Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Why iwould side that's winning consistently consider compromise?  Besides, the Dems have held the Senate for much of that period.

 

I think the problem has been so much split government, creating such a strong tendency to squelch action.  Can't give the other guys credit for anything!  Since Reagan, 97th Congress, the only sessions where the same party held the Senate, House, and White House...103rd,  107-109 under Bush Senior, 111 (Obama's election...atter which the Republicans went even further right to galvanize those voters)...and right now.  Assuming you consider Trump a Republican.  I can think of many other terms for him.

 

But it's also just gotten fundamentally fractious.  Anything that can be done to impede progress...will be, or at least BLOODY darn close.  

 

And the other change is the speed of retaliation.  Anyone remember the sci fi show Max Headroom?  It was other things, but a short-lived TV show.  The point I want to bring up is, the series used a TV station as its main venue.  Ratings were tracked literally minute by minute...and if they slipped for too many minutes...YANK!!!! Pull a bit, change shows, whatever.  Kneejerk reaction taken to its limits.  Well, with social media...we're not that far away.  Don't toe the line, and you will get RIPPED!!!! within hours.  Conformalist pressure.....not to your constituents, but to positions taken by the party...is immense.

 

 

You misread me. The side that begins to lose consistently will be forced to make adjustments in its sales pitch, target audience, substantive policy proposals and, yes, tactics.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Recent NYTimes article by David Brooks. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/opinion/kavanaugh-hearing-partisan-national-disgrace.html

"Commentators and others may have acknowledged uncertainty on these questions for about 2.5 seconds, but then they took sides. If they couldn’t take sides based on the original evidence, they found new reasons to confirm their previous positions. Kavanaugh is too angry and dishonest. He drank beer and threw ice while in college. With tribal warfare all around, uncertainty is the one state you are not permitted to be in.

 

This, of course, led to an upsurge in base mobilization. Persuasion is no longer an important part of public conversation. Public statements are meant to mobilize your mob. Senator Cory Booker can’t just sort through the evidence. He has to get Spartacus-like histrionic in order to whip Democrats toward his presidential candidacy. Kavanaugh can’t just dispassionately try to disprove the allegations made against him. Instead, he gets furious and stokes up culture war rage in order to fire up the Republican base.

 

This leads to an epidemic of bigotry. Bigotry involves creating a stereotype about a disfavored group and then applying that stereotype to an individual you’ve never met. It was bigotry against Jews that got Alfred Dreyfus convicted in 1894. It was bigotry against young black males that got the Central Park Five convicted in 1990. It was bigotry against preppy lacrosse players that led to the bogus Duke lacrosse scandal.

 

This past month we’ve seen thousands of people convinced that they know how Kavanaugh behaved because they know how “privileged” people behave. We’ve seen thousands of people lining up behind Kavanaugh because they know that there’s this vicious thing called “the Left,” which hates them."

 

La Rose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Win.  At all costs.

Win.  No matter what the cost.

Win.  Win.  Win.

 

IMO all exacerbated by extremes in deliberately divisive leadership (Trump) or weak, ineffectual leadership (Carter) which pushes both sides further and further apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 薔薇語 said:

A Recent NYTimes article by David Brooks. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/opinion/kavanaugh-hearing-partisan-national-disgrace.html

"Commentators and others may have acknowledged uncertainty on these questions for about 2.5 seconds, but then they took sides. If they couldn’t take sides based on the original evidence, they found new reasons to confirm their previous positions. Kavanaugh is too angry and dishonest. He drank beer and threw ice while in college. With tribal warfare all around, uncertainty is the one state you are not permitted to be in.

 

This, of course, led to an upsurge in base mobilization. Persuasion is no longer an important part of public conversation. Public statements are meant to mobilize your mob. Senator Cory Booker can’t just sort through the evidence. He has to get Spartacus-like histrionic in order to whip Democrats toward his presidential candidacy. Kavanaugh can’t just dispassionately try to disprove the allegations made against him. Instead, he gets furious and stokes up culture war rage in order to fire up the Republican base.

 

This leads to an epidemic of bigotry. Bigotry involves creating a stereotype about a disfavored group and then applying that stereotype to an individual you’ve never met. It was bigotry against Jews that got Alfred Dreyfus convicted in 1894. It was bigotry against young black males that got the Central Park Five convicted in 1990. It was bigotry against preppy lacrosse players that led to the bogus Duke lacrosse scandal.

 

This past month we’ve seen thousands of people convinced that they know how Kavanaugh behaved because they know how “privileged” people behave. We’ve seen thousands of people lining up behind Kavanaugh because they know that there’s this vicious thing called “the Left,” which hates them."

 

La Rose. 

Sorry, Kav committed perjury. He won't be called on it because Chuck Grassley would gnaw off his own arm than admit that he should vote no and get another guy. This guy comes across as an idiot.

CES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night's episode of the public radio program 1A gave a history of political polarization. The historian interviewed argues that this didn't just happen. Republican leaders deliberately stoked culture war grievance to win elections. Newt Gingrich proved it worked: Under his leadership, Republicans took the House for the first time in decades. Pat Buchanan worked out the playbook of saying that Dems weren't just people with different opinions but enemies of God out to destroy all that was patriotic and good. And it's worked for them.

 

Sen. Lindsay Graham, following Obama's victory in 2008, joined many Republicans in saying they needed a new strategy because "We can't make angry white men fast enough." Mitch McConnel and Donald Trump have proved he was wrong and he's back with the program.

 

Saying they fought monsters, the Republican leadership has become monsters, and taught their base to be the same. Now they are trapped in their own culture war. Dems, fighting back, have become monsters too. They aren't as bad, though, because they are less competent and organized. Still, this does not end well. I don't think anyone has any way left to back down. The demographics are moving inexorably against conservatives/Republicans... unless they lock in so many advantages that elections cease to matter. But geography works against Democrats as their base concentrates in big cities and culturally moves away from the rest of the population.

 

The only hope I see is with the Municipals that the Fallowes' described in Our Towns. If they organized, they might have enough clout to bring the parties to heel and return government to practical tasks.

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

On 9/29/2018 at 1:20 PM, Lord Liadan said:

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.

 

 

 

https://shareblue.com/former-fbi-special-agent-kavanaugh-probe-not-authentic/

 

A former FBI special agent in an interview with MSNBC’s Hallie Jackson:

 

“Dr. Ford’s attorney says because she’s not on this list … this can’t be called an investigation; [that] the FBI was not actually seeking the truth,” Jackson said. “So John, do you agree? Is this a comprehensive investigation or not?”

 

“I actually agree that really this does not fall under the definition of a real, authentic FBI investigation,” Mindermann replied, noting that the restrictions imposed by Republicans eliminated “a vast majority of people who could have provided corroborating evidence.” He added, “I’ve done these and I’ve supervised these — in these investigations, you encourage your agents to go out, cover all bases, run out all leads, develop that comprehensive look so that whoever is looking at this is well versed and can make that judgment call.”

 

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/30/1800226/-NBC-Despite-Trump-s-tweet-limits-on-FBI-s-Kavanaugh-investigation-remain

 

The FBI has received no new instructions from the White House about how to proceed with its weeklong investigation of sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a senior U.S. official and another source familiar with the matter tell NBC News.

According to the sources, the president’s Saturday night tweet saying he wants the FBI to interview whoever agents deem appropriate has not changed the limits imposed by the White House counsel’s office on the FBI investigation — including a specific witness list that does not include Julie Swetnick, who has accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in high school.

Also not on the list, the sources say, are former classmates who have contradicted Kavanaugh’s account of his college alcohol consumption, instead describing him as a frequent, heavy drinker. The FBI is also not authorized to interview high school classmates who could shed light on what some people have called untruths in Kavanaugh’s Senate Judiciary Committee testimony about alleged sexual references in his high school yearbook.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, csyphrett said:

Sorry, Kav committed perjury. He won't be called on it because Chuck Grassley would gnaw off his own arm than admit that he should vote no and get another guy. This guy comes across as an idiot.

CES

 

What are you saying he committed purjury on? What were his words and what was the actual truth of the matter? 

 

La Rose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DShomshak said:

Last night's episode of the public radio program 1A gave a history of political polarization. The historian interviewed argues that this didn't just happen. Republican leaders deliberately stoked culture war grievance to win elections. Newt Gingrich proved it worked: Under his leadership, Republicans took the House for the first time in decades. Pat Buchanan worked out the playbook of saying that Dems weren't just people with different opinions but enemies of God out to destroy all that was patriotic and good. And it's worked for them.

 

Sen. Lindsay Graham, following Obama's victory in 2008, joined many Republicans in saying they needed a new strategy because "We can't make angry white men fast enough." Mitch McConnel and Donald Trump have proved he was wrong and he's back with the program.

 

Saying they fought monsters, the Republican leadership has become monsters, and taught their base to be the same. Now they are trapped in their own culture war. Dems, fighting back, have become monsters too. They aren't as bad, though, because they are less competent and organized. Still, this does not end well. I don't think anyone has any way left to back down. The demographics are moving inexorably against conservatives/Republicans... unless they lock in so many advantages that elections cease to matter. But geography works against Democrats as their base concentrates in big cities and culturally moves away from the rest of the population.

 

The only hope I see is with the Municipals that the Fallowes' described in Our Towns. If they organized, they might have enough clout to bring the parties to heel and return government to practical tasks.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

I am not so sure it is as cut and dry as you suggest. This does remind me of a popular-ish saying:

 

'When you disagree with a conservative, they think you're an idiot. When you disagree with a liberal, they think you're evil.'

 

From personal experience, I nor my frienss have ever been called worse things than when we have disagreed with a left leaning individual. 

 

This isn't to say the above isn't the case. Folks on the right, especially the religious right, have made absolutely despicable comments about our fellow citizens. We should keep this in mind but in doing so not forget other examples. 

 

La Rose. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 薔薇語 said:

 

What are you saying he committed perjury on? What were his words and what was the actual truth of the matter? 

 

La Rose. 

 

Yeah, you have to have an actual statement or statements and proof that the statements were perjury. We aren't at that point of having enough evidence yet.

 

Democrats have promised that if they get the majority in the mid-term elections that they'll conduct a real investigation and nail Kavanaugh for perjury if they can. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/us/politics/kavanaugh-house-investigation.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the FBI investigation, who else should have been talk to regarding the Prof Ford allegation? 

 

Prof Ford has made her statements and is still in contact with Senator Grassly regarding her reported evidence that she is unwilling to turn over. Are we expecting her to suddenly change her statements and commit purjury? 

 

The Judge has made his statements under oath. Are we expecting him to suddenly change and commit purjury? 

 

Everyone we have been lead to believe to be at the party has been talked to and denied knowledge of the allegations. What other witnesses do we reasonably expect?

 

The Ramirez allegations has fallen apart by the NewYorker's own doing. She was never a particularly reliable source and the folks pushing some hearsay claims had their originating source flattly deny it. 

 

And Pizza Gate 2.0, aka Avenatti's case never had merit. 

 

With respect to the allegation of sexual misconduct, which witness are we lacking? 

 

La Rose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the folks who wasn't questioned by the FBI, but wanted to be was his freshman college roommate, and he's publicly made the statement that Kavanaugh lied under oath about his drinking during that time and what certain phrases meant in his yearbook:

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-college-roommate-jamie-roche.html

 

I'll leave it to the reader to find more examples, which are plentiful.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, archer said:

 

Yeah, you have to have an actual statement or statements and proof that the statements were perjury. We aren't at that point of having enough evidence yet.

 

Democrats have promised that if they get the majority in the mid-term elections that they'll conduct a real investigation and nail Kavanaugh for perjury if they can. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/us/politics/kavanaugh-house-investigation.html

Ah. Benghazi 2.0. How relieving it would be to have another of those. 

 

La Rose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ternaugh said:

One of the folks who wasn't questioned by the FBI, but wanted to be was his freshman college roommate, and he's publicly made the statement that Kavanaugh lied under oath about his drinking during that time and what certain phrases meant in his yearbook:

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-college-roommate-jamie-roche.html

 

I'll leave it to the reader to find more examples, which are plentiful.

 

 

"I do not know if Brett attacked Christine Blasey Ford in high school or if he sexually humiliated Debbie in front of a group of people she thought were her friends. "

 

So he has no info regarding the actually important sexual misconduct allegations. 

 

"Judge Kavanaugh seemed to suggest that my account was not credible because “it was a contentious situation” where I “did not like” the third suitemate. He then referenced a prank I pulled on the third suitemate and some redacted portion of his closed-door questioning by Senate Judiciary Committee staff. It’s true that I played a prank on the third roommate. We were not close. But that relationship has no bearing on my ability to observe Kavanaugh’s behavior then and to describe it now."

 

He had an antagonistic relationship with the judge for a lobg time. 

 

So, his big issue he can give info on is that perhaps the judge drank to black out status. Nevermind that is a wholly subjective sense and the conversation above regarding the very subjective nature of 'too much' when regarding acceptable levels of drinking. 

 

As to the yearbook points, am I a bit confused here? Wasn't the yearbook from Highschool and this man is a college roommate. That leads me to put less faith in that account and especially in light of otger highschool friends supporting the Judge's assessments. 

 

So where does that leave us? Exactly where we started. This person could provide no witness knowledge of the real issue of sexual assault and has nothing substantial to say about anything else. 

 

 

So who is the witness we want interviewed regarding the sexual assault case that we haven't seen yet? 

 

La Rose. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 薔薇語 said:

As to the FBI investigation, who else should have been talk to regarding the Prof Ford allegation? 

 

Prof Ford has made her statements and is still in contact with Senator Grassly regarding her reported evidence that she is unwilling to turn over. Are we expecting her to suddenly change her statements and commit purjury? 

 

The Judge has made his statements under oath. Are we expecting him to suddenly change and commit purjury? 

 

Everyone we have been lead to believe to be at the party has been talked to and denied knowledge of the allegations. What other witnesses do we reasonably expect?

 

The Ramirez allegations has fallen apart by the NewYorker's own doing. She was never a particularly reliable source and the folks pushing some hearsay claims had their originating source flattly deny it. 

 

And Pizza Gate 2.0, aka Avenatti's case never had merit. 

 

With respect to the allegation of sexual misconduct, which witness are we lacking? 

 

La Rose. 

 

The point of conducting an investigation is to talk to someone, listen to what they say, then they point you to another person who might (or might not) have relevant information.

 

The person who actually has the information you need to break an investigation open can be the third or fourth person in the chain of people the investigator speaks to.

 

In this case, however, the FBI has been given a certain list of people who they can speak to and are not allowed to interview anyone else. If one of those people they interview says, "Hey, you really need to speak to Joe because he knows all about it", the investigators aren't allowed to speak to Joe because he isn't on the list.

 

You can't do a real investigation if the investigators aren't allowed to use common investigative techniques like talking to whoever they think they need to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that my soon to be six year old niece could pick up on Kavanaugh lying his butt off on the sexual slang terms being drinking games just from his body language and demeanor. It's pretty clear he perjured himself just with those statements. He was clearly evasive about his college behavior, which seems ripped right of out of an 80's movie.

 

Now, whether he should be charged, or blocked from his nomination for trying to save face by lying under oath is something that could be debated. But I don't see how anyone can really look at his testimony and think he was being anything but evasive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, archer said:

In this case, however, the FBI has been given a certain list of people who they can speak to and are not allowed to interview anyone else. If one of those people they interview says, "Hey, you really need to speak to Joe because he knows all about it", the investigators aren't allowed to speak to Joe because he isn't on the list.

 

 

Who is the Joe with relevant info here? Has anyone in this proceeding said they have relevant info to the sexual assault we haven't heard? It doesn't Seem any of those people wanting to be interviewed are such a person. 

 

Perhaps there is a Jack who knows of a John? That was supposed to be the case with Ramirez until TheNewYorker showes that to be untrue. So who else is like that that we haven't heard from? It doesn't seem any of the 40 are either Johns or Jacks. 

 

At some point things are just fishing expeditions. 

 

La Rose.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

I'm pretty sure that my soon to be six year old niece could pick up on Kavanaugh lying his butt off on the sexual slang terms being drinking games just from his body language and demeanor. It's pretty clear he perjured himself just with those statements. He was clearly evasive about his college behavior, which seems ripped right of out of an 80's movie..

 

 

 If we are honest with themselves you recognize that we don't know. We don't actually know what those phrases mean we have assumptions. And assumptions about facts required us to show a certain level of humility.  the judge and his high school friends agree on the meaning of those terms. At some point we have to ask ourselves which passes the Occam's razor test that a group of 17 year old boys created some stupid phrasing for drinking game 30 years or that all of them are lying now and that actually our assumptions are The are assumptions are the unvarnished truth.

 

La Rose. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...