EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 799
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
On October 04 2018 05:03 ticklishmusic wrote: your edit raises an interesting point. i'm distrustful of coincidences. That one is a bit less concerning than the pre-collected signatures from schoolfriends, to me. They would presumably have done some snooping around on her and identified it as a weak point that could damage her credibility. Shameless political tactics, yes, but also fairly standard ones. Of course, they could have found an ex who was willing to make up a story and pre-loaded a question about it to catch her, but if you were pulling that kind of bullshit I think you'd pick something less random. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21959 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
First, he signs it Bart which was apparently his nickname. The fact he deflected that it couldn't be him in Judges book looks bad. Ofc he decided to omit that his nickname was the same as the person in the book. I'm curious if they asked Judge. Second, he admits that he and his friends are loud annoying drunks. I know he hasn't denied drinking but compare this to his Fox interview. The person he is trying to portray himself as is nothing like who he was. Third, there are plenty of references to sex. Not exactly what you expect from a church going virgin. Again, he is trying to reteroactively change who he was. We dont need a frat boy unable to acknowledge his past on SCOTUS. "I like beer" isnt good enough. Fourth, FFFFF appears again. I thought that was only for how his friend said Fuck? How does it work here Kavanaugh? Another blatant lie. Linking tweet that has the letter itself. You can Google the article if you want. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
This is the flipside - the allegations are pretty well impossible to prove/disprove, but so are any secondary allegations that pop up. We're quite literally back in highschool here and I suspect the winner will be whoever bred less old grudges with dirty laundry to air. This is why trial by media isn't a great idea. EDIT: "the letter" being the polygraph one, not the fratboy Kav one. That's super confusing. | ||
|
BangFlangam
5 Posts
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good. (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On October 04 2018 05:38 BangFlangam wrote: Republican voters at the very least know the power of prayer. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good. (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) I am not sure what you are saying here | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On October 04 2018 05:55 Plansix wrote: I feel like we are being trolled by that fresh baby account. More likely a bot, but every now and then we get some wingnut who spouts a bunch of bullshit and gets banned in about 8 hours. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
After a day of wrenching testimony from Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford — who has accused him of sexual assault in high school — more Americans say they believe Ford's account over Kavanaugh's denials, according to an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll released Wednesday. In choosing who is telling the truth, 45 percent said Ford is, up from 32 percent ahead of her Sept. 27 testimony. A third (33 percent) said Kavanaugh is the one telling the truth, up slightly from 26 percent before he testified but not as much of a rise as for Ford. The daylong hearing appears to have been influential in helping people decide who was telling the truth. Before the hearing, 42 percent said they were unsure whom to believe. Now, just 22 percent are unsure. The results represent a shift from 1991, when more people said they believed then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas over Anita Hill. Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment in the workplace. A 1991 CBS/New York Times poll, also conducted days after their dramatic, televised Capitol Hill testimonies, found that 58 percent believed Thomas more, as opposed to just 24 percent who said Hill. "If it remains 'he said, she said,' the benefit of the doubt is very different than 1991, and it goes to Ford not Kavanaugh," said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, which conducted the poll. "It shows the reaction to the testimony and does show an underlying change in attitude than 27 years ago." Source | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On October 04 2018 06:16 Plansix wrote: NPR is now reporting that only 33 percent of Americans believe after last week. While 45% believe Ford. It is interesting that more people believed Ford after the hearings, but number that believed Kavanaugh stayed flat. Its hard to pinpoint what caused it, but his performance at the hearing must be a factor. And the real kicker at the bottom of the article is that 52% of Americans don’t want him confirmed, but 77% of Republicans do. Source The core of the issue is that conservative philosophy does not see men as defined by their flaws. Rather, men should be judged by their accomplishments, their families and faith and stuff like that. A rapist priest that inspired a community and coached football or whatever bullshit is still a good guy for a lot of conservatives. | ||
|
melkor3
Austria50 Posts
It happen over 30 years ago and I really don't believe that the high school MK is the MK nowadays (sure I can be wrong because we never know it for certainty). But going on and bringing up some old childhood letters is the tip on the iceberg. Looking into the yearbook and complaining about what was written there by some kids who tried to be funny and cool to determine who you are now is too much imo. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8186 Posts
On October 04 2018 06:16 Plansix wrote: NPR is now reporting that only 33 percent of Americans believe after last week. While 45% believe Ford. It is interesting that more people believed Ford after the hearings, but number that believed Kavanaugh stayed flat. Its hard to pinpoint what caused it, but his performance at the hearing must be a factor. And the real kicker at the bottom of the article is that 52% of Americans don’t want him confirmed, but 77% of Republicans do. Source I'm assuming it's because people who were on the fence before the hearing actually listened to the interviews and made up their minds based on how each of them came across, while those who already supported him never cared in the first place and no amount of testimony is going to sway their minds. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On October 04 2018 06:20 melkor3 wrote: I don't understand how you can go on and try to characterize someone on how he behaved during his high school time when there is no reflection of that after he grew up. Boys always use dirty jokes in the high school and they try to be cool and talk about sex, alcohol and stuff. If you use an sex or drinking term then you are super cool. This isn't true. Many people were not like that. I was not like that. It is fair to label someone who *was* like that as sub-par. A supreme court justice should not just be average, they should be exceptional. Some random chemical engineer is someone I can easily identify with, but that doesn't mean I want the average chemical engineer to be a supreme court justice. A supreme court justice should be significantly above average. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21959 Posts
On October 04 2018 06:20 melkor3 wrote: The problem is a SC nominee lying about it.I don't understand how you can go on and try to characterize someone on how he behaved during his high school time when there is no reflection of that after he grew up. Boys always use dirty jokes in the high school and they try to be cool and talk about sex, alcohol and stuff. If you use an sex or drinking term then you are super cool. And nearly everyone had to vomit from too much alcohol to learn how much they can drink. Nobody can really deny that or expect that someone else hadn't experienced this. This is part of growing up. It happen over 30 years ago and I really don't believe that the high school MK is the MK nowadays (sure I can be wrong because we never know it for certainty). But going on and bringing up some old childhood letters is the tip on the iceberg. Looking into the yearbook and complaining about what was written there by some kids who tried to be funny and cool to determine who you are now is too much imo. All the outside things about his drinking or partying or jokes would not exist if Kavanaugh himself did not lie and pretend to be a choir boy. I'm fine with a judge that drank to much 30 years ago and made dirty jokes about the sorority girls from another school but 'grew up'. I'm not ok with a judge that lies about his past to try and score the highest judicial position in the country, for life. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 04 2018 06:20 melkor3 wrote: I don't understand how you can go on and try to characterize someone on how he behaved during his high school time when there is no reflection of that after he grew up. Boys always use dirty jokes in the high school and they try to be cool and talk about sex, alcohol and stuff. If you use an sex or drinking term then you are super cool. And nearly everyone had to vomit from too much alcohol to learn how much they can drink. Nobody can really deny that or expect that someone else hadn't experienced this. This is part of growing up. It happen over 30 years ago and I really don't believe that the high school MK is the MK nowadays (sure I can be wrong because we never know it for certainty). But going on and bringing up some old childhood letters is the tip on the iceberg. Looking into the yearbook and complaining about what was written there by some kids who tried to be funny and cool to determine who you are now is too much imo. Kavanaugh has portrayed his high school and college years very differently what the evidence that people have found shows. People are not questioning if he did stupid stuff in high school or college. People are questioning why he is being so misleading about that behavior now. Just like his claim that he “went to Yale law by working his tail off” without any connections. Except that he went to a high priced catholic school that rocketed its students to Ivy League schools and Law Schools. At one point I think he even claimed understood gun violence because of where he grew up, which does not match up with any reality people are aware of. Kavanaugh tells a lot of white lies about who he is and where he came from. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On October 04 2018 06:27 Gorsameth wrote: The problem is a SC nominee lying about it. All the outside things about his drinking or partying or jokes would not exist if Kavanaugh himself did not lie and pretend to be a choir boy. I'm fine with a judge that drank to much 30 years ago and made dirty jokes about the sorority girls from another school but 'grew up'. I'm not ok with a judge that lies about his past to try and score the highest judicial position in the country, for life. This. I am 30 right now and would not like to be judged on how I was when I was 20, but I can't lie about my flaws and tell you my 20s were great and golden and I wassn't a giant asshole. If you try to lie about your past, it makes me think you never really grew from it | ||
|
melkor3
Austria50 Posts
 | ||
|
Introvert
United States4864 Posts
On October 04 2018 05:33 On_Slaught wrote: I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more coverage. NYT is saying he wrote this letter and they have been very careful reporting during this event so I have no reason to doubt them. First, he signs it Bart which was apparently his nickname. The fact he deflected that it couldn't be him in Judges book looks bad. Ofc he decided to omit that his nickname was the same as the person in the book. I'm curious if they asked Judge. Second, he admits that he and his friends are loud annoying drunks. I know he hasn't denied drinking but compare this to his Fox interview. The person he is trying to portray himself as is nothing like who he was. Third, there are plenty of references to sex. Not exactly what you expect from a church going virgin. Again, he is trying to reteroactively change who he was. We dont need a frat boy unable to acknowledge his past on SCOTUS. "I like beer" isnt good enough. Fourth, FFFFF appears again. I thought that was only for how his friend said Fuck? How does it work here Kavanaugh? Another blatant lie. Linking tweet that has the letter itself. You can Google the article if you want. https://twitter.com/davidenrich/status/1047254608752660480 the "blockbuster" NYT report on his beach week planning confirmed the "FFFF" part was about a friend's way of saying, didnt it? I can't easily access it right now but pretty sure it's right there in the article. Also, isn't a different number of f's each time? if so that really puts it to bed. | ||
| ||
