Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Iuz the Evil]

5 hours ago, archer said:

 

There's no requirement anywhere to release your income tax filings for the public to look over.

 

You have to fill out financial disclosure statements if you are an elected federal official or high enough in the executive branch. Some of those people get in trouble from time to time for not being thorough enough on those.

 

You have to fill out financial disclosure statements if you are a candidate for federal office.

 

All those disclosures become available to the public.

 

But there's no obligation to release your income tax statements to the public, whether you are a candidate or an elected official. If you want that to become a requirement, you need to talk to your congressman and senators about passing a law to require it.

 

I don't respect this president or the motives he might have had for refusing to release his income taxes for public scrutiny. But he is well within his rights to refuse to do so just as I was within my rights to campaign against him from July 31, 2015 until around June 2017.

Yes, and the press would then be within their rights to call him out for a lower standard of transparency than his adversaries or years of established precedent. The law is the floor of ethical public service, not the ceiling.

[Lord Liaden]

3 hours ago, 薔薇語 said:

It is less about the word choice but the view folks choosing it are expressing. 

Lord Liaden, do you think being "focused on academics and athletics, going to church..." precludes one from also drinking? Do you think someone who drinks is definitionally incapable of being "focused on academics" etc? Are these mutually exclusive in your mind? If so, why so? If not, then perhaps you can start to understand where I am coming from. Does drinking sully one's character? No. 
 

 

Rose, I explicitly made the point of saying that his drinking was not the issue. None of his remarks that I quoted had anything to do with drinking. Evidence of Kavanaugh's aggressive behavior toward women is part of an overall pattern at odds with his remarks, and much more telling within the context of the current proceedings. Excessive drinking is only one aspect of his pattern. With respect, the one who keeps making that the point of contention most often, is you.

[Greywind]

Kavanaugh nomination 11-10 along party lines. Confirmation vote yet to come.

[Old Man]

Tomorrow.  I expect no surprises then either.

[csyphrett]

They're taking a week off to let the FBI talk to some people.  Flake and Murkowski are like we'll vote no if we don't get this. A bunch of democrats are already saying the guy is a perjurer and they are declared no.

 

Also some of the news people pointed out that Kav's calendar lines up with Ford's testimony more than his.

CES  

[Pariah]

18 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

The whole "this is a left wing smear job done against me at the last minute as revenge for Clinton losing" rant.  And then he topped it off by showing a complete lack of judicial temperament under questioning by Democratic senators. 

 

Heh. Donald Trump was elected almost two full years ago, and the GOP still can't come up with a better platform/strategy than "Blame the Clintons".

 

It's sad, really.

[Cygnia]

Congressional Democrats’ lawsuit alleging Trump’s private business is violating the Constitution can proceed, federal judge rules

[薔薇語]

6 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

Rose, I explicitly made the point of saying that his drinking was not the issue. None of his remarks that I quoted had anything to do with drinking.

 

You said "The point raised by the above is not whether he drank or not, not even how much, or whether or not that's acceptable. The point, per evidence from multiple other people who knew him at that time, is that Kavanaugh misrepresented his conduct in the context of determining his fitness for one of the highest offices in the country."

 

You said the issue is he misrepresented himself after discussing his drinking. The implication is that he misrepresented his drinking. I am saying that doesn't seem to be the case. If you mean aomething else, it wasn't expressed as well as I think you wished it to be. The fact that 'saint' and 'exemplary' are being used as stand-ins for not very well expressed ideas that don't seem grounded in statements by the judge only adds to the issue. 

 

"Evidence of Kavanaugh's aggressive behavior toward women is part of an overall pattern at odds with his remarks, and much more telling within the context of the current proceedings".

 

You say "evidence" here when I am not sure that is an apt description. What exactly are you referencing as the evidence? Perhaps I am missing something. If it is the allegations as they stand now, that seems to require prior belief in their veracity to be claimed as evidence. If it is something elae, I am curious what.

 

La Rose. 

 

 

[Ternaugh]

8 minutes ago, 薔薇語 said:

 

You said "The point raised by the above is not whether he drank or not, not even how much, or whether or not that's acceptable. The point, per evidence from multiple other people who knew him at that time, is that Kavanaugh misrepresented his conduct in the context of determining his fitness for one of the highest offices in the country."

 

You said the issue is he misrepresented himself after discussing his drinking. The implication is that he misrepresented his drinking. I am saying that doesn't seem to be the case. If you mean aomething else, it wasn't expressed as well as I think you wished it to be. The fact that 'saint' and exemplary are being used as standins for not very well expressed ideas that don't seem grounded in statements by the judge only adds to the issue. 

 

"Evidence of Kavanaugh's aggressive behavior toward women is part of an overall pattern at odds with his remarks, and much more telling within the context of the current proceedings".

 

You say "evidence" here when I am not sure that is an apt description. What exactly are you referencing as the evidence? Perhaps I am missing something. If it is the allegations as they stand now, that seems to require prior belief in their veracity to be claimed as evidence. If it is something elae, I am curious what.

 

La Rose. 

 

 

 

Kavanaugh’s alcohol usage patterns, and that of his friends at the time are pretty well documented by multiple people that knew him, including Mr. Judge, who wrote about his own misuse of alcohol and subsequent blackouts in his memoir. Mr. Judge, it should be noted, has refused to testify in front of the committee, and is apparently hiding out to avoid a subpoena to appear.

 

Breaking news is that Trump has ordered the FBI to investigate the sex assault allegations, which will probably mean that the FBI will need to address that alcohol use as part of the investigation. Depending on what they find, it might be that Kavanaugh’s biggest risk is with the possibility of perjury in his testimony. We will, of course, need to wait and see what the FBI investigation turns up.

[megaplayboy]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-kavanaugh-ford-fbi-clues-20180928-story.html?outputType=amp&__twitter_impression=true

[薔薇語]

A fair summation of the hearing by DeFranco.

 

 

 

 

La Rose. 

[Cygnia]

https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/9/27/17906644/sixteen-candles-rape-culture-1980s-brett-kavanaugh#

[Lord Liaden]

2 hours ago, 薔薇語 said:

 

You said "The point raised by the above is not whether he drank or not, not even how much, or whether or not that's acceptable. The point, per evidence from multiple other people who knew him at that time, is that Kavanaugh misrepresented his conduct in the context of determining his fitness for one of the highest offices in the country."

 

You said the issue is he misrepresented himself after discussing his drinking. The implication is that he misrepresented his drinking. I am saying that doesn't seem to be the case. If you mean aomething else, it wasn't expressed as well as I think you wished it to be. The fact that 'saint' and 'exemplary' are being used as stand-ins for not very well expressed ideas that don't seem grounded in statements by the judge only adds to the issue. 

 

"Evidence of Kavanaugh's aggressive behavior toward women is part of an overall pattern at odds with his remarks, and much more telling within the context of the current proceedings".

 

You say "evidence" here when I am not sure that is an apt description. What exactly are you referencing as the evidence? Perhaps I am missing something. If it is the allegations as they stand now, that seems to require prior belief in their veracity to be claimed as evidence. If it is something elae, I am curious what.

 

La Rose. 

 

 

 

Since I hate the tit-for-tat death spirals that Internet debates often turn into, this will be the last time I address these points. It isn't my goal to try to change anyone's mind, merely to bring up issues for consideration.

 

I don't know how to more clearly state that Kavanaugh's drinking was not the key issue, than to say that it wasn't, and then point out the much more relevant issues, which is what I did. As I believe I mentioned before on this thread, "evidence" does not have to be physical items or the result of tests. By legal definition, a person's testimony is evidence. Publicly recorded statements by people are evidence. Eye-witness accounts are evidence. All of which have been raised during these hearings.

 

I will now move on, as the political news of the world has also done.

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

2 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

 

Kavanaugh’s alcohol usage patterns, and that of his friends at the time are pretty well documented by multiple people that knew him, including Mr. Judge, who wrote about his own misuse of alcohol and subsequent blackouts in his memoir. Mr. Judge, it should be noted, has refused to testify in front of the committee, and is apparently hiding out to avoid a subpoena to appear.

 

Breaking news is that Trump has ordered the FBI to investigate the sex assault allegations, which will probably mean that the FBI will need to address that alcohol use as part of the investigation. Depending on what they find, it might be that Kavanaugh’s biggest risk is with the possibility of perjury in his testimony. We will, of course, need to wait and see what the FBI investigation turns up.

 

Last word I heard in a national news broadcast (Global Television news here in Canada) is that Judge is willing to cooperate with an investigation, but only if it's confidential. I'm not sure how that could work given the circumstances.

 

This week-long FBI investigation is the minimum that parties concerned about the course of the confirmation hearings to date have been asking for. I've heard Republican strategists express concern over taking an even bigger hit from voters, particularly women, in the mid-term congressional elections, if they're seen to be ramming Kavanaugh's appointment through without due diligence. I also have to wonder if Trump was disconcerted that even his usual cheering section at Fox News was praising Dr. Ford's courage and proclaiming her testimony highly credible.

[Old Man]

 

If only the GOP had hired Jules Winnfield to cross examine Brett Kavanaugh

[Badger]

No problem with the FBI investigation, though I doubt much can be made out of it.  The last second means to this seems a little shady but, hey DC, nothing special to see there.

 

But, one part of this has been p!ssing me off.  How people were "horrified" that Kavanagh dared to be "angry" over being accused of rape.  For any normal human, you damn right you would be.  Under the circumstances, I an disturbed by his restraint.   In the same situation, I might have to carted in Hannibal Lecter-style, with someone on the ready with tranquilizer darts.  And even in the aftermath, , my singular life goal would turn into resolving to outlive everyone involved just so in my old age, I could go and urinate on their gravestone.  (Obviously, my lack of tactfulness would discredit me from the Supreme Court .  And while I might be playing this to absurdity.  I can say one thing definitely is I wouldn't have been even a 1/10th as calm-but I am apparently immune to political tact, for better or worse)

 

But, to the heart of the matter, if you don't assume an accused rapist isn't guilty until proven guilty, this should be easy to understand.  I find it quite disturbing and a clear sign of how consumed with political hatred EVERYONE has become to think one accused of rape shouldn't be angry.   The heinous nature of rape and their accusations if possible requires triple checking data and avoiding the jump to conclusion*.  The MeToo movement has made it, intentional or not, no big deal to accuse a man, any man of rape.  And perfectly justifiable if only for the fact they were born with the dreaded Y mark on their genetic coding.

 

In any case, I'm done with this.  This saga hasn't been very conclusive, but quite enlightening.  ANd to point all of this out,  condemns me so be it.

 

*I know in cases in the past I have rushed to judgement myself,  and may in fact make the same mistake again.   But, it is the wrong thing to do, especially given the situation as it stands currently at this moment.

 

[Lord Liaden]

I can see your point about Kavanaugh's reaction. But what was striking to me, and what may have made an impact on the viewing public, was the contrast between his demeanor and Ford's. While Ford was clearly very emotional (understandably), she was coherent, articulate, and answered every question clearly and forthrightly. While Kavanaugh's responses to questions were rambling, evasive, accusatory, and repetitive. Remember that this person with that thought process is in consideration to be entrusted with assessing the most serious legal issues facing the United States for many years to come.

 

Most worrisome to me was Kavanaugh's opening statement, in which he literally blamed an alliance of Democrats and "leftists" for conspiring to smear his good name. That's the kind of conspiracy-theory rhetoric we get a lot from arch-conservatives in America today, which makes me wonder what degree of bias he'll actually bring with him to the bench, particularly toward any future legislation which may be crafted by those same Democrats he blames for his current woes.

[Badger]

Yeah, I do have some problems with some of what you mentioned.  I do feel the anger card in itself a separate issue, and I needed to address it.  In itself, I see nothing wrong with anger over being accused of a serious crime, and in fact expect it.  ANd I get a little appalled that that got focused on as much as it did.  (I probably got guilty of rambling in my earlier post, I tend to do that on serious matters in an effort to communicate every thought, and also going into the absurd to over make a point)

 

A lot of my opinions will end up hinging on the 3 witnesses.  1v1 is always sketchy and usually 50/50 on who to trust, but if all 3 do side with Kavanagh,  I cant find it in me to condemn and sole hearsay, regardless of how I find her credibility or not.  THe things you also mentioned is a whole other thing that each person has to decide on for themselves (especially ones who actually vote on this)

 

I am also not kidding myself, that 90-95 percent of the Senate immediately decided his guilt or innocence upon hearing the charge.  But, that goes into the pathetic nature of our politics than anything else.  (and left wing conspiracies are about as credible as right wing conspiracies for me)

 

[archer]

Shocked that Trump would allow an FBI investigation.

 

Would be even more shocked if he hasn't stacked the deck in some manner (beyond just the time limit) in order to come to some predetermined conclusion, whether that's to throw Kavanaugh under the bus like he has many others or whether it is to find Kavanaugh is perfect example of flawless humanity (in the same manner in which Trump found a doctor to vouch for Trump's own perfect health).

[Lord Liaden]

Hard to see how Trump could influence the FBI's investigation once the case has been handed to them. They don't answer to the President in terms of how they do their jobs. My fear is that findings too critical of Kavanaugh could fuel more accusations of anti-conservative bias in the agency, which I'm sure Trump would be only too happy to stoke.

[Old Man]

Trump has directed the FBI to avoid any investigation of:

 

- Kavanaugh’s drinking

- Swetnick’s allegations

- Witnesses other than Kavanaugh and Prof. Ford

 

Such an “investigation” would accomplish nothing other than to allow the GOP to pretend one has been conducted. 

[Lord Liaden]

Could you give the source of that information, Old Man? Another of Kavanaugh's accusers in  a separate incident, Deborah Ramirez, has already been contacted by the FBI, according to her attorney. https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/29/politics/kavanaugh-fbi-background-investigation/index.html

[Doc Shadow]

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/i-knew-brett-kavanaugh-during-his-years-republican-operative-don-ncna907391

[Old Man]

A helpful infographic to show the relative veracity between Kavanaugh and Prof. Ford during their interviews

[Lord Liaden]

If this was a trial, there's no doubt Dr. Ford was a more convincing witness than Judge Kavanaugh. But this proceeding will be settled by political motivation.

 

Politically, though, the Republicans are in a no-win situation by this point. If they confirm Kavanaugh they risk alienating more women voters ahead of the mid-term elections. If they don't confirm they risk alienating their base supporters.

 

Everyone bungled this process: Pres. Trump for nominating a man who publicly agrees with him about presidential powers and privileges; Judge Kavanaugh for glossing over and then denying his less-than-stellar youth, rather than taking ownership of it and expressing regret; and Republican senators for being seen to try to push Kavanaugh through the vetting process in spite of concerns being raised.