2018 American Political Scene

[DOR]

Just in case you might be influenced by the on-going self-destruction that is the Trump Administration, or the severe lack of ethics and patriotism that is the GOP,…

Federal Voting Assistance Program [email protected]

Overseas and Military Voters Should Vote Now

ALEXANDRIA, Va. -* For U.S. voters living abroad or deployed with the military, receiving and sending back an official ballot can be a challenge to successfully voting absentee. In fact, a recent study conducted by the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) showed that the voting rate among overseas citizens in 2016 would have been over five times higher if these voters could register to vote and cast ballots as quickly and easily as voters living stateside.

From Oct. 1 to Oct. 8 during Absentee Voting Week, FVAP, U.S. military installations, embassies, consulates and overseas citizens groups will be reminding U.S. Service members, their families and overseas citizens to vote now — and helping them do so from anywhere in the world.



.


Register at FVAP.gov
Vote

[GVChamp]

It's not a job interview, it's a political confirmation. The two are in no-way analogous.

Also, "job interview" is not a catch-all for "I get to treat every allegation someone ever made as true." How do you think that will affect your internal promotions, when someone can literally just accuse a rival of an allegation and you refuse to do any sort of investigation, consider no evidence, and just block someone on the basis of....nothing?

[Wooglin]

Wooglin,

Dr Ford didn't get “lawyered up by [Senator] Feinstein. She was searching for a lawyer, had interviewed many, and received suggestions from several people. The fact that she ended up hiring one of the lawyers recommended by Senator Feinstein – who has more experience with the Senate Judiciary Committee than all the people she spoke with combined – seems quite logical to me. Who would you have hired, Elmer Fudd?

DOR doesn't like the term "lawyered up". Ok. Hardly makes a difference in context, but it seems reading the rest of your responses you didn't bother to read my first post so you don't get the context and just decided to create your own.

The fact that someone revealed her name to the media in no way undermines the seriousness of her accusation, nor does it show a single shred of proof that Senator Feinstein or her office were the ones that leaked her story or name.

Well it was either the lawyers or Feinsteins office since they're the only one's who had the letter....could have sworn I said that somewhere before. Speaking of red herrings, who suggested this reflected upon Ford in any way? Once again, perhaps you should have read the whole conversation? What undermines her accusation is the lack of detail and corroboration.

Most important for the purposes of this red herring, it does not matter in the least if Dr Ford knows who leaked the story. It does not in anyway give Judge Kavanaugh a free pass.

Again, who suggested it did? Most important, before responding with nonsense try reading what you're referring to first.

Here's a suggestion: Aside from the fact that I never actually used the word "evidence", the next time you're tempted to rebut someone's argument, actually read what they said first. That way you don't look foolish when throwing around accusations of red herring and other dumb shit.

[tbm3fan]

She claimed she started therapy in 2012.She mentioned ''persons of influence in DC''.There goes your case.

Not in the slightest but keep fishing to demean her claim...

[tbm3fan]

He never should have been confirmed.

He was one of the few choices that President George HW Bush made that really made me angry.

I'm in agreement with this

[DOR]

Wooglin,

If you use inexact language loaded with innuendo, expect to be called out on it. If you can't defend what you say, so be it.

Did someone say the letter was leaked? Yes.
Was that an accurate statement? No.
What? Yep.

The information – which was contained in the letter – was leaked, but Dr Ford says she discussed the matter with family and friends. So, the circle of who might have leaked the information – not the letter – is a larger group than Senator Feinstein and her office..

.

Earlier, you said, “They sat on it, ignored her wishes, ...”
If Dr Ford asked for her identity to be protected, then “sitting on it” as you say would honor those wishes.
Once the information was in the media, the anonymity factor was over.

.


What I read in the tone of your comment was, “She said, he said. So, it's even. Go ahead and confirm him.”
I disagree.
We're talking about a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. What's your standard?

.

Earlier you said, Dr Ford's sworn testimony was “refuted by every person named as witness.” Actually, what I heard when I listened to it was lack of corroboration. Big, big difference. Not one person swore under oath (until we find out what Mr Judge has to say) that they were in the room and clearly saw that what she said simply didn't happen.

[zraver]

[B]


What I read in the tone of your comment was, “She said, he said. So, it's even. Go ahead and confirm him.”
I disagree.
We're talking about a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. What's your standard?

How about basic fairness? She has no supporting witnesses to even establish that the judge ever had the opportunity presented by proximity. She can't even put A and B in the same alphabet let alone get to C. Her named witnesses support his version of events (never happened), and his calendar backs that up. The only claim she makes to place, seeing Mark Judge at a Safeway could have been pulled from a book. An experienced female sex crimes prosecutor ripped her testimony apart. While the confirmation hearings are not exactly a court of law, she accused him of a felony and legal jeopardy could attach. Such evidence as it exists supports the judge. Then of course we know she lied about being too scared to fly. Falsitus in uno, falsitus in omnibus.

She was the strongest card, the other two.... No one has been able to find anyone who supports Ms Ramerez's memory, but they did find people saying she contacted them asking them to firm up her memory, and Ms Swetnik publicly recanted on NBC. Thats why the Dems are reducing to yelling about a thrown cup of ice and how many beers someone drank in college. So I guess if you miss Obama, its OK to have smoked weed in college, but not drank beer. Bt this is all political theater anyway. If it was really about believe the victim Keithy Ellison would drop out of his race. There is actual for real evidence against him violently abusing women. Hell one of the Senator's (Booker) grilling the Judge wrote a public confession that he groped a girl without her consent and that he did not take no for an answer. But powerful Democrat men can do whatever they want to women as long as the vote right.

So when you ask about standards, how about basic fairness, a single unified measure and common decency.

[Wooglin]

Wooglin,

If you use inexact language loaded with innuendo, expect to be called out on it. If you can't defend what you say, so be it.

Did someone say the letter was leaked? Yes.
Was that an accurate statement? No.
What? Yep.

The information – which was contained in the letter – was leaked, but Dr Ford says she discussed the matter with family and friends. So, the circle of who might have leaked the information – not the letter – is a larger group than Senator Feinstein and her office..

Bullshit. What innuendo? I couldn’t have been any clearer. Maybe you should have read the original post first, because you clearly hadn’t. Nice try.

Yes, the circle was larger... as I said twice before, and you conveniently ignored again, the lawyers also had the letter. The original article states the leak began on the Hill. Does she have friends and family in the Senate?

Earlier, you said, “They sat on it, ignored her wishes, ...”
If Dr Ford asked for her identity to be protected, then “sitting on it” as you say would honor those wishes.
Once the information was in the media, the anonymity factor was over.

Derp

What I read in the tone of your comment was, “She said, he said. So, it's even. Go ahead and confirm him.”
I disagree.
We're talking about a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. What's your standard?

In this country you are innocent until proven guilty. We have a story with no details of time or place, lacking corroboration from any witness. I don’t care if it’s a criminal trial or a senate hearing, this is an accusation of a crime and there’s nothing supporting the story. We can’t live in a world where mere accusation is enough to destroy people.

Earlier you said, Dr Ford's sworn testimony was “refuted by every person named as witness.” Actually, what I heard when I listened to it was lack of corroboration. Big, big difference. Not one person swore under oath (until we find out what Mr Judge has to say) that they were in the room and clearly saw that what she said simply didn't happen.

Fine. I get it. I don’t want to play word games. However, what you’re implying, that the witnesses should be able to disprove a negative, given no time, no place, and lacking many details for an alleged event that happened 35 years ago, otherwise we should assume it’s true, is absolutely ridiculous. The burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the defendant.

And each named witness gave a statement under penalty of felony perjury... talk about red herrings.

[zraver]

We can’t live in a world where mere accusation is enough to destroy people.

Well societies based on denuciation have given us several useful words to add the lexicon; inquisition, gestapo, ordeal. They have even given us phrases like; blood libel, enemy of the people, bills of attainder, witch hunt...

[astralis]

i'm really not sure what the new GOP talking point is; Dr Ford is at once credible yet lying?

in any case if I were a conservative I probably wouldn't want to throw around the phrase "Falsitus in uno, falsitus in omnibus." Kavanaugh's little interview about being "focused on academics and athletics, going to church every Sunday at Little Flower, working on my service projects, and friendship – friendship with my fellow classmates, and friendship with the girls from the local all-girls Catholic schools"...lol.

if nothing else, "100 Kegs or Bust" and "Renate Alumnius" will be around his neck for the rest of his life.

====

anyhow, absent significant new evidence from the short FBI supplemental (unlikely), what will -probably- come out is a few more unsavory details of Mr Not-so-Choir-boy, without clear-cut evidence of wrongdoing or perjury...just very...credible...allegations from all the people around him that Kavanaugh indeed spent his time in HS drinking to excess and being an angry drunk to boot.

and the end result will be the few swing GOP senators will need to make a political calculation to face either the wrath of angry women voters or the GOP base, and it'll be Collins and Murkowski making that call. that's a toss-up right now, but i'd lean towards Collins grumbling and voting yes, which means Pence can break the tie.

the longer-term political calculus is that if Kavanaugh gets on the court in that raw display of McConnell's political skill, then the end result will be that the next time Dems are in power, they will almost certainly pack the court.

[zraver]

i'm really not sure what the new GOP talking point is; Dr Ford is at once credible yet lying?

Something obviously happened to her, she has not provided any evidence to even establish the remotest of possibilities that it was the Judge.

As for his drinking.... You voted for a guy who bragged about smoking pot. Teens like to party, that does not make them rapists.

[zraver]

the longer-term political calculus is that if Kavanaugh gets on the court in that raw display of McConnell's political skill, then the end result will be that the next time Dems are in power, they will almost certainly pack the court.

Heidkamp is the swing vote, her numbers are tanking and Schumer is going to give her the OK. Flake is angling for an MSNBC job where a million dollar a year contract for any Republican willing to bash Republicans is waiting. Dems wont pack the Court, thats a lose-lose for them. With Trump well on his way to re-election and conservative voters out numbering liberal voters with the gap widening... They will wait to go after Thomas seat if they can get a crack at it. The smart play would be a new grand bargain to restore bipartisan confirmations to preserve RBG's seat for liberals.

[astralis]

z,

As for his drinking.... You voted for a guy who bragged about smoking pot. Teens like to party, that does not make them rapists.

it's not the teenage drinking that's specifically the issue here, it's the teenage drinking and his alleged actions following drinking, and the denial of it all. hell, Kavanaugh denied abusing alcohol and portrayed himself as a choir boy, but it's pretty obvious by now that the former is not true, which raises serious questions about the latter.

With Trump well on his way to re-election and conservative voters out numbering liberal voters with the gap widening... They will wait to go after Thomas seat if they can get a crack at it. The smart play would be a new grand bargain to restore bipartisan confirmations to preserve RBG's seat for liberals.

pretty sure we'll see something different this November, but leaving that aside-- I doubt this grand bargain will happen, especially if Kavanaugh goes through. McConnell's poisoned that well, most prominently with Garland and now with Kavanaugh. the latter -precisely- because there was no particular conservative reason to KEEP him after the allegations, given the number of other similarly conservative judges available. Trump and McConnell have backed Kavanaugh to the hilt to demonstrate to their base that they can and will "own the libs" even when the stakes aren't particularly high; and as an useful side-effect, make life uncomfortable with red-state Dems. in short, a political show of power and dominance. fair enough, but Dems will remember.



liberals won't be satisfied with keeping RBG's seat because with the replacement of Kennedy by Kavanaugh, the court will decisively swing right for probably the next 10 years, with the median shifting from center-right Kennedy to right-leaning Roberts.

[DOR]

zraver,

“An experienced female sex crimes prosecutor ripped her testimony apart;”
Did you watch the same testimony I did?

Rachael Mitchell was far more even-handed than any GOPer on that committee, right up until they shut her up during Kavanaugh's own testimony. Then, Jeff Flake took over as the responsible adult on the GOPer side.

DJ Trump undid all that this week when he mocked Dr Ford in public.
Before all the evidence is in, and before the Senate has a chance to review it, and before there is any vote.

As for felonies, perjury is the only one that comes to mind. Somehow, and I really can't say how, you know Dr Ford so intimately that you can label as a deliberate, bald-faced lie her statement that she doesn't like to fly.

Wow.
You are so connected!

.

As for his drinking.... You voted for a guy who bragged about smoking pot.

How's W's coke habit rehab coming along?

= = = = =

Wooglin,

This isn't a court of law, no matter how much you might wish it is.
Innocent until proven guilty doesn't cut it here.
It is a job interview, and if the interviewee makes my skin crawl, I'm not hiring him.

[astralis]

ie the claim that "if mere allegations can destroy Kavanaugh, they can destroy anyone!!11" was the precise argument of Roy Moore.

not true then, and not true now, particularly when the person making the allegation is "credible" and the allegation itself is "compelling", per the President of the United States a few days ago.