EPTMore importantly, Corker has said he will vote for Kavanaugh. His reason? There isnt enough corroborating evidence. When you realize the same people saying that are the same people saying there shouldn't be a real investigation then you cant help but laugh. It's intellectually and morally indefensible and they know it. However they have political cover so who gives a shit, right?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 762
| 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 | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
More importantly, Corker has said he will vote for Kavanaugh. His reason? There isnt enough corroborating evidence. When you realize the same people saying that are the same people saying there shouldn't be a real investigation then you cant help but laugh. It's intellectually and morally indefensible and they know it. However they have political cover so who gives a shit, right? | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On September 28 2018 11:53 Aquanim wrote: Just to be clear, the way I see it there are three options: (1) Declare Kavanaugh is acceptable (2) Investigate further (3) Declare Kavanaugh is not acceptable You are saying that (3) is unreasonable; are you saying that (2) is also unreasonable? In my view the burden on you to justify (2) being unreasonable is much, much higher and you're nowhere near to meeting it. At one point I had said there should be an FBI investigation but after seeing today's hearing I think it is sufficient. The relevant witnesses have put forth statements saying they have no recollection; short of a time portal, there's little the FBI could do. It's not worth the effort. The committee has also done fact finding, including following up on additional, frivolous accusations. The second and third accusations are less credible than Ford. What changed my mind on this was simply the realization that Kavanaugh might be innocent. You've got to realize the significance and the grotesqueness of falsely destroying an innocent person. The evidence just isn't there. And to those saying we can draw a negative inference from him getting emotional at the hearing, it's nonsense. He came off as sincere because of the emotion. If he's innocent, and has been subjected to this attack, a non-inhibited person would get emotional like that. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On September 28 2018 13:49 Doodsmack wrote: At one point I had said there should be an FBI investigation but after seeing today's hearing I think it is sufficient. The relevant witnesses have put forth statements saying they have no recollection; short of a time portal, there's little the FBI could do. It's not worth the effort. "It's not worth the effort" is a remarkably negligent standpoint for something this important. ... What changed my mind on this was simply the realization that Kavanaugh might be innocent. You've got to realize the significance and the grotesqueness of falsely destroying an innocent person. The evidence just isn't there. If he's not innocent, putting him on the Supreme Court would be pretty significant and grotesque too. You keep trying to dodge the downsides of accepting Kavanaugh and only focusing on the downsides of rejecting him. As such, your line of argument is fallacious. On September 28 2018 13:52 Doodsmack wrote: I mean I guess there's no harm to come from an investigation, other than a snowballing media circus, but you guys would also have to accept the results of the inconclusive investigation. reporters have been calling everyone from Kavanaugh's past; the worst we have is that he drank a lot. Many things in life would be a lot easier if it were viable to just naively swallow whatever public statements people make instead of conducting an actual investigation. | ||
KwarK
United States42738 Posts
It's not strange or coincidental that these allegations emerged during the process, it's exactly when you'd expect them to emerge. Hell, it's the only time at which it would be rational to dig that shit up. It would have been hugely irrational for her to speak out about it at any other time. Her credibility would not have been enhanced if 10 years ago she went to the police and insisted that President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court sexually assaulted her. | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
On September 28 2018 13:52 Doodsmack wrote: I mean I guess there's no harm to come from an investigation, other than a snowballing media circus, but you guys would also have to accept the results of the inconclusive investigation. reporters have been calling everyone from Kavanaugh's past; the worst we have is that he drank a lot. He should be facing the highest scrutiny possible for his position. It's the Supreme Court, it should come with the territory. I would absolutely be ok if the FBI came back and said they couldn't find anything. I mean, what more could be done? It's just that the constant blocking and fighting to stop any comprehensive search into this looks reaalllyyy bad to me. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4769 Posts
On September 28 2018 13:55 KwarK wrote: The idea that the timing is somehow suspicious for her to come out now, but not 30 years ago, is really bizarre to me. Republicans are claiming she's only coming out now because he's being considered for SCOTUS, which is absolutely true and also the point. She didn't come out publicly years ago because he was just some asshole who attacked her as a teenager years ago. But then people wanted to put him on SCOTUS and she went "wait a second, that's the motherfucker who attacked me, hell no". It's not strange or coincidental that these allegations emerged during the process, it's exactly when you'd expect them to emerge. Hell, it's the only time at which it would be rational to dig that shit up. It would have been hugely irrational for her to speak out about it at any other time. Her credibility would not have been enhanced if 10 years ago she went to the police and insisted that President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court sexually assaulted her. You dont quite have the argument right. The right time for this was July, when Feinstein found out. she should have immediately gone back to Ford to seek her permission to share the letter. Then, maybe the FBI, but certainly the Committee, could have begun their work. Ford should have been told, right off the bat, that the letter must be shared with the committee, even if not made public, right away. Instead, a month after she received it (last day of August) she gets back to Ford saying she won't share the letter without permission. Then when the hearings are done, her name is magically leaked to the media. I understand, in that situation, doing what they did with Anita Hill, even though we know it would amount to nothing. But this behavior of last minute reveals cannot be rewarded or it becomes the norm. Since we know it wont find anything anyway, dont indulge it. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On September 28 2018 13:52 Doodsmack wrote: I mean I guess there's no harm to come from an investigation, other than a snowballing media circus, but you guys would also have to accept the results of the inconclusive investigation. reporters have been calling everyone from Kavanaugh's past; the worst we have is that he drank a lot. Surely you agree that finding out more is preferable to the little we have. Why would we lower the bar for SCOTUS below what even a Prosecuter would use to start an investigation, as Whitehouse pointed out? Like has been said already, there are a number of claims from these women, and Kavanaugh for that matter, which can and should be checked against what other students at the time knew. For example, why not ask the yearbook committee what all that shit in the yearbook meant? I'm blown away that people think this is asking too much. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On September 28 2018 14:03 Introvert wrote: ... I understand, in that situation, doing what they did with Anita Hill, even though we know it would amount to nothing. But this behavior of last minute reveals cannot be rewarded or it becomes the norm. Since we know it wont find anything anyway, dont indulge it. Who is this "we"? | ||
|
Introvert
United States4769 Posts
most people at this point acknowledge you won't find anything. Everyone who Ford named says they don't remember it. That's all there is to it, what more could you find? | ||
|
Introvert
United States4769 Posts
On September 28 2018 14:03 On_Slaught wrote: Surely you agree that finding out more is preferable to the little we have. Why would we lower the bar for SCOTUS below what even a Prosecuter would use to start an investigation, as Whitehouse pointed out? Like has been said already, there are a number of claims from these women, and Kavanaugh for that matter, which can and should be checked against what other students at the time knew. For example, why not ask the yearbook committee what all that shit in the yearbook meant? I'm blown away that people think this is asking too much. Interestingly the lawyer apparently told the GOP senators later that she didn't even think she'd be able to get a warrant based on what she heard. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On September 28 2018 14:06 Introvert wrote: most people at this point acknowledge you won't find anything. So instead of a vague "we" you're going with a vague "most people" instead. Do you intend to put bones on this or are you just blowing smoke? Everyone who Ford named says they don't remember it. That's all there is to it, what more could you find? Well, you could firmly establish the credibility of Kavanaugh's claims about his general behaviour around that time. You could establish whether Kavanaugh is in fact the person described in whats-his-name's memoir. You could find out who remembers the party in question and who was at it, regardless of whether they saw the specific incident. I wouldn't expect to find a smoking gun but (a) if one exists I wouldn't want to not find it because due diligence was not done (b) more information cannot hurt | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4769 Posts
On September 28 2018 14:10 Aquanim wrote: So instead of a vague "we" you're going with a vague "most people" instead. Do you intend to put bones on this or are you just blowing smoke? Well, you could firmly establish the credibility of Kavanaugh's claims about his general behaviour around that time. You could establish whether Kavanaugh is in fact the person described in whats-his-name's memoir. You could find out who remembers the party in question and who was at it, regardless of whether they saw the specific incident. I wouldn't expect to find a smoking gun but (a) if one exists I wouldn't want to not find it because due diligence was not done (b) more information cannot hurt If you really want to be annoying about my use of "we" then have at it. I surrender. The background check, so far as I understand it, covers much of that already. They talk to friends and family, former employers, etc. Besides, his general behavior at the time is irrelevant. We are asking about a specific crime, at an unspecific time and place. If Judge's book really is a quasi-fiction that he wrote to help cope with his addiction then it's even less useful than it was before. The crime which the FBI would be tasked with "investigating" is a dead end, and that's really the long and short of it. This crime, against this woman, is completely unknowable. edit: "more information can't hurt." We have no chance of getting more, and instead we reward a blatant stalling tactic that will be used in the future. So we'll never get timely accusations of anything ever again. Terrible idea. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
(I acknowledge it might have changed since the start of the week.) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-americans-want-hearings-before-kavanaugh-vote-stark-partisan-divides/ | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On September 28 2018 14:07 Introvert wrote: Interestingly the lawyer apparently told the GOP senators later that she didn't even think she'd be able to get a warrant based on what she heard. What lawyer? The prosecutor? Regardless, I find it hard to believe that the fact she brought this up years before she knew Kavanaugh would run for SCOTUS and told people about it show its general credibility. This remains a point I've yet to see a single conservative effectively address anywhere online or on TV. That combined with the polygraph and the contents of Kavanaugh's yearbook should raise any prosecutors eyebrows. Whether it rises to the level of getting a warrant, I dont know (give me a few years on that one). However it definitely shouldn't be brushed under the rug and hidden from the world like Mark Judge. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4769 Posts
On September 28 2018 14:18 On_Slaught wrote: What lawyer? The prosecutor? Regardless, I find it hard to believe that the fact she brought this up years before she knew Kavanaugh would run for SCOTUS and told people about it show its general credibility. This remains a point I've yet to see a single conservative effectively address anywhere online or on TV. That combined with the polygraph and the contents of Kavanaugh's yearbook should raise any prosecutors eyebrows. Whether it rises to the level of getting a warrant, I dont know (give me a few years on that one). However it definitely shouldn't be brushed under the rug and hidden from the world like Mark Judge. Dude, why is this so hard for everyone. Maybe i'll let Doodsmack handle this insanity. What is it about THIS CRIME, they are going to find out? So, you find out that maybe Judge is unreliable. Ok, well two others ALSO claim they have no memory of this party. It's a dead end. There's nothing to be found except tangential character smears that the Democrats would run with to make Kavanaugh guilty by proxy. What conceivable piece of evidence could you find about this crime? Try to think of one. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On September 28 2018 14:21 Introvert wrote: Dude, why is this so hard for everyone. Maybe i'll let Doodsmack handle this insanity. What is it about THIS CRIME, they are going to find out? So, you find out that maybe Judge is unreliable. Ok, well two others ALSO claim they have no memory of this party. It's a dead end. There's nothing to be found except tangential character smears that the Democrats would run with to make Kavanaugh guilty by proxy. What conceivable piece of evidence could you find about this crime? Try to think of one. You could find out that one of the people who said they didn't remember it was lying. On September 28 2018 14:15 Introvert wrote:... We have no chance of getting more, and instead we reward a blatant stalling tactic that will be used in the future. So we'll never get timely accusations of anything ever again. Terrible idea. I don't remember ever seeing you get nearly this worked up about terrible precedents set by the Republicans. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On September 28 2018 14:15 Introvert wrote: If you really want to be annoying about my use of "we" then have at it. I surrender. The background check, so far as I understand it, covers much of that already. They talk to friends and family, former employers, etc. Besides, his general behavior at the time is irrelevant. We are asking about a specific crime, at an unspecific time and place. If Judge's book really is a quasi-fiction that he wrote to help cope with his addiction then it's even less useful than it was before. The crime which the FBI would be tasked with "investigating" is a dead end, and that's really the long and short of it. This crime, against this woman, is completely unknowable. edit: "more information can't hurt." We have no chance of getting more, and instead we reward a blatant stalling tactic that will be used in the future. So we'll never get timely accusations of anything ever again. Terrible idea. You really think Mark Judge's terse statement is sufficient and nothing would be gained by testing his credibility in person? Multiple people have accused him of pretty heinous things. I think that warrants more than a few lines from his attorney. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4769 Posts
On September 28 2018 14:23 Aquanim wrote: You could find out that one of the people who said they didn't remember it was lying. From whom would you find this out? She can't name anyone else. You'd go fishing for everyone Ford and Kavanaugh knew in 1982 (and 1983, since Ford herself isn't sure of the year)? | ||
| ||
