Gender Equality Action Plan

[Groin guru]

He actually mentions being 13 years of age and with a 25 - 28 year old in this video and calls it "perfectly consensual." FWIW.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azC1nm85btY

The specific conversation starts around 58 minutes.

To be clear he is talking about his experiences as a gay 13 year old with men in their 20s.

He seems cool with it but its sus as imo.

Yes he mentions his own personal opinion and I'm not going to judge him on that as he's saying he was the predator etc. Clearly he was a lot more aware of himself sexually than I was at 13. It's fine if he wants to talk about his own experiences but in a youtube video he said 13 and another time he has said 17. Both from his mouth. But the issue is what he's saying for others. If he's saying consensual sex above the age of 16 what's the issue here? If it's for younger boys = issues. clearly.

Yeah, we're done here.

Move the goalposts and twist the facts all you want. Write as many paragraphs as you want.

If you need to go to these lengths to justify supporting horrible people, I would say that you should reflect on that, but I know it's probably "just the fault of outraged leftists" anyway, am I right?

So you come in to a thread, throw a few jabs, get called out on it, and then run off complaining.

Just to confirm. I say someone's opinion carries weight if they are invited to speak at a university. You say no because Milo was. I say that he has a publishing deal and is invited around the globe to discuss matters on talk shows. You post a media headline saying the publisher pulled out. I say he has 2000+ reviews for that book on amazon. You complain and now say I support horrible people...

How is me discussing facts all of a sudden supporting someone? I said nothing of the sort. I supported my own original statement and that is rightfully or wrongfully his opinion clearly carries some weight. If people are reading and watching you and giving you reviews that are 90% 5-star what would you call that. I presented facts, you presented feelings - insert sharpiro.mp3

Did someone mention earlier that your job in real life is in politics? s**t, if it is I might go run for a political party because the common sense and logic must be at an all time low in Australia. Amazing, truly amazing.

 

[Snake_Baker]

If he's saying consensual sex above the age of 16 what's the issue here? If it's for younger boys = issues. clearly.

So it's ambiguous?

Milo tends to be the dissonance go to character when the academics are showing up post modernist ideology.

So you come in to a thread, throw a few jabs, get called out on it, and then run off complaining.

Just to confirm. I say someone's opinion carries weight if they are invited to speak at a university. You say no because Milo was. I say that he has a publishing deal and is invited around the globe to discuss matters on talk shows. You post a media headline saying the publisher pulled out. I say he has 2000+ reviews for that book on amazon. You complain and now say I support horrible people...

How is me discussing facts all of a sudden supporting someone? I said nothing of the sort. I supported my own original statement and that is rightfully or wrongfully his opinion clearly carries some weight. If people are reading and watching you and giving you reviews that are 90% 5-star what would you call that. I presented facts, you presented feelings - insert sharpiro.mp3

Did someone mention earlier that your job in real life is in politics? s**t, if it is I might go run for a political party because the common sense and logic must be at an all time low in Australia. Amazing, truly amazing.

There is no middle ground with these folks. You either take a side or you will be press ganged in to one.

 

[StiffArm]

And I'm only talking about the cases that involve proven false reporting. If they are black and white like the news report I posted there should be consequences. Let's not move the goal posts here and talk about different issues. If a male rapes a women they should have terrible things done to them - no one is doubting that. But there should be iron clad punishments going the other way if it was proven black and white that they lied.

The man in that story didn't even get explanations. What have I done wrong? was met with "you know what you've done!"
Who knows what would have happened to him had his mum not wanted a selfie with him...

I'm talking about exactly that. The podcast is about a situation where a girl declared she had been raped, and it was proven false reporting and she was charged by the police.

It was only a couple of years later that the rapist was caught and there was a photo of her on his camera proving she had been raped.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I'm talking about exactly that. The podcast is about a situation where a girl declared she had been raped, and it was proven false reporting and she was charged by the police.

It was only a couple of years later that the rapist was caught and there was a photo of her on his camera proving she had been raped.

This is a legal problem, not a social one.

 

[Groin guru]

I'm talking about exactly that. The podcast is about a situation where a girl declared she had been raped, and it was proven false reporting and she was charged by the police.

It was only a couple of years later that the rapist was caught and there was a photo of her on his camera proving she had been raped.

so not exactly that as what you are referring to was not black and white.

 

[ferball]

Watch the clip again if you can't figure it out.

i've watched the clip and concluded he is as full of s**t as anyone else.

If you think he is scientifically credible then that clip actually undermines his credibility.

It took me less than 5 minutes to find papers to support some of what he said (there are cases where "anti bias training" makes things worse) about bias training's effectiveness and to find one that showed some of what he said was actually wrong (He said anti bias training has no supporting evidence) there are cases where anti bias training works in that it lowers racial bias but it requires ongoing training not some quick fix course sold by corporate trainers and it treats the bias as a bad habit that takes work to break).

This should be right up his alley and its a perfect way to bring some intelligent debate into the issue but he squibs it because he is now pushing an ideological barrow.

He has been corrupted by his individualist ideology.

Because the real issue here is the market in this stuff as a quick fix, not that it doesn't work. You can train your brain to reduce bias, there is evidence to support this. It just more time effort and cost than most organisations are willing to put in (and maybe thats a fair position on their part depending on the cost benefit analysis.) To me - I'm wondering if his adherence to this individualistic world view means he has to dogmatically accept ideas about the free market being some kind of unbiased arbiter of things and is incapable of seeing or even looking for its flaws. Or perhaps he's just happy with his personal biases and feels offended by the fact that society now pressures people to change their biases/improve their social skills.

Anyway he is wrong. Again.

And this time it was in the field he is an expert in.

 

[ferball]

'm surprised that posted. I wrote it before mashed by a storm. No power no brouser.

Normally when firefox restarts it doesn't remember what's posted here. There was more to come about the way he misuses language to make well ... strawmen for lack of a better term, but I need to re watch the vid again amd I'm still cleaning up.

 

[Snake_Baker]

i've watched the clip and concluded he is as full of s**t as anyone else.

If you think he is scientifically credible then that clip actually undermines his credibility.

It took me less than 5 minutes to find papers to support some of what he said (there are cases where "anti bias training" makes things worse) about bias training's effectiveness and to find one that showed some of what he said was actually wrong (He said anti bias training has no supporting evidence) there are cases where anti bias training works in that it lowers racial bias but it requires ongoing training not some quick fix course sold by corporate trainers and it treats the bias as a bad habit that takes work to break).

This should be right up his alley and its a perfect way to bring some intelligent debate into the issue but he squibs it because he is now pushing an ideological barrow.

He has been corrupted by his individualist ideology.

Because the real issue here is the market in this stuff as a quick fix, not that it doesn't work. You can train your brain to reduce bias, there is evidence to support this. It just more time effort and cost than most organisations are willing to put in (and maybe thats a fair position on their part depending on the cost benefit analysis.) To me - I'm wondering if his adherence to this individualistic world view means he has to dogmatically accept ideas about the free market being some kind of unbiased arbiter of things and is incapable of seeing or even looking for its flaws. Or perhaps he's just happy with his personal biases and feels offended by the fact that society now pressures people to change their biases/improve their social skills.

Anyway he is wrong. Again.

And this time it was in the field he is an expert in.

Righto, I can see you are invested in this.

 

[ferball]

Righto, I can see you are invested in this.

Yeah - I'm getting right into it.

 

[Sopwiths North]

The liars in the Kavanaugh trial. His career is nearly ruined. These people need to be made an example of. Rape and sexual assault is terrible but lying should carry heavy penalties too.

Groin, are you saying that Christine Blasey Ford was lying?

She did pass a lie detector test. Not that that should be the ultimate yardstick to measure truth by, but still...

Also, I find it interesting that she chose the appropriately non-grandstanding route of contacting her local Member of Congress about Kavanaugh first, and she did it very early on, when Kavanaugh was just on the short list. It wasn't her idea to go to the Washington Post. I watched her entire testimony before the judiciary, and she was visibly terrified much of the time, but maintained composure and level thinking. I found her to be very credible. (And funnily, as an aside, there's been much talk of Jordan Peterson's "credibility" around here based on his status as a University Professor of Psychology. Christine Blasey Ford is also a University Professor of Psychology. Who knew?!)

Regardless, Kavanaugh was a done deal in that cesspool regime, as ferball has already pointed out. But perhaps most disturbingly though, is that Kavanaugh, for his part, and regardless of whether he was innocent or guilty, behaved like an emotionally unbalanced child for much of his testimony. He yelled, he became confrontational on more than one occasion, he rather bizarrely (and I would argue disingenuously) cried when talking about the "wisdom" of his young daughter, in a ploy at making himself look like the victim. But in the end, it doesn't really matter how believable he was because he revealed himself to be clearly an emotionally unbalanced, volatile, angry, and confrontational human being when cornered. And that is not someone who should be presiding over the highest court in the country. If there was any "ruining of his career", I think he shone the light on himself in that respect.

I realise the judiciary hearing was probably not televised in its entirety down there like it was up here. The difference between the two testimonies was striking.

There was a huge consensus that what Blasey Ford did was an act of patriotism. Based on what I saw, I would agree.

 

[ferball]

Groin, are you saying that Christine Blasey Ford was lying?

She did pass a lie detector test. Not that that should be the ultimate yardstick to measure truth by, but still...

Also, I find it interesting that she chose the appropriately non-grandstanding route of contacting her local Member of Congress about Kavanaugh first, and she did it very early on, when Kavanaugh was just on the short list. It wasn't her idea to go to the Washington Post. I watched her entire testimony before the judiciary, and she was visibly terrified much of the time, but maintained composure and level thinking. I found her to be very credible. (And funnily, as an aside, there's been much talk of Jordan Peterson's "credibility" around here based on his status as a University Professor of Psychology. Christine Blasey Ford is also a University Professor of Psychology. Who knew?!)

Regardless, Kavanaugh was a done deal in that cesspool regime, as ferball has already pointed out. But perhaps most disturbingly though, is that Kavanaugh, for his part, and regardless of whether he was innocent or guilty, behaved like an emotionally unbalanced child for much of his testimony. He yelled, he became confrontational on more than one occasion, he rather bizarrely (and I would argue disingenuously) cried when talking about the "wisdom" of his young daughter, in a ploy at making himself look like the victim. But in the end, it doesn't really matter how believable he was because he revealed himself to be clearly an emotionally unbalanced, volatile, angry, and confrontational human being when cornered. And that is not someone who should be presiding over the highest court in the country. If there was any "ruining of his career", I think he shone the light on himself in that respect.

I realise the judiciary hearing was probably not televised in its entirety down there like it was up here. The difference between the two testimonies was striking.

There was a huge consensus that what Blasey Ford did was an act of patriotism. Based on what I saw, I would agree.

It's interesting to hear your account of the hearing. Its a good summary too. I don't take that much notice of this stuff but was vaguely aware of it. Cheers.

He worked for Kenneth Starr and IIRC was the one who pushed the chasing Clinton over Monica Lewinski when it looked like the Whitewater stuff wouldn't work. And I also think that when he was in the white house working for Alberto Gonzales (I think, can't be stuffed googling to check) he did a lot work to push thru the idea of legal use of torture and extraordinary rendition.

So he's a nightmare appointee to the supreme court. Its like Trump is trolling America.

 

[ferball]

I know the Lindsay Shepherd story well. The fact that it took her recording an interview as well as the support of people like Jordan Peterson shows you just how bad the situation is for people. What happens to the next person that doesn't record it or the people that check to see if they are recording? Or those that can't get the attention of notable individuals?! Her career was almost over before it begun. She deserves the compensation and hates off to her for staying strong through it all when most would have caved. The world needs more people like her. She was still painted as a white supremacists, those apologies were shallow and they still managed to criticise her on facebook and at the university made it hard on her (making fellow students put pressure on her and spread lies like school children). They apologised because they were caught out.

This is how the world works tho. Its no different in her case to anywhere else and its not a lefty academic thing.

Sorry I don't believe in karma and I take it on a case by case basis. Being accused of rape is probably the second worst thing you could be accused of in life. If people accuse someone and are found to be lying then they should be locked up and made an example of. Simple as that. Regardless of what he's done to get where he is today it's a life long battle to get there. To think that can come crashing down based on some lies is terrifying.

Karma is an Indian word for cause and effect, that's all. You're probably thinking of Instant Karma, which was invented by John Lennon.

Frankly I'm inclined to believe anything of Kavannaugh given what a campaigner he is. But as some singer once said:

"I don't give a * who they're screwing in private,
I wanna know who they're screwing in public."

He said that about Bill Clinton btw. Because Kavanaugh was trying to get him impeached cos Monica Lewinski gave him a blow job. Stop sympathising with him. He's rectal effluvia in human form.

 

[Sopwiths North]

It's interesting to hear your account of the hearing. Its a good summary too. I don't take that much notice of this stuff but was vaguely aware of it. Cheers.

He worked for Kenneth Starr and IIRC was the one who pushed the chasing Clinton over Monica Lewinski when it looked like the Whitewater stuff wouldn't work. And I also think that when he was in the white house working for Alberto Gonzales (I think, can't be stuffed googling to check) he did a lot work to push thru the idea of legal use of torture and extraordinary rendition.

So he's a nightmare appointee to the supreme court. Its like Trump is trolling America.

Yep. He was also involved in the Florida recounts under Bush in 2000. And has a dubious record on climate change, gun laws, and abortion. Decidedly low vibration individual. Suits Trump to a T.

"It's like Trump is trolling America." lols. Spot on ferbs. He is indeed.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

It's interesting to hear your account of the hearing. Its a good summary too. I don't take that much notice of this stuff but was vaguely aware of it. Cheers.

He worked for Kenneth Starr and IIRC was the one who pushed the chasing Clinton over Monica Lewinski when it looked like the Whitewater stuff wouldn't work. And I also think that when he was in the white house working for Alberto Gonzales (I think, can't be stuffed googling to check) he did a lot work to push thru the idea of legal use of torture and extraordinary rendition.

So he's a nightmare appointee to the supreme court. Its like Trump is trolling America.

No, just trolling the democrats and the pathetic excuse that is the fourth estate. As dehumanising as the npc thing is, it’s actually quite apt in describing a lot of the media critics. It’s not hard to find valid criticisms of trump, but CNN and the like are doing a horrible job of finding the legitimate ones. When the democrats are responding with a nutty (Sander’s-like) socialist variant in Cortez, it’s pretty easy to troll the American left atm.

 

[Snake_Baker]

The NPC thing resonates because it nails it.

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[ferball]

That NPC thing is both sides of this whole stupid thing tho.

To the point where I'm pretty sure internet commentary is infested with bots that are programed to respond to key words. People or programs jump onto comment streams to songs like PWEI's Auslander and claim the song is about Mussies invading Britain!! Others are triggered very easily by anything that suggests Hillary Clinton is a war mongering Wall St stooge worth tens of millions of dollars, whose husband did more to * over black Americans than anyone is prepared to admit.

How many of those bots are actually just code is a moot point I spose.

"I used to be an SJW till I took an arrow to the ego."

 

[Snake_Baker]

Dunno where you're going with the "ego" angle.

I see most of the SJW types as having an irrational aspect of empathy. They are easily manipulated, hence why they fall in to such ridiculous crap.

 

[Snake_Baker]

This highlights the absurdity brilliantly.

Sociology has become an ideological sewer.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Groin, are you saying that Christine Blasey Ford was lying?

She did pass a lie detector test. Not that that should be the ultimate yardstick to measure truth by, but still...

Also, I find it interesting that she chose the appropriately non-grandstanding route of contacting her local Member of Congress about Kavanaugh first, and she did it very early on, when Kavanaugh was just on the short list. It wasn't her idea to go to the Washington Post. I watched her entire testimony before the judiciary, and she was visibly terrified much of the time, but maintained composure and level thinking. I found her to be very credible. (And funnily, as an aside, there's been much talk of Jordan Peterson's "credibility" around here based on his status as a University Professor of Psychology. Christine Blasey Ford is also a University Professor of Psychology. Who knew?!)

Regardless, Kavanaugh was a done deal in that cesspool regime, as ferball has already pointed out. But perhaps most disturbingly though, is that Kavanaugh, for his part, and regardless of whether he was innocent or guilty, behaved like an emotionally unbalanced child for much of his testimony. He yelled, he became confrontational on more than one occasion, he rather bizarrely (and I would argue disingenuously) cried when talking about the "wisdom" of his young daughter, in a ploy at making himself look like the victim. But in the end, it doesn't really matter how believable he was because he revealed himself to be clearly an emotionally unbalanced, volatile, angry, and confrontational human being when cornered. And that is not someone who should be presiding over the highest court in the country. If there was any "ruining of his career", I think he shone the light on himself in that respect.

I realise the judiciary hearing was probably not televised in its entirety down there like it was up here. The difference between the two testimonies was striking.

There was a huge consensus that what Blasey Ford did was an act of patriotism. Based on what I saw, I would agree.

Word of Warning: You are probably not going to like my post, but I felt it warranted a response.

All a matter of perspective.

I wouldn’t say she deliberately lied, but it was clear from her lack of details, the lack of genuine evidence and the lack of reputable witnesses that she had very little clue what happened. When it is serious as rape or sexual assault, due process is needed and in the end she was found wanting.

She’s a psychologist, if criminals know how to pass those lie detector tests, she would too.

Non-grandstanding is an interesting way to put it, but I tend to agree. However, she was quite eager to involve the democrats on this one. The amount of democrat investment, coaching and staffers in Ford was beyond ridiculous. She was taken on a ride. It’s quite possible they all got on the grog and nothing happened in the end, false memories and all that happen quite often. I saw things differently, she looked very unsure and a tad mentally unhinged, or stressed for a better word, to me, but each to their own.

Well normally those hearings are non-fuss irregardless of the sitting president and regime is an interesting word again in this context. Considering how much more stress he was under during the entire hearing than Ford, his behaviour was quite understandable. The comments about the crying and his daughter are rather average. I can say the same thing every time Ford teared up, o she had an evil look in her eye, see how non-sensical that type of comment is. I would be more worried if he was stone-cold emotionless the entire time. The reality is that the high degree of stress of the entire situation would make anyone act outside the normal, and that goes for both parties.

Please, how many lawyers and judges have stated that he was great for the job. Those people were not republican cronies or his mates, but reputable people that have operated in the law for decades. He didn’t improve his standing at all, as there is always going to be a large proportion of the population that think he is guilty, forever marred, or a disgenous angry man; you or I wouldn’t know what he is truly like. Being accused of rape and receiving an extraordinary amount of attention, not to mention the democrats unsavoury methods, would make any person act irrationally or out of character.


You call it patriotism, I call it an accusation without reputable evidence (at this point). History favours my position more than yours for a very good reason. The patriot comments are interesting, what tyranny is she fighting exactly? Has trump removed or altered elections, no, banned all the media except for Fox, no, has gained additional executive powers, no, has formally invaded any countries yet, nope, shooting or arresting political opponents, no, introduced racist policies, no, illegal migration is exactly that, illegal. I get it, the guy is a populist and very abrupt, but the dramatism and outright media and online lies surrounding him only serve to help him. Legitimate criticisms > Media Criticisms.

 

[ferball]

Dunno where you're going with the "ego" angle.

I see most of the SJW types as having an irrational aspect of empathy. They are easily manipulated, hence why they fall in to such ridiculous crap.

It was just a joke.

 

[ferball]

This is probably the most famous NPC line in computer gaming history:

 

[Sopwiths North]

Word of Warning: You are probably not going to like my post, but I felt it warranted a response.

All a matter of perspective.

I wouldn’t say she deliberately lied, but it was clear from her lack of details, the lack of genuine evidence and the lack of reputable witnesses that she had very little clue what happened. When it is serious as rape or sexual assault, due process is needed and in the end she was found wanting.

She’s a psychologist, if criminals know how to pass those lie detector tests, she would too.

Non-grandstanding is an interesting way to put it, but I tend to agree. However, she was quite eager to involve the democrats on this one. The amount of democrat investment, coaching and staffers in Ford was beyond ridiculous. She was taken on a ride. It’s quite possible they all got on the grog and nothing happened in the end, false memories and all that happen quite often. I saw things differently, she looked very unsure and a tad mentally unhinged, or stressed for a better word, to me, but each to their own.

Well normally those hearings are non-fuss irregardless of the sitting president and regime is an interesting word again in this context. Considering how much more stress he was under during the entire hearing than Ford, his behaviour was quite understandable. The comments about the crying and his daughter are rather average. I can say the same thing every time Ford teared up, o she had an evil look in her eye, see how non-sensical that type of comment is. I would be more worried if he was stone-cold emotionless the entire time. The reality is that the high degree of stress of the entire situation would make anyone act outside the normal, and that goes for both parties.

Please, how many lawyers and judges have stated that he was great for the job. Those people were not republican cronies or his mates, but reputable people that have operated in the law for decades. He didn’t improve his standing at all, as there is always going to be a large proportion of the population that think he is guilty, forever marred, or a disgenous angry man; you or I wouldn’t know what he is truly like. Being accused of rape and receiving an extraordinary amount of attention, not to mention the democrats unsavoury methods, would make any person act irrationally or out of character.


You call it patriotism, I call it an accusation without reputable evidence (at this point). History favours my position more than yours for a very good reason. The patriot comments are interesting, what tyranny is she fighting exactly? Has trump removed or altered elections, no, banned all the media except for Fox, no, has gained additional executive powers, no, has formally invaded any countries yet, nope, shooting or arresting political opponents, no, introduced racist policies, no, illegal migration is exactly that, illegal. I get it, the guy is a populist and very abrupt, but the dramatism and outright media and online lies surrounding him only serve to help him. Legitimate criticisms > Media Criticisms.

K4E, I haven't figured out how to do the multiple quote thingy, so please see my responses in blue:



I wouldn’t say she deliberately lied, but it was clear from her lack of details, the lack of genuine evidence and the lack of reputable witnesses that she had very little clue what happened. When it is serious as rape or sexual assault, due process is needed and in the end she was found wanting.

You're correct that due process was needed, and why the judicial hearings were conducted in a format resembling a slap-dash trial while not actually going to trial in the traditional manner is suspect. Even more suspect was the heavily restricted FBI investigation that was only allowed 7 days to be conducted - a restriction imposed by the White House - and in which many potential witnesses were not allowed to be interviewed, again, due to restrictions imposed by the White House. The lack of recollected details goes both ways though. Apparently Kavanaugh forgot that he liked to drink a lot of beer. M'eh. It was a long tome ago, right?

She’s a psychologist, if criminals know how to pass those lie detector tests, she would too.

My remark about her being a psychologist was intended more to draw comparison to her credibility, seeing as many have used it on here to give Jordan Peterson a free pass. I did also say that a lie detector test in not the ultimate yardstick to measure truthfulness, but the fact is, she passed it.

Non-grandstanding is an interesting way to put it, but I tend to agree. However, she was quite eager to involve the democrats on this one. The amount of democrat investment, coaching and staffers in Ford was beyond ridiculous. She was taken on a ride. It’s quite possible they all got on the grog and nothing happened in the end, false memories and all that happen quite often. I saw things differently, she looked very unsure and a tad mentally unhinged, or stressed for a better word, to me, but each to their own.

So she was "eager to involve the Democrats" or "she was taken on a ride"? Which was it? In my opinion, neither. She began by contacting her local Member of Congress, out of what appears to have been a sense of duty. It snowballed from there. And I think we can both agree that yes, she was very stressed. She even admitted at one point that she was so nervous it was rattling her ability to think clearly about her answer to a specific question (which question it was I can't recall) and asked for a moment to collect herself. Which she did, and then went on to answer the question. I'm not sure as to how you are perceiving this as her lying.

Well normally those hearings are non-fuss irregardless of the sitting president and regime is an interesting word again in this context.

"Regime" is a great word for the Trump Government. He's spent 2 years hiring and firing based on who he wants surrounding him and how well they fulfill his dictates. Kavanaugh is a supreme example of this.

Considering how much more stress he was under during the entire hearing than Ford, his behaviour was quite understandable. The comments about the crying and his daughter are rather average. I can say the same thing every time Ford teared up, o she had an evil look in her eye, see how non-sensical that type of comment is. I would be more worried if he was stone-cold emotionless the entire time. The reality is that the high degree of stress of the entire situation would make anyone act outside the normal, and that goes for both parties.

I perceived his crying as disingenuous, and you did not. That's okay. Each to their own. (I'm kind of chuckling at us having this conversation though, as I think it was not too recently that I was vehemently defending Justin Trudeau's tears to you further back in this thread. So, I respect your right to accept his crying. It's only fair.)

Please, how many lawyers and judges have stated that he was great for the job. Those people were not republican cronies or his mates, but reputable people that have operated in the law for decades.

I don't know, how many? I DO know that after his testimony, more than 2,400 law professors signed a letter saying that he should NOT be confirmed because "he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land."

He didn’t improve his standing at all, as there is always going to be a large proportion of the population that think he is guilty, forever marred, or a disgenous angry man; you or I wouldn’t know what he is truly like. Being accused of rape and receiving an extraordinary amount of attention, not to mention the democrats unsavoury methods, would make any person act irrationally or out of character.

You're right, I don't know what either Ford or Kavanaugh are like. But as I have already stated, I saw how each behaved when under extreme pressure. The one who lost his cool in a repeatedly aggressive and volatile manner is now the one who presides over the highest court in the country.

You call it patriotism, I call it an accusation without reputable evidence (at this point). History favours my position more than yours for a very good reason.

What is that reason?

The patriot comments are interesting, what tyranny is she fighting exactly?

See my response above (#4) regarding "regime".

Has trump removed or altered elections, no

I would argue that we don't know yet, given Robert Mueller's ongoing FBI investigation

banned all the media except for Fox, no,

Yes, he has in the past banned multiple major media organizations, including CNN, The New York Times, and the BBC, from White House press briefings, with no reason given.

has gained additional executive powers, no,

Doesn't need to. In his lunatic mind he's already got them: "I have the absolute right to pardon myself." - Donald J. Trump.

has formally invaded any countries yet, nope,

I don't really think he's interested in this. He's more of a real estate guy.

shooting or arresting political opponents, no,

Nope. There's one! (Although his once-henchman Rudy Giuliani did publicly ponder it)

introduced racist policies, no,

Are you kidding? How about passing the executive order that banned travel from 7 Muslim countries?

illegal migration is exactly that, illegal.

And you're innocent until proven guilty. Although tell that to the 2,500 children of migrants seeking refugee status he's imprisoned in holding facilities separated from their parents.

I get it, the guy is a populist and very abrupt, but the dramatism and outright media and online lies surrounding him only serve to help him. Legitimate criticisms > Media Criticisms.

Fear serves to help him. There's 2 things that can override rational thought. One is love. The other is fear. Tyrants operate by mongering fear. Trump is doing just that.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Multi-quotes are a pain at the best of times, but I appreciate the discussion and time you put into your post.


You're correct that due process was needed, and why the judicial hearings were conducted in a format resembling a slap-dash trial while not actually going to trial in the traditional manner is suspect. Even more suspect was the heavily restricted FBI investigation that was only allowed 7 days to be conducted - a restriction imposed by the White House - and in which many potential witnesses were not allowed to be interviewed, again, due to restrictions imposed by the White House. The lack of recollected details goes both ways though. Apparently Kavanaugh forgot that he liked to drink a lot of beer. M'eh. It was a long tome ago, right?

The thing is though, he's been subject to quite a few previous (more in-depth) FBI screenings, if there was something quite credible there, they would have most likely found something. Definitely, as I said, we should wait for evidence otherwise presume innocence.

My remark about her being a psychologist was intended more to draw comparison to her credibility, seeing as many have used it on here to give Jordan Peterson a free pass. I did also say that a lie detector test in not the ultimate yardstick to measure truthfulness, but the fact is, she passed it.

Sure, I knew that, but I thought I would continue with it as a psychologist, they would know best how to play with the truth so to speak.

So she was "eager to involve the Democrats" or "she was taken on a ride"? Which was it? In my opinion, neither. She began by contacting her local Member of Congress, out of what appears to have been a sense of duty. It snowballed from there. And I think we can both agree that yes, she was very stressed. She even admitted at one point that she was so nervous it was rattling her ability to think clearly about her answer to a specific question (which question it was I can't recall) and asked for a moment to collect herself. Which she did, and then went on to answer the question. I'm not sure as to how you are perceiving this as her lying.

This is why I shouldn't type on my phone. She was eager to involve herself politically rather than legally first, what does that tell you, but my latter comment about being taken on a ride was in the context of things spiraling out of control, I doubt anyone could have predicted just how big everything got and how much support she actually received from a political party. I am happy to agree to disagree with you on the lying part.

"Regime" is a great word for the Trump Government. He's spent 2 years hiring and firing based on who he wants surrounding him and how well they fulfill his dictates. Kavanaugh is a supreme example of this.


Technically speaking, regime is used to denote any administration, whether it be democratic, Obama, communist, Bush, fascist, etc. A regime is basically any form of government with specific set rules and conventions. Some people in the dictionary department have stretched this to include authoritarianism, which annoys people in the political science and international affairs arena a little bit.

And, Obama and Bush did the exact same thing, (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/10/white-house-staff-quit and https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...4/donald-trumps-white-house-turnover-context/), if they want surround themselves with yes-men, that's their prerogative, it does not diminish democracy in any shape or form. Every democratic government in history has done what Trump has done in terms of putting in yes-men and guess what, they are usually thrown out after the next election. In Australia, whenever a Liberal government enters office after years of an ALP government, the Liberals often cut the bureaucracy as it full of ALP cronies and yes-men. When there are widespread changes to election rules, media censorship, military crackdowns, etc, then we can talk about authoritarianism, yes-man are not a new thing to democracy.



I perceived his crying as disingenuous, and you did not. That's okay. Each to their own. (I'm kind of chuckling at us having this conversation though, as I think it was not too recently that I was vehemently defending Justin Trudeau's tears to you further back in this thread. So, I respect your right to accept his crying. It's only fair.)

Good memory and it is a good chuckle, it's all about context and genuineness in the end. I perceive father-daughter relationships as fairly sacred, probably too much.

I don't know, how many? I DO know that after his testimony, more than 2,400 law professors signed a letter saying that he should NOT be confirmed because "he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land."

The Bar Association itself, Bennett (Clinton's lawyer), Yale law and quite few others. Those signatures are all well and good, but there are a lot more than 2,400 law professors in the USA, why did those other people not sign? In any case, their main issue was with him being a yes-man, which is fair enough, while some did cite his emotions, none of them had faced the same adversity that he did, so ivory tower and all that. Those signatures are worth fairly little, not even counting the lack of scrutiny of their political leanings or the dominance of leftist politics in universities.


You're right, I don't know what either Ford or Kavanaugh are like. But as I have already stated, I saw how each behaved when under extreme pressure. The one who lost his cool in a repeatedly aggressive and volatile manner is now the one who presides over the highest court in the country.

Fair enough.

What is that reason?

Reputable evidence always wins out over hearsay, it's why we have a decent legal system.

See my response above (#4) regarding "regime".

No worries.

I would argue that we don't know yet, given Robert Mueller's ongoing FBI investigation

We'll see, but grand conspiracies rarely occur and if they do, not in the way most people expect. The world is a lot more boring in reality.

Yes, he has in the past banned multiple major media organizations, including CNN, The New York Times, and the BBC, from White House press briefings, with no reason given.

My point was more in relation to actively shutting down these organisations or their capacity to criticise Trump on air, which they still do quite openly. Honestly, who really cares about White House press briefings, they rarely produce anything other than the official government word. It's a non-issue with the bans. Blanket bans for entire networks across all airways would be scary.

Doesn't need to. In his lunatic mind he's already got them: "I have the absolute right to pardon myself." - Donald J. Trump.

I never said he was not a moron or at least naive, but still, my point stands.

I don't really think he's interested in this. He's more of a real estate guy.

You'll be surprised, the Americans like a good war, we are buying the same F-35's you guys are.

Nope. There's one! (Although his once-henchman Rudy Giuliani did publicly ponder it)

Fair enough, lol, it's bit early for me to play House of Cards.

Are you kidding? How about passing the executive order that banned travel from 7 Muslim countries?

Not racism, if it was racist, why not all Muslim countries, why specifically those seven countries? Iraq (Destablised with ISIS sympathisers, despite close Iraq-US political and military ties), Iran (a lot of political and historical issues here), Libya (Destablised with a lot of ISIS sympathisers), Somalia (Destablised state with issues with poverty related piracy), Sudan (human rights and other issues here), Syria (obvious reasons) and Yemen (destablised state with a lot of issues, many of them with US origins). Is the policy way over the top, certainly, ignorant, certainly, should Trump be more enlightened on the broader Islamic factions and their systems, certainly, but the policy is not fundamentally racist at its core.


And you're innocent until proven guilty. Although tell that to the 2,500 children of migrants seeking refugee status he's imprisoned in holding facilities separated from their parents.

They are getting fed, clothed and given a warm bed, while not a great situation, they are still better off than sitting in a refugee camp in Central and South America where the children are at the risk of gangs, rape, prostitution etc.


Fear serves to help him. There's 2 things that can override rational thought. One is love. The other is fear. Tyrants operate by mongering fear. Trump is doing just that.
Fear serves all politicians, no matter their political leanings. No, Trump is doing what every politician has done since Machiavelli. Look at the leftist media variants, fear the orange man, fear the fascist revival, Nazi's are everywhere, white straight males dominate everything, western women are being oppressed, Trump is oppressing Muslims, police are targeting blacks and that the KKK are everywhere (less than 5,000 members nationally in the USA btw). This fear garbage has spread to Australia and GB, and he's not even their president.

And look what has happened, a mini-revival in Western anarchism, socialism, black supremacist groups and communism, this inherently serves the interests of the Democrat party (which is funny because much of the KKK's founding members were southern democrats and many of them fought for the South rather than a bastion of Republicanism than it is often potrayed) as much as Trump using fear via security and the economy to get votes.

When you understand that all politicians (except for the rare naive Trudea's of the world) are more concerned with power, the more you will understand how the world operates at the higher levels and why "love and internationalism" don't work in the end.

 

[Mcarcherey]

can't take ferball "studies" seriously after reading this https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/

edit: i see snake already posted the JRE podcast of these guys but the article is good anyway.