Jump to content

Archived

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

thelawlorfaithful

The Kavanaughcalypse!

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, pokebball said:

I don't know.  Younger people have historically been more progressive and identify more with the Dem party.  I did.  Most all my friends did.  As a person ages, gains solid employment perhaps owning their own business, they shift and become more moderate and more conservative.  I did.  Most all my friends did.  Gender doesn't matter.  Race doesn't matter.

When you're young, you've got that free spirit, you own little, nothing's tying you down.  As you age, your values change.

You guys might be right.  Perhaps it's all about race.  I don't think it is.

The whole thing also is that younger voters don't turn out to vote as much as when they get older. Every year people work to get the young people to vote and except when Obama was first elected, they haven't really tipped the scale. What kind of needs to happen is to have those younger voters to turn out consistantly to vote which I don't see happening. 

I think it goes to the idea of, this is my idea of how things work, then they get into the workforce, see how the economy works, and I think come down to Earth and understand why some things they want would be hard to change to and those who were let's say extreme left start to come to the moderate side and vice versa with some extreme right start to come a little more moderate. 

But another issue with many voters is they vote on ideas.........not thinking about whether the person running can actually do the things they are saying they could do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jackmormon said:

link?

The Minnesota politician already explained how his wife got the black eyes. The were playing basketball in the driveway, and he cleared a rebound little over aggressively, and accidentally caught her in the face with an elbow.

Yes, we’ve all heard that story before....   :rolleyes:

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, pokebball said:

I didn't say it hurt her credibility.

A couple of thoughts.  Some classmates of hers claim that the incident was well known and talked about around school, soccer practice, etc.  If she didn't tell her best friend, bridesmaid, roommate, etc.  how did that happen?  It certainly conflicts with her classmates that seem to want to collaborate her claim.  I think it hurts the credibility of those classmates' claims.

Secondly, if there was a person that she confided in, wouldn't her best friend be a probable person?  We now know that she didn't even confide to her best friend, a person she roomed with.

I don't know how badly it might hurt her claim.  It does appear to remove a couple of sources that could help her claim.

And didn't the alleged incident take place during summer break?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question for all the Liberals/Progressives/Socialists/Communists, or whatever the hell you guys call yourselves these days. 

Why is an Originalist being nominated to the Supreme Court so scary to you guys? Every one of you claim that the Constitution is the law of the land, so why do non "Living Document" judges make you curl up into the fetal position? If you want the Constitution changed, why not go through the process spelled out? Or is it just easier to subvert the Constitution by legislating from the bench?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wolfpack1 said:

The whole thing also is that younger voters don't turn out to vote as much as when they get older. Every year people work to get the young people to vote and except when Obama was first elected, they haven't really tipped the scale. What kind of needs to happen is to have those younger voters to turn out consistantly to vote which I don't see happening. 

I think it goes to the idea of, this is my idea of how things work, then they get into the workforce, see how the economy works, and I think come down to Earth and understand why some things they want would be hard to change to and those who were let's say extreme left start to come to the moderate side and vice versa with some extreme right start to come a little more moderate. 

But another issue with many voters is they vote on ideas.........not thinking about whether the person running can actually do the things they are saying they could do.

Who pays for shyt?  Life and government is all about who pays for shyt.  When you're younger, you aren't paying for much.  As you earn, save and accumulate wealth, your share of the tab gets bigger.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, pokebball said:

My understanding is that she could file charges as there is no statute of limitations.  Help me out.

I think we are just having a misunderstanding of wording.

A person can't file charges against another person for criminal charges. The only people that can actually file charges is a prosecutor's office. She can make an accusation to law enforcement, they can investigate and then it would be up to the prosecutor's office whether charges will be filed in court or not. Like I said reading another post I think its just a wording issue we are having. :)

However in some states there are statue of limitations for crimes including sexual assault. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, pokebball said:

Who pays for shyt?  Life and government is all about who pays for shyt.  When you're younger, you aren't paying for much.  As you earn, save and accumulate wealth, your share of the tab gets bigger.

And that is another thing as well. Different thought processes about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, pokebball said:

That's my understanding

That was another hole in a story of a friend said everyone knew. That was a question saw on an article if it happened at summer break, how did everyone know when coming back in fall that it could have happened? Did someone talk and then the story got bigger to where some details were changed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, sean327 said:

Question for all the Liberals/Progressives/Socialists/Communists, or whatever the hell you guys call yourselves these days. 

Why is an Originalist being nominated to the Supreme Court so scary to you guys? Every one of you claim that the Constitution is the law of the land, so why do non "Living Document" judges make you curl up into the fetal position? If you want the Constitution changed, why not go through the process spelled out? Or is it just easier to subvert the Constitution by legislating from the bench?

For me if the person is qualified for the court they should be confirmed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, pokebball said:

Religion of big families

Yeah. I agree with your point. The stats are interesting though. Some very red states with young median ages and vice versa. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, pokebball said:

Who pays for shyt?  Life and government is all about who pays for shyt.  When you're younger, you aren't paying for much.  As you earn, save and accumulate wealth, your share of the tab gets bigger.

I believe it also has a lot to do with how you were raised. The Republican Party attracted me when I was in high school. Jimmy Carter was an inept President, my Catholic upbringing shaped my view on abortion and I couldn't reconcile voting for a party that believes killing babies is ok with my religious beliefs. My time in the Marine Corps moved me toward being very Libertarian rather than Conservative. At no point in my life have I ever identified as a Liberal. There are many young people who are Conservatives or Libertarians. You can't group all younger voters into a single block.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sean327 said:

I believe it also has a lot to do with how you were raised. The Republican Party attracted me when I was in high school. Jimmy Carter was an inept President, my Catholic upbringing shaped my view on abortion and I couldn't reconcile voting for a party that believes killing babies with my religious beliefs. My time in the Marine Corps moved me toward being very Libertarian rather than Conservative. At no point in my life have I ever identified as a Liberal there are many young people who are Conservatives or Libertarians. You can't group all younger voters into a single block.

I agree with this too

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Fox

The California professor said she was reluctant to come forward and did so only because her hand was forced by the media. She wrote a letter outlining her allegations in July to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., but Feinstein did not mention them to other senators or federal investigators until last week.

I also want to know who leaked the letter Ford sent to Feinstein.  The leak forced Ford's hand. Shame on the leaker.  It wasn't their decision, it was Fords.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

So we don't know that Trump is a rapist because there have only been allegations about that. However, we DO know that Clinton is a rapist based solely on allegations? :USFlag:

Clinton has been in court.  Clinton has had investigations over decades proving his point.

Even the New York Times thinks he raped.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/opinion/juanita-broaddrick-bill-clinton.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2018 at 12:36 PM, jackmormon said:

What makes you think that Kavanaugh has received death threats?

You were saying?

 

 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pokebball said:

I didn't say it hurt her credibility.

A couple of thoughts.  Some classmates of hers claim that the incident was well known and talked about around school, soccer practice, etc.  If she didn't tell her best friend, bridesmaid, roommate, etc.  how did that happen?  It certainly conflicts with her classmates that seem to want to collaborate her claim.  I think it hurts the credibility of those classmates' claims.

Secondly, if there was a person that she confided in, wouldn't her best friend be a probable person?  We now know that she didn't even confide to her best friend, a person she roomed with.

I don't know how badly it might hurt her claim.  It does appear to remove a couple of sources that could help her claim.

The girl was her best friend from college, and the incident was in high school, no? So it seems she didn't share with her college best friend an incident that had happened in the past. A lot of people go to college and try to leave things that happened in high school behind and don't share with their new college friends. If she really only explored this stuff in more recent therapy sessions, I wouldn't be surprised at all that she hadn't talked about it since high school.

All that being said, the more I think about it, the more this all makes a sh*t ton of sense to me in terms of how this has played out.

1. An incident happens involving a guy and a girl partying in high school. Most certainly involved the guy being at least inappropriate, but also didn't escalate to forced sex. 

2. While a traumatic experience for her to some extent (possibly magnified by other traumatic experiences in which she was victimized in the past), it was also an experience that wasn't particularly remarkable or novel, and thus she opted to move on as best she can on as best terms as she can.

3. The dude goes on to be a lawyer and judge, political bigwig, etc. She goes on to have some success in academia, and in the midst of it all probably has some personal/marital problems perhaps fueled by not dealing with this and potentially other past traumas. While now trying to deal with this in therapy, she pieces these things together and starts to face and deal with these past traumas.

4. The dude in the middle of one of these past events is nominated for a highly contentious Supreme Court seat with high stakes. While believing that this incident may be relavent (especially if it may be one of a number of similar incidents that may have happened since), and while she knows this thing happened with this guy, she also personally struggles with many of the clear questions of whether her memories of the event are reliable. She writes a letter to her Senator. The goal of this letter is not as much to be made public immediately, but to basically inform someone who is part of the process that this happened mainly in case there are other quiet/unspoken murmmers of other similar events. The senator hasn't heard anything and doesn't immediately move on it because she knows that this, when made public, would play out exactly like it has... as a public trial of a woman's credibility over her character and how well she remembers an event three decades ago, a trial that the woman probably was not interested in going at alone but who, was this a pattern, was interested in being part of a larger group. 

This makes the most sense to me, and while people like toolsrulez will not accept it because it assumes good faith on the part of a Democrat, it's pretty clear to me anyways this is what happened. In instances like this, the only real way to build credibility is through numbers. This one incident may be hard to pin down. You get 4 or 5 incidents like this, and it's easier to paint a picture. Think Roy Moore. And like Roy Moore, these things have a tendency to stay buried when they involve powerful people and thus the individual stories from a long time ago that can be pulled apart by individual scrutiny become part of a larger pattern with recurring themes. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pokerider said:

What if their both telling the truth

Well, that's a dumb f*cking question.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pokebball said:

I don't know.  Younger people have historically been more progressive and identify more with the Dem party.  I did.  Most all my friends did.  As a person ages, gains solid employment perhaps owning their own business, they shift and become more moderate and more conservative.  I did.  Most all my friends did.  Gender doesn't matter.  Race doesn't matter.

When you're young, you've got that free spirit, you own little, nothing's tying you down.  As you age, your values change.

You guys might be right.  Perhaps it's all about race.  I don't think it is.

Is that really true though? Socially we are far more liberal than 40 years ago - and our older voters are more liberal today than they were 40 years ago. Economically it is the opposite. As I've aged I've gone from wishy washy libertarian to Wyoming democrat/Rockefeller republican. That isn't really a rightward shift. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...