Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Wed Sep 19, 2018 5:46 pm UTC

The Democrats are desperately trying to stall until October 1st when the new SCOTUS term begins, and there is no way the Republicans can allow that to happen. I don't believe the Republicans have to allow any further delay of the confirmation vote, but they have a difficult choice to make: 1) Force the vote before the SCOTUS begins the new term and get Kavanaugh seated, and then fight through the potential negative PR leading up to the midterms, or 2) Cave in to the demands of the Democrat minority and potentially avert the negative PR before midterms, but then accept the possibility of not seating a conservative justice.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3729
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Sep 19, 2018 5:58 pm UTC


Chen
Posts: 5489
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Wed Sep 19, 2018 5:59 pm UTC

I agree those are basically the two options. I think the democrats had a better chance of delaying until Oct 1 by having the hearing Monday and then try to delay from the results of that. Trying to delay in advance by requesting an FBI inquiry is pushing too hard (unless there's some precedent/law that I'm not aware of).

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1822
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby eran_rathan » Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:04 pm UTC

Chen wrote:I agree those are basically the two options. I think the democrats had a better chance of delaying until Oct 1 by having the hearing Monday and then try to delay from the results of that. Trying to delay in advance by requesting an FBI inquiry is pushing too hard (unless there's some precedent/law that I'm not aware of).


293 days is pretty good precedent.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

duodecimus
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 12:25 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby duodecimus » Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:51 pm UTC

The Democrats are trying to delay, but remember that the Republicans are also rushing it.

http://time.com/5387133/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-hearings-day-2/
"Some 42,000 pages were released to senators only, not the public, on the evening before the hearing."


https://www.chron.com/news/article/Hours-before-Kavanaugh-confirmation-hearings-13202217.php
And the president claimed executive privilege to withhold about a 5th of collected documents from the senate, though the full corpus is about five times previous documentation for SCOTUS nominees.


Sigh. Every time I hear about something like this my knee-jerk reaction is that these children should go get their teacher to mediate for them, they clearly can't work it out themselves.

Why are any documents involved in the nomination of someone to the highest court in the world restricted from the senate, who would share all his security privileges? Hell, why aren't they public? Just lay it all out in the open and use your majority to appoint the idiot you already decided to appoint.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:59 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
Chen wrote:I agree those are basically the two options. I think the democrats had a better chance of delaying until Oct 1 by having the hearing Monday and then try to delay from the results of that. Trying to delay in advance by requesting an FBI inquiry is pushing too hard (unless there's some precedent/law that I'm not aware of).


293 days is pretty good precedent.

There's a difference, though, between a senate majority delaying a confirmation vote and a senate minority trying to force a delay of the confirmation vote.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1822
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby eran_rathan » Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:15 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:
Chen wrote:I agree those are basically the two options. I think the democrats had a better chance of delaying until Oct 1 by having the hearing Monday and then try to delay from the results of that. Trying to delay in advance by requesting an FBI inquiry is pushing too hard (unless there's some precedent/law that I'm not aware of).


293 days is pretty good precedent.

There's a difference, though, between a senate majority delaying a confirmation vote and a senate minority trying to force a delay of the confirmation vote.



you don't recall 2013, then, do you?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/ ... nomination

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor ... ed-by-gop/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... nomination

and so on and so on....
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:18 pm UTC

sardia wrote:The scotus nominee rape allegation took a disappointing turn. The accuser is asking for a delay+FBI investigation, but the Republicans are playing hard ball. I'm not sure what influence anyone can have short of another shoe dropping. I'm sure having a hearing would be better than not having it, but I'm not sure how this could sink kavanaugh. Unless he lies under oath (aka denies rape but proof later occurs).


Well, the timing of this seems aimed at delaying nomination, sure. Kick it out past the midterms and hope to win the senate. That seems like the win condition for the Democrats.

Republicans have no reason to aim for that, and frankly, there's little legal leverage to force them to do so.

cphite wrote:The explanation given for this delay is that Ford didn't want to be in the public eye; fair enough. But there is no reason Feinstein couldn't bring it up in closed meetings, either while questioning Kavanagh himself, or within committee. But she didn't do that... why? If she sincerely believed this accusation to be true, why keep completely quiet about it until the 11th hour?


Well, for the political advantage of attempting a delay, certainly. That doesn't make the accusation true or false...her motives exist independently of the accusation's validity. Politicians gonna do things for political advantage.

End of the day, I don't think the Democrat desperation is gonna carry them. Yeah, they *really* dislike him, but they're lacking in actual power, or anything sufficiently persuasive to those who have power.

And even if they did manage to somehow delay it until the midterms, they have a decent shot at not taking the senate then.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:23 am UTC

eran_rathan wrote:you don't recall 2013, then, do you?

Fair enough.

But the Democrats in this case are trying to force a delay by demanding an Executive branch agency investigate a questionably timed allegation about something which would be damned-near impossible to prove one way or the other so long after the alleged incident when said agency has already performed six comprehensive background checks over the decades.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

Chen
Posts: 5489
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Thu Sep 20, 2018 2:49 am UTC



That was before they changed the rules to disallow a fillibuster in those cases. Just like how the Republicans did that for SCOTUS nominations. Those delays were all part of thr system. The precedent I was asking for was for a delay similar to the one now. Realistically the Republicans dont seem to even have to allow this testimony to occur. Its bad politically for them to so they’ve let it go (presumably with plans to discredit the accuser once she testifies). If she doesnt testify at all they’ll have Kavanaugh testify his denial say they gave the accuser a chance to speak which she refused and they’ll move on. It seems like this actually saves face and makes it much more tenable politically. Which is why I said I think the Dems overplayed their hand in asking for this new delay.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Sep 20, 2018 3:05 am UTC

Yablo wrote:Fair enough.

But the Democrats in this case are trying to force a delay by demanding an Executive branch agency investigate a questionably timed allegation about something which would be damned-near impossible to prove one way or the other so long after the alleged incident when said agency has already performed six comprehensive background checks over the decades.
Right. Which is why it's so important that politicians learn how to lose with grace rather than pursue victory at any cost -- because the consequence of doing whatever it takes to win is that you create an environment where those sort of people are the only ones who can win.

And people who are fixated on 'winning' are not the sort of people you want running this country. The lifeblood of politics is compromise, civility, and cooperation. Without that, you create an environment that rewards inflexibility, hostility, and desperation.

I don't think the Republicans' behavior in regards to judicial nominations justifies the Democrats' behavior, but I think it certainly contextualizes it.

elasto
Posts: 3575
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:03 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Right. Which is why it's so important that politicians learn how to lose with grace rather than pursue victory at any cost -- because the consequence of doing whatever it takes to win is that you create an environment where those sort of people are the only ones who can win.

It's a prisoners' dilemma though. If one side is ruthless and the other compromises, the ruthless side usually gets its way - or gets to stop the other side having their way - even if they are the minority party. This is basically what happened in Obama's first term. So both sides end up ruthless and intransigent even though the country would be a lot better off if both were pragmatic and constructive.

In Obama's second term he got more ruthless and forced through a few victories, but at the expense of the Dems being painted as 'just as bad as' the Reps, and Trump got to reverse a lot of his executive orders anyway.

And people who are fixated on 'winning' are not the sort of people you want running this country. The lifeblood of politics is compromise, civility, and cooperation.

Well, yes, but people who aren't fixated on winning tend not to win, and if you don't win it doesn't much matter how good your ideas are.

This is the essential paradox of leadership: Anyone who wants it probably shouldn't be allowed to have it.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7518
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zamfir » Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:59 am UTC

That's what elections are for , right? Voters can decide that a certain politician or party is inflexible and destructive. Or they can look at the very same actions and consider them a spirited pursuit of worthwhile goals.

That takes a lot of the pain out of the prisoners dilemma - overly uncooperative play gets punished. Of course, if you personally want a more cooperative approach than most other voters, then you might not get your way. But that's not the prisoners dillemma, it's just disagreement.

Chen
Posts: 5489
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:52 am UTC

Both sides and both side’s voters, for the most part, aren’t willing to compromise on many of their core beliefs. As such both sides are going to tend towards ruthless. Consider something like abortion. Neither side is going to really give ground on that so being ruthless, with regards to this, is the optimal strategy both for outcomes (in each parties view) and in terms of getting re-elected.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3729
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:49 am UTC

When sub-Sahara sends its people, they're not sending their best. (…) And some, I assume, are good people!
(Summary: "Build a wall!" advice to Spain. Which is either superfluous (they already protect their North African enclaves with their 'trivial' boundary lengths) or stupid (3000-mile wide Sahara "cannot be bigger than" sub-2000-mile Mexican border, and never mind all the rest of the logistical problems) and it's not even obvious how this would have been intended to be a dumb message actually intended for his dumb base. So I think it's just plain dumb.)

elasto
Posts: 3575
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:07 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:That's what elections are for , right? Voters can decide that a certain politician or party is inflexible and destructive. Or they can look at the very same actions and consider them a spirited pursuit of worthwhile goals.

That takes a lot of the pain out of the prisoners dilemma - overly uncooperative play gets punished.

I don't think that in a two-party system overly uncooperative play ever really gets punished. Very few are going to say 'the Reps are playing too hardball on Supreme Court nominations (or whatever) so I'm going to vote Dem'.

Indeed, I think playing rough motivates the extremists to go out and campaign much more than it demotivates the centrists making them stay at home.

We really need to somehow evolve past a two-party system in order to get genuinely cooperative politics in play. And even moreso than that, we need to progress past the concept of political parties at all. It's crazy that someone's attitude to guns should correlate with their views on the environment or their attitude towards abortion. These should be orthogonal issues and yet poll after poll shows that both sides engage in a huge amount of collective group-think that does nothing to forge any kind of intelligent consensus on any single issue.

Mutex
Posts: 1388
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Thu Sep 20, 2018 2:05 pm UTC

*rubs temples*

What is it with this man and walls?

Trump urged Spain to 'build a wall' across Sahara, says minister

President Trump recommended building a wall across the Sahara to solve Europe's migrant crisis, Spain's foreign minister says.

Josep Borrell, also a former President of the European Parliament, disagreed with the strategy.


It seems there were a few hidden, non-obvious problems with this seemingly brilliant idea. Such as the Sahara being 3000 miles across, Spain having no sovereignty over it, and the slightly optimistic faith in a wall's ability to achieve something the Mediterranean Ocean couldn't.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 20, 2018 2:08 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:That's what elections are for , right? Voters can decide that a certain politician or party is inflexible and destructive. Or they can look at the very same actions and consider them a spirited pursuit of worthwhile goals.

That takes a lot of the pain out of the prisoners dilemma - overly uncooperative play gets punished. Of course, if you personally want a more cooperative approach than most other voters, then you might not get your way. But that's not the prisoners dillemma, it's just disagreement.


Well, if both sides are fairly uncooperative, your choices may be limited, or may involve significant tradeoffs with other issues. Only having two viable parties in most elections limits the voter's ability to solve single issues unless they're so large that they attract a ton of single issue voters.

In any case, I do not think the Republicans paid a significant price for being inflexible with Obama. Rewarded, if anything.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10272
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Sep 20, 2018 3:24 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:*rubs temples*

What is it with this man and walls?

Trump urged Spain to 'build a wall' across Sahara, says minister

President Trump recommended building a wall across the Sahara to solve Europe's migrant crisis, Spain's foreign minister says.

Josep Borrell, also a former President of the European Parliament, disagreed with the strategy.


It seems there were a few hidden, non-obvious problems with this seemingly brilliant idea. Such as the Sahara being 3000 miles across, Spain having no sovereignty over it, and the slightly optimistic faith in a wall's ability to achieve something the Mediterranean Ocean couldn't.



To be fair, it seems to be working for Morocco. Of course, the goal is less 'keep people out' than 'commit genocide to steal land', and the Moroccan security forces are right there, and while probably not more sociopathic than the American border patrol they don't have to worry about getting caught by either the media or the local legal system.

Ok, ok, the US border patrol gets routinely ignored by the local legal system too, but not the media

Opus_723
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Opus_723 » Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:43 am UTC

I'm a little confused from the reading I've done, did the Democrats request the FBI follow-up, or is that coming from her and her lawyer?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10272
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:27 am UTC

The alleged victim is making the FBI request, but it's pretty much a given at the point that the woman is a Democrat pawn. The Dems had known since the beginning that she had this claim, but have waited for as long as possible to reveal it. It's clear the whole thing is a delaying tactic by the Dems to try and push off the nomination until after not only November, but until January when they may control Congress and thus block the nomination; had this been revealed immediately and sunk Kavanaugh's nomination earlier, the Republicans could've found a replacement nominee relatively quickly. It's pretty much the same political bullshit that the Republicans did back in 2016, but mud stains Blue more readily than Red, apparently, so it may actually backfire and reduce the number of seats the Dems win in 2 months.

As for the woman's case, given the evidence so far, there is minimal evidence. It's an alleged crime that predates the :-( emoticon; the statute of limitations is long gone on this. It was so long ago that there may not even be any witnesses who can even place Kavanaugh at the party, let alone confirm the woman's story. The most evidence the woman has is some notes from her therapist which don't name Kavanaugh specifically, and a polygraph test which isn't even admissable in a courtroom. So at the moment, it seems like this case, at best, is a waste of FBI time.

Opus_723
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Opus_723 » Fri Sep 21, 2018 5:10 am UTC

I think there is literally no way this could have gone that she wouldn't be accused of being a Democrat pawn. Sure, politicians are gonna strategize and capitalize, it's what they do. But they're also people.

I get pretty weary of the whole 'politicians are evil because everything they do is self-serving' angle, whether it's Republicans or Democrats.

Did Feinstein hold on to the letter because she thought it would be optimal to leak it as the process neared it's end? I could buy that. That sounds plausible.

Did she hold onto it because she wanted to respect the woman's wishes, but still felt the need to do *something* about it, wrestle with it, then try to get the FBI involved like they were with Anita Hill's accusations and kind of make a mess in the end when word got out to the other senators? That also sounds like something a person would do. Hell, that sounds like a way that *I* might have screwed that up.

Were all those things, cynical and altruistic, probably part of the story? I'd bet on that. We like to go on about how politicians are all evil, manipulative, cunning, and incompetent all at the same time. My unpopular opinion? Put your extended family in charge of Congress and you'd get all of the exact same shit, and they would all still just be the same nice people you've always known. Politics is just normal people, trying to do what they think is the right thing, and getting too caught up in it.

I don't think we need to call this woman a Democrat pawn. That is... not great.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10272
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 21, 2018 5:23 am UTC

Opus_723 wrote:I think there is literally no way this could have gone that she wouldn't be accused of being a Democrat pawn.


"Pawn" doesn't mean her claims are fraudulent, but that she's being played and she's not even all that valuable to the Democrats. She's not completely useless of course; plenty of checkmates involve a strategically maneuvered pawn, and on occasion a pawn may find itself promoted to queen*, but a pawn nonetheless.

Opus_723 wrote:Politics is just normal people, trying to do what they think is the right thing, and getting too caught up in it.


Yeah... no. Politicians are not normal people. Oh, they are made of flesh and blood and get squeezed head first out of someone's vagina like everyone else, but they are far from normal and almost never lead normal lives. Politicians are the kids you knew in high school who were loved and adored by absolutely everyone aside from the antisocial "rebels", the star football player or debate club captain who could charm the undies/jockstraps off anyone they wanted to. The "average Joe/Jane" does not go into politics, at least nothing beyond the most local level such as a PTA or a HOA**.

You've been lied to by Hollywood your whole life. While dumb luck plays a huge amount, successful musicians and athletes and such were recognized as such by everyone they knew since the very beginning. Same with politicians. Dumb luck is what got Obama his job as Illinois Representative, but it didn't get him the Senate nor the Dem nom nor the Presidency; his charisma had to do all the heavy lifting.


*or a knight, or in extremely rare cases a rook, though that hasn't happened in a serious match since the rules were altered so that a king is no longer allowed to castle forward.
**which is why both of those seem to be staffed with control freaks with napoleonic complexes visible from the ISS; absolute power has nothing on the corruption caused by the smidgeon of power

Opus_723
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Opus_723 » Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:58 am UTC

Oh, of course I know that almost all of these people live in bubbles of wealth and privilege, and have since they were kids. Obviously that makes them particularly asinine. What I mean is that, at the end of the day, they just don't seem any more viciously cynical, cutthroat, or manipulative than my grandma trying to win an argument.

That's all I mean when I say that 'pawn' strikes me as oddly sinister. It just sounds so Machiavellian, and I guess I put more of this stuff down to people awkwardly trying to balance their personal morals and electoral stuff (and being jackasses because most people are jackasses a little bit) than overt scheming.

Anyway, we don't need to argue about the use of 'pawn.' I just meant that all the talk about the manipulations going on behind the scenes feels a little overzealous sometimes. There's not really a great way this could have all turned out, and we'd just be complaining about different things.

(Alternative theory: maybe my grandma is just awful :lol: )

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3006
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: Trump presidency

Postby orthogon » Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:52 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Yeah... no. Politicians are not normal people. Oh, they are made of flesh and blood and get squeezed head first out of someone's vagina like everyone else,

Not everyone else. Although, the Internets being what they are, there is actually some debate about whether somebody born by C-section could become the POTUS. A natural breech birth doesn't appear to disqualify you, though. (I was going to argue that Julius Caesar himself was a politician, but it seems that he came out the normal route after all).
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

cphite
Posts: 1301
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cphite » Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:07 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:The alleged victim is making the FBI request, but it's pretty much a given at the point that the woman is a Democrat pawn. The Dems had known since the beginning that she had this claim, but have waited for as long as possible to reveal it. It's clear the whole thing is a delaying tactic by the Dems to try and push off the nomination until after not only November, but until January when they may control Congress and thus block the nomination; had this been revealed immediately and sunk Kavanaugh's nomination earlier, the Republicans could've found a replacement nominee relatively quickly. It's pretty much the same political bullshit that the Republicans did back in 2016, but mud stains Blue more readily than Red, apparently, so it may actually backfire and reduce the number of seats the Dems win in 2 months.


Seems like now she's willing to testify - but not until Thursday - because of security reasons. At this point even if the whole thing is not a deliberate ploy to delay the vote, they are doing everything they could do to make it look like one.

As for the woman's case, given the evidence so far, there is minimal evidence. It's an alleged crime that predates the :-( emoticon; the statute of limitations is long gone on this. It was so long ago that there may not even be any witnesses who can even place Kavanaugh at the party, let alone confirm the woman's story.


So far the two people she has named as potential witnesses both deny any knowledge of the event or anything like it. She doesn't remember where or even exactly when the event took place; doesn't remember how she got there or how she got home. So even if this could be opened as a criminal case, it would come down to her own testimony; which the defense would argue is unreliable at best.

The most evidence the woman has is some notes from her therapist which don't name Kavanaugh specifically,


Her therapist notes supposedly state that there were four men in the room, not two as she is claiming now. She says that her therapist is mistaken on that point... which calls into question the legitimacy of the notes as evidence.

and a polygraph test which isn't even admissable in a courtroom.


Defense will ask why did she pay to have a polygraph test when - at the time - she had no intentions of revealing her identity?

So at the moment, it seems like this case, at best, is a waste of FBI time.


At best, they could question all potential witnesses and determine if there are inconsistencies between the various stories... the problem is, given the lack of physical evidence and the three decades that have passed since the alleged assault, it would be almost impossible to differentiate actual inconsistencies from a sincere inability to remember. Bear in mind, even she cannot remember major details of what happened.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:09 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Opus_723 wrote:I think there is literally no way this could have gone that she wouldn't be accused of being a Democrat pawn.


"Pawn" doesn't mean her claims are fraudulent, but that she's being played and she's not even all that valuable to the Democrats. She's not completely useless of course; plenty of checkmates involve a strategically maneuvered pawn, and on occasion a pawn may find itself promoted to queen*, but a pawn nonetheless.


I would agree. Calling someone a pawn doesn't imply any nefarious action on their part...often it's almost sympathetic, in that they're being used by someone else. It's a tough position to be in. Her accusations may be true or not, we don't really have any good way to know.

But the timing and choices made point to intentional delays, so there's definitely a play being made for political gain here that is pretty much unrelated to the truth of the accusations. As political plays go, I believe republicans have little to lose by forging ahead anyways, though they may manage to get a bit of mud on democrats in the process.

Opus_723 wrote:Politics is just normal people, trying to do what they think is the right thing, and getting too caught up in it.


Yeah... no. Politicians are not normal people. Oh, they are made of flesh and blood and get squeezed head first out of someone's vagina like everyone else, but they are far from normal and almost never lead normal lives. Politicians are the kids you knew in high school who were loved and adored by absolutely everyone aside from the antisocial "rebels", the star football player or debate club captain who could charm the undies/jockstraps off anyone they wanted to. The "average Joe/Jane" does not go into politics, at least nothing beyond the most local level such as a PTA or a HOA**.


Both are kind of true. Yes, at the national level, politicians are definitely isolated from the rest of society in some respects, and do not well represent the average american.

But on the flip side, local politics can be nasty as hell. Give your neighbors a bit of power, and there's probably at least one who'll let it go to his/her head. It's a human flaw to some extent, which makes the problem a bit harder than simply kicking out the rich.

User avatar
Euphonium
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: in ur bourgeois bosses' union, agitating ur workers

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Euphonium » Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:42 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:The alleged victim is making the FBI request, but it's pretty much a given at the point that the woman is a Democrat pawn. The Dems had known since the beginning that she had this claim, but have waited for as long as possible to reveal it.


At Dr. Ford's request, because quite understandably deciding whether or not going public to stop her rapist from sitting on the Supreme Court was worth the personal shitstorm she would experience (including, it turns out, death threats to the point where she's had to move her family) was a difficult decision for her.

Because, being a more or less decent human being, I'm not going to sit here and dictate to someone who actually has experienced this nightmarish trauma how they have to process and work through it in order to meet my arbitrary standards of satisfaction.

It's clear the whole thing is a delaying tactic by the Dems to try and push off the nomination until after not only November


It certainly helps, but the fact is that it was being withheld at Dr. Ford's request.

the statute of limitations is long gone on this.


You know how I know you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, and are just pulling stuff out of your ass?

Because if you did know what you were talking about, you'd have known that Maryland (where this took place) has no criminal statute of limitations for felony sexual offenses of any kind.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10272
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:09 pm UTC

But can the statute be adjusted retroactively? What was the statute of limitations in 1982, when the offense is said to have occurred?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:19 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:But can the statute be adjusted retroactively? What was the statute of limitations in 1982, when the offense is said to have occurred?
If it's a felony offense, there is no statute of limitations. As far as I'm aware, there never was.
Euphonium wrote:At Dr. Ford's request, because quite understandably deciding whether or not going public to stop her rapist from sitting on the Supreme Court was worth the personal shitstorm she would experience (including, it turns out, death threats to the point where she's had to move her family) was a difficult decision for her.
As she herself does not claim she was raped -- but rather, sexually assaulted -- it strikes me as disrespectful to refer to Kavanaugh as 'her rapist'. I suspect she would not use that term herself.

'Her attempted rapist' (or 'her sexual assaulter') would be more appropriate, I think.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6331
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:43 pm UTC

There are only a few crimes without statute of limitations:

(a) A person charged with absence without leave or missing movement in time of war, with murder, rape or sexual assault, or rape or sexual assault of a child, or with any other offense punishable by death, may be tried and punished at any time without limitation.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/843
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

cphite
Posts: 1301
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cphite » Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:01 pm UTC

Euphonium wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:The alleged victim is making the FBI request, but it's pretty much a given at the point that the woman is a Democrat pawn. The Dems had known since the beginning that she had this claim, but have waited for as long as possible to reveal it.


At Dr. Ford's request, because quite understandably deciding whether or not going public to stop her rapist from sitting on the Supreme Court was worth the personal shitstorm she would experience (including, it turns out, death threats to the point where she's had to move her family) was a difficult decision for her.

Because, being a more or less decent human being, I'm not going to sit here and dictate to someone who actually has experienced this nightmarish trauma how they have to process and work through it in order to meet my arbitrary standards of satisfaction.


Feinstein could have addressed the allegations with Kavanaugh privately when she interviewed him, or she could have addressed the allegations with the committee in a closed session; either of which would have maintained the anonymity of Dr. Ford, at least as far as the public was concerned. In fact, if she really believed the allegations to be serious, she had an obligation to do so.

Keeping them completely quiet until the 11th hour was a political ploy, nothing more.

And while we can all sympathize with the alleged victim and her need to process; there is only so much leeway that anyone can expect from a judiciary process. Demanding that the FBI investigate as a condition for her testimony was nonsense. The committee offered her a public hearing, a private hearing; they even offered to send representatives to her for a hearing - she declined, citing security concerns. Most recently, she says she'll agree to a hearing so long as no lawyers are allowed to question her, and only if Kavanaugh gives his testimony first - which is the opposite of how any of that works.

the statute of limitations is long gone on this.


You know how I know you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, and are just pulling stuff out of your ass?

Because if you did know what you were talking about, you'd have known that Maryland (where this took place) has no criminal statute of limitations for felony sexual offenses of any kind.


Where are you getting a felony?

Based on the description of events - drunk teen gropes another drunk teen at a party - you're talking about maybe second-degree assault and a fourth-degree sex offense, and good luck prosecuting that.

User avatar
Euphonium
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: in ur bourgeois bosses' union, agitating ur workers

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Euphonium » Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:09 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Where are you getting a felony?

Based on the description of events - drunk teen gropes another drunk teen at a party - you're talking about maybe second-degree assault and a fourth-degree sex offense, and good luck prosecuting that.


Maryland law expressly forbids (as separate felonious offenses) the attempt to commit rape in the first or second degree, or a sexual offense in the first or second degree. Regardless of what he actually did, if he attempted to go even further (into rape 1/2 or sexual offense 1/2 territory) but simply did not succeed, that's a felony there as well, and as a felony sexual offense not subject to a SoL. At the very least, his intentions are something that could conceivably be investigated as a criminal matter if the prosecutor were so inclined.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10272
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:48 pm UTC

So let's say that the allegations are indeed for a felony and within SOL, so what? There is no physical evidence I'm aware of, no semen samples or polaroid pictures. I don't even know if there is evidence that Kavanaugh was at the party, let alone in the room with Dr Ford. Dr Ford doesn't even remember the date the alleged attack occurred. The people she claimed would corroborate her story... haven't. Her story conflicts with her therapist's notes. There doesn't seem to be enough evidence at this point for a civil -let alone criminal- suit.


EDIT: Holy ****, is my 10,000th post really about defending a possible sex offender?

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:00 pm UTC

With all due respect to an alleged victim of sexual assault, if she wants her story to be heard and considered, it's on her and her lawyers to tell it. She's not in a position to place conditions on her testimony. She has a reasonable expectation of accommodation from the Senate committee, but if she's not willing to give her testimony without demands, she's basically forfeiting her right to give that testimony in that venue.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Sep 22, 2018 3:41 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Where are you getting a felony?

Based on the description of events - drunk teen gropes another drunk teen at a party - you're talking about maybe second-degree assault and a fourth-degree sex offense, and good luck prosecuting that.
Based on her description of the assault, it was clearly an attempted rape -- and attempted rape is a felony.

idonno
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:38 pm UTC

cphite wrote:And while we can all sympathize with the alleged victim and her need to process; there is only so much leeway that anyone can expect from a judiciary process. Demanding that the FBI investigate as a condition for her testimony was nonsense. The committee offered her a public hearing, a private hearing; they even offered to send representatives to her for a hearing - she declined, citing security concerns. Most recently, she says she'll agree to a hearing so long as no lawyers are allowed to question her, and only if Kavanaugh gives his testimony first - which is the opposite of how any of that works.

It is difficult to even understand what sort of testimony Kavanaugh could give first. What is he supposed to say about a party at an unspecified location on an unspecified date where according to him an event did not occur. Unless he is stupid enough to demonstrate some knowledge of what she is talking about by getting more specific, there is literally nothing to say other than denying the accusation.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6564
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:52 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
cphite wrote:Where are you getting a felony?

Based on the description of events - drunk teen gropes another drunk teen at a party - you're talking about maybe second-degree assault and a fourth-degree sex offense, and good luck prosecuting that.
Based on her description of the assault, it was clearly an attempted rape -- and attempted rape is a felony.

While this case is unusual in it's circumstances, I'm glad cphite is not a DA, or anyone close to deciding whether or not to pursue rape cases. Of course, there's still a lot of people who share similar views today.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10272
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:19 pm UTC

And most DA's tend to be older and more conservative, from the generation that thought the rape by deception scene in Revenge of the Nerds was a heroic action, if not from the generation that saw little wrong the the Star Trek episode where Kirk tries to rape yoeman Rand, the investigation amounts to her being locked in a room with Kirk and two large men while they convince her she's making it all up, and by the end of the episode Kirk is joking with her about it.

Oh, that episode gets SOOO much worse when you find out that Grace Lee Whitney, who played Rand, was raped by an "Executive" on the show. An "Executive" whose description matches Gene Roddenberry. And she was subsequently fired from the show, possibly in relation to the rape.

gd1
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:16 am UTC

Well, I want to post a youtube link about something, but I don't want it to get buried on this page because this is post #40, so I'll just go with the fact that I've seen the typical response of liberals were the party of slavery which glosses over the fact that liberals back then supported smaller government and states rights (which is what republicans support now).

Hopefully someone will post so the next page will come up.

6480 posts/162 pages = 40
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests