EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 775
| 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 | ||
|
Gorgonoth
United States468 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On September 29 2018 23:43 JimmiC wrote: I agree with this. No matter what side your on truth should be the goal and this is the best way to get as close to it as we can. It actually would be far worse for the reps for him to get confirmed and then it get proven, then if they find out now. And if he is clean they can say see told you, if he not "the process worked". I think its a win for the reps to have the investigation and its odd many of them faught it so hard. "Never retreat, always attack, deny everything, admit nothing, win at any cost." Being willing to have an investigation concedes the possibility of error, the chance of mistake, the hint that the accusations are true, which is tantamount to retreat. That's very clearly the attitude of the modern GOP. Look at Graham pouting and saying 'well if this happens, look out Democrats!" with the obvious intimation that they'll probably look very hard for potential accusers for any nominees the Democrats put forward (as opposed to what happened here, where the accuser came forward of her own volition and the Dems simply let the world know about it). | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
On September 29 2018 23:12 Ayaz2810 wrote: I love how people on the right bash Avenatti for who he chooses to represent, as if that somehow has an impact on his credibility. If anything "It's Michael Avenatti" means we should be more likely to believe him since, you know, he's been right about all the other shit. It's like when people talk about the Steele dossier. "It/He is bullshit!" "But.... a lot of what it/he said has turned out to be true...." "NO CREDIBILITY. DODGE DOSSIER/CREEPY PORN LAWYER" While we're on the topic of right-wing denial, how have these assholes reconciled the fact that every accuser and some of the key witnesses have been all about the FBI investigation while Kavanaugh and his enablers have been terrified of it? You don't offer to talk to the FBI or to the Senate and risk jail time unless you're real fuckin' sure you're telling the truth. And you don't do everything in your power to avoid the FBI and Senate if you're innocent. They all seem to rant about political hit jobs and how these allegations were timed to hurt Kav, but they ignore the fact that the allegations are very likely true based on the publicly available evidence. It's the same thing with Trump and Russia. There is more than enough info in the public sphere to be absolutely convinced that a conspiracy took place, but instead Republicans are too busy hammering everything but the facts. Avenatti got a guilty plea out of Michael Cohen and implicated the President in a crime. A showboat he may be, but ineffective he is not. He gets flak for being a politically motivated lawyer, but that's 40% of Congress. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On September 30 2018 00:51 Tachion wrote: Avenatti got a guilty plea out of Michael Cohen and implicated the President in a crime. A showboat he may be, but ineffective he is not. He gets flak for being a politically motivated lawyer, but that's 40% of Congress. And if this administration has its way, half of the Supreme Court, too. | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On September 29 2018 20:52 Biff The Understudy wrote: Women are held at an unbelievably different standard than men when it comes to behaviour. They have to be nice and composed at all time, don’t appear rude or aggressive and especially not upset or they are gone. I think most people don’t even realize it. I think that is true in general, but look at the exchange where Flake was cornered in an elevator for 4 minutes by two women, just before changing his mind on the confirmation: And while I think Kavanaugh did look very bad for losing his composure, the pressures and circumstances faced by and him and by Dr Ford are very different. Why would Ford have reason to be angry when she initiated this entire proceeding, and is making progress toward what she set out to do: getting the confirmation blocked? On the other side, you have someone who is blindsided by rape allegations and is suddenly having their name dragged through the mud because of it. Then to sit and be judged by the people who orchestrated it, and have made it clear beforehand that they are 100% against you regardless of what happens... I would feel very angry too. But in the end I guess it's good that more time is being taken and Republicans aren't just allowed to railroad somebody in as fast as possible for an important lifetime appointment. I just think the whole business is nasty all around and both parties are acting in an utterly shameful manner. Likewise my fellow countrymen who seem split into two opposing lynch mobs. It's very scary to witness the blind hatred and vitriol pouring out of both camps. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
| ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
Now they are insinuating he is a pedophile and published a picture of the basketball team he coaches. I hope the parents sue the shit out of USA Today; wherever you stand on this discussions this is completely despicable and a new low for the media. link below. + Show Spoiler + http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/09/29/usa-today-hit-piece-says-kavanaugh-should-stay-off-basketball-courts-when-kids-are-around.html | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22298 Posts
On September 30 2018 02:44 GoTuNk! wrote: Hard to judge considering the original piece has been changed and does not contain the quote Fox uses. The current version seems ok to me, going into that he is free to coach so long as he doesn't get a criminal conviction for sexual assault.The smearing continues.... Now they are insinuating he is a pedophile and published a picture of the basketball team he coaches. I hope the parents sue the shit out of USA Today; wherever you stand on this discussions this is completely despicable and a new low for the media. link below. + Show Spoiler + http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/09/29/usa-today-hit-piece-says-kavanaugh-should-stay-off-basketball-courts-when-kids-are-around.html The 'call at the end' is actually the position of a different body that dealt with sexual misconduct in the US Olympic team that claims would be investigated regardless of criminal prosecution and that it holds a standard different from 'beyond reasonable doubt'. If the original piece was different then yes, it was perhaps out of line. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On September 30 2018 02:36 Starlightsun wrote: I think that is true in general, but look at the exchange where Flake was cornered in an elevator for 4 minutes by two women, just before changing his mind on the confirmation: https://youtu.be/kua8Uxn00z4 And while I think Kavanaugh did look very bad for losing his composure, the pressures and circumstances faced by and him and by Dr Ford are very different. Why would Ford have reason to be angry when she initiated this entire proceeding, and is making progress toward what she set out to do: getting the confirmation blocked? On the other side, you have someone who is blindsided by rape allegations and is suddenly having their name dragged through the mud because of it. Then to sit and be judged by the people who orchestrated it, and have made it clear beforehand that they are 100% against you regardless of what happens... I would feel very angry too. But in the end I guess it's good that more time is being taken and Republicans aren't just allowed to railroad somebody in as fast as possible for an important lifetime appointment. I just think the whole business is nasty all around and both parties are acting in an utterly shameful manner. Likewise my fellow countrymen who seem split into two opposing lynch mobs. It's very scary to witness the blind hatred and vitriol pouring out of both camps. The circumstances facing the 2 are indeed very different, but that's true the other way too. You come at this from the angle that Kav did nothing wrong, but you have no way to know that. What if he did assault her, just as she described? When it comes to sexual assault, false allegations are deep in the minority. If we look from the angle that he did, in fact, assault her, we're looking at a very different scenario. Dr. Ford has plenty of reason to be emotional in this case. Having gone through the trauma of being sexually assaulted, and only through sheer dumb luck did it not turn into rape, or worse, and after all this time seeing that not only did he not suffer the consequences for his actions, he's now being elevated to one of the highest positions of power this country has. Would she not have plenty of reason to be emotional in this case? And would Kav's rage and outbursts seem much more tainted, by comparison? As for the whole "both sides" nonsense. I was there once. I was cynical. But after having more involved discussion with basically a non-zero number of people, I quickly realize this is a terrible position to hold. To say that both sides are just as bad is to rob the whole situation of nuance, and prevent anyone from having meaningful discussion or making meaningful conclusions. To say that both sides are just as bad, so we should look the other way is one of the worst things you can do if you genuinely want things to get better. When, in fact, you have two sides that are not equally bad, and one is in fact worse, this assumption becomes very harmful. Neutrality only favors the abuser in an abusive situation. | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On September 30 2018 02:43 farvacola wrote: Asking a poorly thought-out question like, "why would Ford have reason to be angry..." when the woman is alleging that she was traumatically sexually assaulted by a man who seems to have escaped any consequences and is in line for an extremely prestigious public position is a surefire to showoff a total lack of understanding with regards to how being a victim of sexual assault works. The only way you can think that is to assume that she's lying and/or using her story as purely political fodder and it has been repeated ad nauseam in this thread that there is very little indication that that is the case. Even the Republicans on the SJC said they found her credible. Okay "be angry" was a poor choice of words, I guess I meant show anger. Her aim, getting the appointment blocked, is aided by the very fact that these proceedings are happening. She is presenting herself to the public here for the first time and gets to create her image new so to speak. He has been in the lime light already and people's minds are already made up about him. His aim of being appointed and clearing his name are out of his hands aside from putting on a good show, which he has failed to do. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18280 Posts
On September 30 2018 03:02 Starlightsun wrote: Okay "be angry" was a poor choice of words, I guess I meant show anger. Her aim, getting the appointment blocked, is aided by the very fact that these proceedings are happening. She is presenting herself to the public here for the first time and gets to create her image new so to speak. He has been in the lime light already and people's minds are already made up about him. His aim of being appointed and clearing his name are out of his hands aside from putting on a good show, which he has failed to do. Oh, he has reason to be angry. He also has reason to be angry if he is actually guilty for much the same reasons: it's like the ending of a scooby doo episode when the meddling kids prevent him from getting away with it. Except in this case it's rape victims instead of meddling kids. So his honest anger doesn't doesn't really say much about his guilt. It does say much about his composure, and really? That is the kind of guy you want making judgements in the highest court of your land? He acted like a spoilt baby throwing a temper tantrum for most of the hearing. | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On September 30 2018 02:59 NewSunshine wrote: The circumstances facing the 2 are indeed very different, but that's true the other way too. You come at this from the angle that Kav did nothing wrong, but you have no way to know that. What if he did assault her, just as she described? When it comes to sexual assault, false allegations are deep in the minority. If we look from the angle that he did, in fact, assault her, we're looking at a very different scenario. Dr. Ford has plenty of reason to be emotional in this case. Having gone through the trauma of being sexually assaulted, and only through sheer dumb luck did it not turn into rape, or worse, and after all this time seeing that not only did he not suffer the consequences for his actions, he's now being elevated to one of the highest positions of power this country has. Would she not have plenty of reason to be emotional in this case? And would Kav's rage and outbursts seem much more tainted, by comparison? Yes, everything you say is true for that what if scenario. Another what if scenario is that she has mistaken the identity of her attacker. But regardless, having talked through the story for years with friends and therapists, it is easier to tell it in a coherent and controlled manner, versus reacting to it as the accused while the whole nation is busy taking sides. As for the whole "both sides" nonsense. I was there once. I was cynical. But after having more involved discussion with basically a non-zero number of people, I quickly realize this is a terrible position to hold. To say that both sides are just as bad is to rob the whole situation of nuance, and prevent anyone from having meaningful discussion or making meaningful conclusions. To say that both sides are just as bad, so we should look the other way is one of the worst things you can do if you genuinely want things to get better. When, in fact, you have two sides that are not equally bad, and one is in fact worse, this assumption becomes very harmful. Neutrality only favors the abuser in an abusive situation. I didn't intend to say "just as bad". Don't really know what I was trying to say, really. I just don't understand how acknowledging the difficulties faced by the unpopular party is taking away nuance or meaningful conclusions. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
I really hope he is a lying piece of shit because I'd much rather live in a world where elite rich pricks lie on the stand to cover up past crimes than one where it is this easy to destroy a man's life over nothing. Ofc there are compromise possibilities like Ford was assaulted and mistakenly believes it was him, or he did it but he genuinely doesn't remember (because he was always drunk). Those are more messy possibilities. Thankfully I take solace in the fact that he is probably not 100% innocent as shown by his attempts to avoid further investigation, his defensiveness on the stand, some testimony which doesn't pass the smell test (yearbook in particular), the fact there are multiple women and men (including Judge) who corrborate this lifestyle of his, and how big of a risk the women (who are all successful professionals with nothing to do gain and everything to lose) are taking by coming out. The next week is going to be stressful and frustrating for all parties I imagine. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On September 30 2018 03:02 Starlightsun wrote: Okay "be angry" was a poor choice of words, I guess I meant show anger. Her aim, getting the appointment blocked, is aided by the very fact that these proceedings are happening. She is presenting herself to the public here for the first time and gets to create her image new so to speak. He has been in the lime light already and people's minds are already made up about him. His aim of being appointed and clearing his name are out of his hands aside from putting on a good show, which he has failed to do. Why might she have reason to be angry? Hmm, let's think. Assuming she's telling the truth, she has come forward and told of a deeply traumatic event in her past without any political intent (remember: she informed the White House when she heard he was on the shortlist and sent a letter to Feinstein when she was ignored, specifically asking for it not to be publicised), for which she has received DEATH THREATS, that have forced her to move house and her family into hiding. Might you maybe possibly see an avenue there for where she might be just a little bit angry? And indeed, she has a fuckton more reason to be angry than Kavanaugh. | ||
micronesia
United States24770 Posts
There are two explanations I can think of for this difference. One is that people of your general inclinations have more integrity and are more honest. The other is that the pressure of the timing of this nomination relative to upcoming elections where Republicans are expected to get somewhat slaughtered is more than many people can manage. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24770 Posts
On September 30 2018 03:50 On_Slaught wrote: Plus, noone wants to find out that they nominated/defended a sex fiend. People like Graham are trying to will his innocence into existence it feels. Does ramming Kavanaugh through before the allegations are investigated actually prevent the world from finding out that the Republican leadership nominated and confirmed a sex fiend (if true)? It seems horribly illogical to me for a career politician with tremendous responsibility and ample supporting staff to try to cover it up in the hopes that it is false. It only makes sense to me for them to cover it up because they care more about getting a conservative judge on the bench than anything else. Are these senior and powerful people really under so much pressure that they can't think clearly anymore? Or will Kavanaugh's history remain sealed if it isn't fully revealed once he is confirmed? I don't think that will happen. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 30 2018 03:59 On_Slaught wrote: I dont think they think there is any real risk of Kavanaugh being removed once on the court. I imagine they view this as just Thomas 2.0. Get him on the court and things will be fine in the end, even if we get our asses kicked again the the Year of the Woman 2.0. That is worth 30+ years of decisions from a hyperpartisan justice. I disagree. I think if any of this stuff is real, it'll come back eventually. | ||
| ||
