Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)
Options
Comments
-
-
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »The entire political system in the US is utterly dysfunctional.
It is a political system designed 250 years ago to serve the interests of rich, white, slave-owning men. It was modified in the post civil-war era to accommodate the interests of the white Southern slave-owners in an effort to ensure that the interests of the Northern elites were not threatened by ongoing unrest in the Southern states (and remember the Democrats were the party of the Southern slave-owners).
The system as it operates today is divorced from the reality of American society - politics is the plaything of the rich elites - it costs a minimum of $250K to challenge for a city council seat (unless there is the major wind of some mass campaign behind the candidate) - it costs $10million to win a senate seat and it costs $10million just to launch a presidential campaign (with another $10 for each primary - and at least $1billion to run a full presidential campaign).
More and more Americans are by-passing the political system and taking straight to the streets to demand their rights - and this is only going to increase (particularly after the hamfisted way the GOP forced through Kavanaugh's nomination and the misogynist mocking of Ford by Trump). The reason the Democrats are not sweeping the GOP away in the current election is because they have nothing to offer ordinary Americans - and all Trump can do is whip-up the redneck, alt-right, creationist fundamentalists to cheer on his every insult.
A case in point - Heidi Heitkamp Dem senator in North Dakota - who will get tossed out on here ear next month. Heitkamp was elected in 2012 on the back of a promise to oppose the pipeline being proposed passing through ND. The native American population voted en-masse for her and she won the senate seat by just over 2,000 votes. When the battle against the pipeline was being fought at Standing Rock and thousands of people were faced with the police and the national guard in full combat gear Heidi Heitkamp ran for the hills and declared that she supported the pipeline. Obama was forced to cancel the pipeline and Trump whipped up racism against the native Americans two years ago claiming that they were trying to deprive white people of jobs in order to protect their 'holy ground' to win the state. The native American population have now declared en-masse that they will not vote for Heitkamp - and that they will not vote at all because there is no point. The poor white working class who were whipped into a frenzy by Trump now realise that the pipeline is not providing jobs, it is just lining Trump's pockets - and you are going to see a meaningless election between two cheeks of the same a*se fighting over what is loosely called the spoils of office - with the rich and middle class white Americans in the state staring at one another trying to decide which of the idiots to vote for.
Excellent post.0 -
I wonder if Lindsey Graham didn't give that big speech during the hearing attacking Democrats and defending Kavanaugh would he have gotten the votes or even survived up to this point? I have to admit, it made me feel a bit tingly.0
-
It's also exactly the type of testimony that I could make up about you. She named 4 witnesses and all failed to corroborate her story, no date, no location. I'm not saying she made it up, I'm saying not everything accusation should be assumed to be true, facts should prevail.
OK the fact is that Judge Kavanaugh did NOT deny that the party took place or that anything happened between him and Prof Ford in the house. He merely stated that noting happened at the party in the way the Prof described. The other witnesses stated that they did NOT see what the Prof described. It's made plain by the prof's testimony that the alleged assault took place in an upstairs bedroom where there were only her, him and Mark Judge present. That alone is a clear explanation as to how the other people at the party DID NOT witness the assault. All the mention about where the party house was, how she got there is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant when the accused and the other witnesses did not deny they, he and Prof Ford were together at the party in the house.0 -
As I said - her testimony was consistent with the testimony of a victim of sexual violence. If she wanted to make it up the last thing she would have done was claim that there was an accomplice - and name him.It's also exactly the type of testimony that I could make up about you.
She named three witnesses (Judge, Smith and Keyser) - Is it any surprise that Mark Judge claimed it didn't happen? - he was named as an accomplice. For Smith and Keyser, they couldn't say anything other than they don't remember anything (for them it was an uneventful event in a long line of other uneventful events) - but it should be noted that Keyser said that she believed Ford.She named 4 witnesses and all failed to corroborate her story, no date, no location. I'm not saying she made it up, I'm saying not everything accusation should be assumed to be true, facts should prevail.
Ford made an allegation, took a polygraph that showed no deception, gave testimony at a senate hearing (a totally and completely inappropriate venue for interviewing an alleged victim of sexual violence), and she repeatedly offered to be interviewed by the FBI. Kavanaugh opposed an FBI investigation, refused to take a poly and was delighted that the FBI didn't interview him.
There are two problems with all of this -
1. There has been more than one accusation about Kavanaugh - Ford - Ramirez - Swetnick - and the unnamed woman who was assaulted an groped by Kavanaugh in 1998. The recent FBI investigation interviewed Keyser - four binge drinking buddies of Kavanaugh's - and Ramirez. The attorney for Ramirez gave the FBI the names and contact details of 20 potential witnesses who could corroborate the allegations by Ramirez - the FBI didn't interview any. The allegations by Swetnick are very serious (the systematic spiking of drinks with alcohol and drugs to facilitate the gang rape of young girls) - they are supported by a second sworn affidavit from an unnamed witness - and the allegations have a history. In 1990 the principals of 7 DC prep schools - including Georgetown - issued a public statement warning of the dangers of binge drinking parties, the dangers of these parties for 'inappropriate sexual behaviour' - warned that it had been a problem for years - and cautioned young girls about participating. Swetnick's allegations should have absolutely been investigated in a full and proper manner given the implications (and I am not talking about the implications for Kavanaugh's appointment - but the implications for the alleged victims.).
2. There is a major question over Kavanaugh because of these allegations - and specifically because of the claim that he lied to the Senate committee about these allegations (and also lied about issues at previous hearings over the years when getting court jobs). Having someone who lies so easily on the SC of the USA is a major demonstration of how dysfunctional the political system is (the SCOTUS is a political body) - and how far removed it is from ordinary citizens. The history of Kavanaugh - long before these allegations - is a history of an elitist, spoilt, entitled, anti-worker, racist, misogynist scumbag (and that is evidenced by the previous rulings he has made - often in a minority of one). The allegations against Kavanaugh should have been investigated fully - if for nothing more but to prove if he lied or not in his testimony and if it was proven he did - then he should be booted out the door and never let sit on a bench again.0 -
Advertisement
-
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »Ford made an allegation, took a polygraph that showed no deception, gave testimony at a senate hearing (a totally and completely inappropriate venue for interviewing an alleged victim of sexual violence), and she repeatedly offered to be interviewed by the FBI. Kavanaugh opposed an FBI investigation, refused to take a poly and was delighted that the FBI didn't interview him.
I'll pick one, if you want me to reply to each of your points make them shorter and one point at a time because I'm not going to write an essay. Dr Ford and her team of lawyers have refused to give the polygraph information to the Judiciary committee repeatably, so I will not agree it showed no deception because I have not seen it and I do not trust what an outside party who's been paid may say about an individual. Polygraphs aren't admissible in court and are known to be unreliable, furthermore an ex BF of hers submitted a letter that claimed she is well versed on polygraphs and coached her friend on how they work. The claim that she her lawyers would provide them to the FBI I don't understand, given all the FBI would do is hand them over to the judiciary committee.
The Swetnick allegations are so out there it's actually embarrassed Democrats and hurt their case. The Ramirez accusation likewise is just as uncorroborated. She doesn't "know for sure" it was Kavanaugh.0 -
aloyisious wrote: »OK the fact is that Judge Kavanaugh did NOT deny that the party took place or that anything happened between him and Prof Ford in the house.
Kavanaugh said he's never met her to the best of his recollection and you're leaping to the point that he doesn't deny the party taking place, this is twisted nonsense and I've seen it repeated so often as a talking point it makes my head hurt. Same thing for her female friend and pretty much all the supposed witnesses. Because someone said they can't recall that means it's POSSIBLE it happened? Right?? It's also possible I flew to the moon yesterday during my sleep but I can't be sure. I can't be sure I've never ran into Donald Trump on the street, but it's possible right? Give over.0 -
On another point - the importance of believing an alleged victim of sexual violence.
60% of all rapes are never reported to the police - of those that are reported less than 6% result in a conviction. The number of false rape allegations are between 2%-5% and the vast majority of false rape allegations are easily found out by investigation (and I have linked to the stats on this thread before). One in five women in this country will be the victims of sexual violence at some stage in their lives (in the USA it is one in four women).
The primary reason why victims of sexual violence do not report the assault is because their fear that no one will believe them - it is a palatable fear and a fear that is extremely traumatic for a victim. The most important thing for anyone who is speaking to a victim of sexual violence (be that police, counsellors, friends, family etc) is to affirm that they believe the victim. It is the first and vital step in helping any victim of sexual violence deal with they trauma they experienced. Most rape victims cannot bring themselves to report it - they try and bury the tramua but most suffer lifelong issues as a result (Ford spoke about claustrophobia, anxiety, fear of flying, and marital issues - that we know of). However - far worse is a victim of rape who reports the rape and is not believed by the people she (or he) talks to. The trauma is compounded - the trauma of the assault and on top of it the trauma of not being believed - it can have an utterly devastating impact on the victim.
What has happened in the recent few days has been an utter disgrace - the only people who know if Ford was sexually assaulted are - Ford - Kavanaugh - and Judge. No one will ever be able to prove it. We know that Ford told her therapist in 2012 and her husband - outside of that she told no one until a few weeks ago. The GOP have been a disgrace - in particular Grassley, Hatch, Graham - and worst of all Trump in his vile mocking of Ford at the rally in Mississippi. The fact that the President of the USA went on national TV and mocked an alleged victim of sexual assault should have resulted in demands by every single senator and representative in Congress that Trump resign and if he refused he should have been impeached and every single person in Congress should have supported it. What happened - the GOP played political football (and the Democrats were no better) with the physical and mental wellbeing - not just of Christine Blasey Ford - but of every single victim of sexual assault that happened to be watching and listening to them. The antics of Trump have created a situation where victims of sexual assault will be far less likely to report the assault, far less likely to seek counselling, far more likely to suffer mental and physical consequences from the assault - and there will be far more rapists that will get away with rape, far more rapists who will feel they can act with impunity, and far more misogynist attitudes prevalent in society. Now I believe that there will be a major reaction to what has happened from women (and many men) across the USA - and it will manifest itself on the streets and in communities - and it could very well change the face of American society.
As a socialist I have had zero time for any US president - ever - but I have never seen a President behave in such a vile and disgraceful way towards victims of sexual violence. For all his political failings - the biggest failing of Trump is that he is a complete scumbag.
As a man - I am disgusted that another man, particularly one in such a position of power, could behave in such a vile and disgusting fashion towards victims of sexual violence.0 -
-
What a time to be a woman in America. We believe you Doctor Ford, but we think you may be mistaken. It's just not possible that Judge Kavanaugh made a drunken grope for you and can't remember.
And remember, if you're a woman in America today, come forward with an allegation of a traumatic sexual assault, and the President will mock you and get a crowd of thousands to bellow with laughter at you.
This must be what freedom looks like.0 -
Advertisement
-
What a time to be a woman in America. We believe you Doctor Ford, but we think you may be mistaken. It's just not possible that Judge Kavanaugh made a drunken grope for you and can't remember.
And remember, if you're a woman in America today, come forward with an allegation of a traumatic sexual assault, and the President will mock you and get a crowd of thousands to bellow with laughter at you.
This must be what freedom looks like.
We should definitely believe all accusers. Dr Ford was treated fairly, Republicans offered to meet her in California behind closed doors due to her "fear of flying" and want of anonymity but according to her testimony her lawyers never informed her. She presented her case in public and it offered no corroboration. The FBI at the Democrats and some Republicans request conducted additional interviews and provided more statements and it provided no corroboration. Her team has refused to turn over the "Evidence" that they've relied on to make her case to the senate even though it's been requested multiple times by Senator Grassley. What more do you want, Kavanaugh to be strung up and mauled? Due process is a thing and it exists for good reason.
https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2018/09/julie_swetnick_one_of_kavanaug.html
"Swetnick worked at Portland-based Webtrends for a few months in 2000, according to a civil suit the Portland company filed against her late that year. The company said she was hired as a professional services engineer to work off-site. It's not clear whether she ever worked in Webtrends' Portland office.
In the suit, Webtrends alleged Swetnick claimed to have graduated from Johns Hopkins University but the company said it subsequently learned the school had no record of her attendance. Webtrends said she also "falsely described her work experience" at a prior employer.
The suit also alleges Swetnick "engaged in unwelcome, sexually offensive conduct" while at Webtrends and "made false and retaliatory allegations that other co-workers had engaged in inappropriate conduct toward her."
The suit alleges Swetnick "engaged in unwelcome sexual innuendo and inappropriate conduct" directed at two male employees during a business lunch, with Webtrends customers present. Swetnick claimed two other employees had sexually harassed her, according to the suit.
Webtrends' suit said it determined Swetnick had engaged in misconduct but could not find evidence to support her allegations against her colleagues. Later, the company alleged, Swetnick took medical leave and simultaneously claimed unemployment benefits in the District of Columbia.
While Swetnick issued a sworn affidavit this week attesting to the truth of her allegations against Kavanaugh, news organizations have said they could not corroborate any of her claims and Kavanaugh denied her allegations -- as he has others made against him. A former boyfriend once filed a restraining order against Swetnick."0 -
The polygraph information was given to the FBI.I'll pick one, if you want me to reply to each of your points make them shorter and one point at a time because I'm not going to write an essay. Dr Ford and her team of lawyers have refused to give the polygraph information to the Judiciary committee repeatably, so I will not agree it showed no deception because I have not seen it and I do not trust what an outside party who's been paid may say about an individual.
Polygraphs are not inadmissible because they are unreliable - in fact they are very reliable - they are inadmissible because they do not indicate the truth to specific questions - they indicate the presence or absence of deception.Polygraphs aren't admissible in court and are known to be unreliable,
Kavanaugh was a big fan of polygraphs up to two weeks ago
And Ford's friend - Monica McLean - stated that no such thing happened. McLean is a former FBI agent and a former investigator for the Dept of Justice. Either McLean or the ex- is lying - investigate which and charge the guilty party with perjury.furthermore an ex BF of hers submitted a letter that claimed she is well versed on polygraphs and coached her friend on how they work.
The judicary committee know nothing about polygraphs - they have no experience with polygraphs, don't know how they work and don't know how to interpret the results - that is a job for trained investigators.The claim that she her lawyers would provide them to the FBI I don't understand, given all the FBI would do is hand them over to the judiciary committee.
The Swetnick allegations are by far and away the most serious - for the reasons that I outlined. They have been corroborated by a second sworn affidavit - and they are based in historical evidence - which I have outlined. The allegations of Swetnick have to absolutely be investigated - for the reason that if they are true then there are potentially a significant number of victims of gang rape who need help. If an investigation finds that Swetnick lied then she should be charged with perjury and if found guilty tossed into jail. If they are false then they have contributed to the misogynist frenzy that has developed in the last couple of weeks - but the one thing that must happen is that they must be investigated (unfortunately they probably will not).The Swetnick allegations are so out there it's actually embarrassed Democrats and hurt their case.0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »And Ford's friend - Monica McLean - stated that no such thing happened. McLean is a former FBI agent and a former investigator for the Dept of Justice. Either McLean or the ex- is lying - investigate which and charge the guilty party with perjury.
The same McLean who was pressuring Leland Keyser to change her story. The FBI have provided the texts to the committee.The judicary committee know nothing about polygraphs - they have no experience with polygraphs, don't know how they work and don't know how to interpret the results - that is a job for trained investigators.
Doesn't matter, they paid an outside party, and as such I won't trust the results. They did that to try and build her case.The Swetnick allegations are by far and away the most serious - for the reasons that I outlined.
Read my previous post, if you think she's credible you're living in cloud cuckoo land. She and Avenatti are a laughing stock.0 -
"Swetnick worked at Portland-based Webtrends for a few months in 2000, according to a civil suit the Portland company filed against her late that year. The company said she was hired as a professional services engineer to work off-site. It's not clear whether she ever worked in Webtrends' Portland office.
In the suit, Webtrends alleged Swetnick claimed to have graduated from Johns Hopkins University but the company said it subsequently learned the school had no record of her attendance. Webtrends said she also "falsely described her work experience" at a prior employer.
The suit also alleges Swetnick "engaged in unwelcome, sexually offensive conduct" while at Webtrends and "made false and retaliatory allegations that other co-workers had engaged in inappropriate conduct toward her."
The suit alleges Swetnick "engaged in unwelcome sexual innuendo and inappropriate conduct" directed at two male employees during a business lunch, with Webtrends customers present. Swetnick claimed two other employees had sexually harassed her, according to the suit.
Webtrends' suit said it determined Swetnick had engaged in misconduct but could not find evidence to support her allegations against her colleagues. Later, the company alleged, Swetnick took medical leave and simultaneously claimed unemployment benefits in the District of Columbia.
While Swetnick issued a sworn affidavit this week attesting to the truth of her allegations against Kavanaugh, news organizations have said they could not corroborate any of her claims and Kavanaugh denied her allegations -- as he has others made against him. A former boyfriend once filed a restraining order against Swetnick."
Let's deal with this -
As I have said - Swetnick's allegations are, by far, the most serious. Since the allegations have come out Swetnick has been subjected to a major smear campaign. Furthermore, Grassley demonstrated the utter scumbag that he is by releasing the alleged claim that Swetnick had a preference for having sex with multiple partners - a disgraceful slut-shaming of the woman.
I do not know if Swetnick's allegations are true - they must be investigated. But consider this - Swetnick alleges that she was the victim of a gang rape after she was rendered compliant as a result of her drink being spiked by drugs. What if Swetnick is telling the truth? What are the implications for the woman? What trauma has she faced in her life? Are the list of 'misdeeds' you outline above (assuming they are true and many have been denied) possibly the result of the mental anguish of being a victim of gang-rape? And if Swetnick is a victim - do any of the GOP and the Trumper media (and the countless number who have dismissed her allegations - referring back to the points I made above) have any shame for their behaviour?0 -
Yes to both, but like I said, I have a very hard time believing she doesn't remember who drove her to the party and who drove her home, the first person she would have seen after it happened. It wasn't a short distance, it was at least over 6 miles according to her testimony. Speaking for myself, I've gotten into fights decades ago in blackout states, been knocked out etc but still remember exact details about what happened. I know it's in no way comparable to sexual assault but it's the closest thing I can compare it to if I'm thinking of my own experiences with memory recollection.
I can remember exact details of specific incidents that took place on nights out, but just like all my friends I couldn't match up a single incident going back over years with how I got in or out of where we meet-up.
Provided the memory/incident didn't take place on the way in or out, are you honestly saying you can match a drive/walk/bus home with an incident?0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »Let's deal with this -
As I have said - Swetnick's allegations are, by far, the most serious. Since the allegations have come out Swetnick has been subjected to a major smear campaign.
What you've said or believe doesn't matter. Her and Avenatti have embarrassed the Democrats, there's a reason they stopped talking about her.
https://twitter.com/Mediaite/status/1046896600830959617
Watch her NBC interview then look at her history. The Woman is a dangerous nut and I have no problem saying that. Megan Kelly has said the same. She walked back her claims and NBC was provided with a list of witnesses who they said failed to corroborate any part of her story.
NBC News started off by noting it could not independently verify her claims.
NBC News noted there were differences in Swetnick’s initial statement and her comments to the outlet, notably her assertion that Kavanaugh spiked punch at the parties so that groups of boys could rape girls.
Swetnick did not confirm that she saw Kavanaugh spike punch, but simply said she “saw him around the punch containers.”
“I don’t know what he did,” she told NBC.
She provided four names to NBC News that she said could confirm her descriptions of the parties in the 1980s. NBC News contacted all four: one said they did not remember a Julie Swetnick, one was dead, and two did not respond, per Snow.0 -
McLean is reported to have contacted keyser asking her to release a statement emphasising that Keyser believed Ford - because repeatedly Trump, Kavanaugh, the GOP and the Trumper media, reported that Keyser either 'denied that anything happened' or that she 'didn't corroborate Ford's allegations' - while conveniently and consciously ignoring her statement that she believed Ford. Not surprisingly - seeing how Ford was treated, particularly by Trump - Keyser said 'leave me out of it'.The same McLean who was pressuring Leland Keyser to change her story. The FBI have provided the texts to the committee.
This is an interview with the polygraph expert who took Ford's poly - he is a retired FBI agent.Doesn't matter, they paid an outside party, and as such I won't trust the results. They did that to try and build her case.
It has nothing to do with whether you, I or anyone else believes the allegations are credible - the allegations are very serious - and they must be investigated because - if they are true then there are a lot of potential victims of gang-rape who need help - and if they are not true then the book should be thrown at Swetnick for damaging the potential for real victims of sexual violence reporting their assault to someone.Read my previous post, if you think she's credible you're living in cloud cuckoo land. She and Avenatti are a laughing stock.0 -
Watch her NBC interview then look at her history. The Woman is a dangerous nut and I have no problem saying that. Megan Kelly has said the same. She walked back her claims and NBC was provided with a list of witnesses who they said failed to corroborate any part of her story.
NBC News started off by noting it could not independently verify her claims.
With all due respect - NBC is not the FBI - the appropriate authority to investigate Swetnick's claims are the FBI - not the media.
Now - I have explained why I believe Swetnick's allegations must be investigated - twice - you can take what I said on board or you can continue to parrot the Trumper media line - it is entirely up to you.
Swetnick's allegations must be investigated - if they are true then there are women who need help - if they are false then she should be charged for the reasons I outlined. And by the way - this has nothing to do with Kavanaugh's ratification - it is far more serious than that. Take it or leave it.0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »
Swetnick's allegations must be investigated.
She should go ahead and submit a legal complaint so it's investigated, we agree. That's all I'm doing to say about her. I advise you to read up on her past.0 -
She should go ahead and submit a legal complaint so it's investigated, we agree. That's all I'm doing to say about her. I advise you to read up on her past.
I have read about her past - and I have read the refuting of some of the allegations - the problem is that her past is irrelevant.
Also irrelevant is whether she makes a complaint - the FBI do not need a complaint to be made to investigate - and the allegations are out there and are of a magnitude that they require investigation - the consequences for victims if they exist are too grave not to investigate.0 -
Advertisement
-
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »I have read about her past - and I have read the refuting of some of the allegations - the problem is that her past is irrelevant.
If there's anything I've learned in life, it's that peoples credibility should be judged on their past.
I will not agree that someone who has a history of deceit and false allegations should be taken at their merit.0 -
We are going around in circles a bit now
Ah - no they shouldn't - particularly if they are a victim of a gang rape which Swetnick claims she was.If there's anything I've learned in life, it's that peoples credibility should be judged on their past.
You cannot prove that Swetnick is deceitful or has made false allegations - and even is she has you cannot determine her motivation.I will not agree that someone who has a history of deceit and false allegations should be taken at their merit.
Furthermore - I am not claiming that the investigation should take place purely on Swetnick's allegations only - there is at least one other person who has made the same claims as Swetnick in a sworn affidavit - and there is the fact that the history of binge drinking parties and 'inappropriate sexual behavoiour' over a period of years in the Washington prep schools warranted the issuing of a public statement by school principals in 1990 - both of which give credence to the necessity for an investigation.0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »We are going around in circles a bit now
Yup, on Swetnick we can agree to disagree. I do not believe that she should be taken seriously, just like I don't believe if Alex Jones said tomorrow DC was going to be nuked the armed forces should take up arms. In this world, there's some rotten individuals, and it's my belief she's one of them after reviewing her past. That said, I'd be happy to see her claims investigated, that's not what I'm against, I'm against the culture of people like her.
We'll see down the line, maybe something will come out to help Ford's case if she's telling the truth, there's always the legal option to take it further. Lets see what happens.0 -
Kavanaugh said he's never met her to the best of his recollection and you're leaping to the point that he doesn't deny the party taking place, this is twisted nonsense and I've seen it repeated so often as a talking point it makes my head hurt. Same thing for her female friend and pretty much all the supposed witnesses. Because someone said they can't recall that means it's POSSIBLE it happened? Right?? It's also possible I flew to the moon yesterday during my sleep but I can't be sure. I can't be sure I've never ran into Donald Trump on the street, but it's possible right? Give over.[/QUOTE
The prof made it clear in her testimony that he was there with her at the party. Your response is that Judge Kavanaugh said he had no recollection of meeting her. One of the items you are relying on and rolling out regularly as evidence that the party did not happen is how she can't recall how got to and from the house. There's not much point in debating the judge's and the other witnesses actual statements of events point with you as the lack of recollection is clearly bothering you so I'll let it lie as it is and move on to the here and now of todays senate vote.0 -
There's not much point in debating the judge's and the other witnesses actual statements of events point with you as the lack of recollection is clearly bothering you so I'll let it lie as it is and move on to the here and now of todays senate vote.
Don't know what that means. I've seen a talking point from the NYT's or whatever that Ford's friend doesn't deny the party but can't remember it. Like what does that even mean? It's like trying to prove a negative, if you can't remember something that doesn't mean it never happened and it's in a way different than saying I wasn't at a party with Kavanaugh. Like HELLO! It's the same thing. Arguments like that only apply to the lowest common denominator of intellect.0 -
I know nothing about Swetnick because her claims seems very dubious and Avenatti is a complete opportunistic. It is unfortunate that her allegations and Ford's allegations ended up being discussed together. It seems for some people that Swetnick's cancelled out Ford's by association.
After all this, and given the strengths of Ford's testimony and the timing of when she mentioned the assault to others relative to Kavanagh's nomination, I still think the most likely situation is that he committed the assault but simply can't remember it due to drunkiness.
I also still think that after he testified, the most compelling reason why he shouldn't be on the supreme court were his extreme partisanship, conspiracy theories, conflating "don't remember" with "didn't happen" and almost certain perjury.
Those 100 law professors and that retired Justice stated Kavanagh shouldn't be on the supreme court not because of the assault allegations but because of that testimony and his behavior at the hearing.
I wonder down the road, perhaps after 2020 if the democrats regain both the house and the senate, might they upon a perjury investigation. Clarence Thomas survived his allegations but it is a much different world today.0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »60% of all alleged rapes are never reported to the police - of those alleged that are reported less than 6% result in a conviction. The number of proven false rape allegations are between 2-5%
Couldn’t resist correcting this constantly repeated canard. Here’s hoping the criminal justice system never falls for Orwellian #believerher nonsense.0 -
MightyMandarin wrote: »Watch it again then. At 2:31 it clearly shows that it was Melissa Byrne and her team who harassed Flake in the lift. The fact at least one of them was paid full-time to do this rubbish is enough to realise that some elements of this protest are a bloody joke.
So to clarify again, there is nothing to indicate the two women who confronted Flake in the elevator were paid. You keep trying to equate the organiser of the protest with the assault victims taking part.What are you celebrating for ? This has shown the US senate on both sides to be a complete disaster. This will make the US more divided then it already was.
Celebrating the liberal tears. It's what motivates some people. In the long run, Kavanaugh being appointed and Trumps disaster of a presidency will be good for Dems. It has motivated people like never before, particularly grass roots. The site for the collection fund for Collins' next opponent has crashed due to being inundated. The whole thing has given US citizens a clear view of how screwed their systems are from locals to presidential. Every poor decision swung by Kavanaugh will push more people out.
It's up to the dems to take advantage of it now. Whether they can get their house in order remains to be seen. Ditch the cowards like Manchin and focus on new energetic candidates like Beto who can give entrenched Republicans a run for their money and appeal to younger people and people suffering under Trump's regime. I have my doubts about a midterm blue wave in the senate. Too few Republican seats up for grabs. But with the right strategy and leadership they can take the presidency and senate in 2020.0 -
For every grass root Democrat coming out of he woord owrk, theres 2 republicans coming out.Captain Obvious wrote: »Celebrating the liberal tears. It's what motivates some people. In the long run, Kavanaugh being appointed and Trumps disaster of a presidency will be good for Dems. It has motivated people like never before, particularly grass roots. The site for the collection fund for Collins' next opponent has crashed due to being inundated. The whole thing has given US citizens a clear view of how screwed their systems are from locals to presidential. Every poor decision swung by Kavanaugh will push more people out.
It's up to the dems to take advantage of it now. Whether they can get their house in order remains to be seen. Ditch the cowards like Manchin and focus on new energetic candidates like Beto who can give entrenched Republicans a run for their money and appeal to younger people and people suffering under Trump's regime. I have my doubts about a midterm blue wave in the senate. Too few Republican seats up for grabs. But with the right strategy and leadership they can take the presidency and senate in 2020.
And whats moreimportant is that the GOP are gaining he middle of hte road moderates, whilst the Dems are not attracting them. 2020 is a long shot, to win that the Democrats would have to come up with a policy and some strategys, unless you count a porn star lawyer as a political policy.
If everything goes to plan Kavanaugh is in place for the next 20 years, and at every decision over those 20 years the right and GOP supporteres will be reminded of the totalitarian lefts oppossition, at every decision over the next 20 years the right and GOP supporters wil lbe reminded of the vitriol directed at them by anti-Trumper liberal leftists, at every decision over he next 20 years the right and GOP supporters will be reminded of the Democrats implosion and ineptitude.
I expected a masterclass from the GOP , Grassley etc in handling this , but even their performance amazed me. To get Kavanaghu thru and all the collateral damage the Democrats have had inflicted, most of it self-inflicted. With the GOP energised as never before , 4 weeks out from mid-terms, they could not have asked for a better mandate from the Democrats handed on a plate. Thank you Diane Feinsetin, I hope your voters will want a 90 year old to represent them for hte next 6 years. Your the best thing thats happened to the GOP.
YOur right on one thing, there will be no blue wave. Perhaps the Dems should have worried about that in early 2017, instead the were too busy hitching their wagon to Mueller witch hunt, porn lawyers and an outdated identity politics methodology. too late to change that now for the mid-terms and too late to change it for 2020 either.0 -
Advertisement
-
For every grass root Democrat coming out of he woord owrk, theres 2 republicans coming out.
Those that do are being seen for the backwards, racist, misogynistic pieces of garbage humans they are. Republicans have no principles. They use to be about states rights and fiscal conservatism. Now they support massive debt and the erosion of state powers in favour of federal, all so a Trump pardon can protect them when they are inevitably linked with some crime in the future.
The rest of your post just reads like your usual copy/paste nonsense propoganda.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement