US Politics: Crossing that Ford

[lokisnow]

58 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Okay, but what if sexual assault isn't THAT bad guys

https://twitter.com/NBCPolitics/status/1044629282415349761

Don’t see how Kramer’s comment is materially different than the ardent and perpetual democrat defense of bill Clinton sexually assaulting Lewinski “but it doesn’t have anything to do with his ability to do the job”

also applies to the same defense when used to defend bill Clinton from his crimes of perjury.

[lokisnow]

Swetnick account is shockingly similar to a memoir posted by slate two days ago regarding the same party scene, inclusive of the slang used for gang rape

https://amp.slate.com/human-interest/2018/09/kavanaugh-judge-prep-school-parties.html

 

TL;DR rich white kids didn’t think gang rape was rape, had never heard of consent.

[Ser Reptitious]

4 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Don’t see how Kramer’s comment is materially different than the ardent and perpetual democrat defense of bill Clinton sexually assaulting Lewinski “but it doesn’t have anything to do with his ability to do the job”

also applies to the same defense when used to defend bill Clinton from his crimes of perjury.

My memory on this may be a bit rusty, but wasn't Lewinski's affair with Bill Clinton consensual? I mean, yes, there was definitely a power imbalance at work, which can be problematic as well, but that still seems quite a ways away from sexual assault of the kind that Kavanagh is accused of. 

[Bonnot OG]

18 minutes ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

A lot of it depends on the scope of the investigation, is it a first time clearance or an update. 

At the initial/first time investigation, birth records are checked, but juvenile records and associates are rarely addressed unless someone brings up something from that time. They generally try to get 2-3 people from each location the subject has lived/worked/gone to school since the age of 18*.  If derogatory information is uncovered, the scope can be expanded.

Every 5 years when the updates are done, they generally focus primarily on the time from the investigation to the present.

You can see how easy it would be to miss finding a person with the information (or willingness to divulge it) might be.

*there are "have you ever"/ has he/she ever" questions, but few supply information prior to age 18

Yea, at the time I was 19-20, and they were asking how long I knew the person, which was from 9th grade up until then. They asked if we had any run ins with law enforcement, which we did, literally weeks before I got that call I was "arrested" for impersonating a police officer. I was still at the time of the call dealing with that charge, but I lied since he was a friend and was really wanting the job. 

They asked what kind of person he was. If he was trust worthy etc. If we ever did drugs together or drank underage. 

It was about a 45 minute to an hour phone call. I asked them if they needed me to be available for an in person interview or another phone one, they said no, that they got enough infromation and that was it. Never heard from them again with follow up ones either. We had a falling out anyway, so it wouldn't have mattered lol.

[Bonnot OG]

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

There is no legal way to invalidate an election once it takes place and it is finalized.  He will have to go extra-Constitutional if he wants to make such an attempt.  I don’t believe that would go well for Trump.

You're still being naive. What actions of this administration and the GOP have shownt hey give a fuck about the legalities of things?

[aceluby]

3 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

My memory on this may be a bit rusty, but wasn't Lewinski's affair with Bill Clinton consensual? I mean, yes, there was definitely a power imbalance at work, which can be problematic as well, but that still seems quite a ways away from sexual assault of the kind that Kavanagh is accused of. 

He's accused of other misconduct as well.  He's just as disgusting and if he was up for SCOTUS should rightly be taken over the coals for it.  The Democrats as a party need to move away from the Clintons all together for the way they had handled these allegations for 30+ years.  There's no room for that.

[lokisnow]

3 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

My memory on this may be a bit rusty, but wasn't Lewinski's affair with Bill Clinton consensual? I mean, yes, there was definitely a power imbalance at work, which can be problematic as well, but that still seems quite a ways away from sexual assault of the kind that Kavanagh is accused of. 

Well the most powerful person in the world demands an unpaid intern copulate orally with them. Consent really isn’t part of the equation no matter how either party will rationalize the transaction.

[Ser Reptitious]

1 minute ago, aceluby said:

He's accused of other misconduct as well.  He's just as disgusting and if he was up for SCOTUS should rightly be taken over the coals for it.  The Democrats as a party need to move away from the Clintons all together for the way they had handled these allegations for 30+ years.  There's no room for that.

Fair enough, and I competely agree. I guess I was just a bit confused because Lokisnow specifically referred to Monica Lewinski.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

You're still being naive. What actions of this administration and the GOP have shownt hey give a fuck about the legalities of things?

You assume they will retain control after the election.  Telling everyone they should retain power after losing is much harder than holding onto power if they appear to win.  I was commenting on the former, not the latter.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

There is no legal way to invalidate an election once it takes place and it is finalized.  He will have to go extra-Constitutional if he wants to make such an attempt.  I don’t believe that would go well for Trump.

Declare Martial Law on the grounds that we were attacked by a foreign government.

Look, I’m not saying I think it will happen nor is it very likely at all, but Trump is the only President that I think would actually consider something like that, and that alone is scary enough.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Declare Martial Law on the grounds that we were attacked by a foreign government.

Look, I’m not saying I think it will happen nor is it very likely at all, but Trump is the only President that I think would actually consider something like that, and that alone is scary enough.

Too overt and I strongly suspect much of the US Military would refuse such an order.

[aceluby]

2 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Fair enough, and I competely agree. I guess I was just a bit confused because Lokisnow specifically referred to Monica Lewinski.

Yeah, that's a weird one to single out since there's 4 others and Lewinski has always said it was mutual attraction/affair.  Regardless, there is a fair point there and the Democrats need to let him go in the wake of the #metoo movement, and Hillary along with him for complicity.  If we expect it from our sitting politicians and SCOTUS nominees, we need to have the same standards for those giving large speeches on behalf of the entire party.

[Ser Reptitious]

2 hours ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

This is something I’ve feared for a while:   

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/china-midterms-donald-trump/index.html

I’ve theorized for a while now that Trump might try and make a claim like this if Republicans get mollywhopped in the midterms. He’s the only elected official I’ve ever feared might call for an invalidation of an election cycle.

Wouldn't the perfect response from the Democrats (and others) be that in that case we better make sure that each and every voting machine is completely safe from hacking and that every voting station needs to have lots of bipartisan public oversight?

[Ser Reptitious]

2 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Yeah, that's a weird one to single out since there's 4 others and Lewinski has always said it was mutual attraction/affair.  Regardless, there is a fair point there and the Democrats need to let him go in the wake of the #metoo movement, and Hillary along with him for complicity.  If we expect it from our sitting politicians and SCOTUS nominees, we need to have the same standards for those giving large speeches on behalf of the entire party.

I agree completely!

[Morpheus]

Edit oops. Should read the posts above.

[Bonnot OG]

19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You assume they will retain control after the election.  Telling everyone they should retain power after losing is much harder than holding onto power if they appear to win.  I was commenting on the former, not the latter.

Trump was crying about voter fraud when he won the election and setup a committee to investigate the voter fraud he believed happened to cause him to lose the popular vote. You're kidding yourself if you don't think it will be even worse if they don't retain power. This administration will do everything they can to keep republicans in power to protect themselves. 

They don't care about rules or laws dude. They show this daily. IDK why you think them not retaining power means that they won't act to keep power.

[Kalbear]

Thank goodness that we're responding to criticisms of current SCOTUS justices by relitigating 20 year old political issues. That'll show 'em

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Bonnot OG said:

Trump was crying about voter fraud when he won the election and setup a committee to investigate the voter fraud he believed happened to cause him to lose the popular vote. You're kidding yourself if you don't think it will be even worse if they don't retain power. This administration will do everything they can to keep republicans in power to protect themselves. 

They don't care about rules or laws dude. They show this daily. IDK why you think them not retaining power means that they won't act to keep power.

They might.  I think they will fail miserably if they try.  What worries me more is playing with the numbers to make it look like they win.

[Ormond]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Thank goodness that we're responding to criticisms of current SCOTUS justices by relitigating 20 year old political issues. That'll show 'em

As if what's posted in the "US Politics" thread on the Miscellaneous forum of a site dedicated to "Game of Thrones" and ASOIAF was really showing much of anybody much of anything.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Trump press conference live:

https://www.npr.org/