Political Fart Noise Part II

[CRed05]

you can assume everyone on a "dating" site is 18 like you can assume everyone in a bar is over 21. Also, the site sounded a lot more like prostitution than "Dating", which isn't exactly legal in every jurisdiction.

 

Plus there is this from the press conference:

 

 

 

There are many points where this dude had a chance to say "maybe paying a 16 year old girl for sex isn't such a wise idea" and walk away but he didn't.

 

To me it kinda sounds like he got fucked over with the whole age thing. If you ask me, prostitution should be legal to begin with, and this bitch lied about her age not only when she signed up to the site, but never mentioned to him that she's underage.

[Geeto67]

To me it kinda sounds like he got fucked over with the whole age thing. If you ask me, prostitution should be legal to begin with, and this bitch lied about her age not only when she signed up to the site, but never mentioned to him that she's underage.

 

Just because YOU think prostitution should be legal doesn't make it automatically legal, maybe just not immoral.

 

I'd be a little careful about calling her a bitch, considering we are talking about something that concerns "at risk" children. She was (is?) in counseling and it was her counselor who found out and reported the incident. I would say maybe the website that promotes younger women with older men and a transactional relationship (even if it isn't prostitution) should put a little more effort into age verification before I blame a 16 year old girl for "bringing this on herself".

[greg1647545532]

To me it kinda sounds like he got fucked over with the whole age thing. If you ask me, prostitution should be legal to begin with, and this bitch lied about her age not only when she signed up to the site, but never mentioned to him that she's underage.

 

Attitudes like this are why human trafficking is such a massive problem. Sure, prostitution should be legal and regulated. In the absence of such regulation, people who pay women for sex really need to understand that it's an industry tied to human trafficking, that many of the victims are underaged and desperate, and they need to go out of their way to make sure they're not contributing to the problem. I don't feel bad for this guy at all.

[Geeto67]

and....less than 24 hours:

 

https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/09/20/infowars-3d-printed-gun-maker-cody-wilsons-arrest-underage-sex-charges-obvious-set/221389

 

...This is an affidavit, says a counselor called Austin police on August 22 to report that a girl, under the age of 17, had sex with a 30-year-old Cody Wilson. So I’m going to break it all down when we get back. How to CYA, cover your ass. Because people are going to be doing stuff like this. Remember they lie, cheat and steal, this is the way they do things. This is the way the left operates...

 

...at some point you have to go, all right, this girl created the account, she went to meet him, she exchanged pictures with him. Now I know she’s under the age of 18, but did he go find her at a bar and roofie her drink and take her to a hotel and have his way with her? Did he grab her off the street? No. This is an obvious, obvious set up.

[RedRocket1647545505]

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/09/24/politics/kavanaugh-new-allegation-supreme-court-future/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

 

I'm shocked.

[Geeto67]

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/09/24/politics/kavanaugh-new-allegation-supreme-court-future/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

 

I'm shocked.

 

Womp Womp.

[RedRocket1647545505]

2016-2020 Democrat Party Playbook:

 

1. Russia

2. Russia

3. He showed me his weiner

4. He showed everyone his weiner

5. Russia

[oh8sti]

He will get confirmed - Dems are trying too hard and it’s showing. It’s sad they are weaponzing the me too thing.

 

After Thursday’s hearing they will confirm him and the second accuser can take it to court if she wants. My guess is she won’t. She can’t even positively ID the person, circumstances and witnesses there.

[Geeto67]

Pretty sure the Democrats don't own a time machine, and if they did they probably wouldn't use it to setup future political opponents in honeypot sexual assault traps.

 

I'd say it is pretty sad that the "republicans" don't see sexual assault as a reason to not appoint someone to a lifetime government position but then again it's not like they don't have a history of doing exactly that. Actually, making deals with the devil to put pedophiles, wife beaters, and rapists in power to suit an agenda seems pretty on brand for them (Roy Moore, Corey Lewandowski, Trump, Steve Bannon, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, etc...).

 

Putting politics aside for a second - this boils down to whether you have a problem with people who abuse women holding political office. Either you do or you don't. If you do, then at the very least be willing to investigate this and withhold judgement and at least be open to the possibility that the appointee actually committed this act and see how the evidence pans out. If you don't, well then maybe you should re-check your moral compass.

 

I hear a lot of "well this is just gamesmanship from one side" when in reality this is politicized by both parties. There is def some republican politicking in this too - esp considering how fast they want to railroad this through to the point where they are not doing a really good job of vetting. Put aside all the political pot shots for a second and really ask yourself whether you are ok with this or not.

[oh8sti]

I’m assuming he didn’t do any of this until some evidence is brought forth to change my mind. Thats the way this system works. MSM should not make the decision for who the next SC Justice is. The appropriate people are investigating this, we will see how it pans out. If there is evidence that he did do these things, he should not be confirmed. The problem is it’s a he said she said accusation from 35 years ago. There is no way to confirm it happened based on the story Ford told. It’s the word of a federal judge vs. the word of a college professor that hates Trump. Don’t you see how this whole thing is fishy?

[Geeto67]

I’m assuming he didn’t do any of this.

Based on what exacly?

 

 

That's the way this system works.

Which system are we talking about exactly? I know how lower federal and state court judge appointment systems work and it's really easy for things like this to be missed because they aren't nearly as public. Being admitted to federal court to practice I can tell you I often don't hear about new judge appointments until after they are confirmed, and I am a member of the bar partly responsible for the vetting process. I am guessing you aren't talking about that system so let's be clear - which system are we talking about and how is it working exactly?

 

The appropriate people are investigating this, we will see how it pans out.

Who is investigating this? not the FBI (whose job it is to do so as part of the vetting process). Do you know why? Because in situations like this, the protocol is for the executive branch to order the investigation. Why? because the FBI's autonomy extends to the investigation of federal crimes, they perform the background check as part of a standing order from the executive and legislative branches, to perform a one off investigation in this case the executive branch would need to order it. Under every preceding president this has been no big deal - HW Bush even ordered it for the Clarence Thomas hearings, and they order it all the time for similar situations of appointees facing allegations for positions that don't get a lot of press. What is unusual is that they aren't being ordered here.

 

that basically leaves the committee to "investigate" it, and by investigate I don't mean actually collect evidence, just review whatever evidence is being presented.

 

I don't know that you can say with objective truthfulness that the appropriate people are investigating this, because it's an undisputed fact they are not.

 

If there is evidence that he did do these things, he should not be confirmed. The problem is it’s a he said she said accusation from 35 years ago. There is no way to confirm it happened based on the story Ford told. It’s the word of a federal judge vs. the word of a college professor that hates Trump. Don’t you see how this whole thing is fishy?

 

I guess this turns on whether what you consider "evidence". To me, statements made to a neutral third party long before the president was in office and Kavanuagh was even a contender for this position is pretty compelling evidence that this isn't politically motivated. It creates credibility.

 

In the context of in modern times 2/3 of sexual assaults going un-reported because of people being afraid of not being believed it is quite understandable why the only evidence might be statements made in therapy.

 

But that isn't the only evidence, is it? Kavanaugh's high school friend Mark Judge wrote a pretty thinly veiled memoir of both their time together when this incident seemed to occur and tells of a culture of heavy underage drinking, occasional light drug use, and general partying. Seems to establish a lack of credibility on the part of Kavanaugh who claims this is out of character for him.

 

So...what evidence do you need to feel comfortable? Seems like this is more than just he said she said, but still falls short that TV ideal of photos of bruises and torn clothes and police reports. What's the line for you?

 

As for this feels fishy because of the timing? well this is exactly when these sort of things come out, and in many ways is the reason for the hearings to be public.

[greg1647545532]

Republicans can vote to confirm whenever they want, they're the ones being cucks and holding additional hearings.

[Brandon]

Based on what exactly

 

What are we to base he is guilty on...

 

Its complete weaponized bullshit. Both parties do it.

[oh8sti]

Based on what exacly?

 

 

 

Which system are we talking about exactly? I know how lower federal and state court judge appointment systems work and it's really easy for things like this to be missed because they aren't nearly as public. Being admitted to federal court to practice I can tell you I often don't hear about new judge appointments until after they are confirmed, and I am a member of the bar partly responsible for the vetting process. I am guessing you aren't talking about that system so let's be clear - which system are we talking about and how is it working exactly?

 

 

Who is investigating this? not the FBI (whose job it is to do so as part of the vetting process). Do you know why? Because in situations like this, the protocol is for the executive branch to order the investigation. Why? because the FBI's autonomy extends to the investigation of federal crimes, they perform the background check as part of a standing order from the executive and legislative branches, to perform a one off investigation in this case the executive branch would need to order it. Under every preceding president this has been no big deal - HW Bush even ordered it for the Clarence Thomas hearings, and they order it all the time for similar situations of appointees facing allegations for positions that don't get a lot of press. What is unusual is that they aren't being ordered here.

 

that basically leaves the committee to "investigate" it, and by investigate I don't mean actually collect evidence, just review whatever evidence is being presented.

 

I don't know that you can say with objective truthfulness that the appropriate people are investigating this, because it's an undisputed fact they are not.

 

 

 

I guess this turns on whether what you consider "evidence". To me, statements made to a neutral third party long before the president was in office and Kavanuagh was even a contender for this position is pretty compelling evidence that this isn't politically motivated. It creates credibility.

 

In the context of in modern times 2/3 of sexual assaults going un-reported because of people being afraid of not being believed it is quite understandable why the only evidence might be statements made in therapy.

 

But that isn't the only evidence, is it? Kavanaugh's high school friend Mark Judge wrote a pretty thinly veiled memoir of both their time together when this incident seemed to occur and tells of a culture of heavy underage drinking, occasional light drug use, and general partying. Seems to establish a lack of credibility on the part of Kavanaugh who claims this is out of character for him.

 

So...what evidence do you need to feel comfortable? Seems like this is more than just he said she said, but still falls short that TV ideal of photos of bruises and torn clothes and police reports. What's the line for you?

 

As for this feels fishy because of the timing? well this is exactly when these sort of things come out, and in many ways is the reason for the hearings to be public.

 

Anything that needs this much explaination on something so basic means you know your wrong.

 

If he did it - there will be evidence. If he did not, there won’t be. It’s simple.

[Geeto67]

Anything that needs this much explaination on something so basic means you know your wrong.

 

If he did it - there will be evidence. If he did not, there won’t be. It’s simple.

 

ok, to make it simple (and apparently use less words to help your comprehension). here are the questions I asked you directly:

 

There is already evidence, why aren't you convinced by it?

 

Why do you think he is innocent? is it just timing or something else?

 

What system were you talking about when you said "its just the way the system works?

[Geeto67]

What are we to base he is guilty on...

 

The evidence that has been made public so far. I understand it isn't a lot, but it isn't nothing. Explain to me why you don't think it is enough?

 

if you need a primer on what's out there, this is pretty good (although I wish it was from a better source):

 

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/22/17886814/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-deborah-ramirez

[CRed05]

[greg1647545532]

They should find something more outlandish to accuse future Democratic nominees of. Like, maybe they can say they weren't born in the US, and they faked their birth certificate, and they're really Muslim Kenyans. Think Republicans would ever stoop that low?

[CRed05]

Think Republicans would ever stoop that low?

 

Both parties do it.

 

What he said.

[greg1647545532]

I must have missed both parties doing that, maybe I don't watch the right twitter feeds.

[Geeto67]

kinda leaning with greg on this one...its only a both parties "do it" if you think these sexual assaults are made up....

 

1) false sexual assault is kind of the male boogeyman. Most men fear that they will be accused falsely to the point where they are willing to assume that almost all are false until proven by an almost unreasonable standard of proof rather than face the fact that we live in a culture that penalizes people for being victims of it.

 

2) This seems to be a reoccurring theme for republicans and democrats but the troubling thing is that more often than not it seems either the republican party had reason to know, or it was easy enough to discover. Either they are really really bad at vetting people or they just really don't care and take the approach of "well let's see if people make a fuss over it". Democrats are usually surprised by this and take pretty immediate action, where as the republican line pretty much seems to be "eh, so what". Al Franken voluntarily stepped down for allegations that were much less sever than the attempted rape Brett K is facing, but Roy Moore just dug in with the slogan of well a "pedophile is better than a democrat".

 

Both sides playing the game isn't a moral equivalency - so don't invent one where it isn't warranted. Supporting socialized medicine, unions, and public assistance is not the same moral plane as being a pedophile or attempting rape.

 

anyway I was just looking for an excuse to post htis and now I have it: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/christine-blasey-ford-and-the-search-for-a-standard-of-proof/571063/

[CRed05]

The only reoccurring theme I see here is democrats screaming rape and racism to get their way every chance they get.

 

Al Franken should not have stepped down, and Kavanaugh isn't going anywhere until he's been proven guilty of wrongdoing. The witnesses can't even remember this party happening...so it's her word against 3 people now?

 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-09-24%20Kavanaugh%20to%20Grassley%20-%20Kavanaugh%20Nomination.pdf

[greg1647545532]

What if they're not doing it to get their way, but because rape and racism exist and are bad?

[CRed05]

What if they're not doing it to get their way, but because rape and racism exist and are bad?

 

Right, well it's very coincidental that things are only now coming out, 30+ years later, things that happened in high school, now that he's been nominated by Trumpy.

 

I understand that yeah, rape and racism is bad and you certainly don't want anyone on the SCOTUS that can be accused of those things. But if it's truly in the name of justice, than where were you 35 years ago? (I understand it's a hard thing to come out and speak about -- still very coincidental timing).

 

Good thing there's burden of proof. Prove it and then everyone will know he's a scumbag.

[Geeto67]

The only reoccurring theme I see here is democrats screaming rape and racism to get their way every chance they get.

 

Well if you are trying to prevent both things, shouldn't you be screaming about them? Oh you mean they do it when it isn't happening....except when it comes to racism they don't have to make anything up - calling out racism in our society isn't difficult because it happens on an ongoing basis everyday. As for rape, yeah this nomination is pretty much proving how little America values the experiences of women when it comes to sexual assault, except you don't believe her so you think this is exactly what she deserves.

 

 

Al Franken should not have stepped down,

Why? Please explain this in detail.

 

 

and Kavanaugh isn't going anywhere until he's been proven guilty of wrongdoing. The witnesses can't even remember this party happening...so it's her word against 3 people now?

 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-09-24%20Kavanaugh%20to%20Grassley%20-%20Kavanaugh%20Nomination.pdf

 

He isn't on trial so he's not going to be "proven guilty" like one would receive a conviction. There is no charge, there is no penalty of prison, and there is also no formal standard of proof that needs to be met other than to convince a bunch of senators that he did or didn't do this....which brings me up to the point I am trying to make: Many of the republican senators have already said that it doesn't matter what the testimony or evidence presented says - they are going to proceed with his confirmation either way. If it doesn't bother you that the party in charge has basically said we already made up our minds before the investigation and formal hearing are concluded - I don't know what to tell you.