President Trump & the USA

[MC Prussian]

6 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.

All based on the assumption or theory that there is actually one group having an advantage over the others.

 

The fear is real.

I mean, just taking it one logical step further - you, me, anyone could be accused of any crime (not just rape) by anybody without any sort of proof and found guilty, simply based on a mere accusation.

Is this a world where you would want to live in?

Can you imagine what that would do to the legal system?

Edited 3 October 2018 by MC Prussian

[Finnegan]

7 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

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:

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

 

The vast majority of white supremacist groups discount Jews from their definition of white, consider them a different race and are wildly antisemitic. 

 

It's kinda funny in a perverse sort of way really that you have fundamentalist islamist jihadis on one side and then fundamentalist protestant white supremacists on the other and they're both united by a paranoid belief that secret societies of Jews rule the world. 

[MC Prussian]

14 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

The vast majority of white supremacist groups discount Jews from their definition of white, consider them a different race and are wildly antisemitic. 

 

It's kinda funny in a perverse sort of way really that you have fundamentalist islamist jihadis on one side and then fundamentalist protestant white supremacists on the other and they're both united by a paranoid belief that secret societies of Jews rule the world. 

Exactly. Which makes no sense to me, as I define "white" in this context as the color of the skin, and that's definitely not a standard you can apply to religious beliefs.

So either Jews are part of the movement, too - or else the movement can't call itself "White Supremacist" or cannot be described that way. Antisemitic, more like it.

 

Not even sure these California skinheads are religious at all.

Edited 3 October 2018 by MC Prussian

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

The vast majority of white supremacist groups discount Jews from their definition of white, consider them a different race and are wildly antisemitic. 

 

It's kinda funny in a perverse sort of way really that you have fundamentalist islamist jihadis on one side and then fundamentalist protestant white supremacists on the other and they're both united by a paranoid belief that secret societies of Jews rule the world. 

And the hard left of politics now joining them in that as well.

[Finnegan]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

And the hard left of politics now joining them in that as well.

 

And in turn, far right neo nazis. 

 

It's genuinely really fascinating how extremist groups from all sorts of seemingly far fetched, opposite positions all end up coming back to this weird obsession with Jews ruling the world. 

 

I know I bang on about him a lot but Jon Ronson's 'Them: Adventures With Extremists' is really brilliant and worth a read whatever your political position. 

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

And in turn, far right neo nazis. 

 

It's genuinely really fascinating how extremist groups from all sorts of seemingly far fetched, opposite positions all end up coming back to this weird obsession with Jews ruling the world. 

 

I know I bang on about him a lot but Jon Ronson's 'Them: Adventures With Extremists' is really brilliant and worth a read whatever your political position. 

Cheers, I'll add that to my (every growing) reading list.

[Finnegan]

12 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Exactly. Which makes no sense to me, as I define "white" in this context as the color of the skin, and that's definitely not a standard you can apply to religious beliefs.

So either Jews are part of the movement, too - or else the movement can't call itself "White Supremacist" or cannot described that way. Antisemitic, more like it.

 

Not even sure these California skinheads are religious at all.

 

I would imagine a lot of skinheads claim to be protestant but don't really practice. 

 

Typically white supremacists will talk about some idealised version of who actually qualifies as white. It's difficult for Americans I suppose, in this country it would be "Anglo saxons", if you were Scandi you'd have a clear vision of being "ethnically Norse" or something but the yanks are from all over.

 

In any definition though, they don't tend to consider ethnic Jews as Caucasian at all. There's always some pseudo science mumbo jumbo to justify it. 

 

It's all crap isn't it? It's just ignorant hate. 

[The Bear]

 

 

 

Absolutely extraordinary interview. It's a "can't look away" bizarre and surreal watch. To think that a pornstar can go on a prime time talk show and reveal such intimate and personal details about a current serving President Of The United States.

 

What a crazy world we live in nowadays.

 

[The Doctor]

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

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

If you consider not being allowed to marry because of their sexuality in a lot of countries a privilege perhaps, but I don't think anyone is stupid enough to seriously think that

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, MattP said:

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.

 

4 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

All based on the assumption or theory that there is actually one group having an advantage over the others.

 

The fear is real.

I mean, just taking it one logical step further - you, me, anyone could be accused of any crime (not just rape) by anybody without any sort of proof and found guilty, simply based on a mere accusation.

Is this a world where you would want to live in?

Can you imagine what that would do to the legal system?

When in the vast majority of OECD countries the majority of people who have the power to set legal legislation, to enforce it, and to pass sentence (among other powers), are of one particular demographic, then yes, I would posit that demographic might have advantages if the ones in charge abuse that power.

 

Of course it's not a slam dunk, we're not saying that every powerful white guy abuses that power and money is as big a dividing factor as skin colour or sex in a lot of places, but for all the equal rights that have been fought for some things still happen that mean there is perhaps some work still to be done.

 

This isn't about due process and I honestly don't think Trump is referring to that in his heart of hearts here (how much respect does he really have for that what with the "lock her up" spiel anyway?) but rather the fear that the balance of power is shifting in a way that means he won't command as much power any more. And from the look of it, Trump gets off on exercising that power. Of course, again, this fear is based on an assumption of its own that should there be much more power shift it would be the women and minorities suddenly calling the shots and rather than going for equality of opportunity they would treat white guys exactly the same way as they have treated them for centuries because they know of no other way that power works. And that assumption is IMO incorrect - or at least I hope it is because if it isn't it would just be meet the new boss same as the old boss.

 

4 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Exactly. Which makes no sense to me, as I define "white" in this context as the color of the skin, and that's definitely not a standard you can apply to religious beliefs.

So either Jews are part of the movement, too - or else the movement can't call itself "White Supremacist" or cannot described that way. Antisemitic, more like it.

 

Not even sure these California skinheads are religious at all.

That leads to a rather interesting question then: how do you define/label such folks? I honestly don't know.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the threat groups like these pose though: there have been more terror attacks linked to far-right/white supremacist groups in the US since 2001 than any other cause and there's been an uptick above the average as of last year (though that being said the odds of actually getting hit by any such attack in the US are still extremely low).

 

5 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

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?

Doc pretty much made my reply for me (if you need to get that visa but can't get married in your home country it's gonna be a little tricky), but I'll add that it was nice that the US actually treated such folks like human beings in a way that their home countries often wouldn't...while it lasted.

[Guest MattP]

54 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This isn't about due process and I honestly don't think Trump is referring to that in his heart of hearts here (how much respect does he really have for that what with the "lock her up" spiel anyway?) but rather the fear that the balance of power is shifting in a way that means he won't command as much power any more. And from the look of it, Trump gets off on exercising that power. Of course, again, this fear is based on an assumption of its own that should there be much more power shift it would be the women and minorities suddenly calling the shots and rather than going for equality of opportunity they would treat white guys exactly the same way as they have treated them for centuries because they know of no other way that power works. And that assumption is IMO incorrect - or at least I hope it is because if it isn't it would just be meet the new boss same as the old boss.

To be honest the first couple are lines here are just the opinion of anyone who is anti-Trump, nothing in that video says anything to tell that this isn't about due process.

As for the last point, just look at the last couple of pages here, his race and his wealth often mentioned when it never should have been, we already have powerful celebrities saying #ibelieveher in some cases based on absolutely nothing but hearing that a woman has been assaulted - you have a lot more confidence than me that they'll just be seeking equality of opportunity. I think some of them would be quite happy to thrown men (certainly those awful rich white ones) into prison on dubious evidence to even up the numbers, they would probably even try and argue it was for the greater good.

[Buce]

 

In what world does the President of a supposedly civilised nation behave like this? He's just trailer trash with money.

Trump mocks Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford's testimony

President Donald Trump has mocked the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford against his Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh at a rally in Mississippi.

"What neighbourhood was it in? I don't know," Mr Trump said. "But I had one beer. That's the only thing I remember. And a man's life is in tatters."

Days earlier he had said Prof Ford was a "credible" and "compelling" witness.

Prof Ford told a Senate committee that Mr Kavanaugh assaulted her as a teenager, an allegation he denies.

Mr Trump ordered the FBI to examine the claims following the Senate testimony.

 

However, Prof Ford's lawyers say the FBI has not yet spoken to her and say it is "inconceivable" that the agency could conduct a thorough investigation without interviewing her.

The FBI investigation is due to be completed by Friday.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the Senate must vote on confirming Mr Kavanaugh this week.

What did Mr Trump say?

He told supporters in the town of Southhaven that his political opponents had been "trying to destroy Judge Kavanaugh since the very first second he was announced".

He then mocked Prof Ford's testimony, saying she appeared not to remember basic details about the alleged assault.

 

The audience laughed as the president said: "Thirty-six years ago this happened: I had one beer! Well, you think it was…? Nope! It was one beer.

"Oh, good. How'd you get home? I don't remember. How'd you get there? I don't remember. Where was the place? I don't remember.

"How many years ago was it? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know! I don't know! What neighbourhood was it in? I don't know.

"Where's the house? I don't know! Upstairs, downstairs, where was it? I don't know! But I had one beer. That's the only thing I remember. And a man's life is in tatters."

Shortly after Prof Ford's dramatic testimony to the Senate committee last week, Mr Trump said she was "very compelling" and described her as a "very fine woman".

Earlier on Tuesday Mr Trump reiterated his support for Mr Kavanaugh, saying he believed the Senate would approve the judge.

He told reporters it was a "very scary time for young men in America when you can be guilty of something that you may not be guilty of".

What's the reaction?

On Wednesday, Republican Senator Jeff Flake - who joined a committee vote in favour of the judge with the caveat of an FBI investigation - called the president's comments mocking Prof Ford "appalling".

"There's no time and no place for remarks like that," he said on NBC's Today show. "To discuss something this sensitive at a political rally is just not right. It's just not right. I wish he hadn't had done it."

Senator Flake is a closely watched swing vote on this issue because Republicans can potentially only afford one defection if they are to confirm their nominee.

Prof Ford's lawyer, Michael Bromwich, described Mr Trump's words as "a vicious, vile and soulless attack" on her.

"Is it any wonder that she was terrified to come forward, and that other sexual assault survivors are as well?" he added.

 

What does Prof Ford remember?

When she spoke before the Senate committee last Thursday, Prof Ford recalled that the house where the alleged assault took place was in the Chevy Chase-Bethesda area in the wealthy suburbs of Washington DC.

The president seemed to suggest she did not know on what floor of the property the alleged attack had occurred, but Prof Ford told senators she remembered being pushed into a bedroom on the upstairs level.

She testified that it occurred in the summer of 1982. In her initial letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein, she wrote that the assault happened "during high school in the early 1980's".

Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, who questioned Prof Ford during testimony, said she had told a polygrapher the alleged assault happened in the early 80s, then crossed out the word "early".

Prof Ford did acknowledge in her testimony that she could not provide all the details asked of her - including how she arrived at the party or how she left it and where exactly it took place.

• Why sexual assault survivors forget details
• Ford's testimony through the eyes of a survivor

"I don't have all the answers, and I don't remember as much as I would like to," she said. "But the details about that night that bring me here today are ones I will never forget."

Experts have said it is not unusual for victims of trauma to remember certain details vividly but have little recollection of other things that the brain may have accorded less significance to.

Who has the FBI spoken to?

Investigators have spoken to the key witness to the alleged assault on Prof Ford, Mr Kavanaugh's friend Mark Judge. Prof Ford alleges that Mr Judge also took part in the assault at a high school party in 1982.

Mr Judge has denied any memory of the incident.

The agency has also spoken to the Judge Kavanaugh's Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez, who alleges that he exposed his genitals to her during a drinking game at Yale university.

• Classmate: Kavanaugh lied about drinking
• The truth about false assault accusations
• What will the FBI investigation actually do?

Reuters reported that investigators spoke to Ms Ramirez for more than two hours on Sunday and she provided a list of more than 20 possible witnesses.

However, Prof Ford's lawyers say they have had no contact from the FBI despite having tried to get in touch with them.

They said the agency had not responded to the offer to interview Prof Ford, or "a series of emails and letters in which we identified witnesses and evidence that would likely assist the FBI".

At least three other people who knew Mr Kavanaugh from his time at Yale have tried unsuccessfully to contact the FBI about the claims against him, Reuters reported.

A lawyer for a third woman, Julie Swetnick - who alleges Judge Kavanaugh was involved in the drugging and sexual assault of girls at house parties in the 1980s - has questioned why she has not been contacted by the FBI.

• Who are Supreme Court nominee's accusers?

The judge has said he did not know Ms Swetnick and that her allegations "never happened".

Senate committee Republicans on Tuesday took the extraordinary step of releasing an explicit letter attacking Ms Swetnick, sent by a man who claims to be a former boyfriend.

Ms Swetnick's lawyer, Michael Avenatti, told the Washington Post the letter was "bogus and outrageous" - a "fabricated" attack to help Republicans "ram through this nomination".

On Sunday, the Senate Republican Communications Center said Ms Swetnick was "not credible at all".

 

Some reports have suggested that the FBI could wind up its investigation well before the deadline of this Friday.

Citing unnamed Republican aides, the Wall Street Journal reported that the bureau could finish "as soon as" Wednesday.

What will happen to the FBI report?

The FBI will pass its findings to the White House, which will give them to the Senate. The contents are not expected to be made public.

Senators will then vote on whether to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

The Senate leader has vowed to hold a vote on the nominee this week.

Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said Friday would be too soon. She argued that senators needed more time to evaluate the FBI's findings.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45727618

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

To be honest the first couple are lines here are just the opinion of anyone who is anti-Trump, nothing in that video says anything to tell that this isn't about due process.

As for the last point, just look at the last couple of pages here, his race and his wealth often mentioned when it never should have been, we already have powerful celebrities saying #ibelieveher in some cases based on absolutely nothing but hearing that a woman has been assaulted - you have a lot more confidence than me that they'll just be seeking equality of opportunity. I think some of them would be quite happy to thrown men (certainly those awful rich white ones) into prison on dubious evidence to even up the numbers, they would probably even try and argue it was for the greater good.

He could well be talking about due process and I'm wrong about it, I just don't think he is given what has been seen about how he does things.

 

Likewise, I'd like to think things are moving towards a more egilatarian world (or OECD world, anyway) but power does corrupt and again I might be mistaken on that score and it might just be more powermongering, but I'm not going to think for a second (as I reckon Trump, a lot of powerful people and a lot of average Joes think) that because one set of folks or another have run the roost for all of human history that it has to be that way for all time.

[MC Prussian]

12 hours ago, The Doctor said:

If you consider not being allowed to marry because of their sexuality in a lot of countries a privilege perhaps, but I don't think anyone is stupid enough to seriously think that

Because that's what I was saying.

[The Doctor]

8 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Because that's what I was saying.

Eh, suggesting that same sex couples had quite the privilege before because of a visa rule to avoid them being differently treated as a result of their countrys position on homosexuality isn't exactly a well reasoned position.

Edited 3 October 2018 by The Doctor

[MC Prussian]

17 hours ago, leicsmac said:

When in the vast majority of OECD countries the majority of people who have the power to set legal legislation, to enforce it, and to pass sentence (among other powers), are of one particular demographic, then yes, I would posit that demographic might have advantages if the ones in charge abuse that power.

 

Of course it's not a slam dunk, we're not saying that every powerful white guy abuses that power and money is as big a dividing factor as skin colour or sex in a lot of places, but for all the equal rights that have been fought for some things still happen that mean there is perhaps some work still to be done.

I'm all for equality, but not for equality that promotes women and minorities to power just because - everyone should have the same opportunities when trying to climb up the ladder, starting out. I'm curious to find out who's making it to the top in the end.
What matters most (in an ideal world) is that the people working the hardest and the most competent ones are the ones promoted and taking over.

 

And as of right now, the people in charge in the OECD countries happen to be white men. The "advantages" you insinuate are part of your own theory and shall remain as such.

 

So, women and minorities - looking forward to seeing you as Prime Ministers, MOP, doctors, lawyers, CEOs aso. As long as you've earned it by merit, go for it. Might take a while, but I'm certainly not the one eager to put obstacles in their way.

 

P.S.: Who is "we"?

Edited 4 October 2018 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

57 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I'm all for equality, but not for equality that promotes women and minorities to power just because - everyone should have the same opportunities when trying to climb up the ladder, starting out. I'm curious to find out who's making it to the top in the end.
What matters most (in an ideal world) is that the people working the hardest and the most competent ones are the ones promoted and taking over.

 

And as of right now, the people in charge in the OECD countries happen to be white men. The "advantages" you insinuate are part of your own theory and shall remain as such.

 

So, women and minorities - looking forward to seeing you as Prime Ministers, MOP, doctors, lawyers, CEOs aso. As long as you've earned it through by merit, go for it. Might take a while, but I'm certainly not the one eager to put obstacles in their way.

 

P.S.: Who is "we"?

"We" is the people trying to convince the others that inequality of opportunity still exists and is systemic.

 

People getting to the top on merit is exactly what should be happening through hard work and clever thought as you say - and as of the present time that might well at least mostly be the case and this all might be a big fuss over nothing. However, the sheer proportion of people from one demographic occupying positions of power in almost all the OECD countries by comparison to the actual proportion of demographics in those countries leads me to a logical conclusion that there is something other than straight meritocracy going on here and that those obstacles you mention so still exist, unless such is a legacy leftover from times when things really were unequal (and I don't think anyone can deny that say fifty years ago inequality really was systemic) and that it's changing slowly.

[MC Prussian]

17 hours ago, Buce said:

 

In what world does the President of a supposedly civilised nation behave like this? He's just trailer trash with money.

Trump mocks Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford's testimony

Yes, not his brightest moment. Not very POTUSA-like.

On the other hand, SNL - who have been selling dour jokes as comedy for years now - did a pretty unfunny skit on Kavanaugh, mocking him.

[MC Prussian]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

"We" is the people trying to convince the others that inequality of opportunity still exists and is systemic.

 

People getting to the top on merit is exactly what should be happening through hard work and clever thought as you say - and as of the present time that might well at least mostly be the case and this all might be a big fuss over nothing. However, the sheer proportion of people from one demographic occupying positions of power in almost all the OECD countries by comparison to the actual proportion of demographics in those countries leads me to a logical conclusion that there is something other than straight meritocracy going on here and that those obstacles you mention so still exist, unless such is a legacy leftover from times when things really were unequal (and I don't think anyone can deny that say fifty years ago inequality really was systemic) and that it's changing slowly.

That remains your theory.

I'm not saying all of these people in power now got there on merit (I'm not that naïve), but to suggest governments or board of directors in the business world should be constituted according to the respective country's demographics makes a mockery of democracy and company rules and processes (most of them private entities) in itself.

 

In your world, not the most able would be promoted, it's then all about diversity. Let that sink in for a moment.

[MC Prussian]

It appears Christine Ford lied herself during her testimony.

 

A former boyfriend claims she did in fact instruct somebody else in the past with regards to undergoing a polygraph exam, something Ford denied during the hearing.

It's also mentioned that she has no problems with flying (long distance) or narrow spaces, when she claimed to be suffering from a fear of flying.

Quote

He also said he broke up with Ford when they were dating long-distance and he found out she had been “unfaithful” while she was living in Hawaii. He said she continued to use a credit card they shared nearly a year after the breakup. “When confronted, Dr. Ford said she did not use the card, but later admitted to the use after I threatened to involve fraud protection,” he said. He said they had not been in contact much since.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/ex-boyfriend-christine-blasey-ford-polygraph.html

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

That remains your theory.

I'm not saying all of these people in power now got there on merit (I'm not that naïve), but to suggest governments or board of directors in the business world should be constituted according to the respective country's demographics makes a mockery of democracy and company rules and processes (most of them private entities) in itself.

 

In your world, not the most able would be promoted, it's then all about diversity. Let that sink in for a moment.

Yep, it's all a subjective theory - as practically all political belief is. It's all relative to something else, and I definitely want to say that this is opinion and not fact as I can't stand people who state the former as the latter in matters like this. We're not talking hard science here (though the flat Earthers, Intelligent Design fanatics and climate change ignorers - not deniers, they know it's going on and simply don't give a toss - might have some argument with hard science too, come to that).

 

Having said that, I took great pains to not suggest that equality of outcome ("not the most able being promoted") is a desirous thing and rather place equality of opportunity as that - perhaps I should be clearer on that next time so there is no mistake.

 

My theory, as it is, is that the current demographics of positions of power in the OECD countries versus the actual demographic figures are perhaps a standard deviation or two higher than could be explained by the foibles and normal variances of meritocracy and that explanation might have a certain amount to do with nepotism, but that's me.

 

 

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

It appears Christine Ford lied herself during her testimony.

 

A former boyfriend claims she did in fact instruct somebody else in the past with regards to undergoing a polygraph exam, something Ford denied during the hearing.

It's also mentioned that she has no problems with flying (long distance) or narrow spaces, when she claimed to be suffering from a fear of flying.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/ex-boyfriend-christine-blasey-ford-polygraph.html

As an ex you might say he could have a motive to lie and embellish...but that being said, in this particular matter pretty much everyone has similar motives so goodness only knows what the truth is.

[Guest MattP]

4 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

It appears Christine Ford lied herself during her testimony.

 

A former boyfriend claims she did in fact instruct somebody else in the past with regards to undergoing a polygraph exam, something Ford denied during the hearing.

It's also mentioned that she has no problems with flying (long distance) or narrow spaces, when she claimed to be suffering from a fear of flying.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/ex-boyfriend-christine-blasey-ford-polygraph.html

Shows how important a balanced media is this with Fox News getting the information. 

 

They don't exist and this story is probably never reported. 

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

As an ex you might say he could have a motive to lie and embellish...but that being said, in this particular matter pretty much everyone has similar motives so goodness only knows what the truth is.

Her ex-boyfriend explicitly states that he has „no animus“ towards her, sounds to me he just wants to set some records straight.

Edited 4 October 2018 by MC Prussian

[l444ry]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/conservatives-should-be-cautious-about-letter-from-christine-blasey-fords-ex-boyfriend

 

[Guest MattP]

This is a brave piece from the (liberal leaning) New York Times by Bret Stephens.

I think a lot of the press and many in the Democrats may have realised they have a bit too far this time in the way they approached this, Cory Booker's comments for me were the most pertinent and really let the mask slip as to what this was all about for the Democrats, elide the question of what it was about as upholding due process was never the intention.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/opinion/trump-kavanaugh-ford-allegations.html

Quote

 

For Once, I’m Grateful for Trump

In the president, one big bully stands up to others.

For the first time since Donald Trump entered the political fray, I find myself grateful that he’s in it. I’m reluctant to admit it and astonished to say it, especially since the president mocked Christine Blasey Ford in his ugly and gratuitous way at a rally on Tuesday. Perhaps it’s worth unpacking this admission for those who might be equally astonished to read it.

I’m grateful because Trump has not backed down in the face of the slipperiness, hypocrisy and dangerous standard-setting deployed by opponents of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. I’m grateful because ferocious and even crass obstinacy has its uses in life, and never more so than in the face of sly moral bullying. I’m grateful because he’s a big fat hammer fending off a razor-sharp dagger.

A few moments have crystallized my view over the past few days.

The first moment was a remark by a friend. “I’d rather be accused of murder,” he said, “than of sexual assault.” I feel the same way. One can think of excuses for killing a man; none for assaulting a woman. But if that’s true, so is this: Falsely accusing a person of sexual assault is nearly as despicable as sexual assault itself. It inflicts psychic, familial, reputational and professional harms that can last a lifetime. This is nothing to sneer at.

The second moment, connected to the first: “Boo hoo hoo. Brett Kavanaugh is not a victim.” That’s the title of a column in the Los Angeles Times, which suggests that the possibility of Kavanaugh’s innocence is “infinitesimal.” Yet false allegations of rape, while relatively rare, are at least five times as common as false accusations of other types of crime, according to academic literature.

Since when did the possibility of innocence become, for today’s liberals, something to wave off with an archly unfeeling “boo hoo”?

A third moment, connected to the second: Listening to Cory Booker explain on Tuesday that “ultimately” it doesn’t matter if Kavanaugh is “guilty or innocent,” because “enough questions” had been raised that it was time to “move on to another candidate.”

This is a rhetorical sleight of hand in three acts: Elide the one question that really matters; raise a secondary set of “questions” that are wholly the result of the question you’ve decided to ignore; call for “another candidate” because it will push confirmation hearings past the midterms, which was the Democratic objective long before most anyone had ever heard of Blasey’s allegation.

Fourth moment: Watching Julie Swetnick, the woman who accused Kavanaugh of attending parties decades earlier where women were gang raped, change key details of her story in an interview with NBC News.

Swetnick’s claims border on the preposterous. They are wholly uncorroborated. But that didn’t keep Kavanaugh’s opponents, in politics and the press, from seizing them as evidence of corroboration with Blasey’s allegation, which is not preposterous but is also largely uncorroborated, and with the allegation of Kavanaugh’s Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez — uncorroborated again.

Uncorroborated plus uncorroborated plus largely uncorroborated is not the accumulation of questions, much less of evidence. It is the duplication of hearsay.

Fifth moment: Reading about a 1985 bar fight at Yale — a story that involved Kavanaugh throwing ice, resulted in no charges against him, and should never have been reported. Or reading a 1983 handwritten letter by Kavanaugh, in which he says of his gang of friends that “we’re loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us” — adolescent boasting now being treated as if it is a crucial piece of incriminating evidence. Or hearing from Yale classmates who claim to have seen Kavanaugh drunk, which somehow is supposed to show that he’s a demonstrable perjurer and possible sex offender.

Will a full-bore investigation of adolescent behavior now become a standard part of the “job interview” for all senior office holders? I’m for it — provided we can start with your adolescent behavior, as it relates to your next job.

Sixth moment: Listening to Richard Blumenthal lecture Kavanaugh on the legal concept of falsus in omnibus — false in one thing, false in everything — when the senator from Connecticut lied shamelessly for years about his military service. And then feeling grateful to Trump for having the simple nerve to point out the naked hypocrisy.

Seventh moment: Listening to Dianne Feinstein denounce Kavanaugh for failing to reflect an “impartial temperament or the fairness and even-handedness one would see in a judge.” This lecture would have gone down more easily if Feinstein hadn’t gamed the process for her own partisan purposes, and at huge personal cost to Kavanaugh and Blasey alike.

Eighth moment: Being quizzed in recent days about my teenage years at a New England boarding school — the subtext being that I must know something about elite prep schools and the mentality of the boys who attend them.

I do. It was at boarding school where I first formed lasting friendships with kids of different races and economic backgrounds, and where liberal-leaning teachers showed us how to think critically, keep an open mind, and value tolerance and respect. I have no idea if Georgetown Prep was anything like that, but the facile stereotype of “white privilege” that keeps cropping up in discussions of Kavanaugh’s background is yet another ugly tactic in the battle to defeat him.

We will learn soon enough what, if anything, the F.B.I. has gleaned from its investigation of Kavanaugh. If the Bureau finds persuasive evidence of Blasey’s charge, the judge will have to step down and answer for it. Until then, I’ll admit to feeling grateful that, in Trump, at least one big bully was willing to stand up to others.