Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[Raga]

My understanding is that the European Commission actually has a very activist role in proposing legislation and pushing policy. I don't know what the strength of the European Parliament is relative to that but seeing as how people in Europe frequently don't even seem to know it exists or who's in it, it doesn't seem very impressive or high.

[Sinekein]

I for one look forward to the day when open white supremacists can run businesses that refuse to do business with dykes, negroes, and Jews and proudly proclaim it on the windows.

Isn't that kind of what the baker who refused to sell a cake for a gay wedding did?

If Sandy Hook was the only horrible shit AJ had said, he'd still have all his social media accounts and Paypal contracts.

The main point was that barely anyone could even point to an elected representative if they had a gun to their head.
I could not name a single person responsible for talking to the EU for the UK, let alone my local area.

That's because many politicians only use the European Parliament as a seat to push national careers. And they tend to be the most famous of the bunch. Those you don't hear about are like your Parliament members you don't hear about (and I assume there are many of them): they're just doing their jobs without too much self-promotion. Also, that Parliament is in Strasbourg, which is nowhere's capital city - even in France it's quite far from Paris.

I'm personally all for a greater political role for the EU, which would naturally give more exposure to the Parliament members. As it stands, the EU doesn't have enough influence to put attention on its members, except in times of crisis like now - which means that those people are never associated with all that works in the EU, they just get the crap when it's failing. Unlike government officials, they can't get put forward when they're passing a law because EU laws are always group works without a single person putting his/her name on it.

But it's really easy to get to know what EU elected officials do. People just have to look, it's not shady or hidden. It's much more transparent than the French Parliament that's for sure.

My understanding is that the European Commission actually has a very activist role in proposing legislation and pushing policy. I don't know what the strength of the European Parliament is relative to that but seeing as how people in Europe frequently don't even seem to know it exists or who's in it, it doesn't seem very impressive or high.

It's the Parliament that elects the Commission after a proposition from the heads of the 28 members. It's the EU's government. Like in every country, it's the government that proposes the laws, and the parliament votes on them.

European Parliament = Parliament
European Commission = Government, with President = Executive leader.
European Council = Heads of State of the 28 members.

The Council proposes to the Parliament a name for President of the Commission. If he's voted in by the Parliament, like any government head, the President of the Commission nominates a "government" of 27 members (one per country).

Then you have the European Council which is all the heads of state with a "President" as 29th member, to represent the Council and the EU at large. He is the head of the Council but does not have executive power, unlike the President of the Commission. It's kind of like the President of Germany and the Chancellor (who has Executive Power).

[Raga]

I mentioned before Derrick Bell's proposed discrimination tax. It's a crazy idea but when I read it, I had to admit to myself that I'd totally be on board with that as a policy.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.chicagot ... y,amp.html

[Vol]

So now we see how the delay tactic will work going forward. They found a woman claims that while she couldn't remember, after 6 days of talking to lawyers, is convinced that during a drunk college party, Kavanaugh flashed himself. Other people who were there say they have no memory of that and it did not happen, but they did find someone who's absolutely sure that someone else told them about it in the days afterwards.

Meanwhile, the person who accused him of being a molester has been allowed to negotiate how and when she will give testimony after accusing someone of molestation. Of which her demands that I've read include driving from CA to DC instead of flying, not letting him face his accuser (her), and making him defend himself before she speaks so he cannot know her exact claim.

This is a vile thing to do to someone, when by all the accounts of people willing to actually speak under oath and not hide and make demands say he's a fine man. But I already loathe the media, so that pit cannot go deeper.

[Mobius_118]

I just know that if you're willing to testify, you're probably not lying, meanwhile Kavanaugh has been avoiding everything.

He's not qualified for the position anyway.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I just know that if you're willing to testify, you're probably not lying, meanwhile Kavanaugh has been avoiding everything.

He's not qualified for the position anyway.

Could you be any more blindly partisan?

I'm genuinely curious. I've *NEVER* seen someone as cardboard cutout Normie Media as you.

[Raga]

All goes back and back and back in a nasty string to Robert Bork. For once, the Democrats started it. You reap what you sow.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/opin ... -bork.html

[Mobius_118]

Could you be any more blindly partisan?

I'm genuinely curious. I've *NEVER* seen someone as cardboard cutout Normie Media as you.

Blindly partisan? The guy lied under oath.

That's not partisan. That's upholding the law. Something that chaps your asshole, apparently.

Wanna know what else is partisan? Denying President Obama his Supreme Court pick without any real reason. Now Trump, who's under investigation by the FBI, is allowed to pick a sycophant for the SCOTUS.

Get fucked, GAC. You're nothing but a failed republican.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Could you be any more blindly partisan?

I'm genuinely curious. I've *NEVER* seen someone as cardboard cutout Normie Media as you.

Blindly partisan? The guy lied under oath.

That's not partisan. That's upholding the law. Something that chaps your asshole, apparently.

Wanna know what else is partisan? Denying President Obama his Supreme Court pick without any real reason. Now Trump, who's under investigation by the FBI, is allowed to pick a sycophant for the SCOTUS.

Get fucked, GAC. You're nothing but a failed republican.

I've never been a Republican you dolt.

And if you'll remember it was the Democrats who removed the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees specifically because they wanted to ram Barry's appointment through.

Change the rules get fucked by them, But you people never. Ever learn. Because you live so far up your own ass that it is genuinely hilarious.

[Mobius_118]

Libertarians are failed republicans.

They got rid of it because the fuckstick GOP wouldn't even hold a hearing for Merrick Garland, an actually qualified nomination for the SCOTUS.

Republicans and Libertarians routinely and predictably vote against their own self interests and bitch incessantly about the very programs that keep them from eating each other.

It's fucking pathetic. It's like watching children fight.

Grow the fuck up, GAC.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Republicans and Libertarians routinely and predictably vote against their own self interests and bitch incessantly about the very programs that keep them from eating each other.

Uh huh. I'm just going to get back to enjoying my lowered taxes. The last few years have been amazing. The next few promise to be even better.

[TTTX]

So now we see how the delay tactic will work going forward. They found a woman claims that while she couldn't remember, after 6 days of talking to lawyers, is convinced that during a drunk college party, Kavanaugh flashed himself. Other people who were there say they have no memory of that and it did not happen, but they did find someone who's absolutely sure that someone else told them about it in the days afterwards.

Meanwhile, the person who accused him of being a molester has been allowed to negotiate how and when she will give testimony after accusing someone of molestation. Of which her demands that I've read include driving from CA to DC instead of flying, not letting him face his accuser (her), and making him defend himself before she speaks so he cannot know her exact claim.

This is a vile thing to do to someone, when by all the accounts of people willing to actually speak under oath and not hide and make demands say he's a fine man. But I already loathe the media, so that pit cannot go deeper.

I take anything where people get drunk as fuck and claim stuff afterwards with a grain of salt.

People who are that drunk, well their mind can mess with them and the chances of them actually remembering what happened at the time is well questionable at best.

I just know that if you're willing to testify, you're probably not lying, meanwhile Kavanaugh has been avoiding everything.

He's not qualified for the position anyway.

If the witness was drunk, their statement can be called into question especially if that's the only real evidence you got.

[Vol]

Rod Rosenstein appears to have resigned his post in anticipation of being fired by the White House.

All goes back and back and back in a nasty string to Robert Bork. For once, the Democrats started it. You reap what you sow.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/opin ... -bork.html

It always comes back to pussies, doesn't it? What goes in them, what comes out, who gets to see them, touch them, fuck them, who is one, who isn't, how many you've had, how much medical care they're entitled to by existing, if their geographic location matters to citizenship, and on and on. It's pussies, all the way the down.

At least they're nice tho.

But more seriously, I _think_ there's a decent chance Kavanaugh gets pushed through regardless of this deep dredging, unless the RINOs fully capitulate, which is a poor strategy for keeping your seat.

[Raga]

My stance on this is that the Ford woman is *probably* telling the truth. What is the term? There's a "preponderance" of the evidence and not overwhelming evidence. Normally, I'd say we can afford to be extra picky about the Supreme Court Justices, that they should be the best of the best in every respect and surely it's possible to find 9 people in a country of 320 million who haven't groped people or had DWIs or some similar thing.

However, this isn't really about Ford or sexual assault or #MeToo or any of that. It's about character assassination as partisan political strategy. This would be tried with *any* candidate that the Republicans put forward, that or just using the example set by the Republicans and stonewalling any candidate.

If it goes through, it sets a precedent that the only thing needed to derail an appointment is to find some more or less credible person willing to swear that candidate X did "morally bankrupt but not overtly evil thing Y 30 years ago in a drunken stupor."

The Supreme Court is currently the only branch of our government that even sorta, kinda functions. It's too important to permanently kneecap based on "the preponderance of the evidence."

[Raga]

It always comes back to pussies, doesn't it? What goes in them, what comes out, who gets to see them, touch them, fuck them, who is one, who isn't, how many you've had, how much medical care they're entitled to by existing, if their geographic location matters to citizenship, and on and on. It's pussies, all the way the down.

At least they're nice tho.

But more seriously, I _think_ there's a decent chance Kavanaugh gets pushed through regardless of this deep dredging, unless the RINOs fully capitulate, which is a poor strategy for keeping your seat.

After reading a lot about that Bork case, it really has occurred to me that abortion specifically is possibly THE biggest thing that's held our politics hostage for the last 40ish years. There's other stuff too: race & arguments about welfare spending, but I think I've underestimated how big of a deal that debate has been because I care so little about it. Few issues inspire the militancy or one-issuism tunnel vision that that does.

Also, Kavanaugh will go through I think unless they can produce some quite credible claim that he literally raped somebody or something. The Republicans fear the mid-terms too much. They want Republican butts on the bench to counter the potential fallout of Democrats taking back Congress and the White House. However, Democrats *might* succeed in extracting some kind of "Roe v. Wade is settled law" statement out of him in return for guaranteeing the votes of the handful of pro-choice Republicans.

[Vol]

I believe the Ford claim could be true in some form or another, but the context of her not remembering until 2012 during a marriage counseling session, not telling anyone, her story being vague and inconsistent, and the delaying tactics being employed to prevent testifying, I err on the side of disbelief.

Which is besides the point that the crime he's being accused of is drunken groping as a teen and then flashing his dick at a drunken college party, neither of which is a serious moral impingement on the man he is 30+ years later. Demanding purity over someone's entire life, from even drunken foolishness as a young adult, is ridiculous.

And then there's the important point of not rewarding this kind of partisan bickering, yes.

After reading a lot about that Bork case, it really has occurred to me that abortion specifically is possibly THE biggest thing that's held our politics hostage for the last 40ish years. There's other stuff too: race & arguments about welfare spending, but I think I've underestimated how big of a deal that debate has been because I care so little about it. Few issues inspire the militancy or one-issuism tunnel vision that that does.

Also, Kavanaugh will go through I think unless they can produce some quite credible claim that he literally raped somebody or something. The Republicans fear the mid-terms too much. They want Republican butts on the bench to counter the potential fallout of Democrats taking back Congress and the White House. However, Democrats *might* succeed in extracting some kind of "Roe v. Wade is settled law" statement out of him in return for guaranteeing the votes of the handful of pro-choice Republicans.

In an broad sense, it kinda is. Acts as a lightning rod for several issues rolled into one. Roll of women, roll of government, morality, medicine, immigration, lobbying, and probably some others. If you take a fetus as a person, it's outright murder, full stop. There's not much room to give there unless it's practical for the sake of politics or specific cases. And as far as I'm aware, Roe v Wade isn't the most solid ruling, so it could be challenged if the right court is packed. So now we're here.

[Raga]

I believe the Ford claim could be true in some form or another, but the context of her not remembering until 2012 during a marriage counseling session, not telling anyone, her story being vague and inconsistent, and the delaying tactics being employed to prevent testifying, I err on the side of disbelief.

I think some of it is also a moving target of what's considered sexual assault or harassment. Like I actually had an epiphany the other day that this encounter I had when I was 19 would absolutely be considered sexual assault by the standards of the #MeToo movement. However, I never considered it as such. It just fell mentally into the "grabby, pushy asshole" department and I never much gave it any further thought.

So, sure, "recovered memories" or whatever are dubious, but I think some of it is people reexamining things they actually remember well, but just never considered in this light before.

[Mobius_118]

It's any wonder why sexual assault and rape victims refuse to come forward. Just look at these quality responses! She was drunk! She deserved it. Don't do this to Kavanaugh, it'll ruin his career!

I go back to the main point: You don't call for an investigation if you're guilty or making shit up.

Uh huh. I'm just going to get back to enjoying my lowered taxes. The last few years have been amazing. The next few promise to be even better.

Oh that's funny, the rich get richer and the ones who protect them get the shaft.

See how it works out for you when we get hit by a recession that will rival the Great Depression.

[TTTX]

It's any wonder why sexual assault and rape victims refuse to come forward. Just look at these quality responses! She was drunk! She deserved it. Don't do this to Kavanaugh, it'll ruin his career!

I go back to the main point: You don't call for an investigation if you're guilty or making shit up.

Sexual assault isn't easy to prove, mostly because most of the evidence are either gone or destroyed by the time a victim comes forward and if alcohol is involved well it can muddle the water so to say, because some people "change" when they become drunk and they dumb stuff etc.

Some people actually do call for investigations or make shit up just to harm other people that does happen sometimes.

[Sinekein]

So now we see how the delay tactic will work going forward. They found a woman claims that while she couldn't remember, after 6 days of talking to lawyers, is convinced that during a drunk college party, Kavanaugh flashed himself. Other people who were there say they have no memory of that and it did not happen, but they did find someone who's absolutely sure that someone else told them about it in the days afterwards.

It's a bit rich to criticize a delay tactic two years after Merrick Garland.

Meanwhile, the person who accused him of being a molester has been allowed to negotiate how and when she will give testimony after accusing someone of molestation. Of which her demands that I've read include driving from CA to DC instead of flying, not letting him face his accuser (her), and making him defend himself before she speaks so he cannot know her exact claim.

She does not want to go through the same thing Anita Hill did. Can you really blame her? I don't get how AH can behave like she does (and still speak to cameras) after the way the Senate treated her.

This is a vile thing to do to someone, when by all the accounts of people willing to actually speak under oath and not hide and make demands say he's a fine man. But I already loathe the media, so that pit cannot go deeper.

People willing to speak under oath are mostly people who really want him to be confirmed, because in the unlikely event the GOP loses the Senate, his chances of getting the position will drop to 0%, and so will all subsequent Trump proposals. Again, Merrick Garland. If you play dumb and dirty, don't expect your opponents to be respectful and gracious.

I believe the Ford claim could be true in some form or another, but the context of her not remembering until 2012 during a marriage counseling session, not telling anyone, her story being vague and inconsistent, and the delaying tactics being employed to prevent testifying, I err on the side of disbelief.

"Not telling anyone", really? As if being sexually assaulted was something women loved to come clean about. Especially when the assaulter is a powerful and respected man.

Publicly saying that you have been assaulted might be a tiny bit easier now after the Weinstein scandal than it was five years ago, but it still is immensely difficult. First, because you'll get all the usual suspects lining up to asking "why didn't you come clean sooner?", and that's really the nicest of the bunch, most will outright call you a liar, a whore, or any other kind of expletive.

Her story has to be vague and inconsistent, since she hasn't told it yet. Her point is to trying to protect herself so she can tell it under proper conditions. Ie, not with a bunch of guys ready to try and convince the world she deserved what she got.

As for the timeline - it was the exact same thing with Weinstein, or other sexual predators that have been outed. Someone spoke first (with help), and then days later other came forward, because realizing that you're not alone does not mean that you'll instantly go screaming everywhere that you were a victim of sexual assault. Especially when the case is publicized as this one. Because it publicly outs you as a victim in a world where many are anything but kind to them, and it forces you to be known for something that, in all likelihood, you are ashamed of. In that particular case, there aren't many scenes more public than the hearing of a SCOTUS nominee, especially in the current super heated political climate.

But it's much better to say that it's a Dem conspiracy, because it allows you to automatically throw doubt upon their claims without even having to go into "outright sexism" territory, ala "look at how she was dressed", "she was really getting around at the time", "she wanted it but didn't admit it", and so on and so forth.

Some people actually do call for investigations or make shit up just to harm other people that does happen sometimes.

What does an anonymous woman has to gain by creating an allegation like that? Unless she was somehow promised a ludicrous amount of money, which I doubt, the only thing she'll gain is many people calling for her death/insulting her on social media.

Especially as Ford does not exactly have the profile of a gold digger, being a Stanford professor with a respectable career. She probably doesn't need money, and I highly doubt anyone would enjoy the fame that she is going to get.

[Sinekein]

All goes back and back and back in a nasty string to Robert Bork. For once, the Democrats started it. You reap what you sow.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/opin ... -bork.html

While it was indeed a partisan issue, Bork was the one guy who agreed upon firing Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox on Nixon's orders, after both of his superiors refused to do so and resigned in protest. Makes sense that some people held a grudge and decided not to have a man like that on the SCOTUS, considering his relationship with the constitution.

[TTTX]

What does an anonymous woman has to gain by creating an allegation like that? Unless she was somehow promised a ludicrous amount of money, which I doubt, the only thing she'll gain is many people calling for her death/insulting her on social media.

Especially as Ford does not exactly have the profile of a gold digger, being a Stanford professor with a respectable career. She probably doesn't need money, and I highly doubt anyone would enjoy the fame that she is going to get.

I never said anything about money or her specifically, but people can do it for a number of reasons outside of fame and money, it can be for the simple thing as just causing harm to others being accused can harm to the accused along whoever they are related to and friends with.

People can be nasty and it can be for such a little thing as they don't like you and I speak of experience on that subject.

never the less maybe she is a victim, maybe she isn't we'll should let the investigation and courts do their part first.

[Sinekein]

It's one thing to do that in a "private case". Ie, within a company against a fellow employee.

But it's another to do it in a situation where the entire world (because even in Europe we get news reports on the SCOTUS nomination process) is watching you.

[Raga]

All goes back and back and back in a nasty string to Robert Bork. For once, the Democrats started it. You reap what you sow.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/opin ... -bork.html

While it was indeed a partisan issue, Bork was the one guy who agreed upon firing Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox on Nixon's orders, after both of his superiors refused to do so and resigned in protest. Makes sense that some people held a grudge and decided not to have a man like that on the SCOTUS, considering his relationship with the constitution.

Sure, but it was his stance on partisan issues that caused the freak out. Just like now, it's not the ostensible sexual assault of Kavanaugh that's really the issue. It's the decisions he would make on the bench.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Robert_Bork%27s_America

@why people make false accusations

The whole "nobody would chose this" thing is a fallacy on a number of levels. Sure, *most* people wouldn't chose it, but all kinds of people chose to do unhinged things for all kinds of unhinged reasons. The fact that false confessions are a thing when common sense dictates that *nobody* would ever admit to some rape or murder they didn't commit can certainly allow for the plausibility of the much lower threshold of false accusation. The fact that most people *wouldn't* helps with the "preponderance of the evidence" but it falls well sort of actually establishing guilt.

[TTTX]

It's one thing to do that in a "private case". Ie, within a company against a fellow employee.

But it's another to do it in a situation where the entire world (because even in Europe we get news reports on the SCOTUS nomination process) is watching you.

true enough, but still humans can be unpredictable.

[Sinekein]

Apparently, Bork's nomination was also a case of replacing a progressive judge with an conservative one, instead of trying to keep a modicum of balance.

A conservative who was the one to blindly obey a corrupt president in his abuse of power.

I mean, it might be the first case of a partisan explanation, but the proposal looked a bit like a giant "Fuck you" from Reagan to the Democrats.

On a sidenote, this whole SCOTUS system is incredibly obsolete. Ruth Bader Ginsburg should not be sitting there at her age. It would be slightly better off with at least something resembling a mandate of X years, even if X = 10 or 15. It could even be X = 18, this way each president would get 2 nominees in 4 years.

Problem is, with how the system is turning into a grudge match between Dems and GOP, there is no way either is going to be the one acting like an adult and proposing something that is there for equality instead of spiting your opponent.

[Raga]

Maybe eventually that would level out but in the short term I think it would just mean abortion & gay marriage are made illegal and legal every 2-4 years. People would go full tilt on "legislation by court." Though retirement at say age 65 and requiring a super-majority to confirm would be a nice start.

Also, https://www.thisamericanlife.org/649/it ... -i-want-to I would so vote for this guy. He is like spot on on his assessment of the malaise of the DCCC type right now.

Quote from the audio of Beals:

"I think that a lot of Democratic politics has been about trying to find the least offensive cause to the donor class to rally people around while stepping on the fewest toes. And there are worthy causes you can rally people around. Guns. You can rally people around that and you could maybe get to 51/49 and win." Abortion rights, he says, same thing. "You could also there too get to 51/49 or better and win, but I do believe that there's a way bigger axis out there that people with a lot of money don't want us organizing on and it's the economic axis. That's an axis where you have 1% on one side and you have more than 90% on another side."

This is literally all they have to do to get my vote. More Bernie Sanders. Less fringe cultural rubbish.

[Mazder]

It's any wonder why sexual assault and rape victims refuse to come forward. Just look at these quality responses! She was drunk! She deserved it. Don't do this to Kavanaugh, it'll ruin his career!

I go back to the main point: You don't call for an investigation if you're guilty or making shit up.

If two people are drunk then that means both of their judgement are called into question. That means an accusation is called into question and it's validity must be investigated, otherwise you're 100% biased and not objective in the investigation.

If you're drunk and accuse someone of rape you have to admit that your accusation has to be investigated at the very least otherwise it's setting up the precedent of literally taking an accuser's word as 100% fact.
If we're going to start taking a story as 100% fact when those who are then we can no longer take anything seriously as any sort of due process goes out the window.

At best you can say that an accusation has been made but without absolute proof, one that goes above any stance of morality and comes down to cold, hard calculus of what's available, any case that is of a "well this person did this in the past, but we were both intoxicated so it was still his fault" is just impossible to determine fairly.


Also if by "quality responses" you mean this thread specifically then honestly you can get fucked as no-one in this thread has said she deserved it in the slightest. Being skeptical of a claim isn't victim blaming.


Also why is it that as soon as we go down the route of having to analyse the claim made and find out the accuser was drunk and happens to be female the gauntlet of "well you're saying she deserved it them" is laid down prematurely when all that's been stated is that we'd have to take the accusation seriously and treat it as if it could be compromised by their drunk status at the time.
If it were flipped and a guy was accusing a woman of doing the same to him.....well the case wouldn't have even gotten this far, if it got picked up at all.

[Sinekein]

Also why is it that as soon as we go down the route of having to analyse the claim made and find out the accuser was drunk and happens to be female the gauntlet of "well you're saying she deserved it them" is laid down prematurely when all that's been stated is that we'd have to take the accusation seriously and treat it as if it could be compromised by their drunk status at the time.

Because her being drunk is a shortcut to "she deserved it then", or "she asked for it", or "if she had been sober that wouldn't have happened".

There have been many cases of sexual assault on campuses before Kavanaugh came under scrutiny, and it has been extremely often used as a way to silence the accuser, or make the jury/judge feel like the assaulter deserved leniency.

Being drunk compromises nothing. You are no less victim of assault if you're drunk.

[Mobius_118]

I want the investigation. There's no bias.

I wanted the investigation into Al Franken, despite him being an excellent politician.

Just ponder why 90% of Kavanaughs judicial history is not available to the public despite laws to make every judicial action public, while he can find his alibi calendar from 35 years ago in an instant. That doesn't seem questionable to you?

[TTTX]

Being drunk compromises nothing. You are no less victim of assault if you're drunk.

well being drunk can make difficult to prove that the victim was assaulted in the first place as some people do become more for the lack of a better word hornier and lose their self control when they get drunk.

That can cause reasonable doubt, I'm sorry to say, but that's the truth.

[Mobius_118]

I dunno, man. There's plenty to investigate already.

How about instead of putting someone who's wholly unqualified onto the SCOTUS, we investigate every single thing he's ever done, including the sexual assaults, then deny him because he's not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice anyway.

[TTTX]

I dunno, man. There's plenty to investigate already.

How about instead of putting someone who's wholly unqualified onto the SCOTUS, we investigate every single thing he's ever done, including the sexual assaults, then deny him because he's not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice anyway.

Well I'm not american so I don't really care who you put where.

Well if they find out he has done something criminal then sure they can do that and put him in jail while they are at it.

[Sinekein]

Being drunk compromises nothing. You are no less victim of assault if you're drunk.

well being drunk can make difficult to prove that the victim was assaulted in the first place as some people do become more for the lack of a better word hornier and lose their self control when they get drunk.

That can cause reasonable doubt, I'm sorry to say, but that's the truth.

Yes because obviously the meaning of "No" changes depending on the alcohol level of the person who says it. We're not talking about a woman regretting a one-night stand here.

It's the truth in the sense that it's what usually happens indeed. Doesn't make it right in any way.

[Mazder]

Because her being drunk is a shortcut to "she deserved it then", or "she asked for it", or "if she had been sober that wouldn't have happened".

There have been many cases of sexual assault on campuses before Kavanaugh came under scrutiny, and it has been extremely often used as a way to silence the accuser, or make the jury/judge feel like the assaulter deserved leniency.

Being drunk compromises nothing. You are no less victim of assault if you're drunk.

Maybe for some people, personally I don't go towards those and I'd hope others wouldn't too.
And yes, there has been issues of it being used to discredit the accuser, there have also been many cases of the girl straight up lying and even if found guilty the accused guy doesn't get so much as an apology, especially from those who immediately jump on the bandwaon of siding with the victim before any investigation has taken place.

If the assault did actually happen.
When working with comments after the fact and you have something that can alter someone's perceptions of events in play it's then up to supportive evidence to corroborate the claim. If you're going by claims alone there is an equal amount of possibility that the claim did not happen as stated as the possibility of it did happen as stated.
So, yeah, being drunk can compromise the claim if there is no supporting evidence found, or not enough to make it a dead certainty.

Yes because obviously the meaning of "No" changes depending on the alcohol level of the person who says it. We're not talking about a woman regretting a one-night stand here.

It's the truth in the sense that it's what usually happens indeed. Doesn't make it right in any way.

No, but context clues such as body language, speech mannerisms and general intent of purpose do have some sway on how wording can be interperated.
For example if you're in a tickle fight with someone close and they're laughing and saying "stop", yet tickling you back (as in not inviting resistance but inviting to more tickling) and if you do abruptly stop and they look at you weird, legally you've adhered to consent, but that might not have been the intent of the wording at that time,

Yeah, the definition of it might be the same but the intent might be different.

All I mean is there is more than just literal wording definitions at play.

[TTTX]

Yes because obviously the meaning of "No" changes depending on the alcohol level of the person who says it. We're not talking about a woman regretting a one-night stand here.

It's the truth in the sense that it's what usually happens indeed. Doesn't make it right in any way.

Some people change when they get drunk and it's not always pretty which is terrible. I personally wouldn't recommend getting drunk at all.

True, but unfortunately the world isn't as black and white as we want it to be.

[Raga]

Random idle thought I had. Inasmuch as it's possible to boil down fascism and communism into 1 sentence summaries (which it isn't), it seems like fascists believe all human conflict is essentially race or ethnic based and socialists believe it's essentially class based. Obviously both matter, but the first seems nearer the mark to me.

[Sinekein]

It's a summary, but I don't think either is closer to the truth. There have been many, many conflicts which were openly about race, ethnicity, or religion, but in many a case class (or economical in the broader sense of the term) struggles were the actual cause for the conflict. It's just easier to "sell" race or ethnicity or religion - basically culture - as a cause for war, than it is to "sell" a conflict between classes.

Since the great Jean Piat recently died - he was the French voice of Scar or Claude Frollo, but also played Robert d'Artois in the historical anthology The Accursed Kings - I have read about the Hundred Years Wars, ostensibly one between "France" and "England" in the first modern meaning of the term...but in which it is entirely possible to make a convincing analysis as being between farmers (France) and cattle herders (England), and all the consequences those varying agricultural politics on their respective societies.

A number of later conflicts (American Civil War, French Revolution, South African civil wars) have also had class issues. The various racial or religious persecutions in Middle Ages - Renaissance Europe tended to be rooted in matters of class, with the Protestants being the "crafters" vs the Catholic "farmers". Ditto with the Jewish "bankers" or "merchants".

And today, the migrant crisis in America or in Europe is indeed about race or religion, but class also plays a role. The classes that are the most opposed to their arrival, on average, are the blue collars and the lower classes for whom "they come to steal or jobs" or "they're here to replace us" are much more likely to ring true. There's also clear education gaps in voting both in the US and in France (I don't know much about other countries), where the most "highly educated" people tend to vote more towards the center or the center left, while the less educated favor more extreme views or populist stances. And education and class are very tightly linked.

All in all, I'd say - there is no independence between those views. What's toxic however is trying to convince others that "one conflict is more important", because that is a very common point made at least by the far-left to silence other forms of conflicts - gender based, sexuality based, race based (with the point "if we solve class conflicts, we solve all conflicts").

[Raga]

I think it's telling that we tend to frame class conflicts in racial terms. Tribal strife seems more endemic to how we evolved where class struggle seems like a peculiarity of the sedentary, agricultural world. We learn to fight on class lines. We are born to fight on tribal lines.

[Mazder]

I think it's telling that we tend to frame class conflicts in racial terms.

I think that's definitely more of an American thing as over here class matters way more than race in terms of conflicts.
Yeah there are some racial based ones, not denying that, but the divide socially in terms of conflict is definitely a more class based one.
Even socially the class based divide affects us more in the UK, the North is generally poorer than the South.

[Raga]

I'm using race and ethnicity as interchangeable terms here. What about all the wars with Scotland and Ireland? The issues with outliers like the Welsh and the Cornish? The Vikings and Anglo-Saxons back in the day? Now all the brouhaha about Eastern European and Muslim immigrants?

Naturally, the more ethnically homogeneous a place is the more class issues will come to the fore.

[Sinekein]

Vikings vs Europe was very much a class issue, between the agricultural societies of Western Europe and the merchants warriors that the Vikings were. It was a matter of getting wealth from more fertile lands for the Vikings, whether through trade or pillaging. It is quite telling that they were eager to settle in those lands when it was offered to them, like they did in Normandy (named from the "North Men").

They did not care much about ethnicity really, only being personally well-off. That's more class than race. They also fought each other (between Norwegian, Swedish or Danish Vikings) more so than they did Wester Europeans.

[Mobius_118]

Try as I might, I can't find any clips of other national leaders laughing at President Obama.

Boy was trump's face red when what he accused President Obama of happened to him.

Trump's a joke.

[Mazder]

Vikings vs Europe was very much a class issue, between the agricultural societies of Western Europe and the merchants warriors that the Vikings were. It was a matter of getting wealth from more fertile lands for the Vikings, whether through trade or pillaging. It is quite telling that they were eager to settle in those lands when it was offered to them, like they did in Normandy (named from the "North Men").

They did not care much about ethnicity really, only being personally well-off. That's more class than race. They also fought each other (between Norwegian, Swedish or Danish Vikings) more so than they did Wester Europeans.

I mean even if you want to make it plainly obvious the exact reason why we call the animal "cow" (Anglo-Saxon) but the meat "beef", derived from "boef" ( Norman French).

[Sinekein]

I might add that Normandy has, since it was given to the Vikings (so that they'd stop pillage everything along the Seine river with their drakkars), been one of the least troublesome areas of France. Most feudal lords have at some point or another fought against the Crown, despite being "ethnically" much closer to the rulers of France (like Burgundy, a region which like France itself was named after a Germanic tribe - not a Scandinavian one like Normandy).

Of course, later on the heirs of those Normandy lords would end up on the throne of England and become French king's most bitter enemies, but again that was (initially) not a racial issue, but an economic one. Plus there was so much crossbreeding between kings and princes at the time that it is hard to see any kind of ethnic purity - the Hundred Years War was started between Philippe VI of France and Edward III of England - with the former being the latter's uncle, since Edward's mother was Isabella of France, her cousin.

The British Civil War was also mentioned. There indeed were undeniably racial or ethnicity components there, but they ultimately originated in religion, due to Henry VIII's decision to kickstart the English Reformation and cut himself from the Catholic Church. But the English Reformation was tightly linked with the fact that many more people could now read (and analyse) the Bible once the printing press was popularized, and the relationship between the clergy and the various classes in England - especially the upper-middle one - changed drastically.

It was religious, but it was a struggle between the new "enlightened" British upper-middle class, and the old traditions of the Catholic Church which was its own form of upper class.

Broadly speaking, the Catholic Church has always found more believers in poorer areas, while Protestantism is more popular in countries that are more developed, economically or intellectually, because Protestantism makes the believer more of an actor of the interpretation of the texts. In France, rural farming areas did not care about reading the Bible themselves, and Catholicism remained popular. Protestantism was popular among merchants and craftsmen, in cities, who overall had better education.

But in the end, it's hard to unite people against a "class", as it is a vague, undefined term. Uniting people against an "other", however, is easier, because it is possible to depict the other as someone deeply different, alien, that "you" will never be (while lower classes would like to be upper class, and upper class fears to become lower class). Which is why in many of those class/economical conflict, the "motivator" was found along racial, religious or ethnic lines.

[FrozenShadow]

And Trump is making himself and America fools again in Live broadcast from current YK meeting.

Blaming China for interrupting US presidential Elections and saying Kim Jong Un is "angel for peace".

[Raga]

Eh? I'm not talking about Viking raids in general. I'm talking about that specific period when England was basically partitioned between the Anglo-Saxons and the Vikings and they fought each other. When there was high indignation not just of Viking raiding but of Viking settlement. There's various early kings of Britain regarded as saints and heroes specifically because they drove away the Vikings.

Also, I'm nowhere insisting that class struggle (which is really just shorthand for fighting over resources when it comes down to it) doesn't matter. Think of the fertile valley hypothesis which is basically that adversity is the chief thing that drives change. If people live in a fertile, isolated valley where all their needs are met and there's no overpopulation, there is pretty much no incentive to invent things or leave or wage war. But since fertile valleys are actually mythical and there's always pressure for external expansion at some point, you have to make decisions about who you fight and who you don't. Who you ally with. Who you raid. Some of that decision making is based on realpolitik considerations of other people's strength. But kinship is another huge component.

I said before that I was using ethnicity and race as interchangeable, but it's even more core than that since those are just higher level abstractions of kinship ties.

[Raga]

Also, I'm reading that Ford apparently turned down the female attorney who specializes in sex crimes that the GOP found to interview her, and instead wants to be questioned by a bunch of old male Republicans.

I haven't really substantiated that anywhere above gossip rag yet, but if it's true, how is that possibly anything but naked political agenda?

[Vol]

Also a woman today, through Avanatti (Stormy Daniel's defamation case looks like it'll be thrown out), accuses Kavanaugh of being at multiple parties where women were slipped Quaalude, booze, and then gang raped. And a little while ago, we find out there's a claim he raped someone in 1985 on a boat in Rhode Island, as well as a claim he drunkenly assaulted a woman in DC in the 90s.

So a certain point, you have to ask yourself if this man is a serial rapist/molester that was never reported until right before his SCOTUS vote or not. Which is what Trump said at the press conference. There is no way we will ever know for sure with these kinds of claims on this kind of time scale. So it's going to come down to a straight up judgement call.

[Raga]

They should have just nominated Amy Coney Barrett and have had done with it. Then at least we could all just fight about Roe v Wade which is what this was all about anyway.

Also, I mostly agree with this stance:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-way-out- ... 1537540971

Key quote: "To start, we need to recognize that the immigration debate isn’t really about immigrants. In truth, it’s about the children of immigrants."

Hits the nail on the head.