Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

lokisnow

U.S. Politics: Next-ennials vs stamps

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

So you'd prefer four more years of twitler, and silent prayers that RBG outlives those, too.

Unless you have strong evidence of Bloomberg being a cannibal with a special taste for toddlers meat, I can see no possible reality in which he would be a worse choice than Twitler or Pence.

Bloomberg is just a different face, not different in the objectives of the global klepto oligarchic class to utterly rule everything.  And he really is awful about women -- work for Bloomberg, and get fired if you're pregnant.  Not making this up.  And he's far more competent at it than the orange nazi.

Of course, he hasn't even been living in the US since he left off being mayor of NYC.  Though this probably wouldn't interfere that much with him buying out the trillions in debt government of the USA?  Maybe he and Bezos working together, as between them they have more money than most nations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

This is utterly crazy. Talk about shifting the goalposts...

OK. 

 

...

 

Um, when are you going to start talking about it? Oh, you're not?

Then I'm puzzled. I haven't shifted any goalposts. Perhaps you can explain what you perceive to be the difference between 'reason to believe [Ford]'s telling the truth' and 'reasonable suspicion' of Kavanaugh's account? Because given that the accounts are diametrically opposed, that amounts to the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

So you'd prefer four more years of twitler, and silent prayers that RBG outlives those, too.

Unless you have strong evidence of Bloomberg being a cannibal with a special taste for toddlers meat, I can see no possible reality in which he would be a worse choice than Twitler or Pence.

He isn't a worse choice than orange cheeto of course. He also isn't the best the Democratic party has to offer. Not by a long shot. Elizabeth Warren/Sanders/Kamala Harris/Hickenlooper would all be far far better than him. I would then question a universe in which he became the nominee.

Maybe I was being a bit facetious, but if it does turn out to be a fight between Kang and Kodos I would have to think a lot about whether to vote for Kodos...its not automatically a given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what stocks he is holding.

Pompeo Backed Saudi War in Yemen Over Weapon Sales: Report

https://www.thedailybeast.com/pompeo-backed-saudi-war-in-yemen-over-weapon-sales-report?ref=home

Quote

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo backed continued U.S. military support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen in order to protect $2 billion in U.S. weapons sales, The Wall Street Journal reports. Citing a classified memo and anonymous officials, the report states Pompeo overruled concerns from State Department staff about the spiraling death toll in the conflict. More than 16,700 civilians have been killed or injured in Yemen, according to the United Nations, which ranks it as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, mormont said:

Then I'm puzzled. I haven't shifted any goalposts.

You're shifting the burden of proof. Presumption of innocence, which is the basis of all Western legal systems, means the burden of proof is always on the accuser. Ford needs to do a bit more than accuse before Kavanaugh's truthfulness is brought into the picture. You always prove the credibility of the accuser first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

You're shifting the burden of proof. Presumption of innocence, which is the basis of all Western legal systems, means the burden of proof is always on the accuser.

Ah, I see the problem. You've made the classic error of thinking the whole world is a courtroom. An error that weirdly, people mainly seem to make when the person being accused of wrongdoing is a cis white man in a position of influence. 

No. There is no burden of proof here, unless it is the burden on Kavanaugh to prove that he meets the highest standards of probity and selflessness mentioned before, and that therefore he is a fit and proper person to be on the Supreme Court. That's what these hearings are for. That's what they're about. There is, and can be, no presumption that Kavanaugh should be appointed, which is what 'presumption of innocence' boils down to here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

You're shifting the burden of proof. Presumption of innocence, which is the basis of all Western legal systems, means the burden of proof is always on the accuser. Ford needs to do a bit more than accuse before Kavanaugh's truthfulness is brought into the picture. You always prove the credibility of the accuser first.

You keep raving about "presumption of innocence" and "burden of proof". This is not a criminal trial. This is an issue of credibility and judging someone's character. There's a history of Ford discussing the event with her therapist years ago. And discussing it with friends, and her husband. All of those make her story credible. There are students from the school she went to who have spoken up, saying the story of the attack was discussed after it happened, cuz, you know, gossip about an event like this happens. There was another person in the room, for fuck's sake, a guy who wrote about his drunken adventures with his fellow drunks at the prep school, who says he will refuse to testify at a Senate hearing.  He could be ordered to testify.

No burden of proof is being shifted. If Ford testifies people will judge whether or not they believe her or Kavanaugh, who is now in his fourth day of practicing how to answer questions about his drunken years at high school, university and law school, all stuff he has talked about before.

If she doesn't testify, Kavanaugh will sail through his appointment.

My prediction? She testifies and Kavanaugh will sail through his appointment anyway, because BOYZ WILL BE BOYZ, because if you can't get drunk and jump dem bones while you're a teenager without consequences when can you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Kavanaugh under a legal trial or applying to a lifetime position to the highest court in the land?  Because I believe there are different standards to those two processes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

You're shifting the burden of proof. Presumption of innocence, which is the basis of all Western legal systems, means the burden of proof is always on the accuser. Ford needs to do a bit more than accuse before Kavanaugh's truthfulness is brought into the picture. You always prove the credibility of the accuser first. 

Once again we are not talking about the standard you need to meet to be imprisoned, we are talking about the standards to be met to be appointed to one of the most powerful positions in a country. Those should not be the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, mormont said:

No. There is no burden of proof here, unless it is the burden on Kavanaugh to prove that he meets the highest standards of probity and selflessness mentioned before, and that therefore he is a fit and proper person to be on the Supreme Court. That's what these hearings are for. That's what they're about. There is, and can be, no presumption that Kavanaugh should be appointed, 

Got it. Keep that position of yours in mind when the next nominee is a liberal. Because it'll be fucking a-easy for Democratic nominees to prove they didn't do whatever the Republicans and their foot soldiers accuse them of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Bloomberg is just a different face, not different in the objectives of the global klepto oligarchic class to utterly rule everything.  And he really is awful about women -- work for Bloomberg, and get fired if you're pregnant.  Not making this up.  And he's far more competent at it than the orange nazi.

Of course, he hasn't even been living in the US since he left off being mayor of NYC.  Though this probably wouldn't interfere that much with him buying out the trillions in debt government of the USA?  Maybe he and Bezos working together, as between them they have more money than most nations?

That really isn’t fair. While I would hate to see Bloomberg be the nominee (and heads up there’s a <.1% chance of that happening), he’s nothing like Trump. Bloomberg is a generic businessman who has some bad policy positions, but at least he respects the office. OTOH, Trump is literally one of the least qualified people in the country to be president who could actually win. He’s basically an old, white version of Kanye who can’t rap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, now I see that the Yale law school provided Kavanaugh, a Yale alumni, with law clerks over his years as a judge, mainly female law clerks, because he was a ‘mentor’, ya know.

Turns out the woman prof at Yale who picked them out, I’ll edit this in a minute to add the story, gave them advice on how to walk and talk and dress and told them it was no coincidence his clerks looked like models, he ‘liked a certain type’. Some women were so disturbed by the advice they chose not to participate. Pity they didn’t speak up earlier too.

eta  Amy Chua, who wrote Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. She has cancelled her classes this term because of illness, and her husband, also at Yale, is under internal investigation.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/20/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-yale-amy-chua

Quote

The conversation then turned to Kozinski’s protege and good friend Kavanaugh, who one source said was a familiar name even though he had not yet been nominated to the high court. Chua allegedly told the students that it was “no accident” that Kavanaugh’s female clerks “looked like models”. Student reacted with surprise, and quickly pointed out that Chua’s own daughter was due to clerk for Kavanaugh.

A source said that Chua quickly responded, saying that her own daughter would not put up with any inappropriate behaviour.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Rippounet

Take the L on this one. As others have pointed out, this isn’t criminal court. It’s not even civil court. This is a job interview, and if there are even whiffs of sexual assault with your potential hire, you move on to a new candidate, especially when said candidate will have a forceful say on women’s rights for the next several decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Got it. Keep that position of yours in mind when the next nominee is a liberal. Because it'll be fucking a-easy for Democratic nominees to prove they didn't do whatever the Republicans and their foot soldiers accuse them of.

I'd expected better of you than this petty "you'll rue the day you ignored my histrionic concern-trolling!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Got it. Keep that position of yours in mind when the next nominee is a liberal. Because it'll be fucking a-easy for Democratic nominees to prove they didn't do whatever the Republicans and their foot soldiers accuse them of.

Well, if the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate someone who was a well-known heavy drinker in high school, university and law school and likes to joke about it at speaking events, then if some woman speaks up being mauled by him as a student, they deserve it.

But you know what? The Republican pr machine has been rolling out tv commercial after tv commercial with women saying what a swell guy he is, and who lined up a group of teenaged girls to sit behind him at the hearings, I have a deep suspicion they've known about accusations about his behaviour since they first vetted him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Got it. Keep that position of yours in mind when the next nominee is a liberal. Because it'll be fucking a-easy for Democratic nominees to prove they didn't do whatever the Republicans and their foot soldiers accuse them of.

You say this as if it's a situation that Democratic nominees don't routinely face anyway, and as if you don't understand the concept of treating each case on its merits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say from this whole fiasco a couple of things stand out for me: the legal profession appears to be one hotbed of toxic masculinity, you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany than Yale law school (apologies to anyone on this board who went there), I knew there was a reason I disliked that Chua person (and her husband too apparently) and finally.....this is just another stake in the heart of the conceit that the US is a meritocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Another Mass Shootin.

This one in Maryland at a drug store.

Not at a drug store but a massive, several football fields sized distribution centre.

And, for once-in-a-blue-moon, a woman shooter. Killed 3, shot 2 others, shot herself in the head twice and still didn’t kill herself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Not at a drug store but a massive, several football fields sized distribution centre.

And, for once-in-a-blue-moon, a woman shooter. Killed 3, shot 2 others, shot herself in the head twice and still didn’t kill herself.

https://tenor.com/view/movie-time-movie-theater-watching-michael-jackson-gif-3579864

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×