***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[Nike Jordan]

 

[getback]

 

[dwalk31]

I don't think it's unfair.

However, I don't believe in confirming someone to the highest court without a full investigation.

The Dallas Mavericks just fired a camera man amid allegations of sexual misconduct, yet here we are with Kavanaugh.

I'd like to think a Supreme Court Justice would be held at least the same standard as a basketball photographer.

Those were allegations that were substantiated after their investigation.

This situation is easily distinguishable. After talking to all of the witnesses that Dr. Ford implicated, there was no way to substantiate her claims.

But we don't need to go back and forth about it. It's over. The real issue with Justice Kavanaugh, for most Democrats/liberals that are being honest, is his position on key issues.

 

[boris]

They heard the senate testimony of both. They interviewed every witness that Dr. Ford implicated. All of them either did not remember the party or they stated they've never seen Justice Kavanaugh act in the manner she described. The other people that wanted to testify weren't present for the alleged events. And, surely, no evidence of excessive drinking moves the needle anywhere on guilt as it relates to sexual assault.

From that evidence, you state that he definitely did it. I just do not know how that squares with any logic. It seems like an arbitrary opinion based on some preconceived notion or angst.

If I remember correctly, you recently made a post stating that you found both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh to be credible, correct?

 

[dwalk31]

If I remember correctly, you recently made a post stating that you found both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh to be credible, correct?

I did. They were both quite credible and compelling (in my opinion).

 

[boris]

I did. They were both quite credible and compelling (in my opinion).

What, in your opinion, made both people credible and compelling?

 

[dwalk31]

There you go again with Hot air trying to make it sound like logic.....

Kav lied every chance he had over stupid **** like if he was watching Ford's testimony, the FBI didn't investigate the corroborating witnesses of the other accusers, and if you think that **** show of a senate trial was nothing but bad comedy you have no idea how normal trials or investigations take place.

Kav went up there and said a threesome was a drinking game, answered questions with "do you drink beer" and whined about Democrats. F*ckong Lindsey "in the closest" Graham had the audacity to point at people and say this is a sham..... about a week after he and his cohort tried to deny documents showing Kav had worked with hackers who had stole files from the Dems.

Your party is **** heels on their best day.

I was just speaking to the allegations of sexual assault. As it relates to perjury, I don't think that was the scope of the FBI investigation.

I agree that the Senate hearing was awful for everyone involved. Dr. Ford should have remained anonymous as she requested (I wonder how her name leaked). I feel like the Republicans were smart to have an experienced lawyer question Dr. Ford instead of berating her with questions in the manner that the Senators did with Justice Kavanaugh.

 

[IATT]

What, in your opinion, made both people credible and compelling?

 

[getback]

Those were allegations that were substantiated after their investigation.

Investigation. I like the sound of that.

 

[dwalk31]

What, in your opinion, made both people credible and compelling?

Arbitrary feelings that I know are not an acceptable objective standard. That is why the next step, in my opinion, is to look at corroborating evidence--or lack thereof. In these cases, that burden of proof rests with the accuser. And the accused is presumed innocent until that burden of proof is met. A he said/she said is simply insufficient under any objective standard.

 

[IATT]

 

[drunken cow]

When were we united before exactly?

Roughly between 99s - 2001, prior to all the Muslim hate.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

Can it even be called trickle down economics when wages are frozen?

And that’s the point. We talk about a strong economy, a strong stock market, GDP growth, but no one backing trump’s economic prowess speaks on how none of this economic prosperity is turning into more wages in a meaningful way that justifies the spending we’re doing.

 

[boris]

Arbitrary feelings that I know are not an acceptable objective standard. That is why the next step, in my opinion, is to look at corroborating evidence--or lack thereof. In these cases, that burden of proof rests with the accuser. And the accused is presumed innocent until that burden of proof is met. A he said/she said is simply insufficient under any objective standard.

Great, I'm glad you can acknowledge that you formulated an opinion based on their testimonies. I, too, formulated an opinion based on their testimonies.

Based on what you're saying, I imagine you would support a thorough investigation into the claims.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Roughly between 99s - 2001, prior to all the Muslim hate.

Sorry famb, no disrespect but ...

-Btw did you you mean 1999 or 1990. Because 1999 makes your statement patently false, 1990 makes if kinda ridiculous on top of being false.

Putting aside all the social issues being debated during that time, and foreign policy issues.....

You really think the time period of when half the country wanted use our surplus on healthcare and education while the other half wanted tax breaks was united?

And when we had an election where a few hundred votes gave it to a guy that lost the overall popular vote was united?

When people were complaining that Bush won Florida because his brother purged voter rolls of African American voters was united?

When the Supreme Court handed Bush the win by stopping a recount, that was united?

When we did have a legitimate third party, the Reform Party, that fell apart because white nationalist took it over was united?

When AR and TN turned red because Clinton and Gore were too like liberal, yet a large number of liberals voted for Nader in the general because they thought Clinton and Gore were too conservative, was united?

Bruh, c'mon now.

 

[dwalk31]

Great, I'm glad you can acknowledge that you formulated an opinion based on their testimonies. I, too, formulated an opinion based on their testimonies.

Based on what you're saying, I imagine you would support a thorough investigation into the claims.

I think there was since every witness implicated by Dr. Ford gave a statement.

What additional investigation do you think was necessary?

Can we just keep 1 hunnit... The push for the additional investigation was a failed delay tactic in hopes of Dems taking the house. Flake and ****s agreed to a 1-week FBI investigation (that we had).

 

[aepps20]

Your feelings simply can't be an objective standard. As stated yesterday, in my comment that no one responded to, we have to rely on traditional notions of fairness. There is a presumption of innocence that remains unless someone is proven guilty. That burden of proof rests with the accuser--not the accused.

It is a scary thought to have arbitrary feelings, from people who were not present during the alleged events, determine guilt.

Is Roy getting the invite to your Thanksgiving? You cape for him more than his own family.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

I think there was since every witness implicated by Dr. Ford gave a statement.

What additional investigation do you think was necessary?

Can we just keep 1 hunnit... The push for the additional investigation was a failed delay tactic in hopes of Dems taking the house. Flake and ****s agreed to a 1-week FBI investigation (that we had).

I think what’s happening Is a bunch of different issues surrounding the confirmation are being conflated. Although there may have not been enough substantiating evidence of the actual assault, so much of Kav’s statement during the hearing was him talking about the kind of person he is/was. Almost as to say “look Everone, I don’t do this, this, and that so I can’t be the kind of person that would sexually assault someone.” The problem is there were people coming out of the wood work from different parts of his life that directly refuted the way he presented his character and the kind of person he claimed to be. From my understanding, those people were not heard in any kind official manner. This why other than his positions, people don’t like him. His whole defense was “I never got drunk, so I couldn’t drunkenly assault someone”. But tons of people that knew him are essentially saying “bruh, not only did you get drunk, you were belligerent with it”.

 

[Rootin4EverybodyBlack]

Republicans don't even have a platform anymore. All they're about is suppressing the rights of minorities, more guns, and telling women they can't have abortions. All that fiscal conservative crap went out the window when they decided to run the deficit up to give corporations tax breaks. All of them MFs are clowns and IDC how moderate they appear to be, they need to go because they're complicit with the ******** that's going on right now.

 

[IATT]

 

[Belgium]

Did this alleged helping occur before or after he told the media just hours after the towers collapsed about how he now had the tallest building in downtown Manhattan?

 

[IATT]

 

[boris]

I think there was since every witness implicated by Dr. Ford gave a statement.

What additional investigation do you think was necessary?

Can we just keep 1 hunnit... The push for the additional investigation was a failed delay tactic in hopes of Dems taking the house. Flake and ****s agreed to a 1-week FBI investigation (that we had).

I think the FBI investigation should not have been limited. I don't agree that it was a failed delay tactic as I take these allegations very seriously.

 

[elpablo21]

 

[Wargames]

I was just speaking to the allegations of sexual assault. As it relates to perjury, I don't think that was the scope of the FBI investigation.

I agree that the Senate hearing was awful for everyone involved. Dr. Ford should have remained anonymous as she requested (I wonder how her name leaked). I feel like the Republicans were smart to have an experienced lawyer question Dr. Ford instead of berating her with questions in the manner that the Senators did with Justice Kavanaugh.

No I am glad she came out. If she had remained anonymous your sh*t party would of waived away her story as being baseless cause she was anonymous.

Also the lawyer they chose, was just a shield for them because they had the iota of self realization to know they shouldn't be the face questioning her. Basic political Kabuki to give the glimmer of protection as they rammed an attempted rapist onto the Supreme Court.