That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
You deserve it.Rip wrote:Quoted for truth.RunningMn9 wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:31 pmWe will talk in November as we are trying to figure out how the Republicans gained seats in the House and Senate despite this utter insanity.GungHo wrote:I tend to agree but....with cautious optimism I'll note that a recent poll shows the GOP has dropped in its favorability rating wth women by 18%. Maybe there's hope for the future? Maybe?
The Republicans have a shot at gaining a seat or two in the Senate if things break their way, but there's no way to look at any of the polling or anything else related to the midterms and conclude that the Republicans have any chance (above .001%) of gaining House seats - there's just literally almost zero objective support for that possibility.RunningMn9 wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:31 pmWe will talk in November as we are trying to figure out how the Republicans gained seats in the House and Senate despite this utter insanity.GungHo wrote:I tend to agree but....with cautious optimism I'll note that a recent poll shows the GOP has dropped in its favorability rating wth women by 18%. Maybe there's hope for the future? Maybe?
Dean Gerken Joins the ABA in Calling for Further Investigation.
Are we talking about elections next month or what happened in November of 2016? Just trying to clarify.El Guapo wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:01 pmthere's just literally almost zero objective support for that possibility.
I'm fairly certain their motivations include future promises that we'll never kmow about. It's how these things work..Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:11 pmI don't really buy that. As others have pointed out, how hard would it be to just slide Amy Barrett in there? She was the preferred choice for a lot of conservatives anyway. I think McConnell would have no problem forcing her nomination through in short order.Defiant wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:26 amGetting a solidly conservative vote on the SC. That trumps all.Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:16 am
(1) Other than voting their consciences, what motivations would Corker and Flake have to vote yes on Kavanaugh?
If they vote no, there's a slim chance that 1) another justice can't be confirmed in time and Democrats with the Senate or 2) the standards will be set higher (eg, allegations would be more likely to kill a nomination).
In my neck of the woods, this is by far the majority opinion. It is incredibly hard to come to work some days because of the conversations that begin that way.Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:16 am Plus a minority (I hope) who felt like "boys will be boys" and it was a long time ago anyway. The whole thing is really fucking depressing.
This and honestly I think they want to prove they can do anything and get away with it. This is as much a power play as the tax debate. They are rewarding various power centers and showing they have the ability to execute.LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:05 pmI'm fairly certain their motivations include future promises that we'll never kmow about. It's how these things work..Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:11 pmI don't really buy that. As others have pointed out, how hard would it be to just slide Amy Barrett in there? She was the preferred choice for a lot of conservatives anyway. I think McConnell would have no problem forcing her nomination through in short order.Defiant wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:26 amGetting a solidly conservative vote on the SC. That trumps all.Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:16 am
(1) Other than voting their consciences, what motivations would Corker and Flake have to vote yes on Kavanaugh?
If they vote no, there's a slim chance that 1) another justice can't be confirmed in time and Democrats with the Senate or 2) the standards will be set higher (eg, allegations would be more likely to kill a nomination).
Yeah. Maybe so. Aside from voting their conscience, that’s really the only explanation that makes any sense.LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:05 pmI'm fairly certain their motivations include future promises that we'll never kmow about. It's how these things work..Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:11 pmI don't really buy that. As others have pointed out, how hard would it be to just slide Amy Barrett in there? She was the preferred choice for a lot of conservatives anyway. I think McConnell would have no problem forcing her nomination through in short order.Defiant wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:26 amGetting a solidly conservative vote on the SC. That trumps all.Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:16 am
(1) Other than voting their consciences, what motivations would Corker and Flake have to vote yes on Kavanaugh?
If they vote no, there's a slim chance that 1) another justice can't be confirmed in time and Democrats with the Senate or 2) the standards will be set higher (eg, allegations would be more likely to kill a nomination).
So, going by 538, there is currently about an 80% chance that the Democrats take the House. That was about the same odds that Clinton had of winning the presidency in 2016. Highly probable at this point, but far from a sure thing.
Corker and Flake are both pretty conservative generally, which explains part of it, but not all of it. I mean, I would have thought that basic ego would compel Flake to poke Trump in the eye in a notable way at least once.Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:18 pmYeah. Maybe so. Aside from voting their conscience, that’s really the only explanation that makes any sense.LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:05 pmI'm fairly certain their motivations include future promises that we'll never kmow about. It's how these things work..Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:11 pmI don't really buy that. As others have pointed out, how hard would it be to just slide Amy Barrett in there? She was the preferred choice for a lot of conservatives anyway. I think McConnell would have no problem forcing her nomination through in short order.Defiant wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:26 amGetting a solidly conservative vote on the SC. That trumps all.Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:16 am
(1) Other than voting their consciences, what motivations would Corker and Flake have to vote yes on Kavanaugh?
If they vote no, there's a slim chance that 1) another justice can't be confirmed in time and Democrats with the Senate or 2) the standards will be set higher (eg, allegations would be more likely to kill a nomination).
Neither Corker nor Flake would be motivated by a desire to protect Trump by installing Kavanaugh on the court. And, as far as loyalty to party, I don’t think the incredibly slim chance that a Barrett nomination would go sideways would outweigh the potential consequences the GOP face in the mid-terms and beyond by pushing through Kavanaugh.
This timeline by politico helped to clear up a few things for me.El Guapo wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:36 amSo I'm not clear - what should Feinstein and/or the Democrats have done differently? If Feinstein had come public in late July, would that be ok in your view? Or should the Democrats have kept it all non-public, even if it meant potentially handing a lifetime SCOTUS seat to a sexual abuser?hepcat wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:12 am If her claims are true, they weaponized a victim's pain for their own ends. No matter the reason for it, it still feels wrong to me.
It's a good thing that we've put in so much effort in the past 18 months to prevent that.
Sadly, I think it comes closer and closer to violence every day. It may not be direct rebelion but we will assuredly see more racial violence. More violence due to poverty and desperation inflicted by the policies of these people. Violence is coming one way or the other. The oppressed always fight back somehow and typically by lashing out at those around them (usually more of their own rather than those who keep them there). It won't solve anything and will probably make things worse but it is coming.LordMortis wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:56 amI'm thankful it's not coming quicker and more violently.Captain Caveman wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:46 am Our country had been building to a crisis for a long time, but I’m taken aback how quickly it’s arrived. Dark times ahead.
But aren't they retiring? Future promises seem much less relevant when you won't be in office.LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:05 pm
I'm fairly certain their motivations include future promises that we'll never kmow about. It's how these things work..
I don’t doubt there are some interesting questions that could come out of Judge testifying (especially re Kavanaugh’s high school drinking habits and the yearbook references), but I don’t see any of what you listed above as actually corroborating the accusation. If anyone who’s been paying attention believes that Kavanaugh wasn’t partying and drinking heavily while at Georgetown Prep, there’s really no point. I take those as established facts based on his own admissions.msteelers wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:48 pmThere are several questions you could ask Judge that wasn't included in his written testimony. When did he hold his summer jobs that year? Ford said if she had that information, she could help narrow down when the attack occurred. Does Bart O'Kavanaugh in Judge's book refer directly to Kavanaugh? Kavanaugh claims the book was a piece of fiction and Judge just used his name and that the character wasn't based off of him. Did they drink and hang out with friends during the week? Kavanaugh said they never did, and limited his potential timeframe for when the attack could occur to the weekends. That doesn't ring true, and Judge said in his book he would show up to work during the week drunk and/or still hungover. Did Kavanaugh get blackout drunk, or did he just enjoy beer like a normal teenager? Does Judge remember anything about the get-together on July 1st, which sounds an awful lot like the party described by Ford? Does "going to Timmy's for Skis" mean that they were going there for beers on a Thursday? What do the slang terms in the yearbook mean? Kavanaugh says they mean something relatively innocent. Most people know those slang terms as being something totally different, including other people who attended school in that area at the same time.Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:16 am(2) I keep seeing references to the GOP's refusal to allow any corroborating evidence, and I know they refused to allow other witnesses or to compel Judge to appear and testify. But, if we assume Judge would stick with his statement ("I do not recall the events described by Dr. Ford in her testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee today. I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes"), what corroborating evidence are we aware of that was kept out of the hearing?
There's a lot to ask, and if answered correctly could corroborate Kavanaugh's story. Why would they not allow Judge to speak, unless his testimony would have hurt Kavanaugh?
At my high school there were a lot, A LOT, of guys who acted like that. There were a lot of girls treated that way. So I think what happens is those guys get older and now they can't view that behavior as wrong, much less criminal, because they themselves did it too! So they play it off as 'boys will be boys'. That's an excuse that sort of lets everyone off the hook. No one has to feel guilty, no one has anything to answer for, and no one has to address the sexual violence girls and women face. It is said that even the people doing wrong don't like to think of themselves as the bad guy. One way around that problem is to normalize the wrong thing you're doing so that it becomes the standard and is acceptable. "Boys will be boys" fits into that perfectly.stessier wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:13 pmIn my neck of the woods, this is by far the majority opinion. It is incredibly hard to come to work some days because of the conversations that begin that way.Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:16 am Plus a minority (I hope) who felt like "boys will be boys" and it was a long time ago anyway. The whole thing is really fucking depressing.
Even given that, the difficulty involved in rigging dozens or more house votes simultaneously while not getting caught is pretty daunting.RunningMn9 wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:23 pmIt's a good thing that we've put in so much effort in the past 18 months to prevent that.
Judge is but a single stone. They needed to get answers to all the questions listed earlier through as many sources as possible. They refused to even allow a single one when there was literally a book of them to draw from when it comes to getting a picture of what K was like as a kid and later in college.Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:29 pmNot to say that I don’t agree that Judge should have been called and should have been questioned. I’m just saying that even if every stone here had been turned over, it looks more likely than not that this would have still come down to a basic credibility determination between Ford who is 100% certain she was assaulted by Kavanaugh, and Kavanaugh who is 100% certain he did no such thing.
Why do they care if they get caught? Once the people they want are in place then the people "catching" them will be all theirs. You think Mueller has a chance if a 100% Trump loyalist is in charge of the justice department and overseeing the investigation?El Guapo wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:35 pmEven given that, the difficulty involved in rigging dozens or more house votes simultaneously while not getting caught is pretty daunting.RunningMn9 wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:23 pmIt's a good thing that we've put in so much effort in the past 18 months to prevent that.
Exactly and there is no way to prove it. By hauling out the same arguments used during Anita Hill about presumption of innocence they are pretending to be standing on principle. It is the paper thin veneer of integrity we see all the time but that is good enough for them.Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:29 pm Not to say that I don’t agree that Judge should have been called and should have been questioned. I’m just saying that even if every stone here had been turned over, it looks more likely than not that this would have still come down to a basic credibility determination between Ford who is 100% certain she was assaulted by Kavanaugh, and Kavanaugh who is 100% certain he did no such thing.
There's a dozen screaming-mad baby-men and one GOP Judge willing to ignore him.Smoove_B wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:04 pm
Dean Gerken Joins the ABA in Calling for Further Investigation.
Oh.
I thought "Dean" was a name.At this point they're probably quizzing you to make sure you're not about to get blind drunk, shit on the floor, and proclaim it was THE BEST, HUGEST SHIT.malchior wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:44 pmThey hear the American accent and instantly you are being questioned about our complete dysfuction.
I got your back hep.hepcat wrote:Listen, I'm disappointed in both sides over this whole thing. I think it was handled badly from the very beginning. But I hope this disappointment doesn't translate into "you're the enemy" by my fellow haters of Trump.
Of course it all comes down to credibility! That's what the entire thing is about! The witnesses who were supposedly at the party in question all signed statements saying they do not recall that specific incident. The GOP used that to cast doubt on Dr. Ford's credibility. Kavanaugh was able to make whatever claims he wanted about everything from his drinking habits, his social schedule, the slang terms they used... all because he knew there was nobody that could cast doubt on his credibility.Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:29 pmNot to say that I don’t agree that Judge should have been called and should have been questioned. I’m just saying that even if every stone here had been turned over, it looks more likely than not that this would have still come down to a basic credibility determination between Ford who is 100% certain she was assaulted by Kavanaugh, and Kavanaugh who is 100% certain he did no such thing.
Whenever abroad, it's always best to pretend to be Canadian. I don't think I've been an American when I leave the United States for the last 30 years or so.malchior wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:44 pm Apropos of nothing but I was in Ireland yesterday and as the only American present I was expected to defend or explain this nonsense. I could not. FWIW the same thing happened in Amsterdam last weekend. They hear the American accent and instantly you are being questioned about our complete dysfuction. From my limited but surprisingly consistent viewpoint across several nations and conversations, people are very concerned in Europe that we've gone bonkers and will drag everyone down. I can't blame them for feeling that way.
Edit: FWIW - American news tends to be on everywhere and people overseas grasp our politics at a level that probably surpasses the average joe on the street here.
That was much needed. Thank you.
Also, with the Swetwick allegations, there's a whole New Yorker article with quotes and people - there's a lot of dig in there. Hell, call Ronan Farrow and Jane Meyer and have them testify.msteelers wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:52 pmOf course it all comes down to credibility! That's what the entire thing is about! The witnesses who were supposedly at the party in question all signed statements saying they do not recall that specific incident. The GOP used that to cast doubt on Dr. Ford's credibility. Kavanaugh was able to make whatever claims he wanted about everything from his drinking habits, his social schedule, the slang terms they used... all because he knew there was nobody that could cast doubt on his credibility.Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:29 pmNot to say that I don’t agree that Judge should have been called and should have been questioned. I’m just saying that even if every stone here had been turned over, it looks more likely than not that this would have still come down to a basic credibility determination between Ford who is 100% certain she was assaulted by Kavanaugh, and Kavanaugh who is 100% certain he did no such thing.
Absolute fucking coward.