Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Gatefan1976]

I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who suggest a large group is forcing a woman to make damaging accusation. It sounds like a giant conspiracy

Come on man, everyone wants a FBI investigation.
Except the people defending against the charge...……..

[Annoyed]

I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who suggest a large group is forcing a woman to make damaging accusation. It sounds like a giant conspiracy

That's because it is a conspiracy. The Dems had these accusation in hand almost two months ago. Ford herself can't even remember where it happened, just a vague recollection

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/1346536002/

Ford can’t remember the year the incident happened, she can’t remember how she got to the house party, or how she got home. She told no one about it at the time and the issue came to the forefront during a couples therapy session six years ago. Her therapist’s notes never mention Kavanaugh and actually mention four boys involved, although she says there were only two.

Yeah, it's a conspiracy alright. On the part of the Democrats, who are desperate enough to do anything to block SCOTUS from going 5-4 Conservative. But the thing is, they can't stop that. Even if they derail Kavanaugh, and Trump can then nominate Amy Coney Barrett, who would have been my first choice anyway, and there is plenty of time before January to confirm her. Or are the Dems going to try to smear her, too?

[jelgate]

My point still stands. The notion that a whole group is doing such an unethical and illegal thing. I can believe the woman is making false accusations but your giant conspiracy is laughable

[Chaka-Z0]

My point still stands. The notion that a whole group is doing such an unethical and illegal thing. I can believe the woman is making false accusations but your giant conspiracy is laughable

. . .

You dropped your tin foil hat

I have many extras.

[Annoyed]

My point still stands. The notion that a whole group is doing such an unethical and illegal thing. I can believe the woman is making false accusations but your giant conspiracy is laughable

Not when you consider what a 5-4 SCOTUS is going to mean for the Democrats.

For a very long time now, they have been unable to advance many aspects of their agenda legislatively, so they have relied upon the courts to do so.

They're going to lose that ability. I can understand their panic, but it doesn't excuse their behavior.

[jelgate]

All you are doing is repeating yourself. Its still a laughable conspiracy theory.

[Chaka-Z0]

Well to be fair, its not a conspiracy, its politics. This happens all the time, same goes for trials when you try to discredit someone. Don't you think that the first thing the political parties do is to dig into their opponent's history to see if there's some shady stuff? My guess is that they found this lady while investigating and somehow learned that something happened during the party (maybe not as she described). Could also be simply that she did it on her own accord. Nobody knows.

I don't believe it's laughable, but actually probable. That's just politics in a nutshell I don't see how that story is any different than Stormy Daniels for instance. She only spoke out because Trump became POTUS.

[Chaka-Z0]

Not when you consider what a 5-4 SCOTUS is going to mean for the Democrats.

For a very long time now, they have been unable to advance many aspects of their agenda legislatively, so they have relied upon the courts to do so.

They're going to lose that ability. I can understand their panic, but it doesn't excuse their behavior.

Please don't be a hypocrite, you know damn well the Rep would've done the same in their position.

[jelgate]

You might be able to convince me a Democrat or two might have persuaded the accusations but the whole party is still laughable

[LtColCarter]

You might be able to convince me a Democrat or two might have persuaded the accusations but the whole party is still laughable

When is his logic not laughable?

[SGalisa]

why didn't the statute of limitations apply to Bill Cosby then?

Ask the court system when the expiration date of the statute of limitations were in each case. The problem that came up with Bill Cosby was also the amount of pressure that came forward against him to smear his reputation as a "clean-cut" role model dad on and off screen. If it was a conspiracy of a bunch of women simply making complaints, sadly it worked and destroyed him in more ways than one. His whole case ended up becoming a mob-rule ganging up against him.

That is the same tactic that the DEMs are trying to use against Donald Trump, as POTUS. If (generic) *you* don't think so, then why (do certain high profile personas) keep bringing up people from his past (prior to being President) to Publicly paint a tarnished image of his life (prior to being President)...? The DEM goal is to remove Trump from being POTUS. They (the DEMs) have openly stated it as so, and keep harping on it -- especially if they think that *idea* might be fading into the proverbial woodwork.

People have tried to cite sessions with some head shrinker back in 2012, but according to that there were 4 males present, and she didn't name Kavanaugh...

This is pure, unadulterated BS, it's sole purpose being a desperate attempt by the Democrats to stop a judicial nomination that they have no legitimate chance of stopping. And it might backfire on them in more ways than one.

The GOP can always withdraw Kavanaugh and nominate Amy Coney Barrett in his place, and do a rush confirmation before November, or even before January if they want to take their time. (even if the senate does flip, the Republicans have it till January)
. . .

I've heard and read that even if Amy is instead nominated (as a alternative), the DEMs will go after her, as well.
*Stalling* for time is just one tactic. Their (DEM) other goal is to utterly destroy anything that is in opposition to the DEM ideal and agenda -- from this time forth and forever more (going back about a year, when these efforts became more serious).

There's that old saying that "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely" ... the various investigations that have occurred thus far during Trump's POTUS term have basically shown just how corrupted the DEMs&Company truly are (pockets of selected individuals here and there)... even while being cleverly deception in the process of hiding it (their methods of corruption, etc.) from the general public world...

Well, the DEMs realized over a year ago that they almost had total power within their grasp, and it escaped from their clutches. Now, their goal is to regain it with all their might, and NEVER ever let go ever again... destroy anyone and everything that gets between them and their agenda goal, if necessary. This mantra keeps playing over and over and over again. Someday, it just might become a reality, and then what? Those who oppose the (absolute power crazed) DEMs & DEM agenda either get financially destroyed or physically removed from existence?

There's more to say on this, but it belongs in the other "earth's future..." thread, instead.

[Annoyed]

I've heard and read that even if Amy is instead nominated (as a alternative), the DEMs will go after her, as well.
*Stalling* for time is just one tactic. Their (DEM) other goal is to utterly destroy anything that is in opposition to the DEM ideal and agenda -- from this time forth and forever more (going back about a year, when these efforts became more serious).

Of course they will go after Barrett. As I've said elsewhere, the left can't push its agenda legislatively, it doesn't have enough voter support, so they've been using the left leaning courts instead for decades. They're about to lose that ability, and they are understandably terrified at the prospect. So they will stoop to any length to stop any conservative nominee.

As far as I'm concerned, the Republicans ought to just close ranks, confirm Kavanaugh regardless of what the Democrats try. Hell, this woman's accusations aren't even credible. Even if the statute of limitations hadn't run out long ago, she couldn't get a grand jury to indict based on what she's saying. She doesn't remember exactly where or when this happened, and in 2012, with some head shrink, she said it was 4 guys.. She's pulling this out of where the sun don't shine, if you ask me.

Well, the DEMs realized over a year ago that they almost had total power within their grasp, and it escaped from their clutches. Now, their goal is to regain it with all their might, and NEVER ever let go ever again... destroy anyone and everything that gets between them and their agenda goal, if necessary. This mantra keeps playing over and over and over again. Someday, it just might become a reality, and then what? Those who oppose the (absolute power crazed) DEMs & DEM agenda either get financially destroyed or physically removed from existence?

There's more to say on this, but it belongs in the other "earth's future..." thread, instead.

Not quite... They got Obama in in 2008, but the voters handed the House to the Republicans in 2010, and then the Senate in 2014. And a lot of statehouses have gone Republican in those years too. The voters don't like the far left agenda of folks like Obama, so they used Congress to stop him cold.

What they did screw up was the Presidency, in 2016. The national party (for reasons I have a very good theory about) deliberately chose to run Clinton despite their own voters favoring Sanders. If you ask me, if they had listened to their voters and ran Sanders, Sanders would be in the White House now, not Trump. But they had to run Clinton and they know they screwed up.

[SoulReaver]

Hell, this woman's accusations aren't even credible. Even if the statute of limitations hadn't run out long ago, she couldn't get a grand jury to indict based on what she's saying. She doesn't remember exactly where or when this happened, and in 2012, with some head shrink, she said it was 4 guys.. She's pulling this out of where the sun don't shine, if you ask me.

worked against Cosby didn't it?

If you ask me, if they had listened to their voters and ran Sanders, Sanders would be in the White House now, not Trump

I used to think that but now I'm not that certain

1) he labels himself as a "socialist" even though he must know full well that doing so in this country can be political suicide
but then who knows people also wanted change & socialism does represent change (and a very anti-Establishment connotation)

2) he's very pro-immigration (especially from south-american countries which (if I'm not the mistaken the majority of voters are not too keen about). he also opposes the muslim ban (a stance that would've been safe before 9/11 or the last Isis attacks maybe but not now)
I used to think immigration was a detail but in the US it appears to be a key issue for voters
Bernie shouldn't have been so vocal about his pro-immigration views & should've been willing to compromise on this instead, to boost his chances
some countries in the EU have seen the rise of anti-immigration left-wing parties recently

[Annoyed]

worked against Cosby didn't it?

Let that die. Different siuations altogether.

I used to think that but now I'm not that certain

1) he labels himself as a "socialist" even though he must know full well that doing so in this country can be political suicide
but then who knows people also wanted change & socialism does represent change (and a very anti-Establishment connotation)

There's a term for it in head shrinker pseudoscience that describes this, but I can't think of it right now. People want to hear what they want to hear. He expects only his far left supporters will really "hear" that, and he's right. The mainstream left will tend to ignore that fringe element in their party's discourse, just as the right pew pews the extreme right; KKK and similar. We think they're just a minor fringe element. But in the democrat's case, it's not so much a fringe as it is a movement concentrated in the "blue" areas on our east and west coasts, particularly among the young who are arse-deep in student loan debt that they should have never taken on and can't cut it financially and want people to pay for their shiznit. How ma ny of them want their loans forgiven?

So he's trying to appeal to that crowd, knowing his "core" left audience will ignore that aspect.

2) he's very pro-immigration (especially from south-american countries which (if I'm not the mistaken the majority of voters are not too keen about). he also opposes the muslim ban (a stance that would've been safe before 9/11 or the last Isis attacks maybe but not now)
I used to think immigration was a detail but in the US it appears to be a key issue for voters
Bernie shouldn't have been so vocal about his pro-immigration views & should've been willing to compromise on this instead, to boost his chances
some countries in the EU have seen the rise of anti-immigration left-wing parties recently

The political left in this country generally favors loose immigration policy and in fact even encourages illlegal immigration.

The strategy is that a large percentage of legal immigrants and even larger percentage of illegals end up on social services. Welfare and such.

Have you ever noticed that nearly all democrats insist upon a fairly quick and easy "path to citizenship" for illegals?
Once citizen is granted, they have the right to vote. And since these people are dependent upon govt. handouts for their food and housing, which party do you think they're going to vote for? The Republicans or the Democrats?

See the light now?

Now, I've got a question for you.

Much of what I described above is what you would call subtext. It's based on information which as a resident of this country, I'm expected to understand as instinctively as I understand breathing.

Many times, I refrain from commenting on news items in other countries, as I don't live there, and don't have that local "subtext" in my head. So I know I don't fully understand local affairs in other countries. i'm not qualified.

Now, you live in Yurp, wherever that is. Without the subtext in the back of your mind that comes from living in the US, what makes you think you are qualified to judge events here?

[jelgate]

I see you still like generalizations and stereotypes