President Trump & the USA

[UPinCarolina]

Some final thoughts on these hearings.

I don’t know for certain that she is being honest, but I have legitimate reasons to believe that she is not being dishonest. I would ask you to meditate carefully on the most personal and traumatic event you experienced in your youth. This may not be something shared with a group, or a date with a greater significance - like a marriage, birthday, or death of a loved one. Can you instantly recall, with 100% certainty, the month and day of said event? It’s more difficult than you think, and everything we know scientifically about trauma suggests that it affects the formation of memory in ways that make the perfect recall of the surrounding details of the event more difficult, not less so. That’s a reason why Dr. Ford’s testimony has not been assailed from a scientific perspective - that, and the fact that she is eminently qualified to speak on those issues under oath, which she did in front of the Senate.

As for Judge Kavanaugh, the deliberate evasiveness and inexplicable behavior while under oath in front of the Senate during the hearing - and numerous examples of what could easily be construed as perjury during said hearing - give me ample reason to question his characterization of himself as an honest man. I can't speak to his guilt or innocence, as it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty and we lack sufficient evidence to make that judgement.

We have to take Dr. Ford's testimony, then, and size it up against his. I believe that she was not evasive, I believe that she does not stand to gain monetarily or socially from these events, and I would be quite interested to hear from those who believe otherwise. Her testimony was not misleading, and she answered every question. The same cannot be said of his testimony. Are we to take his word as truth, and categorically dismiss hers? What makes his word more credible than hers - his education, as he seems to imply? She has credentials that would qualify her to be an expert witness on emotional trauma and the brain and the education to match.

The article linked below presents a well researched and cited argument that does not attempt or aim to show his guilt or innocence - rather, it shows the extent to which he willingly and intelligently deflected and misled Senators under oath.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

If, after examining the evidence, you don't find his seemingly deliberate and intentionally cagey responses to raise legitimate questions about his truthfulness - there's not much else to say here. I'm not in the business of presuming his guilt, but I have sufficient reason to believe that he's misled and sanitized his own life in a way that strikes me as not only dishonest but shamelessly so. Talented legal mind or not, I find it hard to believe that this man is the best my country can do.

Take from that what you will.

[TheLittleBigMan]

On 12/09/2018 at 08:40, MattP said:

His appearance in Puerto Rico was hilarious though. 

 

Probably my third favourite Trump thing after his "I've met Harvey Weinstein" and "We call her Pocahontus" press conferences. 

Blokes been knocking around with the queens fella by the looks.

[Smudge]

59 minutes ago, UPinCarolina said:

Some final thoughts on these hearings.

I don’t know for certain that she is being honest, but I have legitimate reasons to believe that she is not being dishonest. I would ask you to meditate carefully on the most personal and traumatic event you experienced in your youth. This may not be something shared with a group, or a date with a greater significance - like a marriage, birthday, or death of a loved one. Can you instantly recall, with 100% certainty, the month and day of said event? It’s more difficult than you think, and everything we know scientifically about trauma suggests that it affects the formation of memory in ways that make the perfect recall of the surrounding details of the event more difficult, not less so. That’s a reason why Dr. Ford’s testimony has not been assailed from a scientific perspective - that, and the fact that she is eminently qualified to speak on those issues under oath, which she did in front of the Senate.

As for Judge Kavanaugh, the deliberate evasiveness and inexplicable behavior while under oath in front of the Senate during the hearing - and numerous examples of what could easily be construed as perjury during said hearing - give me ample reason to question his characterization of himself as an honest man. I can't speak to his guilt or innocence, as it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty and we lack sufficient evidence to make that judgement.

We have to take Dr. Ford's testimony, then, and size it up against his. I believe that she was not evasive, I believe that she does not stand to gain monetarily or socially from these events, and I would be quite interested to hear from those who believe otherwise. Her testimony was not misleading, and she answered every question. The same cannot be said of his testimony. Are we to take his word as truth, and categorically dismiss hers? What makes his word more credible than hers - his education, as he seems to imply? She has credentials that would qualify her to be an expert witness on emotional trauma and the brain and the education to match.

The article linked below presents a well researched and cited argument that does not attempt or aim to show his guilt or innocence - rather, it shows the extent to which he willingly and intelligently deflected and misled Senators under oath.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

If, after examining the evidence, you don't find his seemingly deliberate and intentionally cagey responses to raise legitimate questions about his truthfulness - there's not much else to say here. I'm not in the business of presuming his guilt, but I have sufficient reason to believe that he's misled and sanitized his own life in a way that strikes me as not only dishonest but shamelessly so. Talented legal mind or not, I find it hard to believe that this man is the best my country can do.

Take from that what you will.

An eloquent summary of my feelings. Thanks

[MC Prussian]

6 hours ago, Smudge said:

Dear me I'm done. 

I'm not a Kavanaugh apologist. My guess is he did something back in the 80ies, I'm just not so sure it had anything to do with Ford.

 

To balance it out, I give you this nugget:

https://www.newsweek.com/sexual-assault-should-not-disqualify-kavanaugh-proven-majority-republicans-1141877

 

Now that's what I call disingenuous.

 

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

I'm not a Kavanaugh apologist. My guess is he did something back in the 80ies, I'm just not so sure it had anything to do with Ford.

 

To balance it out, I give you this nugget:

https://www.newsweek.com/sexual-assault-should-not-disqualify-kavanaugh-proven-majority-republicans-1141877

 

Now that's what I call disingenuous.

 

 

Fair enough, thanks for clarifying where you stand there.

 

TBH (and I think you've said this a few times) there's definitely so much polarisation going on now that what the truth is doesn't really matter, only what people believe and what they can convince others to do so.

[leicsmac]

I See You skewering once again:

 

"I see you, Brett Kavanaugh.

 

I see your furious face, full of righteous indignation, your rage threatening to burst forth and spill bile like a holidaymaker’s bowels after drinking the local tap water. You’re pure piss and vinegar, Brett Kavanaugh, spitting feathers more maniacally than Gary Busey plucking a peacock with his teeth. The hearing is a chance to finally clear your name, to shout the odds and plead your innocence, an opportunity to barrack the Democrats who’ve conspired to shelve your nomination. You never did the things they say you did and you’ve got a calendar to prove it, as well as a whole line of women willing to act as character witnesses. Never mind that men can be nice to seventy women and abuse one - what’s that got to do with anything?

What a partisan shit-show the whole process has turned out to be. The Democrats tactics have been decidedly underhanded, dragging into the limelight a reluctant woman who may well be the victim of a serious sexual assault and using her as a political football. Dr Ford has shown a lot of courage in exposing herself to the searing criticism of every political and media hack in the country and whatever the outcome, she ought to be commended for seeing it through. It’s hardly a surprise that the Dems sat on her allegations for as long as possible, given that the Republicans haven’t got a leg to stand on when complaining about delays. Merrick Garland had to buy his own black silk dressing gown, and now he cries when he bangs his squeaky rubber gavel on the side of the bath at night.

 

It’s an extremely tense collision of several complicated threads, with the MeToo movement crashing straight into an increasingly rancorous battle between the Democrats and Trump’s straight-up mockery of the Republican party. Lindsey Graham seemed to view the hearing as his own personal audition tape for Trump’s cabinet, channelling an evangelical preacher tweaking on meth as he railed against the conspiracy. The oldest, whitest men in the haunted plantation hid behind a female prosecutor to question Dr Ford, knowing full well just how poisonous it would look to shake their fists and shout at her cloud directly. Instead they acquiesced to her believability, treading a Schrodinger’s tightrope of avoiding the victim-blaming while retaining their right to ignore her testimony completely.

 

And then came you, Brett Kavanaugh, turning it straight up to 11 and storming out of the gate like a frat boy possessed. With all the finger-jabbing, snarling and deflection your testimony couldn’t have been more unlike your accuser’s. Armchair psychologists will be analysing both for years and the press have been running rampant with their half-formed analyses already. Once again, it should be a surprise to literally fvcking no-one that a woman has to be quiet, broken-voiced and dignified to come across as believable, whilst a man can scream his anger at the injustice of it all from the rooftops and be applauded.

 

The truth of what happened may never be proven for either of you, which is in itself a tragedy repeated over and over when it comes to accusations of historical sexual abuse. Due process should be followed and you may well yet be proven completely innocent, Brett Kavanaugh. If so, you’d think a full FBI investigation would be something you’d welcome. We’re getting one now, because Jeff Flake got his balls handed to him in a lift and found a way to both toe the party line and just about scrape past that woman with his conscience intact.

 

It’s unlikely to be a tidy conclusion, and whatever the outcome Dr Ford will have her believers and you’ll have yours. The irony is that if anyone on the Republican side of the fence when voting you through next time has more remaining loyalty to country over party, then you should have derailed yourself with your testimony regardless. Putting aside the political manoeuvring, stall tactics and accusations of misconduct, you fell way short of the responsibilities of the office. Supreme Justices are supposed to be impartial, following the Constitution and interpreting the law. You pretty much declared yourself as the partisan pawn Trump’s critics have always labelled you as, screaming about conspiracy and the Clintons as if you had a USB stick full of Infowars podcasts jammed into your arsehole. You’d think all those keg stands in college would have left you a bit more level-headed, Brett Kavanaugh.

 

So yet again, it looks like all we’ll have left to rely on are the spineless enablers in the GOP. And we’ve all seen how brave and conscientious they’re capable of being under Trump.

 

I see you, Brett Kavanaugh, pleased as punch, your new robe fitting as perfectly as can be. I see your enormous smile as you wave for the cameras, a man vindicated, a Supreme Court Justice for the ages. I see the door close behind you as you turn your back on the journalists. I see you cross the room, your hand outstretched, waiting to grab the President’s hand and receive the needlessly crushing grip that lifted you up on to your new pedestal.

 

I see the hand raised to meet yours, and at the last second I see it dip. I see your eyes widen in shock as Trump presses a finger to your lips.

 

This is how it works in his America, Brett Kavanaugh. Lip service to the believability of the victims in public, nods of contrition, howls of outrage on their behalf. But behind closed doors?

 

In private nothing’s changed, and he’ll damn well grab you by the pussy if he wants to.

 

I see you, Brett Kavanaugh. I fvcking see you."

Edited 1 October 2018 by leicsmac

[Detroit Blues]

12 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, the lines are pretty well drawn here. But then I think they got drawn across the US a fair while back when Obama got elected, tbh - this is just following on from that.

 

One thing that does jump into my head though...if this all just a dirty tricks campaign by the Dems and it's possible such a thing could keep a candidate from the Supreme Court, why not do the same with Gorsuch during his confirmation procedure? By comparison, his hearing was smooth.

The irony is that the Republicans refused to confirm a democratic nomination for the supreme Court for the last ten months of Obama's presidency.

 

 

[Smudge]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I See You skewering once again:

 

"I see you, Brett Kavanaugh.

 

I see your furious face, full of righteous indignation, your rage threatening to burst forth and spill bile like a holidaymaker’s bowels after drinking the local tap water. You’re pure piss and vinegar, Brett Kavanaugh, spitting feathers more maniacally than Gary Busey plucking a peacock with his teeth. The hearing is a chance to finally clear your name, to shout the odds and plead your innocence, an opportunity to barrack the Democrats who’ve conspired to shelve your nomination. You never did the things they say you did and you’ve got a calendar to prove it, as well as a whole line of women willing to act as character witnesses. Never mind that men can be nice to seventy women and abuse one - what’s that got to do with anything?

What a partisan shit-show the whole process has turned out to be. The Democrats tactics have been decidedly underhanded, dragging into the limelight a reluctant woman who may well be the victim of a serious sexual assault and using her as a political football. Dr Ford has shown a lot of courage in exposing herself to the searing criticism of every political and media hack in the country and whatever the outcome, she ought to be commended for seeing it through. It’s hardly a surprise that the Dems sat on her allegations for as long as possible, given that the Republicans haven’t got a leg to stand on when complaining about delays. Merrick Garland had to buy his own black silk dressing gown, and now he cries when he bangs his squeaky rubber gavel on the side of the bath at night.

 

It’s an extremely tense collision of several complicated threads, with the MeToo movement crashing straight into an increasingly rancorous battle between the Democrats and Trump’s straight-up mockery of the Republican party. Lindsey Graham seemed to view the hearing as his own personal audition tape for Trump’s cabinet, channelling an evangelical preacher tweaking on meth as he railed against the conspiracy. The oldest, whitest men in the haunted plantation hid behind a female prosecutor to question Dr Ford, knowing full well just how poisonous it would look to shake their fists and shout at her cloud directly. Instead they acquiesced to her believability, treading a Schrodinger’s tightrope of avoiding the victim-blaming while retaining their right to ignore her testimony completely.

 

And then came you, Brett Kavanaugh, turning it straight up to 11 and storming out of the gate like a frat boy possessed. With all the finger-jabbing, snarling and deflection your testimony couldn’t have been more unlike your accuser’s. Armchair psychologists will be analysing both for years and the press have been running rampant with their half-formed analyses already. Once again, it should be a surprise to literally fvcking no-one that a woman has to be quiet, broken-voiced and dignified to come across as believable, whilst a man can scream his anger at the injustice of it all from the rooftops and be applauded.

 

The truth of what happened may never be proven for either of you, which is in itself a tragedy repeated over and over when it comes to accusations of historical sexual abuse. Due process should be followed and you may well yet be proven completely innocent, Brett Kavanaugh. If so, you’d think a full FBI investigation would be something you’d welcome. We’re getting one now,because Jeff Flake got his balls handed to him in a lift and found a way to both toe the party line and just about scrape past that woman with his conscience intact.

 

It’s unlikely to be a tidy conclusion, and whatever the outcome Dr Ford will have her believers and you’ll have yours. The irony is that if anyone on the Republican side of the fence when voting you through next time has more remaining loyalty to country over party, then you should have derailed yourself with your testimony regardless. Putting aside the political manoeuvring, stall tactics and accusations of misconduct, you fell way short of the responsibilities of the office. Supreme Justices are supposed to be impartial, following the Constitution and interpreting the law. You pretty much declared yourself as the partisan pawn Trump’s critics have always labelled you as, screaming about conspiracy and the Clintons as if you had a USB stick full of Infowars podcasts jammed into your arsehole. You’d think all those keg stands in college would have left you a bit more level-headed, Brett Kavanaugh.

 

So yet again, it looks like all we’ll have left to rely on are the spineless enablers in the GOP. And we’ve all seen how brave and conscientious they’re capable of being under Trump.

 

I see you, Brett Kavanaugh, pleased as punch, your new robe fitting as perfectly as can be. I see your enormous smile as you wave for the cameras, a man vindicated, a Supreme Court Justice for the ages. I see the door close behind you as you turn your back on the journalists. I see you cross the room, your hand outstretched, waiting to grab the President’s hand and receive the needlessly crushing grip that lifted you up on to your new pedestal.

 

I see the hand raised to meet yours, and at the last second I see it dip. I see your eyes widen in shock as Trump presses a finger to your lips.

 

This is how it works in his America, Brett Kavanaugh. Lip service to the believability of the victims in public, nods of contrition, howls of outrage on their behalf. But behind closed doors?

 

In private nothing’s changed, and he’ll damn well grab you by the pussy if he wants to.

 

I see you, Brett Kavanaugh. I fvcking see you."

Edited 7 hours ago by leicsmac

 

@leicsmac Who wrote that ?

Edited 1 October 2018 by Smudge

[leicsmac]

11 hours ago, Detroit Blues said:

The irony is that the Republicans refused to confirm a democratic nomination for the supreme Court for the last ten months of Obama's presidency.

 

 

Yep, and now they have the temerity to complain that their own nomination is being blocked.

 

7 hours ago, Smudge said:

@leicsmac Who wrote that ?

Some standup fella on Facebook, has a page where he does one such article a week.

[Guest MattP]

Pretty significant achievement from the administration, will go down very well on the rust belt and with what are termed "ordinary" Americans, looks pretty good in the details for Mexico as well.

 

I love the part that require 40-45% of a vehicle be made by workers earning at least $16 an hour, shouldn't be allowed to just shift work over the border and exploit the lower paid.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45674261

 

Quote

 

After a few hectic final weeks and a last-minute, late-night scramble, the United States, Canada and Mexico have come to an agreement in principle on a revised North American Free Trade Agreement - a resolution 14 months in the making.

The leaders of all three nations took a victory lap on Monday, with US President Donald Trump heralding the still-to-be-ratified agreement as "truly historic".

The original 1994 deal has also been renamed, and is now the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA.

Industries will now be combing through all 34 chapters of the document to see how it affects their segment of the $1.2tn in annual trade between the three partners.

But even at first glance, there are clear winners - and some who will bear the brunt of the concessions.

 

 

 

[The Doctor]

On 01/10/2018 at 01:59, leicsmac said:

Yeah, the lines are pretty well drawn here. But then I think they got drawn across the US a fair while back when Obama got elected, tbh - this is just following on from that.

 

One thing that does jump into my head though...if this all just a dirty tricks campaign by the Dems and it's possible such a thing could keep a candidate from the Supreme Court, why not do the same with Gorsuch during his confirmation procedure? By comparison, his hearing was smooth.

The easy way to explain that away is Gorsuch wasn't just a couple of weeks before the midterms, no chance of delaying long enough to see if the Dems could flip the senate. Not that I'd believe that for a second but for those who want to automatically disbelieve Ford before she'd even opened her mouth, that'd be the simple argument.

Edited 2 October 2018 by The Doctor

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Pretty significant achievement from the administration, will go down very well on the rust belt and with what are termed "ordinary" Americans, looks pretty good in the details for Mexico as well.

 

I love the part that require 40-45% of a vehicle be made by workers earning at least $16 an hour, shouldn't be allowed to just shift work over the border and exploit the lower paid.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45674261

 

 

 

Good stuff, though the repubs will only be able to use it as capital if the next election is primarily fought on the economy, as it turns out the last one largely was.

 

53 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

The easy way to explain that away is Gorsuch wasn't just a couple of weeks before the midterms, no chance of delaying long enough to see if the Dems could flip the senate. Not that I'd believe that for a second but for those who want to automatically disbelieve Ford before she'd even opened her mouth, that'd be the simple argument.

I can see the delaying tactic argument (might be true, might not be); however that is a pretty long shot considering the dems have much more of a chance of nailing down the House than the Senate.

 

(Also, if the repubs want a trouble free confirmation process they should learn to hold onto their majorities - or at least think that they're going to. )

[The Doctor]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Good stuff, though the repubs will only be able to use it as capital if the next election is primarily fought on the economy, as it turns out the last one largely was.

 

I can see the delaying tactic argument (might be true, might not be); however that is a pretty long shot considering the dems have much more of a chance of nailing down the House than the Senate.

 

(Also, if the repubs want a trouble free confirmation process they should learn to hold onto their majorities - or at least think that they're going to. )

Long shot is generous given they need a 4 seat swing and only 9 republican seats are up (compared to 24 democrat seats), but for a party that turns everything into a party political matter, would you be surprised?

[leicsmac]

20 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Long shot is generous given they need a 4 seat swing and only 9 republican seats are up (compared to 24 democrat seats), but for a party that turns everything into a party political matter, would you be surprised?

Tbh given the way the last couple of years have turned out, nothing would surprise me much anymore.

[Guest MattP]

48 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Good stuff, though the repubs will only be able to use it as capital if the next election is primarily fought on the economy, as it turns out the last one largely was.

The next election will be fought on numerous issues, the economy will always be a big part of it though, as it should be.

You can see the battlelines being drawn already, Republicans - jobs, economy. Democrats - identity politics.

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Tbh given the way the last couple of years have turned out, nothing would surprise me much anymore. 

It shouldn't surprise anyone if the Republicans or the Democrats do worse than expected. Both are a total shambles at the minute. It should surprise most if either over-perform.

I'd expect a very low turnout.

[Detroit Blues]

4 hours ago, MattP said:

It shouldn't surprise anyone if the Republicans or the Democrats do worse than expected. Both are a total shambles at the minute. It should surprise most if either over-perform.

I'd expect a very low turnout.

That's not the feeling I get. What is going on with the Russia probe, the supreme court nomination, etc. is causing more non-typical voters to be engaged (young people, the working class, ethnic minorities). Voter registration has really been pushed hard in the media for this cycle. I've seen a ton of ads for voter registration on non-traditional platforms like Facebook and Snapchat. 

 

Normally mid-terms have pretty low voter turnout, but I think this election is going to be viewed an extension of the last presidential election. A lot of people will see the opportunity to vote as another chance to boot Trump out of office.

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, MattP said:

The next election will be fought on numerous issues, the economy will always be a big part of it though, as it should be.

You can see the battlelines being drawn already, Republicans - jobs, economy. Democrats - identity politics.

Yeah, it's whatever issue takes primacy in the minds of the public though.

 

It was the economy last time and the Dems got that wrong, goodness only knows what it's going to be this time but I do think a lot of it will be a personal vote of confidence in Trump himself rather than his administration.

[Jattdogg]

If the latino/ethnic/black and women come out in large numbers for dems then donald wont win.

 

The dems dont even have a great candidate right now so if we go off the economy trump will win.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45722404

 

Like his former right-hand man Bannon, Trump seemingly cannot envision a world where one group or another doesn't have an advantage over the others, hence the fear. Definitely a lack of imagination.

 

Also, yes, there are cellular white supremacist networks that coordinate and operate across various parts of the US:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45724649

 

And does this seem needlessly petty to anyone else?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45722400

 

 

[fuchsntf]

On 01/10/2018 at 03:27, UPinCarolina said:

Some final thoughts on these hearings.

I don’t know for certain that she is being honest, but I have legitimate reasons to believe that she is not being dishonest. I would ask you to meditate carefully on the most personal and traumatic event you experienced in your youth. This may not be something shared with a group, or a date with a greater significance - like a marriage, birthday, or death of a loved one. Can you instantly recall, with 100% certainty, the month and day of said event? It’s more difficult than you think, and everything we know scientifically about trauma suggests that it affects the formation of memory in ways that make the perfect recall of the surrounding details of the event more difficult, not less so. That’s a reason why Dr. Ford’s testimony has not been assailed from a scientific perspective - that, and the fact that she is eminently qualified to speak on those issues under oath, which she did in front of the Senate.

As for Judge Kavanaugh, the deliberate evasiveness and inexplicable behavior while under oath in front of the Senate during the hearing - and numerous examples of what could easily be construed as perjury during said hearing - give me ample reason to question his characterization of himself as an honest man. I can't speak to his guilt or innocence, as it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty and we lack sufficient evidence to make that judgement.

We have to take Dr. Ford's testimony, then, and size it up against his. I believe that she was not evasive, I believe that she does not stand to gain monetarily or socially from these events, and I would be quite interested to hear from those who believe otherwise. Her testimony was not misleading, and she answered every question. The same cannot be said of his testimony. Are we to take his word as truth, and categorically dismiss hers? What makes his word more credible than hers - his education, as he seems to imply? She has credentials that would qualify her to be an expert witness on emotional trauma and the brain and the education to match.

The article linked below presents a well researched and cited argument that does not attempt or aim to show his guilt or innocence - rather, it shows the extent to which he willingly and intelligently deflected and misled Senators under oath.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

If, after examining the evidence, you don't find his seemingly deliberate and intentionally cagey responses to raise legitimate questions about his truthfulness - there's not much else to say here. I'm not in the business of presuming his guilt, but I have sufficient reason to believe that he's misled and sanitized his own life in a way that strikes me as not only dishonest but shamelessly so. Talented legal mind or not, I find it hard to believe that this man is the best my country can do.

Take from that what you will.

Enjoyable class read...From a homey electorate..

[Guest MattP]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45722404

 

Like his former right-hand man Bannon, Trump seemingly cannot envision a world where one group or another doesn't have an advantage over the others, hence the fear. Definitely a lack of imagination.

Have we read two different articles here? All he's saying is the belief innocent until guilty could be under threat. A cornerstone of civilised society. It's not about having an advantage over someone, elements of the radical feminist movement do seem to want to usurp this process.

 

He's being proved right as well, just look at those links I posted on here last week where due process isn't being followed and innocent young men were nearly off to prison for it.

 

BON is spot on in a lot of this argument, - https://spectator.us/2018/10/brett-kavanaughs-real-crime/

 

The extent to which commentators have focused on Kavanaugh’s skin colour has been extraordinary. He is representative of ‘white male anger’, said the New York Times. Kavanaugh’s angry responses to his grillers at the Judiciary Committee, who were deciding whether he should rise to the Supreme Court, was the ‘sound of privileged white male entitlement’, said a columnist for the New York Daily News. It was a ‘wretched display of white entitlement’ said a writer for the Washington Post. ‘No humility. No contrition. No humanity beyond his narrow interests’… this is how the ‘white man’ behaves under pressure, the WashPost writer says.

Kavanaugh had an ‘angry white man tantrum’, said actress America Ferrara, much to the delight of CNN. We are witnessing the ‘unleashing of a white male backlash’, said Vox. This elitist media handwringing over the psychologically disturbed white male and his inhuman selfishness echoes the fury that followed the election of Donald Trump. That vote was a ‘whitelash’, said one American commentator. Like Brexit, Trump’s victory was an act of ‘white supremacism’, said Polly Toynbee

 

It's like we've gone back 100 years.

Edited 3 October 2018 by MattP

[MC Prussian]

It's funny when you consider that it's quite clear that judging other people by the color of their skin is being racist, but when the people under fire are white, it's not.

 

Double standards, anyone?

What a fvcked up state of mind.

Edited 3 October 2018 by MC Prussian

[MC Prussian]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Also, yes, there are cellular white supremacist networks that coordinate and operate across various parts of the US:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45724649

It remains to be seen whether they "coordinate and operate across various parts of the US" - that's an assumption on your behalf. They are based in Southern California and have appeared during local protests mostly.

What is clear, however, is what they will be charged with:

Quote

The four men are being charged under federal laws on rioting, rather than hate crimes - although Mr Cullen said there could be further charges.

Also, the group they belong to hate Jews more than anything - so how can they be "White Supremacist" in the first place?

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/rise-above-movement-ram

Edited 3 October 2018 by MC Prussian

[MC Prussian]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

And does this seem needlessly petty to anyone else?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45722400

You may argue it's petty, I see the logical continuation of a visa-issuing process. Just like with everybody else trying to get a G-4 visa, same-sex partners are also required to either be married to the person in question or else should get another visa (which is all standard procedure).

 

You could equally say that same-sex partners up until now had quite the privilege, no?