EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 767
| 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 | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On September 29 2018 00:09 Doodsmack wrote: As far as an investigation goes one thing to consider is that it is possible the second and third accusers were recruited by their lawyers. The second accuser went from uncertain about whether it was Kavanaugh to certain "after speaking with her lawyer for 6 hours." The third accuser is from Michael Avenatti, who refuses to disclose evidence prior to the hearing. He wants to run in 2020, and has his issue positions pinned on his Twitter. Consider the precedent set by a per se rule that an allegation should be fully investigated. There is such a thing as frivolous allegations, and there is such a thing as lawyers recruiting clients to bring a case to serve the interests of the lawyer. That said, I can see the argument for an investigation on par with that done in Anita Hill's case, that is, interviewing the relevant parties and then submitting transcripts of their interviews. At that point, the overall evidence will be far from conclusive, meaning Kavanaugh shouldn't be denied on the basis of the allegations. Otherwise, the system we have for nominations is unfair. I dont get this fascination with attacking Swetnick for picking Avennati. Beyond the basic fact that it doesn't make her story false, why wouldn't she go to someone like him if her goal was to maximize the attention her story got? Few people command media attention like him nowadays. Also, I think its pretty outrageous to insinuate that an allegation under oath by a federal employee is "frivolous." Who the hell would throw away their career to give Avennati some talking points? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On September 29 2018 00:24 On_Slaught wrote: I dont get this fascination with attacking Swetnick for picking Avennati. Beyond the basic fact that it doesn't make her story false, why wouldn't she go to someone like him if her goal was to maximize the attention her story got? Few people command media attention like him nowadays. Also, I think its pretty outrageous to insinuate that an allegation under oath by a federal employee is "frivolous." Who the hell would throw away their career to give Avennati some talking points? It's because of the possibility that Avenatti recruited her to serve his own interests. From what we know, that's equally plausible as the claim that Kavanaufh spiked drinks (even if she's both a federal employee and a lawyer). Theres a whole lot of uncertainty as to whether the allegation is true. In the criminal context the prosecutor wouldn't even attempt an investigation without sufficient evidence. Since this is a "job interview" (an interesting characterization of constitutional nomination) we could do FBI interviews (of the people the media have already called). No one is going to remember seeing Kavanaufh drop pills into the bottle with the red cap (which is essentially the allegation), but we could do the interviews. when the results come up far from conclusive, we should presume innocence. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway8270 Posts
On September 29 2018 01:21 JimmiC wrote: Yep and to the democratic leadership, one thing this process has made clear is no side truly cares about getting the right man for the job. They both care about how it affects their party politically. And what, pray tell, gives you that idea? This "both sides" fallacy is getting increasingly frustrating and dangerous. If you're unable to see just have much worse one side is than the other (and it is, much much worse), then you end up with situations like 2016 where no one votes. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 29 2018 01:21 JimmiC wrote: Yep and to the democratic leadership, one thing this process has made clear is no side truly cares about getting the right man for the job. They both care about how it affects their party politically. Please cite when they did this? | ||
|
brian
United States9642 Posts
On September 29 2018 00:09 Doodsmack wrote: As far as an investigation goes one thing to consider is that it is possible the second and third accusers were recruited by their lawyers. The second accuser went from uncertain about whether it was Kavanaugh to certain "after speaking with her lawyer for 6 hours." The third accuser is from Michael Avenatti, who refuses to disclose evidence prior to the hearing. He wants to run in 2020, and has his issue positions pinned on his Twitter. Consider the precedent set by a per se rule that an allegation should be fully investigated. There is such a thing as frivolous allegations, and there is such a thing as lawyers recruiting clients to bring a case to serve the interests of the lawyer. That said, I can see the argument for an investigation on par with that done in Anita Hill's case, that is, interviewing the relevant parties and then submitting transcripts of their interviews. At that point, the overall evidence will be far from conclusive, meaning Kavanaugh shouldn't be denied on the basis of the allegations. Otherwise, the system we have for nominations is unfair. on this bolded part, it seems unclear if you’re mentioning this as a bad thing or not. why should they not? you go on to say frivolous allegations are a thing, and that is true. imo, that is not only not a good enough reason to pass on an investigation, but an even better reason to push forward. should accusers be proven wrong they ought to see appropriate punishment, and imo that is the system working to its best ability. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway8270 Posts
On September 29 2018 01:43 JimmiC wrote: It is not that both sides are equally bad, at no point did I say that. Just that both sides are bad. To me the far right are worse then the far left. But it is not a battle of good vs evil. It is a battle of evil and not quite as evil. And while people are grabbing their popcorn and enjoying the show. Big money is controlling what happens in the government. I don't disagree with the latter, I still however wish to know what exactly about this whole debacle has lead you to believe that the Democrats have done something wrong. Surely any reasonable party/people in that position would have reacted and done the same? | ||
|
Slydie
1987 Posts
On September 29 2018 01:43 JimmiC wrote: It is not that both sides are equally bad, at no point did I say that. Just that both sides are bad. To me the far right are worse then the far left. But it is not a battle of good vs evil. It is a battle of evil and not quite as evil. And while people are grabbing their popcorn and enjoying the show. Big money is controlling what happens in the government. There is no real "far left" in US politics. "Liberal" parties are generally around the political centre, but in the abnormal political landscape in the US, it looks different. There are parties abroad fighting for higher taxes and more social benefits than Americans can comprehend, and they are generally the opposite of liberal! The money 2-party and money in politics do corrupt the Democrats too, ofc. The most obvious example was probably the super fast turnaround regarding the bailout plan after the sub-prime crisis. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 29 2018 01:44 JimmiC wrote: You have said it many times, that the dems are using timing of these to do maximum political damage. Your justification is that the Reps have been doing it for years. I'm not arguing with you, I'm agreeing with you. I just think it is bad and you think it is good. That wasn't my question and has never been my argument. Only Dick Durbin would be considered part of the Democratic Leadership in the senate, though Feinstein might also fit that description simply due to her seniority, but not title. He has not made any overt statements refusing to confirm any of Trump's nominees. Only that the current nominee is bad and the process is a shit show that breaks every single tradition that is normally followed during this process. The senators don't get the pick the nominees or even recommend them. Only confirm or reject the nominee that Trump puts forward. So again, I need a citation where the Democrats refused to confirm anyone Trump put forward. Edit: It appears the Dean of Yale law school is also calling for an FBI investigation before BK is voted on. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
| ||
