illinilaw08
Members-
Posts
2,182 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by illinilaw08
-
Ford has been subject to death threats and forced to moved. If this is a false claim that was made in an attempt to delay confirmation until the midterms, then Ford was willing to pay one hell of a price to save that seat... On the Dems and Congress, the Senate map is actually a pretty tough road to the Dems taking control of the Senate just because of the seats that are up.
-
Again, one side is calling for an investigation and the other side is saying this: “Here’s what I want to tell you,” McConnell said Friday morning, according to The Washington Post. “In the very near future, Judge Kavanaugh will be on the U.S. Supreme Court. So, my friends, keep the faith. Don’t get rattled by all this. We’re going to plow right through it and do our job.” http://fortune.com/2018/09/21/mcconnell-kavanaugh-confirmation/
-
Sounds like you are calling for an investigation. I do lean left, and I don't want Kavanaugh on the Court (among other things, the Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat from Obama which altered the complexion of the Court for the next 40 years). But I also was in favor of Al Franken resigning, even though I loved his politics, because the allegations against him disqualified him as a Senator in my opinion. So I think I can set aside politics when it comes to these allegations. And this is the mind boggling thing to me. Kavanaugh isn't unique in his qualifications, and he isn't unique in his conservatism. Why are the Republicans hell bent on confirming Kavanaugh over these allegations?
-
We are saying "ok, he might have done it. He shouldn't be one of 9 people on the Supreme Court." That's a far cry from "let's fuck him for life."
-
Thank goodness this wasn't a problem for the Sandusky investigators, or the investigators into the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals... And yes - it is evidence. The credibility of the evidence goes to the weight... ETA: Dude - I'm a lawyer who does investigations like this all the time. I'd never take a deposition if I worried that every statement at the depo would be admissible in court. The Rules of Civil Procedure make anything relevant to the claim discoverable (subject to privilege, etc.), regardless of whether it's ultimately admissible.
-
Actually, it is how investigations work. They would take statements under oath from Kavanaugh, the friend, and Ford. They would probably also interview the therapist, other people who might have a recollection of the party, and put together a report. That's literally what police do every day.
-
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/23/641181345/heres-the-story-behind-that-trump-tweet-on-south-africa-and-why-it-sparked-outra Explanation of the tweet.
-
Sure, but here again - one side has asked for an FBI investigation into the claims (which is what happened with Anita Hill in 1991) and the other side is saying, essentially, it doesn't matter - we're going to confirm him anyway. This is a lifetime appointment - one of 9 votes that influences the application of laws on every topic in your original post. These allegations - IMO - necessarily mean that they have to slow the process down to ensure that they get this RIGHT. If the allegations are true, Kavanaugh should simply not be a Supreme Court Justice. ETA: And the evidence from Ford actually has some strong indicators of reliability. She raised the sexual assault in therapy in the early 2010s (2012 IIRC), well before Kavanaugh was up for a spot on SCOTUS. That factor alone merits an actual, thorough, investigation into the claims.
-
Trump's South Africa tweet was on August 22.
-
The who is very important - otherwise you are just trading in anecdotes. It's a verifiable fact, for example, that white supremacists have obtained a larger platform since Donald Trump's election. Donald Trump has used his platform as President to push issues that are pretty clearly racial issues (the flag vs. the NFL, tweeting white supremacist talking points about South Africa, "both sides" at Charlottesville, having Bannon and Miller - among others - influencing policy coming out of the White House). I agree that not every Trump supporter is a racist. But it is also true that votes FOR Donald Trump are votes for a guy who seems pretty racist. Maybe you didn't vote for him because of those issues, but you are either willfully blind to his racist statements (IMO a lot of Trump's voters don't think those statements are racially tinged at all) or you don't care enough about those issues to influence your vote. Also, it bugs me when we have these discussions about "generalizations" in politics, and it comes in the same thread where you literally generalized all of Hollywood AND generalized how people on the left talk about Trump supporters...
-
If you look at the actual policy positions, I think you will see that Democrats tend to at least offer a "how" regarding paying for their policy priorities. Here's Bernie Sanders on "Medicare For All" - https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file My issue with the Republicans on fiscal responsibility is that most of their ideas come from a concept that is just flat out wrong. If you put more money in the hands of the wealthy, they will create jobs and that income will trickle down. But when the tax bill passed last year, and companies received big tax cuts, the excess money ended up going to shareholders and not to labor. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/what-did-corporate-america-do-tax-break-buy-record-amounts-n886621
-
Religion - I generally agree. The problem with religion is when people legislate on the basis of their religion. This is a huge issue (IMO) with the Republican Party. Abortion - Agreed. LGBTQ - Agreed. Free Speech - "Because the more they talk -- the less people will listen to their ignorant shit" does not seem grounded in reality. The President says ignorant shit on a near daily basis and his supporters eat it up. I have not seen the Left calling to criminalize or ban speech, but attacking ignorant viewpoints seems fine. Healthcare - Lot of systemic issues - policy needs to be focused on greater access to care at a lower cost. One party has ideas on that, one party does not. Gun Rights - Stop relying on the 2nd Amendment as a crutch. Acknowledge the reality that more guns = more gun related deaths. Start having actual policy discussions about how to limit gun deaths without banning firearms outright. Military - Generally agree here, but you have to slowly transition from your international commitments. 28,000 troops leaving North Korea tomorrow would create a massive power vacuum in the region. More importantly, I want greater ethical accountability from the military. Saudi Arabia is using US weapons in Yemen with a complete disregard to civilian casualties. Shut down arms sale to the Saudis until they get their shit together. Fiscal Responsibility - Democrats talk about using government to provide a social safety net - Medicaid, housing, food stamps, social security, and Medicare are things that some of the most vulnerable people in society rely upon to survive. Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility when they are out of power, and then immediately pass deficit killing tax reform where the vast majority of the benefit trickles up - to people that do not need the relief. Immigration - Illegal immigration is generally a net positive for the economy. Targeted enforcement - deport the actual criminals - is far superior to the method that the Republicans are throwing out there. Legal immigration is a huge net positive. Hollywood - Curious why you even included them here. Hollywood isn't perfect (obviously), but it also isn't a monolithic entity. They also don't drive policy at a national level. You want to talk about a problem with this country? How about the President of the United States taking advice from partisan shock jocks on Fox News.
-
Ignoring the fact that it said that black people are 3/5 of a human? Or that it set up a system where the guy who loses by 3 million votes is elected President? The founders did a lot of things well, but they weren't omniscient and they weren't perfect. They also almost immediately began fighting over what the document actually meant.
-
I think it's a couple of things. First, people who spoke out about being harassed by CK have been harassed for speaking out (http://www.vulture.com/2018/05/louis-c-k-put-me-in-a-lose-lose-situation.html). It's an odd world when the harasser is getting to make a "comeback" while the whistleblowers continue to suffer for speaking out. Second, while CK has admitted to harassing women, he hasn't really apologized for it. The guy used his power over the years to sexually harass women. If that means that he loses his platform for awhile, then it stands to reason that he needs to do something to really get that platform back. It's honestly a tough issue for me regarding how you deal with the careers of people like CK. He shouldn't get a lifetime ban from comedy, obviously. But CK getting his platform back needs to be more nuanced than "I stayed out of the limelight and lost some deals over the last 9 months, and now I'm back."
-
Republicans investigate Benghazi 7 times. Her e-mails need to be investigated until the end of time. Republicans on Michael Cohen, under oath, saying that Donald Trump directed him to commit a felony? Nothing to see here guys! Let's let the courts sort this one out! The hypocrisy is staggering, and they never get punished for it.
-
**2018-2019 NCAA Football Thread**
illinilaw08 replied to Brian's topic in A and J's Olde Tyme Sports Pub
Amen, Jenks. You are on fire in this thread today. -
Using fewer plastic straws is a good thing. IMO restaurants should have them available if somebody asks for them, but not automatically bring them with every drink. That makes sure that people with disabilities who need straws are accommodated. It also reduces the use of a disposable, plastic instrument that most people don't need.
-
BBC from 2017 with a list of potential Trump conflicts of interest. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38069298 If you are concerned about conflicts of interest, I'm not entirely sure why you think Trump is clean... Also... Trump campaign spent over $13M at Trump properties since 2016. And, as a reminder, Trump did not divest himself of his interest in his businesses. http://thehill.com/policy/finance/394576-gop-government-groups-have-spent-161m-at-trump-org-properties-since-his
-
Ha! Do you have access to the Clinton Foundation records? What you are accusing Saudi Arabia of doing is not illegal. It's not ideal (entities both foreign and domestic seeking access to politicians by virtue of donations to their campaigns or their charities are a problem), but it also isn't illegal unless it was directly to Clinton's campaign.
-
Well, these are two separate issues. The first is the issue with the Clinton Foundation receiving donations from foreign entities. Is that great? No, it isn't. But I also don't see anything to suggest that it is illegal. The second is donations to campaigns. It is illegal for a foreign government (or individual) to donate to a campaign. If the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Campaign are one in the same, that would be a problem. If Saudi Arabia made direct contributions to the Clinton campaign, that would be a problem. I don't see any evidence to suggest either are true. But getting this back on track - Russia hacking the DNC in an effort to undermine Clinton and support Trump is infinite times worse than Saudi Arabia donating to the Clinton Foundation. Since the election, Donald Trump has been the most pro-Russia President of our lifetimes. You don't seem to care about that fact, but you sure care a lot about bad things you think Hillary Clinton did...
-
Puts on nerd lawyer glasses - there is evidence that Putin has blackmail on Trump in the form of the Steele Dossier. Whether that evidence is credible is a completely different story. As to the other bold re: Saudi Arabia, do you have a cite for that? The closest that I can find is that Saudi Arabia donated to the Clinton Foundation. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html If that is what you are relying on, then it goes without saying that the Clinton campaign is a different entity than the Clinton Foundation. Trump has been much more pro-Russia than any President in our lifetimes. He has attacked NATO. He called the EU a foe. He has hand waved away the annexation of the Crimean Penninsula. And he repeatedly has accepted the word of Vladamir Putin over his own intelligence agencies regarding Russian interference in the last election. There are a lot of reasons that Donald Trump might do that, and some of those potential reasons are benign. But it does not change the fact that his policies have been harder on the EU and gentler on Russia than any President in our lifetime (and maybe since the War of 1812). Last thing here, you know that the allegations against Russia go beyond "some ads and e-mails." Russia hacked the DNC during the election for the benefit of Donald Trump (in one case attempting to phish Hillary Clinton the day after Trump asked Russia to do so at a campaign event per the Mueller indictments). That's a big deal.
-
1) There is no evidence that the Obama administration was "surveiling" the Trump campaign. The FBI sent an informant to talk with Papadopolous, Page and Clovis as part of the Russia investigation that began in May of 2016. Very, very different things. https://www.npr.org/2018/05/24/614028376/fact-check-no-james-clapper-didnt-admit-there-was-spying-on-trump-campaign 2) The Russia stuff was never publicly an issue prior to the election because McConnell threatened to make the issue political (ie, make it look like the Obama administration trying to sink Trump). https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/23/mitch-mcconnell-russia-obama-joe-biden-359531 3) If the FBI had an "insurance policy" to stop Trump from being elected, they... did a really bad job of using that. And if the FBI's plan was to start investigating Trump after he was elected, when a Trump election probably meant the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, that was... and I can't stress this enough... the dumbest insurance policy ever and showcases a below fourth grade level understanding of civics. 4) Strozk is no longer a part of the Mueller investigation. And the Mueller investigation has indicted... a lot of people. Either they are all ethically compromised, or the more likely fact is true. They are doing their jobs, and we'll see what they ultimately uncover.
-
I mean, we know that the Russia investigation started because George Papadopolous, a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, told Australia's top US diplomat that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html We also know that Russia did in fact hack the DNC - the US intelligence community is unanimous in that assessment, and Mueller details it in pretty exhausting detail in the latest indictments. The full text of the indictment is available at the link below. https://www.vox.com/2018/7/13/17568806/mueller-russia-intelligence-indictment-full-text So, the Russia thing started in May of 2016. Russia did in fact attempt to influence the election to favor Trump over Clinton. And the investigation into the extent of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia remains ongoing... Now, what "Russia stuff" are you not buying?
-
Re: the Mueller probe, the only thing that is specifically out there right now against Trump is in the most recent complaint against the Russians. They emphasize that the attempts to phish Hillary Clinton began immediately after Trump's infamous, "I will tell you this, Russia: If you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing." I'm not a criminal lawyer, so I don't know what mental state Mueller would have to prove to charge, but that's pretty solid circumstantial evidence that Russia listened to Trump. I doubt Trump intended for Russia to listen, but it's pretty grossly negligent conduct. But yeah, the idea that a sitting President is telling us that Putin and Kim Jong Un are good guys while going after NATO and the UN is pretty staggering. To echo NSS, diplomacy with Russia and North Korea and China is fine. But, he (1) acted tough with China and then unilaterally nixed enforcement against ZTE; (2) took a victory lap on a nuclear North Korea after giving Kim Jong Un the photo op he was looking for (note, since that summit, things have... not gone well with NK); and (3) took the word of Putin over the word of the US intelligence community regarding Russia's hacks of the DNC.
-
Man, somebody should tell Mueller that I guess. Good thing Rabbit is here to set the record straight.