US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 'sexual assault' an umbrella term that covers various sexual crimes?

now yes, it was created partly to get away from the common law definition of "rape" and having to prove there had been penetration and to put more emphasis on the "assault " portion, but "sexual assault" as crime or even a legal concept did not exist in 1982. I know because I was in law school in 1982 and studying criminal law. My ambition at the time was to become a defence lawyer.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Well, some young people seriously argue that a blowjob, sorry, "is no sex".

Rape only when penetration occurs? That must be a male's law, no doubt. You can be sexually attacking even if penetration does not occur and may not even be desired by the pervert committing the attack.

German law qualifies not just penetration as rape, but also especially humiliating enforced sexual activities without penetration.

that may be the law in Germany, but we are talking about laws in civilized common law jurisdiction.

in 1982, "rape" is only if you can prove penetration and no such thing as "sexual assault".

[Skybird]

And still behaviour of this kind tells somethign about the person showing it. BTW, with yourm logic you cna also argue that the shooting of fleeing Eastegrmernas at the inner-German border or the crimes ciommiotted by the Gestapo, were not to be rated as crimes because they were conformal with the then-vlaid laws.



Its always a sad thing if formality trumps over moral and ethics. And when the question of criminal behaviour turns into a game of "its okay as long as you get away with it". It remains wrong and the person behaving criminally remains to be fully responsible, however. Arguing in formalities only in the end leads to the perverted situation that any law enforcing turns into the cause of "offence" and "crime". Wouldn't that be absurd?



Kavanaugh now gets accused by a former fellow student that he was drinking often and heavily, and became aggressive whilew drinking. If true, again he is fully responsible for his drinking, and any consequences caused by that. As I have often argued before, mostly regarding alcohol and car driving: being drunk in no way is a reason to appeal for mitigating circumstances. The drinker is fully responsible for how much he drinks, and for even drinking at all.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Skybird

BTW, with yourm logic you cna also argue that the shooting of fleeing Eastegrmernas at the inner-German border or the crimes ciommiotted by the Gestapo, were not to be rated as crimes because they were conformal with the then-vlaid laws.

well not in a civilized common law jurisdiction, but nothing about German law surprises me.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Kavanaugh now gets accused by a former fellow student that he was drinking often and heavily, and became aggressive whilew drinking.

Here's his (Charles "Chad" Ludington) statement:

I have been contacted by numerous reporters about Brett Kavanaugh and have not wanted to say anything because I had nothing to contribute about what kind of Justice he would be. I knew Brett at Yale because I was a classmate and a varsity basketball player and Brett enjoyed socializing with athletes. Indeed, athletes formed the core of Brett's social circle.

In recent days I have become deeply troubled by what has been a blatant mischaracterization by Brett himself of his drinking at Yale. When I watched Brett and his wife being interviewed on Fox News on Monday, and when I watched Brett deliver his testimony under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, I cringed. For the fact is, at Yale, and I can speak to no other times, Brett was a frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker. I know, because, especially in our first two years of college, I often drank with him. On many occasions I heard Brett slur his words and saw him staggering from alcohol consumption, not all of which was beer. When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive. On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man's face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.

I do not believe that the heavy drinking or even loutish behavior of an 18 or even 21 year old should condemn a person for the rest of his life. I would be a hypocrite to think so. However, I have direct and repeated knowledge about his drinking and his disposition while drunk. And I do believe that Brett's actions as a 53-year-old federal judge matter. If he lied about his past actions on national television, and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the United States Senate, I believe those lies should have consequences. It is truth that is at stake, and I believe that the ability to speak the truth, even when it does not reflect well upon oneself, is a paramount quality we seek in our nation's most powerful judges.

I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking, and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth.

I felt it was my civic duty to tell of my experience while drinking with Brett, and I offer this statement to the press. I have no desire to speak further publicly, and nothing more to say to the press at this time. I will however, take my information to the FBI.

[Mr Quatro]

Dr Ford in her testimony said that this episode lasted ten minutes in a locked upstairs bedroom with two drunk men. It is also reported that she was wearing a one piece bathing suit.

Ten minutes is a long time ... I hope the next shoe that drops is not that she was too embarrassed to report that there was penetration and that now that she has had time to clarify what happened in that room she hopes that her civil duty has been preformed.

Only three witnesses with no date or even a month or a week or even a day of the week and no memory of how she got there or how she got home leaves me to wonder if there is another shoe to be dropped.

I hope not

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Here's his (Charles "Chad" Ludington) statement:

its called moving the goalpost.

Dr. Ford's testimony has a lot of holes in it and unless the FBI comes up with something he will probably be confirmed.

so the new line of attack is that he lied to Congress about his drinking.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Well I am basing my opinions on the several polygraph examinations I have been subjected to as well as my researcher when I was applying to be a polygraph examination in the military. What happened here is very unusual.


...


This one guy, retired FBI or not, is doing polygraph system a disservice by whipping up a few questions, asking them multiple times and then selecting the dataset that favors his client and publishing that.

This is not how it is supposed to work. It only helps harm the already low confidence in the polygraph system.

Your experience with polygraph(s) is accurate -- if a person is getting something serious like a high security clearance or is being criminally investigated; but, for the use of polygraph in civil actions or in situations like Dr. Ford, the bar is much lower; remember, those sorts of tests are usually carried out at the behest of a client's own counsel with the purpose of reinforcing their client's own interests. Where the test might get more particular and comprehensive would be if the matter involved high stakes litigation or if the opposing counsel asked to conduct their own test, in which case their motivation would be to probe with the intent of discrediting the person being tested...


I've never actually had a polygraph test, but came near twice, for two different jobs for which I applied, one where they filled the position before I had to take a test and the other where I found a position elsewhere also before the test was to be given; in both cases; I did enquire as to the scope, nature and process of the potential examination; one was apparently very through and the other was represented as being rather brief and cursory, sort of "We have to at least go through the motions"; I kind of wish I had taken at least one of the tests, if only as an interesting experience...

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Different times. When I was in high school, pressuring a girl on a date was nothing unusual. What is considered rape now was not the same then. And if you are high-minded and this shocks you, sorry. But don't take my word for it, just review some of the popular culture of the time. That's just the way things were then.

Being of an age (an old age), my teen years were in the 1960s and I can tell you one thing: if a guy tried to molest a girl and word got back to her father, brother(s), any other male family members, or a close male friend of the girl, the guy who did the molesting would have been subjected to a bit of "curbside justice" even if there were no law(s) explicitly prohibiting the molestation. I don't know about where anybody else grew up, but there were even enough gentlemen in our neighborhood, who, even though unrelated to the girl, would have also taken offense, intervened, and given out a bit of the "justice" as well. Wrong is wrong, no matter when or if there are any actual laws proscribing the wrong at the time of the incident. Any person who engages in such behavior is wrong, no matter what; and , though, a person may not be subject to official repercussions, that a person would engage in such actions speaks to the character, or lack thereof of that person, calling into question their personal morality, judgement, and ability to accept responsibility...


That said, what I really find troubling is the meltdown Kavanaugh displayed at Thursday's hearings: unhinged, evasive, at times near hysterics, I'm not sure he is, by any measure, up to the rigors of being a Supreme Court Justice. Surely, he can't be the only candidate that Trump and the GOP can come up with; maybe its time to cut possible losses and find someone else; if Kavanuagh is the 'best and the brightest' they can come up with, then their candidate pool must be the worst and the darkest. I just know there must be someone within the judicial ranks of the GOP else who won't be such a major embarrassment to the Party and to the country...


Poll:Opposition To Kavanaugh Grows-After Ford hearing:



http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...d-hearing.html

Originally Posted by em2nought

This might as well be a picture of every Republican since Reagan, and until Trump in regard to dealing with the DemonRats

You mean the same Trump who handed over to the Israelis highly classified and sensitive intelligence over the opposition of his own Intel officials who feared compromising US operations and operatives; or do you mean the same Trump who, also over the objections of Republican lawmakers, his defense advisers and some of his own economic officials, regarding known abuses and breaches, cleared the way for a sweetheart deal for China's ZTE telecom after China poured USD $500,000,000 into a project that is to bear trump's name; or do you mean the same Trump who has repeatedly refused to acknowledge or even defend the US against Russian interference in internal US governmental activities ; or do you mean the same Trump who has been the slavish pet of Putin and who has done every thing short of presenting his haunches like a baboon (a "huuuuge" yellw baboon) in heat to his Russian master? Dou you mean all of the above Trumps?...


Yeah, right, Trump is no Neville Chamberlain...














<O>

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

its called moving the goalpost.

Dr. Ford's testimony has a lot of holes in it and unless the FBI comes up with something he will probably be confirmed.

so the new line of attack is that he lied to Congress about his drinking.

So, then, "Lying Hillary" is evil, "Lying Bill" is evil, "Lying Obama" is evil, but "Lying Brett" (under oath and on worldwide TV) is perfectly fine and honorable...


Sounds about right for typical GOP hypocrisy...












<O>

[vienna]

<O>

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by vienna

Your experience with polygraph(s) is accurate -- if a person is getting something serious like a high security clearance or is being criminally investigated; but, for the use of polygraph in civil actions or in situations like Dr. Ford, the bar is much lower; remember, those sorts of tests are usually carried out at the behest of a client's own counsel with the purpose of reinforcing their client's own interests.

Yeah, right, Trump is no Neville Chamberlain...

My lawyer had me do the baseline stuff and what not. I know who paid the dinero for it too, me. I'd think they'd only skirt that stuff because it proved to "not" be helpful when they did it the first time so they did it again without it.



You just can't get over that 2016 election result can you? Looks like Canada just agreed to play Trump's economic ballgame too! So much winning going into November!

[vienna]

Originally Posted by em2nought

My lawyer had me do the baseline stuff and what not. I know who paid the dinero for it too, me. I'd think they'd only skirt that stuff because it proved to "not" be helpful when they did it the first time so they did it again without it.



You just can't get over that 2016 election result can you? Looks like Canada just agreed to play Trump's economic ballgame too! So much winning going into November!

Cool your jets: all Trump has is a catchy name, "USMCA" and a proposal; there is no signed, ratified, treaty at all and Congress has yet to weigh in and, given the likelihood the GOP, under Trump's leadership, will lose at leat one hose, the ratification of the treaty is still plenty shaky. Just like all of Trump's other past "accomplishments" and announcements :it is hollow, "told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." (I thought I'd class up the joint with a little Willie S.). I'll believe it is a done deal when it is a done deal...


By the way, do you think maybe someone in Trump's 'brain trust' sat around trying to think of a catchy name thought "Hey! USMCA is really good! The rubes will make an association with USMC!..."?...


As far as the election, even if Hillary had won, I'd still be ticked off; hell, I'd be ticked off if Bernie won...


So far the only "winning" Trump has done is only apparent if you apply this guy's metrics:









But, hey, you know what? That guy got fired...






















<O>

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

its called moving the goalpost.

Dr. Ford's testimony has a lot of holes in it and unless the FBI comes up with something he will probably be confirmed.

so the new line of attack is that he lied to Congress about his drinking.

Clinton got attacked for lieng in shame over his adventure with Monica Lewinski. Oath and credibility and all that.



Double standards for Dems and Reps, or same standards for both - what should it be? Preaching water but drinking wine?

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by vienna

So, then, "Lying Hillary" is evil, "Lying Bill" is evil, "Lying Obama" is evil, but "Lying Brett" (under oath and on worldwide TV) is perfectly fine and honorable...


Sounds about right for typical GOP hypocrisy...


<O>

if you mean that lying Brett gets the same treatment as lying Obama, Lying Clinton twins, i.e. no consequences whatsoever, in this case a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS, then yes.

not sure what your point was actually...

[Buddahaid]

The point is no one cares to see the faults in their party of choice apparently, and all act as if this is some stupid Saturday morning western where the good guys wear white hats and the bad guys wear black hats. The problem is it is never that simple but people will still act as if it is no matter how ridiculous it becomes for fear of being labelled a black hat.