EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 800
| 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
| ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 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. Because the sexual assault alegations are totally baseless, so they have to switch their narrative to fit their agenda. The argument keeps moving as long as the "not put BK on the SC so we can stall until mid terms and block any Trump nominee until 2020" is the only constant. Some people here also have a visceral dislike for religious people, and people who weren't complete dorks in high school and college it seems. The fact that BK was good at sports and cruised trough Yale while getting trashed on some weekends and holidays apparently really pisses them off. User was warned for this post | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On October 04 2018 07:25 GoTuNk! wrote: Because the sexual assault alegations are totally baseless, so they have to switch their narrative to fit their agenda. The argument keeps moving as long as the "not put BK on the SC so we can stall until mid terms and block any Trump nominee until 2020" is the only constant. Some people here also have a visceral dislike for religious people, and people who weren't complete dorks in high school and college it seems. The fact that BK was good at sports and cruised trough Yale while getting trashed on some weekends and holidays apparently really pisses them off. Ah yes, we are all upset he was a jock! it is so clear now! Its not the assault allegation, the lying under oath, or the blaming everything on a Clinton conspiracy!!! It was that he played sports! How was I so blind | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On October 04 2018 07:21 JimmiC wrote: TBH I feel better about someone who had some issues and grew up/overcame them. This is why I don't understand the lying, and then once trust is lost you can't help but ask, if he lies but this crap that doesn't matter. What else is there? And when is he telling the truth? Exactly. Danglars tried to pop in here and say that because one of Kav's accusers dropped the ball, they're all therefore liars and Kav must be confirmed AFAP. Meanwhile, Kav slipped about as much bullshit and lies into his speech as Trump does, and this apparent lack of honesty from a prospective Supreme Court justice doesn't seem to bother him. It's ok when a judge lies for politically expedient reasons now, despite the very mission of a judge, especially one on the supreme court. On October 04 2018 07:30 IyMoon wrote: Ah yes, we are all upset he was a jock! it is so clear now! Its not the assault allegation, the lying under oath, or the blaming everything on a Clinton conspiracy!!! It was that he played sports! How was I so blind I'm not even responding to that nonsense anymore. If he wants to argue with himself against fictional people making fictional arguments, he's free to play the fool all he wants. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On October 04 2018 07:20 Introvert wrote: 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. Mark Judge uses a different amount of Fs than Kavanaugh does in the yearbook but the same as he uses in the letter. There are any number of reasons which could explain this like not taking it seriously or having slightly different definitions of the words (you can see different versions online). Having said that, I found something really interesting in Kavanaugh's yearbook which makes me want to redact some of the conclusions I've come to. I'll post about it later after the gym when I have access to a computer. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/politics/mcconnell-kavanaugh-nomination-vote/index.html | ||
|
BangFlangam
5 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On October 04 2018 11:18 plasmidghost wrote: Looks like the investigation's not going to find anything, McConnell's set up the procedural vote for Friday and the actual vote Saturday https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/politics/mcconnell-kavanaugh-nomination-vote/index.html If there was an actual video of Kavanaugh assaulting Ford I wouldn't be surprised if McConnell still pushed for a vote. The guy gives no fucks. Him setting a vote for Friday tells us nothing about the contents of the report. Also, per Fox the report will be available to view by Senators tomorrow morning. Going to start putting together a post about Kavanaugh's yearbook now. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 04 2018 11:44 BangFlangam wrote: Watching a Trump rally and hearing a lot of "WE WANT Kavanaugh!" and based on the election previously these rallies are more accurate than the polls. This sample size of one is very impressive and totally invalidates all polling forever. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On October 04 2018 11:53 Plansix wrote: This sample size of one is very impressive and totally invalidates all polling forever. On the topic of polls, does anyone know the term for when people lie to pollsters to make them think they support a (typically more progressive) candidate? I think it had the name of some nominee Found it, it's the Bradley effect. I wonder if that's going to come into play with the midterms, typically I take the poll average and tack on an extra point for the Republicans because of it (unless Rasmussen polls are part of the average) | ||
|
LuckyFool
United States9015 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + After reading the NYT article about the Kavanaugh letter he wrote back in 1983 and seeing the FFFFF I decided to check it against his yearbook. As Introvert pointed out, the number of Fs was different. Surprisingly, Mark Judges was different than Kavanaugh's in the yearbook but the same as in Kavanaugh's letter. So I decided I needed to go to the source and actually read through Kavanaugh's yearbook to see what the other instances of multiple Fs looked like. I found a link to the yearbook here: https://archive.org/details/cupola-1983/page/n3 Skimming through it I found the following instances of the use of FFFF: - Page 14: "A FFFFestive Occasion" with some dude (drunk?) running shirtless in a skirt as the photo. - Page 68: Caption for a photo of 5 guys and 3 girls saying "Feg goes FFFFF at homecoming." - Page 73: Photo of a guy falling down as part of a play with the caption of like 15 Fs and only that. - Page 129: Photo of a guy in a tux with the caption "Fuzz goes FFFFFF." - Page 133: Picture of 5 guys horse playing with the caption "Chicken FFFFFights!" - Page 159: Kids bio: "FFFFreshmen Beechweek" - Page 173: Kids bio: "FFFFFFFF" - Page 178: Kids Bio: "Aaah Boy FFFFFF" - Page 187: Judges Bio: "The FFFFFourth of July (survivor)" - Page 188: Kids Bio: "FFFFFairfffffield" - Page 189: BKs Bio: "I survived the FFFFFFFourth of July" - Page 203: Kids Bio: "Squee you're such an idiot! FFFFFFFFFF" - Page 214: Kids Bio: Like 20+ Fs followed by a ! (as a random aside a FUCK TON of these kids have the "100 keg challenge" in their bio - it's kinda crazy) Basically, for some reason multiple Fs show up all over the damn place in this yearbook and in varying lengths. Sometimes the context appears to be related to women/a party but other times it seems innocent. Now ofc it's possible that none of them are innocent it since Mark Judge was literally the caption editor for the yearbook and every non-caption instance came from their friends on the football team. It's possible all of the pictures/references are somehow tied to women and he too lazy or stupid to be consistent with the number of Fs. Or it's possible that some are sexual and some are innocent fun. Or they are all innocent fun. Having said that, I originally didn't buy the argument made in the NYT article that these were all references to their friend Garrett's windup on the F; the people saying this were the same people putting this in their yearbook and would not be against lying if telling the truth made them look bad. Obviously that isn't enough to assume they are wrong though. My belief that Kavanaugh and they were lying came from the fact that there were two other references which appear to be blatantly sexual. One phrase being misunderstood as sexual I can get. But three? That strains believability. Devils Triangle has been widely recognized as a sex game for a long time and "Renate Alumni" isn't exactly hiding its meaning. In addition the sexual innuendo in his 1983 letter only added to my suspicion that FFFFF, even if it isn't used consistently, has a nefarious meaning. However, then I came across the bio of Bernard Michael McCarthy (page 203). There are two important things about his bio. First, it actually puts the multiple Fs in context by directly tying them to Squee. Squee, as we know, is the nickname of Garrett; the very person they are claiming had this windup. Using the multiple Fs in a direct statement to Squee adds significant credence to Kavanaugh's statements on the stand. Then I also saw a reference to Devils Trianage in this kids bio. It states "Devil's Triangle 9 founder of the name)". Obviously the 9 is suppsoed to be a (. This sounds like something somebody would say if Devils Triangle was just a stupid name they made up for their drinking game and the fact it was the same as a sex act is just a coincidence. Ofc it's also possible he was a regular participant in the sex act and this was his way of bragging. Still, this adds credibility to Kavanaugh's claim that it was just a game. Last is the Renate Alumni part. The obvious implication is they all slept with her. However, she denies ever sleeping with any of them (iirc Kavanaugh said they kissed but she said that wasn't true). Now it's possible that she is lying out of embarrassment (nobody wants to tell their husband/parents they were the football team's whore in high school). Then I thought of his sexual references in the 1983 letter and I begin to find it hard to believe he was a virgin through school. However, if he really wasn't then wouldn't somebody come forward? Surely there is a democrat he slept with who would have come forward, lol. Again it's possible they are all too embarrassed to say or dont want to say anything which would hurt his nomination or none exist to speak out. In the end I'm left unsure of what to think on this end given the mixed signals. But 2 of the 3 yearbook references have a strong argument for being non-sexual at this point. Overall, I think Mr. McCarthy's yearbook page is enough for me to recant some my previous conclusions about Kavanaugh lying. It's seems clear he was wild drunk (from plenty of peoples statements), and it doesn't mean Ford is lying, but it also doesn't mean he was lying about certain things. I'm willing to accept that he was telling the truth about the stupid shit they put in their yearbook based on the information available. There are plenty of reasons he is unfit for this job, and I'm sure myself and others will raise them when he is confirmed Friday, but I don't think this avenue is a legitimate one without somebody coming out with more information. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4864 Posts
On October 04 2018 12:57 On_Slaught wrote: This post about Kavanaugh's yearbook is going to be a lot of free-roaming thoughts so I apologize in advance. I'm going to spoiler it all for the sake of people scrolling by. + Show Spoiler + After reading the NYT article about the Kavanaugh letter he wrote back in 1983 and seeing the FFFFF I decided to check it against his yearbook. As Introvert pointed out, the number of Fs was different. Surprisingly, Mark Judges was different than Kavanaugh's in the yearbook but the same as in Kavanaugh's letter. So I decided I needed to go to the source and actually read through Kavanaugh's yearbook to see what the other instances of multiple Fs looked like. I found a link to the yearbook here: https://archive.org/details/cupola-1983/page/n3 Skimming through it I found the following instances of the use of FFFF: - Page 14: "A FFFFestive Occasion" with some dude (drunk?) running shirtless in a skirt as the photo. - Page 68: Caption for a photo of 5 guys and 3 girls saying "Feg goes FFFFF at homecoming." - Page 73: Photo of a guy falling down as part of a play with the caption of like 15 Fs and only that. - Page 129: Photo of a guy in a tux with the caption "Fuzz goes FFFFFF." - Page 133: Picture of 5 guys horse playing with the caption "Chicken FFFFFights!" - Page 159: Kids bio: "FFFFreshmen Beechweek" - Page 173: Kids bio: "FFFFFFFF" - Page 178: Kids Bio: "Aaah Boy FFFFFF" - Page 187: Judges Bio: "The FFFFFourth of July (survivor)" - Page 188: Kids Bio: "FFFFFairfffffield" - Page 189: BKs Bio: "I survived the FFFFFFFourth of July" - Page 203: Kids Bio: "Squee you're such an idiot! FFFFFFFFFF" - Page 214: Kids Bio: Like 20+ Fs followed by a ! (as a random aside a FUCK TON of these kids have the "100 keg challenge" in their bio - it's kinda crazy) Basically, for some reason multiple Fs show up all over the damn place in this yearbook and in varying lengths. Sometimes the context appears to be related to women/a party but other times it seems innocent. Now ofc it's possible that none of them are innocent it since Mark Judge was literally the caption editor for the yearbook and every non-caption instance came from their friends on the football team. It's possible all of the pictures/references are somehow tied to women and he too lazy or stupid to be consistent with the number of Fs. Or it's possible that some are sexual and some are innocent fun. Or they are all innocent fun. Having said that, I originally didn't buy the argument made in the NYT article that these were all references to their friend Garrett's windup on the F; the people saying this were the same people putting this in their yearbook and would not be against lying if telling the truth made them look bad. Obviously that isn't enough to assume they are wrong though. My belief that Kavanaugh and they were lying came from the fact that there were two other references which appear to be blatantly sexual. One phrase being misunderstood as sexual I can get. But three? That strains believability. Devils Triangle has been widely recognized as a sex game for a long time and "Renate Alumni" isn't exactly hiding its meaning. In addition the sexual innuendo in his 1983 letter only added to my suspicion that FFFFF, even if it isn't used consistently, has a nefarious meaning. However, then I came across the bio of Bernard Michael McCarthy (page 203). There are two important things about his bio. First, it actually puts the multiple Fs in context by directly tying them to Squee. Squee, as we know, is the nickname of Garrett; the very person they are claiming had this windup. Using the multiple Fs in a direct statement to Squee adds significant credence to Kavanaugh's statements on the stand. Then I also saw a reference to Devils Trianage in this kids bio. It states "Devil's Triangle 9 founder of the name)". Obviously the 9 is suppsoed to be a (. This sounds like something somebody would say if Devils Triangle was just a stupid name they made up for their drinking game and the fact it was the same as a sex act is just a coincidence. Ofc it's also possible he was a regular participant in the sex act and this was his way of bragging. Still, this adds credibility to Kavanaugh's claim that it was just a game. Last is the Renate Alumni part. The obvious implication is they all slept with her. However, she denies ever sleeping with any of them (iirc Kavanaugh said they kissed but she said that wasn't true). Now it's possible that she is lying out of embarrassment (nobody wants to tell their husband/parents they were the football team's whore in high school). Then I thought of his sexual references in the 1983 letter and I begin to find it hard to believe he was a virgin through school. However, if he really wasn't then wouldn't somebody come forward? Surely there is a democrat he slept with who would have come forward, lol. Again it's possible they are all too embarrassed to say or dont want to say anything which would hurt his nomination or none exist to speak out. In the end I'm left unsure of what to think on this end given the mixed signals. But 2 of the 3 yearbook references have a strong argument for being non-sexual at this point. Overall, I think Mr. McCarthy's yearbook page is enough for me to recant some my previous conclusions about Kavanaugh lying. It's seems clear he was wild drunk (from plenty of peoples statements), and it doesn't mean Ford is lying, but it also doesn't mean he was lying about certain things. I'm willing to accept that he was telling the truth about the stupid shit they put in their yearbook based on the information available. There are plenty of reasons he is unfit for this job, and I'm sure myself and others will raise them when he is confirmed Friday, but I don't think this avenue is a legitimate one without somebody coming out with more information. Because posts like this are are good I will commend you for making it. I hope it doesnt get blown up tomorrow  but I dont think it will. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On October 04 2018 13:27 Doodsmack wrote: I'm kind of questioning the NYT's decision to publish the tax crime story before BK is out of the news. Doesnt seem like its getting much attention. I think everyone who is not blinded by anti media bias knew that trump is a serial tax criminal who lacks substance as a businessman, but the NYT came up with proof. I hope there are follow ups to the story. This was my first reaction. It makes absolutely zero business sense and isnt the kind of story that cant wait a week or two. My guess is somebody got wind of it and was going to leak, like Trumps team/business. Anything other than something like that doesnt make sense. Like I said before though, it may die off now but it will be back if the State of NY confirms any of it. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
At this point the question is whether there's enough smoke for there to be fallout. It feels to me like the investigation needed a little more time, given the pace of things that seem maybe innocuous maybe not. Of course Kav's been exposed as a gigantic liar, so that alone should stop the nomination, but we all know it's irrelevant. He could openly claim to have learned law on the moon and mean it and still get elected. | ||
|
Emnjay808
United States10660 Posts
| ||
|
dankobanana
Croatia238 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21959 Posts
On October 04 2018 20:09 dankobanana wrote: Its hard (almost impossible) to prove someone purposefully liedquestion. he lied under oath. isn't that a crime???? | ||
| ||
