Politics Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noteggs

https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronav...rk-11588066200



Sounds like a “small” problem trying to jump start this economy when this thing is over.

---

Well, when their old employers are ready to have them back, we've got to kick as many of them as possible off the dole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Masterofreality

Didn't need to because Ford had no evidence to corroborate her fantasy while Kavanaugh had plenty to corroborate his facts.

---

My point exactly. It wasn't a "he said/she said" deal. She claimed a witness. What court in the country (other than the Senate) would NOT call the witness claimed, in that kind of situation. Your argument of "didn't need" is very weak. It's not even an argument. It's a cry for the evidence she claimed.
What would it have hurt to have the guy testify? Nothing. Could have proved (if possible) Kavanuagh's claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoMuskies

Well, when their old employers are ready to have them back, we've got to kick as many of them as possible off the dole.

---

Agree, but doesn’t this complicate what employers are going to do with wages moving forward?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boozehound

I'm not sure what this means. I'll refer you back to my earlier point and exchange with Smails.



Which does bring me to this point that Trump supporters and defenders (even the pretend supporters) love: Essentially invalidating any criticism of Trump unless it comes from one of the conservative-sanctioned media sources, which rarely (if ever) criticize Trump. It's a phenomenal way to create your own echo chamber. You simply dismiss anything that doesn't come from an 'approved' media source without giving it a second thought.

---

Just like those on the Left invalidate any support of Trump or criticism of Obama, Biden, Clinton if it’s comes from Fox, The Federalist, etc. Does either really surprise anyone?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulxu

What court in the country (other than the Senate) would NOT call the witness claimed, in that kind of situation.

---

Not to be haste, but the courts would turn down the case to begin with because the statute of limitations. Time plays a tough toll on our memory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulxu

My point exactly. It wasn't a "he said/she said" deal. She claimed a witness. What court in the country (other than the Senate) would NOT call the witness claimed, in that kind of situation. Your argument of "didn't need" is very weak. It's not even an argument. It's a cry for the evidence she claimed.
What would it have hurt to have the guy testify? Nothing. Could have proved (if possible) Kavanuagh's claims.

---

First of all, what the hell is your point?

Second, the female witness- her supposed friend- she tried to claim denied it ever happened.

Finally, this "case" would have never come within 100 miles of a court because there was zero case.

Only a ridiculously partisan group of Trump Derangement Syndrome sycophants would even throw this trash in front of the entire country, and take valuable government time away from real business. It had no business ever being brought to light or given any legs. Maybe that's why it took Feinstein 2 months to even decide to publicize it?

Try again.

Agreeing with both of your points, still doesn't obviate the reality of having the witness testify in a Senate hearing (no statute of limitations) would have helped clear it up a little.

His letter to the committee said "I do not recall the party." Why not come to the committee to say that under oath?

(You might know the answer to that question)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xudash

Gee, I wonder if that would be because the media sources you most likely prefer are bastions of liberal drivel. Do you seriously want to take the position that CBS, NBC, ABC, the NYT, the WAPO and others are fair and objective?

---

Nothing is fair and balanced, unfortunately. It's why it's up to the individual to choose what news they want to consume. It's also unfortunate because it allows people to create a world in which they never have to consider (or oftentimes even hear) an opposing viewpoint. If you do come across an opposing view you can just dismiss the source as biased, therefore it can't possibly be accurate.

I subscribe to two news sources: Wall Street Journal and WAPO. It's not an accident that they lean different ways politically. I won't really watch any news, but when I do it's typically Squawk Box in the morning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Masterofreality

First of all, what the hell is your point?

---

I think my point is pretty simple. In a he said/she said, the problem is no witnesses. Here there was a potential witness.

What's so hard about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulxu

Agreeing with both of your points, still doesn't obviate the reality of having the witness testify in a Senate hearing (no statute of limitations) would have helped clear it up a little.

His letter to the committee said "I do not recall the party." Why not come to the committee to say that under oath?

(You might know the answer to that question)

---

It was a sowrn affidavit was it not?

And that guy has plenty to lose if he showed. Look at how the MeToo crazies operate. If that guy showed up and testified on behalf of Kavanaugh, do you think that's the end of it? That guy's life is ruined. Those crazies will dox him and his family and make his life a living hell because he had the audacity to defend a "rapist."