The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Izulde]

I've never used the ignore/block feature on this forum.

That ended today after reading the last several pages of this thread.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I've never used the ignore/block feature on this forum.

That ended today after reading the last several pages of this thread.

Hi Izulde!

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I've never used the ignore/block feature on this forum.

That ended today after reading the last several pages of this thread.

+1, and I’ve not even got a horse in this race.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

This whole debacle just makes my head and my soul ache.


It's no surprise that Im in the small right minority on this board.



Despite that there is still a necessary level of decorum, intellectual honesty, and (for lack of a better word) maturity that has to be expected (from both sides) as a base line for adult interaction. Sadly its totally lacking from the conversation on both sides of the aisle. (EDIT*** I dont mean FOFC here just general public)


For years I was a Rush listener. I gave up on him early in Obama's first tenure. It reached a point where I personally felt 'For God's sake the truth is bad enough. Quit exacerbating it by faulty logic jumps and innuendo.' I cant say he was the first to do so, just the one I heard. Now 10 years later its devolved to the point where that is the accepted common place for both sides. Just spew hate, partisanship, and half truths to make your opponent look bad regardless of the truth or the consequence.


I largely just avoid political debate now because so few people in my life interaction are actually interested in a meaningful conversation. Instead the goal seems to be to convert the opposition, or discredit them, never to learn about them and try to even understand their point of view.



So here I sit, I listen to Fox for 10 minutes and Im done being pandered to with viewpoints I tend to agree with but with (at best) intellectually flawed arguments or (at worst) complete fabrication and propagandizing. I switch over to CNN (or others) and I see the opposite from the other side...and my brain just shuts down.


To me this Kavanaugh hearing is the perfect example. While I liked the nomination initially, I am done with him. Its time for a new candidate. But my reasoning for why, seems different than most any other view I've heard.


If he did some bad things that he regrets as a teenager and young adult. If he drank too much, participated in consensual promiscuity (I understand that isnt the allegation with Ford - Ill come back to that)but if he was a general knuckle head asshole as a young guy...and he has matured. I can forgive darn near anything. I've been pretty open here...I was a troubled youth. That's actually too nice. I was a piece of shit bad guy for much of my life. At 22 I had my son and through some combination of reality, divine intervention, luck and personal growth I pivoted my entire life. Today my friends, my employees, my family they dont even know that old me. When I sit with my 17 year old son I talk openly and honestly about the mistakes I made about how choices can compound and lead you down the wrong path. He looks at me astonished that this square ass dweeb ever did the things I admit to.

So I get it.

Folks can change, I believe.


If Kavanaugh had just stated up front - look I did a lot of dumb stuff I aint proud of. But Im a different more mature guy today. 20 year old me isnt sitting hear seeking this nomination. I made mistakes and learned and grew from them....that simply nearly ends the conversation. Whether he knows the meaning of slang terms wrote in his high school yearbook becomes a non-issue. He has defused all that.


Instead the fact that he hasnt or cant accept or admit his past failure reveals to me a lack of humility necessary for growth and change. It shows a lack of judgement by doubling down on his stupidity. At that point...at this level of leadership, arguably the most important in the country, its time for the next option.


I'll offer a contrarian viewpoint to Shkspr but also agree with his conclusion. In contrast I can not remember every sexual encounter from high school. I can vividly remember certain scenarios or places and cant remember who the other party was in a couple cases. However, I can 100% guarantee you that every one of those encounters was consensual. Because that's a pretty clear line (in almost all cases)...I mentioned earlier I can forgive most things...sexually assaulting*** a woman or child are at the top of my personal non forgiveness list. To me there are certain actions that are character flaws not bad judgements. Someone who would harm a weaker individual has, again to me, an innate character flaw that they wont out grow. So if he violently physically assaulted a woman then he is disqualified in my eyes. Did he or not? I dont know and dont know how we ascertain for certain this many years later.



*** This is unpopular to say and not politically correct but in my view sexual assault comes in different severities. I have a lot more tolerance for the college drunken hookup where both parties are some level on intoxicated its consensual at the time and then regret sinks in and stories change. I think we have all seen that play out, both ways. But a man physically forcing himself on an unwilling female that just completely violates my entire sensibilities. To me, and again I recognize Im extreme in this view point, Physically assaulting a woman or child is not a rehabilitation punishment. Its a time to flush the gene pool.




Thanks for letting me ramble a few minutes. I know my overall viewpoints arent shared by any here. But it can be somewhat cathartic for me to share my views even with those who disagree.

I honestly think you would be surprised by the amount of agreement you would get for this post. I just think that there has to be a middle to get to that "necessary level of decorum, intellectual honesty, and (for lack of a better word) maturity that has to be expected (from both sides) as a base line for adult interaction." I would also add humanity to your list.

[Toddzilla]

I would think that a good dozen or so republican senators would love for the president have nominated someone that wasn't so dishonest and partisan with a sketchy background and bad attitude.

Well, they can get that by rejecting Kavanaugh and getting a new nominee.

So why the illogical loyalty to such a flawed (and ultimately undeserving) nominee?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

I would think that a good dozen or so republican senators would love for the president have nominated someone that wasn't so dishonest and partisan with a sketchy background and bad attitude.

Well, they can get that by rejecting Kavanaugh and getting a new nominee.

So why the illogical loyalty to such a flawed (and ultimately undeserving) nominee?

I think if Kavanaugh gets withdrawn then it would be seen as a Democratic victory. And Republicans can't have that!

Not to mention it's likely that any other candidate would go through similiar turmoil.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

I would think that a good dozen or so republican senators would love for the president have nominated someone that wasn't so dishonest and partisan with a sketchy background and bad attitude.

Well, they can get that by rejecting Kavanaugh and getting a new nominee.

So why the illogical loyalty to such a flawed (and ultimately undeserving) nominee?

Listening to Howard Fineman on Kornheiser's podcast, Fineman said that Kavanaugh was nominated because people like Don McCann and Mitch McConnell convinced Trump that they needed "a real aggressive political player on the Court." Another description that Fineman gave is that Kavanaugh would be the "Karl Rove" of the court.

YMMV depending on your political slant.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

You do know women have misidentified their attackers in the past right?

For example: https://www.democratandchronicle.com...tion/29668953/

As far as Kavanaugh and Ford is concerned I'm not going to pretend I know what the truth is with the numerous articles I have read.

I do remember watching a news magazine episode where kids were falsely accusing parent(s) of abuse and it was likely they were mistaken. I am not saying this is the case here but to say one cannot be mistaken is not right.

I can easily believe Kavanaugh did it but I don't think there is enough evidence to stop his nomination specifically because of the allege rape, see muns post on needing more.

(How he acted in front of the committee is a different matter though which IMO shows he does not have the right temperament to be SCOTUS).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Why isn't anyone talking about this bombshell NYT piece? It's the first taste of all the info that we've been missing, and it's the first true bit of fact that has always been suspected. Now it's out there and what, it's not big enough?

Because Kavanaugh situation is more immediate & juicy.

The NYT story has a long runway and TBF, there needs to be more review to really substantiate it. I know the NY state folks state they are getting involved which is great. I don't eliminate the possibility there are nuances to the charges where Trump (and his army of lawyers) can show it wasn't necessarily illegal or in the grey area.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

So here I sit, I listen to Fox for 10 minutes and Im done being pandered to with viewpoints I tend to agree with but with (at best) intellectually flawed arguments or (at worst) complete fabrication and propagandizing. I switch over to CNN (or others) and I see the opposite from the other side...and my brain just shuts down.

I don't watch Fox but know what you mean. I used to watch CNN but now their Fox-like-left-wing bias is pretty bad. In this board, there are some accusations that people are brainwashed by Fox News, I contend that is applicable to CNN-MSNBC (Morning Joe, I'm talking about you) too.

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

*** This is unpopular to say and not politically correct but in my view sexual assault comes in different severities. I have a lot more tolerance for the college drunken hookup where both parties are some level on intoxicated its consensual at the time and then regret sinks in and stories change. I think we have all seen that play out, both ways. But a man physically forcing himself on an unwilling female that just completely violates my entire sensibilities. To me, and again I recognize Im extreme in this view point, Physically assaulting a woman or child is not a rehabilitation punishment. Its a time to flush the gene pool.

I agree with this. Its my viewpoint too.

However, re: Ford, I'm not sure it has been established that she was "drunken" or that "drunken".

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Not to mention it's likely that any other candidate would go through similiar turmoil.

I really don't think so. Kavanaugh just made it worse on himself. Another candidate without this baggage would just be grilled about abortion rights and Presidential indictment.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

There was a political writer (I forget who) who said that the social media incentives are perverse. You get followers by picking a tribe and posting/sharing tribal orthodoxy.

So you build up a ton of followers who expect that. And every single time you post something that deviates from that orthodoxy, you lose followers.

Since followers are basically how you convince advertisers to pay you, you have a very strong incentive to just keep posting the same echo chamber shit (or at least to just be silent if you really disagree with what your team is doing).

very much this

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You keep saying this. Are you her psychiatrist? Do you have inside information that no one else does? You cry about no evidence but then concoct some weird conspiracy theory that her mind is playing tricks on her. Actually I shouldn't say you concocted it, it's been one of the right-wing talking points where you get your views from.

Where is her evidence? You refer to her therapist visit but (1) the 3 or 4 people that she proposed could validate her account did not and (2) Judge who was supposedly in the room has denied it.

I can easily believe that (2) Judge is protecting his butt but how do you explain (1)? Would her friends haven't forgotten about a "rape" attempt after she came out visibly distressed? Shouldn't there be corroborating evidence vs a therapist visit/notes decades after it happened?

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Because she has nothing to gain from this.

She does have something to gain. She would be a "hero" to the #metoo movement, the Dems will hold her up (for at least a while), lots of attention, probably a nice book deal etc.

[Edward64]

Welp, tomorrow is the day.

From bits and pieces I've caught on TV, it seems there is nothing/much new. I think Kavanaugh goes through (but hope I am wrong).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Where is her evidence? You refer to her therapist visit but (1) the 3 or 4 people that she proposed could validate her account did not and (2) Judge who was supposedly in the room has denied it.

I can easily believe that (2) Judge is protecting his butt but how do you explain (1)? Would her friends haven't forgotten about a "rape" attempt after she came out visibly distressed? Shouldn't there be corroborating evidence vs a therapist visit/notes decades after it happened?

I didn't say there was evidence. It's an event that took place over 30 years ago. For the most part it's a he said, she said situation. The only difference in the two is that Kavanaugh has repeatedly lied under oath which is something incredibly odd if you're innocent.

Originally Posted by Edward64

She does have something to gain. She would be a "hero" to the #metoo movement, the Dems will hold her up (for at least a while), lots of attention, probably a nice book deal etc.

People who come forward with rape accusations against celebrities, athletes or powerful people have their lives destroyed. Her and her family will receive death threats and require security for years. She'll be called a liar, a whore, and all the other goodies that come with being a woman who speaks up these days. If you think this is some ticket to stardom, you're ignoring decades of evidence to the contrary.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Why isn't anyone talking about this bombshell NYT piece? It's the first taste of all the info that we've been missing, and it's the first true bit of fact that has always been suspected. Now it's out there and what, it's not big enough?

Because it follows the pattern of everything else? Stormy, Russia, etc

It has been suspected. Those suspicions have been discussed extensively as fact without the in depth investigation by his critics. His supporters defend him by saying it is a conspiracy against him and his agenda and demand facts instead of suspicions to back up these accusations. Facts come out and if they are anything less than 100% accurate, it becomes proof of the conspiracy against Trump and becomes red meat for his supporters. If they are 100% true, well nothing happens because we are on to something else because there is always something else. Rinse and Repeat.

In this case, I would argue that both sides of the political divide have long accepted that only the billionaires who don't have smart lawyers and offshore accounts actually pay their fair share of taxes. That is just the way business works I believe is the proper saying.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Welp, tomorrow is the day.

From bits and pieces I've caught on TV, it seems there is nothing/much new. I think Kavanaugh goes through (but hope I am wrong).

One of the days. I expect him to go through, but if he's going to fail I think it will be the actual vote, not the cloture vote.

[Carman Bulldog]

I kind of wish Kavanaugh would have just come out and said something along the lines of "The only thing that occurred was that I simply tried to grab her by the pussy. I think that's something that 63 million Americans can understand and appreciate."

[tarcone]

I hope he loses. But I see Trump bullying the gop committee members.

Trey Gowdy would be a fantastic option for the SC, IMO.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Trey Gowdy would be a fantastic option for the SC, IMO.

Oh God no

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I didn't say there was evidence. It's an event that took place over 30 years ago. For the most part it's a he said, she said situation. The only difference in the two is that Kavanaugh has repeatedly lied under oath which is something incredibly odd if you're innocent.

Okay, fair enough, my mistake

(For anyone that does say there is evidence, above is my response).

Originally Posted by RainMaker

People who come forward with rape accusations against celebrities, athletes or powerful people have their lives destroyed. Her and her family will receive death threats and require security for years. She'll be called a liar, a whore, and all the other goodies that come with being a woman who speaks up these days. If you think this is some ticket to stardom, you're ignoring decades of evidence to the contrary.

You repeatedly say "she has nothing to gain from this". I'm pointing out she does. You may not think the pros outweigh the cons but I personally would be willing to take your above con-list in exchange for $1M and to be face/darling of a major movement.

(Add the gofundme to the list of pros also but not sure how much $ is in there right now).

Now - I am not saying she is doing this for money. I don't think she has proven her allegation however I can easily believe an intoxicated Kavanaugh did what she said he did. I'm just saying she does have "pros" from going public.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Oh God no

Why? He seems like a straight shooter to me. And I doubt he would be easily influenced. Seems like he loves the law and really knows it.

But I would like to hear why you dont like him as a choice.

[Edward64]

FWIW.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kav...-drinking-game

Four high school classmates of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have claimed that the phrase "Devil's Triangle" in Kavanaugh's yearbook is a drinking game and not a reference to sexual activity, as has been claimed by some opponents of Kavanaugh.

The phrase took center stage when Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., asked Kavanaugh its meaning during a hearing last week.

"It's a drinking game," responded Kavanaugh, who asked Whitehouse if he had "ever played quarters?", a reference to another drinking game.

In a letter released by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Delancey Davis, Bernard McCarthy Jr., Paul Murray and Matthew Quinn said the game was a variation on quarters.

"When we played 'Devil’s Triangle,' four people sat at a table. On the table, three small glasses of beer were arranged next to one another to form a triangle. Each of the four participants took turns being the “shooter," they wrote. "The shooter attempted to bounce a quarter into one of the glasses. If the quarter landed in one of the glasses, the person at the table sitting nearest that glass had to drink the beer."

The quartet added that while they do not remember how the game came to be called "Devil's Triangle," they were adamant that "none of us used the phrase ... in our yearbook to refer to any kind of sexual activity."

"If the phrase 'Devil's Triangle' had any sexual meaning in the 1980s, we did not know it," they concluded.

The committee also released a letter from two men who roomed with one of Kavanaugh's high school classmates while they were undergraduates at Boston College. The men, Greg Aceto and Bill Van Pelt IV, said that Kavanaugh's classmate Matthew Quinn had taught them how to play "Devil's Triangle" and added that they did not understand it to have any sexual meaning.

Some opponents of Kavanaugh's nomination have interpreted the phrase to refer to a three-way sexual encounter. On Wednesday, Jamie Roche, Kavanaugh's freshman year roommate at Yale told CNN that he heard Kavanaugh use the term to refer to sexual activity.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Okay, fair enough, my mistake

(For anyone that does say there is evidence, above is my response).

Testimony is evidence.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by digamma

Testimony is evidence.

Okay. See my response above then and add's Kavanaugh's testimony as evidence for him.

[digamma]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I'm just saying that testimony is evidence. Kavanaugh's is too. Of course, it's not a trial and the FRE don't apply, but it's incorrect to say there's no evidence.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Why? He seems like a straight shooter to me. And I doubt he would be easily influenced. Seems like he loves the law and really knows it.

But I would like to hear why you dont like him as a choice.

Straight shooter? He lead the Benghazi investigations which wasted millions of dollars in a political witchhunt. He's shown himself to be little more than your typical political hack.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by digamma

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I'm just saying that testimony is evidence. Kavanaugh's is too. Of course, it's not a trial and the FRE don't apply, but it's incorrect to say there's no evidence.

Pardon my ignorance, what's FRE?

[digamma]

Sorry, Federal Rules of Evidence.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by digamma

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I'm just saying that testimony is evidence. Kavanaugh's is too. Of course, it's not a trial and the FRE don't apply, but it's incorrect to say there's no evidence.

Referring to post #13061, I should have again been more specific in responding to RM when I pointed out her 3-4 people she proposed to corroborate her story did not do so.

Shouldn't there be [more] corroborating evidence vs a therapist visit/notes decades after it happened?

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Straight shooter? He lead the Benghazi investigations which wasted millions of dollars in a political witchhunt. He's shown himself to be little more than your typical political hack.

Seems like there is a lot of political witch hunts in the last 10 years.

[NobodyHere]

That's not really a defense of Gowdy.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

That's not really a defense of Gowdy.

Not meant to be.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You repeatedly say "she has nothing to gain from this". I'm pointing out she does. You may not think the pros outweigh the cons but I personally would be willing to take your above con-list in exchange for $1M and to be face/darling of a major movement.

(Add the gofundme to the list of pros also but not sure how much $ is in there right now).

Now - I am not saying she is doing this for money. I don't think she has proven her allegation however I can easily believe an intoxicated Kavanaugh did what she said he did. I'm just saying she does have "pros" from going public.

What are you saying, she is doing it money or not? (btw, median home in her neighborhood is over $3 million). If not, what’s your point? It’s a vanity thing?

[Edward64]

I'm not making a judgement on whether she is doing it for money or not. I am responding to RM statement that "she has nothing to gain from this".

Don't read anymore into it. I am anti-Kavanaugh for SCOTUS, not because of the allegations of Ford's rape but because of how he presented himself at the committee.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm not making a judgement on whether she is doing it for money or not. I am responding to RM statement that "she has nothing to gain from this".

Don't read anymore into it. I am anti-Kavanaugh for SCOTUS, not because of the allegations of Ford's rape but because of how he presented himself at the committee.

Dont forget about his shady finances. There some things there that are being ignored.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Where is her evidence? ...the 3 or 4 people that she proposed could validate her account did not
Would her friends haven't forgotten about a "rape" attempt after she came out visibly distressed?

Seems to be misconception the republicans are exploiting. She never proposed her friends could validate her account. She merely said who was there.

She said:
“For a very long time, I was too afraid and ashamed to tell anyone the details. I did not want to tell my parents that I, at age 15, was in a house without any parents present, drinking beer with boys. I tried to convince myself that because Brett did not rape me, I should be able to move on and just pretend that it had never happened. Over the years, I told very few friends that I had this traumatic experience.”

So, as far as the other witnesses and friends, it was quite likely one moment of an otherwise unremarkable evening.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Seems to be misconception the republicans are exploiting. She never proposed her friends could validate her account. She merely said who was there.

She said:
“For a very long time, I was too afraid and ashamed to tell anyone the details. I did not want to tell my parents that I, at age 15, was in a house without any parents present, drinking beer with boys. I tried to convince myself that because Brett did not rape me, I should be able to move on and just pretend that it had never happened. Over the years, I told very few friends that I had this traumatic experience.”

So, as far as the other witnesses and friends, it was quite likely one moment of an otherwise unremarkable evening.

I quoted the below in #12546. The four friends/acquaintances actually said they have no recollection of being there and therefore could not corroborate that the party happened or was attended by Ford/Kavanaugh.

I guess its possible Kupec misquoted but do you have a better source?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/22/polit...ion/index.html

Keyser is the latest person alleged to be at the party to say she has no recollection of it.

White House spokesperson Kerri Kupec said of those who allegedly attended the party, "One week ago, Dr. Christine Ford claimed she was assaulted at a house party attended by four others. Since then, all four of these individuals have provided statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee denying any knowledge of the incident or even having attended such a party."

The Washington Post reported late Saturday that it had talked to Keyser, who told the paper she believed Ford's allegation.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I quoted the below in #12546. The four friends/acquaintances actually said they have no recollection of being there and therefore could not corroborate that the party happened or was attended by Ford/Kavanaugh.

I guess its possible Kupec misquoted but do you have a better source?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/22/polit...ion/index.html

I’ll try again.
There is a difference between validating the assault and validating being there.

She did not tell anyone of the assault, so no one could ever have validated it.

Therefore, those friends were asked to remember a small get together 36 years ago where nothing special happened. ( except one friend saying she believes fords testimony).

You asked why a friend wouldn’t remember her coming out distressed. That is you filling in gaps. She never said people saw her coming down, nor did she say others will validate they saw me afterwards. Or that I told them what happened.

[Edward64]

I'll try again also.

I did not say validate the assault. I did say (in so many words) validate they Ford/Kavanaugh were at the same party.

Four friends/acquaintances could not confirm they or Ford/Kavanaugh were there. As far as I know there is no one (outside of the four) has corroborated the party.

That does not make you at least give pause on the accuracy of the rest of her claims?

Re: coming out distressed, you don't think she came out distressed after an alleged rape attempt? You don't think anyone else would have seen her after the alleged attempt? You may be right but I think its somewhat logical to think both things happened.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'll try again also.

I did not say validate the assault. I did say (in so many words) validate they Ford/Kavanaugh were at the same party.

Four friends/acquaintances could not confirm they or Ford/Kavanaugh were there. As far as I know there is no one (outside of the four) has corroborated the party.

That does not make you at least give pause on the accuracy of the rest of her claims?

Not all. 2 of the 4 were drunk and being accused of sexual assault. Other 2 were never told anything happened, and one of them believes her.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Re: coming out distressed, you don't think she came out distressed after an alleged rape attempt? You don't think anyone else would have seen her after the alleged attempt? You may be right but I think its somewhat logical to think both things happened.

I think there is something behind this wishful thinking by adding to the narrative. Her vivid testimony of what she did remember was not enough (to mostly men). What has been vaulted to absolute importance to you, and others, is fuzzy side facts that is absolutely consistent with trauma victims.

While her memory of who, if anyone, was in the room as she was escaping is absent, that missing fact somehow trumps her recollection of the person on top of her covering her mouth as she was trying to scream and escape?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Not all. 2 of the 4 were drunk and being accused of sexual assault. Other 2 were never told anything happened, and one of them believes her.

Her friend she says was there has said she believes her but cannot corroborate re: the party. PJ cannot corroborate either. That's enough to give me pause.

I believe I read she said she is not surprised they could not remember because "nothing special happened". Did she say this before or after the 2 said they could not corroborate?

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I think there is something behind this wishful thinking by adding to the narrative. Her vivid testimony of what she did remember was not enough (to mostly men). What has been vaulted to absolute importance to you, and others, is fuzzy side facts that is absolutely consistent with trauma victims.

While her memory of who, if anyone, was in the room as she was escaping is absent, that missing fact somehow trumps her recollection of the person on top of her covering her mouth as she was trying to scream and escape?

I get that I'm not a trauma specialist. I will defer to mun's discussion. He seems to have a lot of experience and he's has said he needs more too.

re: your second paragraph, I don't think I said that. I said there is a lack of corroborating evidence?

[Ksyrup]

I guess we'll find out in a month, but this whole thing seems to be setting up as win/win for the Republicans. Either he gets confirmed and it's settled, or he gets rejected and the base flocks to the polls in November and stunts whatever gains the Dems appeared destined to make.

[Ksyrup]

Everything is a political calculation. That's how we got where we are. My comment was simply an observation, not a pro or con on the process. The whole thing effing stinks.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I guess we'll find out in a month, but this whole thing seems to be setting up as win/win for the Republicans. Either he gets confirmed and it's settled, or he gets rejected and the base flocks to the polls in November and stunts whatever gains the Dems appeared destined to make.

Agree. But if the Democrats can't be motivated by 2 years of Trump than not sure what it would take to motivate them. It's sad because a Trump presidency should have led to 3rd parties gaining some traction but my guess is <1% in these coming midterms due to the lessor of two evils.

I have to admit I'm leaning towards voting Claire McKaskill over generic Libertarian to try to neutralize the GOP controlling everything. Best government ever in my lifetime was Bill Clinton and the GOP Congress.

[Ksyrup]

Dems may still be motivated to come out, but I'm thinking that you're going to have more Republicans coming out than otherwise would have for mid-terms.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I guess we'll find out in a month, but this whole thing seems to be setting up as win/win for the Republicans. Either he gets confirmed and it's settled, or he gets rejected and the base flocks to the polls in November and stunts whatever gains the Dems appeared destined to make.

The other part is that there are still 30ish days until the midterm vote, which in this administration means time for another dozen scandals to flood the news, and washed out for the next one. Remember when some anonymous guy wrote the NYT how they were "saving" the country from Trump? That was a month ago.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Dems may still be motivated to come out, but I'm thinking that you're going to have more Republicans coming out than otherwise would have for mid-terms.

I believe that the fear and propaganda that Fox News and Rush and the like layer on continuously is going to guarentee a set minimum turnout for trump's base and the right. I don't think anything can happen that will change that too much. Fear is a great motivator and a lot of people have been conditioned for the last year that their lives and safety are in grave danger if liberals win anything at all in November.

Its all about whether the left can be motivated to vote or not. And if they can't in this specific political climate, god help us all.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by bronconick

The other part is that there are still 30ish days until the midterm vote, which in this administration means time for another dozen scandals to flood the news, and washed out for the next one. Remember when some anonymous guy wrote the NYT how they were "saving" the country from Trump? That was a month ago.

There's something to be said for the effectiveness of chaos in keeping people from being able to concentrate on a single issue. I don't know if News Cycle Fatigue is a clinical term, but it might be in the aftermath of the Trump administration.

[Drake]

Panerd is spot on, though. If Dems can't self-motivate after two solid years of bullshit, then they deserve to lose, and their agenda deserves to lose along with them.

We keep hearing about how the majority of the popular vote was democrat. We keep hearing "there are more of us than them" and Trump only has a semi-solid core of 30% of Republicans or whatever. If they can't turn that into victories, I'd submit that they're just fucking around with wishful thinking and their progressive moral majority is a myth. It's our own version of delusional fake news fed to us by our own media outlets.