|
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 October 03 2018 02:43 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 02:17 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2018 17:53 iamthedave wrote:On October 02 2018 13:39 Danglars wrote: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." 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. 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.
Then we’ll definitely differ. “Everyone let’s take a breather” stands in stark contrast with “a society of systemic sexism” and “act like you give an entitled fuck about the allegations.” You will get pushback if this is all another progressive agenda talking point on sex and entitlement. I thought he acted fine given the extraordinary gang rape accusations that are being undone as I type this. I thought when he brought up his bona fides, they were appropriate in the course of the questions about his high school yearbooks and calendar. So, no, you have a particular power, privilege, and sex ax to grind, and it doesn’t amount to stepping back for a breather. It’s imposible not to reward these shameful tactics of delay coupled with accusations that it’s being hurried if the vote doesn’t take place in the coming week.
As mentioned before, this is putting every male American in the hot seat as they’re coming face to face with the possibility that someone can jeopardize their job and lifestyle 30 years after without even a date and place with which to clear their name.
You’ve mentioned the content of the accusations, which I call uncredible, to your side. Everybody’s “allegedly a fucking douche” because all you need is a story, not a spec of evidence. It’s not what’s being alleged that matters if the support for the allegation is so frail. It’s going to be as common for public figures as financial impropriety if this thing stops a vote. Societal advancement means he gets his vote (with Senators deciding if the accusers are credible, and voters holding them to account) and people like Feinstein will never use these allegations as a political ploy to achieve a political outcome they desire. The senate has a process for closed sessions with confidential briefings and their own investigative teams to spend the 6 weeks actually doing some good, instead of springing everything where the only outcome is injustice to the system and to the process.
|
|
|
I thought when he brought up his bona fides, they were appropriate in the course of the questions about his high school yearbooks and calendar.
Is this implying that being a studious student means you don't party? Did you go to a US high school?
|
On October 03 2018 03:05 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 01:50 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 03 2018 00:55 Mohdoo wrote:On October 03 2018 00:44 Nouar wrote:On October 03 2018 00:24 Mohdoo wrote:
I feel like people defending Kavanaugh by instinct aren't reflecting on what a slam dunk Gorsuch was. Collins, Murkowski and Flake had no reason to vote against Gorsuch. Gorsuch was voted in with 54 votes. Slam dunk. There are a lot of things that distinguish Gorsuch from Kavanaugh. There are other candidates that would be just as easy as Gorsuch was.
Instead of assuming this is just some knee-jerk reaction by left leaning people, it is important to wonder why Gorsuch was so much easier and why even some democrats voted for Gorsuch. It is not a slam dunk when the bar for Supreme Court appointments had just been moved from 60 to 51 votes juste before that to retaliate against democrats and filibusters. But yes, it was a lot less painful since the candidate was at least qualified and behaved correctly. Democrats voted for Gorsuch. There are republicans who won't vote for Kavanaugh. That right there says a great deal about Kavanaugh as a candidate. And they can still find another Gorsuch. No one is stuck with Kavanaugh. This isn't some irreversible process. Everything can change. Everyone should be asking themselves: Why Kavanaugh? 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.
I know this might come as a shock to you, but conservative woman do exist. I can confirm they are great relationship material 
This might come as a shock to you aswell, but many woman feel repelled by the idea of their fathers, brothers, husbands and sons being acussed of rape without evidence.
|
|
|
On October 03 2018 03:17 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +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.
To be clear, I was mostly being critical of the police department it self for being so slow to do something they should be able to fast track. For her my criticism is that she didn't even try to get it! Per the interview it's NBC who is trying to get the police report and being told it will take a month, not Swetnick. She should have started the search for that report weeks ago when she first considered coming out since it's self evident how big that piece of evidence would be for her credibility.
|
On October 03 2018 03:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 02:43 Artisreal wrote:On October 03 2018 02:17 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2018 17:53 iamthedave wrote:On October 02 2018 13:39 Danglars wrote: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." 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. 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. As mentioned before, this is putting every male American in the hot seat as they’re coming face to face with the possibility that someone can jeopardize their job and lifestyle 30 years after without even a date and place with which to clear their name.
This would be a fair point if we saw anything like this for Gorsuch. But we haven't. Gorsuch was a straight shot aside from the typical left/right bickering. Flake, Murkowski and Collins did not hesitate to vote for Gorsuch. Gorsuch even got some democrat support. I don't think you are addressing the fact that Gorsuch was appointed recently and without any of the same type of stuff you are talking about.
|
On October 03 2018 03:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 03:04 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2018 02:30 JimmiC wrote:On October 03 2018 02:17 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2018 17:53 iamthedave wrote:On October 02 2018 13:39 Danglars wrote: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." 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. 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. There is many dead horses you keep beating, but the time frame one is the most frustrating for anyone who knows anything about sexual assault. I did not misread your post or your many long winded posts where you like to pretend to be open minded but it is clear to absolutely everyone that you are not even a little. I don't know if he did it or didn't, I hope the investigation sheds some light. What I can tell you is to em he did no favors with any one who was on the fence because he came off as a spoiled, entitled, angry brat. And Ford came off very credible. It was honestly shocking to see a judge come off so poorly. Who responds to serious questions with "did you?" I'm going to reserve judgement till after the investigation, but BK being an unlikeable guy is not helping.
I don’t know how you could be anything but mistaken if your takeaway was “railed ... coming to the conclusion of guilt too soon” when I mentioned nothing of the kind in my post. I know others have been posting on the topic, so maybe they assert someone is “coming to the conclusion of guilt too soon.” In any case, I can only respond to your questions about former posts based on what I wrote in former posts, so let me know if anything specifically was unclear, with quoted text. I’m glad to clarify.
Yes, I’ve heard others say he came off as a “spoiled, entitled, angry brat.” I’ve heard the exact opposite as well. I saw what any average man would do at such heinous accusations if he were innocent, and a bit of embarrassment at his drinking years. She struck a sympathetic tone, but the content exposed even more holes in her than had been previously known (and who throws a friendly witness under the bus with medical issues anyways?) See Mitchell’s memo for the basics, because she might speak in a more dispassionate voice for why Ford’s testimony is troubling to her credibility than my more passionate defense. Today’s divided society will divide perceptions of testimony, and mine and others are completely opposite to yours.
|
On October 03 2018 03:28 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 03:23 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2018 02:43 Artisreal wrote:On October 03 2018 02:17 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2018 17:53 iamthedave wrote:On October 02 2018 13:39 Danglars wrote: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." 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. 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. Then we’ll definitely differ. “Everyone let’s take a breather” stands in stark contrast with “a society of systemic sexism” and “act like you give an entitled fuck about the allegations.” You will get pushback if this is all another progressive agenda talking point on sex and entitlement. I thought he acted fine given the extraordinary gang rape accusations that are being undone as I type this. I thought when he brought up his bona fides, they were appropriate in the course of the questions about his high school yearbooks and calendar. So, no, you have a particular power, privilege, and sex ax to grind, and it doesn’t amount to stepping back for a breather. It’s imposible not to reward these shameful tactics of delay coupled with accusations that it’s being hurried if the vote doesn’t take place in the coming week. As mentioned before, this is putting every male American in the hot seat as they’re coming face to face with the possibility that someone can jeopardize their job and lifestyle 30 years after without even a date and place with which to clear their name.You’ve mentioned the content of the accusations, which I call uncredible, to your side. Everybody’s “allegedly a fucking douche” because all you need is a story, not a spec of evidence. It’s not what’s being alleged that matters if the support for the allegation is so frail. It’s going to be as common for public figures as financial impropriety if this thing stops a vote. Societal advancement means he gets his vote (with Senators deciding if the accusers are credible, and voters holding them to account) and people like Feinstein will never use these allegations as a political ploy to achieve a political outcome they desire. The senate has a process for closed sessions with confidential briefings and their own investigative teams to spend the 6 weeks actually doing some good, instead of springing everything where the only outcome is injustice to the system and to the process. This is up there with the most ridiculous shit you have said. Which is saying a lot. You think a farmer will lose his farm? A Mcdonalds worker would lose his job? A plumber lose his company? Almost like the SUPREME COURT JUDGE with a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT will and should be held to a different standard. Please tell me you are not believing the "this an attack on all men BS". I am a man, and was a hard partying one in Uni, I have zero fear.
You do know professors and students have been falsely acussed of sexual misconduct and administratively been punished by universities without or even despite actual court rulings right?
|
On October 03 2018 03:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 03:23 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2018 02:43 Artisreal wrote:On October 03 2018 02:17 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2018 17:53 iamthedave wrote:On October 02 2018 13:39 Danglars wrote: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." 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. 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. As mentioned before, this is putting every male American in the hot seat as they’re coming face to face with the possibility that someone can jeopardize their job and lifestyle 30 years after without even a date and place with which to clear their name. This would be a fair point if we saw anything like this for Gorsuch. But we haven't. Gorsuch was a straight shot aside from the typical left/right bickering. Flake, Murkowski and Collins did not hesitate to vote for Gorsuch. Gorsuch even got some democrat support. I don't think you are addressing the fact that Gorsuch was appointed recently and without any of the same type of stuff you are talking about.
Gorsuch replaced another originalist. Kavanaugh is replacing Kennedy, whose famously swung towards judicial activism on culture war topics in a way that Kavanaugh has not. This nomination puts in jeopardy the judicial strategy of legislating through the courts when Democrats can’t get their bills through the House, Senate, and President. Any other nominee would get the same treatment, with much greater vigor if they checked more unprogressive boxes like Barrett would.
Thomas is the best example from the recent past, but then the politics were less insane and it was about a federal crime that had happened not too long ago. The FBI investigation and Anita Hill’s testimony persuaded Americans against her (inconsistencies etc) and he was confirmed. Politely, I’m not buying it.
|
On October 03 2018 03:40 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 03:28 JimmiC wrote:On October 03 2018 03:23 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2018 02:43 Artisreal wrote:On October 03 2018 02:17 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2018 17:53 iamthedave wrote:On October 02 2018 13:39 Danglars wrote: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." 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. 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. Then we’ll definitely differ. “Everyone let’s take a breather” stands in stark contrast with “a society of systemic sexism” and “act like you give an entitled fuck about the allegations.” You will get pushback if this is all another progressive agenda talking point on sex and entitlement. I thought he acted fine given the extraordinary gang rape accusations that are being undone as I type this. I thought when he brought up his bona fides, they were appropriate in the course of the questions about his high school yearbooks and calendar. So, no, you have a particular power, privilege, and sex ax to grind, and it doesn’t amount to stepping back for a breather. It’s imposible not to reward these shameful tactics of delay coupled with accusations that it’s being hurried if the vote doesn’t take place in the coming week. As mentioned before, this is putting every male American in the hot seat as they’re coming face to face with the possibility that someone can jeopardize their job and lifestyle 30 years after without even a date and place with which to clear their name.You’ve mentioned the content of the accusations, which I call uncredible, to your side. Everybody’s “allegedly a fucking douche” because all you need is a story, not a spec of evidence. It’s not what’s being alleged that matters if the support for the allegation is so frail. It’s going to be as common for public figures as financial impropriety if this thing stops a vote. Societal advancement means he gets his vote (with Senators deciding if the accusers are credible, and voters holding them to account) and people like Feinstein will never use these allegations as a political ploy to achieve a political outcome they desire. The senate has a process for closed sessions with confidential briefings and their own investigative teams to spend the 6 weeks actually doing some good, instead of springing everything where the only outcome is injustice to the system and to the process. This is up there with the most ridiculous shit you have said. Which is saying a lot. You think a farmer will lose his farm? A Mcdonalds worker would lose his job? A plumber lose his company? Almost like the SUPREME COURT JUDGE with a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT will and should be held to a different standard. Please tell me you are not believing the "this an attack on all men BS". I am a man, and was a hard partying one in Uni, I have zero fear. You do know professors and students have been falsely acussed of sexual misconduct and administratively been punished by universities without or even despite actual court rulings right?
The simple existence of injustice for men somewhere does prove some sort of wide spread war on men.
|
On October 03 2018 03:40 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 03:28 JimmiC wrote:On October 03 2018 03:23 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2018 02:43 Artisreal wrote:On October 03 2018 02:17 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2018 17:53 iamthedave wrote:On October 02 2018 13:39 Danglars wrote: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." 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. 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. Then we’ll definitely differ. “Everyone let’s take a breather” stands in stark contrast with “a society of systemic sexism” and “act like you give an entitled fuck about the allegations.” You will get pushback if this is all another progressive agenda talking point on sex and entitlement. I thought he acted fine given the extraordinary gang rape accusations that are being undone as I type this. I thought when he brought up his bona fides, they were appropriate in the course of the questions about his high school yearbooks and calendar. So, no, you have a particular power, privilege, and sex ax to grind, and it doesn’t amount to stepping back for a breather. It’s imposible not to reward these shameful tactics of delay coupled with accusations that it’s being hurried if the vote doesn’t take place in the coming week. As mentioned before, this is putting every male American in the hot seat as they’re coming face to face with the possibility that someone can jeopardize their job and lifestyle 30 years after without even a date and place with which to clear their name.You’ve mentioned the content of the accusations, which I call uncredible, to your side. Everybody’s “allegedly a fucking douche” because all you need is a story, not a spec of evidence. It’s not what’s being alleged that matters if the support for the allegation is so frail. It’s going to be as common for public figures as financial impropriety if this thing stops a vote. Societal advancement means he gets his vote (with Senators deciding if the accusers are credible, and voters holding them to account) and people like Feinstein will never use these allegations as a political ploy to achieve a political outcome they desire. The senate has a process for closed sessions with confidential briefings and their own investigative teams to spend the 6 weeks actually doing some good, instead of springing everything where the only outcome is injustice to the system and to the process. This is up there with the most ridiculous shit you have said. Which is saying a lot. You think a farmer will lose his farm? A Mcdonalds worker would lose his job? A plumber lose his company? Almost like the SUPREME COURT JUDGE with a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT will and should be held to a different standard. Please tell me you are not believing the "this an attack on all men BS". I am a man, and was a hard partying one in Uni, I have zero fear. You do know professors and students have been falsely acussed of sexual misconduct and administratively been punished by universities without or even despite actual court rulings right?
That's an issue of lacking protection for workers and students..say, for an example, a workers union which haven't had their wings clipped. What does this have to do with a supreme court judge nominee who's now had numerous believable claims against him, who's provably lied under oath, behaved irrational, and seemingly doesn't understand even the most basic and fundamental way evidence is supposed to work? "I have this here calendar where it said I didn't harass this woman, so I'm not guilty!"
|
On October 03 2018 03:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 03:14 JimmiC wrote:On October 03 2018 03:04 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2018 02:30 JimmiC wrote:On October 03 2018 02:17 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2018 17:53 iamthedave wrote:On October 02 2018 13:39 Danglars wrote: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." 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. 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. There is many dead horses you keep beating, but the time frame one is the most frustrating for anyone who knows anything about sexual assault. I did not misread your post or your many long winded posts where you like to pretend to be open minded but it is clear to absolutely everyone that you are not even a little. I don't know if he did it or didn't, I hope the investigation sheds some light. What I can tell you is to em he did no favors with any one who was on the fence because he came off as a spoiled, entitled, angry brat. And Ford came off very credible. It was honestly shocking to see a judge come off so poorly. Who responds to serious questions with "did you?" I'm going to reserve judgement till after the investigation, but BK being an unlikeable guy is not helping. I don’t know how you could be anything but mistaken if your takeaway was “railed ... coming to the conclusion of guilt too soon” when I mentioned nothing of the kind in my post. I know others have been posting on the topic, so maybe they assert someone is “coming to the conclusion of guilt too soon.” In any case, I can only respond to your questions about former posts based on what I wrote in former posts, so let me know if anything specifically was unclear, with quoted text. I’m glad to clarify. Yes, I’ve heard others say he came off as a “spoiled, entitled, angry brat.” I’ve heard the exact opposite as well. I saw what any average man would do at such heinous accusations if he were innocent, and a bit of embarrassment at his drinking years. She struck a sympathetic tone, but the content exposed even more holes in her than had been previously known (and who throws a friendly witness under the bus with medical issues anyways?) See Mitchell’s memo for the basics, because she might speak in a more dispassionate voice for why Ford’s testimony is troubling to her credibility than my more passionate defense. Today’s divided society will divide perceptions of testimony, and mine and others are completely opposite to yours.
The only bipartisan part of this process has been the condemnation of Mitchell's report by the legal community. In particular by people in her industry and who know her. It's a political piece which ignores basic tenants of prosecutorial work. You know, little things like actually investigating. Of course a single witness interview isnt sufficient to charge him. Her report is a joke.
This person explains better if anyone cares:
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/10/republican-female-assistant-explains-how-she-would-have-silenced-christine-blasey-ford/
|
On October 03 2018 03:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 03:40 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 03:28 JimmiC wrote:On October 03 2018 03:23 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2018 02:43 Artisreal wrote:On October 03 2018 02:17 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2018 17:53 iamthedave wrote:On October 02 2018 13:39 Danglars wrote: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." 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. 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. Then we’ll definitely differ. “Everyone let’s take a breather” stands in stark contrast with “a society of systemic sexism” and “act like you give an entitled fuck about the allegations.” You will get pushback if this is all another progressive agenda talking point on sex and entitlement. I thought he acted fine given the extraordinary gang rape accusations that are being undone as I type this. I thought when he brought up his bona fides, they were appropriate in the course of the questions about his high school yearbooks and calendar. So, no, you have a particular power, privilege, and sex ax to grind, and it doesn’t amount to stepping back for a breather. It’s imposible not to reward these shameful tactics of delay coupled with accusations that it’s being hurried if the vote doesn’t take place in the coming week. As mentioned before, this is putting every male American in the hot seat as they’re coming face to face with the possibility that someone can jeopardize their job and lifestyle 30 years after without even a date and place with which to clear their name.You’ve mentioned the content of the accusations, which I call uncredible, to your side. Everybody’s “allegedly a fucking douche” because all you need is a story, not a spec of evidence. It’s not what’s being alleged that matters if the support for the allegation is so frail. It’s going to be as common for public figures as financial impropriety if this thing stops a vote. Societal advancement means he gets his vote (with Senators deciding if the accusers are credible, and voters holding them to account) and people like Feinstein will never use these allegations as a political ploy to achieve a political outcome they desire. The senate has a process for closed sessions with confidential briefings and their own investigative teams to spend the 6 weeks actually doing some good, instead of springing everything where the only outcome is injustice to the system and to the process. This is up there with the most ridiculous shit you have said. Which is saying a lot. You think a farmer will lose his farm? A Mcdonalds worker would lose his job? A plumber lose his company? Almost like the SUPREME COURT JUDGE with a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT will and should be held to a different standard. Please tell me you are not believing the "this an attack on all men BS". I am a man, and was a hard partying one in Uni, I have zero fear. You do know professors and students have been falsely acussed of sexual misconduct and administratively been punished by universities without or even despite actual court rulings right? The simple existence of injustice for men somewhere does prove some sort of wide spread war on men.
Well he is saying false acussations only affect a SCOTUS nominee and that it would never happen to "regular people"
This is false. Students, professors, men at desk jobs and during divorces regularly get destroyed by sexual and/or violence false acussations to the extent that "it could happen to anyone", especially with this new precedent.
Strawmanning my assertion into a "war or men" is another issue.
|
On October 03 2018 03:54 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 03:46 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2018 03:40 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 03:28 JimmiC wrote:On October 03 2018 03:23 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2018 02:43 Artisreal wrote:On October 03 2018 02:17 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2018 17:53 iamthedave wrote:On October 02 2018 13:39 Danglars wrote: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." 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. 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. Then we’ll definitely differ. “Everyone let’s take a breather” stands in stark contrast with “a society of systemic sexism” and “act like you give an entitled fuck about the allegations.” You will get pushback if this is all another progressive agenda talking point on sex and entitlement. I thought he acted fine given the extraordinary gang rape accusations that are being undone as I type this. I thought when he brought up his bona fides, they were appropriate in the course of the questions about his high school yearbooks and calendar. So, no, you have a particular power, privilege, and sex ax to grind, and it doesn’t amount to stepping back for a breather. It’s imposible not to reward these shameful tactics of delay coupled with accusations that it’s being hurried if the vote doesn’t take place in the coming week. As mentioned before, this is putting every male American in the hot seat as they’re coming face to face with the possibility that someone can jeopardize their job and lifestyle 30 years after without even a date and place with which to clear their name.You’ve mentioned the content of the accusations, which I call uncredible, to your side. Everybody’s “allegedly a fucking douche” because all you need is a story, not a spec of evidence. It’s not what’s being alleged that matters if the support for the allegation is so frail. It’s going to be as common for public figures as financial impropriety if this thing stops a vote. Societal advancement means he gets his vote (with Senators deciding if the accusers are credible, and voters holding them to account) and people like Feinstein will never use these allegations as a political ploy to achieve a political outcome they desire. The senate has a process for closed sessions with confidential briefings and their own investigative teams to spend the 6 weeks actually doing some good, instead of springing everything where the only outcome is injustice to the system and to the process. This is up there with the most ridiculous shit you have said. Which is saying a lot. You think a farmer will lose his farm? A Mcdonalds worker would lose his job? A plumber lose his company? Almost like the SUPREME COURT JUDGE with a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT will and should be held to a different standard. Please tell me you are not believing the "this an attack on all men BS". I am a man, and was a hard partying one in Uni, I have zero fear. You do know professors and students have been falsely acussed of sexual misconduct and administratively been punished by universities without or even despite actual court rulings right? The simple existence of injustice for men somewhere does prove some sort of wide spread war on men. Well he is saying false acussations only affect a SCOTUS nominee and that it would never happen to "regular people" This is false. Students, professors, men at desk jobs and during divorces regularly get destroyed by sexual and/or violence false acussations to the extent that "it could happen to anyone", especially with this new precedent. Strawmanning my assertion into a "war or men" is another issue.
False accusations are indeed damaging, but so are crimes that go unreported. Any mention of one without the other is a distortion of the problems inherent to evidentiarily tricky claims and the process used to address them.
|
On October 03 2018 03:54 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 03:46 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2018 03:40 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 03:28 JimmiC wrote:On October 03 2018 03:23 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2018 02:43 Artisreal wrote:On October 03 2018 02:17 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2018 17:53 iamthedave wrote:On October 02 2018 13:39 Danglars wrote: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." 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. 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. Then we’ll definitely differ. “Everyone let’s take a breather” stands in stark contrast with “a society of systemic sexism” and “act like you give an entitled fuck about the allegations.” You will get pushback if this is all another progressive agenda talking point on sex and entitlement. I thought he acted fine given the extraordinary gang rape accusations that are being undone as I type this. I thought when he brought up his bona fides, they were appropriate in the course of the questions about his high school yearbooks and calendar. So, no, you have a particular power, privilege, and sex ax to grind, and it doesn’t amount to stepping back for a breather. It’s imposible not to reward these shameful tactics of delay coupled with accusations that it’s being hurried if the vote doesn’t take place in the coming week. As mentioned before, this is putting every male American in the hot seat as they’re coming face to face with the possibility that someone can jeopardize their job and lifestyle 30 years after without even a date and place with which to clear their name.You’ve mentioned the content of the accusations, which I call uncredible, to your side. Everybody’s “allegedly a fucking douche” because all you need is a story, not a spec of evidence. It’s not what’s being alleged that matters if the support for the allegation is so frail. It’s going to be as common for public figures as financial impropriety if this thing stops a vote. Societal advancement means he gets his vote (with Senators deciding if the accusers are credible, and voters holding them to account) and people like Feinstein will never use these allegations as a political ploy to achieve a political outcome they desire. The senate has a process for closed sessions with confidential briefings and their own investigative teams to spend the 6 weeks actually doing some good, instead of springing everything where the only outcome is injustice to the system and to the process. This is up there with the most ridiculous shit you have said. Which is saying a lot. You think a farmer will lose his farm? A Mcdonalds worker would lose his job? A plumber lose his company? Almost like the SUPREME COURT JUDGE with a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT will and should be held to a different standard. Please tell me you are not believing the "this an attack on all men BS". I am a man, and was a hard partying one in Uni, I have zero fear. You do know professors and students have been falsely acussed of sexual misconduct and administratively been punished by universities without or even despite actual court rulings right? The simple existence of injustice for men somewhere does prove some sort of wide spread war on men. Well he is saying false acussations only affect a SCOTUS nominee and that it would never happen to "regular people" This is false. Students, professors, men at desk jobs and during divorces regularly get destroyed by sexual and/or violence false acussations to the extent that "it could happen to anyone", especially with this new precedent. Strawmanning my assertion into a "war or men" is another issue.
I’ve seen no evidence that any of this happens “regularly” and known far more women who have been sexually assaulted Than the zero men I know who have been falsely accused of sexual assault.
|
On October 03 2018 03:52 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 03:39 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2018 03:14 JimmiC wrote:On October 03 2018 03:04 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2018 02:30 JimmiC wrote:On October 03 2018 02:17 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2018 17:53 iamthedave wrote:On October 02 2018 13:39 Danglars wrote: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." 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. 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. There is many dead horses you keep beating, but the time frame one is the most frustrating for anyone who knows anything about sexual assault. I did not misread your post or your many long winded posts where you like to pretend to be open minded but it is clear to absolutely everyone that you are not even a little. I don't know if he did it or didn't, I hope the investigation sheds some light. What I can tell you is to em he did no favors with any one who was on the fence because he came off as a spoiled, entitled, angry brat. And Ford came off very credible. It was honestly shocking to see a judge come off so poorly. Who responds to serious questions with "did you?" I'm going to reserve judgement till after the investigation, but BK being an unlikeable guy is not helping. I don’t know how you could be anything but mistaken if your takeaway was “railed ... coming to the conclusion of guilt too soon” when I mentioned nothing of the kind in my post. I know others have been posting on the topic, so maybe they assert someone is “coming to the conclusion of guilt too soon.” In any case, I can only respond to your questions about former posts based on what I wrote in former posts, so let me know if anything specifically was unclear, with quoted text. I’m glad to clarify. Yes, I’ve heard others say he came off as a “spoiled, entitled, angry brat.” I’ve heard the exact opposite as well. I saw what any average man would do at such heinous accusations if he were innocent, and a bit of embarrassment at his drinking years. She struck a sympathetic tone, but the content exposed even more holes in her than had been previously known (and who throws a friendly witness under the bus with medical issues anyways?) See Mitchell’s memo for the basics, because she might speak in a more dispassionate voice for why Ford’s testimony is troubling to her credibility than my more passionate defense. Today’s divided society will divide perceptions of testimony, and mine and others are completely opposite to yours. The only bipartisan part of this process has been the condemnation of Mitchell's report by the legal community. In particular by people in the industry and who know her. It's a political piece which ignores basic tenants of prosecutorial work. You know, little things like actually investigating. Of course a single witness interview isnt sufficient to charge him. Her report is a joke. This person explains better if anyone cares: https://abovethelaw.com/2018/10/republican-female-assistant-explains-how-she-would-have-silenced-christine-blasey-ford/
For the claim that the condemnation of Mitchell’s report is bipartisan, you’ll have to link some bipartisan analysis. I could easily say that doubts on Ford’s credibility are bipartisan, since Senators from both parties have signaled their willingness to vote in Kavanaugh.
The explanation sounds like it could’ve come from Fox News with iré reversed:
Instead she wrote a five-page letter, ostensibly got her check, and will now slink back to Arizona where she can dissuade other sexual assault victims from coming forward unless they can produce body-cam footage of their attackers assaulting them.
Mhmm. This is quality Fox News reporting.
Well, she was supposed to question both witnesses. In reality, she questioned Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, the alleged survivor. When it came time to question the potential sex criminal, Brett Kavanaugh, the Senate Republicans pulled the mic back so Lindsey Graham could threaten political retribution if he ever becomes Senate Judiciary Chairman.
Uhh she did question him on blackout drunkenness, and whether he ever forgot stuff while out drinking. With such factual errors like these, it’s a wonder anyone kept reading. I guess the writer knows his audience? Or knows enough about his audience that they’ll never rewatch the hearing or transcript?
It’s a collection of Republican talking points, lies, and slander.
No sane person can read that and conclude this. Apparently, the authors main goal is to encourage his readers not to read the primary source document he linked, but instead take his word for it that it’s just hokum.
I’d get less biased reporting from infowars, I swear. I’m gonna need some pull quotes from the article in addition to the link to make sure it isn’t just a hit job by Juris Doctor. Or, in his words, an article of Democratic talking points, lies, and slander to combat Republican talking points, lies, and slander.
|
On October 03 2018 04:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 03:54 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 03:46 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2018 03:40 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 03:28 JimmiC wrote:On October 03 2018 03:23 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2018 02:43 Artisreal wrote:On October 03 2018 02:17 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2018 17:53 iamthedave wrote:On October 02 2018 13:39 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
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." 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. 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. Then we’ll definitely differ. “Everyone let’s take a breather” stands in stark contrast with “a society of systemic sexism” and “act like you give an entitled fuck about the allegations.” You will get pushback if this is all another progressive agenda talking point on sex and entitlement. I thought he acted fine given the extraordinary gang rape accusations that are being undone as I type this. I thought when he brought up his bona fides, they were appropriate in the course of the questions about his high school yearbooks and calendar. So, no, you have a particular power, privilege, and sex ax to grind, and it doesn’t amount to stepping back for a breather. It’s imposible not to reward these shameful tactics of delay coupled with accusations that it’s being hurried if the vote doesn’t take place in the coming week. As mentioned before, this is putting every male American in the hot seat as they’re coming face to face with the possibility that someone can jeopardize their job and lifestyle 30 years after without even a date and place with which to clear their name.You’ve mentioned the content of the accusations, which I call uncredible, to your side. Everybody’s “allegedly a fucking douche” because all you need is a story, not a spec of evidence. It’s not what’s being alleged that matters if the support for the allegation is so frail. It’s going to be as common for public figures as financial impropriety if this thing stops a vote. Societal advancement means he gets his vote (with Senators deciding if the accusers are credible, and voters holding them to account) and people like Feinstein will never use these allegations as a political ploy to achieve a political outcome they desire. The senate has a process for closed sessions with confidential briefings and their own investigative teams to spend the 6 weeks actually doing some good, instead of springing everything where the only outcome is injustice to the system and to the process. This is up there with the most ridiculous shit you have said. Which is saying a lot. You think a farmer will lose his farm? A Mcdonalds worker would lose his job? A plumber lose his company? Almost like the SUPREME COURT JUDGE with a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT will and should be held to a different standard. Please tell me you are not believing the "this an attack on all men BS". I am a man, and was a hard partying one in Uni, I have zero fear. You do know professors and students have been falsely acussed of sexual misconduct and administratively been punished by universities without or even despite actual court rulings right? The simple existence of injustice for men somewhere does prove some sort of wide spread war on men. Well he is saying false acussations only affect a SCOTUS nominee and that it would never happen to "regular people" This is false. Students, professors, men at desk jobs and during divorces regularly get destroyed by sexual and/or violence false acussations to the extent that "it could happen to anyone", especially with this new precedent. Strawmanning my assertion into a "war or men" is another issue. I’ve seen no evidence that any of this happens “regularly” and known far more women who have been sexually assaulted Than the zero men I know who have been falsely accused of sexual assault.
See you always make everything about indentity politics, i.e men versus woman in this case. I have this radical belief of "inocent until proven guilty" and "due process", which would benefit mostly inocent people and the victims, which can be both men and woman.
|
Blanket, non-specific deference given to the rules of criminal procedure and due process does not address the problems inherent to crimes that oftentimes require that fact finders weigh "he said, she said" evidence. The history of the law regarding rape/sexual assault is extremely messy for a reason, and waving to due process and BRD does nothing to actually address that mess and its ongoing problems.
|
On October 03 2018 03:26 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 03:05 NewSunshine wrote:On October 03 2018 01:50 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 03 2018 00:55 Mohdoo wrote:On October 03 2018 00:44 Nouar wrote:On October 03 2018 00:24 Mohdoo wrote:
I feel like people defending Kavanaugh by instinct aren't reflecting on what a slam dunk Gorsuch was. Collins, Murkowski and Flake had no reason to vote against Gorsuch. Gorsuch was voted in with 54 votes. Slam dunk. There are a lot of things that distinguish Gorsuch from Kavanaugh. There are other candidates that would be just as easy as Gorsuch was.
Instead of assuming this is just some knee-jerk reaction by left leaning people, it is important to wonder why Gorsuch was so much easier and why even some democrats voted for Gorsuch. It is not a slam dunk when the bar for Supreme Court appointments had just been moved from 60 to 51 votes juste before that to retaliate against democrats and filibusters. But yes, it was a lot less painful since the candidate was at least qualified and behaved correctly. Democrats voted for Gorsuch. There are republicans who won't vote for Kavanaugh. That right there says a great deal about Kavanaugh as a candidate. And they can still find another Gorsuch. No one is stuck with Kavanaugh. This isn't some irreversible process. Everything can change. Everyone should be asking themselves: Why Kavanaugh? 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. I know this might come as a shock to you, but conservative woman do exist. I can confirm they are great relationship material This might come as a shock to you aswell, but many woman feel repelled by the idea of their fathers, brothers, husbands and sons being acussed of rape without evidence.
And I have what you might call a "liberal" girlfriend. I can confirm to you that she is also great relationship material. What's your point exactly?
I would expect anyone to be at least upset when someone they know is accused of something that person didn't do. I would also expect anyone with decent education to know the context of the issue, and the general statistics that lay behind it. For instance, in the context of sexual assault, I would expect anyone worth half their salt to know which way the statistics skew. I would not expect them to portray false allegations as a major statistic in the scene, because it's massively outshined not only by correct allegations, but also by allegations that never get made, because the crime goes unreported. We are nowhere near the point in this country where he have to worry about men being falsely accused. Fox News, Danglars, etc. would have you think it's some kind of epidemic. It just isn't. I'd liken it to getting hit by lightning, as one other poster did several pages back. When allegations of this nature get brought up, they should always be taken seriously, because to do otherwise is an affront to justice for women as a whole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
