US Politics: Red, Red Whine

[James Arryn]

10 minutes ago, Zorral said:

It was to show that he, unlike a lot of a-holes who are all in for everybody being armed, knows how weapons work.  And knows it really well.  And he's against everybody being armed and stronger gun laws.  Pretty simple.

No, that makes sense, I didn’t know about the anti-gun angle. 

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

Wasn't Kavanaugh accused of throwing ice at someone?  And then his friend was accused of throwing a glass that hit someone in the head?  Maybe I have missed more details and there was an actual 'fight' involved. 

First off, I think throwing ice and then a fucking glass at a person constitutes fighting, but anyway:

Quote

According to Ludington, the man "swung at Brett," and Dudley then "took his beer and smashed it into the head of this guy."

Ludington said he tried to pull Dudley back, while other people tried to restrain the other man.

"I don’t know what Brett was doing in the melee, but there was blood, there was glass, there was beer and there was some shouting, and the police showed up," he told the Times.

ETA:  Also, for those that still maintain "he hasn't lied under oath," here's the end quote of that article from Crying Brett's testimony:

Quote

"Yes, we drank beer," he told senators last week when asked if he drank alcohol in high school. "My friends and I, the boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. Still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school, people were legal to drink... Sometimes probably had too many beers, and sometimes other people had too many beers."

I really don't care about him drinking underage, but it's a verifiable lie to suggest he was legal at the time.  And that's exactly what he did.  Because he's a non-credible liar that constantly lies about his non-credibility.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Kavanaugh has lied every time he's testified under oath- 

 

[karaddin]

It really is amazing that this is suddenly a controversial thing. Lying for a concrete gain might be worse in terms of being corrupt, but lying under oath over things which accomplish nothing but a failed attempt to flatter your own ego shows a lack of respect for the law that should really be disqualifying for the position of SCOTUS. And sure, some of the lies about his behaviour at college etc are serving an actual purpose, but lying about watching her testimony?

[OldGimletEye]

Understanding the kind of people you're dealing with in the Republican Party.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/2/17928462/lindsey-graham-brett-kavanaugh-senate-confirmation-vote-again\

Quote

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) doesn’t want to give up on Brett Kavanaugh, even if his Supreme Court confirmation comes up short on the Senate floor. In fact, he’s suggesting that President Donald Trump should nominate Kavanaugh again if that happens.

 

Quote

But Graham is also proposing an audacious response to a failed Kavanaugh vote: If the Senate rejects the nomination, Graham wants President Trump to nominate Kavanaugh again as a show of strength in the face of what Graham and other Republicans argue are politically motivated attacks on the judge.

 

Quote

Graham’s proposal lets Republicans keep up the fight, and keep their voters outraged, rather than capitulate — and there is nothing Trump hates more than backing down.

And at this point, Democrats and liberals should hate backing down. You can't negotiate or compromise with the Republican Party.

Quote

But if it comes to that, Graham has painted one way forward for Republicans: keep fighting.

Accordingly, the only thing left to be done is to take the Kavanaugh nomination and jam it right up the ass of Graham and the Republican Party.

[karaddin]

I honestly think at this point its got to be one of two things, and probably both

1) They have completely bought BK and have so much more dirt or bribes invested in him than they can possibly get on another nominee

2) It's not even about BK or even the SCOTUS at this point. Its about privileged white men "defeating" the MeToo movement, by forcing the women of America to confront the fact that they just don't give a fuck, they have never given a fuck, they will never give a fuck, they will do what they want to who they want

If it was just about a conservative SCOTUS you'd cut your losses as many have noted already, you only do this if the either this specific outcome is important or this is a battle you want to have

[Rippounet]

4 hours ago, DMC said:

First off, I think throwing ice and then a fucking glass at a person constitutes fighting

In my personal experience, if things made of glass start being thrown, the fight is actually getting serious.

4 hours ago, DMC said:

I really don't care about him drinking underage, but it's a verifiable lie to suggest he was legal at the time.  And that's exactly what he did.  Because he's a non-credible liar that constantly lies about his non-credibility.

It's clear as day that at that precise moment he is trying to find a way around the fact that he was not always legal when he was drinking. "The seniors were 18" is just a way of saying "someone in there was 18 to buy the booze." Anyone who was an underage drinker understands exactly what he's trying not to say, and actually saying.
I wouldn't call it a flat out lie. He dodges the question, in truth, with a lot of dissembling. It's rather well done imho. What's bothering is that he could have been truthful and admitted to having started drinking before 18 without hurting his chances or credibility.

[OldGimletEye]

20 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I honestly think at this point its got to be one of two things, and probably both

1) They have completely bought BK and have so much more dirt or bribes invested in him than they can possibly get on another nominee

2) It's not even about BK or even the SCOTUS at this point. Its about privileged white men "defeating" the MeToo movement, by forcing the women of America to confront the fact that they just don't give a fuck, they have never given a fuck, they will never give a fuck, they will do what they want to who they want

If it was just about a conservative SCOTUS you'd cut your losses as many have noted already, you only do this if the either this specific outcome is important or this is a battle you want to have

Well the Republican Party is certainly dominated by privileged white men and they couldn't care less about the MeToo movement or the experiences of women like Dr. Ford.

But, well before this whole episode, I would suggest the Republicans decided to play hardball or engage in brinkmanship and they have generally been rewarded for it. Right now, they hold more power than they have since about the 1920s. Years ago, before this whole episode, Norm Ornstein who works for the American Enterprise Institute, of all places, noted basically how the Republican Party was willing to engage in brinkmanship. Several years ago, they were willing to put the country and the world back into a deeper recession over debt ceiling fights. And then there is there gerrymandering and all that. And at the beginning of the Obama presidency, they were of the mindset to destroy his presidency, even after the Republican Party basically had egg all over it's face after the disastrous Presidency of Bush.

So, I think the Republican Party is simply repeating a pattern that has worked very well for them over the last several years.

[butterbumps!]

15 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

I don’t watch Fox News.

I believe I am on record here as stating that an investigation is necessary.  That was honestly my reaction after watching the testimony and before Mitchell’s memo.  Disregarding all the holes in her story, that’s not a dealbreaker as it did happen thirty something years ago; it was also telling for me the gaps in her knowledge on more current events.  As in, her psychiatrist got the incident wrong, no one knows who leaked the information at the 11th hour, or who paid for the polygraph test, but Feinstein was advising her on law firms.  Leyland Keyser claiming she never socialized with Kavanaugh.

As I said, an investigation is necessary, but I try to look at objectively, not just pick a side and then go from there.

In fairness to you, you’re talking about the fact that Dr. Ford personally didn’t know who funded the polygraph, which has undermined her overall credibility in your view, along with these other boldeds that you list, right?   (As opposed to the idea that no one could answer that question at all, which would be false?).  What does the idea that she didn’t know who paid for the test suggest to you in terms of her overall credibility?   I’m not familiar with voluntary polygraph-taking procedure, and have been taking her lawyer at face value that it’s standard practice for the lawyer to handle payment.    Would a client necessarily know all of the details like that?

Since you value objectivity, would it change your mind at all to know that Leyland Keyser did not claim that?   She said she doesn’t remember the exact night in question, and does not remember meeting Kavanaugh (this is different than a declaration that something never happened).  But she also said that she believes Dr. Ford’s account.    

I’m not very concerned by her psychiatrist’s divergent account, because it looked like a fairly minor misrecording, and because the purpose of his notes is quite different from something like a police report.   I’d be more concerned if Dr. Ford herself recorded the divergent account, or if a police report did.  But I don’t know that the exact details would have been so important to a psychiatrist that they’d endeavor to record an incident like that with the accuracy of a police report.  

Quote

Kavanaugh did not come off well, but to me, he did not (at this point, pre-investigation) come across as having sexually assaulted Dr. Blasey Ford.

You say Kavanaugh did not come off well to you.   How did you find his credibility?

Since you’re not ready to accept Dr. Ford’s account as the truth, what scenario are you leaning toward?    Do you think she’s lying about the attempted rape, or confused about who her assailant was?  From context clues, I’m gathering you believe she could be a political hit man of sorts, right?  

[maarsen]

8 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

Just curious to the rape apologists in here, you do realize that Trump is someone that has thrown out false rape accusations yea? Remember the central park 5?

And he was caught on tape admitting to sexual assault himself. 

[Fragile Bird]

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

 

It's clear as day that at that precise moment he is trying to find a way around the fact that he was not always legal when he was drinking. "The seniors were 18" is just a way of saying "someone in there was 18 to buy the booze." Anyone who was an underage drinker understands exactly what he's trying not to say, and actually saying.
I wouldn't call it a flat out lie. He dodges the question, in truth, with a lot of dissembling. It's rather well done imho. What's bothering is that he could have been truthful and admitted to having started drinking before 18 without hurting his chances or credibility.

This is another example of what I was saying up-thread. He spent days at the White House crafting practice answers that were misleading weasel words that got him out from under perjury charges. No film at 11 of him admitting anything, nothing that would would play forever and ever in tv commercials. No admission of ‘I was underage’, just ‘someone was legal’.

[Frog Eater]

12 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Do you know what the history is? Was there in a kiddie tax in 1949, when Trump was 3?

The US Tax code was re-written in 1986, so the "kiddie tax" dates back to then. I honestly dont know much about the pre-86 tax code, because it really doesnt affect me or my clients, other than some depreciation recapture rules for long term assets. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 hours ago, DMC said:

I really don't care about him drinking underage, but it's a verifiable lie to suggest he was legal at the time.  And that's exactly what he did.  Because he's a non-credible liar that constantly lies about his non-credibility.

Dude! This is a scary time to be a man!! Quit making it scarier!!!

[Cas Stark]

It's not a lie to give a somewhat misleading answer, it's misleading and not honest, but that isn't perjury.  Certainly, he should have just said that he drank underage and been upfront about it rather than than trying to infer he was legal to drink when he wasn't.  Me, I am uncomfortable that we're now looking into people's drinking habits from 40 years ago to determine all kinds of things, like their propensity to commit sexual assault and their character.  I mean, history is full of hard drinking heroes, as I said this new Puritanism is very distasteful, IMO.

  However, there may be something to the idea that given his apparent relish at Bill Clinton's lie about his personal life, and the rest of his behavior surrounding that episode, that this is karma.

[butterbumps!]

15 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

It's not a lie to give a somewhat misleading answer, it's misleading and not honest, but that isn't perjury.  Certainly, he should have just said that he drank underage and been upfront about it rather than than trying to infer he was legal to drink when he wasn't.  Me, I am uncomfortable that we're now looking into people's drinking habits from 40 years ago to determine all kinds of things, like their propensity to commit sexual assault and their character.  I mean, history is full of hard drinking heroes, as I said this new Puritanism is very distasteful, IMO.

  However, there may be something to the idea that given his apparent relish at Bill Clinton's lie about his personal life, and the rest of his behavior surrounding that episode, that this is karma.

It’s not really about whether someone did those things.    The idea isn’t that someone who drank heavily is likely guilty of assault or sex crimes, but that someone who lies about, dissembles and otherwise misrepresents or evades the truth about the drinking is probably lying about other more serious things.   The decades ago drinking itself isn’t what calls the character into question, but rather his dishonesty about it that opens him up to further questions of credibility.   

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Nobody cares that he drank while he was underage. Most people do. The problem is the repeated lying while under oath. He lied about his drink. He lied about his yearbook, multiple times. He’s been caught lying previously while under oath. He even lied about watching Ford’s testimony. He is not an individual who can be trusted with power, and his nomination has now further hurt the reputation of the Supreme Court. Any other president would have pulled this nominee.

[Cas Stark]

26 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Nobody cares that he drank while he was underage. Most people do. The problem is the repeated lying while under oath. He lied about his drink. He lied about his yearbook, multiple times. He’s been caught lying previously while under oath. He even lied about watching Ford’s testimony. He is not an individual who can be trusted with power, and his nomination has now further hurt the reputation of the Supreme Court. Any other president would have pulled this nominee.

The supreme court has been on a slow downward spiral since the Bork hearings.  Bork not being confirmed is exactly the reason that all subsequent nominees refuse to state their positions on numerous constitutional issues in a forthright manner, even though everyone already knows what 90% of those positions will be.  Kennedy was the last non ideologue who has been nominated to the court, which now consists of idealogues of left and right whose votes can be easily predicted 98% of the time.  It has simply taken longer for the ruin of the court to show up "bigly" because it runs on a longer timeline, so there are fewer events that showcase how it is already totally fucked up and partisan. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

The supreme court has been on a slow downward spiral since the Bork hearings.  Bork not being confirmed is exactly the reason that all subsequent nominees refuse to state their positions on numerous constitutional issues in a forthright manner, even though everyone already knows what 90% of those positions will be.  Kennedy was the last non ideologue who has been nominated to the court, which now consists of idealogues of left and right whose votes can be easily predicted 98% of the time.  It has simply taken longer for the ruin of the court to show up "bigly" because it runs on a longer timeline, so there are fewer events that showcase how it is already totally fucked up and partisan. 

Bork was given a hearing and then an up and down vote.  He was not confirmed by the Senate.  You can complain that he was not confirmed for political reasons but you can't claim he didn't get the full process of confirmation.  Judge Garland didn't get any hearings or a vote it was as though Pres. Obama hadn't nominated him for the position.  That was the Republican's method of rejecting Pres. Obama's nominee.  They stuck their fingers in their ears and acted as though he didn't exist.  

The Democrats don't have that option, yet, as such they are opposing Judge Kavanaugh based upon his record and his conduct.  Given what happened to Judge Garland is this really a surprise?

[Week]

10 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

The supreme court has been on a slow downward spiral since the Bork hearings.  Bork not being confirmed is exactly the reason that all subsequent nominees refuse to state their positions on numerous constitutional issues in a forthright manner, even though everyone already knows what 90% of those positions will be.  

Right, Bork's extreme unpopularity was not at all a a result of his presidential scyophancy to kick off the "Saturday Night Massacre", right?

I know all older white men may look and seem to be the same to you, but some do have credibility, ethics, and professionalism while other do not (Bork/Kavanaugh). Ignoring the latter as "partisan" is the truly partisan move.

[Zorral]

Judge Dredd co-creator Carlos Ezquerra dies aged 70

Quote

 

.... Ezquerra started his career drawing war comics in Barcelona before moving to the UK and working for the anthology 2000AD and others. He brought the iconography of fascist Spain to Dredd’s extremely weird and vivid design and combined it with his experiences of living in Croydon through the 70s and 80s: the punk movement on his doorstep and TV images of policemen charging striking miners.

The eagle motif and helmet were drawn from fascism, the permanently drawn truncheon from police on the picket line, the zips, chains and knee pads from punk. “I was living in Franco’s Spain,” he told an interviewer last year, “but also I was living in Mrs Thatcher’s England.”

Dredd looks like no other comic character before or since. His design makes no practical sense. It has no symmetry or logic to it. No one at the time thought it would work. “Fucking hell,” his co-creator John Wagner said when he first saw the designs. “He looks like a Spanish pirate.” But somehow, for reasons no one can quite articulate, it is perfect....

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/03/judge-dredd-carlos-ezquerra