kavanaugh

User avatar
imrahil327
Tournament Advocate
Posts: 31255
Joined: July 3rd, 2006, 3:51 am
Location: San Diego

Re: kavanaugh

Post by imrahil327 »

As I'm not a rapist, and the statistics for unreported rapes vs falsely reported rapes are staggeringly in favor of the former... sure, I'll take that chance.


Image
Hunter wrote:Sebulba's W-L record is like...Always and 1. Tebow's is nowhere near that percentage.
allstarz97, about M:TG wrote:I feel like Michael Jordan playing baseball.

AdmiralMotti89
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 2120
Joined: February 28th, 2016, 3:38 pm
Location: Nebraska, USA

Re: kavanaugh

Post by AdmiralMotti89 »

imrahil327 wrote:As I'm not a rapist, and the statistics for unreported rapes vs falsely reported rapes are staggeringly in favor of the former... sure, I'll take that chance.
But Kavanaugh is a rapist? How do you know?
Eric Garchow
My eBay Store 10% off orders of 10+ items, plus free shipping on orders of $50+
My videos/photos of opening sealed SWCCG + other SWCCG things.
My Frequently Updating SWCCG Wants List

User avatar
imrahil327
Tournament Advocate
Posts: 31255
Joined: July 3rd, 2006, 3:51 am
Location: San Diego

Re: kavanaugh

Post by imrahil327 »

Because I believe women. We don't need to continue any further, I'm sure there will be a pedantic reply about "But what if she's NOT telling the truth" and we'll just keep going around and around.
Image
Hunter wrote:Sebulba's W-L record is like...Always and 1. Tebow's is nowhere near that percentage.
allstarz97, about M:TG wrote:I feel like Michael Jordan playing baseball.

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Re: kavanaugh

Post by mikefrench »

There’s a lot of different aspects of due process (substantive, procedural, etc) but generally it only means that we as citizens are entitled to

1) notice
2) a hearing

Before our rights are infringed.

What rights of Kavanaugh were potentially infringed without due process? Did he have a right to be on the Supreme Court?

(I can’t wait for an anti-abortion proponent to claim he had a right to privacy that was infringed)
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

AdmiralMotti89
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 2120
Joined: February 28th, 2016, 3:38 pm
Location: Nebraska, USA

Re: kavanaugh

Post by AdmiralMotti89 »

imrahil327 wrote:Because I believe women.
OK. Are women more believable than non-women? Wouldn't it have been more accurate for you to have instead said "I believe people who say they are victims," or is there something specific about women but not non-women that's relevant here?
imrahil327 wrote: We don't need to continue any further, I'm sure there will be a pedantic reply about "But what if she's NOT telling the truth" and we'll just keep going around and around.
In terms of whether or not Kavanaugh should be treated as a rapist, that's a very different issue from whom you believe about who is telling the truth. It is unjust to ignore someone when they say they have been a victim of a crime. But it is also unjust to treat someone as a committer of crime X unless that person has been shown to have committed crime X. You can believe women and take their accusations seriously and investigate those accusations without condemning the accused on the basis of no evidence. There should be a gap there.

Let's be clear here as to what your argument is implying:

1. Say a person is up for a position.
2. They are accused of a horrible crime (and apparently if the accusation is from a woman, that changes things(?)), and there is no corroborating evidence for that accusation.
3. That person should be disqualified from that position because of that alleged crime.

If so, then what happens?
Should guilt for that crime be assigned to that person for the rest of their life?
Should we put them in jail for that crime?

If accusation of a crime (without evidence) equals being guilty of that crime, and being guilty of that crime is enough to disqualify someone from a position, then don't be surprised if this is the first of many times that accusations without evidence disqualify someone from a position.

I do wonder, if I argued that a person should be shown to have committed a murder before they are treated as a committer of murder, does that make me a normalizer of murder culture, and that I don't care if (or even hope that) people get murdered? :roll:
Eric Garchow
My eBay Store 10% off orders of 10+ items, plus free shipping on orders of $50+
My videos/photos of opening sealed SWCCG + other SWCCG things.
My Frequently Updating SWCCG Wants List

User avatar
Gergall
Rules Advocate
Posts: 21101
Joined: December 9th, 2002, 1:14 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: kavanaugh

Post by Gergall »

AdmiralMotti89 wrote:You can believe women and take their accusations seriously and investigate those accusations
I agree, this is what should have been done.
Greg Zinn
Image

AdmiralMotti89
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 2120
Joined: February 28th, 2016, 3:38 pm
Location: Nebraska, USA

Re: kavanaugh

Post by AdmiralMotti89 »

Gergall wrote:
AdmiralMotti89 wrote:You can believe women and take their accusations seriously and investigate those accusations
I agree, this is what should have been done.
What was insufficient about the FBI investigation? I am not saying they were thorough enough, I am asking what you think was insufficient about them. To me they did seem short but as I understand it us peasants can't even see the results anyways.
Eric Garchow
My eBay Store 10% off orders of 10+ items, plus free shipping on orders of $50+
My videos/photos of opening sealed SWCCG + other SWCCG things.
My Frequently Updating SWCCG Wants List

User avatar
Gergall
Rules Advocate
Posts: 21101
Joined: December 9th, 2002, 1:14 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: kavanaugh

Post by Gergall »

AdmiralMotti89 wrote:
Gergall wrote:
AdmiralMotti89 wrote:You can believe women and take their accusations seriously and investigate those accusations
I agree, this is what should have been done.
What was insufficient about the FBI investigation? I am not saying they were thorough enough, I am asking what you think was insufficient about them. To me they did seem short but as I understand it us peasants can't even see the results anyways.
1. The FBI did not interview Kavanaugh or Ford due to lack of authority to do so.
http://time.com/5414812/fbi-white-house ... nugh-ford/

2. People who knew Kavanaugh in college (a professor and some classmates/roommates) contacted the FBI to testify but were not called back.
https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/iu-p ... heard-back
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/politics ... index.html
Greg Zinn
Image

AdmiralMotti89
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 2120
Joined: February 28th, 2016, 3:38 pm
Location: Nebraska, USA

Re: kavanaugh

Post by AdmiralMotti89 »

Gergall wrote: 1. The FBI did not interview Kavanaugh or Ford due to lack of authority to do so.
http://time.com/5414812/fbi-white-house ... nugh-ford/

2. People who knew Kavanaugh in college (a professor and some classmates/roommates) contacted the FBI to testify but were not called back.
https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/iu-p ... heard-back
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/politics ... index.html
1. What should the FBI have asked them that they weren't already asked in the hearings?
2. That's a fair concern. As far as I can tell, the FBI hasn't said why they declined to interview those people involved in the Ramirez accusation. It seems like CNN is guessing that it's because of "the reality that as a supplemental background check, the FBI's focus may be narrower than they would be in a criminal investigation." I wonder what the alternatives could have been. And I wonder why Schumer and others didn't push hard to have it be a criminal investigation.
Eric Garchow
My eBay Store 10% off orders of 10+ items, plus free shipping on orders of $50+
My videos/photos of opening sealed SWCCG + other SWCCG things.
My Frequently Updating SWCCG Wants List

User avatar
Gergall
Rules Advocate
Posts: 21101
Joined: December 9th, 2002, 1:14 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: kavanaugh

Post by Gergall »

1. I'm not a professional investigator. All I know is that the FBI was not permitted to interrogate them. That seems like a bad restriction to place on them. I would also like to suggest that the burden is on you to explain how the restriction helps, as opposed to on me to explain how the restriction is hampering things.

2.
And I wonder why Schumer and others didn't push hard to have it be a criminal investigation.
Maybe I am misunderstanding but there is no chance of a criminal conviction. I don't know anybody who ever said there was.
Greg Zinn
Image

User avatar
dorshe1
Member
Posts: 8422
Joined: June 13th, 2013, 3:57 pm
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
Holotable username: dorshe1
GEMP Username: dorshe1
Contact:

Re: kavanaugh

Post by dorshe1 »

Image

AdmiralMotti89
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 2120
Joined: February 28th, 2016, 3:38 pm
Location: Nebraska, USA

Re: kavanaugh

Post by AdmiralMotti89 »

Gergall wrote:1. I'm not a professional investigator. All I know is that the FBI was not permitted to interrogate them. That seems like a bad restriction to place on them. I would also like to suggest that the burden is on you to explain how the restriction helps, as opposed to on me to explain how the restriction is hampering things.
So do you just suspect that's a problem, or do you have a more concrete reason why you brought that up? I asked you what you thought was insufficient about the investigation, and you wrote
Gergall wrote:1. The FBI did not interview Kavanaugh or Ford due to lack of authority to do so.
You seemed to be making a claim that the investigation was insufficient because of the restriction. If so, that's your burden of proof.

What specifically about the lack of an interview makes the investigation insufficient? It seems like they told their stories already.
Gergall wrote:
And I wonder why Schumer and others didn't push hard to have it be a criminal investigation.
Maybe I am misunderstanding but there is no chance of a criminal conviction. I don't know anybody who ever said there was.
That was a little tongue in cheek on my part. The idea that it wasn't a formal investigation was the pretense the Dems were using to avoid having to apply presumption of innocence. I was referring to how the Dems can't have their cake and eat it too.

Anyways, the news people just interrupted a pick six by my favorite college team to say he's been confirmed.
Eric Garchow
My eBay Store 10% off orders of 10+ items, plus free shipping on orders of $50+
My videos/photos of opening sealed SWCCG + other SWCCG things.
My Frequently Updating SWCCG Wants List

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Re: kavanaugh

Post by mikefrench »

the constant going on about investigation really shows a fundamental failure by democrats to engage on the merits. kavanaugh had a bad resume and wrote bad opinions, that's the hill they should've died on. he's been on the DC circuit for a little over a decade i think? and before that was a member of the bush admin (embarrassing) and before that worked with ken starr (embarrassing). he's a lifelong partisan hack with a bad resume and is woefully underqualified, both personally and professionally, for SCOTUS.
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

User avatar
Gergall
Rules Advocate
Posts: 21101
Joined: December 9th, 2002, 1:14 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: kavanaugh

Post by Gergall »

AdmiralMotti89 wrote:
Gergall wrote:1. I'm not a professional investigator. All I know is that the FBI was not permitted to interrogate them. That seems like a bad restriction to place on them. I would also like to suggest that the burden is on you to explain how the restriction helps, as opposed to on me to explain how the restriction is hampering things.
So do you just suspect that's a problem, or do you have a more concrete reason why you brought that up? I asked you what you thought was insufficient about the investigation, and you wrote
Gergall wrote:1. The FBI did not interview Kavanaugh or Ford due to lack of authority to do so.
You seemed to be making a claim that the investigation was insufficient because of the restriction. If so, that's your burden of proof.
The FBI hasn’t interviewed Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh or Christine Blasey Ford because it doesn’t have clear authority from the White House to do so, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.
The FBI was going to interview them but wasn't able to because of a restriction. I cannot guess why they wanted to interview them. I only see that the investigation was not able to be completed the way the FBI wanted.
Greg Zinn
Image

User avatar
Gergall
Rules Advocate
Posts: 21101
Joined: December 9th, 2002, 1:14 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: kavanaugh

Post by Gergall »

mikefrench wrote:the constant going on about investigation really shows a fundamental failure by democrats to engage on the merits. kavanaugh had a bad resume and wrote bad opinions, that's the hill they should've died on.
But in the end we do agree they would have died on that hill right? Democrats were never in a position to win this no matter what they did.
Greg Zinn
Image

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Re: kavanaugh

Post by mikefrench »

yes, this fight was lost 2 years ago.

but like, murkowski voting no (kinda) shows that the fight matters. and we should note one of the main factors of why she voted no was a substantive matter of jurisprudence (kavanaugh's failure to recognize alaskan natives as indigenous and deserving of the same rights as american indians).
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

Hari Seldon
Booster Box
Booster Box
Posts: 1289
Joined: May 9th, 2010, 6:46 pm

Re: kavanaugh

Post by Hari Seldon »

What else would I drink in honor of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh? Image

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
allstarz97 wrote:...and thematically, as everyone is referencing on this thread, why are people not mentioning the part where mace windu is crying like a little *, gets his hand cut off and then gets thrown out a window?

AdmiralMotti89
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 2120
Joined: February 28th, 2016, 3:38 pm
Location: Nebraska, USA

Re: kavanaugh

Post by AdmiralMotti89 »

Gergall wrote: The FBI was going to interview them but wasn't able to because of a restriction. I cannot guess why they wanted to interview them. I only see that the investigation was not able to be completed the way the FBI wanted.
I'm not seeing enough there to buy your apparent argument earlier that accusations weren't taken seriously and weren't investigated (enough). (The parenthetical there was my inference, since obviously they were investigated). It seems like such an argument would at least come with a plausible guess as to something the FBI should be looking at with Ford and Kavanaugh that wasn't covered at their own previous hearings.
Eric Garchow
My eBay Store 10% off orders of 10+ items, plus free shipping on orders of $50+
My videos/photos of opening sealed SWCCG + other SWCCG things.
My Frequently Updating SWCCG Wants List

AdmiralMotti89
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 2120
Joined: February 28th, 2016, 3:38 pm
Location: Nebraska, USA

Re: kavanaugh

Post by AdmiralMotti89 »

Gergall wrote: The FBI was going to interview them but wasn't able to because of a restriction. I cannot guess why they wanted to interview them. I only see that the investigation was not able to be completed the way the FBI wanted.
And anyways, in the CNN article you posted, they wrote that "as a supplemental background check, the FBI's focus may be narrower than they would be in a criminal investigation" and "it is also not unusual that someone would contact the FBI with information and then not hear back" and that "In high-profile investigations, it is not uncommon for the FBI to receive large volumes of tips from the public, which must be independently vetted to determine their credibility and applicability to a particular investigation."

As I said before, perhaps there is an issue with the investigation being too short. But it sounds like the FBI is choosing not to contact people, and it seems hard to argue that all these people were declined because of time concerns.

Furthermore, "James Gagliano, a retired FBI supervisory special agent and CNN law enforcement analyst, said the FBI examines every single tip it receives,if individuals have submitted information but have not been contacted, that doesn't mean the FBI has ignored their information.
"The mantra of the FBI is turn over every stone and don't miss anything," Gagliano said. "If they are not returning calls, there is a reason for it."

It does seem inconsistent you are on one hand critical that the Kavanaugh and Ford questioning was not able to be done the way the FBI wanted, but on the other hand, when the FBI decided not call some people back, that's apparently also a problem.

It doesn't seem like there's any substantial reason to doubt the adequacy of the investigation.
Eric Garchow
My eBay Store 10% off orders of 10+ items, plus free shipping on orders of $50+
My videos/photos of opening sealed SWCCG + other SWCCG things.
My Frequently Updating SWCCG Wants List

User avatar
Gergall
Rules Advocate
Posts: 21101
Joined: December 9th, 2002, 1:14 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: kavanaugh

Post by Gergall »

Gergall wrote: The FBI was going to interview them but wasn't able to because of a restriction. I cannot guess why they wanted to interview them. I only see that the investigation was not able to be completed the way the FBI wanted.
I'm not seeing enough there to buy your apparent argument earlier that accusations weren't taken seriously and weren't investigated (enough). (The parenthetical there was my inference, since obviously they were investigated). It seems like such an argument would at least come with a plausible guess as to something the FBI should be looking at with Ford and Kavanaugh that wasn't covered at their own previous hearings.[/quote]
The FBI was restricted from conducting the investigation it wanted to perform. They wanted to interview Ford and Kav but were not permitted. I am unable to guess at why they wanted to do those interviews, and therefore you conclude that the interviews were not important? This is the FBI we are talking about. Why not just agree that the FBI should have been allowed to conduct its investigation uninhibited? What could possibly go wrong?

Since we seem to be going in circles a bit, Let me ask you a question - is there at least SOME line you'd be willing to draw on what restrictions would have been unacceptable?
1. Are you okay with a "No interview" list (the white house told the FBI not to interview Ford or Kav)? Apparently you are good with this but double-checking.
2. Would you be okay with a "Can interview" list (the white house picks who is okay to talk to, nobody else is allowed)?
3. Would you be okay with a "Zero interview" policy (the white house restricts the FBI from talking to anybody)?
Greg Zinn
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic”