Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Badger]

7 hours ago, archer said:

Elon Musk commits to sending Japanese billionaire on a trip around the moon.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45550755

 

Is there no national pride left in the good ole USA? Why are we not sending an American billionaire to the moon?

 

The president comes to mind as an ideal candidate.

 

Elon Musk, is probably my top billionaire to send to the moon without enough fuel for the round trip to be honest.

[Badger]

8 hours ago, archer said:

 

They don't even need that much.

 

"It's possible that the guy might be a slimeball" is the level of 'evidence' they need in order to convince Senators to not put their career on the line to vote someone in who might later turn out to be a slimeball if they think there's a real chance he might be guilty.

 

Honestly, as rancorous as partisan politics has become in this country. I'm pleasantly surprised that there aren't false accusations made against every person who is nominated for any post (regardless of which party is in power at any point in time).

 

It seems like such an easy way to smear someone. Nobody has an iron-clad alibi for some random day 40 years ago when they were a teenager. Most of the adults from back then are dead, many of the rest don't have a functioning memory.

 

I admit I have started to get leery of the Me Too movement a little.  It does make me worry, because after it dies down some, I worry actual victims of this sort thing we be taken even less seriously.  

 

Right now, the accusation really isn't near even Anita Hill levels in verifiable information.    

[csyphrett]

14 minutes ago, Badger said:

 

Well, I don't know how they get 3rd best in the league.  His last season had pretty solid stats, albeit the 49ers were pretty much Browns-lite that year, so it is hard to separate garbage time and all.  He was low-end starter/high-end backup level.   Definitely better than a lot of QBs in the league (if he was a backup he probably would one of the 5 best backups in the league).  So,  yeah the protests is why he is out of the league.  But,  you could name dozens of good players in the league who are headaches for their teams, that if they were that low end starter/high end backup type of talent would probably be gone ASAP (or traded to the Raiders).  That is why I worry, I do think a team should be to sever relations from players who are more trouble than they are worth (pending how the contract rules in the league go)

I know. My team had two murderers on it before they were arrested.

CES

[archer]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

 

I admit I have started to get leery of the Me Too movement a little.  It does make me worry, because after it dies down some, I worry actual victims of this sort thing we be taken even less seriously.  

 

 

That's exactly what I'm thinking.

[Old Man]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

Right now, the accusation really isn't near even Anita Hill levels in verifiable information.    

 

Only because the White House has refused to allow the FBI to investigate.  Anita Hill's claims were investigated by the FBI within three days, and were far less serious than the attempted rape of which Kavanaugh stands accused.

[Badger]

1 hour ago, Old Man said:

 

Only because the White House has refused to allow the FBI to investigate.  Anita Hill's claims were investigated by the FBI within three days, and were far less serious than the attempted rape of which Kavanaugh stands accused.

 

Well, I didn't say I was happy on the reasons why we don't have information.  But, I am going to go on what I know on the case in real time.  Especially, given the relationship with politics it has.  And I am afraid I no longer have any faith what so ever that either of our parties have any sense of ethics at all, that they wouldn't pull something like this, as disturbing an implication as it is.  Just going to play this as cautious as possible.

[薔薇語]

In the Anita Hill case, I believe the FBI merely took testimony and did not investigate. The investigation were done by non-FBI authorities. 

The FBI doesn't have investigatable information at this time, I believe. They do not know when the alleged event was to have happened, where it was to have happened, and who else was present at the time. We only know generally that it was the summer of 82 and the three named people so far have given their statements. What exactly would we be expecting the FBI to go off of now? Beyond that, I do not believe the WhiteHouse has restrained the FBI in this regard - the allegation isn't a Federal crime and the lack of investigatable facts leaves them unable to do the equivalent of a deep background check. 

La Rose. 

[megaplayboy]

3 hours ago, 薔薇語 said:

In the Anita Hill case, I believe the FBI merely took testimony and did not investigate. The investigation were done by non-FBI authorities. 

The FBI doesn't have investigatable information at this time, I believe. They do not know when the alleged event was to have happened, where it was to have happened, and who else was present at the time. We only know generally that it was the summer of 82 and the three named people so far have given their statements. What exactly would we be expecting the FBI to go off of now? Beyond that, I do not believe the WhiteHouse has restrained the FBI in this regard - the allegation isn't a Federal crime and the lack of investigatable facts leaves them unable to do the equivalent of a deep background check. 

La Rose. 

Well, they could talk to former classmates and friends of the alleged victim to see what, if anything, she told them at the time.  They could talk to classmates and associates of victim and accused to gather any other useful background info.  They can interview both Ford and Kavanaugh as well.  Ford wants a formal investigative process so that this is handled properly, rather than a circus sideshow that a hearing with just the two of them would be.   

[薔薇語]

22 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

Well, they could talk to former classmates and friends of the alleged victim to see what, if anything, she told them at the time.  They could talk to classmates and associates of victim and accused to gather any other useful background info.  They can interview both Ford and Kavanaugh as well.  Ford wants a formal investigative process so that this is handled properly, rather than a circus sideshow that a hearing with just the two of them would be.   

I can understand that. I wonder, though, how possible is this and would it not appear to be more a fishing expedition by the FBI based on little investigatable facts, especially now that everything has gone public? They could go back and interview everyone in her and his school for their years and the years prior and post about any possible impropriety, but given they don't know details on the event, would this not make such investigations neigh impossible? How many "I don't know anything about this alleged event" responses should they be collecting before calling it quits? If, on the other hand, Prof Ford offered up any investigatable claims, every news agency and private eye in the nation would be snooping around trying to uncover the story and the FBI would hardly be needed - take note that it took essentially no time for a classmate of Prof Ford's FB post affirming the incident to go viral - a claim that was recanted almost as fast. I wonder if it was this precise lack of investigatable claims that prevented WaPo from investigating the claims weeks ago when they got them? 

 

La Rose. 

[Pattern Ghost]

I heard on the radio this morning, that Ford doesn't want the FBI to do a criminal investigation, but to include the investigation of the event in the background investigation they've already done, which is normal for SCOTUS candidates.

[csyphrett]

Newspapers are saying that Kavanuagh's friend participated in attacking drunk girls with a group of boys. Grassley is like we need to get this serial rapist on the bench and some of his fellow republicans and democrats are like slow your roll, Chuck.

CES 

[Old Man]

I'm willing to bet money that the GOP rams his nom through regardless, no matter how many girls he assaulted.  I don't even think a sex tape would stop it.

[薔薇語]

I think people are confusing allegations with statements of facts at the moment. And I am not sure characterizing folks as wanting 'to get this serial rapist on the bench' are accurate or helpful. 

 

At the moment we have an alligation of attempted sexual assault which lacks any particular investigatable facts and another allegations of indecent exposure by a woman who by her own admission was too drunk to clearly recall who it was and like the former is very hazy on the investigatable facts. 

 

These are currently claims no stronger than many of the allegations against the Clinton Family that we normally snear disapprovingly at. So on that basis, I think it is best practices for us to not rush to destroy someone until more evidence can come forward to clear things. 

 

La Rose.  

Edited September 24, 2018 by 薔薇語
typos

[Old Man]

Seems to me that if we were interested in finding verifiable facts one way or the other, we’d allow the FBI to conduct an investigation. To do otherwise logically concedes that Kavanaugh is either guilty or has something else to hide. 

[薔薇語]

I don't think anyone is preventing the FBI or anyone else from investigating. The FBI has taken the info the Senator passed along at the 11th hour. At this point all they can do is take statements - statements that both parties have already made publically available. For Prof. Ford's part there don't seem to be any investigatable facts. The FBI nor anyone else knows where the alleged activity took place, what day, and who else was present and could otherwise confirm or deny the activity alleged. Not knowing even that basic information we can't even try and get an alibi from the Judge as he and we do not know when the activity took place in order to confirm where the Judge, 36 years ago, was indeed at. 

 

It is a serious claim for Prof Ford to make. It deserves to not be batted around between cries of absolute affirmation and gospel nor merely dismissed. 

 

If someone were to accuse you, OldMan, of sexual assault 30 years ago but without naming the actual time, place, or other potential witnesses, you and we would have every right and duty to request investigatable facts before we tried to hang you out to dry. The same goes for the Judge. 

 

And I worry about the ill fated path of claims asserted with 'unless you have something to hide.' That phrasing has had a poor track record for justice. 

 

La Rose. 

[csyphrett]

Kavanaugh has said he wasnt there, but he has also said he didn't know that his boss was committing sexual harassment  and getting impeached a much shorter time ago. The senator from Hawaii is why are you committing perjury.That's on top of these other complaints that have come out. Grassley knew a week ago before Ford even said anything that Kavanaugh had waved his penis in another woman's face, and Judge's girlfriend coming out and saying that Judge had told her about these rapes they used to do and Kavanaugh was involved in it.

 

There is not going to be an FBI investigation into this because these are not federal crimes. The FBI is not going to do crap, because it isn't its job to do anything. 

 

What's going to happen is Grassley is going to try to get enough votes  to push this out of committee and hope that the Republicans all stand up for this guy even though Collins and Murkowski and all the democrats are like no already. 

[薔薇語]

"Kavanaugh has said he wasnt there, but he has also said he didn't know that his boss was committing sexual harassment  and getting impeached a much shorter time ago. The senator from Hawaii is why are you committing perjury.That's on top of these other complaints that have come out. Grassley knew a week ago before Ford even said anything that Kavanaugh had waved his penis in another woman's face, and Judge's girlfriend coming out and saying that Judge had told her about these rapes they used to do and Kavanaugh was involved in it."

 

Could you do me the favor of sourcing these claims? 

 

La Rose. 

[Pattern Ghost]

According to this NBC article:

 

When the FBI conducts a background investigation of a presidential nominee, it vacuums up all kinds of information about the nominee, including claims from people interviewed by agents, and dumps it into the file. It does not, however, investigate whether or not derogatory information is true — unless it's asked to follow up by the White House. Several current and former Justice Department and FBI officials say this has always been the practice, and there is actually a longstanding formal memorandum of understanding between DOJ and the White House that specifies these limits.

 

It appears that the role of the FBI is to gather information, but not to look into it unless requested to do so by the White House. If this is true, then expect Kavanaugh's nomination to be ramrodded through. Without an investigation, it's a he-said, she-said case, and they'll dismiss it as such. I don't think this is going to get any traction unless a conga line of women line up with allegations. Something tells me the Republicans aren't going to wait for any such line to form.

[csyphrett]

3 hours ago, 薔薇語 said:

"Kavanaugh has said he wasnt there, but he has also said he didn't know that his boss was committing sexual harassment  and getting impeached a much shorter time ago. The senator from Hawaii is why are you committing perjury.That's on top of these other complaints that have come out. Grassley knew a week ago before Ford even said anything that Kavanaugh had waved his penis in another woman's face, and Judge's girlfriend coming out and saying that Judge had told her about these rapes they used to do and Kavanaugh was involved in it."

 

Could you do me the favor of sourcing these claims? 

 

La Rose. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=kavanaugh+news&oq=kavanaugh+&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j69i60j0j69i60l2j0.7483j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Sociotard]

And Rod Rosenstein is resigning. Well Crap.

[DShomshak]

The Sep. 15, 2018 issue of The Economist has an interesting article on Kavanaugh's nomination, with a bit of Supreme Court history and where political struggles over the SC could go from here.

 

The article notes that the SC has never really been an impartial arbiter; it's nothing new for court majorities to follow definite political programs. In the first decades of the 20th century, a conservative (or at least pro-business) SC struck down minimum wage laws and New Deal programs. It backed down and reversed earlier rulings only after Roosevelt threatened to "pack the court" by appointing new justices sympathetic to his program -- nine justices is only tradition, the Constitution doesn't set a number. Later the Warren court swung the other way, becoming activist on the Left. Kavanaugh's seating (there is really no way the Dems can stop it) likely marks a return to the SC of a century ago, for decades to come.

 

Unless... Unless the next time Democrats hold both the White House and the Senate, they take a cue from Roosevelt and pack the court to swing the majority the other way. This would of course prompt Republicans to do the same once they had control.

 

Which leads to a final dismaying thought: As the Supreme Court becomes not merely ideological, but blatantly partisan, it is likely that some other organ of government will simply refuse to follow a ruling. Once someone says the court itself is not legitimate, well, the republic is in a pickle. More than it is already.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Old Man]

8 hours ago, 薔薇語 said:

If someone were to accuse you, OldMan, of sexual assault 30 years ago but without naming the actual time, place, or other potential witnesses, you and we would have every right and duty to request investigatable facts before we tried to hang you out to dry. The same goes for the Judge.

 

And I would immediately and loudly demand full investigations by any LEOs with jurisdiction, particularly the FBI, to find those investigatable facts.  Rather than having my senate and white house buddies hide my record and my past misdeeds.  Because if I were being nominated to the SCOTMFUS, I'd want to be thoroughly cleared of charges that I spent my high school years at rape parties.

[archer]

11 hours ago, Old Man said:

Seems to me that if we were interested in finding verifiable facts one way or the other, we’d allow the FBI to conduct an investigation. To do otherwise logically concedes that Kavanaugh is either guilty or has something else to hide. 

 

No, it does not "logically concede" that.

[Old Man]

Please elaborate.  If Kavanaugh isn't a rapist, why isn't he the one asking for an investigation?

[archer]

1 minute ago, Old Man said:

Please elaborate. 

 

Please elaborate yourself first and show demonstrate how that not commanding the FBI to investigate an allegation that multiple news sources refused to publish due to lack of evidence is somehow "logically conceding" that the accusation is true.

 

You are the one making the statement so you are the one who has to prove your statement to be somehow valid.