| 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
If this one ends up being a joke (it's on that path but not set in stone yet... want to see the report) then I would support such a move despite the unprecedented and volatile nature of it. Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/30/democrats-threaten-fresh-probe-white-house-interferes-fbis-brett/ | ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
They are looking for evidence and claims about this particular crime, as I've said before. Telling you he liked to drink a lot (which he already admitted to) tells you nothing. He denies a very specific thing: being blackout drunk. The yearbook won't tell you jack about that. hell, what would they even ask him? As repeated ad naseum, the FBI doesn't come to conclusions. The Senate does. The Senate has both his yearbook, and his statements under oath about it. I'm just puzzled exactly what you think they could find. edit: i actually think we're going to find out that Dr. Ford will be the least forthcoming person in this whole process, and I wish that lefties would call for things like her therapy notes to be consistent, but I understand that won't happen. On October 01 2018 03:28 On_Slaught wrote: I should add that rushing things may just end up making things worse for Kavanaugh. Nadler, who will become the chair of the HJC if/when the Dems take back the house this fall, said that if they think this was a sham investigation then he is ready to start a new investigation into Kavanaugh even if he is on SCOTUS. If this one ends up being a joke (it's on that path but not set in stone yet... want to see the report) then I would support such a move despite the unprecedented and volatile nature of it. Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/30/democrats-threaten-fresh-probe-white-house-interferes-fbis-brett/ If he gets confirmed Democrats will drop it after the election. They could never remove him, and the risk of a deeper FBI investigation finding nothing is too great. Better politically for Kavanaugh to have a stain over his head for his tenure, as despicable as that is. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On October 01 2018 03:31 Introvert wrote: He never said he didn't get super drunk, he said he never got blackout drunk, a very specific thing. They are looking for evidence and claims about this particular crime, as I've said before. Telling you he liked to drink a lot (which he already admitted to) tells you nothing. He denies a very specific thing: being blackout drunk. The yearbook won't tell you jack about that. hell, what would they even ask him? As repeated ad naseum, the FBI doesn't come to conclusions. The Senate does. The Senate has both his yearbook, and his statements under oath about it. I'm just puzzled exactly what you think they could find. This has nothing to do with having the FBI coming to a conclusion. It's about them finding out if there is contradictory evidence concerning Kavanaugh's drinking habit and sexual proclivity statements. These are directly related to these womens claims AND the yearbook statements. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On October 01 2018 03:35 On_Slaught wrote: This has nothing to do with having the FBI coming to a conclusion. It's about them finding out if there is contradictory evidence concerning Kavanaugh's drinking habit and sexual proclivity statements. These are directly related to these womens claims AND the yearbook statements. ...but you have the "evidence." The Senate has the "evidence" already. They have the yearbook. Kavanaugh already answered under oath. You have all the info you will ever get on that. They can still ask people like Judge about all these things. Whatever, I don't see this conversation making any real progress edit: the story doesn't even say they can't ask about the yearbook, but they can't go around to other students who dispute his claims about the yearbook. I assume they can still ask Kavanaugh, Judge, PJ, etc, about them. That would just be more he said he said. edit2: Look at the way this is worded: Also not on the list, the sources say, are former classmates who have contradicted Kavanaugh’s account of his college alcohol consumption, instead describing him as a frequent, heavy drinker. The FBI is also not authorized to interview high school classmates who could shed light on what some people have called untruths in Kavanaugh’s Senate Judiciary Committee testimony about alleged sexual references in his high school yearbook. Do we know of any classmates who say that that's not what those yearbook entries mean? How many? Is the "restriction" basically saying you can't ask everyone who went to Georgetown prep in the mid 1980s? Who are these "some people"? I think it's all moot, even though they say no restrictions have been lifted I am still convinced either most of them will be, or they aren't nearly as bad as people think. The actual nature of the report will tell us more, and who they talked to, though. | ||
|
LuckyFool
United States9015 Posts
There is no way to get out of this one unscathed at this point. There are only two possible outcomes and it’s going to royally piss off the other side with fervor that we haven’t seen in quite some time. Kavanaugh is either going to get confirmed which will promptly cause the left to go apeshit with accusations of Republicans voting a rapist into the Supreme Court and not giving a shit about sexual assault. Or he will get denied somehow, which will cause the right to utterly lose their minds over what they’ll call a reckless abandonment of due process and screaming about weaponizing rape accusations with zero evidence or coorabation and how this will create a new precedent where all you have to do is find people willing to come up with unsubstantiated claims about someone to ruin them politically. There is no hope on this one, and I definitely have more left leaning friends and family on social media (or at least they tend to be the more vocal ones) so if he does in fact get voted in which I believe is the more likely outcome unless something major comes out of the FBI investigation things are going to get ridiculous. I will continue to follow this thread and probably keep an eye on reddit, but facebook/twitter is going to be a hard no go until the smoke clears, will need to preserve my mental health. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On October 01 2018 03:37 Introvert wrote: ...but you have the "evidence." The Senate has the "evidence" already. They have the yearbook. Kavanaugh already answered under oath. You have all the info you will ever get on that. They can still ask people like Judge about all these things. Whatever, I don't see this conversation making any real progress edit: the story doesn't even say they can't ask about the yearbook, but they can't go around to other students who dispute his claims about the yearbook. I assume they can still ask Kavanaugh, Judge, PJ, etc, about them. That would just be more he said he said. edit2: Look at the way this is worded: Do we know of any classmates who say that that's not what those yearbook entries mean? How many? Is the "restriction" basically saying you can't ask everyone who went to Georgetown prep in the mid 1980s? Who are these "some people"? I think it's all moot, even though they say no restrictions have been lifted I am still convinced either most of them will be, or they aren't nearly as bad as people think. The actual nature of the report will tell us more, and who they talked to, though. All the info we will ever get? He said that the things in there were the idea of the yearbook editors. Yeah lets just take his word for it and not ask the people who actually made the damn thing. I agree we aren't getting anywhere on that point so I'll move on to a question I have. Do you think it's right that there are artificial limitations on the investigation if the head of the executive is saying there shouldn't be? If Trump has officially said there should be no limitations on who they can talk to why should we be ok with his cronies putting some in behind the scenes (if it turns out that is what is happening)? | ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On October 01 2018 04:05 On_Slaught wrote: All the info we will ever get? He said that the things in there were the idea of the yearbook editors. Yeah lets just take his word for it and not ask the people who actually made the damn thing. I agree we aren't getting anywhere on that point so I'll move on to a question I have. Do you think it's right that there are artificial limitations on the investigation if the head of the executive is saying there shouldn't be? If Trump has officially said there should be no limitations on who they can talk to why should we be ok with his cronies putting some in behind the scenes (if it turns out that is what is happening)? Interestingly, I was just reading a more in-depth NYT article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/us/politics/kavanaugh-fbi-inquiry.html Basically, as the Senate requested (remember they control the advise and consent process, while the FBI is an executive branch agency), they will start off interviewing 4 people. Judge, Smyth, Keyser, and Ramirez. They will then evaluate if they need to ask any one else. As for the question, yes I do. Remember that A) Kavanaugh has already been through six background checks, and B) that since this is NOT a criminal investigation, someone has to set limits. The FBI needs a goal, and rules to achieve it since they don't have an actual tangible objective. Trump claims that he's going to be very open on who can be asked questions, and we'll see if that is the case. But for now, neither Ford nor Kavanaugh is being interviewed. It means they can't grill Ford on her story's problems either, they must figure that they've already heard from those two. So I will reiterate that the actual report (and apparently all the leaks) will tell us more. Although the leaks should be taken with some very large grains of salt. I suspect that we will probably hear from more than just those four. | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On October 01 2018 03:40 LuckyFool wrote: I am planning to stay entirely off social media starting tomorrow through probably at least a week after this Kavanaugh stuff. There is no way to get out of this one unscathed at this point. There are only two possible outcomes and it’s going to royally piss off the other side with fervor that we haven’t seen in quite some time. Kavanaugh is either going to get confirmed which will promptly cause the left to go apeshit with accusations of Republicans voting a rapist into the Supreme Court and not giving a shit about sexual assault. Or he will get denied somehow, which will cause the right to utterly lose their minds over what they’ll call a reckless abandonment of due process and screaming about weaponizing rape accusations with zero evidence or coorabation and how this will create a new precedent where all you have to do is find people willing to come up with unsubstantiated claims about someone to ruin them politically. There is no hope on this one, and I definitely have more left leaning friends and family on social media (or at least they tend to be the more vocal ones) so if he does in fact get voted in which I believe is the more likely outcome unless something major comes out of the FBI investigation things are going to get ridiculous. I will continue to follow this thread and probably keep an eye on reddit, but facebook/twitter is going to be a hard no go until the smoke clears, will need to preserve my mental health. Same here. You're right there is no possibility of peaceful outcome. I guess whatever happens, this will die down when the next big scandal hits, which seems to happen on a weekly basis. It's sad that any analysis of what kind of impact Kavanaugh might have has a judge is being completely drowned out because of these allegations. That is a weighty issue that is going to affect many people for decades, but it seems like it's a completely secondary consideration. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 30 2018 09:16 Introvert wrote: A fishing expedition, as I said. I think your line of question reveals what is really at the heart of this. An "FBI investigation" is about finding something they can hang their hats on. He's been through all these other background checks before. What new crimes are you concerned about? The thing I see mentioned the most is perjury about alcholo, but a look at his statements before the Committee and the statements made by others, even negative ones, are in no way inconsistent with each other. He said he got too drunk at times. I think he even said he may have passed out and/or vomited. just that he never was in a state where he was "blackout drunk" which is neither passed out or simply inebriated. The only reason to ask for this to be open ended is to get us closer to the midterms. Kavanaugh's been though the background ringer multiple times already. What "new crimes" could there be that would be found? I'm curious why people seem to think they FBI would find "other crimes" here. Kavanaugh made many inconsistent statements and many blatant attempts to hide an answer. It's hard to imagine anyone with any legal background supporting the guy. Goes against everything the profession stands for. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
EDIT: if anyone cares, this is the most in depth analysis of the available facts and the transcription of the KAV hearings. Yes, he was lying his ass off about everything wherever he possibly could. Truly, the Trumpiest nominee. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 01 2018 03:40 LuckyFool wrote: I am planning to stay entirely off social media starting tomorrow through probably at least a week after this Kavanaugh stuff. There is no way to get out of this one unscathed at this point. There are only two possible outcomes and it’s going to royally piss off the other side with fervor that we haven’t seen in quite some time. Kavanaugh is either going to get confirmed which will promptly cause the left to go apeshit with accusations of Republicans voting a rapist into the Supreme Court and not giving a shit about sexual assault. Or he will get denied somehow, which will cause the right to utterly lose their minds over what they’ll call a reckless abandonment of due process and screaming about weaponizing rape accusations with zero evidence or coorabation and how this will create a new precedent where all you have to do is find people willing to come up with unsubstantiated claims about someone to ruin them politically. There is no hope on this one, and I definitely have more left leaning friends and family on social media (or at least they tend to be the more vocal ones) so if he does in fact get voted in which I believe is the more likely outcome unless something major comes out of the FBI investigation things are going to get ridiculous. I will continue to follow this thread and probably keep an eye on reddit, but facebook/twitter is going to be a hard no go until the smoke clears, will need to preserve my mental health. I think post-2016 election meltdown, everyone knows which people to avoid. If they post a lot of political diatribes on facebook, you're probably already used to ignoring them. I remember the waves of people wondering how anyone could possibly have voted for that awful man. Essentially, we have done a trial run of the resulting vote. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On October 01 2018 05:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Kavanaugh made many inconsistent statements and many blatant attempts to hide an answer. It's hard to imagine anyone with any legal background supporting the guy. Goes against everything the profession stands for. I think he tried to deflect BS questions about his drinking habits by pointing out that if he was always the drunkard they say he was he couldn't have succeeded. I mean the fact the Dems are going to hang their hats on "but he was drunk a lot!" is pretty hilarious. It doesn't place him anywhere near the scene of the crime, so far nothing does. It's a character hit. But maybe after the report I'll revisit these later, it's too much for right now. edit: and for the record, Ford has made multiple statements that are inconsistent and display aircraft carrier size gaps in her story, but strangely no one is asking about those. Odd, isn't it? On October 01 2018 05:05 Wulfey_LA wrote: There will be no spinning an investigation of KAVANAUGH where Ford does not get questioned. Trump/McGahn/partisan spinners might think that will fly, but it won't. This isn't some difficult legal thing to explain to a layman. Ford testified she was assaulted by KAV. Then Trump's legal counsel restricted the investigation so that Ford would not be questioned. The corruption is simple enough for even the dullest of low information voter to understand. The FBI will question Ford and Trump/McGahn will come to regret their efforts to both (1) cabin in the investigation and (2) pretend like they weren't by lying to the press and public. EDIT: if anyone cares, this is the most in depth analysis of the available facts and the transcription of the KAV hearings. Yes, he was lying his ass off about everything wherever he possibly could. Truly, the Trumpiest nominee. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying The SJC already questioned Kavanaugh, and they spent hours in front of the Committee. They have been questioned. This seems like the most innocuous part of the charade and it's the one you have an issue with. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On October 01 2018 06:03 Plansix wrote: His inconsistent are a problem, but his demeanor when being asked if he got black out drunk shows a temperament that has no place on the Supreme Court. Federal judges shouldn’t be mouthing off at any senator like that. That was sober mad Kavanaugh. Can't wait until we get the precise details on how he was when he blacked out. | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada420 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On October 01 2018 06:15 Taelshin wrote: If you were being accused of rape and possible attempted murder from 36 years ago with out any proof or tangible evidence how would you react? @plansix. I thought his testimony was fine considering the situation. Talking to some more of my left leaning friends they are already on the same train your on, " The even if he didn't try to rape anyone we cant have a loose cannon like that on the SC train ". I know id be pretty fired up if I was getting falsely accused of heinous crimes. His 12 years on a court has given him a stellar reputation for preparedness and judicial temperament. We have a record of how he is as a judge. Here he's the accused. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22611 Posts
On October 01 2018 06:15 Taelshin wrote: Are you a judge being interviewed for a job on the Supreme Court?If you were being accused of rape and possible attempted murder from 36 years ago with out any proof or tangible evidence how would you react? @plansix. I thought his testimony was fine considering the situation. Talking to some more of my left leaning friends they are already on the same train your on, " The even if he didn't try to rape anyone we cant have a loose cannon like that on the SC train ". I know id be pretty fired up if I was getting falsely accused of heinous crimes. Its an exceptional position requiring exceptional people. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On October 01 2018 06:15 Taelshin wrote: If you were being accused of rape and possible attempted murder from 36 years ago with out any proof or tangible evidence how would you react? @plansix. I thought his testimony was fine considering the situation. Talking to some more of my left leaning friends they are already on the same train your on, " The even if he didn't try to rape anyone we cant have a loose cannon like that on the SC train ". I know id be pretty fired up if I was getting falsely accused of heinous crimes. Under this standard, how many lies, false assertions, and inconsistencies should be allowed in his testimony before you would vote NO on KAV? If he lied about never blacking out, would that have been okay? What about him lying about meeting up with Ford on July 1st? What about him lying about what his allegedly exculpatory witnesses said? | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On October 01 2018 06:19 Gorsameth wrote: Are you a judge being interviewed for a job on the Supreme Court? Its an exceptional position requiring exceptional people. Somehow I think this gets continually glossed over by Kav's defenders. This isn't some ordinary dude, being tried for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's the supreme court. 9 people out of the whole country have that distinction at any one time. That's way beyond even the top 1% of the top 1%. Having as much stink as he does, and having as violent a temperament as he does, these just won't cut it. His life isn't being destroyed, but he's being considered for one of the most prestigious jobs in this country. A normal person with normal temperament and a whiff of sexual assault to him is far below what should be the threshold here. It's very clear that Republicans are letting their politics, and their concern for the midterms, taint their decision-making. This is not behavior that should be encouraged or rewarded. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Jaedong
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Leta vs Soulkey
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
