Politics - Page 1562 - NFL UK Forums
NFL UK Mobile Logo
Go Back   NFL UK Forums > Miscellaneous > Off-Topic - Entertainment/News

  #15611  
Old 08.10.2018, 01:55 PM
goodkarma84's Avatar
goodkarma84 goodkarma84 is offline
GOAT
 
Join Date: 15.09.2008
Posts: 27,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by European Bob View Post
America and its democracy by rules

Kavanaugh was nominated by an elected president, who won the election based on established rules that were clearly stated in advance of that election and which had been in force for numerous elections before that for a long period of time. There is no rule about popular vote winner wins.

The 49 senators who voted 'No' on Kavanaugh were smaller in number than the 51 who voted 'Yes'. The established rules were clearly stated in advance that the most votes wins and have been in force for a long period of time. There is no rule about senators who represent more numerous populations having votes that carry more weight.

well cheers for those obvious points


its not like its an agreed system by both parties before an election its just an old rule and America hates the idea of changing those sort of things.



again asking for a personal opinion, do you think its a good system?
(as clearly that was the point i was making with the post not saying different people actually won.)



its also a system that benefits one party.



Quote:
Originally Posted by European Bob View Post
Testifying was not really the process, was it. The process was securing the nomination and getting it voted through. You don't have to like the result, or the person, and you can question the motives of those who voted, but you cannot question the process. The process does not include members of the public being invited to start a trial in a court of public opinion.

. Sigh. I feel we are going over old ground here. Back to you again. "What do I think? Surely my opinion matters, doesn't it?". No, it doesn't. You have no reason to think someone is lying? What kind of hurdle is that? I'm sure there have been plenty of cases where people had no reason to think someone was lying, only for it to turn out that they were lying. Or perhaps not lying but simply mistaken. It's not good enough. The mother of Shannon Matthews perhaps? Perhaps you thought that neighbour near the McCann's villa in Portugal was responsible, especially after the gutter press revealed he had "pictures of his wife in lingerie". The horror!

For someone that in other areas of politics seems very aware of the dangers that mob outrage can cause in society, and how it leads to ill-thought out and arbitrary decisions, and can potentially ruin lives, I just don't get how you can think this is any way different. Is it as simple as this time it's the Guardian being shrill out it rather than the Mail? Proper process. Always. Which does not mean public accusations without proper scrutiny.

As to whether Kavanaugh did anything or not, I do not know. Neither do you you. But I would rather someone be guilty yet clear the hurdles of proper process than someone be innocent and fall to the baying mob of public opinion. Which, let's face it, has a very mixed track record.

yes it was and it has happened in the past too.

part of the process is working out if the person is right for the position.



i'm not saying my opinion matters, i'm simply asking for yours?
not sure why you feel thats an odd thing to ask for in a debate, we have both parties testify under oath and based on that you could provide an opinion on who you believe.


like a few posts ago when you asked what he could of down to come across as credible, i listed some key points and never heard back.


again removing whether you think the sexual assault happened, do you think the way he acted in the process was fine and good enough to get the position despite the way he acted and he nonsense he talked?


in a court of law sure clear the hurdles of that bar, in appointing a judge, i would rather air on the side of caution. this fella wasnt special, the right wing fellas who produced the shortlist literally said that any of them would be fine choices.
you seem to want to keep merging this situation with a court of law.
Reply With Quote
  #15612  
Old 08.10.2018, 07:33 PM
lee harris 10's Avatar
lee harris 10 lee harris 10 is offline
Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: 05.09.2010
Posts: 10,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodkarma84 View Post
well cheers for those obvious points


its not like its an agreed system by both parties before an election its just an old rule and America hates the idea of changing those sort of things.



again asking for a personal opinion, do you think its a good system?
(as clearly that was the point i was making with the post not saying different people actually won.)



its also a system that benefits one party.
think this electoral system has been around since the late part of the 19th century so think if it was truly broken some one would have noticed way before Trump won and Justice Kavanaugh was put on the SCOTUS.

you can argue the system helps the liberals with the amount of electoral votes states like NY/California get compared to the fly over states where Hillary forgot to campaign.
Reply With Quote
  #15613  
Old 08.10.2018, 07:36 PM
lee harris 10's Avatar
lee harris 10 lee harris 10 is offline
Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: 05.09.2010
Posts: 10,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodkarma84 View Post
America and its democracy in numbers


Kavanaugh was nominated by a candidate who lost the popular vote by 3 million+ votes.



The 49 Senators who voted 'No' on Kavanaugh represent 181.8 million Americans.


The 51 Senators who voted 'Yes' represent 143.2 million.
now do BREXIT by the numbers.
Reply With Quote
  #15614  
Old 08.10.2018, 07:44 PM
goodkarma84's Avatar
goodkarma84 goodkarma84 is offline
GOAT
 
Join Date: 15.09.2008
Posts: 27,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lee harris 10 View Post
think this electoral system has been around since the late part of the 19th century so think if it was truly broken some one would have noticed way before Trump won and Justice Kavanaugh was put on the SCOTUS.

you can argue the system helps the liberals with the amount of electoral votes states like NY/California get compared to the fly over states where Hillary forgot to campaign.

ah yes i would see the republicans agreeing to change something that benefits them, when was the last time a republican presidential candidate won the popular vote and lost?


somethings clearly dont make real sense, in terms of all votes counting the same and thats before you get into things like voter suppression.



people did notice before, its just thats its still current information.



those electoral votes still clearly dont balance with reality, so no you cant argue that at all.



Quote:
Originally Posted by lee harris 10 View Post
now do BREXIT by the numbers.

now say why you think Brexit is a good idea?


pretty sure more people didnt vote for Brexit than voted for it
Reply With Quote
  #15615  
Old 08.10.2018, 08:43 PM
European Bob's Avatar
European Bob European Bob is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 11.01.2012
Posts: 8,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodkarma84 View Post
well cheers for those obvious points


its not like its an agreed system by both parties before an election its just an old rule and America hates the idea of changing those sort of things.



again asking for a personal opinion, do you think its a good system?
(as clearly that was the point i was making with the post not saying different people actually won.)



its also a system that benefits one party.






yes it was and it has happened in the past too.

part of the process is working out if the person is right for the position.



i'm not saying my opinion matters, i'm simply asking for yours?
not sure why you feel thats an odd thing to ask for in a debate, we have both parties testify under oath and based on that you could provide an opinion on who you believe.


like a few posts ago when you asked what he could of down to come across as credible, i listed some key points and never heard back.


again removing whether you think the sexual assault happened, do you think the way he acted in the process was fine and good enough to get the position despite the way he acted and he nonsense he talked?


in a court of law sure clear the hurdles of that bar, in appointing a judge, i would rather air on the side of caution. this fella wasnt special, the right wing fellas who produced the shortlist literally said that any of them would be fine choices.
you seem to want to keep merging this situation with a court of law.
My opinion is: i don’t know. Three little words that seem increasingly difficult for people to say, and they won’t let their lack of knowledge about a situation impede that. I don’t know. Because I really don’t. But i do know that I am and always have been very wary of mob justice, rushing to judgment and jumping on opinion bandwagons. It’s one reason why I stay clear of demonstrations. There is not wisdom in crowds. Bill Hicks once said that when the consensus forms the comedian’s job is to say “wait a minute.” I’m not a comedian, but I am a lawyer and I feel the same way.

The reason I keep going back to a court of law is that this I where the allegations made against this guy belong. Who “seems believable when they speak” is the wrong way to look at it. The greatest swindlers on earth seem believable - that’s what makes them so good at it. As David said, people can spot a liar 54% of the time. And Ford does not even have to be lying to be wrong. She may have recalled a true encounter at some unspecified date involving someone else. It could be purely a case of mistaken identity. Again, we don’t know and we should not be convicting people based on hunches and feelings.

As for the Trump regime, I don’t care for it at all. Yet here I am defending it on this matter. Because once you fall foul of to partisanship and agendas over process then you lose credibilty. Which, for the record, a great number of Republicans have (and Democrats). But it doesn’t mean I have to.

You asked me what I thought of the US electoral system. I think it’s a terrible system. But I thought that before the vote and would have thought it if Clinton had won the presidency on 3m fewer votes than Trump. I thought it when Obama was President. Everyone knew the system beforehand so it is no use complaining about the counting method afterwards. It’s not as if our FPTP system is beyond creating unfair outcomes. Work to change it in future by all means. But you can’t lament that Trump won on the counting.
Reply With Quote
  #15616  
Old 08.10.2018, 11:02 PM
goodkarma84's Avatar
goodkarma84 goodkarma84 is offline
GOAT
 
Join Date: 15.09.2008
Posts: 27,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by European Bob View Post
My opinion is: i don’t know. Three little words that seem increasingly difficult for people to say, and they won’t let their lack of knowledge about a situation impede that. I don’t know. Because I really don’t. But i do know that I am and always have been very wary of mob justice, rushing to judgment and jumping on opinion bandwagons. It’s one reason why I stay clear of demonstrations. There is not wisdom in crowds. Bill Hicks once said that when the consensus forms the comedian’s job is to say “wait a minute.” I’m not a comedian, but I am a lawyer and I feel the same way.

The reason I keep going back to a court of law is that this I where the allegations made against this guy belong. Who “seems believable when they speak” is the wrong way to look at it. The greatest swindlers on earth seem believable - that’s what makes them so good at it. As David said, people can spot a liar 54% of the time. And Ford does not even have to be lying to be wrong. She may have recalled a true encounter at some unspecified date involving someone else. It could be purely a case of mistaken identity. Again, we don’t know and we should not be convicting people based on hunches and feelings.

As for the Trump regime, I don’t care for it at all. Yet here I am defending it on this matter. Because once you fall foul of to partisanship and agendas over process then you lose credibilty. Which, for the record, a great number of Republicans have (and Democrats). But it doesn’t mean I have to.

You asked me what I thought of the US electoral system. I think it’s a terrible system. But I thought that before the vote and would have thought it if Clinton had won the presidency on 3m fewer votes than Trump. I thought it when Obama was President. Everyone knew the system beforehand so it is no use complaining about the counting method afterwards. It’s not as if our FPTP system is beyond creating unfair outcomes. Work to change it in future by all means. But you can’t lament that Trump won on the counting.



why i keep saying isnt a criminal proceeding is because it isnt one.

i would agree with you that mob justice is rarely a good thing but it seems an odd way to phrase it. because even if you dont think he committed the act he shouldnt of been picked for other reasons.



he will not lose his freedom and thats why the bar in criminal law is so high. a bar i agree this case wouldnt be able to get across.


heres an i dont know that i have, how to fix the system on these sort of cases because those who committee violent crimes like sexual assault need to be locked up. but it often becomes a he said she said.
so even if she had gone to the police right after it happened, what do you think would of happened with this case. (which also means even if the police treated it seriously.)




if this is great plan why didnt they do it on Trumps first pick (the stolen one)?


so what are the point of witnesses in a court of law?




the problem here is i dont think you watched the proceedings and seem to be writing it off, despite it being under oath and despite the fact she was questioned by a prosecutor chosen by the republicans. then ignoring the way he spoke and acted when he answered questions.



if you were accused of this crime and were innocent and someone said to you would you like an FBI investigation, what would you say?




as i say if you remove partisanship and if you remove the sexual assault claim, he still shouldnt of been confirmed.
and its not because of his likely judgements.
and not because Trump picked him because he has stated certain things about protecting a President.
and not even because of the questions over his debts disappearing.
but because of the way he behaved and that spouted a bunch of partisan nonsense and conspiracy theories.



that should of been a death blow, even the man himself stated that partisanship should have no part on the court.



that means the process failed, it was just a pick and confirmation that ignored the hearings.



the Supreme court is already a mess with many awful rulings to its name (Citizens United is the big one but they have also rolled back voter protections and overreached on the affordable care act) and have damaged the US, this appointment will only make it worse.



it has always been a terrible system and pointing out its flaws it key.
also dont forgot that despite this not mattering Trump decided to randomly declare that he only lost the popular vote because of voter fraud.


in the states its a 2 party system, so it makes people one party or the other and thats not how people really are.

so when talking about this sort of thing you just get put into one of those boxes. the Democrats have many failings and are pretty much on the left by default.

Last edited by goodkarma84; 08.10.2018 at 11:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15617  
Old 08.10.2018, 11:17 PM
Two-minute drill's Avatar
Two-minute drill Two-minute drill is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 10.09.2006
Posts: 5,309
Default

US liberal Democrat clintonites have become as bad as the fox news clique and tea partiers.

blind, brainwashed and overly offended with sinister agendas.
Reply With Quote
  #15618  
Old 08.10.2018, 11:52 PM
goodkarma84's Avatar
goodkarma84 goodkarma84 is offline
GOAT
 
Join Date: 15.09.2008
Posts: 27,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Two-minute drill View Post
US liberal Democrat clintonites have become as bad as the fox news clique and tea partiers.

blind, brainwashed and overly offended with sinister agendas.

the clintons are a thing anymore.



do you really back Kavanaugh and think it was a good appointment?



you tend to claim something random and then thats it
Reply With Quote
  #15619  
Old 09.10.2018, 12:20 AM
Two-minute drill's Avatar
Two-minute drill Two-minute drill is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 10.09.2006
Posts: 5,309
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodkarma84 View Post
the clintons are a thing anymore.
oh but they are. their foundation and legacy is still prevalent. it's utter, utter hypocrisy.
and it's impossible to differentiate between soros and the clintons these days. soros is also a financier of 'pretend goodness' to get power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodkarma84 View Post
do you really back Kavanaugh and think it was a good appointment?
hell no. but even i can see the holes and BS.

you can tell the truth and have an impartial opinion without looking like an apologist for ****. yes it seems that Christine Blasey Ford was raped. but imo, not by brett kavanaugh, who he himself did other wrong-doings in college which is why he doesn't want the FBI digging it up.

now comes the 'controversial' but brutally honest part. Christine Blasey Ford was sent out to the hearing to deliberately look disheveled and have a fake shaky voice. did you not see it ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodkarma84 View Post
you tend to claim something random and then thats it
i'm left-wing / far-left, but not a stooge to left-leaning corporate lying sell-outs with sinister agendas.

heck, even now the 'congressional black caucus' should be known as the 'corporate black caucus'.
can you see it ?
Reply With Quote
  #15620  
Old 09.10.2018, 12:26 AM
Two-minute drill's Avatar
Two-minute drill Two-minute drill is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 10.09.2006
Posts: 5,309
Default

and i hope the real #MeToo movement keeps going so it can finally out the paedophiles in hollywood and DC but even even rose mcgowan recently said that the movement has become fake to make hollywood and celebs make feel good about themselves and relevant.

to quote her on the issue:

"It's all ********. It's a lie. It's a Band-Aid lie to make them feel better. I know these people, I know they're lily-livered, and as long as it looks good on the surface, to them, that's enough."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +0. The time now is 12:10 AM.