|
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 05:20 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 05:09 GoTuNk! wrote: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.
I feel like I am getting trolled at this point.
User was warned for this post.
|
On October 03 2018 05:29 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 05:20 Doodsmack wrote:On October 03 2018 05:09 GoTuNk! wrote: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. I feel like I am getting trolled at this point.
Dont recall != did not happen.
You probably don't recall what you ate for dinner on March 7th of this year, does not mean it did not happen.
Nobody has come out saying it did not happen (which is stronger than saying I don't remember)
|
On October 03 2018 05:36 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 05:29 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 05:20 Doodsmack wrote:On October 03 2018 05:09 GoTuNk! wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I feel like I am getting trolled at this point. Dont recall != did not happen. You probably don't recall what you ate for dinner on March 7th of this year, does not mean it did not happen. Nobody has come out saying it did not happen (which is stronger than saying I don't remember)
Mrs. Ford's best friend, do you remember Ms. Ford being victim of a rape attempt?
Ford's best friend: I was not there as she says, and I've never met the acusser before, but I totally believe her because she is my best friend and #believeallwoman.
Are you for real?
|
|
|
On October 03 2018 05:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 05:09 GoTuNk! wrote: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. She yells you it was a month ago.
Keep moving the goalpost, you look like a democrat!
I would hope she did not tell me it was 35 years ago, in a place she can't remember, and that her best friend and 3 other people where there but they can't remember now.
This is the worst example ever.
|
On October 03 2018 05:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 05:09 GoTuNk! wrote: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. She yells you it was a month ago.
Or a year ago, even. It's precisely the attitude of people looking for any reason to call the woman a liar that causes a ton of women to try and deal with it on their own, without ever reporting it. And even when they do, police don't always care/follow through. Women are given a lot of reasons to think their reporting of the act won't do anything. And when they finally decide to step forward, these same people then say without fail, and with a total lack of self-awareness: "why didn't she come forward sooner?"
|
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.
The largest ever tax evasion case taken by the US government was against Walter Anderson for $200 million. Does this blow that out of the water? $500 million they potentially defrauded the US government of? Am I wrong? The implications of this are just too outrageous for me to make sense of.
|
On October 03 2018 05:52 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 04:56 On_Slaught wrote: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. The largest ever tax evasion case taken by the US government was against Walter Anderson for $200 million. Does this blow that out of the water? $500 million they potentially defrauded the US government of? Am I wrong? The implications of this are just too outrageous for me to make sense of.
500 mil in todays monday. I don't think they will make a case for inflation adjusted cash
|
On October 03 2018 05:57 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 05:52 Tachion wrote:On October 03 2018 04:56 On_Slaught wrote: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. The largest ever tax evasion case taken by the US government was against Walter Anderson for $200 million. Does this blow that out of the water? $500 million they potentially defrauded the US government of? Am I wrong? The implications of this are just too outrageous for me to make sense of. 500 mil in todays monday. I don't think they will make a case for inflation adjusted cash
Yea I really have no idea how it works with regards to inflation, but reading about what they did to Anderson, they still charged him with over 100 million in penalties. Crazy stuff, everyone knows the IRS doesn't fuck around. But this is still on a level all on its own. Like I said, would literally be the largest case in US history, against a President. Like...what? There's no way. It's just too crazy to be true.
|
On October 03 2018 05:57 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 05:52 Tachion wrote:On October 03 2018 04:56 On_Slaught wrote: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. The largest ever tax evasion case taken by the US government was against Walter Anderson for $200 million. Does this blow that out of the water? $500 million they potentially defrauded the US government of? Am I wrong? The implications of this are just too outrageous for me to make sense of. 500 mil in todays monday. I don't think they will make a case for inflation adjusted cash
Don't the fines usually also account for interest/additional penalties on top for willful evasion? If so I could imagine it exceeding the current value, otherwise you can make money by holding not paying the taxes for years.
|
On October 03 2018 05:21 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 03:45 Danglars wrote: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?
This is why another nominee would get the same treatment. Religious fanatic, sex abuser, pedophile, drunk, pathological liar and that junk.
And by straight vote, you do realize you mean “all but 3 Democrats opposed Gorsuch.” You might think of Gorsuch was an example of an unobjectionable candidate, he might’ve swayed more than 3 Democratic votes? I’m curious.
|
On October 03 2018 05:39 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 05:36 IyMoon wrote:On October 03 2018 05:29 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 05:20 Doodsmack wrote:On October 03 2018 05:09 GoTuNk! wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I feel like I am getting trolled at this point. Dont recall != did not happen. You probably don't recall what you ate for dinner on March 7th of this year, does not mean it did not happen. Nobody has come out saying it did not happen (which is stronger than saying I don't remember) Mrs. Ford's best friend, do you remember Ms. Ford being victim of a rape attempt? Ford's best friend: I was not there as she says, and I've never met the acusser before, but I totally believe her because she is my best friend and #believeallwoman. Are you for real?
I should hope that anybody deserving of “best friend” would remember when your “best friend” got RAPED at a party YOU WERE BOTH AT. Forget all this junk about white privilege and stigma and stuff, apparently the real problem is sisterhood on college campuses.
|
On October 03 2018 02:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Do you actually believe your own horseshit, Danglars? Like, do you post this and genuinely think this is how you view the world? Because you have a long and storied history of only giving a crap when the accused is Republican.
I'd be right with you, if you actually believed that. But I'm not talking about public shaming, am I? You introduced that. I've never even said that I think Brett's guilty. I've said 'MAYBE' a sexual criminal and variants thereof. And he may be. I've said that he should be investigated, just in case. If the FBI find nothing - and there's a fair chance they won't - I'll be perfectly content with that, as should most people be.
You've burned all your credit with me, Danglars. You selectively respond in almost every post you direct to anyone, so I'm not going to give you the pleasure of a full response that you don't warrant. Even if I gave you a full response, you'd still just pick the bits that suit you - as you did here - and ignore the rest.
You're as predictably partisan as you are predictable in excoriating people to take off the partisan glasses that you yourself have glued on. It's the hypocrisy that's annoying with you.
Sure. Well done, you've posted a long post debunking the flimsiest accusation that we already knew was flimsy. So what? Do you want a participation trophy? You debunked the third accusation and proclaimed, apropos of nothing, 'CONFIRM THIS MAN NOW'.
We both know that if he was a Democrat-leaning appointment you'd be baying for his blood. Or maybe you can fool yourself into believing you wouldn't. But again, your history says otherwise. And if he was a Democrat nominee, no way would you consider him ranting about a Republican conspiracy to ruin his good name to be evidence in favour of his nomination.
I'm still waiting for you to admit that this is pretty much what you guys were asking for by holding up the Garland nomination. How did you actually think the Democrats would respond? Even though they didn't create these allegations, they just dropped into their laps, they were always going to go hell for leather to make this as painful as possible. No more finger wagging, Danglars? No more 'well if we didn't want this to happen, we shouldn't have held up the nomination'? That was one of your favourite arguments not so long ago. Strangely absent when the shoe is on the other foot, of course.
|
On October 03 2018 06:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 05:21 Mohdoo wrote:On October 03 2018 03:45 Danglars wrote: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? This is why another nominee would get the same treatment. Religious fanatic, sex abuser, pedophile, drunk, pathological liar and that junk. And by straight vote, you do realize you mean “all but 3 Democrats opposed Gorsuch.” You might think of Gorsuch was an example of an unobjectionable candidate, he might’ve swayed more than 3 Democratic votes? I’m curious.
I bet you I can name at one that could fly right through nomination. Name is Garland. Sure there are more if we branch out beyond the federalist society golden boys.
|
If Kavanaugh somehow gets pulled they are 99% picking Barrett. They'll figure the Dems cant fabricate sex charges against a woman. Plus she is super young and just as conservative.
|
Also, do folks remember when Trump wanted the Central Park 5 executed for the crime that they were proven not to have committed? And kept calling for their execution for years?
He was all about due process then.
|
|
|
Don’t forget that admitting to your partner that you were sexually assaulted is not easy. Especially in certain religions it can be seen as being tainted. So it might take time and courage to come forward to your partner about it. If they ever do at all. This idea that the metoo movement makes it easy for women to come forward is quite new to me , even if they are more likely to be believed there is still stigma associated with these things (even if there shouldn’t be)
|
5930 Posts
On October 03 2018 07:09 On_Slaught wrote:
If Kavanaugh somehow gets pulled they are 99% picking Barrett. They'll figure the Dems cant fabricate sex charges against a woman. Plus she is super young and just as conservative.
If they want a slam dunk, they can throw up Hardiman. He’ll vote like 90% of what Kav would have voted but without even a tenth of the problems he’s facing right now.
The problem with Kav isn’t just a difference in opinion, it’s that he’s clearly a garbage person and most people, even people who want a conservative court, can see that. Even ignoring the sexual assault allegations, lying about stuff the English speaking world knows about because of the pervasiveness of American pop culture doesn’t just make him dishonest but also someone who thinks the public is stupid and completely unsympathetic towards the problems women face.
That’s really why he’s so unpopular. If he was smart and/or capable of empathy, he could easily say that he was a stupid frat boy in college, didn’t know any better, definitely didn’t knowingly commit sexual assault but understands the culture back then was an awful time for women that limited them from speaking out. But instead he adopts the Trump method of just lying about everything and refusing to be self reflective. His unpopularity is mostly his own doing.
|
BTW the NY Tax Deptartment is looking into the NYT story. If the evidence is as thorough and probative as the NYT make it out to be then we may see real consequences for Trump. The state of NY wont be shy about going after him civilly.
Normally you'd expect a story like this to disappear under the weight of all the bullshit that comes out of Washington weekly. However if the Tax Department finds anything then this could be a major problem (as in impeachable) for Trump. Especially if they have the money trail to prove it.
Source:
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
