|
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 09:52 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:50 GoTuNk! wrote: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?
So the background checks are worthless, but they will find strong evidence about something that happened 35 years ago without any leads? Is that how it works?
|
United States5574 Posts
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.
Except in this case there is a witness who they are ACTIVELY avoiding interviewing and they are not concening an FBI investigation (which if there was nothing to find would have been over by now) because they are ACTIVELY avoiding looking for evidence. Its a perfect example for that reason.
You are trying to avoid the actual key point in n the example so you can find irrelevant differences but fine I'll stretch it further. If someone dies and 30 years later a witness ckmes forward, the cops follow that thread they don't just take the statement then pack it in a file never to think about it again.
|
On September 28 2018 09:53 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:52 iamthedave wrote:On September 28 2018 09:50 GoTuNk! wrote: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? So the background checks are worthless, but they will find strong evidence about something that happened 35 years ago without any leads? Is that how it works?
Like I said on the previous page, knowing what direction to look in helps a lot.
They might not find strong evidence but they are more likely to find whatever there is to find, and any additional information helps in making a more informed decision.
|
On September 28 2018 09:53 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:52 iamthedave wrote:On September 28 2018 09:50 GoTuNk! wrote: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? So the background checks are worthless, but they will find strong evidence about something that happened 35 years ago without any leads? Is that how it works?
Yes, exactly how it works.
They did the background check w/o a lead and found nothing.
They now have a lead (witnesses / accusers) and so an investigation may bear fruit. If they do not find anything, that works in Kavanaugh's favor.
This.. this is not hard.
|
On September 28 2018 09:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:53 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 28 2018 09:52 iamthedave wrote:On September 28 2018 09:50 GoTuNk! wrote: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? So the background checks are worthless, but they will find strong evidence about something that happened 35 years ago without any leads? Is that how it works? Yes, exactly how it works. They did the background check w/o a lead and found nothing. They now have a lead (witnesses / accusers) and so an investigation may bear fruit. If they do not find anything, that works in Kavanaugh's favor. This.. this is not hard.
They don't have a lead. They don't have a time, a place, or any witness that confirms this.
This is like me claming senator Feinstein molested me 15 years ago when I visited New York, and that she should step down while investigation takes place. This is obviously non-sense.
You conveniently ommit the purposeful delaying aswell.
|
On September 28 2018 10:00 GoTuNk! wrote:...
You conveniently ommit the purposeful delaying aswell.
This was on the last page, so you might have missed it.
How do you reconcile "hid it for 6 weeks willingly" with "notified the White House when she became aware Kavanaugh was on the shortlist"?
|
On September 28 2018 10:00 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 28 2018 09:53 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 28 2018 09:52 iamthedave wrote:On September 28 2018 09:50 GoTuNk! wrote: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? So the background checks are worthless, but they will find strong evidence about something that happened 35 years ago without any leads? Is that how it works? Yes, exactly how it works. They did the background check w/o a lead and found nothing. They now have a lead (witnesses / accusers) and so an investigation may bear fruit. If they do not find anything, that works in Kavanaugh's favor. This.. this is not hard. They don't have a lead. They don't have a time, a place, or any witness that confirms this. This is like me claming senator Feinstein molested me 15 years ago when I visited New York, and that she should step down while investigation takes place. This is obviously non-sense. You conveniently ommit the purposeful delaying aswell. No one is asking for Kavanaugh to step down while its being investigated.
They are asking for him not to be promote while its being investigated.
But its not being investigated because the Republicans don't want that. Probably because they are afraid of what such an investigation would find.
|
On September 28 2018 09:31 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:22 Doodsmack wrote: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.
I should have said "derogatory accusation" rather than "something." I am not convinced that employers will simply fire or decline to hire someone because of a derogatory accusation. They will do it if they start getting attention from the press for it, which is just for PR purposes. Aside from that I would imagine it comes down to the discretion of the person doing the hiring. Regardless that doesn't change the fact that the system is unfair if a mere allegation is enough to sink someone. Even assuming that employers are generally unfair in this regard, that doesn't mean we need to be unfair when it comes to Supreme Court nominations. The principle of fairness doesn't change regardless of whether it's a job interview or a court of law.
|
On September 28 2018 10:12 Doodsmack wrote:...
Even assuming that employers are generally unfair in this regard, that doesn't mean we need to be unfair when it comes to Supreme Court nominations.
...
I'd also expect a Supreme Court nomination to be held to a higher standard than a common-or-garden job interview.
Regardless that doesn't change the fact that the system is unfair if a mere allegation is enough to sink someone.
It's not a "mere allegation" at this point. It's several allegations in conjunction with:
- Kavanaugh's reluctance to have any of them investigated further
- The fibs he appears to have told already about his character and activities at the time
(I don't promise this is an exhaustive list.)
|
One thing is for sure, the Senate as we knew it is dead. We watched it die today. And maybe the Supreme Court too. If they confirm Kavanaugh, I would not be surprised if impeaching him become a front facing issue for many Democrats for a decade. Especially if the court starts ruling on things like Roe.
|
On September 28 2018 10:00 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 28 2018 09:53 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 28 2018 09:52 iamthedave wrote:On September 28 2018 09:50 GoTuNk! wrote: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? So the background checks are worthless, but they will find strong evidence about something that happened 35 years ago without any leads? Is that how it works? Yes, exactly how it works. They did the background check w/o a lead and found nothing. They now have a lead (witnesses / accusers) and so an investigation may bear fruit. If they do not find anything, that works in Kavanaugh's favor. This.. this is not hard. They don't have a lead. They don't have a time, a place, or any witness that confirms this. This is like me claming senator Feinstein molested me 15 years ago when I visited New York, and that she should step down while investigation takes place. This is obviously non-sense. You conveniently ommit the purposeful delaying aswell. There's Mark Judge, who she says was there. Questioning him would be simple to do for the FBI. But the Republicans seem afraid of Mark Judge being questioned since he has been open about his behaviour in high school.
If her allegations are false and there are people who can claim contrary to what Blasey Ford claims, then an FBI investigation (keep in mind for Anita Hill's claims, the investigation was literally just a couple days, and it probably wouldn't be much longer here) would trivially prove that she lied. Innocent people are more than happy to participate in investigations that will prove them innocent since they know they are innocent.
If Kavanaugh was the innocent choir boy he claims he was, then the investigation would be over quickly and would show he did not do these things. Kavanaugh and the Republicans are blocking and have blocked any chance of there being an investigation. To a reasonable person, this would suggest that there is something he is hiding. He is a person who has let the FBI vet him for other things in the past, why is he suddenly so defensive about them looking into this subject specifically? Keep in mind by default, the FBI usually just investigates what is on the SF86 form for nominees so this kind of thing would not be on it.
It was telling when it came out that McConnell tried to talk Trump out of nominating Kavanaugh.
|
I mean when you respond to ´were you ever blackout drunk?´ with ´were you, senator?' and to 'did you drink on weekdays?' with 'hey i'm good at sports and helped in a soup kitchen' it feels like this drunk thing is not confortable for him to talk about.
Just say you drank a lot like so many other people did when they were young. Why be so evasive?
|
On September 28 2018 10:33 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 10:00 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 28 2018 09:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 28 2018 09:53 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 28 2018 09:52 iamthedave wrote:On September 28 2018 09:50 GoTuNk! wrote: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? So the background checks are worthless, but they will find strong evidence about something that happened 35 years ago without any leads? Is that how it works? Yes, exactly how it works. They did the background check w/o a lead and found nothing. They now have a lead (witnesses / accusers) and so an investigation may bear fruit. If they do not find anything, that works in Kavanaugh's favor. This.. this is not hard. They don't have a lead. They don't have a time, a place, or any witness that confirms this. This is like me claming senator Feinstein molested me 15 years ago when I visited New York, and that she should step down while investigation takes place. This is obviously non-sense. You conveniently ommit the purposeful delaying aswell. There's Mark Judge, who she says was there. Questioning him would be simple to do for the FBI. But the Republicans seem afraid of Mark Judge being questioned since he has been open about his behaviour in high school. If her allegations are false and there are people who can claim contrary to what Blasey Ford claims, then an FBI investigation (keep in mind for Anita Hill's claims, the investigation was literally just a couple days, and it probably wouldn't be much longer here) would trivially prove that she lied. Innocent people are more than happy to participate in investigations that will prove them innocent since they know they are innocent. If Kavanaugh was the innocent choir boy he claims he was, then the investigation would be over quickly and would show he did not do these things. Kavanaugh and the Republicans are blocking and have blocked any chance of there being an investigation. To a reasonable person, this would suggest that there is something he is hiding. He is a person who has let the FBI vet him for other things in the past, why is he suddenly so defensive about them looking into this subject specifically? Keep in mind by default, the FBI usually just investigates what is on the SF86 form for nominees so this kind of thing would not be on it. It was telling when it came out that McConnell tried to talk Trump out of nominating Kavanaugh.
If you people understood the full meaning of the words:
"Why would we have accused him if he were not guilty?"
then you might be capable of elevation to a transcendental plane of higher critical thought.
|
I'm not sure how this is comparable at all to a job interview. I don't know about you guys, but my interviewers (of which there were ~7, not 100) never publicized and de facto outsourced their hiring decisions to (mostly rabidly partisan) Average Joes from their home states who upvote or downvote their employment status every 6 years.
I mean that probably changes the incentives of the interviewers by quite a lot.
|
On September 28 2018 05:48 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 05:36 plasmidghost wrote:
What a fucking shitshow coming out of Kavanaugh, like others have said, even if it's totally proved that he's 100% innocent of the allegations, his temperament gives me more than enough reason to not support him You have to understand how a person would respond to these allegations (assuming that he's innocent). It would be inhuman to not react this way. IMO Kavanaugh is just as credible as Ford. I said before that Ford should be heard out, and I think this hearing has accomplished that, especially with the outside counsel questioning Kavanaugh. At this point, you can't put the burden of proof on Kavanaugh, and I'm not sure the evidence is strong enough. A barebones allegation just isn't enough. The best system available is one that minimizes false convictions, and that is why the burden is not on Kavanaugh. True, it's not a court of law, but the principle underlying the burden of proof is simple fairness. I don't think the allegations are grounds to sink Kavanaugh at this point (revenge for Garland is another matter, but that would have to be separate from these allegations).
First, I'm just going to give Doodsmack credit for this because I honestly didn't expect it and it's right on the money.
Also I will add that it's not "just" a job interview, voting him down would be a signal that the Senate believes him to most likely be guilty of sexual assault and, since lots of people think Avanatti's stuff is legit (lol), it helps brand him as a rapist. That's your reputation, and maybe even his current job.
Also, I feel like A LOT of the posts in here are the result of people half listening then running to their keyboards.
An example:
Ford did not say she provided her letter to the White House. She didn't even say she gave it to Grassley. She gave it to her congressional rep, and they then agreed to have it given to Feinstein. Somehow, her name and details came out against Ford's wishes after that happened. No one seems intent on finding this person though. This letter really was dropped from the heavens after the hearings.
the transcript of her opening statement is here:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/christine-blasey-ford-opening-statement-senate-845080
On July 9, 2018, I received a call from the office of Congresswoman Anna Eshoo after Mr. Kavanaugh had become the nominee. I met with her staff on July 11 and with her on July 13, describing the assault and discussing my fear about coming forward. Later, we discussed the possibility of sending a letter to Ranking Member Feinstein, who is one of my state’s Senators, describing what occurred. My understanding is that Representative Eshoo’s office delivered a copy of my letter to Senator Feinstein’s office on July 30, 2018. The letter included my name, but requested that the letter be kept confidential.
My hope was that providing the information confidentially would be sufficient to allow the Senate to consider Mr. Kavanaugh’s serious misconduct without having to make myself, my family, or anyone’s family vulnerable to the personal attacks and invasions of privacy we have faced since my name became public. In a letter on August 31, 2018, Senator Feinstein wrote that she would not share the letter without my consent. I greatly appreciated this commitment. All sexual assault victims should be able to decide for themselves whether their private experience is made public.
|
@Plansix do you have a source for this?
On September 28 2018 03:33 Plansix wrote:
Graham is very grumpy and feels that the Democratic party knew about all of this, when it was one senator who did was the person who wrote her the letter asked. And Ford tried to notify the White House during the short list period of time, but the WH ignored it, I guess. It’s not the Democrats fault their nominee sucks. He is afraid of what the Democrats are going to do if they win the Senate, and that fear is well founded.
Also:
On September 28 2018 11:02 Introvert wrote:...
Also I will add that it's not "just" a job interview, voting him down would be a signal that the Senate believes him to most likely be guilty of sexual assault and, since lots of people think Avanatti's stuff is legit (lol), it helps brand him as a rapist. That's your reputation, and maybe even his current job.
...
No, it's a signal that they're not sufficiently sure he didn't commit sexual assault that they're willing to put him on the Supreme Court.
|
On September 28 2018 10:00 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 28 2018 09:53 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 28 2018 09:52 iamthedave wrote:On September 28 2018 09:50 GoTuNk! wrote: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? So the background checks are worthless, but they will find strong evidence about something that happened 35 years ago without any leads? Is that how it works? Yes, exactly how it works. They did the background check w/o a lead and found nothing. They now have a lead (witnesses / accusers) and so an investigation may bear fruit. If they do not find anything, that works in Kavanaugh's favor. This.. this is not hard. They don't have a lead. They don't have a time, a place, or any witness that confirms this. This is like me claming senator Feinstein molested me 15 years ago when I visited New York, and that she should step down while investigation takes place. This is obviously non-sense. You conveniently ommit the purposeful delaying aswell.
Let's keep with your analogy. Setting aside that your random internet posting isn't very credible, we could start by investigating if you were ever in New York around 15 years ago. We could do the same for Feinstein.
If the result of the investigation is that you two were never in the same city at the same time, the accusation loses credibility right there. Conversely, if more aspects of your story turn out to be true, your overall testimony gains credibility.
This.. this is not hard.
|
On September 28 2018 11:07 Aquanim wrote:@Plansix do you have a source for this? Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 03:33 Plansix wrote:
Graham is very grumpy and feels that the Democratic party knew about all of this, when it was one senator who did was the person who wrote her the letter asked. And Ford tried to notify the White House during the short list period of time, but the WH ignored it, I guess. It’s not the Democrats fault their nominee sucks. He is afraid of what the Democrats are going to do if they win the Senate, and that fear is well founded. Also: Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 11:02 Introvert wrote:...
Also I will add that it's not "just" a job interview, voting him down would be a signal that the Senate believes him to most likely be guilty of sexual assault and, since lots of people think Avanatti's stuff is legit (lol), it helps brand him as a rapist. That's your reputation, and maybe even his current job.
...
No, it's a signal that they're not sufficiently sure he didn't commit sexual assault that they're willing to put him on the Supreme Court.
She said it in her testimony and she said no one followed up with her.
But hey, him and Thomas can swap stories about their testimony and how mean everyone was. And the Supreme Court will be relegated to a political tool of the conservatives, who are coming for our freedoms.
|
On September 28 2018 11:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 11:07 Aquanim wrote:@Plansix do you have a source for this? On September 28 2018 03:33 Plansix wrote:
Graham is very grumpy and feels that the Democratic party knew about all of this, when it was one senator who did was the person who wrote her the letter asked. And Ford tried to notify the White House during the short list period of time, but the WH ignored it, I guess. It’s not the Democrats fault their nominee sucks. He is afraid of what the Democrats are going to do if they win the Senate, and that fear is well founded. Also: On September 28 2018 11:02 Introvert wrote:...
Also I will add that it's not "just" a job interview, voting him down would be a signal that the Senate believes him to most likely be guilty of sexual assault and, since lots of people think Avanatti's stuff is legit (lol), it helps brand him as a rapist. That's your reputation, and maybe even his current job.
...
No, it's a signal that they're not sufficiently sure he didn't commit sexual assault that they're willing to put him on the Supreme Court. She said it in her testimony and she said no one followed up with her.
Introvert is straight-up claiming you're wrong about this - can you give me some kind of direction as to where to look? If it was this statement
On July 6, 2018, I had a sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the President as soon as possible before a nominee was selected.
I don't think this implies she actually contacted the President or the White House.
|
My issue is that, when you set the burden of proof as low as it needs to be to sink Kavanaugh based on these allegations, how is a democracy even supposed to function?
There's a million Trumpkins and rabid anti-Trumpkins out there who have been "in the same house party" (or anywhere else a sexual assault could possibly occur... Which is, um, everywhere) as literally every potential electoral candidate in the US. Any of them could levy accusations with the same level evidence, and, with training from their side's party, could probably give compelling testimony. I don't trust every living American individual not to abuse this power in the future, and I'm not ready to risk our democracy over it.
Does this mean Ford is lying? No, I don't claim to know the answer to that. But from a purely pragmatic perspective, we can't run a country like this.
Even if you think "oh people won't sink that low", is there any reason to believe they won't get there in the next 10, 20, or 100 years? We've been on a firmly downward trend on political civility for a long time, and if we're not that low already then we will likely get there in my lifetime I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
