|
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 04 2018 20:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2018 20:09 dankobanana wrote:
question. he lied under oath. isn't that a crime???? Its hard (almost impossible) to prove someone purposefully lied
so, we have few of his friends, classmates, who tell us that he lied, counting numerous incidents that prove his statements false and him, who had all the time of the world to try to recollect those said "incidents". you are telling me, that, without having a record of his thoughts (ie "i'm lying now, purposefully) or a diary with a "i'm lying today" event marked, he isn't liable for perjury charges?
|
This is where the rubber hits the road in terms of justice not being blind, contrary to its myth. Had someone random lied like he did while under oath at a deposition or court proceeding, they'd almost certainly get slammed with perjury charges, particularly regarding Kav's supposed lack of knowledge of Ramirez'a allegation.
|
On October 04 2018 21:41 farvacola wrote:
This is where the rubber hits the road in terms of justice not being blind, contrary to its myth. Had someone random lied like he did while under oath at a deposition or court proceeding, they'd almost certainly get slammed with perjury charges, particularly regarding Kav's supposed lack of knowledge of Ramirez'a allegation.
but but, he went to Yale ?!?!!
|
Graham’s statements from yesterday are informative for how a “moderate” Republican viewed holding open the Supreme Court seat in 2016. It does not seem to register as an abuse of power or being obstructionist. I have to assume they justify this by their ongoing hatred of the Clintons and seeing them as these corrupt villains in the political world.
The weird thing in all of this is that Obama has completely left discourse when it comes to Republicans that are not Trump. They don’t reference him. They rarely talk about him. Senators like Graham just jump all the way back to the 1990s and the Clinton to show when the Democrats were the baddies.
Edit: Damn, the quote from Graham is embedded in the first tweet.
|
United States43967 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.
The assault was alleged to have happened at the same time as these letters. If he’s a different person now, and was alleged to have done it now, that’d be one thing. But that’s not the situation.
|
Sounds like 10 people were contacted and 9 were interviewed (my under was off!). Just lol. WH already leaking to Fox that there is no smoking gun in the report.
Source:
|
Fox News, the place the White House goes when it would be inappropriate for them to issue a press release stating something. Every day less of a news network and more of a PR wing of the Executive Branch.
|
Yeah... I see no reason to take what the WH says at face value for anything while Trump is in office.
Lets wait for the actual report getting leaked.
|
wouldn't suprise me. that count doesn't even include Ford or Kavanaugh. We know they interviewed the 3 other "partygoers" so who else to talk to? Ramirez is one, but who else? a bunch of angry classmates who saw him act like a jerk when drunk? One guy who said he heard about the story, but the person who supposedly told him about it doesnt remember it? what good would that do? That's probably about as a far as they went, if at they went that far at all. Maybe a few more of Kavanaugh's friends is who they got.
|
On October 04 2018 23:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Sounds like 10 people were contacted and 9 were interviewed (my under was off!). Just lol. WH already leaking to Fox that there is no smoking gun in the report.
Not exactly a surprise, and now Republicans can rely on an investigation having been done to look better on this than they deserve. There's still the clear perjury of course but at the end of the day Dems managed to fail the optics of the opposing party attempting to confirm a potentially rapist candidate superfast because they're afraid the next elections might mean they lose the ability to confirm whoever they want, which is quite an impressive thing to fail at.
|
If supreme court justices can be impeached, are Republicans not setting themselves up for a worse situation when the pendulum inevitably ends up swinging the other direction? Gorsuch is safe, but Kavanaugh appears purely temporary from what I can see.
|
We can expect the party leadership and folks like Grassley to charge forward. It is just a question of if people like Flake, Collins and others don’t like what has been turned up by the report and the reporting about BK. There are currently +650 law professors that don’t think he should be on the bench, citing that he won’t be able to separate his political biases from his rulings. And other classmates that are openly saying that he lied under oath about his college life.
On October 04 2018 23:41 Mohdoo wrote:
If supreme court justices can be impeached, are Republicans not setting themselves up for a worse situation when the pendulum inevitably ends up swinging the other direction? Gorsuch is safe, but Kavanaugh appears purely temporary from what I can see.
Funny story. One of the first attempts to impeach a Justice was done by Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans who felt Samuel Chase’s political views were influencing his rulings. He wasn’t removed from the bench, but it put the fear in him and muted his rulings. So if anyone claims that the Justices can’t be impeached for having strong political views in their decisions, tell them Thomas Jefferson disagrees with that stance.
|
On October 04 2018 23:41 Mohdoo wrote:
If supreme court justices can be impeached, are Republicans not setting themselves up for a worse situation when the pendulum inevitably ends up swinging the other direction?
This would depend heavily on disrupting the Dem's status quo party leadership. Schumer et al. are too married to their establishmentarianism to rock the boat a la impeaching a SC Justice, regardless if it's warranted.
|
On October 04 2018 23:44 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2018 23:41 Mohdoo wrote:
If supreme court justices can be impeached, are Republicans not setting themselves up for a worse situation when the pendulum inevitably ends up swinging the other direction? This would depend heavily on disrupting the Dem's status quo party leadership. Schumer et al. are too married to their establishmentarianism to rock the boat a la impeaching a SC Justice, regardless if it's warranted.
When the pendulum swings the other way, Schumer, Pelosi and Feinstein will be nowhere to be found. They aren't the ones Kavanaugh should be worried about.
Edit: And to clarify, I see the democratic party in 2018 as identical to the republican party of 2008. A bunch of washed up ideas that simply don't ressonate with the current population that is slowly dying off. An enormous swath of democrats are soon to be picked off one by one by further left leaning counterparts. Slowly but surely, this new brand of left will be what democrats actually want. Think about all of the long career republicans that have been ejected. There were a ton of big names that got canned during the Obama years.
Our party is a complete mess right now and on its way to a new identity. The loud voices will keep being loud, as republicans were. It is all inevitable.
|
|
|
Maybe it's a professionalism thing, but if I were an FBI agent assigned to"investigate" I would chafe at such restrictions on who I could interview and what I could look into.
|
On October 04 2018 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2018 23:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Sounds like 10 people were contacted and 9 were interviewed (my under was off!). Just lol. WH already leaking to Fox that there is no smoking gun in the report. Not exactly a surprise, and now Republicans can rely on an investigation having been done to look better on this than they deserve. There's still the clear perjury of course but at the end of the day Dems managed to fail the optics of the opposing party attempting to confirm a potentially rapist candidate superfast because they're afraid the next elections might mean they lose the ability to confirm whoever they want, which is quite an impressive thing to fail at.
an investigation not showing what you want it to show isn’t bad optics? an investigation was absolutely necessary. people go into an investigation understanding that it may prove them right or wrong, and being ‘proven’ (for lack of a better word) wrong is a perfectly acceptable outcome.
i would say it is not bad optics, but bad expectations. one does not go into an investigation expecting a guilty verdict.
|
On October 04 2018 23:42 Plansix wrote:We can expect the party leadership and folks like Grassley to charge forward. It is just a question of if people like Flake, Collins and others don’t like what has been turned up by the report and the reporting about BK. There are currently +650 law professors that don’t think he should be on the bench, citing that he won’t be able to separate his political biases from his rulings. And other classmates that are openly saying that he lied under oath about his college life. Show nested quote +On October 04 2018 23:41 Mohdoo wrote:
If supreme court justices can be impeached, are Republicans not setting themselves up for a worse situation when the pendulum inevitably ends up swinging the other direction? Gorsuch is safe, but Kavanaugh appears purely temporary from what I can see. Funny story. One of the first attempts to impeach a Justice was done by Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans who felt Samuel Chase’s political views were influencing his rulings. He wasn’t removed from the bench, but it put the fear in him and muted his rulings. So if anyone claims that the Justices can’t be impeached for having strong political views in their decisions, tell them Thomas Jefferson disagrees with that stance.
You honestly believe that the people on the SCOTUS aren't partisans and don't make rulings a good amount of the time based on their political leanings? Really? Of all the things to admonish, you choose this easily falsifiable qualm? LOL. Let me know when the Democratic SCOTUS' stand up for the 2nd Amendment or the Republican SCOTUS' stand up for the 4th Amendment. I'll be holding my breath.
|
On October 04 2018 23:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2018 23:44 farvacola wrote:On October 04 2018 23:41 Mohdoo wrote:
If supreme court justices can be impeached, are Republicans not setting themselves up for a worse situation when the pendulum inevitably ends up swinging the other direction? This would depend heavily on disrupting the Dem's status quo party leadership. Schumer et al. are too married to their establishmentarianism to rock the boat a la impeaching a SC Justice, regardless if it's warranted. When the pendulum swings the other way, Schumer, Pelosi and Feinstein will be nowhere to be found. They aren't the ones Kavanaugh should be worried about. Edit: And to clarify, I see the democratic party in 2018 as identical to the republican party of 2008. A bunch of washed up ideas that simply don't ressonate with the current population that is slowly dying off. An enormous swath of democrats are soon to be picked off one by one by further left leaning counterparts. Slowly but surely, this new brand of left will be what democrats actually want. Think about all of the long career republicans that have been ejected. There were a ton of big names that got canned during the Obama years. Our party is a complete mess right now and on its way to a new identity. The loud voices will keep being loud, as republicans were. It is all inevitable.
The Democrats have morphed from a party of the Midwest and rural "union" / "manufacturing" base to coastal/city elites and a mish-mash of identity groups who often have conflicting views (African-Americans are pretty socially conservative for instance) who have lost touch outside their small enclaves. Why do you think they lost a bunch of the midwest states and are having trouble in places like WV, OH, etc. Ironically, I think we've entered into a time where party bases have switched. The Dems are losing the poor and non-educated base they've had for a while now, while the Republicans have lost their edge with educated people and "Rockefeller" elites types. The problem for the Dems is that they're stuck in their enclaves. There's a reason why the GOP controls a majority of non-Federal political seats by a huge margin and Dems outside of their few strongholds have trouble winning federal elections (e.g. midwest / mountain (outside of Colorado) / South / etc.). Basically, the PNW, California, and New England. You guys have to learn how to talk to people outside of these places.
|
On October 04 2018 23:34 Introvert wrote:
wouldn't suprise me. that count doesn't even include Ford or Kavanaugh. We know they interviewed the 3 other "partygoers" so who else to talk to? Ramirez is one, but who else? a bunch of angry classmates who saw him act like a jerk when drunk? One guy who said he heard about the story, but the person who supposedly told him about it doesnt remember it? what good would that do? That's probably about as a far as they went, if at they went that far at all. Maybe a few more of Kavanaugh's friends is who they got.
Wait what? Ford and Kavanaugh weren't interviewed by the FBI so how can they be added to the count? Surely you aren't saying that an erratic and meandering Senate hearing testimony somehow qualifies as an FBI interview? And before you or anyone else says anything, every report ive seen says Ford and Kavanaugh weren't questioned because the FBI weren't allowed to question them, not because it didn't make sense for the investigation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
