EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 790
| 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
| ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
They just didn't care, they want him specifically. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 02 2018 17:53 iamthedave wrote: Gotta be honest, D, I was expecting it to be you, too. You're kind of predictable at times. Everyone here was saying the third allegation needed looking into but we weren't exactly confident about it. It was more defending Avenatti because of his track record. But one shitty allegation has nothing to do with Ford or Ramirez, both of whom seem credible. So you using one bad allegation to sweep two possibly legitimate ones under the rug and proclaim 'we must confirm this lying judge now' is kind of funny. I don't remember him going on and on about how much he loved beer in his Fox interview. Which is apparently now evidence according to this article. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/brett-kavanaughs-fox-news-interview-731612/ Why are you so keen to confirm a judge who has apparently committed perjury? Why are you so keen to avoid an investigation just to make sure one way or the other? Don't you care about getting the right man for the job? I hope to predictably defend the rights of the accused, in court and out in society. So I want to thank you for that compliment. I hope I live long enough to see all society look back at this era of public shaming without trial as a black mark in US history, and not one easily expunged. Now, I see a lot of typical reliance on “everyone here was saying” and “it’s kind of funny that” and a lot of your own personal conclusions on what seems credible, none of which is actually all that interesting. We have come to different conclusions based on the facts. Now, you’ll have to dig down and get a little deeper than whipping out an article and doing a “apparently committed perjury,” because I just finished a long post debunking the last accusation, which you are choosing to not deal with now (only my tiny two-sentence summary conclusion section. To put my words more into your style, “apparently” the strategy is to keep on putting people defending the new accusations, and spend no time reviewing the last ones, in order to waste their time and patience and chuckle at the accomplishment. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On October 03 2018 02:17 Danglars wrote: I hope to predictably defend the rights of the accused, in court and out in society. So I want to thank you for that compliment. I hope I live long enough to see all society look back at this era of public shaming without trial as a black mark in US history, and not one easily expunged. Now, I see a lot of typical reliance on “everyone here was saying” and “it’s kind of funny that” and a lot of your own personal conclusions on what seems credible, none of which is actually all that interesting. We have come to different conclusions based on the facts. Now, you’ll have to dig down and get a little deeper than whipping out an article and doing a “apparently committed perjury,” because I just finished a long post debunking the last accusation, which you are choosing to not deal with now (only my tiny two-sentence summary conclusion section. To put my words more into your style, “apparently” the strategy is to keep on putting people defending the new accusations, and spend no time reviewing the last ones, in order to waste their time and patience and chuckle at the accomplishment. The escalation is in part due to Repubs trying to push him. If everyone said, alright, let's take a breather and look into the accusations, less of the public shaming would've taken place. And this demeanor demands being shamed. Innocence has little value in a society of systemic sexism if you act like you give an entitled fuck about the allegations. It's a different power dynamic. And as long as there is not only a lack of trust in institutions to properly follow up on allegations, but also active obfuscation, it is morally justified to press even stronger and more brutal for proper procedure. As long as this is being denied, shaming the protectors of the accused (the obfuscators) into letting the system do its work is really the way to go. It is not about him doing unlawful things in the first place. It's about him allegedly being a fucking douche to women and unfit for a SCOTUS seat. The perjury stuff is only useful for procedure. Societal advancement will have to come from the realisation that an unreleting, hysterical person shouldn't decide the fate of the country (hello Trump). But the US is too partisan for that and only voters can change that. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On October 03 2018 01:50 OuchyDathurts wrote: If Republicans had any brains whatsoever they would have nominated a woman to the court. There's virtually no chance the person has done anything approaching sexual assault in their life. They would have sailed through comparatively unscathed. Like this is their shot, this is everything they've wanted for our entire lives, they could have taken the easiest chip shot of their lives and thrown a woman in there. Women also conduct sexual assault. It is just not taken very seriously. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On October 03 2018 02:45 Ghostcom wrote: Women also conduct sexual assault. It is just not taken very seriously. true on both accounts. It also is far less likely (maybe it is just SUPER underreported but I am pretty sure its men who commit sexual assault more) | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On October 03 2018 01:53 KwarK wrote: By Democrats. I should have made that clear. You act like Democrats have any ethics. Isn't the fine state of New Jersey going to re-elect Robert Menendez? Then there is Keith Ellison (everyone's favorite proggy) who beat up his girlfriend. The partisanship is so bad that otherwise reasonable people will believe objectively false shit just because "the other side". There's a thousand and one examples on either side. Pretending like one is better than the other is hilarious just because you're on one side and not the other. Get out of here with this bullshit. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On October 03 2018 02:53 Wegandi wrote: You act like Democrats have any ethics. Isn't the fine state of New Jersey going to re-elect Robert Menendez? Then there is Keith Ellison (everyone's favorite proggy) who beat up his girlfriend. The partisanship is so bad that otherwise reasonable people will believe objectively false shit just because "the other side". There's a thousand and one examples on either side. Pretending like one is better than the other is hilarious just because you're on one side and not the other. Get out of here with this bullshit. Dems kicked out franklin (I got nothing on Menendez, thats just bad) And didn't Ellison say he was innocent and ask for an investigation into it? | ||
KwarK
United States43964 Posts
On October 03 2018 02:53 Wegandi wrote: You act like Democrats have any ethics. Isn't the fine state of New Jersey going to re-elect Robert Menendez? Then there is Keith Ellison (everyone's favorite proggy) who beat up his girlfriend. The partisanship is so bad that otherwise reasonable people will believe objectively false shit just because "the other side". There's a thousand and one examples on either side. Pretending like one is better than the other is hilarious just because you're on one side and not the other. Get out of here with this bullshit. Even if they had no ethics, they have a different base. The Democrat base gets upset about this shit in a way that the Roy Moore base just doesn’t. Ethics aside, the Democratic Party is still more responsive to this stuff. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
| ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On October 03 2018 02:56 IyMoon wrote: Dems kicked out franklin (I got nothing on Menendez, thats just bad) And didn't Ellison say he was innocent and ask for an investigation into it? Yeah Ellison is calling for an investigation into the allegations. So a bit of an odd example to bring up. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 03 2018 02:30 JimmiC wrote: Isn't it ironic that you are railing Iamdave for coming to the conclusion of guilt to soon, when you have come to conclusion of innocence just as fast. I mean you didn't even want an investigation. (Presumption of innocence is a great and necessary thing for law, not so much for the rest of life. Like if some baby sitter was accused of child abuse should I hire them before it is found out if they are in fact guilty or innocent? Would you?) If it comes out that he did 1 or 2 of the three. Do you think he should still be appointed? And do you not think that if he comes back clean as a whistle that would be much better result for him and the Reps than if no investigation had happened? No, I’m pointing to the public shaming, our differences on conclusions like credibility, and how reliant his argument is on generalities. Did you mistake my post with another? I grade the investigation on the merits of the allegation. The combined questions about Kavanaugh’s identity in all this and the gaping wholes and contradictions in the testimony mean the basic FBI background check is sufficient. Had the accusers not had trouble with so selective a memory and so sudden an identification decades later, they would be credible enough to warrant additional investigation. As it stands, the “process” is a long perp walk with wild speculation. Supposing your babysitter was also a very public person with a public reputation, you’d also have some kind of standards for accusation. Otherwise, I could accuse you today of sexual impropriety and the same logic would mean my action has job consequences for you. I have no desire to propagate false rape accusations based on the impossible standards set forth here. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On October 03 2018 01:50 OuchyDathurts wrote: If Republicans had any brains whatsoever they would have nominated a woman to the court. There's virtually no chance the person has done anything approaching sexual assault in their life. They would have sailed through comparatively unscathed. Like this is their shot, this is everything they've wanted for our entire lives, they could have taken the easiest chip shot of their lives and thrown a woman in there. From the point of view of getting their pick through to the SCOTUS, most assuredly you are correct. However, Republicans are constantly running on gunning down Roe v. Wade, and the principle behind it. I don't know what woman would follow a patently anti-woman agenda. Them trying to push Kavanaugh through as hard as they are is as big a "fuck you" to women as I've ever seen from a public official, so we know pretty clearly where they stand. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
As for Swetnick... regarding her performance I want to be careful about commenting on her emotions since everyone reacts differently in situations like this. Certainly she was less emotional than Ford. However my issue with her performance was with her constant looking down while talking. It may be nerves, but it came off as not very credible. What matters tho is not the credibility of her performance but rather her accusation. There she loses me. Few things: - why the fuck would you not reach out to your 4 "witnesses" before this interview or signing a sworn statement? One said he didn't even know who you were and one is dead! She better hope the other 2 step up. - she contacted the police? Why wasnt that in her statement? Seems pretty damn important. I also call bullshit on the Mongomery Police needing a month to verify if she is telling the truth. This will end up being irrelevant unless the report is real and names Kavanaugh. Though I think if it did she would have tried to get it already. - changing substantive parts of her statement is pretty damn bad. Saying they were congregated vs in a line is whatever. However going from "I was aware of efforts to spike drinks" to "I saw him by the punch and handing out drinks" is a problem and may place her in legal jeopardy. Why the fuck would she give a sworn statement, especially as a federal employee, and then both backtrack part of it and fail to corrborate it at all? That she and Avennati apparently didn't reach out to the very people who could do that (the police and these 4 people) beforehand is telling. This doesnt mean she is lying (we need to see what those other 2 people and the police say) but I'm pretty close to casting her accusations aside. It's likely it will end up being irrelevant to the final report at least. Avennati should be embarrassed either for letting her be so unprepared or for bringing such a weakly backed claim. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/brett-kavanaugh-slapped-with-two-official-ethics-complaints-in-d-c-circuit-court/ The other complaint deals with allegations that Kavanaugh lied before the Senate Judiciary Committee when he testified during his initial confirmation hearing that he didn’t know he received and worked off of a treasure trove of documents stolen by a GOP operative from Senate Democrats during his time with the administration of George W. Bush. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On October 03 2018 03:12 On_Slaught wrote: So before I talk about the Swetnick interview, I want to point out that Trump just said this is a very scary time in America for young men. Thank you sir for continuing to drive women, especially educated women, out of your party. As for Swetnick... regarding her performance I want to be careful about commenting on her emotions since everyone reacts differently in situations like this. Certainly she was less emotional than Ford. However my issue with her performance was with her constant looking down while talking. It may be nerves, but it came off as not very credible. What matters tho is not the credibility of her performance but rather her accusation. There she loses me. Few things: - why the fuck would you not reach out to your 4 "witnesses" before this interview or signing a sworn statement? One said he didn't even know who you were and one is dead! She better hope the other 2 step up. - she contacted the police? Why wasnt that in her statement? Seems pretty damn important. I also call bullshit on the Mongomery Police needing a month to verify if she is telling the truth. This will end up being irrelevant unless the report is real and names Kavanaugh. Though I think if it did she would have tried to get it already. - changing substantive parts of her statement is pretty damn bad. Saying they were congregated vs in a line is whatever. However going from "I was aware of efforts to spike drinks" to "I saw him by the punch and handing out drinks" is a problem and may place her in legal jeopardy. Why the fuck would she give a sworn statement, especially as a federal employee, and then both backtrack part of it and fail to corrborate it at all? That she and Avennati apparently didn't reach out to the very people who could do that (the police and these 4 people) beforehand is telling. This doesnt mean she is lying (we need to see what those other 2 people and the police say) but I'm pretty close to casting her accusations aside. It's likely it will end up being irrelevant to the final report at least. Avennati should be embarrassed either for letting her be so unprepared or for bringing such a weakly backed claim. I largely agree with this analysis, only I'd strongly caution against reading too much into the difficulty she alleges she faced when trying to get a police report. My fiancé does legal aid work that oftentimes requires that she obtain PPOs for her clients and she has much to say about how difficult it is to get police cooperation when the issues are domestic violence/sexual assault claims. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
