing to discuss.
This is entirely a matter of interpretation. You think it's ok to hold someone acountable of something others claim without bringing any evidence foward, I don't. Taking any gossip you run into at face value is not a wise thing to do.
Your example it's beyond stupid. Your logic goes:
1) Guy crashes my car, wife witness.
2) Not take pictures, do not file police report, do no tell anyone.
3) Show up at this guy job interview 35 YEARS LATER and tell the employee about it, without any evidence.
4) Employee hires him anyway, the guy should prolly sue me aswell.
Bonus point: My wife (her best friend) denies this ever happened.
The example makes no sense.
|
On September 28 2018 09:40 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:22 Doodsmack wrote:
So in a job interview, when you don't know whether something is true, is it appropriate to assume that it is true? In a job interview you don't care because either the candidate is so uniquely qualified that you'll hire them regardless of any baggage, or they aren't and you dump them because you have 10,000 other candidates applying for the same job and it's piss-easy to find someone who doesn't come with any baggage. Whether its true doesn't matter because unless they fit in the first bucket where they're irreplaceable, its not worth the risk. This political clown show is only going on because of the backdrop of the midterm elections and the timing consequences of moving on to the next guy. Its hard to blame the timing consequence or midterms if they knew Kavanaugh was rotten from the short list when Ford informed the White House.
They could have had a different candidate who didn't need to have a whole host of documents hidden and multiple sexual assault allegations discussed and easily made a vote before Midterms.
But they had to have Kavanaugh because no other candidate would be willing to go as far to defend them.
|
On September 28 2018 09:40 GoTuNk! wrote:
...
This is entirely a matter of interpretation. You think it's ok to hold someone acountable of something others claim without bringing any evidence foward, I don't. Taking any gossip you run into at face value is not a wise thing to do.
...
When it is fairly easily within my power to go looking for additional evidence myself, and the original claim is not a priori unreasonable, I think I'd probably do that.
Would you?
|
On September 28 2018 09:40 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:29 Adreme wrote:On September 28 2018 09:06 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 28 2018 09:00 Doodsmack wrote:
Basically all the opinions expressed on this are a matter of political bias. The truth is that we don't know one way or another, which means we should presume innocence as a matter of having a good system for resolving these kinds of questions. Exactly, I stand with inocent until proven guilty and not a single piece of evidence has been presented. So when are they voting? You have two fundamental misconceptions and I'm going to try to take the politics out of it to show why those are misconceptions so bear with me. First, this is not a court of law, this is a job interview and in a job interview you have to prove yourself innocent. Let's say you are interviewing for a job with any company and let us say its a very important job at this company; now if it comes out that you may have attempted to rape or sexually assault several women and you can't disprove those allegations you may as well leave the interview on the spot because they will shake your hand, thank you for your time, and then never call you again. The second misconception is that if we do treat this like a court, we have heard no witnesses when they allegedly exist so how can we say that the process has been followed if that is the true goal? Imagine if the justice system worked like how this "investigation" that you are seemingly fine with went. Imagine for a moment, god forbid, that something bad happened to you, someone hit your car, someone assaulted you, doesn't matter what, but both you and your wife saw the person who did it, you identify him to the police and they go and the person says of course they didn't do it. The police then decide to search for no evidence, not take your wife's statement and just say "whelp, its a he said, he said, nothing we can do" I don't have any misconceptions. I understand this is not a court of law; if it was, there would be nothing to discuss. This is entirely a matter of interpretation. You think it's ok to hold someone acountable of something others claim without bringing any evidence foward, I don't. Taking any gossip you run into at face value is not a wise thing to do. Your example it's beyond stupid. Your logic goes: 1) Guy crashes my car, wife witness. 2) Not take pictures, do not file police report, do no tell anyone. 3) Show up at this guy job interview 35 YEARS LATER and tell the employee about it, without any evidence. 4) Employee hires him anyway, the guy should prolly sue me aswell. Bonus point: My wife (her best friend) denies this ever happened. The example makes no sense.
You've missed step
2) Did tell people, including a therapist who has notes corroborating this
and
5) Two other people come forward also saying that the guy crashed their cars.
And your response to this is "NOTHING TO SEE HERE, NO NEED TO INVESTIGATE THESE MULTIPLE CLAIMS OF PEOPLE CRASHING CARS"
|
On September 28 2018 09:40 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:29 Adreme wrote:On September 28 2018 09:06 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 28 2018 09:00 Doodsmack wrote:
Basically all the opinions expressed on this are a matter of political bias. The truth is that we don't know one way or another, which means we should presume innocence as a matter of having a good system for resolving these kinds of questions. Exactly, I stand with inocent until proven guilty and not a single piece of evidence has been presented. So when are they voting? You have two fundamental misconceptions and I'm going to try to take the politics out of it to show why those are misconceptions so bear with me. First, this is not a court of law, this is a job interview and in a job interview you have to prove yourself innocent. Let's say you are interviewing for a job with any company and let us say its a very important job at this company; now if it comes out that you may have attempted to rape or sexually assault several women and you can't disprove those allegations you may as well leave the interview on the spot because they will shake your hand, thank you for your time, and then never call you again. The second misconception is that if we do treat this like a court, we have heard no witnesses when they allegedly exist so how can we say that the process has been followed if that is the true goal? Imagine if the justice system worked like how this "investigation" that you are seemingly fine with went. Imagine for a moment, god forbid, that something bad happened to you, someone hit your car, someone assaulted you, doesn't matter what, but both you and your wife saw the person who did it, you identify him to the police and they go and the person says of course they didn't do it. The police then decide to search for no evidence, not take your wife's statement and just say "whelp, its a he said, he said, nothing we can do" I don't have any misconceptions. I understand this is not a court of law; if it was, there would be nothing to discuss. This is entirely a matter of interpretation. You think it's ok to hold someone acountable of something others claim without bringing any evidence foward, I don't. Taking any gossip you run into at face value is not a wise thing to do. Your example it's beyond stupid. Your logic goes: 1) Guy crashes my car, wife witness. 2) Not take pictures, do not file police report, do no tell anyone. 3) Show up at this guy job interview 35 YEARS LATER and tell the employee about it, without any evidence. 4) Employee hires him anyway, the guy should prolly sue me aswell. Bonus point: My wife (her best friend) denies this ever happened. The example makes no sense. And then a 2nd one comes forward, and a 3e.
Meanwhile your vigorously denying anyone looks closely at what happened.
And I promise you you won't get hired because there is 2 dozen other acceptable candidates without the baggage.
|
On September 28 2018 09:46 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:40 GoTuNk! wrote:
...
This is entirely a matter of interpretation. You think it's ok to hold someone acountable of something others claim without bringing any evidence foward, I don't. Taking any gossip you run into at face value is not a wise thing to do.
...
When it is fairly easily within my power to go looking for additional evidence myself, I think I'd probably do that. Would you?
Not if the FBI run 6 background checks, the information is contradictory and essentially unprovable, and the person brining the information foward hid it for 6 weeks willingly, just to delay the issue to exploit an election and hold the supreme court vacant until 2020.
|
On September 28 2018 09:50 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:46 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 09:40 GoTuNk! wrote:
...
This is entirely a matter of interpretation. You think it's ok to hold someone acountable of something others claim without bringing any evidence foward, I don't. Taking any gossip you run into at face value is not a wise thing to do.
...
When it is fairly easily within my power to go looking for additional evidence myself, I think I'd probably do that. Would you? Not if the FBI run 6 background checks, the information is contradictory and essentially unprovable, and the person brining the information foward hid it for 6 weeks willingly, just to delay the issue to exploit an election and hold the supreme court vacant until 2020.
You don't understand how FBI background checks work, do you? Have you paid the slightest bit of attention at any point, or just stuck your fingers in your ears, closed your eyes and repeated 'Brett is innocent' until all the bad noises stopped?
|
On September 28 2018 08:58 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 07:53 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2018 07:49 On_Slaught wrote:
Well, the fool at the top has weighed on. Votes on and Kavanaugh will be on SCOTUS, hell or high water.
All comes down to Collins and Murkowski. If they watched Ford's testimony, they know it really happened. From there, it is just a matter of it they care or not. We actually have no idea whether it happened. Her testimony didn't reveal any new facts other than that Mark Judge worked at a particular grocery store. Just because she seemed credible doesn't make it true. The burden of proof hasn't been met.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is to protect people from the state incorrectly jailing or otherwise punishing someone. It is to make sure the state never wrongly convicts. This is also a luxury of having a full investigation, as is generally the case in criminal law. There is no investigation here.
|
United States24799 Posts
<citizen hat> GoTuNk!, Kavanaugh stinks. Why don't we find out the source of the stink before the vote?
<mod hat> Also, to those of you treating this thread like a live report thread, please don't. It's not useful and in fact frustrating to be reading the thread and see a short post that just says "Wow, look at what he said!!!"
|
On September 28 2018 09:50 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:46 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 09:40 GoTuNk! wrote:
...
This is entirely a matter of interpretation. You think it's ok to hold someone acountable of something others claim without bringing any evidence foward, I don't. Taking any gossip you run into at face value is not a wise thing to do.
...
When it is fairly easily within my power to go looking for additional evidence myself, I think I'd probably do that. Would you? Not if the FBI run 6 background checks, the information is contradictory and essentially unprovable, and the person brining the information foward hid it for 6 weeks willingly, just to delay the issue to exploit an election and hold the supreme court vacant until 2020.
It's already been stated at length that FBI checks don't find everything particularly when they don't know what they're looking for. Knowing what directions to look in helps a lot.
Not being likely to find perfectly conclusive evidence is not an excuse for not looking at all. A better informed decision is better than a less informed one, even if a perfectly informed decision is not possible.
How do you reconcile "hid it for 6 weeks willingly" with "notified the White House when she became aware Kavanaugh was on the shortlist"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
