|
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 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.
They don't really care what the people think of a justice who manages to make it into his lifetime appointment to the court. If Kavanaugh gets in, Republicans have proven to be the sort that don't give a shit how bad it all looks afterward, because they've won. Scorched earth. So what they do care about, if how people think before he gets in, and whether the people get to vote how they feel before they can do what they want.
In addition to all the other crap that's gone down with Kav, I'm of the opinion that if you're this worried about getting your pick onto the supreme court before the people can voice their opinion on the matter, you're doing something pretty fucking wrong. Any valid choice for the supreme court has been shown to get widespread bipartisan support. There should be red flags abound for that reason alone.
|
I don't understand how whether or not he sexually assaulted is still all that important over the fact that he almost definitely has lied under oath multiple times (both during the recent hearing and before).
Obviously I wouldn't want him to get away with sexual assault if he did it, but lying under oath seems like an incredibly relevant sticking point for a SCOTUS judge and is a lot more provable.
|
On September 30 2018 04:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Oh I agree. The national mood on sexual assault is vastly different than Anita Hill's time. I'm just saying I think this is the calculus of the Republican leadership.
@Logo, if he lied about his past then hopefully the FBI will find out. Some of the stuff he said shouldn't be hard to check.
|
On September 30 2018 04:15 NewSunshine wrote:
In addition to all the other crap that's gone down with Kav, I'm of the opinion that if you're this worried about getting your pick onto the supreme court before the people can voice their opinion on the matter, you're doing something pretty fucking wrong. Any valid choice for the supreme court has been shown to get widespread bipartisan support. There should be red flags abound for that reason alone.
Frankly I don't believe that any candidate picked in this climate by this president would receive widespread bipartisan support.
|
errickmay arlandgay
and plenty of other conservative justices could easily get a few moderate dems like manchin, heitkamp, mccaskill if they aren't accused of sexual assault/ being drunkards and don't want to ban abortion.
|
Looks like its confirmed that the woman who the FBI reached out to already is Ramirez. Its super early and there is plenty of time to file a report, but Swetnick/Avennati better get moving. Put up or shut up.
Source:
|
On September 30 2018 04:26 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 04:15 NewSunshine wrote:
In addition to all the other crap that's gone down with Kav, I'm of the opinion that if you're this worried about getting your pick onto the supreme court before the people can voice their opinion on the matter, you're doing something pretty fucking wrong. Any valid choice for the supreme court has been shown to get widespread bipartisan support. There should be red flags abound for that reason alone. Frankly I don't believe that any candidate picked in this climate by this president would receive widespread bipartisan support.
I honestly think the WH wanted a candidate that was able to garner bipartisan support and go through smoothly.
There were other candidates that are FAR more conservative and controversial in their ruling.
I assume everyone here understand the WH wouldn't nominate someone who allegedly sexually assaulted people repeteadly, had they thought there was any true to that.
|
On September 30 2018 05:02 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 04:26 Starlightsun wrote:On September 30 2018 04:15 NewSunshine wrote:
In addition to all the other crap that's gone down with Kav, I'm of the opinion that if you're this worried about getting your pick onto the supreme court before the people can voice their opinion on the matter, you're doing something pretty fucking wrong. Any valid choice for the supreme court has been shown to get widespread bipartisan support. There should be red flags abound for that reason alone. Frankly I don't believe that any candidate picked in this climate by this president would receive widespread bipartisan support. I honestly think the WH wanted a candidate that was able to garner bipartisan support and go through smoothly. There were other candidates that are FAR more conservative and controversial in their ruling. I assume everyone here understand the WH wouldn't nominate someone who allegedly sexually assaulted people repeteadly, had they thought there was any true to that.
This assumes they knew of these accusations when they picked him. As soon as he was the official nomination the considerations in play changed.
|
On September 30 2018 05:09 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 05:02 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 30 2018 04:26 Starlightsun wrote:On September 30 2018 04:15 NewSunshine wrote:
In addition to all the other crap that's gone down with Kav, I'm of the opinion that if you're this worried about getting your pick onto the supreme court before the people can voice their opinion on the matter, you're doing something pretty fucking wrong. Any valid choice for the supreme court has been shown to get widespread bipartisan support. There should be red flags abound for that reason alone. Frankly I don't believe that any candidate picked in this climate by this president would receive widespread bipartisan support. I honestly think the WH wanted a candidate that was able to garner bipartisan support and go through smoothly. There were other candidates that are FAR more conservative and controversial in their ruling. I assume everyone here understand the WH wouldn't nominate someone who allegedly sexually assaulted people repeteadly, had they thought there was any true to that. This assumes they knew of these accusations when they picked him. As soon as he was the official nomination the considerations in play changed.
No I mean they didn't knew about even allegations WHEN they nominated him. In that context, BK was a candidate that could be pushed somewhat swiftly into the supreme court.
|
On September 30 2018 05:09 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 05:02 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 30 2018 04:26 Starlightsun wrote:On September 30 2018 04:15 NewSunshine wrote:
In addition to all the other crap that's gone down with Kav, I'm of the opinion that if you're this worried about getting your pick onto the supreme court before the people can voice their opinion on the matter, you're doing something pretty fucking wrong. Any valid choice for the supreme court has been shown to get widespread bipartisan support. There should be red flags abound for that reason alone. Frankly I don't believe that any candidate picked in this climate by this president would receive widespread bipartisan support. I honestly think the WH wanted a candidate that was able to garner bipartisan support and go through smoothly. There were other candidates that are FAR more conservative and controversial in their ruling. I assume everyone here understand the WH wouldn't nominate someone who allegedly sexually assaulted people repeteadly, had they thought there was any true to that. This assumes they knew of these accusations when they picked him. As soon as he was the official nomination the considerations in play changed.
They were notified about it when he was on the short list.
This was clearly before the official nomination. Also nobody would have ever heard about the allegations, if they just went "We picked XY", as they wouldn't have required any reasoning for not picking Kav.
|
On September 30 2018 05:11 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 05:09 On_Slaught wrote:On September 30 2018 05:02 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 30 2018 04:26 Starlightsun wrote:On September 30 2018 04:15 NewSunshine wrote:
In addition to all the other crap that's gone down with Kav, I'm of the opinion that if you're this worried about getting your pick onto the supreme court before the people can voice their opinion on the matter, you're doing something pretty fucking wrong. Any valid choice for the supreme court has been shown to get widespread bipartisan support. There should be red flags abound for that reason alone. Frankly I don't believe that any candidate picked in this climate by this president would receive widespread bipartisan support. I honestly think the WH wanted a candidate that was able to garner bipartisan support and go through smoothly. There were other candidates that are FAR more conservative and controversial in their ruling. I assume everyone here understand the WH wouldn't nominate someone who allegedly sexually assaulted people repeteadly, had they thought there was any true to that. This assumes they knew of these accusations when they picked him. As soon as he was the official nomination the considerations in play changed. No I mean they didn't knew about even allegations WHEN they nominated him. In that context, BK was a candidate that could be pushed somewhat swiftly into the supreme court.
No doubt. However the tin foil hat side of me definitely raises an eyebrow when we look back on how quickly they got that letter from female clasmates and how much he touted his female empowering ability, as evidenced by him parading around those girls he coaches. He also raved about how many female clerks he had. Ofc that was before we learned that Yale professors were telling women to dress up before meeting him. It may all be a coincidence though, which is why I dont want to go full tin foil hat.
|
On September 30 2018 05:33 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 05:11 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 30 2018 05:09 On_Slaught wrote:On September 30 2018 05:02 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 30 2018 04:26 Starlightsun wrote:On September 30 2018 04:15 NewSunshine wrote:
In addition to all the other crap that's gone down with Kav, I'm of the opinion that if you're this worried about getting your pick onto the supreme court before the people can voice their opinion on the matter, you're doing something pretty fucking wrong. Any valid choice for the supreme court has been shown to get widespread bipartisan support. There should be red flags abound for that reason alone. Frankly I don't believe that any candidate picked in this climate by this president would receive widespread bipartisan support. I honestly think the WH wanted a candidate that was able to garner bipartisan support and go through smoothly. There were other candidates that are FAR more conservative and controversial in their ruling. I assume everyone here understand the WH wouldn't nominate someone who allegedly sexually assaulted people repeteadly, had they thought there was any true to that. This assumes they knew of these accusations when they picked him. As soon as he was the official nomination the considerations in play changed. No I mean they didn't knew about even allegations WHEN they nominated him. In that context, BK was a candidate that could be pushed somewhat swiftly into the supreme court. No doubt. However the tin foil hat side of me definitely raises an eyebrow when we look back on how quickly they got that letter from female clasmates and how much he touted his female empowering ability, as evidenced by him parading around those girls he coaches. He also raved about how many female clerks he had. Ofc that was before we learned that Yale professors were telling women to dress up before meeting him. It may all be a coincidence though, which is why I dont want to go full tin foil hat.
Yeah that letter took like 8 minutes. They were definitely prepared.
|
On September 30 2018 05:26 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 05:09 On_Slaught wrote:On September 30 2018 05:02 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 30 2018 04:26 Starlightsun wrote:On September 30 2018 04:15 NewSunshine wrote:
In addition to all the other crap that's gone down with Kav, I'm of the opinion that if you're this worried about getting your pick onto the supreme court before the people can voice their opinion on the matter, you're doing something pretty fucking wrong. Any valid choice for the supreme court has been shown to get widespread bipartisan support. There should be red flags abound for that reason alone. Frankly I don't believe that any candidate picked in this climate by this president would receive widespread bipartisan support. I honestly think the WH wanted a candidate that was able to garner bipartisan support and go through smoothly. There were other candidates that are FAR more conservative and controversial in their ruling. I assume everyone here understand the WH wouldn't nominate someone who allegedly sexually assaulted people repeteadly, had they thought there was any true to that. This assumes they knew of these accusations when they picked him. As soon as he was the official nomination the considerations in play changed. They were notified about it when he was on the short list. This was clearly before the official nomination. Also nobody would have ever heard about the allegations, if they just went "We picked XY", as they wouldn't have required any reasoning for not picking Kav.
This is not what I got from her testimony (correct me if I'm wrong). My understanding is she TRIED to get the news out before the nomination. The entire point of the Republicans rage is they didn't know anything until last week. That wouldnt exactly work if the WH knew a month ago+.
|
United States24770 Posts
On September 30 2018 05:02 GoTuNk! wrote:
I assume everyone here understand the WH wouldn't nominate someone who allegedly sexually assaulted people repeteadly, had they thought there was any true to that.
I guess others are willing to let this one go but I don't think I can. The candidate was selected by Trump, likely over the objection of other members of Republican leadership. I have not seen evidence that Trump has an issue with sexual assault of women. I have seen evidence that Trump has gone way over the line with multiple women, and bragged about it. Trump also likes to defy norms and expectations. So no, I don't think White House knowledge of Kavanaugh being credibly accused of sexual assault (although not proven) would prevent Trump from selecting Kavanaugh, a person who is very desirable for unrelated reasons, unless it was:
- Proven that Kavanaugh had committed offenses as serious as sexual assault, and
- This information has been made public to the whole world capturing headlines for days ahead of the final decision of who to nominate
Of course it's possible that Trump's staff could talk him down from that cliff, but we got pretty close to a final vote with no investigation based off of accusations, and I definitely think it's possible everyone involved on the whitehouse side knew an investigation resulting from credible accusations would be devastating (which we may learn it was... soon).
My benefit-of-the-doubt available for decisions made by Trump is about zero.
|
On September 30 2018 05:38 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 05:26 mahrgell wrote:On September 30 2018 05:09 On_Slaught wrote:On September 30 2018 05:02 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 30 2018 04:26 Starlightsun wrote:On September 30 2018 04:15 NewSunshine wrote:
In addition to all the other crap that's gone down with Kav, I'm of the opinion that if you're this worried about getting your pick onto the supreme court before the people can voice their opinion on the matter, you're doing something pretty fucking wrong. Any valid choice for the supreme court has been shown to get widespread bipartisan support. There should be red flags abound for that reason alone. Frankly I don't believe that any candidate picked in this climate by this president would receive widespread bipartisan support. I honestly think the WH wanted a candidate that was able to garner bipartisan support and go through smoothly. There were other candidates that are FAR more conservative and controversial in their ruling. I assume everyone here understand the WH wouldn't nominate someone who allegedly sexually assaulted people repeteadly, had they thought there was any true to that. This assumes they knew of these accusations when they picked him. As soon as he was the official nomination the considerations in play changed. They were notified about it when he was on the short list. This was clearly before the official nomination. Also nobody would have ever heard about the allegations, if they just went "We picked XY", as they wouldn't have required any reasoning for not picking Kav. This is not what I got from her testimony (correct me if I'm wrong). My understanding is she TRIED to get the news out before the nomination. The entire point of the Republicans rage is they didn't know anything until last week. That wouldnt exactly work if the WH knew a month ago+.
She notified people in July as I recall. She didn't try to get the news out per se, but wanted the people in the government to know that someone on the list was an attempted rapist. The whole point IS NOT that Republicans didn't know anything until now (there is no way for us to know that and I doubt they were caught unaware), but that the allegations came to light just before they could cram this shitty nominee into his new seat. Don't mistake their outrage at having their plot unravel for anger at having been caught with their collective pants down (pun definitely intended).
Also, I certainly do not understand that THIS WH would not nominate a sexual predator. I fully 100% believe that the Trump WH would do it in a heartbeat if they could get away with it. You think Mcconnell tried to talk Trump out of it just because he thought Kavanaugh was a dick or something? No way. He knew there were skeletons in this closet the whole time.
|
In July, she notified one person, and then they notified Feinstein. No one who should have been informed was ever informed. People need to stop repeating this.
But until July 2018, I had never named Mr. Kavanaugh as my attacker outside of therapy.
This all changed in early July 2018. I saw press reports stating that Brett Kavanaugh was on the “short list” of potential Supreme Court nominees. I thought it was my civic duty to relay the information I had about Mr. Kavanaugh’s conduct so that those considering his potential nomination would know about the assault.
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 called my congressional representative and let her receptionist know that someone on the President’s shortlist had attacked me. I also sent a message to The Washington Post’s confidential tip line. I did not use my name, but I provided the names of Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. I stated that Mr. Kavanaugh had assaulted me in the 1980s in Maryland. This was an extremely hard thing for me to do, but I felt I couldn’t NOT do it. Over the next two days, I told a couple of close friends on the beach in California that Mr. Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted me. I was conflicted about whether to speak out.
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.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/christine-blasey-ford-opening-statement-senate-845080
Unless she said that when she was being questioned, there is no indication anyone else knew. Which is kind of a big problem here that everyone pretends doesn't exist.
|
She admitted during he testimony that she didn’t know how to notify the right people and wasn’t sure how to get to the proper channels. How that report was treated by the people who received it is still in question and if that information was passed on to White House. I’m sure that will be part whatever final report is complied. The information won’t be hard to get.
|
United States43964 Posts
On September 30 2018 02:44 GoTuNk! wrote: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
You should stop reading Fox News. It's propaganda designed to trigger exactly this kind of reaction in you. It's essentially conditioning. They're training their consumers to output emotional responses on demand and feed them a steady diet of high outrage fodder purposefully designed to shortcut the rational thinking part of the brain. You'll be happier if you consume a more balanced variety of media.
|
On September 30 2018 05:02 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 04:26 Starlightsun wrote:On September 30 2018 04:15 NewSunshine wrote:
In addition to all the other crap that's gone down with Kav, I'm of the opinion that if you're this worried about getting your pick onto the supreme court before the people can voice their opinion on the matter, you're doing something pretty fucking wrong. Any valid choice for the supreme court has been shown to get widespread bipartisan support. There should be red flags abound for that reason alone. Frankly I don't believe that any candidate picked in this climate by this president would receive widespread bipartisan support. I honestly think the WH wanted a candidate that was able to garner bipartisan support and go through smoothly. There were other candidates that are FAR more conservative and controversial in their ruling. I assume everyone here understand the WH wouldn't nominate someone who allegedly sexually assaulted people repeteadly, had they thought there was any true to that. More conservative? probably
How many of those would defend Trump from Muellers investigation seeking to question him?
The speed with which they tried to ram through something as important as a SC nomination, the prepared list of women to defend his character, the resistance to an investigation all scream to me that they knew they had a pile of shit in their hand.
|
On September 30 2018 06:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 02:44 GoTuNk! wrote: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 You should stop reading Fox News. It's propaganda designed to trigger exactly this kind of reaction in you. It's essentially conditioning. They're training their consumers to output emotional responses on demand and feed them a steady diet of high outrage fodder purposefully designed to shortcut the rational thinking part of the brain. You'll be happier if you consume a more balanced variety of media.
As many times as I've seen the puppets on Fox News tell their audience not to believe anything so-called elites tell them, despite fitting squarely in the box of elites themselves, and as much as they say not to believe what their eyes and ears are telling them, I can't see Fox News as anything but Orwellian propaganda. Their viewers finish a program less intelligent than when they started. It's the worst source for supporting any point outside of what propaganda is/does/looks like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
