Ugh, this whole statement is just disgusting. Lynching? Really?:mad:
And let’s just hope you don’t have a daughter who is sexually assaulted because your sympathy will be with the poor accused male. :mad:
Could you explain this a little more? If a jury convicts, doesn’t that mean that whatever evidence WAS brought up is legally sufficient?
Again, Quartz is parroting a talking point that Kavanaugh used and that Clarence Thomas used during his confirmation. It has also been widely used on Murdoch owned media both in the US and overseas. Quartz just comes here to repeat them as soon as he hears them. Why is anyone’s guess, but he’s a pretty weird dude.
This talk of lynching tells me Quartz has confused the US Senate with a wild eyed 1890s posse of murderous, Confederate state rednecks.
With McConnell as Majority Leader, it is fair to file that under “honest mistakes”.
Hey, Coffeecat-Can you point out the “better Conservatives” in this thread?
nm
Yeah, and whoever the dude from Louisiana is. I saw him on TV and thought I went back in time 100 or so years.
There’s the answer; I know a LOT of people who have historically have leaned right of center, but not too far- moderates, I guess. Along with a few of the milder self-labeled conservatives. Most voted for W, Rick Perry, Dole, McCain, etc…
None of them are supporting Trump or the Republican party; most have found his statements and behavior abhorrent, and the party’s kowtowing and toadying repugnant.
The few people I know who are actually still supporting Trump fall into 3 categories- the rural types that feel the Democratic party doesn’t represent them/who feel it
primarily represents inner city blacks, people who are scared of ongoing societal change(usu. elderly and fearful), and those who literally have something wrong with them- mental illness, mild dementia, etc…
Nobody I know who’s rational, adult and not ancient has spoken a peep about supporting Trump, so either they are all against him, or they’re too embarrassed/cowed to speak up.
I am not going to wade through 5 pages of arguing (Why am I in the pit again? How did I get here?) But I hope someone brought up the idea that you are most likely to hear from (and remember) the more rabid members.
I think of my self as a conservative with independent positions and Republican leanings. I am not thrilled about Trump (I voted for 3rd party).
Since I am not as hard leaning nor as rabid I am NOT going to wade into political discussions on the SDMB because I have not the interest or the time to defend my positions while being outnumbered 10:1.
Just because you heard from a conservative and remember that conservative, it does not mean that they are a representative sample of conservatives.
There are some people who are so terribly naive and childish as to think Democrats vs Republicans is basically the “Good Guys” vs the “Bad Guys”.
There are far too many of them here - a majority - that makes talking politics a chore rather than an interesting debate. So conservatives don’t bother.
Any sane rational person would realize there are serious problems with pure-play socialism or capitalism, totalitarianism or anarchy.
But we have folks who seem to have forgotten what millions of people starving to death looks like when hard-working folks are over-burdened.
AnthonyElite: Suffice it to say that there aren’t many Stalinists here. The professional class, a naturally conservative constituency, has trended Democratic over the past 55 years or so. They do so because of Republican opposition to science and the frankly mild though overblown reformist tendencies of the Democrats.
Thatcher’s Britain was far further to the left than Carter’s America.
You’ve been told that Kavanaugh has not been put on criminal trial. It’s a job interview.
Here’s another point: innocent people are investigated all the time. And that’s what the Dems have called for, investigation. The presumption of innocence in a criminal trial does not mean you can’t eg jail someone while they wait for trial. Presumption of innocence is a trial concept, not a pre-trial concept.
Where does corroborating evidence come from? It comes from evaluation of testimony and further investigation. Investigation could provide evidence that tends to weigh in Kavanaugh’s favor. So far though, things have pointed in the other direction. Kavanaugh has given intentionally misleading and intentionally false testimony on matters touching on his hard drinking behavior. This much we know. It would be considered relevant in a criminal trial: those who lie on one part of the testimony can be reasonably thought to lie in others.
There is some evidence of coverup, that he was involved with fingering a former friend (C.G.), saying that he was the one who assaulted Dr. Ford. Further investigation could evaluate this hypothesis. About That New New York Times Article - TPM – Talking Points Memo and The Most Shocking Findings in Yesterday’s Drama - TPM – Talking Points Memo
No one who supports socialism reasonably suggests Stalinism. And I know the phrase slippery slope can get you crucified in these parts…but all the same…it is. Another way to look at it is rights of individuals vs rights of society. When they swing to far in either direction you have problems.
I believe that most people want the health and well-being of everyone. They have different beliefs on how to get there. Unfortunately scarcity of resources causes some nasty attitudes that don’t reflect on us well. Repubs, the good ones, believe in all individuals pursuing their own interests will be best for society. Dems lean towards all individuals pursuing the interests of society. Neither is right or wrong but merely different desired outcomes.
We don’t get to pick who identifies with us. If white supremacists, sexists, LGBT haters, etc say they are repubs, and we say they aren’t - you better believe the Dems will say they are. And of course I don’t mean all Dems, I mean the type you and I would probably agree are loony.
No, I’m talking about the Dope. And I’m not confusing anything.
It does not.
Imagine that our pal Zachary is on trial for felonious escape from custody, after he knocked down an officer and ran from the police after they came to question him about Yvette’s accusations.
The elements of “felonious escape from custody,” in our hypothetical jurisdiction are: (1) that the accused was in the custody of the police officer,
(2) that the accused was charged with a criminal offense before he was taken into custody, and
(3) that the accused escaped from such custody by force or violence.
The officer who was knocked down testifies that he arrived at Zachary’s house, identified himself, and questioned Zachary about the events involving Yvette. When Zachary admitted to having sex with Yvette, the officer testified, he told Zachary that he was under arrest. At that point, Zachary pushed him down and ran away.
Zachary does not testify.
The jury convicts.
But even though the jury has delivered a verdict of not guilty, the conviction must be overturned, because the evidence was not legally sufficient. Element (2) that the prosecution needed to prove was never placed before the jury: the prosecution did not offer any evidence that Zachary was charged with a criminal offense. “Charged with a criminal offense,” means a formal charge, not merely the exercise of probable cause to arrest.
So the jury either did not notice, or did not care, because they thought Zachary was a creep. They heard what sounded like it should be “escape from custody,” and voted guilty – but on appeal, the appellate court should recognize that the prosecution didn’t prove the “charged with a criminal offense,” element, and the verdict must be reversed and the charges dismissed. The prosecution can’t even try him again.
Yes, you definitely are, and it seems to be deliberate by the way you pretend that this has something to do with a court proceeding. You are trolling here.
This sounds suspiciously like the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. If these repugnant groups that you are identifying are voting R and supporting R candidates and showing up at R rallies, how is that the Dems mis-identification?
More to the point, if Republican politicians “dog whistle” at them and refuse to condemn their violent and threatening behavior, they’re making the choice to include them. It really shouldn’t be a big moral conundrum to be able to say, “Nazis are bad.”
Stranger
Again - you don’t get to pick who joins your group in this system. Just because white supremacists and myself both believe in, say, conservative fiscal policy, doesn’t mean I hold the supremacists awful, intolerant views. What choice do I have? And just because we agree on some issues doesn’t mean we agree on all issues. It’s a false equivalency.
In that whole situation with the Nazis in that protest - I agree, I don’t agree with judging people based on their skin color, heritage, etc. But I also don’t like that everyone on the right in that rally was considered a Nazi because some Nazi’s showed up and stood next to their group.
Especially if the Republican president openly sides with them and calls them fine people and if Sebastian Gorka, one of Trump’s advisors wore a Nazi medal to a inaugural ball. Nazi-linked group 'proud' that top Donald Trump aide wore its medal | The Independent | The Independent
Gee, I wonder why we think you’re white nationalists?
I didn’t see any of those “good” people at those rallies try to distance themselves from said nazis. If nazis showed up and pretended to be with me, I’d move away. Not hard. Also not hard: saying nazis are bad. If they don’t at least do that, then I assume they, at the very least don’t mind nazis.