Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'National' started by Phillyxpat, Jun 5, 2018.
I'm just going to sit here with my popcorn and watch tomorrow's festivities...
Thought I would drop in and see what the PhillySpeaks pulse was.
Just as I expected!
And because this shitshow isn't crazy enough, the news in the morning, just before the hearing will be that a guy has come forward and said he's the one that assaulted Ford, not Kavanagh.
If verified, the crow eating by detestable democrats will be more entertaining than the election night meltdowns.
Morning Joe says that there are now two doppelganger Kavanaughs willing to fall on there swords to protect the nomination. Blood on the WH carpets sacrificed for Toddler Emperor Caligula the new fashion?
There was plenty of defense of Clinton, and some of it was nasty.. Kennedy (Ted) is generally just ignored because he was pretty guilty. But this isn't about Clinton or anyone else, unless the argument is that things should remain at the historic norm where accusers were treated as being in the wrong and things were swept under the rug. And really we've moved backwards here, Anita Hill at least had her claims investigated (FBI determined they were unfounded).
I brought up Clinton only because it was turned into a partisan complaint. The examples show that the same thing happens on both sides.
As far as the Anita Hill angle goes, I addressed that upthread. But here's another link on it:
Brett Kavanaugh: Key differences between Anita Hill, Christine Ford Supreme Court scandals
With that said, at this point I agree the FBI should be called back in to drive out the facts and truth in detail. Because this shitshow needs to be definitively put to rest within a more legal framework, almost purely for the health of the country. Consider the following scenarios:
1. If the accusers are telling the truth, then Kavanaugh is indeed a bad person and a criminal, and should not be on the court and instead probably be in jail. Full stop.
2. However, if the accusers are not telling the truth, then they can be charged with lying to Congress and sued for defamation. In the case of Swetnick, she could also potentially be charged with being an accessory to rape. Those charges could easily be used as leverage to find out who was paying them to say these things.
Either way, the thing that the Democrats seem to be missing is that Kavanaugh was the compromise choice from Trump. There are far more conservative judges that Trump could have appointed. If you run off Kavanaugh, then don't be surprised when you get someone more populist like an Amy Coney Barrett.
If anything Merrick Garland proves that the court can function for 400 days or more without a ninth "justice". Just another broken institution for a bankruptcy feeding executive to hang a fire sale on before foreclosure sign goes up.
This is going around on the RW but there is no legal case for this. Knowledge of crimes is not 'accessory', you have to actively do something to further or conceal the crime. Some states to have certain duties to assist or report, but even those make it a misdemeanor (and very rarely used), you don't take on the culpability of the act (Maryland and DC don't have these laws). This potentially-punitive response to the claims is imo part of what enyo was referring to about the different attitudes between the parties towards these events.
Kavanaugh as a compromise choice was good for a laugh. He's no moderate.
"Use your common sense" ~~ Brett Kavanaugh's Lawyer Mom
White House limits scope of the FBI’s Kavanaugh investigation | NBC News
It seems Kavanaugh may have lied to the Committee about when he first became aware of the Ramirez allegations.
Text messages suggest Kavanaugh wanted to refute accuser's claim before it became public | NBC News
Can a lawyer shed light on this? Isn't the act of trying to coordinate testimony akin to witness tampering?
He was encouraging them to testify in his defense, which is fine as long as he was not asking them to lie. It is an affirmative defense to the charge "that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully".
However as the article notes, Kavanaugh appears to have lied to the Committee regarding who initiated the communications.
Kavanaugh appears to have lied about many things under oath.
A.O.T. - Age of Trump - 2 + 2 = 5
My condolences to all who have lost love ones in Pittsburgh. My thoughts to those injured and maimed.
For some, yesterday was only a "Bad Hair Day"... Oh the horror!?
The synagogue was just blocks from my college alma mater. The parents of a friend escaped unhurt...the widow of my former statistics professor was not so lucky.
When things like this happen, this random act of hate for lack of a better tag, I am always reminded of a story of local anti-Semitism I heard of from my youth.
last civilized yank : Saint Joan of Arc Church - Harrowgate - Philadelphia
When you keep stoking fears of Jews funding a caravan of illegals and terrorists to invade America, can such a reaction really be that much of a surprise? Wouldn't some "patriots" feel obligated to defend our country?
Who is stoking fears of "Jews"? The rhetoric on funding the caravan is about Soros, who just happens to be a Jew. A Nazi-collaborating one at that.
The guy that attacked the synagogue in Pittsburgh was a vicious anti-semite long before Trump. To bring him into the picture on this is partisan and foolish.
I thought that FN would get better after Roger Ailes death. But the real cancer on that front is a hater from OZ who the Brits would not tolerate but came here as an immigrant and got citizenship and set up his moved twice OZ Hate Store here. And on a second front if the NYS and NJ AGs over the decades had done their jobs and not been subject to an army of lawyers and or bribes, political small change contributions, media sound bite feeding parasites, had put DJT in jail for all his fraud scams on the unsuspecting public, these ppl in Pittsburgh just might be alive today. Am awful lots of if-s (woulda, coulda, shoulda-s) and an awful lot of amoral passing, kicking the can down the road, forward. (PRO ((personal rant over)) ) * * (for the moment I think)
Why do you think he waited till now. I agree, he is 46 years old, and I am sure he was a raging anti-semite when he was 25,30, 35, 40, and 45. Funny how just now he decides to act out on it. He did not act out when Lieberman was running for VP, or Rendell was elected governor of PA. (I assume he was a Pennsylvanian during Rendell's 8 years, but I am not sure). What could have possibly set him off to act now? /s
You do realize the guy posted on social media that he hated Trump, right?
He said he didn't like Trump because he dealt with Jews. You are not stating, like I heard on Fox News, that he said he did not vote for Trump, so he must have voted for Hillary, are you
Do you think the President of the US talking about knocking people out, and body slamming members of the press does not embolden people who have these feelings. Remember the "Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know"
Bruce Cockburn wrote many years ago " What did they think the politics of panic would invite"
He called Trump a globalist. I don't recall that he mentioned voting. But perhaps he voted Libertarian? Or perhaps he didn't vote at all? This isn't an "either or" situation. Not sure how that matters?
This also doesn't explain James Hodgkinson, who unsurprisingly has been filed to the memory hole of history by the media. Voted to feel the Bern and then shot a congressman.
I don't love all the rhetoric coming out of the White House, particularly joking about the body slam guy, but don't put words in his mouth that he is actually calling for escalated violence. Meanwhile:
"I want you to argue with them and get in their face."
"Punch back twice as hard."
"I want to know whose ass to kick."
"I'm itching for a fight."
"We're gonna punish our enemies."
If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"
All this from Barack Obama. Certainly not the worst comments in the world, but let's not kid ourselves that he doesn't share any part in the country's current partisan divisions.
And shall I go on about all of the actual violent rhetoric coming from the Left in general? Here's a pretty good list, just from Nov 2016 to June 2017:
A Definitive Guide to the Left’s Violent Tactics Since Trump’s Election
It has only gotten worse. Maxine Waters alone could fill a legal-sized page of this kind of stuff.
With that all said...I'll leave you with a recent quote from Ian Bremmer of the Eurasia Group, who has been a Trump critic in the past:
For everyone that wants to blame Trump for the staggering political hatred in the US today, it’s worth asking why the same thing is happening across Europe and many developing economies.
Trump is a symptom, not the cause.
America has been stuck on the same Trump punchline for decades now per the 1990 cartoon below. Kind of like an old Vaudeville act long after Vaudeville has left town. A scratched LP for us geezers, repeating and repeating. Time to move the needle - reboot so to speak - and move on IMHO.
Oh just a coincidence.. nevermind that it's not true? No Evidence Soros Is Funding Immigrant 'Caravan' - FactCheck.org
Gotta stop reading right-wing sources. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-soros-ss-nazi-germany/
Obama made you guys go nuts. That's on you, not him.*
Much of Obama's disapproval from the left stems from how he was always willing to work with the GOP - or even when they refused to do that, adopt some of their proposals anyway as some form of conciliation.
You are 100% correct that Trump is a symptom of the sickened right-wing in this country.
*The obvious counter-argument relies on treating Obama and Trump as equals, as you are attempting to do here. It is an invalid argument until that equivalence is actually demonstrated. A couple of out-of-context (yet still obvious) metaphors doesn't cut it.
I didn't claim, nor do I know, if Soros is funding the caravan. Not sure anyone does...but that's why it is rhetoric. Plus in today's environment, precedent has been set that an accusation is supposed to be blindly taken as fact without any corroborating evidence...
In the 60 minutes interview, Soros plainly admits that he assisted in confiscating Jewish property for the Nazis. Snopes and others have attempted to whitewash it with peripheral excuses and mitigations. The bottom line is that he was a part of it, and he admitted it. So should I believe Snopes, or my lying eyes/ears?
Clearly you are looking through things with an extremely narrow lens. Get out of Philly and into the rest of the country and see how people with other experiences feel.