subreddit
stringclasses 11
values | text
stringlengths 246
28.5k
|
|---|---|
politics
|
I've been saying this for a year now. I think he will start a war.
Some of the only times the left wing media has praised Trump's actions are when he has bombed Syria.
Trump is the basic knowledge of history to see or be told the pattern that wars = higher approval ratings.
His only trouble will be coming up with a reason.
Countries of likely invasion I would say are Iran then Syria then venzuela then north Korea.
This will get worse before it gets better
|
politics
|
The power grid doesn’t really work that way. Depending on your degree of penetration, you could probably turn off the power in a few areas for a very short time, but a massive outage like you’re describing would be daunting, and probably impossible to accomplish without being physically in a bunch of rooms that are extremely secure. That 2003 blackout was a perfect storm, and a lot of redundancy has been added that would prevent that kind of cascading outage from occurring.
|
politics
|
The movie Wag the Dog only gets more and more relevant over time.
People say Idiocracy is a documentary from the future, I think it's Wag the Dog.
You don't need a real war if you can just make one up on television, and it helps to have a news network that will run anything without facts even a consideration. No I don't think this will literally happen as it did in the movie, but they could pull off some elements of it.
|
politics
|
Syria is unlikely because of Russia.
Iran has at least 20.000 US soldiers on its range of ballistic missiles (still they dont care about these things, the just want a goddamn war)
north korea has seoul at hostage with MLRS and artillery and would reduce the trust of US deals by a lot, also incentivizing other nations to produce and not give up their nukes)
venezuela can be a good call, i REALLY hope it doesnt happen because i dont want to see Brazil flooded with venezeulan reefuges
|
politics
|
As a hard liberal can I say that I don't like these kinds of doomsday assertions? They're no better than right wing nutjob conspiracies in that they have no evidence to back them and they're nothing more than, "well, Trump is crazy, so this COULD happen!" Let's focus on the problems we have now, of which there are plenty. If we remove Trump for his crimes, then this scenario won't even be a possibility.
|
politics
|
I don't think Putin cares about his soldiers there and I also don't fully believe in the trump Putin connection. I'm sure there is something he did that is treasonous but I'm not sure putin is actually directly controlling him. He could be but I'm not fully convinced yet.
Russia wouldn't mind America joining another prolonged war. I'm not really sure why Putin needs Syria that much. I think a dumb war for America would mean more to him.
Iran would certainly be attacked without warning. If trump knew what he was doing he could elimate most of the Iranian air Force in a day. His generals do so I'm sure we could neuter Iran like we did to Iraq. But the engagement would be long.
|
politics
|
My prediction if we lose the mid-terms:
1. Trump, GOP, and Russia fixes 2020 presidential election. Trump "wins".
1. They fix the 2022 mid-terms. The Republicans "win" in an unprecedented landslide.
1. Trump pushes for a new bill eliminating presidential term limits.
1. The Republican super majority in Congress passes the bill.
1. Trump runs again in 2024 with one of his children as his VP.
1. Trump pushes new laws through Congress to limit the free press and expand presidential powers.
1. Trump passes away and control falls to his VP.
Welcome to the Trump kingdom. You can check your freedom at the door.
|
politics
|
Syria is Russia`s only base in the ME and medditeranean and wont let Assad fall, however iran is a perfect trap for the US.
the thing is, Iran wont use his airforce in a combat role, it is going to use it to trick US planes into Iran´s multi-layered AA network.
Iran has way better and more AA than Iraq had and would be tricky for the US.
Long-term occupation would be a disaster for the US
|
politics
|
Occupation would not work at all. America could probably find a resistance branch to supply and support.
From a military stand point Iran would stand no chance as an actual country. Their only hope would be guerilla warfare. I don't think people really appreciate the dominance America has created in any actual land engagement with a foreign power.
To put it in perspective I think America could win any non nuclear war. Even the entire world without nukes would fall to America. The technology and doctrine that has been developed is unmatched.
|
politics
|
It's easier if you've managed to compromise personnel. It would have to be a massive operation, for sure, but it wouldn't be the first of its kind. Happens on a smaller scale more often than we know.
* Hack personnel roster
* Build profiles
* Phish key personnel
* Hack their accounts for compromising information
* Make contact and give them enough information to make them feel owned, like you know everything and hold their life in the balance; from their dick pics, to where their kids/nieces/nephews go to school
* Give them instructions to cover their tiny piece in the puzzle so they have nothing to run to feds with and if they do the trail can be easily covered because you've only made contact online, and only shown a tiny bit of what you have and what you're planning.
Now you have a shadow army.^(\*)
^(\*Don't do any of this.)
​
|
politics
|
What’s cute is our military could invade everyone of those countries at the same time, Syria - a well stocked brigade. NKorea - ROK Marines and the Army units there. Venezuela would be the hard one as we haven’t been training jungle warfare to that extent in a while and tanks don’t generally work well in that environment. Iran would take a hefty amount of Air Force and Naval utilization with a MEU and the on coming MEU following closely with the 82nd and 101st rolling in as well.
|
politics
|
That would fall under “being physically in a bunch of highly secure rooms”. Those people are getting constantly tested for phishing awareness and also not politicians who are so easily scandalized. If you phished me (admittedly not exactly “key personnel”) I’d just go to the police and/or fbi. I’m not risking my career because some guy is coming at me.
Would you actually do something in a professional setting because somebody randomly threatens you somehow? If so, remind not to hire you, because Jesus.
|
politics
|
> I'm sure we could neuter Iran like we did to Iraq.
Which Iraq conflict are you referencing because both Gulf Wars are not alike and there's the stark differences that had kinda different outcomes and problems of their own, in the end I wouldn't exactly call it mission accomplished. Iran is an incredibly different place than Iraq, do not confuse them for being similar just by way of location.
The common lay person underestimates Iran's complex history, culture as well as geography(seriously look at a map with topographical layers on) , and tend to be unaware of the various systematic things Iran has done in the past when on crunch time for the worst. Any conflict with them would be beyond asinine and it wouldn't be a situation like Desert Storm with bulldozers over trenches, hands down expect something worse than Vietnam.
Iran systematically kickstarted their own baby boom decades ago by giving out plenty of incentives for people who had large families and spun it under the guise of "keeping the tradition of Islam alive" and all that when in actuality the government figured they'd be able to field a lot more bodies should they have to go to war with neighboring Iraq.
That's the major crucial element, young, warm, physically able bodies wouldn't be in short supply considering how large and young Iran's population is. Iran would easily unite to take on a conflict, they got the power and control to organize flat out, especially with how their military, paramilitary, auxiliary guards etc is structured and integrated in various facets of their society.
Compare that to how [7 out of 10 Americans of military eligible age are unfit to serve](http://time.com/2938158/youth-fail-to-qualify-military-service) and any politician would be in deeper shit trying to pull a draft out of their ass. You can only air strike so much.
Definitely wouldn't see anyone quick to join the side of the US in that one as well.
Either way, any conflict with Iran would be a bad idea at best especially considering there's already active conflicts going on and adding something like Iran into the equation would just be a bigger clusterfuck. You gotta be an absolute deluded lunatic to think it'd be some panacea for bringing the country together, especially with how unpopular our current conflicts are.
|
politics
|
I'm not saying it would bring the us together. I'm not saying it's a smart war to fight. I'm just saying that we would destroy their country very easily.
All the boots with rifles won't mean anything against fighter planes and aphaches.
We would destroy their government quickly and then face the resistance which we would never be able to beat. But we would destroy their government easily.
I don't think you understand the sort of feild advantage America would have over a country like china or Russia. Iran would be nothing but light resistance against our air support and tanks. We would take Tehran in a month.
Their AA power would be crippled by stealth aircraft and then our dominant air power would overwhelm them.
Iraq fought Iran to a standstill and with 30 years ago tech we defeated them with ease.
I don't think Iran has progressed in military tech at the same rate we have over the past 30 years.
Again and occupation would not go well for America. But a flat out war would go extremely well.
The American military has the doctrine to be able to fight multiple high intensity wars on multiple fronts. Our current engagements hardly count as wars in the grand scale. There is no doubt in my mind that Iran could be turned into a Syria within half a year at most, probably more like one month.
Now that's not something I want or something I think is smart. But you can't deny that trump could do it if he wanted to.
|
politics
|
You are wrong on so many levels. The amount of over estimating our military might is ridiculous. We are a naval power with a great air force and precision bombing. Once it comes to real land operations, things get equalized pretty quick. We think because Iraq was easy everything else will be. Iraq never recovered from the first gulf war and they tried to fight us in ways we where clearly better than them.
|
politics
|
American doctrine is based on air power and Iran's air defenses are way better than Iraq's.
US hopes on trying to make the new Iranian government a functional ally would have to come with a extremely costly occupation.
Keep in mind that Iran has 2 military branches: a conventional branch and an non-conventional one.
The non-conventional (IRGC or Iranian revolutionary guard corps) work to further the government's policies (the revolution) abroad and to keep the idea of the revolution alive even if the government falls (guerilla)
You would be facing a religion united (Iraq's insurgents were divided between Sunni and shia) group that hates the puppet state the US would put in ( MEK that help Saddam kills Iranians in the 80s), that is extremly organized and made out of members with plenty of experience group. Also Iran has plenty of militias around the ME, Hezbolla and other Shia militias would also join the fight.
|
politics
|
I think people underestimate how hard a false flag attack would actually be.
That would require a level of discipline and discretion Trump has proven to be able to manage from his team.
His inner circle secretly records him and thinks he's a lunatic. Who is he going to get to organize and attack on America that wouldn't immediately screw it up?
He'd be better served actually starting a war, but even that would be so painfully transparent that it wouldn't help him much.
|
politics
|
> Trump pushes for a new bill eliminating presidential term limits.
Only issue is that passing a bill does nothing as the 22nd Admendment of the Constitution lays out the framework for Presidential Term limits.
Now, that point is mute because....the constitution is just a piece of paper with some writing on it. It only has power when the people in power believe in it, respect it and abide by it.
Now, instead of trying to get the constitution changed formally, martial law can be declared which suspends the constitution.. When that happens, only three things can bring us back.
The Executive Branch rescinds martial law, the military deposed the executive, or the people rise up.
|
politics
|
You are *severely* overestimating your military abilities. War with Iran would be a neverending shitfest with massive casualties and no way of ensuring the completion of any serious objectives.
First off, it's nearly four times larger than Iraq, with more than twice the population. Most of the borders are covered in mountains, leaving the quite defensible Persian Gulf as the most likely point of entry (given that Iran will instantly start pouring money into destabilizing Afghanistan and Iraq to make it difficult for the US to operate from there, if they are invaded).
The Iraqi Armed Forces fielded 375k troops during the US invasion, with a few 100k reserves. Iran has 545k active troops, 350k reserve, and a paramilitary with 90k active-duty members which is estimated to be able to mobilize up to *one million men* relatively quickly, from a pool of 11 million members.
They have far better and more modern equipment than Iraq ever did, higher unity, better supply and support systems (Iraq did not have any military hospitals during the US invasion, for example) and possibly better generals.
Iran fields UAVs (that have been known to track US carriers for up to half an hour before being detected), ballistic missiles, sophisticated guided missiles, cluster warheads, submarines, and many things Iraq did not have.
That's even *without* getting into the fact that the US invasion of Afghanistan had a large coalition to support it, and the Iraq one had British and Polish support (followed by more countries joining in pacification efforts *after* the invasion). Invasion of Iran would have zero support from US allies, other than possibly Israeli and Saudi.
|
politics
|
What do you mean intercepted. Do you understand American ballistics. They would avoid those attacks with ease.
If America wanted to destroy Iran it would not be very hard. America could have 3 aircraft carrier groups within Iranian land in a week .
The tech that the US military has is not understood by the public.
The Iranian republic gaurds are possibly on Match with the average American soldier.
In a war America would obliterate Iran.
Their air power would be dismantled in a day.
An 80s mig stand no chance against an f22.
America would destroy Iran in an easy fashion.
|
politics
|
People claim that Bush won in 2004 because of the war that he started, which I am pretty skeptical about anyway. So, then people make these claims that Donald will start a war as a way to get elected.
The problem with making that leap, even if we assume there is some truth to the war helping Bush in 2004, is that the Democrats helped start the war. Had Bush then or Donald in the future just go off and try to start his own war without help from both sides of Congress, it would backfire spectacularly IMO.
|
politics
|
>“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”
Sorry, that one never gets old for me.
|
politics
|
He interrupts himself a lot, but.. honestly, actually hearing it, it's not too different from how a lot of my friends sound when they're super excited about something.
Now, obviously, my friends aren't running for President, and if they were they'd have a damned prepared statement. A candidate speech should be held to a higher standard than, say, trying to explain how cool some reference in the Iron Man movie to an event from the comics was.
What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't sound as insane as it seems when you read it. *Massively* underqualified, but not insane.
|
politics
|
What's *so fucking badass about this guy* is that I'm sure when it's all said and done, the house of cards has fallen and the fradulant Trump dynasty has crumbled, we may *still* not hear much from Mueller. He will go quietly into the night, with his coffee in one hand and car keys jangling in the other, probably never to return to public spotlight again. I'm sure he'd be perfectly content with this.
If that's how this goes down, Mueller will be a living legend.
|
politics
|
Are you lying to yourself or just to me? He literally cuts off sentences and jumps paragraphs and articles. The whole second half of the video is clips from his show where he interjects in the middle of a point. Obvious hit piece to make him look like A RAGING FASCIST, and you're ok with it because you don't like Ben Shapiro. There are so many ways you can attack his beliefs with intellectual honesty but you can't because you don't understand the things you are talking about and you don't care about truth. [Actual fascists would love you by the way](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot)
|
politics
|
No. It can't possibly be rape because there wasn't penetration. And It's not *attempted* rape because Ford herself didn't believe the man was attempting to penetrate her. Or she at least hasn't disclosed that fear to us as of yet.
Again, I'm simply using Ford's own statements. I'm not the one that needs to defend what the victim is actually accusing their perpetrator of. You're the one imposing a new accusation that Ford hasn't specified.
You're misrepresenting her claim simply to create more public outrage. I find that truly despicable.
|
politics
|
>there’s no law that says a president can’t do something for personal reasons
First, a lawful order means an order issued for legal purposes. If an order isn't issued for lawful purposes, then it is invalid. Secondly, if the order is issued for the purpose of obstructing an investigation into the person issuing the order (here the President, but the same would apply to any administrative order), then the Order is unlawful and invalid - and it would be illegal to comply.
|
politics
|
Well now you've moved the goalpost quite a bit. Doing something for "personal reasons" is quite a bit different than doing something in order to obstruct justice, which, by the way, is quite hard to prove.
The President has complete power over classification in the same way he has complete power to fire the FBI director. Could his abuse of those powers be used as evidence in an obstruction case against him? Sure, if you can prove intent. But is it illegal to comply with those orders? No. It was not illegal for the FBI to complete the paperwork needed to fire Comey, nor is it illegal for DOJ to declassify stuff at the President's orders. It's not their job to make an on-the-fly judgement on obstruction of justice.
|
politics
|
If the President issued an Order to the IRS to conduct audits of every sitting Democrat US Senator, without any other explanation, that would be an unlawful order on its face.
Likewise if he were to order the Secret Service to assassinate his neighbor's entire family. It would be an unlawful order on its face.
Likewise, an Order to release classified documents relating to the Mueller investigation is an unlawful order on its face. So is the demand for those documents by Congress.
And, without a legal justification for the order, it would be illegal for the FBI/DOJ to comply.
|
politics
|
If the President issued an Order to the IRS to conduct audits of every sitting Democrat US Senator, without any other explanation, that would be an unlawful order on its face.
Likewise if he were to order the Secret Service to assassinate his neighbor's entire family. It would be an unlawful order on its face.
Likewise, an Order to release classified documents relating to the Mueller investigation is an unlawful order on its face. So is the demand for those documents by Congress.
And, without a legal justification for the order, it would be illegal for the FBI/DOJ to comply.
|
politics
|
>Almost nothing can be considered OOJ prima facie.
That's just silly talk. Putting things in context easily makes the case. Were Trump to fire Mueller tonight without explanation, that would be obstruction on its face. Prima facie.
The background facts of the acts of Rep Nunes with regard to demanding documents relating to an ongoing investigation are clear. The President issuing an Order declassifying those documents relating to an investigation being conducted into him - is prima facie obstruction of justice UNLESS the President provides a valid justification for the directive/order.
Sure, without context, it is difficult to say any particular Order - in a total vacuum - is obstruction of justice. But, we don't practice law in a vacuum. We practice law with facts (actions) put into context. And the context here is very plain and very evident. Trump can try to clarify that if he wants - but any such attempt would almost certainly be legally laughable.
|
politics
|
Right, but so far no one has made an argument how this material being released actually impairs the Mueller investigation. No one has detailed how it obstructs justice. I get that it's irresponsible and petty as far as intelligence gathering, but where's the illegality? Obstruction of justice is a specific claim that needs specific details backing it up, not some grand conspiracy on how Trump might use it to sway public opinion into maybe letting him fire the special counsel.
Someone just responded to me comparing the release of this info to Trump ordering the secret service to assassinate someone, for crying out loud. I don't like Trump, but this is delusional.
I'm all for reining in executive power across the board, but as it stands I haven't seen an argument that the investigation will be obstructed by this release. As fast as I can tell, the investigation will continue uninhibited as it has thus far.
|
politics
|
The hysteria is annoying, but it’s a frustrating situation.
It’s not exactly a secret that Trump thinks the investigation is a witch hunt and wants it to end.
The material selection itself supports that his objective is to discredit the reputations of those that he thinks are harming him through this investigation.
The harm is that has the potential to taint a jury pool, like what we saw with the 10 deadlocked charges in the Manafort case.
It’s not a coincidence that he’s only releasing texts from his perceived “enemies.”
If he was really interested in transparency, let’s see all the correspondence between them and Nunes, or Gowdy, or DJT Jr, or him and Cohen, or his tax returns etc etc etc.
He only cares about transparency when it benefits him. Everything else, we can go fuck ourselves, or we would have seen his taxes by now.
|
politics
|
> He only cares about transparency when it benefits him. Everything else, we can go fuck ourselves, or we would have seen his taxes by now.
>
I don't disagree with this at all, and at no point have I defended Trump here. Hasn't stopped me from being called stupid or idiotic, but hey.
> The harm is that has the potential to taint a jury pool, like what we saw with the 10 deadlocked charges in the Manafort case.
>
This is the only argument i've seen about potential obstruction if justice. I don't think, based on the case law i've read, that it's enough to call this obstruction of justice. But this is an extreme and unusual case that the is no real precedent for so it's hard to say. It's also kind of a tricky situation. Imagine you're innocent and details you can release can prove that the investigation into you is basically one big fruit of the poisonous tree exam fact pattern. I can see the argument to release it. The texts are between two of the biggest players in the early investigation, supposedly, and two people who have been used as ammunition by both sides. They aren't just "enemies."
I think it's a shitty move. I don't agree with it. I think how shitty it is entirely depends on how selective the release ends up being. I'm fine with Congress working to limit the president's ability to declassify information and otherwise strip the executive of power. I'm actually for them doing so. But I don't personally buy that it's obstruction of justice, or illegal, as the claim I responded to made.
Also, yeah, hysteria. I don't support Trump. Never claimed to support Trump. I only questioned the narrative a teency little bit. But that didn't stop someone from telling me I deserve "dickishness" on top of his other insults.
|
politics
|
The other argument I’ve seen on OOJ is that he’s doing it knowing that Sessions is recused and can’t, and Rosenstein will say it’s part of an active investigation and won’t comply, and that will be Trump’s justification for firing them.
Firing them would allow Trump to put someone else in who is undecided and who could shut down or stifle the investigation, and/or feed him information about the status.
That would be pretty clear OOJ, IMO. Not a lawyer, just read a lot of news and analysis.
Sorry you were met with some hostility, I like the discussion personally.
|
politics
|
OOJ aside, it’s a dangerous precedent, a POTUS overruling the Intelligence agencies determination that the redacted info being released could harm sources, so that he may benefit politically.
The DOJ is supposed to operate independent of the White House - we were supposed to have learned that lesson with Nixon - so whether or not it’s “illegal” I think there’s an argument to be made that it’s unethical and has the potential to set a really bad precedent of politicizing, undermining and negating the independence of the DOJ.
IMHO.
|
politics
|
The investigation will be impaired if the information paints the FBI as being biased against Trump thus providing congress with reason to either end the investigation or allow Trump to fire Rosenstein and put someone in charge who will fire Mueller.
And that's the only reason Trump is releasing this information.
But if you have some other plausible explanation for why he is choosing to declassify this information besides discrediting the FBI in an attempt to derail the investigation, I'm all ears.
|
politics
|
> Why would the information paint the FBI as biased against Trump? What if they really were biased, doesn't the public have the right to know?
Sure, the public has a right to know if they were biased.
What the public doesn't have the right to know however is that an agent is going in for chemotherapy next week, the names of our spies overseas, the methods by which we tapped the Russian's communications between them and Trump tower, etc etc etc.
As for painting the FBI as biased, we already saw some texts from several FBI agents that the Republicans released out of context, in order to play them off as their being the tip of some huge conspiracy to steal the election for Clinton, which was patently absurd given the FBI's actual actions before the election.
Also just because an agent does not like Trump, and says as much does not automatically mean the agency is biased against him. That would be absurd. Shall we allow every convicted criminal to examine the private messages between the arresting officers to determine if they had some bias against the individual when they decided to get a warrant? Is "This guy is a real scumbag, and I want to nail him to the wall." something that should enable a felon to escape charges, despite the actual evidence collected against them?
Evidence cannot be tainted by bias. All bias does is make an officer more motivated to find criminal activity. I mean, I suppose it could also motivate them to fabricate evidence, but that's a whole other kettle of fish and I highly doubt that these agents would incriminate themselves in their text messages fabricating evidence against Trump.
And barring that, Trump's whole defense he's going for here is "It's not fair! Hillary got away with her criminal activity, so I should too! They shoudn't even have been investigating me in the first place!"
And that ain't much of a defense. Ask any five year old that's ever tried to use that defense with mom and see if if got them anywhere!
> If the investigation is legitimate then there is nothing wrong with transparency.
Sure, with the exceptions I outlined above where you're releasing information that is highly personal, or could put agents in jeopardy because you are reckless and don't care to have all the info reviewed before releasing it.
And with the exception where said information's release would enable Trump to learn what Mueller has on him and allow him to tailor his testimony to avoid perjuring himself, thus interfering with his own investigation.
See, if Mueller wants to have Trump testify under oath, and Trump doesn't want to plead the 5th because the mob pleads the 5th, and he knows what Mueller is going to ask in advance and what Mueller knows, then Trump can tailor his responses to avoid perjuring himself, while still lying. So in that case, transparency can be bad. Some of this information may be critical to upcoming trial.
And not just for Trump. There's no telling how many people are involved here. What if these texts reveal that Sessions is also under investigation for talking to the Russians? What then? We could have a constitutional crisis of incredible proportions suddenly if we fund out members of congress who have the power to stop the investigation are themselves under investigation.
|
politics
|
The claims haven’t been materially substantiated. The public doesn’t know and cannot know whether Kav is guilty. Justice should be allowed to run its course, but it’s irresponsible to assume guilt or innocence based on the evidence that’s been presented so far.
Also, nobody is really using the “but high school” defense (article doesn’t even have a direct quote using this). To me it looks like an attempt to cement the narrative for those who have already made up their minds that Kavanaugh is guilty
I’m not saying he did or didn’t do it. I’m saying we don’t know. I’m not dismissing the claims.
|
politics
|
No. The therapy notes never actually mention Kavs name, and actually get some other key details of that evening incorrect, including the actual number of people in the bedroom.
Look into it a little more. Mainstream media is skimming over details like this. If the evidence was as strong as the media’s rhetoric seems to suggest, this whole situation would be open and shut.
Just because he’s accused doesn’t mean he’s not clean and doesn’t mean we should move on. We should investigate thoroughly and make decisions based on facts.
To me, it seems your eager to move on because a part of you knows that if they were to investigate they would find nothing, and a person you don’t like would become a Supreme Court justice.
|
politics
|
That wasn't my point. My point was: why are the GOP wasting time trying to push this guy through? It's not like this woman is some junky off the street. I know she didn't name him by name in therapy and claims the therapist wrote down the wrong number of people. At this point, wouldn't it make sense for the GOP to distance themselves? I'm sure there is another judge without allegations. He isn't on trial for a crime, he's being considered for the highest court of the land. He's tainted at this point.
|
politics
|
If you’re taking these allegations so seriously, wouldn’t the best thing to be to have the accuser come forward before a committee and have Kavanaugh there to rebut the claims so we can get to the bottom of this?
You’re saying he should be passed over just because there are allegations against him, regardless of whether they are proven? Seems like a dangerous precedent to set. Thankfully that’s just your opinion and not reality.
|
politics
|
>I didn’t even say it’s absolutely happening in this case, please don’t put words in my mouth.
Well that's rich given you accused me of not willing to even consider this is the case here. Politics is a dirty game, but lets be frank: Republicans and Dems have both played the game dirty but blocking a sitting president's nominee for 9 months for no other reason other than he came from a Democrat president is particularly dirty.
You're right though--this isn't productive. I'm not putting any more words in your mouth than you are mine. To answer your question though-- I'd take a Gorsuch over a Kavanaugh any day of the week solely in light of this shit-show.
|
politics
|
1. Trump has harmed our relationships with our greatest allies by throwing accusations and getting us mired in tariff wars. The tariffs are having a measurable impact on lower income citizens and business.
1. Trump has normalized criminal behavior.
1. Trump has normalized immorality.
1. Trump has normalized serial lying.
1. Trump has vilified the free press, which is a pillar of democracy.
1. Trump has embarrassed our nation with his bumbling, personal insults, and late night tweet storms.
1. Trump has strengthened Russia's standing.
1. Trump is doing nothing while we continue to be attacked by Russia.
1. Trump has set dangerous precedent by calling for the imprisonment of innocent citizens.
1. Trump has crippled the state department by firing experienced employees who held their positions for decades through both Republican and Democrat presidents.
1. Trump has elevated television pundits as a more credible source than our FBI, CIA, and larger intelligence community.
1. Trump has ruined the federal budget and saddled our children with even more debt with his trillion dollar giveaway to the ultra-wealthy.
1. Trump is opening up our precious wildlife refuges to mining and drilling operations.
1. Trump has denied climate change is real despite overwhelming solid evidence that it's a threat to human existence and then contributed to worsening climate change by rolling back necessary environment protections.
1. Trump claimed he would repeal and replace Obamacare, but all he has done is attempted to eliminate Obamacare and provided no replacement. His actions so far have increased rates on Obamacare recipients.
1. Trump has called for the separation and imprisonment of immigrant children. Not only has this harmed the children, but it has permanently harmed our foreign relations and position of moral superiority.
1. Trump signed a travel ban that disrupted both Americans and foreign nationals trying to conduct business.
1. Trump did next to nothing for the American citizens of Puerto Rico.
|
politics
|
You're quite right, but none of this is about "innocent vs guilty". This is about whether Brett Kavanaugh is worthy of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. Kavanaugh is not entitled to or owed this SCOTUS seat, it's not 'his turn', and it's his job to prove to the American people that he is worthy.
So far he's done nothing but flip-flop and dodge questions concerning his judicial record as the Republicans tried to hide the facts and rush through his nomination. Kavanaugh needs to be thoroughly vetting, just as every SCOTUS appointee before him was, and it's clear that Republicans didn't want him to be vetted at all so that things like these recent allegations could slip through under the radar.
Now Kavanaugh will be vetted, and in order to do so we need to hear about this alleged attempted sexual assault/rape incident from the accuser (Ford), the accusee (Kavanaugh), and ALL credible witnesses. This isn't about "guilt", and Kavanaugh should only be given the immense privilege of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court if he can convince the American public beyond any shadow of a doubt that he did not attempt to rape a woman.
There is no rush, and we should spend months or even years if needed, to get his *honest and dodge-free* testimony so we can get closer to the truth of the matter. Let's take the time to hear all sides of the story, and if there is any truth to it at all, the privilege should be given to someone who is actually worthy, like Merrick Garland, for example.
|
politics
|
Sure if there’s evidence. Of course, there’s not and the statute of limitations have long gone so idgaf and all you partisan hacks can downvote all day and it won’t matter because we get it now — we get the game. It’s 100% about power. No principles matter. And you all know that because a second grader could tell you that if we prevent judicial appointments because of “she-said” allegations that gives all power of obstruction forever to any woman who will tell a lie.
Oh... oh... but I know: you think women never would ever tell a lie, right? Especially not if they could be the new hero of *the resistance* and save a Supreme Court seat for Dems. No, nobody would ever lie in that situation. Especially not a *woman*.
He’ll be confirmed by next Friday. Keep crying.
|
politics
|
I don’t have any hate in my heart at all — not sure where you’re getting that idea. Projection? Paranoia? I’m a university professor and almost all my colleagues disagree with me politically and I love them. My parents disagree with me and my brother disagrees with me — and I love them. My best friend from high school disagrees with me and although he stopped speaking to me for 8 months after Trump got elected because he knew I voted for Trump, I love him.
Ask yourself this: do you trust Republican women so much that you can’t imagine one of them — picture an Ann Coulter type — ever lying to obstruct a Democrat appointment in the future? Do you really believe Republican women are so principled that they would never take advantage of this “believe the accuser” model?
|
politics
|
You’re incredibly biased in your assumption nothing happened. How about being open minded and waiting until the facts come out of the hearings before making the presumption a potential victim of sexual assault is a liar? I don’t know if that’s possible for you but can you try? I know you don’t think any of Trump’s accusers are honest even though he himself bragged about sexual assault. But please know, it’s not too late to wake up from your partisan blindness and start holding leaders accountable no matter their political affiliation.
|
politics
|
yawn. If this was a magical tactic then they would have used it on Gorsuch too. They didn't....because he didn't assault anybody. See how that works? Also, how is it backfiring...republicans postponed the vote...republicans have no shame so if they postponed the vote it is because they know they couldn't get him through which means he doesn't have rock solid support among republicans either and it would risk embarrassment by him not getting enough votes. Use your head instead of choking out boring far-right fantasy garbage.
|
politics
|
Do you know what is also incredibly dirty?
Raping someone, then denying it when they come forward, then standing by while other people trash that persons character knowing theres nothing they can really do about it because its a Defense that requires no proof.
Jfc, let the process play out, have people interviewed, under oath, and see how this plays out.
Just consider for one second about what it means if she is telling the truth, do you even care? Are you that desperate for a win?
|
politics
|
> this is an accusation in which there is no defense.
>
> It is literally unprovable and also impossible to prove innocence as well.
You could not be a rapist and not be haunted your entire adult life about those actions coming back down on you.
But of course, your post is the one loaded with indefensible allegations about the sinister conspiracy of women who just want to bring down a man with impossible to defend scenarios, because that's just how they operate.
|
politics
|
Nonsense, literally. Where do you even get the idea that suddenly its people wanting an investigation into this thinking the ends justify the means. That is the Republican play. Just look at the reason Garland isn't a SCOTUS right now. Republicans love to twist everything so that nothing means anything. Its a fucking nightmare cause they can only get away with it because their supporters think that the ends justify the means. Mind blowing how easily projection fits into that pathology.
|
politics
|
But Kavenaugh had been in the news as a part of the Bush administration. This is an impossible position to prove or defend. She doesn't know the location, doesn't know the day, doesn't know who else was present aside from Judge who says he has no recollection of this incident nor this party. Asking people to remember a party from over 35 years ago is asinine. Tell me about the parties you went to in high school? Who was at the parties you went to when you were 15? Is it possible he was a popular boy, and she is misremembering?
|
politics
|
I’ve been the victim of sexual assault twice. Once by a boyfriend, and the second time by someone I saw as a friend. I would NEVER come forward out of fear of being called a liar; people think not coming out immediately after means we “made it up.” I actually spoke to my (now former) boyfriend a while after it happened because the topic of partner sexual violence came up on a show were were watching. He said “Well if that were true, that would mean I technically raped you, haha,” to which I just thought to myself, “Yeah. You did.” He legitimately thought he had done no wrong. And if I had came out, I know he would have fully denied it. Same with the “friend.”
People fail to realize that not pressing charges and not coming out immediately doesn’t mean that the assault didn’t happen. It means that we weighed the pros and cons of speaking out and determined it’s not worth it. Even if we live in a society where there are many people who would believe us survivors, there are just as many people who will not.
|
politics
|
Not trying to be a shit but if women and women's groups made a concerted effort to address the epidemic of false rape accusations and shamed women who did it. Perhaps a PR campaign along the lines of "Rape isn't a joke, Don't accuse your ex-partner of rape or molestation just to hurt him" would go a long way in making it safer for people to come out and say what happened, when it happened. As it is a good number of people fall to the automatic position of "it's a lie" because it's so prevalent. Don't make false accusations prevalent, name and shame the women who do it and eventually public perceptions will change.
|
politics
|
Yesterday I typed out a long reply in response to a post questioning why Dr. Ford did not come forward with her accusation sooner.
I wrote about the ostracism I experienced following speaking up, and how devastating and damaging it was.
It's been a decade and my discomfort with even writing anonymously about it led me to delete the post twenty minutes later.
I'm sorry for your experiences. Know that you're not alone. <3
|
politics
|
I'm a victim as well, but I never told anyone. It would have destroyed my mother and she had been through so much already in her life from abusive alcoholic husband, two time cancer survivor, loss of close family members, house fire.... I just didn't want to cause her more pain. So I've kept it hidden. My choice, whether it was the wrong choice or not. However, if the scuzzwad was going to be running for the highest court in the land or president? I think that's one reason I'd have to swallow my fear and step forward. No one knows these victim's stories. Most of us that have been through it know damn good and well we wouldn't be believed or we would be told we are blowing it out of proportion, or we somehow lead them on, etc. etc. I know why so many victims have so many reasons to not come forward when it happens. Now we all know why they also dont come forward many years down the road either.
|
politics
|
Yep. This is why I hope she knows a lot of us know she’s a hero. I saw some encouraging threads where her school had a lot of people signing on their support for her. It is trauma all over again when the public scrutinizes you but I also can’t imagine what it’s like having a faction of the internet full on against you, with the kind of things internet users have done against people they target.
It’s cute when the likes of Reddit and 4chan locate a flag based on clouds and star positionings and shit - so much more frightening to think what they can do when a portion of them are all focused on you as an individual.
|
politics
|
White nationalism is white nationalism, it is a very specific belief in the creation of a white nation.
> Any man — no matter his race or sexual-orientation — can join the fraternal organization as long as they “recognize that white men are not the problem.” Women have their own contingent called the Proud Boys’ Girls.
That is a quote from the link you didn't read. The link also doesn't say they are white nationalists or white supremacists...Many members are non white.
|
politics
|
They are bad unfit parents. We only know about the ones who illegally enter. We have no idea how many have had their children killed, raped, or trafficked during the trip. These are economic refugees who risk the lives of their children for money. Horrible.
They are also criminals. They shouldn't bring their children along with them when they commit a crime.
If you are so concerned about them, give them money.
|
politics
|
> Enough not to trigger a constitutional crisis.
Have no idea what this means?
> You're missing my point here though.
You ignored my simple question. Ex. In previous elections 30% of people voted and this election 40% of people voted or was that reversed?
> Republicans are elected to Congress the same way that Democrats are,
Really, I can tell you water is wet. Will repeat, this was a state election.
|
politics
|
Because they think he can be doing a good job despite chaos. They see the government as something that doesn't need "reform." It needs *upending.* They have a "burn it all down and start over" mentality. They elected him *because* they wanted a wrecking ball. They are reveling in it, they are overjoyed at how "the libruls" are reacting, and they simply *don't care* about policy - they care about appearances, and the appearance to them is that Trump is wrecking everything they dislike, even though they can't articulate *why* they dislike it.
|
politics
|
That's because they're uneducated and constantly watching propoganda. The only way this ever stops is if education for American citizens ever gets funding on the level of the DoD. That won't happen because any attempt to divert funding from the DoD will be met with shrieking and screaming about how ungrateful people are and how these "heroes" shouldn't have their budget slashed, despite the military's own admissions that they have more funding than they can feasibly use.
Oh, and any attempt to increase funding through taxes will face similar backlash from the dumb fucks who don't understand how taxation works and shrill about socialism while collecting welfare checks to supplement their free-market income from Walmart. All while blissfully unaware of what irony is.
|
politics
|
Other nations take our currency in return for their goods, and they in turn use dollars to pay for their own imports. This is why our trade deficit is high. The high trade deficit is a natural outcome of the dollar being the world's reserve currency. The US is the only nation that's truly set up to be an intermediary in world trade, because we are in the best position to defend global supply chains. In this respect, trade deficits are a symbol of strength and credibility in the US's financial system, especially versus other currencies.
|
politics
|
I think most of the Reddit readers were not yet born or too young to remember the way Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp and other women were treated when they accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment.
I recall James Carville on TV stating that these women are what you get when you “drag a $100 bill through a trailer park”. Paula Jones was imperfect in appearance and she was mocked and ridiculed for her looks.
Kathleen WIlley was a Clinton supporter, and they turned on her when she came forward with her story.
It really is amazing how politics color positions on things like this.
|
politics
|
You forget there was a investigation under independent council and impeachment that he was ultimately acquitted in. That was for sexual harassment before he was president (but governor of Arkansas). He was found in contempt and was fined. By that same standard shouldn't we be bringing impeachment proceedings against Trump for sexual assault (as admitted on the bus tape) and for walking in on teenagers in their dressing rooms which he admitted doing during the Ms Teen USA pageant? Right now either wy it turns up for Kavanaugh and Ford there should be at the very least an investigation. Not a day of a senate committee grilling the accused.
|
politics
|
Would “doing their jobs” mean reading through the private notes from therapy sessions of every classmate Kavanaugh ever had? Because that is the only way anyone would ever know this. Ford says she told no one except her therapist three decades later. She has told no one publicly until now, in the middle of confirmation hearings. The witness she named released a statement contradicting her account. She says she cannot remember the year or the place.
How could they have missed something like that?
|
politics
|
They have 2 plans, really. If the GOP retains control after the midterms, they are going to go full force for keeping power at all costs, and if they don't hold both houses, they will go along with impeacing trump, and then trying the "well, we were forced to go along" line they have used before. They are partisan hacks, traitors, and criminals, and much of the GOP needs to be prosecuted for it.
|
politics
|
Yeah that's pretty much horse shit. He stepped aside and handed the the mic. There was literally no other politicians in the planet at the time willing to give that kind of voice to racial justice. It still didn't pass your purity test. He did a seat ed d interview with killer Mike. Still doesn't pass your purity test.
When is good good enough, or are we forever going to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good?
|
politics
|
It's really tough to say. Bernie lost the primary for numerous reasons. I think the white progressives absolutely cost Sanders votes (I was personally on the ground in the S. Carolina primary and saw first-hand the damage many of them caused), but Sanders was going to have a very hard time with minority voters, especially black voters, no matter what. Some factors in that were Sanders fault, some were faults of his campaign. Most, however, were to Hillary Clinton's credit, things she just did flat-out better than Sanders. I don't think white progressives cost Bernie the primary, but contributed to him losing certain states, especially in the South, by more than he should have.
I do think there have been improvements made since 2016. White progressives have upped their game, perhaps not by as much as is necessary and perhaps not enough of them have upped their game, but there has been improvements. If nothing else, I've noticed the number of expressions of disdain for "Identity Politics" has receded sharply since the primary. White progressives are understanding intersectionality as a concept better than they did in 2016.
I'd also add that Bernie did do well with the black youth vote. Those young progressives have had two years to talk to the older people in their communities. That has helped. It's also helped that people can see the number of minority candidates that the "Bernie Wing" have supported and championed since 2016, not just the victors, but the longshots as well. I mean, if you just look at the ["Our Revolution endorsement page](https://ourrevolution.com/candidates/), it's not exactly a white male dominated list of candidates.
It still won't be enough to win Bernie the majority of the minority vote should he choose to run in 2020, but hopefully, it will be better.
|
politics
|
Were you paired up with white progressive Floridians, or the bussed in organizers from New England?
I found, at least in SC, the locals to be okay-ish with a bit of training/talking to, but the organizers brought in from outside the South to be completely awful, smug, and completely counter-productive to the cause.
By the time the primaries got around to my home state of NC, the campaign just let the locals take the lead, (And we lost the state by less than pretty much any other southern state)
|
politics
|
Yeah, that sucks.
I had to tell a lot of people during that primary something along the lines of "Look at Bernie and judge Bernie as a candidate based on his own merits, and not on the merits of some of his supporters." It was somewhat successful. Do you have any good ideas on how to bring back a voter who was turned off to Bernie by a bad encounter with one of his supporters? I'd love the advice for the future.
|
politics
|
Per the article, by... wait for it, making alternate types of burgers (such as artisinal burgers and/or burgers with meat substitutes) *available*
I want to believe it and the comments are satire, but I've seen a lot of Townhall readers who honestly think Beto wants to ban barbecue so...
Edit: It appears a couple of rightwingers have helpfully showed up and confirmed that no, this is not some crappy attempt at humor, they honestly believe there's a liberal plot to force people to eat healthy and have a pogrom against butchers (they bizarrely define pogrom as "throwing blood" at butchers - last I checked, while unethical, that's leagues away from a pogrom. Maybe it means something different in right-wing circles?)
|
politics
|
Basically teh libs are forcing everybody to eat all this gourmet non-realMurican fancypants food that's a grade better than the Big Mac that he's used to, and obviously everybody is required to eat just like this guy.
Also, any creativity when making a burger is the same as Obamacare, liberal beef tastes like "ruined dreams and the Deep Thoughts of Kamala Harris," and Obama is the only person in America who likes hot dogs.
So there you go -- so you don't have to wade into the sewer of a diseased mind.
|
politics
|
>but I've seen a lot of Townhall readers who honestly think Beto wants to ban barbecue so...
Is that so far fetched? Fucking asshole "progressives" have banned or tried to ban happy meals, soda refills, plastic bags, bottled water, and even the word "welfare" from government vocabulary.
Face it, you "progressives" are the biggest bunch of assholes on the planet, and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Robert Francis O'Rourke did call for a ban on barbecue.
|
politics
|
>Per the article, by... wait for it, making alternate types of burgers (such as artisinal burgers and/or burgers with meat substitutes) available
To be fair, most people on the right take the exact same approach with marriage. Their brains are wired to make false equivalencies between *other options are available* and *the default option is ruined*.
This is the same lazy thinking that results in spectacularly dumb proclamations like "your gay marriage ruins it for the rest of us."
|
politics
|
The first article is about Finland feeding its own military forces ***two vegetarian meals per week***, not banning meat for two days. That's nothing extreme, and the only reason it made the news is because a Finnish minister who doesn't understand nutrition made a stink about it.
The second article is about butchers in an area of France complaining that vegan extremists are vandalizing their shops, i.e. spraypainting graffiti and once splashing fake blood on a cheese shop. That's not a *pogrom*, that's just PETA or a similar organization, which have been around for decades.
Stop exaggerating and spreading false information.
|
politics
|
>happy meals,
Because kids start to associate fast food with getting a new toy, and that encourages bad eating habits and leads to obesity.
>soda refills,
Because Americans drink far too much soda in one sitting already. And it's all just sugar water, anyway.
>plastic bags,
Terrible for the environment, and unnecessary.
>bottled water,
Terrible for the environment, unnecessary, and its just fucking tap water bottled by a company.
> and even the word "welfare" from government vocabulary.
Source? Haven't heard of this one.
>Face it, you "progressives" are the biggest bunch of assholes on the planet
Fuck you. At least someone is trying to do some good in the world. Not like conservatives who spend their days kidnapping kids and making sure poor people stay hungry and sick.
|
politics
|
Yep! People who call themselves “libertarians” but support policies from individuals like Gary Johnson and Ron Paul are actually Anarcho-Capitalists (or AnCaps for short) and think the “free market” solves all problems. These are reactionaries who have no answers for what we do about things like “the spoils of the commons” and think taxation is “theft”
Libertarian Socialists are people who believe that individual freedom stops where it starts affecting other peoples’ and actually understand the need for a strong social safety net that promotes social mobility and encourages entrepreneurship due to not being tied to a job you hate for survival. It’s the political-ideological form of “Together Everyone Achieves More”
|
politics
|
How very off-topic and distracting of you to ask!
Let’s be clear about what your comment is doing:
- The story is about a Republican lawmaker
- No mention of Democrats whatsoever
- This is about a member of the Republican Party who is being accused (by his own daughter) of repeated sex crimes over a period of more than a decade
- The Republican Party has branded themselves as the [Party of Family Values](https://www.gop.com/issue/family-values/canonical/)
- The Republican Party has used this “Family Values” platform to justify everything from anti-choice legislation, opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, opposition to marriage equality, cutbacks to social programs, opposition to comprehensive sexual education, and to attack Trans folks who have the audacity to want to use the bathroom of their expressed gender identity
When a political party claims to have a moral high ground on such issues, it is incumbent upon them to live by those standards. The fact that so often these same politicians cannot do so is a very strong indicator that these so-called “values” do not actually matter to them. It is just rhetoric as a means of control and nothing more.
This has nothing to do with Democrats. You brought that up for reasons I can only speculate. But here’s an offer: since this thread is about the sexual crimes committed by a Republican, let’s talk about that. When a Democrat does something comparable, we can talk about that also.
The wrongs of others is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Why are you trying to change the subject instead of engaging with it?
|
politics
|
You sure you wanna go down this road? It's going to be pretty embarrassing for you.
Here's a short list of Democrats recently convicted or credibly accused of by child sex crimes in the past five or so years:
* Anthony Weiner
Here's a short list of Republicans:
* Dennis Hastert (Convicted for sex abuse)
* Matt Pennell
* Jim Knoblach (Accused by his own daughter of sexual assault/rape)
* Brandon Hixon (Accused of sexual abuse of a minor; offed himself to avoid conviction)
* Dan Johnson (Accused of sexual abuse of a minor; offed himself to avoid conviction)
* Roy Moore (Accused of sexually assaulting and/or raping very young teen girls)
* Ralph Shortey (Convicted of child sex trafficking)
* Donald Trump (accused in federal court of violently raping a then-13-year-old girl)
Hm, so you're right. Not 1/10; guess it's closer to 1/8. My bad.
Here's the good news: if you broaden your criteria from child sex abuse to *any* sex abuse, Republicans are only about three times more likely to commit it compared to Democrats. Want to see examples of that, too?
|
politics
|
>Also, this whole debacle is going to do nothing but ruin abuse victims' credibility in the future.
Absolutely. I say this as non-partisanly as possible, but this whole situation is just getting worse and worse for Ford, and Dems as a whole.
When Fords accusations first arose, I had heard Feinstein sat on the letter since July. I chalked it up to perhaps Dems wanting to verify everything first and that with the supposed lie detector Ford took, Feinstein must've felt comfortable moving forward with the presentation of the letters content. I said that Ford must be heard.
Then the feet dragging started in conjunction with one denial after the other.
Republicans were quick to point to the fact that it happened 36 years, and I thought that was tad disingenuous.
In light of the feet dragging, and now all witnesses denying the event, all the other circumstantial oddities Republicans have been pointing out just really add up to what appears now to just have been a political ploy.
You're absolutely right...the WORST thing about what Ford is doing and what Dems are allowing is just to ruin the credibility for all the women and men who have been sexually assaulted and abused.
Shame on Ford and shame on the Democrats.
|
politics
|
Not at all.
"What level of certainty about the nominee’s guilt should drive a senator to vote against that nominee? The standard to convict a defendant in criminal court is often understood as requiring anywhere from 95 to 100 percent certainty of the defendant’s guilt. In civil court, the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard requires 51 percent certainty. As the economist Justin Wolfers asked on Twitter, ‘Would you appoint someone to the Supreme Court if you think there were a 25 percent chance they’ve done bad things? A 10 percent chance? A 5 percent chance? A 1 percent chance?’”
https://www.theatlantic.com/.../the-wrong.../570697/
|
politics
|
The right question is: ""What level of certainty about the nominee’s guilt should drive a senator to vote against that nominee? The standard to convict a defendant in criminal court is often understood as requiring anywhere from 95 to 100 percent certainty of the defendant’s guilt. In civil court, the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard requires 51 percent certainty. As the economist Justin Wolfers asked on Twitter, ‘Would you appoint someone to the Supreme Court if you think there were a 25 percent chance they’ve done bad things? A 10 percent chance? A 5 percent chance? A 1 percent chance?’”
https://www.theatlantic.com/.../the-wrong.../570697/
|
politics
|
In court yes but again this isn't a trial, it's an interview to determine whether or not someone is worthy of one of the most important positions on the planet.
The question is: "What level of certainty about the nominee’s guilt should drive a senator to vote against that nominee? The standard to convict a defendant in criminal court is often understood as requiring anywhere from 95 to 100 percent certainty of the defendant’s guilt. In civil court, the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard requires 51 percent certainty. As the economist Justin Wolfers asked on Twitter, ‘Would you appoint someone to the Supreme Court if you think there were a 25 percent chance they’ve done bad things? A 10 percent chance? A 5 percent chance? A 1 percent chance?’”
https://www.theatlantic.com/.../the-wrong.../570697/
|
politics
|
"What level of certainty about the nominee’s guilt should drive a senator to vote against that nominee? The standard to convict a defendant in criminal court is often understood as requiring anywhere from 95 to 100 percent certainty of the defendant’s guilt. In civil court, the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard requires 51 percent certainty. As the economist Justin Wolfers asked on Twitter, ‘Would you appoint someone to the Supreme Court if you think there were a 25 percent chance they’ve done bad things? A 10 percent chance? A 5 percent chance? A 1 percent chance?’”
https://www.theatlantic.com/.../the-wrong.../570697/
|
politics
|
I think it boils down to:
- What is the appropriate standard to use when determining whether or not someone is worthy of being appointed to the Supreme Court? IMHO that standard should be virtual certainty.
- Does her allegation (together with the rest of the evidence) create a reasonable doubt as to his worthiness?
I think we already know what the Senators will do, they'll vote along party lines. But philosophically a person trying to assess her claim could decide that she's wrong (lying or mistaken) and irrelevant, or that she's telling the truth but what he did does not impact his credibility/worthiness, or that she's telling the truth and what he did does damage his credibility.
We'll see. Interesting times.
|
politics
|
How does this in any way mean that they don't believe in due process? Judge Kavanaugh is not on trial. The concept of due process is completely irrelevant here, so I think you just don't know what it means. This is a job interview and they're asking for issues that weigh on his character to be considered for whether he should receive this job, which is, by the way, a lifetime position where we all as taxpayers fund the salary.
|
politics
|
Nobody is owed anything and you thinking that is the sad part here. This is a job interview not a court of law. He's already lied under oath this is just IN ADDITION to all the other shit they have on him. If I owned a business it's not up to me to decide beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty of something, all I have to have is a bad feeling about someone, or hear from his previous employer he was a schmuck who caused all kinds of drama. He can go get a job elsewhere.
You guys seriously act like cultists..."he's owed that seat", Jesus Christ...
|
politics
|
You mean like this number?
[1,488 U.S. Citizens Mistakenly Arrested, Detained by ICE Since 2012 - The Daily Beast](https://www.thedailybeast.com/1488-us-citizens-mistakenly-arrested-detained-by-ice-since-2012)
The article OP meant was this though:
[Feds say they lost track of 1,488 migrant children - CBS News](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/migrant-children-health-and-human-services-lost-track-1488-children-today-2018-09-19/)
14 words as in this?
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/02/15/we-must-secure-border-and-build-wall-make-america-safe-again
[Twitter Explodes After Homeland Security Headline Appears to Mimic ’14-Words’ Neo-Nazi Slogan - Law&Crime](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/twitter-explodes-after-homeland-security-headline-appears-to-mimic-14-words-neo-nazi-slogan/)
There's even an 88 at the end. I guess they must really like numbers.
[(explanation of numbers)](https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/1488)
|
politics
|
I do often wonder what the world would be like in 100 years from now if humanity just got rid of religion.
My bias tells me we’d be a lot better, but I do contemplate the possibility of us being worse off in some regards.
I struggle to see that, though. So much of the bad in the world only exists because of religion, or is accepted because religion excuses it.
It sure would be a different place, though, that’s for sure.
|
politics
|
If the GOP is going with _"What teenage boy hasn't tried to rape someone?"_ then the NEXT question should be _"What teenage girl hasn't been raped or have someone tried to rape them?"_; and if we're at the second question then the reality is that it is 2018 and the United States of America does not know how to educate people and cannot keep women in their country safe from their own inhabitants.
Up next with the GOP: How a women dresses is a direct reason for sexual assault. Introducing the "American Burqa Act" and instructions on how to "keep your women home".
|
politics
|
Conservative women are often trapped.
If they are Christian Conservative types, they are trapped by a family who has raised them to be obedient and silent. They are often un- or undereduated and are unable to support themselves. They can be married off in the teen years at which point they will start having children and be ruled over by their husbands. Without any real means to escape and having been fed the "virtuous women go to heaven" lines their ENTIRE lives, that shit is hard to break. It is easier for them to simply accept it and plenty never question any of it in the first place.
If they are Rich Conservatives, they can also be trapped by their family. Often, a patriarch will threaten to cut off their lifestyle if they make waves and there is a LOT of financial and social incentive to go along with the rest of the family. They often marry other moneyed types who are conservative themselves and are fed not necessarily religious indoctrination, but social indoctrination, especially about how poor and minority people are dangerous, dirty, lazy, and violent. They are taught to fear everyone outside of their social class and they mostly keep to themselves anyway. They don't "mingle" with the rest of us and so are completely cut off from the stench of reality. They don't want it, they don't care, and there aren't any consequences in their world. They may not vote at all if young, and if older, they will always do what's "good for the family."
Now, that's not to say that there are some legitimate shithead women out there that want to oppress other women. There are plenty of them. A lot of them are middle class and white. THOSE are the ones you have to watch for. They can be real snakes. They are often married to some two-bit local Big Fish and they might run for local office themselves. They think of themselves as part of the elite and they look down on anyone they possibly can. These women get no sympathy from me whatsoever. They're shitty people.
|
politics
|
Not true. People, especially women, are the opposite of "meh" on this topic.
>If there’s cause for hope in these horror-show days, it’s this: the Republican party has no idea what’s about to hit it this November.
>Even the dimmest and most misogynist of Republican operatives must realize, by this point, that the supreme court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh and the handling of the sexual assault allegations against him will hurt their chances, especially with women voters, in the upcoming midterm elections.
>What they don’t seem to realize, though, is that huge numbers of women aren’t just mad – they’re organized and mobilized politically in a way we’ve never quite seen before. The key story of the midterms is the large number of progressive women – and to a lesser extent, progressive men – who have been taking on the crucial, unglamorous work that swings elections: registering voters, canvassing door-to-door, preparing to get people to the polls. The disdain for women that the Republicans have shown by continuing to rally behind Kavanaugh is only energizing them further.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/25/republican-party-face-wrath-women
|
politics
|
> Since he's already lied before (provably) and the R's are determined to push him through anyway, I don't see how him lying now will make any difference, honestly
That's an implied point in the article. Many if not most of the Rs probably know he lying is about what the article calls "his dissolute youth," but they think the punishment for what occurred 35 years ago -- being denied a Supreme Court seat, etc. -- justifies lying.
But lying to Congress is a crime under the U.S. Code. So by overlooking Kavanaugh's lying, the Rs could once again be subverting the rule of law to further their political agenda. And be putting a criminal -- a sexual predator and perjurer -- on the nation's highest court.
|
politics
|
At the table now and oh my GOD there are a ton of kids signing up! It's really encouraging.
edit: we've signed up 77 kids since the doors opened at 8 EST
edit2: we're a non-partisan group, and we've been explaining to the kids that we are not here to discuss politics in any way, just to help them get registered to vote their own consciences. But the kids sure aren't non-partisan: I don't think a single one has said anything positive about Trump, but several of them have expressed their concerns about Kavanaugh. They are very well-informed about the political climate as far as I can tell.
|
politics
|
This is all supposing that the votes tallied are accurate and reliable anyway. The machines we use can be hacked by a 10 year old with a smartphone, we know at least one foreign country has directly and indirectly interfered with our elections...I don’t think a lot of people have much confidence in the voting system right now.
The way EVERYTHING is a wedge issue now, it might goose some people and get them to the polls but...everyone thought that about the 2016 elections and turnout was abysmal.
|
politics
|
I mean, if someone asked me that question, I think the answer for me was yes one time, and it was when I was 18. I’ve never been “excited” to vote. It’s a thing I do. It’s the very least thing I can do.
I also think we have to remember not to shame people who don’t vote, and rather impress upon them how it’s important and why it matters, even if you feel like nothing changes and your vote doesn’t matter. It’s also been researched before that talking about how low turnout is only depresses turnout further. Saying instead that energy is high and your voice matters more than ever is more effective.
|
politics
|
55.4% of American electors voted in 2016. That's not "nuh uh," that's a cold, hard, depressing fact. There will undoubtedly be an uptick in November, but whether it will be enough or not remains to be seen. The data show that millions upon millions of Americans did not care enough to vote, and historical election turnouts (even though 2016 was a noteworthy low) say the same thing. Of an electorate of 235,248,000, the US barely managed to scrape a voter turnout of 130,327,400. That's 104,920,600 people who didn't give a shit, give or take. Even if half of those get off their asses for long enough to try to save the USA, that's still well over 50,000,000 people who won't bother. That's why I said millions and millions of Americans don't care; because millions and millions *don't care*. I'm all for action and optimism and getting out the vote and seeing light at the end of the tunnel, but you do yourself a disservice if you follow the Republican lead and begin to ignore reality in favour of something you find less threatening.
|
politics
|
That's excellent and I commend you (and those engaged kids), but please don't confuse your laudable personal ethic and your personal experience with the reality of modern US politics and a disturblingly disengaged, malinformed electorate. I quote from a post I made below:
>55.4% of American electors voted in 2016. That's not "nuh uh," that's a cold, hard, depressing fact. There will undoubtedly be an uptick in November, but whether it will be enough or not remains to be seen. The data show that millions upon millions of Americans did not care enough to vote, and historical election turnouts (even though 2016 was a noteworthy low) say the same thing. Of an electorate of 235,248,000, the US barely managed to scrape a voter turnout of 130,327,400. That's 104,920,600 people who didn't give a shit, give or take. Even if half of those get off their asses for long enough to try to save the USA, that's still well over 50,000,000 people who won't bother. That's why I said millions and millions of Americans don't care; because millions and millions don't care. I'm all for action and optimism and getting out the vote and seeing light at the end of the tunnel, but you do yourself a disservice if you follow the Republican lead and begin to ignore reality in favour of something you find less threatening.
That said, you are doing everything right and you're what more people ought to aspire to be. Well done, and good luck!
Edit: *sigh* -- did you miss the bit where I said "you do yourself a disservice if you follow the Republican lead and begin to ignore reality in favour of something you find less threatening"? Because you really seem to have. The numbers show that millions upon millions of Americans remain disengaged. You can stick your fingers in your ears and feel insulated and snug, or you can just accept that fact and continue to do your part to change it. You're on the right track, but America doesn't end at the border of your circle of friends. The truth is unpleasant, but it's the truth and you're going to have to deal with it one way or the other. 104,920,600 non-voting electors is, by anyone's definition, millions of people not giving a shit.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.