EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 787
| 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 | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14210 Posts
| ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On October 02 2018 04:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote: you're kidding right? do you know how much European Dairy products that Canadians buy? Wadaya wanna bet the "swiss cheese" in my fridge was made and processed in guelph? due to proximity northern US dairy farmers products are a 1000X bigger threat to canadians producers than whatever farmers are making in Germany and Belgium. You do realize the deal involves a set percentage of the Canadian industry, right? That goes for both the European deals, TPP and NAFTA. They're basically the exact same threat because that's all of the market they get, plus or minus a percentage point. And again, it's the same kind of market share that the US already ran from with the TPP. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
He also said to committee staff in released notes that he knew she was shopping around for people to back her up. But I'm sure he contradicted that days later, seems plausible. quick summary https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/another-shoddy-perjury-claim/ As for Swetnick, I haven't seen the interview ( on mobile), but I hear it's great. This story can't be kept straight either. Read the whole thread. + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
crms
United States11933 Posts
On October 02 2018 10:07 Introvert wrote: Didnt Kavanaugh give a statement to the New Yorker before they published? I'm sure then that he meant that he knew literally nothing. He also said to committee staff in released notes that he knew she was shopping around for people to back her up. But I'm sure he contradicted that days later, seems plausible. quick summary https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/another-shoddy-perjury-claim/ As for Swetnick, I haven't seen the interview ( on mobile), but I hear it's great. This story can't be kept straight either. Read the whole thread. + Show Spoiler + That interview is a train wreck. I'm not going to say she's lying, I don't think your story should be judged on your ability to handle high pressure television interviews but she's not building any credibility here in the way Ford was able to in her interview. She's going to have to produce some real evidence quickly to not be swept away after that interview. The interview itself was structured pretty aggressively towards her with some strange editing and general vibe but even that aside, it was not a good interview for her cause. You have to imagine Avenatti is pretty unhappy. Interview link if anyone wants to see for themselves, ~13 minutes. https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/julie-swetnick-speaks-about-alleged-behavior-by-judge-kavanaugh-1334265923929?v=railb& | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
As for the Ramirez story, I still need to see what he said in those texts. Even if he wasn't lying about what he knew when, reaching out to potentially influence witness testimony, if that is what happened (or is how they interpreted it), is bad all the same. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 02 2018 10:07 Introvert wrote: Didnt Kavanaugh give a statement to the New Yorker before they published? I'm sure then that he meant that he knew literally nothing. He also said to committee staff in released notes that he knew she was shopping around for people to back her up. But I'm sure he contradicted that days later, seems plausible. quick summary https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/another-shoddy-perjury-claim/ As for Swetnick, I haven't seen the interview ( on mobile), but I hear it's great. This story can't be kept straight either. Read the whole thread. + Show Spoiler + On October 02 2018 07:46 Mohdoo wrote: These text messages make Kavanaugh appear deeply fucked. On October 02 2018 07:48 Plansix wrote: Not a great look at all. You don’t try to counter an untrue sorry you have never heard before well before the story is released. This nominee sucks so bad. On October 02 2018 07:55 ticklishmusic wrote: Kavanaugh was discussing how to refute the Ramirez allegations before she went public. Now I wonder why he'd plan a defense for a false accusation or how he knew it was coming... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566 On October 02 2018 07:58 JimmiC wrote: Wow if that is true that is getting near smoking gun territory. Just to restate: It's fake news. She had been calling around to classmates for weeks and that had been reported. She wanted to see if any of them remembered it. It's why she admitted she wasn't sure it was Kavanaugh, because she had to keep calling to see if anyone could refresh her memory and corroborate how/if it happened. IN THE SAME TESTIMONY where they're saying he committed perjury by actually knowing about the specific allegation prior to the article HE ACTUALLY SAYS he had heard somebody was calling around looking to dig up dirt. Also, Kavanaugh was quoted in the New Yorker story, meaning they had to ask him before publication as well. He's trying to refute a coming false allegation. Total shitshow from the NBC to print that supposed expose when it's in the same interview. Total parade of insanity for people here and elsewhere to lap it up. Swetnick is the third accuser. She originally said in a sworn statement that she had knowledge that Kavanaugh (& Judge) spiked punch. She now claims she only saw him near the punch, and "I don't know what he did. But I saw him by them, yes" instead of saying how she knew he spiked punch. She originally said that she witness Kavanaugh 'cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be "gang raped" in a side room or bedroom by a "train" of numerous boys. I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at hmany of these parties waiting for their "turn" with a girl inside the room.' Now she remembers boys huddled by the doors. She originally said four people could corroborate her claims. One can't even remember her, another is dead, and the other two haven't responded. She's contradicting her own sworn statement in that interview. You watch the video and even the least attentive person can tell she's lying. This thing is a shitshow for all the uncredible accusations leveled against Kavanaugh. They need to confirm this man. We went from gang rape to he once threw ice at somebody at a college party. From gang rape to how he got mad at falsely being accused of gang rape. Enough already. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
Let's allow the FBI do their jobs before confirming the guy to a lifetime appointment. I dont think that's unreasonable. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On October 02 2018 12:47 On_Slaught wrote: I was waiting to see who would do it first and Danglars did not disappoint. Even if it turned out every single word Swetnick said was a lie it wouldnt mean jack shit for the credibility of Ramirez or, especially, Ford. It also wouldn't change the fact that Kavanaugh has certainly lied about his drinking history and is a combative partisan hack (not being investigated for this but a sufficient reason to find him unqualified imo). Let's allow the FBI do their jobs before confirming the guy to a lifetime appointment. I dont think that's unreasonable. There's no level to which any woman could have ever been composed and truthful that would keep them at bay. People will latch onto anything that lets them say "hmm, the story doesn't add up, so she must be a political operative for the evil Democrats, #fakenews." They tried to say even Ford's testimony was full of holes, when some Republicans were either sincere or smart enough to say they believed her. Anything they can attack, any hole they can rip wide open, to see their dream fulfilled, of turning the Supreme Court into a partisan weapon, and blow apart everything the court's supposed to stand for. Not only has Kav displayed himself to be mentally and temperamentally unfit, his Republican buddies are still gonna try to shove him through regardless of all his issues. They're this close to getting things like Roe overturned, and so the thought of anyone standing up to them and resisting incenses them. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 02 2018 12:47 On_Slaught wrote: I was waiting to see who would do it first and Danglars did not disappoint. Even if it turned out every single word Swetnick said was a lie it wouldnt mean jack shit for the credibility of Ramirez or, especially, Ford. It also wouldn't change the fact that Kavanaugh has certainly lied about his drinking history and is a combative partisan hack (not being investigated for this but a sufficient reason to find him unqualified imo). Let's allow the FBI do their jobs before confirming the guy to a lifetime appointment. I dont think that's unreasonable. If the best comment you can have on the topic is "even if," then I think you've got serious problems. I could talk about how Ramirez had to assess her memories and talk to her attorney before accusing Kavanaugh. I could talk about how she contacted all her friends beforehand because she simply couldn't be sure. But really, if we're just going to do a ring-around-the-rosie with accusers and whataboutism, we'll just end up back at Swetnick in two more news cycles and nobody will be the wiser on their credibility. Also, he said on the record he drank too many beers. It comes out he drank too many beers. There's no issues in lying about drinking, there's only issues in how you remember his testimony. You aren't disappointing me in this regard. So either comment on what I posted about fake news on false perjury and false allegations, or "what if/even if" with somebody that is new enough to think that road ever ends. On October 02 2018 13:01 NewSunshine wrote: There's no level to which any woman could have ever been composed and truthful that would keep them at bay. People will latch onto anything that lets them say "hmm, the story doesn't add up, so she must be a political operative for the evil Democrats, #fakenews." They tried to say even Ford's testimony was full of holes, when some Republicans were either sincere or smart enough to say they believed her. Anything they can attack, any hole they can rip wide open, to see their dream fulfilled, of turning the Supreme Court into a partisan weapon, and blow apart everything the court's supposed to stand for. Not only has Kav displayed himself to be mentally and temperamentally unfit, his Republican buddies are still gonna try to shove him through regardless of all his issues. They're this close to getting things like Roe overturned, and so the thought of anyone standing up to them and resisting incenses them. No way can somebody watch that video and come away with "there's no level to which any woman could ever been composed and truthful." You might have a very low opinion of people across the aisle, but I suggest to you that blatant lies are not just another reason to "HARUMPH no level of truth would ever be enough." It almost like every new hole in the story is just another reason to double down and change the subject. Hence, one accuser is exposed as a liar, and it's back to the goalposts moved to him getting mad at being accused of gang rape. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 02 2018 13:34 On_Slaught wrote: I wasnt aware they had been proven to be false/fake. This was literally the point of my post. Unless you're getting your news from the future I'm not sure where this is coming from. If that's the case tell me how my Eagles are going to do against the Vikings please so I stress less. The substance of my post is I'm expecting more from you responding to a post of mine beyond "even if" ... this other thing would still be true. I eagerly await the point at which you'll have time to review the video and review my post and comment on the subject of my post, which was Swetnick and allegations of perjury. I can't really sustain anything further on substance if whataboutism is the only menu item on offer, and I'd prefer substance to personalities, as referenced in "I was waiting to see who would do it first and Danglars did not disappoint." | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
Even if there were multiple uncredible accusations it wouldn't mean Kavanaugh "needs to be confirmed." My point was and continues to be that the truth of one accusation literally has no bearing on the truth of others. You post suggests one of two things: either one person lying somehow taints the the other accusers stories or even if another accusation/Kavanaugh lie is shown to be true he should still be confirmed because some of the other accusations were uncredible. Either position is unacceptable. Also, the last part wasnt a shot at you in particular. It could have been anyone to employ that talking point and I would have said the same thing. I'm going to bed now. I'll check out the video tom. | ||
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
| ||
|
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
On October 02 2018 15:11 Falling wrote: Well, thanks for nothing Trump. Now we have your lousy 70 year monopolies held by dead people. I would have preferred to subtract twenty years, but no, now we are adding twenty years in the hopes that dead people will create more stuff. Is this about copyright? | ||
|
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
Although, the bigger problem is the required consultation clause if we ever want to talk to China. I'm just more passionate about the creative commons. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 02 2018 15:11 Falling wrote: Well, thanks for nothing Trump. Now we have your lousy 70 year monopolies held by dead people. I would have preferred to subtract twenty years, but no, now we are adding twenty years in the hopes that dead people will create more stuff. what would disney do without it? | ||
|
mccarthy900
1 Post
User was banned for this post. | ||
| ||
