The only surprising thing for me is he didn't do it sooner - unless the gossip that the people at the White House were trying to prevent him from tweeting about it was true.
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I think we can reasonably disagree on that on two levels. In the first case, I think Trump's comments today are an example of that unreasonable burden of proof, and the unfortunate context in which they're placed. Secondly, the burden of proof is not consistent across all laws, and not consistent within the same law across similar countries. So I don't think it's useful to think of it as something that is set in stone, and morally or legally definitive in general terms.
Assumptions of guilt and innocence are embedded into how we think about crime. We have a standard way of thinking about that which has served us well on the whole. I think in some cases, that standard position is worth challenging and perhaps adapting. In the case of rape, given the historical context, I choose to make the opposite assumption to what the law mandates in most parts of the world. I do not have any confidence in that assumption, in the same way I don't have confidence in the opposite assumption in many other types of crimes, but I think it's a justifiable starting position to take prior to the investigation.
I don't think that should be baffling, and I'm not baffled by the alternative position. The more you understand about these kind of cases on a personal level, the more understandable my position becomes, IMO.
So we'd have rape as a crime where the accused is presumed guilty until proven otherwise?
Kinda rich coming from a guy born in India.
Jesus Christ what an absolute cnut.
no, but that is not a criminal trial. The level of prove to become a SCJ should be completely different to the level of proove that is required to punish someone via criminal law. Nobody, who has credible allegations of sexual assault looming over his head, should be confirmed as SCJ. Tough luck for the GOP. Them still going forward with this is speaking for itself.
The fact, that the Dems handled that quite appalling for political reasons can't change that. Just like the GOP, the dems don't care about this woman or the problem of sexual violence in general. If they would, they would have handled this individual case completely different and they'd stop to protect/idolise the sexual predators in their own ranks.
Both parties don't exist in a vacuum and this also reflects quite poorly on society (and culture), where sexual assault is still prevalent.
Dinesh would probably have a heart attack if someone told him he wasn’t white.
always loyal to his massas.
I thought Brwned's argument was more general than this case.
My other thought on this case is that even if Kavanaugh's appointment failed or hard to be withdrawn, is that he's still a judge at a federal appeals court. We'd still land on a contradiction where someone suspected of attempted rape can't serve on the SC, but can serve on pretty much the next highest level.
The contradiction is even more absurd when you take into account that less than 1% of cases in Federal court are seen by the Supreme Court, and judges in Appeal Courts are a very important component of the system.
I take it that Trump has forgotten about the hunt for 'anonymous' then?
This contradiction arises, because this woman is publicising her claims now and didn't do so 30 years ago. I don't blame her for that, because she had good reasons to do so, yet it does have important ramifications, that can't be undone. There are also quite obvious differences between a SCJs and judges who work at federal appeals courts, despite all of them being extremely important/powerful. Some would be the number (9vs~180), the profile of the cases and the political message that goes along with this.
On a different note: I don't know what people expect, that any investigation (FBI or from the committee) is going to uncover. In the end its still going to be she-said-he-said and people are still going to stick to their side.
I feel sorry for this women, because this is going to have real consequences for her. This should have been dealt with in a confidential setting without her getting outed to the public.
She sent a letter to Feinstein requesting privacy, Feinstein did literally nothing about it till it was leaked (probably by a staffer).
Yes I know, but what's your point? There could have been an confidential investigation if ford would have agreed to cooperate. I don't know her opinion on the matter or what her plan was at this point, yet that would have been possible.
In the end people from the Dems leaked this, because it was their last chance to stop Kavanaugh's nomination and violated her wish to respect her privacy.
Yes I agree with that, but there is no way they would have agreed to an investigation. Judging by the response speed and scope (65 signatures from school acquaintances within hours), the GOP already knew about this and were ok with it.
It's beyond reprehensible. Can there ever really be a fair hearing with this much political interference?
assuming this was reported immediately after the incident when he was a minor, wouldn't the records be sealed?
It was not reported.
We need to know who in the WH tipped off Whelan about Mrs Ford.
The republicans really have no fecking shame do they 
.
It's so obvious they are covering for Bret and just want to ram through this nomination no matter what
.It's so obvious they are covering for Bret and just want to ram through this nomination no matter what
If he was innocent , of course, quite obviously he isn't
There's also a lot of political brinksmanship going on in that Grassley and friends know very well that if an investigation is opened, it will start a series of delays that could cause the Repugs a lot of embarrassment and damage before the mid terms (especially with women), it could electrify Dem turnout, and it could of course also sink the Kavanaugh nomination if the likes of Collins or Murkowski decide to jump off the ship. That would give the Dems the holy grail of what they truly want out of this - the possibility of retaking the Senate and squashing the Kavanaugh nomination out right, and if by then Trump has nominated someone else, then they will simply Merrick Garland him for the next two years. Ultimately this is a macro level war where two sides are attempting to outflank one another to gain as much political power as possible.
Because he didn't type that up, which isn't me dismissing him being cnut mind you. And it's still unpresidential to comment in that manner.
Good news but my god the wording in that tweet made my skin crawl.
Reading some of the tweets there makes my blood boil. Crazy how many sick fcuks there are out there that rape & molest kids.
How long did the GOP stall Garland? Stalling a nomination for two years seems extreme.
About 8 months.
And yeah, Dems don't have the cojones to stall for 2 years. They would be open to someone like Garrett or Thapar though, just not Kavanaugh due to his position on Roe and Trump.
Thanks. No chance Trump doesn't get a nominee through.
Meanwhile while everyone distracted, the USA moves forward with their regime change plans for Venezuela.
These Kavanaugh creep belonged to a chapter whose moto was "No means Yes. Yes means Anal".
Yeah...I'm sure he is innocent.
Yeah...I'm sure he is innocent.
sure regime change is bad but the russians put out shitty memes on facebook. thats the real injustice
Yup. The same Russians that they say they would side with over the democrats. All this whilst they defeat the Commie bastards in Venezuela.
Honestly, the fecking mental gymnastics it takes to think the way many Republicans do at the moment. Truly convoluted, insane batshit.