Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    2. News

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. News
      2. Red Dead Online
      3. The Armadillo Inn
    1. GTA Online

      1. After Hours
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Crews

      1. Events
      2. Recruitment
    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA Next

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    12. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Forum Support

    2. Site Suggestions

Raavi

General US Politics Discussion

Recommended Posts

Darth Yokel
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, G's Ah's said:

he is thereby innocent until there is enough evidence where culpability for what he is accused of is under no doubt.

There was enough evidence. The GOP simply refused to acknowledge it as evidence and they refused to investigate it properly because they knew what the investigation would find. They refused to interview corroborating witnesses who were willing to testify under oath about the incident. They blocked the FBI from interviewing them as well. They also didn't care at all about Kavanaugh's blatant perjury. There was more than enough evidence that he had perjured himself. Even lying about Devil's Triangle alone should have been enough not only to disqualify him from SCOTUS but to impeach him from the judiciary. You can't have a judge who lies under oath. But I've seen your posts. You don't actually use your brain when you decide who and what to believe. You're simply brainwashed.

Edited by Darth Yokel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi
10 hours ago, G's Ah's said:

As it turns out, the accusations leveled against him were never substantiated and ergo, they are more likely than not to be nothing more than fiction. 

 

After he was confirmed, Ford said she didn't want to continue this further, which is a great indicator that there was never any truth to her accusations, and that they were merely an attempt at derailing the SCOTUS appointment process. 

 

1. Absence of evidence is not tantamount to evidence of absence. Sexual assault allegations are notoriously difficult to prove. Exponentially more difficult when they're historical. In this case you're dealing with both a setting where most if not all persons present were in some state of intoxication which is well accepted to deteriorate the quality of memory, that is if there was any left in the first place. Moreso, even in experimental settings peoples' perception and thereafter recollection is very specific to that person. It's perfectly conceivable, that since this was in fact a party, people were too busy with partying to have much notion of what was going on upstairs. This however, does not, preclude from happening in any way someone being raped in an upstairs bedroom at that very moment. 

 

What is typically done in these kinds of cases for lack of any kind of physical evidence unless there is an outright confession, is to build a case on victim accounts and circumstantial evidence. Picking holes in the testimony of the alleged perpetrator along the way. In this case, we had some miniature version of that in the hearings. Which, even in that setting brought out multiple inconsistencies whether or not rising to the level of perjury. Imagine this in a protracted weeks-long trial where he does not have the luxury of sycophantic politicians from one side of the aisle cushioning every other blow. He would not last a day.  

 

2. The notion that a random woman, a university professor with a well established career no less, would just make up a story, perjure herself risking prison-time just for the off chance that it would derail the appointment of a random judge? Never-mind the fact that she never wanted to come forward publicly in the first place. Come on. You can do better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Argonautt
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, G's Ah's said:

I don't have a reason to not believe his innocence... As it turns out, the accusations leveled against him were never substantiated and ergo, they are more likely than not to be nothing more than fiction.

You should have every reason not to believe his innocence based on the sham performance he gave, in which he, for example:

 

- Lies about there being no gatherings on his calendar with the people Ford referred to, of which Ford is able to recall before his calendar is released;

Spoiler

 

Ford identifies the following people at the event:

 

Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, a boy named P.J., and one other boy whose name I cannot recall. I also remember my friend Leland attending.

 

Kavanaugh responds with examples of the kinds of gatherings he did attend, none of which match with any of Ford's identified list of characters. But looking at Kavanaugh's calendar on July 1st, an event he does not refer to, he planned to go to "Timmy’s for (brew)skis w/Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi"- 2/3 people she recalls, plus Brett, so a small gathering- just as Ford describes:

 

It was not really a party like the news has made it sound. It was not. It was just a gathering that I assumed was going to lead to a party later on that those boys would attend, because they tended to have parties later at night than I was allowed to stay out. So it was kind of a pre-gathering.

 

 

- Lies about not living near Ford's country club near where the assault happened, whilst living closer to it than she did, and

- Generally lies about the remoteness of Ford relative to the people he encountered socially;

Spoiler

 

On point 1, very simply, which line between the houses and the club is bigger:

 

WdJ8ULX.png

 

The relevant quote about this:

 

In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said that there were four other people at the house but none of those people, nor I, lived near Columbia Country Club. 

 

On the second point, Kavanaugh claims that

 

When my friends and I spent time together at parties on weekends, it was usually the — with friends from nearby Catholic all-girls high schools, Stone Ridge, Holy Child, Visitation, Immaculata, Holy Cross. Dr. Ford did not attend one of those schools. She attended an independent private school named Holton-Arms.. As of the summer of 1982, Dr. Ford was 15 and could not drive yet and she did not live near Columbia Country Club.

 

As we can see in the image below, with two of the Catholics schools labelled in an area of about 5 miles, there is clearly not a lot of distance between Ford's school and the Country Club, the Catholic schools and the country club, and if Kav was (theoretically- Kav probably left from home as it and the event was very close to the country club) from his college, he'd be the furthest away on the day.

 

qPgQcPX.png

 

 

- Misleads the Senate by restricting the possible days for such an event to just the 'weekends', whilst clearly having an event on a weekday;

Spoiler

 

I did have the summer of 1982 documented pretty well. The event described by Dr. Ford, presumably happened on a weekend because I believed everyone worked and had jobs in the summers. And in any event, a drunken early evening event of the kind she describes, presumably happened on a weekend. If it was a weekend..

 

Firstly, we know the July 1st event happened on a Thursday:

 

onlgdly.png

 

A subsidiary point is the recognition of how he quickly restrains the available dates for this event to the ones where he can have an alibi- presumably it happened on a weekend, because someone who busted their butt in academics, going to church and tutoring mentally disabled children could never do this; I believed, from this frame of mind, that everyone wasn't too different; in any case, the sort of drunken early evening event presumably happened again on a weekend, even though this sort of regrettable experience would probably be matched by a regrettable weekday (from the position of this good Christian boy); and finally, even if it happened on a weekend, to go beyond this rule-of-three of conditional statements... etc. In the heat of the Senate hearing, Kavanaugh was making sure that no one listening to a long statement wouldn't be left with an idea of conditionality somewhere in their mind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition to not believing his innocence, the sham performance itself is perfectly valid in functioning as grounds to not put him on the Supreme court. This point seems (probably consciously) avoided by Kavanaugh supporters who want to ride on the seemingly incontestable train of "you can't remove him on these unproven accusations!". Examples include:

 

 

 

- Equating the statement of having "no recollection" with "it didn't happen"

Spoiler

Leland Keyser is Christine Blasey Ford's friend, who she claims attended the gathering with her. Her lawyer's statement reads: "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.” 

 

Kavanaugh relies on this to say:

 

"All four witnesses who are alleged to be at the event said it didn’t happen. Including Dr. Ford’s long-time friend, Ms. Keyser,"

"All the witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen. Ms. Keyser’s her longtime friend, said "

 

Having no recollection of an event does not and cannot rule out it happening, in addition to there being many more ways to prove it did. Keyser also said in an interview with the Washington Post that she believes Ford's accusations.

 

 

- Got into the clearly alcohol-related “Beach Week Ralph Club” thanks to a delicate stomach’s intolerance for spicy food, and

- When asked whether 'Ralphing' referred to alcohol, did not answer, instead saying "I like beer";

Spoiler

His yearbook mentions he was the “biggest contributor” to the Beach Week Ralph Club, which he admitted was a reference to vomiting:

WHITEHOUSE: Let’s look at, “Beach Week Ralph Club — Biggest Contributor,” what does the word Ralph mean in that?

KAVANAUGH: That probably refers to throwing up. I’m known to have a weak stomach and I always have. In fact, the last time I was here, you asked me about having ketchup on spaghetti. I always have had a weak stomach [...etc]

 

It also lists him as treasurer of the “Keg City Club,” with his entry mentioning “100 Kegs or Bust". Take a guess what this refers to! He also ran weekly tailgates, and outside of already existing comments by individuals who knew Kavanaugh as a heavy drinker, The New York Times cites a 'nearly a dozen people' who knew Kavanaugh and confirmed him as a heavy drinker.  

 

 

- Lies about not knowing what "Renate Alumnus" means whilst being a member of it, against a Yale member printing "You need a date / and it’s getting late / so don’t hesitate / to call Renate" in the same yearbook;

Spoiler

He speaks of “That yearbook reference was clumsily intended to show affection", but when questioned on whether his apology to her was based on the remark being a nasty innuendo, replies by pointing out that Renate said they never had any sexual interaction, “so your question is false”. And what sort of back-to-the-wall defense is that?

 

- When asked about ever drinking to the point of blackout, responds with "I don’t know. Have you?"

Spoiler

KLOBUCHAR: So you’re saying there’s never been a case where you drank so much that you didn’t remember what happened the night before, or part of what happened.

KAVANAUGH: It’s — you’re asking about, you know, blackout. I don’t know. Have you?

 

The fact that he apologized afterwards does not change the fact that this response is utterly unsuitable for someone going on the highest court in the land, and there is no comparison to this in Ford's statement; can you picture the scenes if a Democrat judge spoke the same way?

 

- When having the importance of little lies undermining the credibility of entire statements explained to him, repeats the lie of "the four witnesses present have all said it didn’t happen";

Spoiler

 

BLUMENTHAL: [In law, there’s a Latin phrase that means] ‘false in one thing, false in everything.’ Meaning in jury instructions that [prosecutors tell] the jury that they can disbelieve a witness if they find them to be false in one thing. So the core of why we’re here today really is credibility. Let me talk…

KAVANAUGH: But  the core of why we’re here is an allegation for which the four witnesses present have all said it didn’t happen.

 

 

 

And this is all from that single hearing alone, and doesn't even feature some important witnesses from the (week long) FBI hearings and the multiple witnesses who have continued to come forward with corroborating evidence, and even more contextual info included in Nathan Robinson's erudite piece on How We Know Kavanaugh is Lying, of which this (I think worthwhile- its a long piece) summary was devised from.

Edited by Argonautt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's
16 hours ago, Svip said:

On a normal day, sure. But it doesn't really matter these days. Trump is motivating them, especially younger women. And he is motivating them to vote against him.

We'll have to wait and see about this, but I very much have my doubts. 

 

Quote

While a majority of white women voted for Trump, it was only 56%.  And if we break down further that demographic by college-educated and non-college-educated, it was the latter that came out overwhelmingly (61% v 44%) for Trump, a demographic that tend not to vote in midterm elections, unlike college-educated voters in general.

So if we take into account that college-educated voters vote more often in mid-terms rather than presidential elections, that still doesn't seem to me like the Republicans are under any kind of threat. But then again, I don't know how voting patterns work in the United States. 

 

Quote

College-educated and young women are the kind of voter who is extremely energised these days, and energised against Trump.  And particularly his nominee Kavanaugh.

The thing with that is, even with the "energised" young Democrat voters, voting intentions still have the Republicans ahead of the Democrats. Whether or not this translates into actual votes remains to be seen. 

14 hours ago, Darth Yokel said:

There was enough evidence.

No there was not. None of the accusers produced anything to substantiate her claims. 

 

Quote

The GOP simply refused to acknowledge it as evidence and they refused to investigate it properly because they knew what the investigation would find.

I generally don't believe this to be in anyway based in fact. There was no evidence therefore there was no point in investigating it, in addition to the FBI generally not being used to investigate these kinds of allegations. 

 

Quote

But I've seen your posts. You don't actually use your brain when you decide who and what to believe. You're simply brainwashed.

Do you have evidence? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's
6 hours ago, Argonautt said:

You should have every reason not to believe his innocence based on the sham performance he gave, in which he, for example...

I do not believe Kavanaugh committed any of the crimes he is alleged to have committed purely because based on the lack of evidence supporting the allegations. His "lies" were merely an attempt to mitigate the damage to his reputation and his image being done by said allegations. 

 

Quote

Having no recollection of an event does not and cannot rule out it happening, in addition to there being many more ways to prove it did. Keyser also said in an interview with the Washington Post that she believes Ford's accusations.

Because Keyser is her friend, it would not be a good look on her behalf if she didn't stand by Ford for her allegations. Furthermore, a lack of recollection can point to one of two things: either alcohol intoxication preventing said experiences from being imprinted in the memory due to excessive consumption of alcohol (although Ford herself claims she only had one beer, make of that what you will) or that something did not happen. 

 

Quote

The fact that he apologized afterwards does not change the fact that this response is utterly unsuitable for someone going on the highest court in the land, and there is no comparison to this in Ford's statement; can you picture the scenes if a Democrat judge spoke the same way?

If a Democrat judge had been accused of sexual assault without any evidence provided by the accuser, then not only would I still believe them, I would not be surprised if the Democrats tried to brush the whole thing under the proverbial rug, or engage in the same kinds of behaviour others have accused the Republicans of doing. I do not believe the Democrats would be held to a different standard than the Republicans would be, both would be engaging in unscrupulous tactics in order to secure their judge's nomination. Furthermore, would there be the same kind of protests and mass hang-wringing on social media about Kavanaugh's appointment if there was a Democrat nominee who faced the same allegations? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip
7 hours ago, G's Ah's said:

We'll have to wait and see about this, but I very much have my doubts. 

 

So if we take into account that college-educated voters vote more often in mid-terms rather than presidential elections, that still doesn't seem to me like the Republicans are under any kind of threat. But then again, I don't know how voting patterns work in the United States. 

 

The thing with that is, even with the "energised" young Democrat voters, voting intentions still have the Republicans ahead of the Democrats. Whether or not this translates into actual votes remains to be seen.

'Voting intentions'?  What you mean?

 

Anyway, I am curious.  What do you think is going to happen in November?  That Republicans are going to maintain control of the Senate and the House?  And that they have nothing to worry about?

 

Edit: Also, this is sort of surprising, at least in the sense that I did not expect it to have such a significant impact.  But following politics, it's easy to think that everyone else is railed up.

Edited by Svip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darth Yokel
2 hours ago, Svip said:

Anyway, I am curious.  What do you think is going to happen in November?  That Republicans are going to maintain control of the Senate and the House?  And that they have nothing to worry about?

If their voter suppression tactics pay off they'll be just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doctor Holliday

Trump of course went out of his way to block the investigation.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-director-chris-wray-white-house-limited-kavanaugh-investigation_us_5bbe1755e4b028e1fe440989

 

See they never wanted the truth. This was never about the facts. They wanted to steal the Supreme Court pick from the cool black president who actually earned it with a dual-mandate (because they're jealous racists) so that they could spend the next 40+ years trying to dismantle a woman's right to choose (because they're also sexist pigs). So this is your Republican party, America. Sexist racists who don't care about Constitutional procedure or due process.

 

MAGA indeed.

Edited by Doctor Holliday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melchior

You'd have to be pretty thick or sexist to think Ford is just pulling a kamikaze because, what, she's such a dedicated democrat that she'd pull this to derail the GOP's agenda? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's
On 10/10/2018 at 6:05 PM, Svip said:

'Voting intentions'?  What you mean?

People who intend to vote. I assume that's what it means. 

 

Quote

Anyway, I am curious.  What do you think is going to happen in November?  That Republicans are going to maintain control of the Senate and the House?  And that they have nothing to worry about?

I don't know. November is around the corner, but who knows what else could happen in the meantime. 

 

Quote

 

Edit: Also, this is sort of surprising, at least in the sense that I did not expect it to have such a significant impact.  But following politics, it's easy to think that everyone else is railed up.

It remains to be seen how much of an effect this will have. I've also seen stuff reported around elsewhere that men are abandoning the Democratic party in spades after what happened with Kavanaugh, so who votes for what and how much it will have an effect on the outcome will certainly be worth looking forwards to. 

8 hours ago, Doctor Holliday said:

See they never wanted the truth. This was never about the facts. 

It wasn't as soon as Ford went and committed perjury on national television, or even when the "victims" came forward with accusations that even their own friends disputed. 

 

7 hours ago, Melchior said:

You'd have to be pretty thick or sexist to think Ford is just pulling a kamikaze because, what, she's such a dedicated democrat that she'd pull this to derail the GOP's agenda? 

I don't believe she was a kamikaze. I do think she was expecting more to come out of this. After all, similar allegations with the same amount (read: none) of evidence to support them have successfully taken down powerful men, and it was likely that she thought she could do the same thing. Unfortunately for her, it turned out that the damage that had been done last year when #MeToo began had already galvanised the American public and therefore less people were inclined to believe her, and more people were going to become suspicious of her intentions when she made these allegations. 

 

As much as I want to believe that there was a conspiracy afoot, there's simply nothing to suggest that such a thing occurred. For all we know she was just a woman whom the Democrats used to try and play dirty politics with, and was subsequently dumped like a hot brick when it failed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip
26 minutes ago, G's Ah's said:

I don't know. November is around the corner, but who knows what else could happen in the meantime. 

OK... you seem to pretend to know enough to be able to contradict others - myself included - whenever we make predictions about the November midterms - all else held equal, yet you decide to hide behind a possible October Surprise?

 

Then let me rephrase the question; assuming nothing else momentousness happens between now and election day, whom do you think will control the US House of Representatives in the next US Congress?

 

26 minutes ago, G's Ah's said:

It remains to be seen how much of an effect this will have. I've also seen stuff reported around elsewhere that men are abandoning the Democratic party in spades after what happened with Kavanaugh, [...]

Do you have a source on this?  I haven't seen this reported -- could be interesting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melchior
2 hours ago, G's Ah's said:

I don't believe she was a kamikaze. I do think she was expecting more to come out of this.

Okay, but even if she successfully stopped his confirmation, her life is still irreparably damaged? 

 

2 hours ago, G's Ah's said:

Unfortunately for her, it turned out that the damage that had been done last year when #MeToo began had already galvanised the American public and therefore less people were inclined to believe her

lol I don't think the American public has been 'galvanised' by the apparently obvious fakery of #MeToo. 

 

2 hours ago, G's Ah's said:

As much as I want to believe that there was a conspiracy afoot, there's simply nothing to suggest that such a thing occurred. For all we know she was just a woman whom the Democrats used to try and play dirty politics with

That is an insane conspiracy theory though. Like if you actually think some DNC official approached some random woman and told her to accuse Kavanaugh of being a rapist then you have brainworms. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's
16 hours ago, Svip said:

OK... you seem to pretend to know enough to be able to contradict others - myself included - whenever we make predictions about the November midterms - all else held equal, yet you decide to hide behind a possible October Surprise?

No, I was acknowledging the possibility of something else popping up between now and the election date, like the FBI investigation into Hilary Clinton the week before the 2016 election tanked her chances of winning (well in my opinion at least anyway). There's a saying about a certain length of time being longer in politics. 

 

Quote

Then let me rephrase the question; assuming nothing else momentousness happens between now and election day, whom do you think will control the US House of Representatives in the next US Congress?

The Democrats, more than likely. 

 

Quote

Do you have a source on this?  I haven't seen this reported -- could be interesting!

There's been a trend since the middle of the year. Another CNN poll from earlier this month found a 30 point gender gap. While neither can purely be attributed to Kavanaugh (I can't find any more recent polls after Kavanaugh's appointment), it's very likely that said drama will have a substantial effect on sex demographics and differences between who women vote for and who men vote for. Whether or not this is the intention of the Democrats or whether or not they seem to really care about this remains to be seen. 

15 hours ago, Melchior said:

Okay, but even if she successfully stopped his confirmation, her life is still irreparably damaged? 

I don't think it's damaged at all. If anything, she's become the new poster child for the #MeToo movement now that others have disgraced themselves. 

 

Quote

lol I don't think the American public has been 'galvanised' by the apparently obvious fakery of #MeToo. 

Reasonably recent polls are indicating that there's significantly more women voting Democrat than there used to be, and significantly less men. 

 

Quote

That is an insane conspiracy theory though. Like if you actually think some DNC official approached some random woman and told her to accuse Kavanaugh of being a rapist then you have brainworms. 

Who knows? It's American politics, anything is possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melchior
1 hour ago, G's Ah's said:

I don't think it's damaged at all. If anything, she's become the new poster child for the #MeToo movement now that others have disgraced themselves. 

Hey how about you get out of your MRA bubble or at least offer to hold everyone's hands through your regurgitating all the narratives from it? Because I have no idea what you're talking about. Who disgraced themselves? 

 

1 hour ago, G's Ah's said:

Reasonably recent polls are indicating that there's significantly more women voting Democrat than there used to be, and significantly less men. 

And if this is true there's no way to interpret it but as a brave rebellion against #MeToo?

 

1 hour ago, G's Ah's said:

Who knows? It's American politics, anything is possible. 

No, brainworms. The obvious conclusion is that he just did it and people who believe that don't have to resort to shrugging and going "hey, any crazy, off the wall sh*t is possible these days" unlike you who has such an entrenched resistance to supporting victims that you'll except any crazy sh*t if it means sticking it to feminists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip
11 hours ago, G's Ah's said:

There's been a trend since the middle of the year. Another CNN poll from earlier this month found a 30 point gender gap. While neither can purely be attributed to Kavanaugh (I can't find any more recent polls after Kavanaugh's appointment), it's very likely that said drama will have a substantial effect on sex demographics and differences between who women vote for and who men vote for.

Hmm... isn't it also possible, that it's women leaving Republicans and independent women joining Democrats, than men going the other way?  Frankly, I believe it is a bit of both, but I would imagine the women exodus from the Republicans being larger than its male counterpart from the Democrats.

Edited by Svip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darth Yokel
On 10/10/2018 at 12:59 PM, Svip said:

Polling seems to indicate that Kavanaugh's confirmation energises Democrats more than Republicans.  Which is basically what I've been claiming.  Kavanaugh is going to be old news in four weeks, but Democrats are still going to be furious.

They can be furious all they want. Won't change a thing if they've been purged from the voting registry or if they encounter some other voting roadblock set up by the Republicans.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/republicans-have-a-secret-weapon-in-the-midterms-voter-suppression?source=twitter&via=desktop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip
6 minutes ago, Darth Yokel said:

They can be furious all they want. Won't change a thing if they've been purged from the voting registry or if they encounter some other voting roadblock set up by the Republicans.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/republicans-have-a-secret-weapon-in-the-midterms-voter-suppression?source=twitter&via=desktop

The demographic most hurt by voter ID laws and their ilk are poor people.  The people furious mentioned in the above opinion poll tend mostly be lower-middle class women and upwards.  And more college-educated women than non-college-educated.  Indeed, the voters most furious about the Kavanaugh confirmation seems not to be those that can be restricted by the current laws Republicans have in place or are proposing.

 

The article you link to also seems to indicate that the two targeted demographics tend to be black and in particular poor voters.  People with enough resources are able to get around these restrictions.  And it tends to be the same kind of people who get riled up about something like Kavanaugh.  While probably infuriating to some poor people, most of them mostly care about their day to day living, not so much about sexual assault allegations and all that.

 

I am not saying it's not important, just that isn't for these voters.  And with restrictive process on voting, they were already less inclined to vote anyway.

 

While I do not approve of these tactics, I do not believe that will be the Republicans' saving grace.  Indeed, Republicans benefit far more from gerrymandering than any of these additional restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's
10 hours ago, Melchior said:

Hey how about you get out of your MRA bubble or at least offer to hold everyone's hands through your regurgitating all the narratives from it? Because I have no idea what you're talking about. Who disgraced themselves? 

Asia Argento, one of the more prominent faces of #MeToo initially who claimed to have been a victim of Harvey Weinstein. Long story short she had sex with someone under the legal age of consent in California and at the moment is claiming that she is a victim alongside making threats of litigation against people who have been criticising her. 

 

Quote

And if this is true there's no way to interpret it but as a brave rebellion against #MeToo?

That depends on entirely where you stand. From my perspective, no. It's not a brave rebellion against #MeToo but rather a response to the support of #MeToo and the concepts and ideas behind it by the Democrats. If there are Democratic politicians putting their weight behind things like #BelieveWomen for example, what kind of signal does that send to male voters? It makes them feel threatened, and this doesn't simply apply to white men. Skin colour matters little when a party you support is backing what is essentially a thinly veiled attack against the concept of due process. 

 

Quote

No, brainworms. The obvious conclusion is that he just did it and people who believe that don't have to resort to shrugging and going "hey, any crazy, off the wall sh*t is possible these days" unlike you who has such an entrenched resistance to supporting victims that you'll except any crazy sh*t if it means sticking it to feminists. 

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There's no evidence to suggest that Kavanaugh committed any crimes that he is accused of committing. It's not that I don't support victims or have an entrenched resistance to doing so, it's that I have a resistance to putting any kind of moral support behind someone who has nothing to support their case. That doesn't make me want to stick it to feminists, that doesn't mean I don't support victims, it means that I believe people who can prove something took place rather than belief by default, which is hugely dangerous. 

 

1 hour ago, Svip said:

Hmm... isn't it also possible, that it's women leaving Republicans and independent women joining Democrats, than men going the other way?  Frankly, I believe it is a bit of both, but I would imagine the women exodus from the Republicans being larger than its male counterpart from the Democrats.

I don't believe women are having a mass exodus from the Republicans, chances are a woman who votes Republican is either conservative herself or has another reason to vote. I'd say it's more women who already lean Democrat to effectively commit to voting Democrat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darth Yokel
1 hour ago, Svip said:

While I do not approve of these tactics, I do not believe that will be the Republicans' saving grace.  Indeed, Republicans benefit far more from gerrymandering than any of these additional restrictions.

For the sake of their democracy, let's hope you're right.

 

25 minutes ago, G's Ah's said:

There's no evidence to suggest that Kavanaugh committed any crimes

Credible witness testimony as well as corroborating witness testimony IS EVIDENCE. It it literally considered evidence in the court of law in the US. There are also e-mails that prove that Kavanaugh was aware of possible allegations of sexual harassment and by whom before those allegations turned up. So there's even physical f*ckin' evidence that he tampered with witnesses and that he committed perjury. In a properly run country he'd be on trial right now and eventually he'd end up in prison.

 

You are f*ckin' clueless if you think that there's a single US Senator who doesn't know for a fact that Kavanaugh is guilty. They all know it, they just don't give a f*ck. And luckily for them, they have people like you, useful idiots, who will buy into every one of their sh*tty little tales. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Edited by Darth Yokel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MatthewIRL

lol at everyone discussing the Kavanaugh case like they're experts on how to interpret the evidence... Go become prosecutors instead of hanging out in some backforum with your opinions on pedestals.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi
3 hours ago, MatthewIRL said:

lol at everyone discussing the Kavanaugh case like they're experts on how to interpret the evidence... Go become prosecutors instead of hanging out in some backforum with your opinions on pedestals.

 

lol at your fundamental lack of understanding of your own legal system. You live in a country with an adversarial system where people, average joes and jills very much like those in this thread are routinely tasked with interpreting and deciding on evidence. It's called jury duty. I do agree that this is utter bullsh*t and professional judges are superior in almost every conceivable way but that is an entirely separate discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MatthewIRL
7 hours ago, Raavi said:

lol at your fundamental lack of understanding of your own legal system. You live in a country with an adversarial system where people, average joes and jills very much like those in this thread are routinely tasked with interpreting and deciding on evidence. It's called jury duty. I do agree that this is utter bullsh*t and professional judges are superior in almost every conceivable way but that is an entirely separate discussion.

The jury forms their opinions based on the direct thorough and competent litigation of the prosecutor and defense attorneys, and the provision of evidentiary materials by professional witnesses, as well as character witnesses when needed. When they make their decision, they have everything in front of them--or at least one hopes they do. And they are strongly advised on arriving at a verdict informed by the evidence in front of them as it is, not as they want it to be because they've convinced themselves its one way and not another. This is why there are twelve jurors. It increases diversity of intellect and reduces the possibility of a biased verdict.

You may wish to make the case that not everything was examined in this case, but to what extent that is right or wrong, I cannot say. It was not a trial proper. It was a simple investigation hearing to determine the verity of the claims against Kavanaugh in the course of deciding his fitness for the role of Supreme Court Justice. At this point, if this was going to trial, we'd still be in the discovery phase. And a jury does not arrive at a verdict during discovery. Nor should we.

Personally, I much prefer the adversarial system to an inquisitorial system. In a jury of one's peers, one is more closely ensured a fair trial outcome as none would have any inherent biases against either the prosecution or the defense, nor is one's fate to be decided by a single intellect, which may at times, even in its mastery of law, become prone to fault.

Edited by MatthewIRL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's
23 hours ago, Darth Yokel said:

Credible witness testimony as well as corroborating witness testimony IS EVIDENCE.

There was neither of those things. All the witnesses who claimed to have been present when the alleged crimes took place pretty much disputed events and said flat out they never happened, or, in the case of Ford's friend, said she didn't know Kavanaugh. There was no credible evidence whatsoever. 

 

Quote

It it literally considered evidence in the court of law in the US. There are also e-mails that prove that Kavanaugh was aware of possible allegations of sexual harassment and by whom before those allegations turned up. So there's even physical f*ckin' evidence that he tampered with witnesses and that he committed perjury.

If there were witnesses who were present, yes, but being with someone isn't considered to be credible if they dispute the timeline of the alleged crime being committed. And furthermore, Kavanaugh was aware of the allegations Deborah Ramirez was about to make, but these were not done via email. Those emails were about the testimony itself and did not involve Kavanaugh but staffers from both the Republicans and Democrats. So no, there's no "physical evidence" of witness tampering and it is conjecture that he perjured himself. 

 

Quote

You are f*ckin' clueless if you think that there's a single US Senator who doesn't know for a fact that Kavanaugh is guilty.

And yet, he is confirmed. That would lead many to assume he is innocent. 

 

Quote

And luckily for them, they have people like you, useful idiots, who will buy into every one of their sh*tty little tales. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Why should I be ashamed for standing by the principle of innocent until proven guilty? There was no corroborating or credible evidence, Ford herself could not keep her story straight and Ramirez only confirmed her suspect after discussions with her lawyer. Most people could see that both the claims were, at best, misleading, given that there's every chance that memories tend to fade over time and details become different or go missing altogether, and at worst, they are straight up lies.

 

So tell me again, why should I believe someone's story when they had no credible witnesses, no corroborating evidence, and constant contradictions of what really happened? More importantly, if I accused you of committing some sort of sexual crime against me, and provided no evidence, would you want others to believe my side of the story? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi
12 hours ago, MatthewIRL said:

The jury forms their opinions based on the direct thorough and competent litigation of the prosecutor and defense attorneys, and the provision of evidentiary materials by professional witnesses, as well as character witnesses when needed. When they make their decision, they have everything in front of them--or at least one hopes they do. And they are strongly advised on arriving at a verdict informed by the evidence in front of them as it is, not as they want it to be because they've convinced themselves its one way and not another. This is why there are twelve jurors. It increases diversity of intellect and reduces the possibility of a biased verdict

12 hours ago, MatthewIRL said:

Personally, I much prefer the adversarial system to an inquisitorial system. In a jury of one's peers, one is more closely ensured a fair trial outcome as none would have any inherent biases against either the prosecution or the defense, nor is one's fate to be decided by a single intellect, which may at times, even in its mastery of law, become prone to fault.

In theory that's nice and well. In reality however they are people most if not all with better things to do, sitting there not to attain some lofty ideal of adjudication by peers but simply because they have to under penalty of law. Those people, then without having any basis in law, are to decide on someone guilt or liability often taking on board complex technical legalese. I mean, good luck trying to explain to Joe average the difference between dolus eventualis and concious negligence. They do this after being presented with a well curated portion of the evidence. In criminal trials especially, the accused has been processed under a factual presumption of guilt. Have fun trying to convince the people that a person brought in chained up like a zoo animal is in fact an innocent member of society. But I digress, after all the fanfare and theatrics that is the adversarial trial they then go to deliberate, and this is a setting where group psychology plays a huge role. More often than not someone will throw themselves up as leader and steer the discourse. Your diversity of intellect then is no longer part of the equation. Not to mention the rare, but not unprecedented occurrence of jury nullification. Professional judges are by no means infallible but the likelihood that the verdict is based in legal considerations and an extensive reading of the evidence rather than "who's version of the truth do I like more" is infinitely higher. Your trials are exponentially more entertaining though, I give you that. 

 

12 hours ago, MatthewIRL said:


You may wish to make the case that not everything was examined in this case, but to what extent that is right or wrong, I cannot say. It was not a trial proper. It was a simple investigation hearing to determine the verity of the claims against Kavanaugh in the course of deciding his fitness for the role of Supreme Court Justice. At this point, if this was going to trial, we'd still be in the discovery phase. And a jury does not arrive at a verdict during discovery. Nor should we.

 

There should have been an extensive investigation, and anyone that is not absolutely above reproach should not be seated on the highest court in the land. But this opens up a whole other can of worms, the fact that Supreme Court nominations and confirmations are a political process to begin with. When judges are overtly partisan that should worry you. But to address your discovery point, we'd first need an indictment, probably by grand jury, to have this go to trial. It never got to such point because the very limited parameters which in the FBI could investigate were delineated by the Trump WH.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AiraCobra
Quote

’m not a baby. I know these things

Quote

I'm the president and you're not

This ladies and gents are actual quotes from our 72-year-old ManChild of a President during a 60 minutes interview reverted to being a 5 year old with his replies. 

 

The funniest part of all of this though is the comments from Trump supporters actually trying to defend those remarks as if they were genius and not the work of the mind of a 5-year-old child and saying he is the best president the U.S has ever had which really speaks to how uneducated most of his supporters actually are, FDR and a few others would probably beg to differ.

 

I just keep picturing trump when told something by his aides that he doesn't like No! I'm not a baby, I'm a Big Boy!

 

----

 

Anybody else seen this? 181014-tani-trump-photo-hero_dgrxg4

 

Picture of trump with other Republican presidents such as Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Regan, Dwight Eisenhower I'm sure a few of them would have some not so nice things to say to Trump and are rolling over in their graves.

 

Only 760 more days until he's gone  

Edited by AiraCobra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Smith
8 hours ago, AiraCobra said:

 181014-tani-trump-photo-hero_dgrxg4Only 760 more days until he's gone  

What happens in 760 days, m8? And how's everyone doing here on tumbl... I mean GTA D&D? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doctor Holliday

Well oh boy, would you look at this.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/15/us-budget-deficit-expands-to-779-billion-in-fiscal-2018-as-spending-surges.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/economy/us-budget-deficit/index.html

 

Hey guys I'm confused.

See I thought that Conservatives stood for fiscal conservatism and smaller government, yet whenever they get into power they start spending borrowed money while cutting tax revenues, which is objectively poor economic stewardship. Suddenly the national debt is ballooning to record levels but the Tea Party is nowhere to be found. I thought they were founded in order to police out of control government spending. It's almost as if the Conservatives are a bunch of liars and hypocrites while the Tea Party had some other kind of underlying agenda in mind based on the previous administration.

 

I wonder what was different about that previous president that they could get so upset at his deficit spending while doing nothing to decry the same behavior we're witnessing today? I wonder. Hmm.

 

Golly gee whiz fellas, I'm awfully stumped on this riddle.

Do you guys really think the Conservative Republicans would lie to us? Or the honorable and respectable Tea Party for that matter? Could the American people really be so easily duped by the race-baiting politics of division?

 

Spoiler

hqdefault.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.