Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 197: Red Red Whine

(+) Yeah! (+)

Cant Help Falling in Love (WIth Beer)
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Cant Help Falling in Love (With Kim Jong-un)

I still cant believe he said that

He loves a BRUTAL DICTATOR because he sends him sweet cards
---

so that mark judge guy

https://twitter.com/LasagnaGarden/status/1046846530374840321

oh no why are we back here god damm-

https://twitter.com/nathanTbernard/status/1046544930485805056

.................. what the fuck

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmVjjMG-BE" data-time="

UltimaterializerX posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

HarrietTubgirl posted...

"It's not a court of law so you don't get a presumption of innocence"

No job interview in the history of employment has been conducted under a presumption of innocence

You have clearly never hired or fired anyone in your life. What a fucking dumb post this is.

All the people who say false allegations can ruin a mans life even if theyre proven false are talking about exactly this.

Although I can imagine was accused of sexual assault, not convicted is a huge positive in an Ulti job interview
---

That last topic moved real fast.
---

gmun-nyan posted...

so that mark judge guy

https://twitter.com/LasagnaGarden/status/1046846530374840321

oh no why are we back here god damm-

https://twitter.com/nathanTbernard/status/1046544930485805056

.................. what the fuck

I think the something to hide is the YouTube channel <_<
---

gmun-nyan posted...

so that mark judge guy

https://twitter.com/LasagnaGarden/status/1046846530374840321

I'm going to fucking scream
---

Oh come now, who doesn't have "making videos of women wearing very little and occasionally covered only by newspaper covers supporting your political beliefs" as a hobby?
---

https://twitter.com/foxnews/status/1046942230911565824?s=21

Check out this Freudian slip by Graham at the end here
---

Yes, I would like the destruction of a horrible person legitimized. Please do.
---

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/01/trump-administration-to-deny-visas-to-same-sex-partners-of-diplomats-un-officials-gay-lgbt/
---

Innocent until proven guilty. And yeah, that should be the standard everywhere. At least to the standard used in civil courts which is supposedly a preponderance of the evidence but actually requires you to toss out all unreliable evidence and giving a decent presumption of innocence before doing the weighing.
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/01/trump-administration-to-deny-visas-to-same-sex-partners-of-diplomats-un-officials-gay-lgbt/

"Most pro-LBGT president we've ever had" - Ulti

"CALLED IT."
---

inb4 "but they're treating people equally whether they're gay or not!"
---

OK, saw the Julie Swetnick MSNBC interview and...it's kind of a mess:

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/julie-swetnick-speaks-about-alleged-behavior-by-judge-kavanaugh-1334265923929?v=railb&;

Her interview differs in a few places from her written testimony. (Generally in walking back certainty of claims. Her written statement seemed to imply that she saw Kavinaugh spiking the punch, this interview she says she saw him near the punch. In this interview it becomes clear that when she saw Kavinaugh and Judge waiting outside of rooms, she had no idea what was going on in the rooms; it was only after she was raped that she made the connection, but she avoided parties after that).

She did actually tell two people at the time, her mom and the police but her mom is dead, and the police officer she reported to is dead. There's a police report but the police department has said that a freedom of information request could take a month.

---

This seems like a mess. I'm sure there's some truth to her statements. She made statements under penalty of perjury and has multiple security clearances. If it can be shown that she's lying (if for example no police report existed) then she would be really screwing herself, losing those security clearances. (Unfortunately, as this will take a month, the senate will have already made their decision before that police report becomes public).

But she also does not feel rock solid consistent the way Ford does; her story seems to have subtly changed in between her written statement and interview. And if I'm going to nitpick Kavinaugh for inconsistencies in his testimony, I should nitpick these too.

She also said that she came forward as a response to Ford, as she felt she could corroborate some of the behaviour. Which...yeah, I think a bunch of that seems to be consistent between her sworn testimony and interview. (Stuff about Kavinaugh being a mean drunk, always being with Mark Judge, shoving women up against walls and stuff).

But even going purely off of Julie Swetnick's own words in this interview, it's really unclear if 1) the times she saw Kavinaugh and Judge waiting outside of other doors a gang rape was happening, and 2) whether Kavinaugh had any involvement in her rape (she just remembers that he was nearby and laughing when she started feeling drugged).
---

One really disturbing thing I'm seeing in the pro-Kavanaugh reactions is this assumption of bad faith on the part of not just Democratic Senators, but democrats in general. In particular, the idea seems to be that the allegations against Kavanaugh are just a pretense to derail his nomination.

In addition to the fact that the explanation doesn't really make any sense (if the GOP pulled him now they could definitely get someone just as conservative confirmed before January), there's this gross assumption that attempted rape is not something anybody could actually think was disqualifying.
---

"Assumption of bad faith" is basically 95% of political discourse

Seriously, life makes SO much more sense if you assume that most people's thought process is essentially "people who disagree with me are lying; they agree that my ideas are best, and choose to oppose them because they want to make people suffer".
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

One really disturbing thing I'm seeing in the pro-Kavanaugh reactions is this assumption of bad faith on the part of not just Democratic Senators, but democrats in general. In particular, the idea seems to be that the allegations against Kavanaugh are just a pretense to derail his nomination.

I do assume bad faith by the Democratic Senators and many Democrats in general.

I still believe Dr Ford
---

I try to assume good faith unless someone clearly demonstrates that they don't deserve that assumption (e.g. Trump, McConnell). That's probably part of why I haven't been as pessimistic about Flake's recent actions as others in this topic, for example. I'm sure some Democratic politicians are acting for purely political reasons, but there really aren't many of them in the Senate for which that's obvious to me.

Speaking of another person who has given up that good faith assumption, Stephen Miller tried to get Trump to ban all Chinese citizens from getting student visas:

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1046984510296985600

While the debate was largely focused on spying, Mr Miller argued that his plan would also hurt elite universities whose staff and students had slammed Mr Trump, according to three people.

What a piece of shit
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I try to assume good faith unless someone clearly demonstrates that they don't deserve that assumption (e.g. Trump, McConnell). That's probably part of why I haven't been as pessimistic about Flake's recent actions as others in this topic, for example. I'm sure some Democratic politicians are acting for purely political reasons, but there really aren't many of them in the Senate for which that's obvious to me.

I mean, specifically in the case of people like McCain and Flake it was openly stating their discontent with Trump, and then still voting with Trump 95%-100% of the time. (Was 100% for Flake up until this recent move to call for an FBI investigation, and he admitted openly in an interview today that he would never have called for the FBI investigation if he was up for re-election).

For Democratic senators I imagine you would have to watch them during the Obama presidency, and look specifically at cases when they opposed the president (either because they were further left or further right).
---

wow that would've shrunk the size of my classes by like half
---

LOTM, you assume all Republicans act in bad faith. But that's because you can't quite believe that anyone could really believe the end justifies the means. So, let's make this crystal clear.

There are a lot of abortions yearly in America. I don't know how many but over some years into the future, it will be in the millions. That's millions of American citizens murdered. If Judge Kavanaugh will stop this, then this will outweigh pretty much anything from his personal life. He could shoot someone on 5th Avenue every day and he would still be saving lives on net by a huge margin if he delivers on overturning Roe v. Wade.

Can you understand that millions of Americans believe the above in good faith? If you can't, then perhaps you can understand now why they believe all Democrats act in bad faith - at almost all times.
---

I dont think you need to 100% oppose everything Trump does to legitimately oppose Trump. I would love it if people like Jeff Flake went all in and did that, but the truth is he agrees with most of the policies (e.g. tax cuts) that Trump is going to try and advance. Its more disappointing when they dont draw a line in the sand for his policies that they really do oppose (say, the Muslim ban or even something like tariffs), but I dont think that means that the opposition they do provide is meaningless, much less that theyre lying when they speak out against him.
---

https://twitter.com/takedownmras/status/1046899649234124801?s=21

ExTha probably pouring one out for Rooshs site fading away
---

red sox 777 posted...

LOTM, you assume all Republicans act in bad faith. But that's because you can't quite believe that anyone could really believe the end justifies the means. So, let's make this crystal clear.

There are a lot of abortions yearly in America. I don't know how many but over some years into the future, it will be in the millions. That's millions of American citizens murdered. If Judge Kavanaugh will stop this, then this will outweigh pretty much anything from his personal life. He could shoot someone on 5th Avenue every day and he would still be saving lives on net by a huge margin if he delivers on overturning Roe v. Wade.

Can you understand that millions of Americans believe the above in good faith? If you can't, then perhaps you can understand now why they believe all Democrats act in bad faith - at almost all times.

Even if I were to cede you this premise, the fact remains that the GOP could pull Kavanaugh, nominate, say, Barrett, and have the same policy outcome without putting a likely (or even possible if you want to be generous) attempted rapist on the court.

I also dont think that everybody who believes the above is acting in bad faith. I just think that theyre wrong both on a moral and logical level.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

red sox 777 posted...

LOTM, you assume all Republicans act in bad faith. But that's because you can't quite believe that anyone could really believe the end justifies the means. So, let's make this crystal clear.

There are a lot of abortions yearly in America. I don't know how many but over some years into the future, it will be in the millions. That's millions of American citizens murdered. If Judge Kavanaugh will stop this, then this will outweigh pretty much anything from his personal life. He could shoot someone on 5th Avenue every day and he would still be saving lives on net by a huge margin if he delivers on overturning Roe v. Wade.

Can you understand that millions of Americans believe the above in good faith? If you can't, then perhaps you can understand now why they believe all Democrats act in bad faith - at almost all times.

Even if I were to cede you this premise, the fact remains that the GOP could pull Kavanaugh, nominate, say, Barrett, and have the same policy outcome without putting a likely (or even possible if you want to be generous) attempted rapist on the court.

I also dont think that everybody who believes the above is acting in bad faith. I just think that theyre wrong both on a moral and logical level.

But IF the whole campaign against Kavanaugh is Democrats attempting to smear him, then you can expect them to do the same with any other nominee. In that case, you don't want to give them an inch or it just encourages this behavior and they will pull it over and over.
---

red sox 777 posted...

But IF the whole campaign against Kavanaugh is Democrats attempting to smear him, then you can expect them to do the same with any other nominee. In that case, you don't want to give them an inch or it just encourages this behavior and they will pull it over and over.

But democrats didn't do this with Gorsuch, or any of W Bush's nominees, so that seems unlikely; the last time this happened for a supreme court nominee was 1991.
---

every republican acts in bad faith; it's their platform

there are no good ones. period

Paratroopa1 posted...

every republican acts in bad faith; it's their platform

there are no good ones. period

every leftist acts in bad faith; its their platform

there are no good ones. period

(^this is how dumb everyone who stereotypes and judges people looks)

In related news: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/when-they-came-for-kavanaugh-kid-chris-britt/

When they go low, we go high.

Para standing on the side of people who drew this filth makes me proud to not be on that side of anything. Leftists using children for political points is just pathetic.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

CelesMyUserName posted...

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/01/trump-administration-to-deny-visas-to-same-sex-partners-of-diplomats-un-officials-gay-lgbt/

"Most pro-LBGT president we've ever had" - Ulti

"CALLED IT."

You continually defend an ideology that literally murders gay people daily. Look up what China or Saudi Arabia does to gays some time if you have the stomach for it.
---

metroid composite posted...

red sox 777 posted...

But IF the whole campaign against Kavanaugh is Democrats attempting to smear him, then you can expect them to do the same with any other nominee. In that case, you don't want to give them an inch or it just encourages this behavior and they will pull it over and over.

But democrats didn't do this with Gorsuch, or any of W Bush's nominees, so that seems unlikely; the last time this happened for a supreme court nominee was 1991.

Again, this is why I hate Republican hypothetical thinking. They KNOW they hold complete power over all three branches of government despite holding a minority of popular support in the country, so they claim "Yeah, the Republicans are scummy politicians, but Democrats would do the same stuff if they were in power." It's really easy to make that claim since it can't be verified, and it allows for "both sides are bad" thinking without any actual proof that one of the two sides is actually bad. Meanwhile, we've seen time and time again that, prior to Trump's election, Democrats were PAINFULLY desperate to maintain bipartisanship, while Republicans proved the exact opposite. So no, both sides aren't the same and there's no reason to believe Democrats would behave in such a fashion.
---

We do not hold minority support.

Your polls and your media are lying to you very effectively if you think otherwise =)
---

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/01/venezuela-migration-crisis-un-calls-for-response

Bbbbbbbut its not REAL socialism guyz!!
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

UltimaterializerX posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

HarrietTubgirl posted...

"It's not a court of law so you don't get a presumption of innocence"

No job interview in the history of employment has been conducted under a presumption of innocence

You have clearly never hired or fired anyone in your life. What a fucking dumb post this is.

All the people who say false allegations can ruin a mans life even if theyre proven false are talking about exactly this.

Although I can imagine was accused of sexual assault, not convicted is a huge positive in an Ulti job interview

If it comes up in a background check, I dont hire. Weve already been over this.

Did you ever respond to my followup question about this?
---

Yeah. Proprietary information. The fuck would I share how I background check applicants with a forum known for doxxing people?
---

metroid composite posted...

red sox 777 posted...

But IF the whole campaign against Kavanaugh is Democrats attempting to smear him, then you can expect them to do the same with any other nominee. In that case, you don't want to give them an inch or it just encourages this behavior and they will pull it over and over.

But democrats didn't do this with Gorsuch, or any of W Bush's nominees, so that seems unlikely; the last time this happened for a supreme court nominee was 1991.

And spoilers, Thomas totally did do all the things he was accused of too.
---

Inviso posted...

metroid composite posted...

red sox 777 posted...

But IF the whole campaign against Kavanaugh is Democrats attempting to smear him, then you can expect them to do the same with any other nominee. In that case, you don't want to give them an inch or it just encourages this behavior and they will pull it over and over.

But democrats didn't do this with Gorsuch, or any of W Bush's nominees, so that seems unlikely; the last time this happened for a supreme court nominee was 1991.

Again, this is why I hate Republican hypothetical thinking. They KNOW they hold complete power over all three branches of government despite holding a minority of popular support in the country, so they claim "Yeah, the Republicans are scummy politicians, but Democrats would do the same stuff if they were in power." It's really easy to make that claim since it can't be verified, and it allows for "both sides are bad" thinking without any actual proof that one of the two sides is actually bad. Meanwhile, we've seen time and time again that, prior to Trump's election, Democrats were PAINFULLY desperate to maintain bipartisanship, while Republicans proved the exact opposite. So no, both sides aren't the same and there's no reason to believe Democrats would behave in such a fashion.

Yup
---

UItimaterializer posted...

Yeah. Proprietary information. The fuck would I share how I background check applicants with a forum known for doxxing people?

Just for fun, let's count up all the things wrong with this!

1) B8 is known for doxxing? Really?

2) That's not what proprietary information is. How a background check is run I suppose could qualify (for the company/entity that runs the background, which for a vet's office I highly doubt is in house), but you don't own the people running and/or concept of a background check.

3) An employer (or anyone else) needs written consent from the person you're running the background check on if you're hiring a third party to legally obtain most anything substantive, including a criminal record. So that information wouldn't be anything any of us could use unless you yourself are running illegal background checks.

4) Let's assume this forum was known for doxxing. Wouldn't that mean that people already have a pretty reliable way to do so without your help?
---

UItimaterializer posted...

Yeah. Proprietary information. The fuck would I share how I background check applicants with a forum known for doxxing people?

Because background checks are standardized across the country. Your reluctance to speak on it, but also knowing the amounts between the "good background check that costs $50 as opposed to the bad one that's only $20" clues me in that you know the price amount but dont actually know what the background check is.

So you probably dont actually know the real difference between the checks and just know as an aside how much they cost.
---

Makes me think you dont actually order them, which means you're talking out your ass about how good your check is compared to the standard, because I would bet you actually just order the standard combined for applicants.
---

UItimaterializer posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

CelesMyUserName posted...

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/01/trump-administration-to-deny-visas-to-same-sex-partners-of-diplomats-un-officials-gay-lgbt/

"Most pro-LBGT president we've ever had" - Ulti

"CALLED IT."

You continually defend an ideology that literally murders gay people daily. Look up what China or Saudi Arabia does to gays some time if you have the stomach for it.

what ideology are you referring to that is shared by China and Saudi Arabia ?
---

A burgeoning interest in WWE

Which yes, is hard to stomach
---

A lot of people here seem to be confused but Background Check =/= Background Investigation.

You aren't getting a Background Investigation for no 50 bucks.

What that is is basically they pay a company to run checks on a person through NCIC. All that's going to catch is:

- Are they a registered Sex Offender
- Are they a known Gang Member
- Do they have a Criminal Record (meaning served time in prison or paid a fine)
-Their driving record

If you want to go one step further
- You can run a check with the county level courts in your state to see their misdemeanour charges that would not otherwise make it onto their criminal record.

If you want anything more than that, you're hiring a Private Investigator essentially to do things like dig up social media information, news reports etc etc. But that ain't no 50 goddamn dollar service.
---

I'm not sure anyone's confused, Eddv, unless I missed a part where Ulti said they hire a PI to review all applicants.
---

"Democrats didn't do this with Gorusch".

*Remembers having to take the confirmation nuclear to pass*

I wouldn't be surprised if a Supreme Court nominee never passes again without majority control of the Senate.

Politics is so partisan now it's crazy.
---

UItimaterializer posted...

LapisLazuli posted...
CelesMyUserName posted...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/01/trump-administration-to-deny-visas-to-same-sex-partners-of-diplomats-un-officials-gay-lgbt/

"Most pro-LBGT president we've ever had" - Ulti

"CALLED IT."

You continually defend an ideology that literally murders gay people daily. Look up what China or Saudi Arabia does to gays some time if you have the stomach for it.

Nobody here likes China or Saudi Arabia's government.

We are talking about Trump's treatment of LGBT people and how it's worse than most of our recent Presidents.

Why are you responding to "Trump is breaking his campaign promise" with "at least we're not Saudi Arabia"? Trump's campaign promise was "I will be the best LGBT president ever" not "we're going to fuck over LGBT people but not as bad as Saudi Arabia."
---

metroid composite posted...

UItimaterializer posted...

LapisLazuli posted...
CelesMyUserName posted...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/01/trump-administration-to-deny-visas-to-same-sex-partners-of-diplomats-un-officials-gay-lgbt/

"Most pro-LBGT president we've ever had" - Ulti

"CALLED IT."

You continually defend an ideology that literally murders gay people daily. Look up what China or Saudi Arabia does to gays some time if you have the stomach for it.

Nobody here likes China or Saudi Arabia's government.

We are talking about Trump's treatment of LGBT people and how it's worse than most of our recent Presidents.

Why are you responding to "Trump is breaking his campaign promise" with "at least we're not Saudi Arabia"? Trump's campaign promise was "I will be the best LGBT president ever" not "we're going to fuck over LGBT people but not as bad as Saudi Arabia."

didn't you know? not condemning women for choosing to wear hijabs or burqas means you support the oppression and abuse of all women and gay people everywhere!
---