|
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 11:39 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 11:36 JimmiC wrote:On October 03 2018 11:34 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 11:25 JimmiC wrote:Do you know what moving the goal post is? It does not mean made up if that what is what you are going for? No, the moving goal post means: BK can't be SCOTUS because: -attempted rapist -liked to drink when young ... into -not happy when falsely acussed of rape -threw ice at someone in 1985 This did happen. It is not an assumption you treat like fact such as "if he was stoic they WOULD have called him a sociopath." Your life will be better if you understand the difference between Fact and a Assumption you make. Yes I understand the difference, doesn't mind the reaction is made up to fit the agenda So now he can't be SCOTUS because he wasn't "stoic" enough. Goal post moves further. (Despite that's a made up usage of stoic, the true stoic thing to do is not caving to baseless allegations). FBI investigation will be done soon. If nothing is found, will you be ok with the Senate voting?
I don't see anyone shifting any goalposts but you. The arguments made against Kav here have been pretty consistent. Maybe you should read them.
|
|
|
On October 03 2018 11:39 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 11:36 JimmiC wrote:On October 03 2018 11:34 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 11:25 JimmiC wrote:Do you know what moving the goal post is? It does not mean made up if that what is what you are going for? No, the moving goal post means: BK can't be SCOTUS because: -attempted rapist -liked to drink when young ... into -not happy when falsely acussed of rape -threw ice at someone in 1985 This did happen. It is not an assumption you treat like fact such as "if he was stoic they WOULD have called him a sociopath." Your life will be better if you understand the difference between Fact and a Assumption you make. Yes I understand the difference, doesn't change the reaction is made up to fit the agenda. That's my argument at least, I could be wrong though. So now he can't be SCOTUS because he wasn't "stoic" enough. Goal post moves further. (Despite that's a made up usage of stoic, the true stoic thing to do is not caving to baseless allegations). FBI investigation will be done soon. If nothing is found, will you be ok with the Senate voting?
The goal posts were never moved. If any accused criminal at trial ever acted like he did during that hearing, they would be silenced and held in contempt. Law professors will hold him to the same standard that the accused will be held to in any court.
Edit: also, the senate won’t vote if he won’t be confirmed. He will just withdraw, like every other failed nominee for the last +40 years.
|
On October 03 2018 12:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 11:39 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 11:36 JimmiC wrote:On October 03 2018 11:34 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 11:25 JimmiC wrote:Do you know what moving the goal post is? It does not mean made up if that what is what you are going for? No, the moving goal post means: BK can't be SCOTUS because: -attempted rapist -liked to drink when young ... into -not happy when falsely acussed of rape -threw ice at someone in 1985 This did happen. It is not an assumption you treat like fact such as "if he was stoic they WOULD have called him a sociopath." Your life will be better if you understand the difference between Fact and a Assumption you make. Yes I understand the difference, doesn't change the reaction is made up to fit the agenda. That's my argument at least, I could be wrong though. So now he can't be SCOTUS because he wasn't "stoic" enough. Goal post moves further. (Despite that's a made up usage of stoic, the true stoic thing to do is not caving to baseless allegations). FBI investigation will be done soon. If nothing is found, will you be ok with the Senate voting? The goal posts were never moved. If any accused criminal at trial ever acted like he did during that hearing, they would be silenced and held in contempt. Law professors will hold him to the same standard that the accused will be held to in any court.
Wasn't this a job interview where trial norms such as presumption of innocence didn't apply?
|
|
|
On October 03 2018 12:31 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 12:19 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 12:11 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2018 11:39 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 11:36 JimmiC wrote:On October 03 2018 11:34 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 11:25 JimmiC wrote:Do you know what moving the goal post is? It does not mean made up if that what is what you are going for? No, the moving goal post means: BK can't be SCOTUS because: -attempted rapist -liked to drink when young ... into -not happy when falsely acussed of rape -threw ice at someone in 1985 This did happen. It is not an assumption you treat like fact such as "if he was stoic they WOULD have called him a sociopath." Your life will be better if you understand the difference between Fact and a Assumption you make. Yes I understand the difference, doesn't change the reaction is made up to fit the agenda. That's my argument at least, I could be wrong though. So now he can't be SCOTUS because he wasn't "stoic" enough. Goal post moves further. (Despite that's a made up usage of stoic, the true stoic thing to do is not caving to baseless allegations). FBI investigation will be done soon. If nothing is found, will you be ok with the Senate voting? The goal posts were never moved. If any accused criminal at trial ever acted like he did during that hearing, they would be silenced and held in contempt. Law professors will hold him to the same standard that the accused will be held to in any court. Wasn't this a job interview where trial norms such as presumption of innocence didn't apply? Yes it was, and what your trying to do there is a false equivalent. Law professors are judging him as if he was a JUDGE in a job interview for being a JUDGE and he didn't act anything like a JUDGE should. Let alone the top position in America.
I'm still waiting on your answers.
1) He can't be a SCOTUS because a) unsubstianted sexual assault claims b) got pissed when acussed of being a sexual offender c) both
2) If the FBI turns out with no new evidence (which means no evidence) can he be scotus now? A few pages back many people where whinning we needed the FBI investigation to clear things up.
bonus point: Can someone link me to when he acts really bad? If this is gonna be a job interview, it def wasn't a normal one. Plenty of people where being very emotional.
|
|
|
The FBI has expanded their interviews past the limited 4 into everyone Ramirez and Ford named.
Tim Gaudette, who attended the July 1, 1982, party, talked to the FBI, his lawyer told CNN on Tuesday.
"I can confirm that Mr. Gaudette interviewed with special agents today, however, we are going to respectfully decline to elaborate on the interview," said Ken Eichner who represents Gaudette.
Chris Garrett, who was listed as an attendee at the party on Kavanaugh's calendar, also spoke with the FBI, according to his lawyer.
"Mr. Garrett has voluntarily cooperated with the FBI inquiry, and has completed his interview," said his attorney, William M. Sullivan, Jr.
Tom Kane, who was another of the attendees of the July 1, 1982, party told CNN, "I'd rather not say," when asked about talking to the FBI. Another attendee -- Bernie McCarthy -- did not respond to requests for comment.
Kavanaugh provided the calendar to the Senate Judiciary Committee as evidence that he kept careful notes that summer and never listed a party similar to the one Ford described.
At the hearing, however, Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse pointed to names that Kavanaugh scribbled in on that day and suggested July 1, 1982, could have been the day of the assault because some of the same people named by Ford were at the party described in the entry.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/02/politics/fbi-investigation-ford-kavanaugh/index.html
The July 1st party date lines up and the people Ford said were there are all being interviewed. Right now we only have Ford's sworn testimony putting KAV at a party and KAV's admission of a party being on that day. Witnesses are going to start putting him at the scene of the crime. As of now KAV is going with a lying total denial where he pretends he wasn't even at the party and Ford wasn't there. The other witnesses are going to confirm her and his presence. That is going to be a leap in evidence.
EDIT: take note how the FBI capable of interviewing 5-8 critical witnesses to the night in question in days, but the Senate can't even stay on getting a statement out of KAV beyond crying and a blanket non-specific denial. The FBI really can do a better job here.
|
On October 03 2018 12:53 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 12:37 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 12:31 JimmiC wrote:On October 03 2018 12:19 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 12:11 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2018 11:39 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 11:36 JimmiC wrote:On October 03 2018 11:34 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 11:25 JimmiC wrote:Do you know what moving the goal post is? It does not mean made up if that what is what you are going for? No, the moving goal post means: BK can't be SCOTUS because: -attempted rapist -liked to drink when young ... into -not happy when falsely acussed of rape -threw ice at someone in 1985 This did happen. It is not an assumption you treat like fact such as "if he was stoic they WOULD have called him a sociopath." Your life will be better if you understand the difference between Fact and a Assumption you make. Yes I understand the difference, doesn't change the reaction is made up to fit the agenda. That's my argument at least, I could be wrong though. So now he can't be SCOTUS because he wasn't "stoic" enough. Goal post moves further. (Despite that's a made up usage of stoic, the true stoic thing to do is not caving to baseless allegations). FBI investigation will be done soon. If nothing is found, will you be ok with the Senate voting? The goal posts were never moved. If any accused criminal at trial ever acted like he did during that hearing, they would be silenced and held in contempt. Law professors will hold him to the same standard that the accused will be held to in any court. Wasn't this a job interview where trial norms such as presumption of innocence didn't apply? Yes it was, and what your trying to do there is a false equivalent. Law professors are judging him as if he was a JUDGE in a job interview for being a JUDGE and he didn't act anything like a JUDGE should. Let alone the top position in America. I'm still waiting on your answers. 1) He can't be a SCOTUS because a) unsubstianted sexual assault claims b) got pissed when acussed of being a sexual offender c) both 2) If the FBI turns out with no new evidence (which means no evidence) can he be scotus now? A few pages back many people where whinning we needed the FBI investigation to clear things up. bonus point: Can someone link me to when he acts really bad? If this is gonna be a job interview, it def wasn't a normal one. Plenty of people where being very emotional. 1a if the FBI turns up nothing and says they are unsubstaianted then I would say no. But you are putting the cart before the horse with how you wrote your question. B) quite possibly, he did a poor job, it could cause senators to not vote for him. This is how this works, like is the owner of a business recommends you, your resume looks great and then you go in and do an awful job with the hiring managers, you probably dont get the job. 2) possibly see above, since its the same question. Watch the whole thing for best idea, if that is too much work, google where he attacks dems and claims Clinton conspiracy. That is what the profs are mad at, since the job is to be impartial. As for all tge tempérament stuff google where he says "have you?" When asked if he had ever been blackout drunk. Now can you answer my question about the month old allegation you GF made or a 35 year old one your mom told you about. Should neither report? Remember they have no evidence but both promise you it happened while crying.
No, this isn't acceptable. People say and do stuff to exculpate themselves because it's easy. This plea to just use emotions instead of facts is why Trump/Kav/etc have support...
Honestly it's not worth arguing. For some reason, people with the "privilege" of not being wrongly accused of a sexual assault make themselves feel better by throwing 100% support behind alleged victims. Just like almost everything else nowadays, just nod your head, smile, and agree.
|
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.
Oh yeah? It's funny how your unshakeable faith in due process never comes up when black kids are shot dead in the street by police men for literally doing nothing. Then it's all sympathy for cops doing a dangerous job and "shoot first, ask questions later" is the best idea ever...
|
GoTunk, this is not hard to understand.
The point of the hearings and the investigation is to figure out if Kav would make a good Supreme Court Judge. If you investigate problem a) which might disqualify him, and during that investigation, problem b) arises which would also disqualify him, that is not "moving goal posts". It is simply figuring out that he is not qualified. Problem a) is still a problem, but if problem b) is enough to disqualify him, then even if it turns out that problem a) is not actually true, problem b) still persists and disqualifies him.
|
Here's a question: which allegations would need to be confirmed true for Kavanaugh to be declared unfit for the position? I'm not American and don't live there but I've been following the discussion quite a bit. It remains a bit unclear to me what portion of Americans think that some of these allegations, even if true, shouldn't be disqualifying. Talking about moving goal posts, I wonder how many people would move from "there's no evidence" to "that's not disqualifying" if some of these claims got stronger.
Did I miss it or did no one ask Kavanaugh's social circle before the FBI investigation whether they knew Ford and whether she could have been at one of their gatherings? All I saw were denials of remembering the assault / the specific party, but that's not very surprising even if her story is true. I would think asking all of them whether they knew her and whether she was at some of their gatherings (especially Garrett if he was the connection) seems like a pretty key thing to establish a baseline of credibility. If all of them deny even knowing her, it makes her claim quite a bit weaker. Them knowing her and confirming her being at some gatherings isn't proof of assault of course, but it would boost her credibility and put in question Kavanaugh's denials of knowing her.
|
On October 03 2018 16:07 Acrofales 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. Oh yeah? It's funny how your unshakeable faith in due process never comes up when black kids are shot dead in the street by police men for literally doing nothing. Then it's all sympathy for cops doing a dangerous job and "shoot first, ask questions later" is the best idea ever...
What about the starving kids in Africa?! + Show Spoiler +I seem to recall a discussion of whataboutism mere pages ago and then you pull this?
|
On October 03 2018 17:20 spudde123 wrote:
Here's a question: which allegations would need to be confirmed true for Kavanaugh to be declared unfit for the position? I'm not American and don't live there but I've been following the discussion quite a bit. It remains a bit unclear to me what portion of Americans think that some of these allegations, even if true, shouldn't be disqualifying. Talking about moving goal posts, I wonder how many people would move from "there's no evidence" to "that's not disqualifying" if some of these claims got stronger.
Did I miss it or did no one ask Kavanaugh's social circle before the FBI investigation whether they knew Ford and whether she could have been at one of their gatherings? All I saw were denials of remembering the assault / the specific party, but that's not very surprising even if her story is true. I would think asking all of them whether they knew her and whether she was at some of their gatherings (especially Garrett if he was the connection) seems like a pretty key thing to establish a baseline of credibility. If all of them deny even knowing her, it makes her claim quite a bit weaker. Them knowing her and confirming her being at some gatherings isn't proof of assault of course, but it would boost her credibility and put in question Kavanaugh's denials of knowing her.
Either Ford or Ramirez's claims would be enough to sink it if confirmed. I think that's fairly obvious. Trump would likely shrug it off, the base might fall back on boys would be boys, but even then only some of them. No sane person is going to want someone guilty of actual sexual assault on the Supreme Court. Once enough smoke was there for Roy Moore support evaporated almost overnight. The same would happen to Kavanaugh for the same reasons.
BUT
Confirming them conclusively is basically impossible. Happened too long ago for that. The best they can get is punching a ton of holes in Kavanaugh's story, in the event that he's lying. If half a dozen witnesses confirm the party happened when Ford said, that Brett was there, and maybe one or two other things, that demonstrates undeniably that Brett has been lying this whole time, which again wouldn't confirm the allegation, but it makes it much harder to defend him conclusively, or to vote him onto the Supreme Court.
There's a definite 'upper limit' on what the investigation could uncover, but I think that upper limit would be enough to sink the nomination, just to avoid scandal. Republican women have apparently been a little shaky on Kav since this all started, it's likely that group's support will tank if he gets nominated after more corroboration turns up.
On October 03 2018 11:34 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 11:25 JimmiC wrote:Do you know what moving the goal post is? It does not mean made up if that what is what you are going for? No, the moving goal post means: BK can't be SCOTUS because: -attempted rapist -liked to drink when young ... into -not happy when falsely acussed of rape -threw ice at someone in 1985
You don't understand what 'moving goalpost' means. A moving goalpost is when one argument is debunked you immediately stretch it out to another point.
That doesn't work when the original arguments haven't been debunked. This is more like extra goal posts. Except the goal posts you think they are aren't even the ones you think. For your easy reference here are the 'goal posts'
BK can't be SCOTUS because:
1) Uninvestigated allegations of sexual abuse (this will be cleared by the end of the week one way or the other)
2) Lied openly about his drinking habits when asked (not an accusation, multiple university acquaintances have come forward and said he was a fairly heavy drinker not including the two major allegations against him)
3) On the stand began spouting conspiracy theories and treated questions in a combative manner instead of answering in a manner befitting a man who wants to be a Supreme Court Justice (i.e. not dodging the questions entirely or spouting conspiracy theories)
4) Was once investigated by the police for starting a bar fight (the ice throwing incident; it's not the ice that's the issue, it's the starting a fight part)
If you want to have the discussion, that's fine, but please engage with what people are actually saying instead of people spending pages constantly telling you that isn't what they say while you protest that they are. Point 4 is fairly weak, but that's why it's a point. Breaking it down to 'threw some ice' is just being stupid. It's the fact he did it to start a fight and the police got involved.
|
On October 03 2018 12:37 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 12:31 JimmiC wrote:On October 03 2018 12:19 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 12:11 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2018 11:39 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 11:36 JimmiC wrote:On October 03 2018 11:34 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 11:25 JimmiC wrote:Do you know what moving the goal post is? It does not mean made up if that what is what you are going for? No, the moving goal post means: BK can't be SCOTUS because: -attempted rapist -liked to drink when young ... into -not happy when falsely acussed of rape -threw ice at someone in 1985 This did happen. It is not an assumption you treat like fact such as "if he was stoic they WOULD have called him a sociopath." Your life will be better if you understand the difference between Fact and a Assumption you make. Yes I understand the difference, doesn't change the reaction is made up to fit the agenda. That's my argument at least, I could be wrong though. So now he can't be SCOTUS because he wasn't "stoic" enough. Goal post moves further. (Despite that's a made up usage of stoic, the true stoic thing to do is not caving to baseless allegations). FBI investigation will be done soon. If nothing is found, will you be ok with the Senate voting? The goal posts were never moved. If any accused criminal at trial ever acted like he did during that hearing, they would be silenced and held in contempt. Law professors will hold him to the same standard that the accused will be held to in any court. Wasn't this a job interview where trial norms such as presumption of innocence didn't apply? Yes it was, and what your trying to do there is a false equivalent. Law professors are judging him as if he was a JUDGE in a job interview for being a JUDGE and he didn't act anything like a JUDGE should. Let alone the top position in America. I'm still waiting on your answers. 1) He can't be a SCOTUS because a) unsubstianted sexual assault claims b) got pissed when acussed of being a sexual offender c) both 2) If the FBI turns out with no new evidence (which means no evidence) can he be scotus now? A few pages back many people where whinning we needed the FBI investigation to clear things up. bonus point: Can someone link me to when he acts really bad? If this is gonna be a job interview, it def wasn't a normal one. Plenty of people where being very emotional.
honestly, did you not watch it? i can’t imagine anyone who actually watched it can’t recall the bits where he gets combative, or blames a dem hit job on behalf of the clintons. and the only emotional people were BK, the alleged victim, and Lindsay Graham, so this isn’t adding up.
and to not ignore the substance of the post, even if it wasn’t directed at me, i don’t want to be selectively responding 1)yes, this is disqualifying. 2) if proven innocent i still wouldn’t after his performance, his eligibility is an indignity to the court, completely aside from the allegations. his alleged sexual assault isn’t the only
thing that sucks about him. 3) if proven innocent action should be taken against the accuser. this is the necessary conclusion to the investigation saga, not appointment to the court. you seem to confuse these things. appointment is a possible conclusion, yes, not the necessary conclusion.
——————-
completely unrelated: a reminder to all here that there will be a test of the presidential alert system that’ll make your phone loud shortly after 2:15p eastern.
|
|
|
Trump’s remarks that is a “very scary time for young men” is going to be a hard sell to a bunch of Republicans that are struggling to hang on to women voters. Women don’t want to feel like reporting sexual assault now this men vs women issue that Trump is trying to turn it into. And the Senate doesn’t want it either.
|
It's too bad the statute of limitations has run on trumps tax crimes that the NYT uncovered. Hopefully the authorities investigating Cohen will uncover whatever the family's most recent tax evasion scheme is. The NYT uncovered outright tax fraud in the way the trump family transferred wealth from Fred Trump to his children. Its not even a debatable question whether it qualified as fraud.
|
On October 03 2018 23:23 Plansix wrote:
Trump’s remarks that is a “very scary time for young men” is going to be a hard sell to a bunch of Republicans that are struggling to hang on to women voters. Women don’t want to feel like reporting sexual assault now this men vs women issue that Trump is trying to turn it into. And the Senate doesn’t want it either.
It resonates well with insecure white males which is Trump's main demographic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
