Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 192: Manafort and a Storm

(+) Yeah! (+)

Panthera posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

pxlated posted...

is everyone really just going to let "george w bush is the best president of my lifetime" go ignored?

oof

It makes me wonder how young Corrik is

Even by Republican standards, Bush Sr and Reagan > W

It's been 24 years since Bush Sr

If you don't consider it "in your lifetime" if you were too young to be aware of it, that could easily preclude both of those two even if you were born earlier. I was born in 1988 and I don't really think of Brian Mulroney as being Prime Minister of Canada "in my lifetime" even though he left office a couple months after Bush Sr because I wasn't quite five years old yet

Clinton is the first president I consider myself old enough to formulate an opinion on.

He also would be the one I rank as 2nd right now.

Putting Obama 3rd and Trump TBD.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Which is in and of itself a crime, to which logically the accuser is also innocent of until proven guilty

But no one ever seems to take that stance.

But then ya'll flip out when we start going into things like "Motive to lie about this" and screeching about WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE VICTIMS etc

There's no way to get to the middle ground on this with people like you/Inviso/etc because you never budge, and you create situations where SephyG refuses to budge as well.

Anyway "sexual assault accusation" as a political strategy has been used so many times now by one side that I'm starting to think they should patent it. It's 1 for 2 so far.
---

Inviso posted...

I don't know. I really don't. But it's fucked up that the system is currently set up in such a way that an accused rapist is presumed innocent, but given the very nature of the crime, in order for him to BE innocent, the accuser must therefore be lying by default.

No, it isn't fucked up at all because that's not what is being said. The presumption of innocence doesn't mean that the accuser is declared a liar, it means that without clear evidence either way the situation is inconclusive, and thus neither person is punished in any way because you can't send someone to jail without strong reason. The verdict is "not guilty" rather than "innocent" for a reason. It's not as if (alleged) rape victims are prosecuted for filing false police reports or anything like that very often at all, to the point that it's pretty hard for the people who are falsely accused to actually get any measure of justice for it.

Someone being acquitted of a crime is not an attack on the character of the person who brought charges against them. Ask yourself if you feel like it's fucked up that people accused of other crimes are presumed innocent, since in most of those cases, their innocence also requires someone be lying. And ask yourself if it's actually just if you reverse the roles - if you don't consider that the accuser might be lying (or mistaken, I suppose), it means she's assumed to be telling the truth (and correct), which mean the accused is assumed to be a rapist even if he isn't.
---

ExThaNemesis posted...

Anyway "sexual assault accusation" as a political strategy has been used so many times now by one side that I'm starting to think they should patent it. It's 1 for 2 so far.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Inviso posted...

in order for him to BE innocent, the accuser must therefore be lying by default.

Which is in and of itself a crime, to which logically the accuser is also innocent of until proven guilty

But no one ever seems to take that stance.

There's not much point to it since it's not exactly common for people who accuse others of rape to actually be charged with anything. Like yeah obviously the same presumption of innocence applies to filing a false police report or whatever specific crime this gets filed under in any given area, but for the most part it doesn't come up because the entire concept of the accuser being lying by default if you don't believe their claim is incorrect - it means you don't know one way or the other. Like I don't necessarily think Kavanaugh did anything, but I also don't necessarily think the woman in question (Ford, I think her name is?) is lying or mistaken. I think I don't know what happened between two people I've never met in a place I've never been at a time where I either wasn't alive or was still a baby, and I'm kind of glad I'm not a US Senator who has to actually come to a decision about how to respond to it.
---

It's always interesting to see how people's deep-seated beliefs in the presumption of innocence just shrivel up and die when it comes to drone strikes.
---

BeTheMan posted...

It's always interesting to see how people's deep-seated beliefs in the presumption of innocence just shrivel up and die when it comes to drone strikes.

Clearly the drones deserve due process
---

ExThaNemesis posted...

Anyway "sexual assault accusation" as a political strategy has been used so many times now by one side that I'm starting to think they should patent it. It's 1 for 2 so far.

what

"So many times" and "1 for 2"?

Fuck I can think of more than two sexual assault/abuse accusations with political implications off the top of my head all in recent memory. Franken, Moore, Trump, Kavanaugh...hell Bill Clinton alone survived several even if you don't count Lewinsky.
---

Panthera posted...

I'm kind of glad I'm not a US Senator who has to actually come to a decision about how to respond to it.

Well in this case its pretty easy

No matter what actually did or did not happen between Kavanaugh and Ford, your decision is made by the party you belong to
---

BeTheMan posted...

It's always interesting to see how people's deep-seated beliefs in the presumption of innocence just shrivel up and die when it comes to drone strikes.

Well, if you say it's interesting, I'll take your word for it. I'm interested, so show me where that happened around here so I can have something neat to read.
---

In any case, this incident doesnt have to be he said-she said. A witness has been named: Mark Judge. Get him under oath.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Panthera posted...

I'm kind of glad I'm not a US Senator who has to actually come to a decision about how to respond to it.

Well in this case its pretty easy

No matter what actually did or did not happen between Kavanaugh and Ford, your decision is made by the party you belong to

It's actually easy for other reasons too, namely that Kavanaugh's beliefs on how above the law a sitting President should be already disqualify him since Trump appointed him for blatantly self-serving reasons, but your point is taken.
---

Panthera posted...

BeTheMan posted...

It's always interesting to see how people's deep-seated beliefs in the presumption of innocence just shrivel up and die when it comes to drone strikes.

Well, if you say it's interesting, I'll take your word for it. I'm interested, so show me where that happened around here so I can have something neat to read.

You are comparing American citizens to non-citizens. Have the US government drone strike someone in America and watch the system topple.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

In any case, this incident doesnt have to be he said-she said. A witness has been named: Mark Judge. Get him under oath.

More than 1 witness was named. She says like 5 people were there. It should be easy to corroborate a story. I can't see her crying and running out of a house and never having said why to anyone or no one remembering it
---

Panthera posted...

BeTheMan posted...

It's always interesting to see how people's deep-seated beliefs in the presumption of innocence just shrivel up and die when it comes to drone strikes.

Well, if you say it's interesting, I'll take your word for it. I'm interested, so show me where that happened around here so I can have something neat to read.

As I'm making a general comment, the preponderance of polling data suggesting that Americans widely support drone strikes should suffice.

Corrik posted...

Panthera posted...

BeTheMan posted...

It's always interesting to see how people's deep-seated beliefs in the presumption of innocence just shrivel up and die when it comes to drone strikes.

Well, if you say it's interesting, I'll take your word for it. I'm interested, so show me where that happened around here so I can have something neat to read.

You are comparing American citizens to non-citizens. Have the US government drone strike someone in America and watch the system topple.

A person's nationality is irrelevant. You either value something or you don't.
---

Panthera posted...

It's actually easy for other reasons too, namely that Kavanaugh's beliefs on how above the law a sitting President should be already disqualify him since Trump appointed him for blatantly self-serving reasons, but your point is taken.

I hate how distracted everyone (myself included) has gotten from this point lately. Thank you for bringing it up.
---

BeTheMan posted...

A person's nationality is irrelevant. You either value something or you don't.

Not to the laws of America, which is what Corrik values above all else
---

Jakyl25 posted...

BeTheMan posted...

It's always interesting to see how people's deep-seated beliefs in the presumption of innocence just shrivel up and die when it comes to drone strikes.

Clearly the drones deserve due process

By the way, I was joking about this, but we are gonna be up shit creek when AI breakthroughs and failures happen, if for no other reason than our justice system is not equipped to handle machines being independently capable of breaking the law
---

Corrik posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

In any case, this incident doesnt have to be he said-she said. A witness has been named: Mark Judge. Get him under oath.

More than 1 witness was named. She says like 5 people were there. It should be easy to corroborate a story. I can't see her crying and running out of a house and never having said why to anyone or no one remembering it

It's harder than you'd think. My high school experience was a lot more recent than theirs, but if you asked me to account for the details of one specific party? Not much chance I could do with any decent accuracy, meaning if it were a trial any half decent attorney would have me admit I don't actually know. You'd think it would be hard to forget if she cried and ran out of the house, but I'm trying to think if I can be 100% sure that never happened at a party I went to, and...pretty sure it didn't, but no, I can't actually say with total certainty that I wasn't in another room when it happened, or not paying enough attention to notice a person who was leaving was upset, or drunk enough to make my memory unreliable, or that the passage of time hasn't just made me forget. It's going to be pretty damn hard to get a coherent story beyond confirming that there was at least one party/gathering that both were present at where they could have possibly been out of sight of most people.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

BeTheMan posted...

It's always interesting to see how people's deep-seated beliefs in the presumption of innocence just shrivel up and die when it comes to drone strikes.

Clearly the drones deserve due process

By the way, I was joking about this, but we are gonna be up shit creek when AI breakthroughs and failures happen, if for no other reason than our justice system is not equipped to handle machines being independently capable of breaking the law

Which is exactly why we need to go with the ME3 Synthesis ending when the time comes!
---

Panthera posted...

Corrik posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

In any case, this incident doesnt have to be he said-she said. A witness has been named: Mark Judge. Get him under oath.

More than 1 witness was named. She says like 5 people were there. It should be easy to corroborate a story. I can't see her crying and running out of a house and never having said why to anyone or no one remembering it

It's harder than you'd think. My high school experience was a lot more recent than theirs, but if you asked me to account for the details of one specific party? Not much chance I could do with any decent accuracy, meaning if it were a trial any half decent attorney would have me admit I don't actually know. You'd think it would be hard to forget if she cried and ran out of the house, but I'm trying to think if I can be 100% sure that never happened at a party I went to, and...pretty sure it didn't, but no, I can't actually say with total certainty that I wasn't in another room when it happened, or not paying enough attention to notice a person who was leaving was upset, or drunk enough to make my memory unreliable, or that the passage of time hasn't just made me forget. It's going to be pretty damn hard to get a coherent story beyond confirming that there was at least one party/gathering that both were present at where they could have possibly been out of sight of most people.

I can remember very clearly two instances in which I am very sure a girl was raped/sexually assaulted in high school. Vividly. That kind of shit sticks with you.

I could name the girls, the guys who did it, and where it happened.

Not saying that is the same for everyone, but I tend to think situations as these tend to stick out some. And that would be a very weird and awkward situation.
---

BeTheMan posted...

Panthera posted...

BeTheMan posted...

It's always interesting to see how people's deep-seated beliefs in the presumption of innocence just shrivel up and die when it comes to drone strikes.

Well, if you say it's interesting, I'll take your word for it. I'm interested, so show me where that happened around here so I can have something neat to read.

As I'm making a general comment, the preponderance of polling data suggesting that Americans widely support drone strikes should suffice.

Corrik posted...

Panthera posted...

BeTheMan posted...

It's always interesting to see how people's deep-seated beliefs in the presumption of innocence just shrivel up and die when it comes to drone strikes.

Well, if you say it's interesting, I'll take your word for it. I'm interested, so show me where that happened around here so I can have something neat to read.

You are comparing American citizens to non-citizens. Have the US government drone strike someone in America and watch the system topple.

A person's nationality is irrelevant. You either value something or you don't.

I value our law.
---

I mean, I did call it
---

You did.
---

Corrik posted...

I can remember very clearly two instances in which I am very sure a girl was raped/sexually assaulted in high school. Vividly. That kind of shit sticks with you.

I could name the girls, the guys who did it, and where it happened.

Not saying that is the same for everyone, but I tend to think situations as these tend to stick out some. And that would be a very weird and awkward situation.

You can remember those instances, but if someone told you it might have happened at a different time, do you think you could remember the exact night it happened and the exact people involved without mixing anything up? If you know in the moment that it did happen you'll remember it, but if you didn't know about it at the time and thus had no reason for it to stick out, your ability to describe exactly what happened that night will suffer. Like something as simple as you not knowing if the event they're discussing happened on the 7th or the 14th already means you're probably not a reliable witness.
---

Panthera posted...

Corrik posted...

I can remember very clearly two instances in which I am very sure a girl was raped/sexually assaulted in high school. Vividly. That kind of shit sticks with you.

I could name the girls, the guys who did it, and where it happened.

Not saying that is the same for everyone, but I tend to think situations as these tend to stick out some. And that would be a very weird and awkward situation.

You can remember those instances, but if someone told you it might have happened at a different time, do you think you could remember the exact night it happened and the exact people involved without mixing anything up? If you know in the moment that it did happen you'll remember it, but if you didn't know about it at the time and thus had no reason for it to stick out, your ability to describe exactly what happened that night will suffer. Like something as simple as you not knowing if the event they're discussing happened on the 7th or the 14th already means you're probably not a reliable witness.

Of course I can't tell you dates. You don't need dates to corroborate something happened as a witness.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Panthera posted...

I'm kind of glad I'm not a US Senator who has to actually come to a decision about how to respond to it.

Well in this case its pretty easy

No matter what actually did or did not happen between Kavanaugh and Ford, your decision is made by the party you belong to

Hence my original point.

Guilty or not guilty is sort of irrelevant. The stink of this accusation is gonna be on the guy either way and the way you and your party reacted to it is going to become the line on your party.

BeTheMan is right - that this is about mid terms as much as its about anything else but one would think the long term effects of becoming the party that is okay with rape would outweigh short term political gain, especially since they can achieve a similar result WITHOUT taking this hit.
---

Eddv posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Panthera posted...

I'm kind of glad I'm not a US Senator who has to actually come to a decision about how to respond to it.

Well in this case its pretty easy

No matter what actually did or did not happen between Kavanaugh and Ford, your decision is made by the party you belong to

Hence my original point.

Guilty or not guilty is sort of irrelevant. The stink of this accusation is gonna be on the guy either way and the way you and your party reacted to it is going to become the line on your party.

BeTheMan is right - that this is about mid terms as much as its about anything else but one would think the long term effects of becoming the party that is okay with rape would outweigh short term political gain, especially since they can achieve a similar result WITHOUT taking this hit.

You are assuming guilt to repeatedly keep saying you are okay with rape.
---

ExThaNemesis posted...

Anyway "sexual assault accusation" as a political strategy has been used so many times now by one side that I'm starting to think they should patent it. It's 1 for 2 so far.

Hilarious post for so many reasons.

So many times

1 for 2

The fact that the other side in your situation has a President who LITERALLY brought 3 accusers of Bill Clinton up on stage.

How the side your accusing had a guy get accused and other people on his side immediately called for him to step down.

And he did!

How the 1 of your 1 for 2 was literally a pedophile, and your implication that it helped win an election somehow denigrates the concept of calling out pedophiles.

And on and on
---

Corrik posted...

Of course I can't tell you dates. You don't need dates to corroborate something happened as a witness.

In some circumstances the date could be the thing that makes or breaks the case if you can nail it down. You need some way to nail down when the event happened. Whether that's people remembering the date, remembering what people were wearing well enough to tell two events apart, remembering a news story that was on TV in the background or whatever, the witnesses have to at the very least produce a story where you can be sure each specific element happened on the same day. But it might be that one person remembers the two of them at a party but nothing more, one remembers the girl left a party in tears but doesn't remember for sure if Kavanaugh was there or not, one remembers the two hanging out together but remembers the girl leaving under different circumstances, and so on. And those last two don't even contradict necessarily - it could well be each witness is thinking of a different night. It's not impossible, but it is very hard to piece together what happened so long ago well enough to be convinced one way or the other.
---

Panthera posted...

Corrik posted...

Of course I can't tell you dates. You don't need dates to corroborate something happened as a witness.

In some circumstances the date could be the thing that makes or breaks the case if you can nail it down. You need some way to nail down when the event happened. Whether that's people remembering the date, remembering what people were wearing well enough to tell two events apart, remembering a news story that was on TV in the background or whatever, the witnesses have to at the very least produce a story where you can be sure each specific element happened on the same day. But it might be that one person remembers the two of them at a party but nothing more, one remembers the girl left a party in tears but doesn't remember for sure if Kavanaugh was there or not, one remembers the two hanging out together but remembers the girl leaving under different circumstances, and so on. And those last two don't even contradict necessarily - it could well be each witness is thinking of a different night. It's not impossible, but it is very hard to piece together what happened so long ago well enough to be convinced one way or the other.

Eyewitness testimony is not reliable in the state you are asking for. You are looking for a simple corroboration of events. Not details in the way you are asking for.
---

Corrik posted...

You are assuming guilt to repeatedly keep saying you are okay with rape.

Yes you're finally getting it.

More than half the country believes he did it. That's why so many of even his republican defenders have gone with this "but he was 17" line.

Short of some sort of forceful exoneration or retraction that's not going to change.

So why make the political error of backing him? What's the upside? Is he THAT MUCH better than the next best guy? Is the short term political gain of having this done before mid terms worth it?
---

Eddv posted...

BeTheMan is right - that this is about mid terms as much as its about anything else but one would think the long term effects of becoming the party that is okay with rape would outweigh short term political gain, especially since they can achieve a similar result WITHOUT taking this hit.

That's what's so weird about this. Admitting this guy isn't the best choice and voting no doesn't suddenly mean the democrats are winning the Supreme Court. Trump still names another name.
---

Corrik posted...

Eyewitness testimony is not reliable in the state you are asking for. You are looking for a simple corroboration of events. Not details in the way you are asking for.

Your testimony doesn't corroborate any given version of events if you can't actually be reasonably sure you're actually talking about the same thing at all.
---

Eddv posted...

Corrik posted...

You are assuming guilt to repeatedly keep saying you are okay with rape.

Yes you're finally getting it.

More than half the country believes he did it. That's why so many of even his republican defenders have gone with this "but he was 17" line.

Short of some sort of forceful exoneration or retraction that's not going to change.

So why make the political error of backing him? What's the upside? Is he THAT MUCH better than the next best guy? Is the short term political gain of having this done before mid terms worth it?

Bold is numbers you literally just made up. But, even if true. It is a partisan result with democrats thinking he automatically did it and vice versa.

Hell, the Minnesota poll that just came out about whether they supported kavanaugh's confirmation was almost 100% both ways depending on your party.
---

Corrik posted...

Eddv posted...

Corrik posted...

You are assuming guilt to repeatedly keep saying you are okay with rape.

Yes you're finally getting it.

More than half the country believes he did it. That's why so many of even his republican defenders have gone with this "but he was 17" line.

Short of some sort of forceful exoneration or retraction that's not going to change.

So why make the political error of backing him? What's the upside? Is he THAT MUCH better than the next best guy? Is the short term political gain of having this done before mid terms worth it?

Bold is numbers you literally just made up. But, even if true. It is a partisan result with democrats thinking he automatically did it and vice versa.

Hell, the Minnesota poll that just came out about whether they supported kavanaugh's confirmation was almost 100% both ways depending on your party.

Iirc estimates of rates of false rape accusations range from 2-8%; even before factoring in the psychiatrist notes etc, its more likely than not that the allegation is truthful.
---

Corrik posted...

Bold is numbers you literally just made up. But, even if true. It is a partisan result with democrats thinking he automatically did it and vice versa.

Hell, the Minnesota poll that just came out about whether they supported kavanaugh's confirmation was almost 100% both ways depending on your party.

The Minnesota Star Tribunes poll was conducted before the allegations broke for one thing.

For another, even if it is a partisan split and you have independents split 50/50 (my current, assumption) that STILL works out to more than half the country.

Toss in that a number of non-elected republicans have come out condemning Kavanaugh and then you realize it probably its 100% of republicans still supporting him.

Ergo, More than half.

Also way to miss the point again. Is he worth this? He can't possibly be.
---

Eddv posted...

Corrik posted...

Bold is numbers you literally just made up. But, even if true. It is a partisan result with democrats thinking he automatically did it and vice versa.

Hell, the Minnesota poll that just came out about whether they supported kavanaugh's confirmation was almost 100% both ways depending on your party.

The Minnesota Star Tribunes poll was conducted before the allegations broke for one thing.

For another, even if it is a partisan split and you have independents split 50/50 (my current, assumption) that STILL works out to more than half the country.

Toss in that a number of non-elected republicans have come out condemning Kavanaugh and then you realize it probably its 100% of republicans still supporting him.

Ergo, More than half.

Also way to miss the point again. Is he worth this? He can't possibly be.

So, you have just equated not supporting his confirmation with thinking he raped someone.

So, do you feel comfortable equating not agreeing with someone politically as they are automatically guilty of any crime alleged?

Because that is absolutely what you just did.
---

No actually; you did and I followed suit.

You would naturally need to run a different polling question to get an answer to a different polling question.

I hypothesize that you would find that the % of people who believe he did or did not do it lines up fairly closely with whether or not they support his confirmation, however.
---

Eddv posted...

No actually; you did and I followed suit.

You would naturally need to run a different polling question to get an answer to a different polling question.

I hypothesize that you would find that the % of people who believe he did or did not do it lines up fairly closely with whether or not they support his confirmation, however.

No. I didn't. I picked the newest poll which was before the allegations to show that people are 50/50 on his confirmation. I expect the bar to be higher on people to assume guilt of a rape accusation without proof.

I said at best the numbers to support your allegation would come from strictly partisanship. However, this also assumes like you are doing that people just consider guilt of crimes based on the letter politically the person is.
---

Corrik posted...

I expect the bar to be higher on people to assume guilt of a rape accusation without proof.

I don't.

When it comes to politically-significant charges like this it almost always has come down to political affiliation, at least among elected officials, but I think also down to the most of the rank and file of each party.
---

Eddv posted...

I don't.

When it comes to politically-significant charges like this it almost always has come down to political affiliation, at least among elected officials, but I think also down to the most of the rank and file of each party.

Atm I think this is a lot less partisan on the Dem side than on the GOP side (e.g. a significant fraction of Democrats, myself included, took the allegations against Al Franken seriously and he was actually pressured to step down).
---

i've believed ulti's claims of being a sexual assault victim for 14 years but i'm having my doubts now. actual victims usually don't go "FAKE LOLOLO" about rape cases that aren't 100% proven to be fake.

also, xfd @ sephyg tagging extha for help because he was getting destroyed in this topic. what a pathetic piece of shit.

let's not forget how when #metoo - one of the most significant movements of the 21st century - started, sephy immediately went "LOL THIS MOVEMENT IS TERRIBLE IT'S JUST A SCAM BY FEMINAZIS WHO HATE MEN." i'm used to his terrible neocon stances but it's a new low for him to constantly be a sexual assault apologist.
---

Ulti's claims of abuse have been obviously fake for a long time now, didn't realize there were still holdouts. It's one of the reasons I consider him so irredeemably reprehensible. It's disgusting.
---

Don't forget 50 year representative John Conyers getting ousted.

But sure, sexual assault/harassment allegations are totally just a liberal tactic to get rid of government people they don't like. It's why they have a 100-0 Senate majority last I checked.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Ulti's claims of abuse have been obviously fake for a long time now, didn't realize there were still holdouts. It's one of the reasons I consider him so irredeemably reprehensible. It's disgusting.

Ulti has deep and genuine problems. That's clear and not really disputed. It's possible they were brought on by something that happened when he was younger. I don't think you can completely rule it out.
---

Corrik posted...

I trust Bush's opinion on the matter.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/george-w-bush-support-kavanaugh/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

this is dumb, btw. just because you liked GWB as a president doesn't mean he's the ultimate judge of someone's character. it's certainly possible that he's had pleasant experiences with kavanaugh but that doesn't mean the allegations are automatically false.
---

BeTheMan posted...

Corrik posted...

Panthera posted...

BeTheMan posted...

It's always interesting to see how people's deep-seated beliefs in the presumption of innocence just shrivel up and die when it comes to drone strikes.

Well, if you say it's interesting, I'll take your word for it. I'm interested, so show me where that happened around here so I can have something neat to read.

You are comparing American citizens to non-citizens. Have the US government drone strike someone in America and watch the system topple.

Big fucking yikes. Literally saying that the extralegal murder of people is ok just because they're not American Citizens, then you're going to turn around and complain when people call you a fucking fascist.

Corrik, get help.