|
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 04:13 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 04:07 Plansix wrote: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:[quote] 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 innocent people and the victims, which can be both men and woman. Which is why we are having an investigation now. And investigation that most Republicans and Kavanaugh himself tried to prevent.
|
|
|
|
|
On October 03 2018 04:27 JimmiC 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. That is not what I am saying or said. It is what read through your extremely coloured glasses. Danglers said it was a war against every man, I was pointing out that is was not. I did not say no one gets falsely accused, in fact I have a friend who was in the early 2000's (the woman recanted, he still lost his job). It is a fact of life that injustice exists. It just exists way less often to men who happen to be white and born into privilege. That does not mean that it doesn't happen just less. And one case where it may (but I'm going to wait because I unlike have not decided he is innocent based on... well nothing)or may not does not make that a war against men. I'm outraged by all injustice, I'm just less outraged when I don't know if it is justified or not. I expect you to come on this thread completely outraged that this poor woman did not get justice for 35 years if it turns out that in fact did do it. And extra outraged that BK has lead such a privileged life while doing something so wrong.
It's really worth noting that as of yet he's at no risk for any sort of punitive punishment. He simply would not get the privilege of doing something else and would merely have one of the best jobs in society rather than a better "one of the best" jobs.
That may change if he faces impeachment, but that's not a reality yet.
|
On October 03 2018 04:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 03:52 On_Slaught wrote: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: Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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? 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.
I like how you ignore the argument itself that Mitchell is creating a bullshit standard no prosecutor would ever actually apply. I should have made clear that it was a partisan writer before linking it though. That is my bad. Since thay article is distracting you from the point how about this from a former prosecutor:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/2018/10/01/rachel-mitchell-says-her-kavanaugh-report-is-what-reasonable-prosecutor-would-say-its-not/
There was another article I read this morning citing both Republican and Democrat attorneys tearing into it for similar reasons but I cant find it right now. Also here is the democratic response memo which calls out her factual claims (copy at bottom of article):
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/dianne-feinstein-offers-reality-check-on-rachel-mitchells-memo-on-christine-blasey-ford
It's a bullshit memo and she knows it. She's trying to get paid.
|
On October 03 2018 04:13 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 04:07 Plansix wrote: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:[quote] 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.
The weighing between the rights of the accused and alleged victims suffering and historical silencing of other victims is a tough one. But erasing these protections in court and in the court of public opinion won’t serve one side better without disproportionate impact on the other. In fact, it was erosion of due process and presumption of innocence that was the cause of so much injustice to history’s minorities. The defense could have also been offered then “I’ve seen no evidence of this,” and it would still be the right move to act circumspectly. Duke lacrosse players and Rolling Stone “a rape on campus” were not inventions of right wing ideologies, they were real cases pounded by today’s power and privilege types until finally turned to bunk.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/rolling-stone-and-uva-the-columbia-university-graduate-school-of-journalism-report-44930/
The writer is dean of the Columbia School of Journalism. Nobody can accuse him of being right-wing or somebody that wouldn’t know about journalistic standards and rape allegations. It’s an interesting read into how current “believe the victim” ideology feeds into some pretty bad cascades of errors. I say this particularly because we’re in danger of committing the same mistakes right now. I hope even people that disagree on its relevancy will take the time to understand the flip side of their beliefs on allegations and victims.
|
Well that NYT story about Trump's tax fraud, with tens of thousands of documents backing it up, looks like it'll be a story.
|
On October 03 2018 04:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 04:13 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 04:07 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. The weighing between the rights of the accused and alleged victims suffering and historical silencing of other victims is a tough one. But erasing these protections in court and in the court of public opinion won’t serve one side better without disproportionate impact on the other. In fact, it was erosion of due process and presumption of innocence that was the cause of so much injustice to history’s minorities. The defense could have also been offered then “I’ve seen no evidence of this,” and it would still be the right move to act circumspectly. Duke lacrosse players and Rolling Stone “a rape on campus” were not inventions of right wing ideologies, they were real cases pounded by today’s power and privilege types until finally turned to bunk. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/rolling-stone-and-uva-the-columbia-university-graduate-school-of-journalism-report-44930/The writer is dean of the Columbia School of Journalism. Nobody can accuse him of being right-wing or somebody that wouldn’t know about journalistic standards and rape allegations. It’s an interesting read into how current “believe the victim” ideology feeds into some pretty bad cascades of errors. I say this particularly because we’re in danger of committing the same mistakes right now. I hope even people that disagree on its relevancy will take the time to understand the flip side of their beliefs on allegations and victims.
I don't understand bringing up the Rolling Stone story as it's a story of not having a proper investigation which would have shown flaws in the story. It basically corroborates the idea that you can take an allegation seriously, investigate it, and come to a conclusion even if at first it seems like it would be a 'he said she said' situation. Most of what ends up in the "looking forward" section are things everyone would want an investigation to cover and deal with...
If we're going to take something away from what you're bringing up it would be that the investigation needs to be incredibly thorough. Which is what everyone you are arguing with seems to want?
|
|
|
On October 03 2018 04:13 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 04:07 Plansix wrote: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:[quote] 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.
That's a pile of garbage. You selectively trot out your "radical belief of 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'due process' " (I'm glad you poked fun at your own point of view, so I don't have to) to defend the rights of a group you actively care about the rights of. You accuse Plansix (who definitely is not a saint, to be fair) of making everything about identity politics, while you're only bringing up examples of injustice that you can use to further your own argument.
You turn a blind eye to the women that report sexual assault to the authorities, only to have it turned down as not worth investigating, but will happily leap on examples of women that lie and hurt men who have not committed sexual assault. Both of these are examples of injustice, yet you only post about one, which happens to be politically beneficial to you.
If you want your accusation of P6 making everything about identity politics to not get laughed out of town, maybe you would mention all of the victims before you accuse someone else if only mentioning half. You add "which can be both men and women" after, as if that makes up for you only mentioning injustice against men up to that point; that looks about as sloppy as the kids I watched get caught plagarizing on their papers in high school.
P6 used a personal anecdote to make someone assume that barely any men happen to get falsely accused, which, I admit, feels kind of scummy and dishonest as an argument; still, in what world does your band-aid of "which can be both men and women" make you better?
|
On October 03 2018 04:42 Saryph wrote:
Well that NYT story about Trump's tax fraud, with tens of thousands of documents backing it up, looks like it'll be a story.
Welp that's a smoking gun if I ever saw one..Not that those matters any more.
|
On October 03 2018 04:13 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 04:07 Plansix wrote: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:[quote] 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.
At no point did I make it about men vs women. Both gender sexual have their plights that must be addressed. However, there is no evidence to support you claim that men are falsely accused of sexual assault regularly.
|
Hey, I wonder how sexual assault prosecutions were prosecuted in Maricopa Country from 2004 to 2007, when Mitchell was a prosecutor whose jurisdiction overlapped that county.
Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio apologizes for inadequate investigations into over 400 sex crimes, including the rape of a 13-year-old girl, from 2004 to 2007
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/08/arizona-phoenix-sheriff-joe-arpaio-rape-case-settlement
Joe Arpaio, the elected head of a police agency with a $270 million budget in 2011, is responsible for the poor or nonexistent investigation of hundreds of sex crimes — and for the children and adults re-victimized by their abusers.
The sheriff admits he's to blame.
His new chief deputy, Jerry Sheridan, told the public as much during a heated Board of Supervisors meeting on January 31.
"The Sheriff's Office and the sheriff have accepted responsibility," Sheridan said of the sex-abuse cases that went by the wayside.
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/victims-wonder-why-arpaio-let-sex-abuse-cases-languish-6463426
Are we surprised for any reason that Mitchell didn't investigate any further and recommended against prosecution? It is almost like that was her previous job.
|
On October 03 2018 04:42 Saryph wrote:
Well that NYT story about Trump's tax fraud, with tens of thousands of documents backing it up, looks like it'll be a story.
Per the article:
- Trump and his siblings set up a sham corporation to dodge taxes on money given from their parents.
- Trump helped his dad take "improper tax deductions worth millions".
- Trump helped undervalue his parents real estate holdings to avoid some taxes.
- He could have civil liability to this day (SoL on criminal had passed).
Trump's statement says he didn't personally do anything and delegated everything to others.
If true I guess we shouldn't be surprised he hid his tax returns. NYT claims to have records and interviews for all this.
|
On October 03 2018 04:43 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 04:33 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2018 04:13 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 04:07 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. The weighing between the rights of the accused and alleged victims suffering and historical silencing of other victims is a tough one. But erasing these protections in court and in the court of public opinion won’t serve one side better without disproportionate impact on the other. In fact, it was erosion of due process and presumption of innocence that was the cause of so much injustice to history’s minorities. The defense could have also been offered then “I’ve seen no evidence of this,” and it would still be the right move to act circumspectly. Duke lacrosse players and Rolling Stone “a rape on campus” were not inventions of right wing ideologies, they were real cases pounded by today’s power and privilege types until finally turned to bunk. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/rolling-stone-and-uva-the-columbia-university-graduate-school-of-journalism-report-44930/The writer is dean of the Columbia School of Journalism. Nobody can accuse him of being right-wing or somebody that wouldn’t know about journalistic standards and rape allegations. It’s an interesting read into how current “believe the victim” ideology feeds into some pretty bad cascades of errors. I say this particularly because we’re in danger of committing the same mistakes right now. I hope even people that disagree on its relevancy will take the time to understand the flip side of their beliefs on allegations and victims. I don't understand bringing up the Rolling Stone story as it's a story of not having a proper investigation which would have shown flaws in the story. It basically corroborates the idea that you can take an allegation seriously, investigate it, and come to a conclusion even if at first it seems like it would be a 'he said she said' situation. Most of what ends up in the "looking forward" section are things everyone would want an investigation to cover and deal with... If we're going to take something away from what you're bringing up it would be that the investigation needs to be incredibly thorough. Which is what everyone you are arguing with seems to want?
I brought it up in the context of “the zero men I know who have been falsely accused of sexual assault“ comment made earlier in that quote train.
As applied to this case, the New Yorker should not have published unsubstantiated allegations of Ramirez. The New York Times did follow good journalistic practice in calling dozens of her classmates to try and find somebody that remembered Kavanaugh exposing himself at a party. They received no corroboration and therefore did not publish the story.
The conclusion in the story is about journalistic publication of allegations EVEN of a favorite oppressor (straight white make) and investigation on behalf of the publishing magazine before going to press. Do you want it? Sorry if I gave you the impression that I consider the press meeting journalistic standards with what qualifies for FBI federal crimes investigations or state criminal investigations or the rest.
|
On October 03 2018 04:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 03:26 GoTuNk! wrote: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. Serious question. You come home shes in the shower, after 2 hours you realize she is still in the shower, you go see her and she tells you she has been sexually assaulted. It was by her boss, he touched her all over and forced her to touch him. They were alone in his office after hours, no cameras. Should she report it? she has no evidence
Obviously. I believe the great merit of the "Metoo" movement is that this type of crime will be instantly reported, without stigmatization, and can be investigated properly.
This has nothing to do with a sexual assault that allegedly happened 35 years, in an undetermined place, with an ever changing story, and 4 alleged witnesses who ALL deny this every took place.
|
On October 03 2018 05:09 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 04:32 JimmiC wrote:On October 03 2018 03:26 GoTuNk! wrote: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. Serious question. You come home shes in the shower, after 2 hours you realize she is still in the shower, you go see her and she tells you she has been sexually assaulted. It was by her boss, he touched her all over and forced her to touch him. They were alone in his office after hours, no cameras. Should she report it? she has no evidence Obviously. I believe the great merit of the "Metoo" movement is that this type of crime will be instantly reported, without stigmatization, and can be investigated properly. This has nothing to do with a sexual assault that allegedly happened 35 years, in an undetermined place, with an ever changing story, and 4 alleged witnesses who ALL deny this every took place.
Correct me if I am wrong but 1 of the 4 witnesses is BK... so that really does not count.
Also, the other three do not say it did not happen, just that they don't remember. Also one has come out saying that even though she does not remember she believes the story.
I don't remember WW2, shit still happened
|
On October 03 2018 04:56 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 04:42 Saryph wrote:
Well that NYT story about Trump's tax fraud, with tens of thousands of documents backing it up, looks like it'll be a story. Per the article: - Trump and his siblings set up a sham corporation to dodge taxes on money given from their parents. - Trump helped his dad take "improper tax deductions worth millions". - Trump helped undervalue his parents real estate holdings to avoid some taxes. - He could have civil liability to this day (SoL on criminal had passed). Trump's statement says he didn't personally do anything and delegated everything to others. If true I guess we shouldn't be surprised he hid his tax returns. NYT claims to have records and interviews for all this.
Also he has received a total of 500 million in 2018 dollars from his father, and would certainly have gone into personal bankruptcy and ruin following the collapse of his casinos had his father not simply bailed him out. Hes a con and a sham but we already knew that. A serial assaulter and likely rapist of his first wife to boot. By Republican standards a literal baboon is qualified to be in the white house.
|
On October 03 2018 05:09 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 04:32 JimmiC wrote:On October 03 2018 03:26 GoTuNk! wrote: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. Serious question. You come home shes in the shower, after 2 hours you realize she is still in the shower, you go see her and she tells you she has been sexually assaulted. It was by her boss, he touched her all over and forced her to touch him. They were alone in his office after hours, no cameras. Should she report it? she has no evidence Obviously. I believe the great merit of the "Metoo" movement is that this type of crime will be instantly reported, without stigmatization, and can be investigated properly. This has nothing to do with a sexual assault that allegedly happened 35 years, in an undetermined place, with an ever changing story, and 4 alleged witnesses who ALL deny this every took place.
Its interesting that you would feel the need to claim the 4 witnesses deny that it took place when all they said was that they dont recall.
|
On October 03 2018 03:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 03:37 Mohdoo 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. 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.
Are you saying this dynamic is why Flake/Murkowski/Collins are skeptical? Or just democrats?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
