|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Baron Von Humongous wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Baron Von Humongous wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | Grassley grants Kavanaugh accuser another extension.....  |
Because he doesn't have the votes. And he's terrified of Dr. Blasey Ford. |
he has the votes....it is a done deal...just trying to avoid giving the Democrats and their propaganda machine (aka msm) any additional false narratives. |
Why would he ever give a (bleep) about Democrats propaganda? |
because there is an election....you know damn well the main stream media is chomping at the bit to launch a narrative that the accuser had credible allegations, but those mean republicans would not even allow her to testify. I still do not think she shows up next week....the Thursday request was little more than a delay tactic by her attorneys who are clearly working with congressional democrats to ensure there is not time for a vote this week. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24166
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | In this case posting a "No" smiley indicates disagreement with the above sentiments and instead affirmation that victim's concerns (death threats, she and her family having to vacate their home, travel complications) should be disregarded . That is a passive aggressive shot at the abuse victim. The unspoken implication is, "Why is she taking so long? What's her problem, anyway?"
See, that's how passive-aggressive BS works. You say something in a way that could be misinterpreted then deny the attack afterwards. "Who me, what did I do?" |
your partisan glasses are so thick that you go to an extreme degree to diminish anyone or anything that does not agree with you. I explained my post, and even more....look at the time stamp....had her attorney's given their claim or reasoning for the delay? No....it was posted right as news broke from Grassley....but you spend 30 minutes creating this entire fictional thought process that I went through because you do not like that I am pointing out that her attorneys have delayed and stalled all week. |
| Quote: | Lawyer for Kavanaugh accuser rejects 'arbitrary' Friday deadline, granted extra day
The lawyer for Christine Blasey Ford asked for an extra day to work out the conditions for her to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding her allegation of sexual assault by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Attorney Debra S. Katz sent a letter accusing Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, ofarbitrarily imposing a 10 p.m. Friday deadline for Ford to agree to testify in the midst of ongoing discussions -- and then scheduling a vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation before the deadline.
"The imposition of aggressive and artificial deadlines regarding the date and conditions of any hearing has created tremendous and unwarranted anxiety and stress on Dr. Ford," Katz wrote. "Your cavalier treatment of a sexual assault survivor who has been doing her best to cooperate with the Committee is completely inappropriate."
Grassley tweeted late Friday that he was granting the extension, though not without reminding he'd granted Ford "five extensions" and apologizing to Kavanaugh, saying he's not normally so indecisive.
Katz wrote she notified Grassley at 4:01 p.m. Friday that her team would need an additional day to confer with Ford and provide a "well-considered repsonse" because Ford had met with the FBI for several hours about death threats she had received. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the news broke....or at least my first exposure was a notification on my phone....I clicked on the story, and it was Grassley's tweet only, and said story still developing.
I posted on LG.
Hours later after college football games ended, I checked back, and there was more to the story including comments from her attorney. I simply could not have been as manipulating as you described because of the timeline of events and the time I posted.
That said, I am not avoiding anything here. I am extremely skeptical of Ms. Ford's allegation. I cannot imagine the logic of anyone that is not skeptical of the legitimacy of her claims based on the facts known, and the timeline of events.
Timeline of Events....not 100% sure if in chronological order
- she waits 35 years to say anything. she was fine with him working in the Whitehouse and even setting on the 2nd most important court in the United States with a lifetime appointment....but the Supreme Court was too much.
- Feinstein hides the allegation from the committee and everyone until it is clear they could not stop the confirmation through the traditional process.
- Ford, her attorney's or the Democrats "leak" her identity after claiming she did not want her identity disclosed.
- Ford/Democrats claim she never intended to testify, but months before this California professor has secured representation from high powered Democratic operatives in Washington DC.
- Ford/Democrats claim she never intended to testify, but in July she gets a lie detector test that to date she will not disclose method, where or who performed or who paid for the test.
- Kavanaugh immediately denies the allegation 100%. Claims no event happened.
- Kavanaugh, Judge, and Smyth have provided statements to the Senate committee under penalty of perjury that her claim is false. The claim never happened.
- In the notes from Ford's therapist in 2012 that she provided, she never mentions Kavanaugh and claims there were 4 males involved. Now she claims the therapist made a mistake. Just try that on....ever been to a therapist? Can you imagine telling your therapist you were assaulted by 1 or 2 teenagers, but the therapist mistakes the claim for 4 males? There would have been more discussion, more questions.....the therapist does not make that kind of mistake.
- To date, through her attorney's, has claimed she does not recall the location or time when this event happened. she claims to not even recall why they were at this place. They have avoided any real facts to avoid perjury. Without simple time, location, place, witness.....it impossible to prove dishonesty in the claim.
- Ford's friend / classmate takes to Facebook to claim "everyone at school was talking about it" and immediately is discredited as Ford claimed it happened over the summer and she told no other person. The friend, immediately deletes claim, and now says she is not sure it happened.
- Fords attorney goes on a media tour claiming her client just wants a chance to testify and claims she will do whatever it takes to speak to the committee. Grassley offers her an open hearing, closed hearing or they would even send staff to California to take her statement. Realizing the bluff was called, they begin to implement the Democrats playbook to delay....calling for a FBI investigation. When that did not work, they send a list of ridiculous demands knowing the committee would never agree. Then she wants only the committee members to question her....just as Dem's were pushing for so they could have all these men question a female.
- And after extending the deadline multiple times, her attorneys initially claim she will testify.....to get Grassley to not schedule Monday vote. Hours later, tells the media, they are still negotiating, and she needs it on Thursday (to ensure no time is available for a vote next week)....but still has not committed to showing up under the "harsh" terms of the committee.
It is beyond ridiculous at this point. The goal is clear.....destroy Kavanaugh's reputation, delay, delay, delay.....and pray. If it does not work, at least the Dem's can satisfy the extreme elements of their party they tried...while knowing they will not be held accountable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | the news broke....or at least my first exposure was a notification on my phone....I clicked on the story, and it was Grassley's tweet only, and said story still developing.
I posted on LG.
Hours later after college football games ended, I checked back, and there was more to the story including comments from her attorney. I simply could not have been as manipulating as you described because of the timeline of events and the time I posted.
That said, I am not avoiding anything here. I am extremely skeptical of Ms. Ford's allegation. I cannot imagine the logic of anyone that is not skeptical of the legitimacy of her claims based on the facts known, and the timeline of events.
Timeline of Events....not 100% sure if in chronological order
- she waits 35 years to say anything. she was fine with him working in the Whitehouse and even setting on the 2nd most important court in the United States with a lifetime appointment....but the Supreme Court was too much.
- Feinstein hides the allegation from the committee and everyone until it is clear they could not stop the confirmation through the traditional process.
- Ford, her attorney's or the Democrats "leak" her identity after claiming she did not want her identity disclosed.
- Ford/Democrats claim she never intended to testify, but months before this California professor has secured representation from high powered Democratic operatives in Washington DC.
- Ford/Democrats claim she never intended to testify, but in July she gets a lie detector test that to date she will not disclose method, where or who performed or who paid for the test.
- Kavanaugh immediately denies the allegation 100%. Claims no event happened.
- Kavanaugh, Judge, and Smyth have provided statements to the Senate committee under penalty of perjury that her claim is false. The claim never happened.
- In the notes from Ford's therapist in 2012 that she provided, she never mentions Kavanaugh and claims there were 4 males involved. Now she claims the therapist made a mistake. Just try that on....ever been to a therapist? Can you imagine telling your therapist you were assaulted by 1 or 2 teenagers, but the therapist mistakes the claim for 4 males? There would have been more discussion, more questions.....the therapist does not make that kind of mistake.
- To date, through her attorney's, has claimed she does not recall the location or time when this event happened. she claims to not even recall why they were at this place. They have avoided any real facts to avoid perjury. Without simple time, location, place, witness.....it impossible to prove dishonesty in the claim.
- Ford's friend / classmate takes to Facebook to claim "everyone at school was talking about it" and immediately is discredited as Ford claimed it happened over the summer and she told no other person. The friend, immediately deletes claim, and now says she is not sure it happened.
- Fords attorney goes on a media tour claiming her client just wants a chance to testify and claims she will do whatever it takes to speak to the committee. Grassley offers her an open hearing, closed hearing or they would even send staff to California to take her statement. Realizing the bluff was called, they begin to implement the Democrats playbook to delay....calling for a FBI investigation. When that did not work, they send a list of ridiculous demands knowing the committee would never agree. Then she wants only the committee members to question her....just as Dem's were pushing for so they could have all these men question a female.
- And after extending the deadline multiple times, her attorneys initially claim she will testify.....to get Grassley to not schedule Monday vote. Hours later, tells the media, they are still negotiating, and she needs it on Thursday (to ensure no time is available for a vote next week)....but still has not committed to showing up under the "harsh" terms of the committee.
It is beyond ridiculous at this point. The goal is clear.....destroy Kavanaugh's reputation, delay, delay, delay.....and pray. If it does not work, at least the Dem's can satisfy the extreme elements of their party they tried...while knowing they will not be held accountable. |
Or some drunken 17 year old dude sexually assaulted a 15 year old girl.
_________________
Under New Management |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Grassley grants Kavanaugh accuser another extension..... |
293
That is how many days Merrick Garland's nomination was open.
And he never got a vote
And he never had an allegation of attempted rape against him.
And you're worried about a week or so?
Your partisanship strains your credibility |
thought this thread did not like "whataboutisms"? Has nothing to do with Garland. You do not know my opinion on how Garland was handled. Garland was not smeared with extremely questionable accusations, nor was his reputation damaged for pure political reasons. |
More victim shaming |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29354
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Adkindo. Thief.
Are either of you opposed to a different conservative judge being appointed by the Republican Senate?
I think the Trump is trying to ram Kavanaugh (specifically) down our throats because he is unique among conservative judges. He believes Presidents can ignore subpoenas or any legal action while in office.
Alot of Dems have accepted the fact we're losing the Supreme Court. We understand Roe v. Wade will be overturned or lessened in a tangible way. We understand voting rights will be taken away from non-white people disproportionately.
We just don't want Kavanaugh specifically because he believes a Trump Presidency should be treated like a kingship. He is above the law.
And even though you believe Trump didn't collude with Russia. I believe he did (based mostly on his son's emails). And I don't think any President Dem or Republican should be allowed to get away with that. I hate thinking Russia played our country.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24166
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
#WhyIDidntReport takes off on Twitter
| Quote: | The #WhyIDidntReport hashtag has surged to the top of Twitter’s trending list following comments made by President Trump early Friday that cast doubts on sexual assault allegations brought against his Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, by Christine Blasey Ford.
As of Friday afternoon, over 38,000 tweets [200,000 by Saturday morning] have been posted sharing the hashtag along with people tweeting about why they didn’t report their own experiences of sexual assault.
“Hey, @realDonaldTrump, Listen the f--- up. I was sexually assaulted twice. Once when I was a teenager. I never filed a police report and it took me 30 years to tell me parents," actress Alyssa Milano wrote on Twitter.
"If any survivor of sexual assault would like to add to this please do so in the replies. #MeToo,” Milano added, writing #WhyIDidntReport in a follow-up tweet. |
| Quote: | ashley judd ✔ @AshleyJudd
#WhyIDidntReport. The first time it happened, I was 7. I told the first adults I came upon. They said “Oh, he’s a nice old man, that’s not what he meant.” So when I was raped at 15, I only told my diary. When an adult read it, she accused me of having sex with an adult man. |
| Quote: | Jen Steer ✔ @jensteerv Replying to @Alyssa_Milano
#WhyIDidntReport He was supposed to be my friend, but he beat me when I said no. This is the first time I've talked about it in public. |
| Quote: | maura quint ✔ @behindyourback
When I was 16, I had pretty much the same experience as Ford. My (supportive & loving) parents still don't know. At the time, I thought I might get in trouble for being there in the first place & also I was embarrassed & wanted badly to just forget. I never did. #WhyIDidntReport |
NYT: Patti Davis, Ronald Reagan’s Daughter, Tells Her Story of Sexual Assault
| Quote: | In an opinion piece in The Washington Post, Ms. Davis said she was at a prominent music executive’s office about 40 years ago when he crossed the room and forced himself on top of her “so quickly” that she froze.
“I lay there as he pushed himself inside me,” Ms. Davis wrote. “The leather couch stuck to my skin, made noises beneath me. His breath smelled like coffee and stale bread. He didn’t use a condom.”
Ms. Davis, 65, is a writer and speaker whose latest novel, “The Earth Breaks in Colors,” was published in 2015. Her opinion piece in The Post, which did not name an assailant, came five days after Dr. Blasey, 51, came forward as the woman who had accused Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, a Supreme Court nominee, of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers. Judge Kavanaugh has denied the allegation. |
Patti Davis: I was sexually assaulted. Here’s why I don’t remember many of the details.
| Quote: | I felt alone, ashamed and disgusted with myself. Why didn’t I get out of there? Why didn’t I push him off? Why did I freeze?
I don’t remember what month it was. I don’t remember whether his assistant was still there when I arrived. I don’t remember whether we said anything to each other when I left his office.
I never told anyone for decades — not a friend, not a boyfriend, not a therapist, not my husband when I got married years later. |
Last edited by ChefLinda on Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Lebrons
Star Player
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 4778
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | The Lebrons wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Grassley grants Kavanaugh accuser another extension..... |
Attacking a possible victim is not a pretty look. |
who attacked someone? where did this attack take place? |
WHAT'D I DO??? |
Just once...just one time, I would like to see you add an opinion or something to the conversation instead of jumping in with passive aggressive comments because you think you're in agreement with the thread regulars. |
A dumb post deserves a dumb reply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sam Stein
@samstein
Source familiar says that Grassley, Feinstein, and Ford's lawyers have agreed to a THURSDAY hearing with Ford.
_________________
Under New Management |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Huey Lewis & The News
Star Player
Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Posts: 5234
Location: So what's the uh...topic of discussion?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | Baron Von Humongous wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Baron Von Humongous wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Grassley grants Kavanaugh accuser another extension..... |
Because he doesn't have the votes. And he's terrified of Dr. Blasey Ford. |
he has the votes....it is a done deal...just trying to avoid giving the Democrats and their propaganda machine (aka msm) any additional false narratives. |
Why would he ever give a (bleep) about Democrats propaganda? |
because there is an election....you know damn well the main stream media is chomping at the bit to launch a narrative that the accuser had credible allegations, but those mean republicans would not even allow her to testify. I still do not think she shows up next week....the Thursday request was little more than a delay tactic by her attorneys who are clearly working with congressional democrats to ensure there is not time for a vote this week. |
Fox News is the mainstream media, no?
Anyway, they should have Kavanaugh step down next week citing concerns for his family. He should maintain his innocence. Then advise Trump to nominate Amy Barrett who will almost assuredly get through before November. The optics of nominating a woman would play well. Barrett has some baggage, but far less of a paper trail than a career political operative like Kavanaugh.
Then since most GOP voters are fueled by paranoia and self-pity, making Kavanaugh a martyr to whatever George Soros-centric conspiracy the fringe conservative media can cook up and inject into Fox News viewers' veins could spark enough right wing outrage to increase Republican voter turnout in November.
_________________
Under New Management |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-boys-club-that-protects-brett-kavanaugh?mbid=social_facebook
| Quote: | Kavanaugh managed to avoid testifying on whether he snuck a few beers past Jesus. But, as has been widely reported, the inside jokes on his high-school yearbook page list him as the treasurer of the “Keg City Club” and a member of the “Beach Week Ralph Club,” and make reference to “100 Kegs or Bust.” Close readers of his yearbook page have debated whether “Have You Boofed Yet?” refers to the practice of anally ingesting alcohol or drugs. According to many graduates of Washington prep schools, the party culture described in yearbooks often created occasions for sexual harassment and assault. More than a thousand women who attended Holton-Arms, the girls’ school from which Ford graduated, have signed a letter that describes the alleged assault as “all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton. Many of us are survivors ourselves.”
|
Honestly this surprised me. I guess I wrongly extrapolated from my high school group where the high achievers were extremely straight-laced, but I didn't expect this elite Jesuit boarding school to be so... fratty. My default is to give the (alleged) victims the benefit of the doubt anyway, but reading more about the culture of this school makes me quite confident that Ford's allegations are real. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Thief
Starting Rotation
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 735
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | Adkindo. Thief.
Are either of you opposed to a different conservative judge being appointed by the Republican Senate?
|
If he had appointed someone else I would have been fine with that. I'm not religious and am undecided on the abortion issue as it's something that is obviously very complex and I haven't really dug into the arguments deeply for either side to make a firm for or against decision.
| kikanga wrote: | | We understand voting rights will be taken away from non-white people disproportionately. |
How are republicans taking away voting rights? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Thief
Starting Rotation
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 735
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChefLinda wrote: |
If Grassley had not granted her another extension in light of this, he would look even more like a big unfeeling sexist jackass and would have made the GOP's gender gap problem even worse. Besides, he knows that none of the male GOP senators' votes will be swayed no matter how she testifies. So it was better for him politically to look like he was trying to be accommodating.
|
The plan is obvious to anyone with half a brain. Stall as long as you can and come up with excuse after excuse not to testify until the GOP comes up with a deadline which you can then say "see those meany old men don't care about sexual assault victims. Except the GOP has been so acomodating that the plan is backfiring and it's making deomocratic leaders look like the insensitive ones for using a women's sexual assault claim as a political tool. Hopefully she will testify on Thursday but I wouldn't be surprised if they come up with another excuse to push that date off as well. If she really wanted an investigation the police department in the town where this took place already said they would investigate if she would just file a complaint. Why doesn't she file a complaint? Makes zero sense not to file at this point.
Linda how do you feel that the democratic party is using sexual assault as a political tool? Doesn't really go with the whole mantra of "we go high" now does it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Thief wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | Adkindo. Thief.
Are either of you opposed to a different conservative judge being appointed by the Republican Senate?
|
If he had appointed someone else I would have been fine with that. I'm not religious and am undecided on the abortion issue as it's something that is obviously very complex and I haven't really dug into the arguments deeply for either side to make a firm for or against decision.
| kikanga wrote: | | We understand voting rights will be taken away from non-white people disproportionately. |
How are republicans taking away voting rights? |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder
TL;DR: the Republican judges voted down a provision of the Voting Rights Act requiring certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices.
| Quote: | | On June 25, 2013, the Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that Section 4(b) is unconstitutional because the coverage formula is based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states. |
Leading to one of my favorite quips in a dissent from RBG:
| Quote: | [t]hrowing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet
|
Consequence of the Shelby decision?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/officials-defend-plan-close-almost-195106464.html
Here you have Republicans closing polling stations in majority-black areas because they aren't ADA compliant, instead of, y'know, fixing them so they are ADA compliant.
It's as clear as day what they are doing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Thief wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: |
If Grassley had not granted her another extension in light of this, he would look even more like a big unfeeling sexist jackass and would have made the GOP's gender gap problem even worse. Besides, he knows that none of the male GOP senators' votes will be swayed no matter how she testifies. So it was better for him politically to look like he was trying to be accommodating.
|
The plan is obvious to anyone with half a brain. Stall as long as you can and come up with excuse after excuse not to testify until the GOP comes up with a deadline which you can then say "see those meany old men don't care about sexual assault victims. Except the GOP has been so acomodating that the plan is backfiring and it's making deomocratic leaders look like the insensitive ones for using a women's sexual assault claim as a political tool. Hopefully she will testify on Thursday but I wouldn't be surprised if they come up with another excuse to push that date off as well. If she really wanted an investigation the police department in the town where this took place already said they would investigate if she would just file a complaint. Why doesn't she file a complaint? Makes zero sense not to file at this point.
Linda how do you feel that the democratic party is using sexual assault as a political tool? Doesn't really go with the whole mantra of "we go high" now does it? |
Good lord, give the woman time. She's a bit busy these days.
_________________
Under New Management |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Thief wrote: |
#ConcernedReader how do you feel that the democratic party is using sexual assault as a political tool?? |
If it affects the sexually violent culture women suffer through because men of power don't do enough to ensure true equality.
Then count me in as to say no tool shall be left unturned to create equality
Bill Clinton Impeached for lying
Trump? Gets to put off when he is questioned until he can coordinate with all his henchmen
Manafort is feeding Trump info on Mueller's investigation.. cooperate
Lies how many times per day?
Either way almost every politician is a douche taking money from special corporations and cannibalizing your (bleep) vote |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12632
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Grassley grants Kavanaugh accuser another extension..... |
293
That is how many days Merrick Garland's nomination was open.
And he never got a vote
And he never had an allegation of attempted rape against him.
And you're worried about a week or so?
Your partisanship strains your credibility |
thought this thread did not like "whataboutisms"? Has nothing to do with Garland. You do not know my opinion on how Garland was handled. Garland was not smeared with extremely questionable accusations, nor was his reputation damaged for pure political reasons. |
I can't speak for the group here, but whataboutisms that are false equivalencies, or apples to oranges, or mistake the facts, or constantly dodge the issue, are definitely problematic.
Even more problematic however, is hypocrisy and double standards.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12632
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | The Thief wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | Adkindo. Thief.
Are either of you opposed to a different conservative judge being appointed by the Republican Senate?
|
If he had appointed someone else I would have been fine with that. I'm not religious and am undecided on the abortion issue as it's something that is obviously very complex and I haven't really dug into the arguments deeply for either side to make a firm for or against decision.
| kikanga wrote: | | We understand voting rights will be taken away from non-white people disproportionately. |
How are republicans taking away voting rights? |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder
TL;DR: the Republican judges voted down a provision of the Voting Rights Act requiring certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices.
| Quote: | | On June 25, 2013, the Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that Section 4(b) is unconstitutional because the coverage formula is based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states. |
Leading to one of my favorite quips in a dissent from RBG:
| Quote: | [t]hrowing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet
|
Consequence of the Shelby decision?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/officials-defend-plan-close-almost-195106464.html
Here you have Republicans closing polling stations in majority-black areas because they aren't ADA compliant, instead of, y'know, fixing them so they are ADA compliant.
It's as clear as day what they are doing. |
Shelby was a horrible decision for all of the reasons stated but for another as well. Republicans love their textulism and the belief that their judges don't legislate from the bench. Which is a total crock of course.
Antoine Scalia said this in his opinion.
| Quote: | | And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes |
.
So, if you can't get what you want from the normal political processes (Congress) what do you do? You overturn their legislation because it is very difficult for Congress to do it themselves.
Hmmm. What would the expression for this be called now? (For the Republicans reading this, just look at the last four words of my second sentence.)
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24166
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
To the couple of people who keep asking "why didn't she report it sooner" - I posted the hashtag #WhyIDidntReport with some examples. There are now at least a quarter-million responses from both women and men about this. I even posted some examples. If you can't be bothered to read at least a handful, I have nothing to discuss with you.
If this is a Democratic plot to "use" women for political purposes, then I'd rather be in the party that believes and protects women than in the party that elected a serial sex abuser and continues to attack women who come forward, continues to try to nullify their right to determine their own reproductive choices, and a party that refused to reauthorize the violence against women act.
There is definitely one party that politicizes it's neanderthal attitudes about women by turning it into law, and it's the Republican Party.
Check back with me in November. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
WSJ reporter illustrates WaPo's lack of credibility if reporting the story. Sad, but not surprised.
| Quote: | Kimberley Strassel✔
@KimStrassel
1) More big BREAKING NEWS, which further undercuts the Ford accusation, as well as media handling of it. A source has given me the email that WaPo reporter Emma Brown sent to Mark Judge, one person Ford claims was at the party. This email is dated Sunday, Sept. 16, 2018.
2) The email wants a comment from him. The subsequent story would reveal Christine Ford's name, and give details of the supposed "assault."
3) One part of the email to Judge reads: "In addition to Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, whom she called acquaintances she knew from past socializing, she recalls that her friend Leland (last name then was Ingham, now Keyser) was at the house and a friend of the boys named PJ."
4) This matters for two big reasons--Ford's credibility and WaPo's. The subsequent WaPo story would go on to cite Ford's name and details, and also list notes from a therapist that Ford told this to in 2012. Read carefully what WaPo reports, the same day it emails Judge:
5) "The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.”
6) Wait, say what? WaPo reports publicly that Ford says it was "four boys,"even after WaPo reporter tells Judge that Ford had told her it was three boys and a girl.
7) So first, huge problem: This was just a week ago, and we have Ford giving two different accounts of who was present. Four boys. No, three boys, one girl. Either way, therapist notes from 2012 definitively say four boys, which Ford didn't dispute. But now... a girl!
8) Other problem: WaPo's reporting. Reporter has for a week had the names of those Ford listed as present. One is a woman. Yet it writes a story saying FOUR BOYS. Why? Maybe a mistake. But if so, why did WaPo never correct that narrative?
9) What, you can't find Keyser? She has lived in the DC area a long time. The paper had no trouble tracking down the other two men (btw, who also denied such party). And why not publish Keyser's name? It published the other men's names.
10) In its most recent update tonight, WaPo writes: "Before her name became public, Ford told The Post she did not think Keyser would remember the party because nothing remarkable had happened there, as far as Keyser was aware."
11) Wow. "Before her name became public, Ford told..." That is WaPo admitting that it had the name, and had Ford's response to what would clearly be a Keyser denial, but NEVER PUT IT OUT THERE. Again, why? A lot of people have a lot questions to answer.
11:47 PM - Sep 22, 2018 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
0 for 4. Ms. Ford has identified 4 potential corroborators of her claim or any part of her claim, and all 4 have denied recalling any such party or knowing anything about the claim against Kavanaugh. Smyth, Judge, and Kavanaugh have already responded to the Senate Committee under penalty of perjury, and last night former classmate and friend of Ford's, Leland Ingham Keyser responded through her attorney...
| Quote: | | "Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," lawyer Howard J. Walsh said in a statement sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. |
CNN originally referred to Keyser as a "lifelong friend" of Ford's, but has since updated their article to refer to Keyser as a "longtime friend". Keyser is a Democrat and former spouse of longtime Democratic operative and presidential campaign manager for Walter Mondale in 1984, Bob Beckel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | thought this thread did not like "whataboutisms"? Has nothing to do with Garland. You do not know my opinion on how Garland was handled. Garland was not smeared with extremely questionable accusations, nor was his reputation damaged for pure political reasons. |
Just like not every ad hominem is committing the ad hominem fallacy, not every "what about..." is a commission of whataboutism. The latter is using "what about" to distract attention away from something, e.g., "Mr. President, what about that meeting with the Russians?" "What about Crooked Hillary?"
Responding to the Republicans' "We have to move forward with the confirmation" with "What about Garland? You let him dangle for a YEAR without moving it along" is not distracting away from the point, it's directly addressing the point by providing a clear, recent example where they were not similarly compelled to move forward, therefore pointing out that they are hypocrites.
As for what they didn't do with Garland, perhaps he had a squeaky clean background. Perhaps they didn't need to do that because they had a better tool at their disposal (not holding a hearing at all). Perhaps if they held a hearing and had gotten to a similar point in the process, it WOULD have happened. We'll never know, because the Garland process didn't get that far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | 0 for 4. Ms. Ford has identified 4 potential corroborators of her claim or any part of her claim, and all 4 have denied recalling any such party or knowing anything about the claim against Kavanaugh. Smyth, Judge, and Kavanaugh have already responded to the Senate Committee under penalty of perjury, and last night former classmate and friend of Ford's, Leland Ingham Keyser responded through her attorney...
| Quote: | | "Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," lawyer Howard J. Walsh said in a statement sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. |
CNN originally referred to Keyser as a "lifelong friend" of Ford's, but has since updated their article to refer to Keyser as a "longtime friend". Keyser is a Democrat and former spouse of longtime Democratic operative and presidential campaign manager for Walter Mondale in 1984, Bob Beckel. |
This IS one of the problems with personal recollections of events that old. Memory simply doesn't work like a tape recorder. They change pretty much every time we recall them. We conflate them. We confuse timelines. One of my colleagues at UCI (Elizabeth Loftus) even did studies where she successfully implanted false memories. The subjects had no way of telling the false memories from the real ones, and in fact, how sure we are about the accuracy of a memory has little relation to its actual accuracy.
So knowing what I do about how memory works and how it goes awry, I would have no trouble believing that she is recalling it inaccurately, even substituting Kavanaugh for someone else. Certainly mixing up time, place, and who else was there.
I'm not stating categorically that it WASN'T Kavanaugh -- just that if it wasn't, it would be understandable. Nor am I suggesting that she's intentionally lying, making facts up, or was never sexually assaulted -- just that old memories are pretty unreliable. Which is why I really wanted to see an FBI investigation, where a professional investigator (who is proficient in such things) can try to put the pieces together, rather than leaving it to questioning between a bunch of Senators who don't have the necessary background.
Nor do I find the lack of corroboration from others she said were there (even if she is remembering them accurately) compelling. It's not surprising that we have no memory of a specific night 30+ years ago in which nothing traumatic happened to us. Again, an independent investigation from someone who understands what they're dealing with, and putting together a parsimonious explanation would be useful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | 0 for 4. Ms. Ford has identified 4 potential corroborators of her claim or any part of her claim, and all 4 have denied recalling any such party or knowing anything about the claim against Kavanaugh. Smyth, Judge, and Kavanaugh have already responded to the Senate Committee under penalty of perjury, and last night former classmate and friend of Ford's, Leland Ingham Keyser responded through her attorney...
| Quote: | | "Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," lawyer Howard J. Walsh said in a statement sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. |
CNN originally referred to Keyser as a "lifelong friend" of Ford's, but has since updated their article to refer to Keyser as a "longtime friend". Keyser is a Democrat and former spouse of longtime Democratic operative and presidential campaign manager for Walter Mondale in 1984, Bob Beckel. |
This IS one of the problems with personal recollections of events that old. Memory simply doesn't work like a tape recorder. They change pretty much every time we recall them. We conflate them. We confuse timelines. One of my colleagues at UCI (Elizabeth Loftus) even did studies where she successfully implanted false memories. The subjects had no way of telling the false memories from the real ones, and in fact, how sure we are about the accuracy of a memory has little relation to its actual accuracy.
So knowing what I do about how memory works and how it goes awry, I would have no trouble believing that she is recalling it inaccurately, even substituting Kavanaugh for someone else. Certainly mixing up time, place, and who else was there.
I'm not stating categorically that it WASN'T Kavanaugh -- just that if it wasn't, it would be understandable. Nor am I suggesting that she's intentionally lying, making facts up, or was never sexually assaulted -- just that old memories are pretty unreliable. Which is why I really wanted to see an FBI investigation, where a professional investigator (who is proficient in such things) can try to put the pieces together, rather than leaving it to questioning between a bunch of Senators who don't have the necessary background.
Nor do I find the lack of corroboration from others she said were there (even if she is remembering them accurately) compelling. It's not surprising that we have no memory of a specific night 30+ years ago in which nothing traumatic happened to us. Again, an independent investigation from someone who understands what they're dealing with, and putting together a parsimonious explanation would be useful. |
Do you remember where you were and what you were doing on 9/11?
How about 8/11/01?
_________________
Under New Management |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
