ktchong

I cannot stand conservatives, Evangelicals and Republicans. I identify myself as a Democratic Socialist - I support universal healthcare, free public colleges, and many other progressive economic issues, (which the Democratic Party never actually support.) The only two issues that I disagree with Democrats are: (1) affirmative action, which hurts Asians like myself the most, and it will hurt my children when they try to get into colleges; and (2) immigration; IMO, DACA and offering a path of citizenship to illegal immigrants would only encourage more migrants - especially migrant children - to come here illegally. I see those two issues as purely identify politics to appeal to Blacks and Hispanics. However, those two disagreements are minor points. They are not deal-breakers that would change my support for Democrats. However, I am angry at Democrats and women over the Kavanaugh fight, and here is why: I am also a man who has been falsely accused of sexual harassment, twice; the second time by an ANONYMOUS woman or ANONYMOUS women. Both incident happened a long time ago: the first one in 1999, and the second time in 2005. However, even today I am still feeling angry - and wronged - by them, especially by the second accusation. The first incident: I asked for a woman's phone number. I thought she was attractive, so I wanted to ask her out. I met and talked her only once. I did not touch her. I did not not say anything disrespectful or sexual to her. However, she went straight to the HR and filed a sexual complaint against me. I was called into my surpervisor's office and had to take a class on sexual harassment. It was a humiliating experience. Personally, I think a woman should not be able to file a sexual harassment complaint simply because a man talked to her the wrong way. The second incident: After the lesson from the last incident, for years I had avoided speaking to any woman at work. I never talked to them about anything that was not work-related. I never chit-chatted with them. I never befriended or socialized with them. I always tried to stay away from them. Period. Then, I was called into the HR office, again, because some ANONYMOUS woman or women had reported me. Supposedly the anonymous woman or women saw me "stalking" another woman: I, allegedly, followed the woman into some hallway or room and, allegedly, was acting "aggressively" towards her. I did not even remember talking or even running into that woman on that day. However, it was impossible for me to defend myself because I did not even know who was/were making the accusation against me, or the full details of the accusation. So, somehow, if a woman accuses a man, even if a "she says vs. he says" scenario, then he is already guilty. How Democrats - and women - treated Brett Kavanaugh really, really, ticks me off the more I think about it. I gave Dr. Christine Blasey Ford the benefit of the doubt when she first came forward with her accusation. However, the FBI had already investigated into Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's accusation. The FBI already interviewed the witnesses named by Dr. Ford herself. Yet all of the people - the people named by her - said they could not corroborate her story. That should have already cleared him. Yet Democrats and women still insist he is guilty and a rapist. Yet Democrats and women want the FBI to keep interviewing more and more people until they can finally nail him. So, the position of Democrats is: always trust women and NEVER men in any accusation of sexual assault/harassment. Even if an investigation clears him, he is still guilty because women must ALWAYS be trusted over men. It is not like false accusations of sexual assault/harassment have never happened. We all had seen several high-profile cases that turned out to be fraudulent: the Duke lacrosse case, the "Rape on a Campus" story published by Rolling Stone, the mattress girl, a recent case in which an European guy was deported when an American girl accused her of rape - which then turned out to be fake. Why did those women make false rape accusations? Money and ATTENTION. In the case of the University of Virginia, the accuser wanted attention and sympathy from a man that she liked, and that was enough of a reason for the attention whore to falsely accuse MULTIPLE men. Could Dr. Ford have lied? Why would she come forward and turn her life upside-down? I could think of a few reasons why Dr. Ford could falsely accuse Kavanaugh. Here is one: she voted for Hillary Clinton. She attended the Woman's March. So we know her politics. Maybe she saw Roe v. Wade was in danger, and she thought of herself as a martyr making the ultimate sacrifice for the greater good of all women. It is possible. Also, I am still angry over how the Democrat women - particularly Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand - framed Al Franken of sexual misconducts and forced him to resign. He took a photo in which he pretended to touch the breasts of a sleeping woman; he did NOT actually touch her breast. That was an attempt at humor, NOT sexual harassment. And then a bunch of ANONYMOUS women, who have NEVER been identified, piled on with more accusations that have NEVER been proven. IMO, we should NEVER accept or believe ANONYMOUS accusers: a fundamental right of the accused, in the ancient Roman and English common laws that serve as the basis of modern legal system, in the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution, is to confront his accuser(s). Yet somehow we have thrown out that basic right of the accused for the sake of women and #MeToo. We no longer give men the presumption of innocence when women are the accusers. This trend of putting women above laws, above basic rights of the accused, above the presumption of innocence, really upsets me. IMO, Harris and Gillibrand conspired to oust Franken as a tactic to raise their national profiles and gain support from women because they planned to run for President in 2020. Personally, I am disgusted by them. I won't vote for either Harris or Gillibrand if either becomes the Democratic presidential candidate in 2020. I am not gonna tell my wife or friends: but if I vote, then I will be voting for Dana Rohrabacher this mid-term. (My family have properties in Orange County where I used as my mailing address.) I do not know how many men who usually vote Democrat have my experience. We are not gonna say anything about this whole Kavanaugh charade. Men can't say anything because people automatically assume men are guilty even just because a WOMAN accuse us, but this will likely make men like me vote Republicans.

This may come as a surprise to you all... but I will either not be voting or voting Republican in the midterm election.

Some words on abortion and how conservatives and Republicans have seriously misunderstood the actual impacts of Roe v. Wade. Frankly, this is the end of Roe v. Wade even if Kavanaugh isn’t confirmed. It ended when Trump became the President. Evangelicals support Trump because they want to overturn Roe v Wade. It will happen - but they will NOT get the result they want. The widespread misunderstanding about Roe v. Wade is that the federal government somehow "allows" abortion or "baby murders". Here is the real deal about Roe v. Wade, and what its ruling meant: 1. During the first trimester: women decide if they want to have an abortion. 2. During the second trimester: individual states decide; every states have different laws on abortion in the second trimester. Some states allow it. Other states do not. 3. In the third trimester: the federal government decides, and - surprise, surprise - the federal government decided that the federal standard was to ban abortions in the third trimester. Since the SCOTUS ruled on Roe v. Wade in 1973, new abortion procedures have developed and improved. Nowadays, there are actually advanced and safe medical procedures that can abort a late-term pregnancy in the third trimester. Other countries have allowed and adopted those new procedures. For example, Canada allows abortions in the third and final trimester. However, those late-term procedures have not been allowed into the US because - surprise, surprise - Roe v. Wade does not allow third-trimester abortions. So, if the US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, that means individual states will decide their own abortion laws for all stages of pregnancy. It also means there will no longer be a federal-level ban on third-trimester abortions. Obviously red states will ban abortion in the first trimester, (as well as the second and third.) HOWEVER, without Roe v. Wade holding back blue states like California from adopting late-term abortion procedures, those states will swing the other way and pass laws to permit abortions all the way into the third trimester. Conservatives and Republicans are in a big surprise and rude awakening if they think overturning Roe v. Wade would lead to a nationwide ban of abortion for all trimesters in all states. So what will conservatives, Evangelicals and Republicans react when reality sets in? Without Roe v. Wade, that means states get to decide their own abortion laws. Are they going to dictate what blue states can or can not do on abortion even after Roe v. Wade is overturned? Are they going to declare red states get to decide their state laws on abortion but not blue states? The unexpected outcome of Roe v. Wade will be that third-trimester abortions will become available in the US - albeit in some states but not other. However, a woman will be able to take a bus trip from Arizona to California to abort a pregnancy in the third trimester. So, if abortion right activists want to continue the fight after the demise of Roe v. Wade, here is a suggestion: start an interstate busing program to assist, finance and transport women from red states to blue states for abortions - including third-trimester abortions that will inevitably be permitted in blue states like in Canada. It is certainly easier for women to travel across state lines than into another country like Canada to get an abortion in the third trimester. Seriously, conservatives, Evangelicals and Republicans have seriously misunderstood and miscalculated.

I am not sure if anyone else is paying attention to the new NAFTA called "USMCA", (i.e., the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement".) I think China is finished. USMCA will severely hurt China (and other "emerging economies") because of some surprising terms in the new agreement that was not in NAFTA: * Canada and Mexico will NOT be able to unilaterally enter into any free trade agreement with China. * Canada and Mexico will NOT be able to import parts from China, assemble those parts in Canada and Mexico, and then just repackage and sell the completed products as Canadian or Mexican goods to avoid US tariffs. Links: * https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/10/04/usmca-canada-china-free-trade_a_23551085/ * https://www.macleans.ca/politics/how-usmca-could-scuttle-free-trade-with-china/ * https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/trumps-new-north-american-trade-deal-is-also-aimed-at-a-bigger-target-china/2018/10/03/5290686c-c705-11e8-9c0f-2ffaf6d422aa_story.html * https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/10/03/after-usmca-we-have-a-more-united-front-against-china-on-trade-says-max-baucus.html The US must be working on similar trade agreements with the UK and EU nations. Collectively, these new free trade agreements will exclude and isolate China - and they will be a deathblow to the Chinese economy. With that consideration, IMO China has already lost the trade war. I had previously thought that China could outlast the US in bilateral trade war - *if China took on only the US one on one.* However, China will not last when it is blockaded from a trade alliance of Western markets networked together by USMCA and other similar free trade agreements, which I am certain are coming at China. It is really bad news for China. Also, Chinese will not be able to bypass/overcome a trade agreement like USMCA by moving/offshoring assembly and productions to third countries like Indonesia and Vietnam. Those third countries will also be excluded and restricted by this kind of trade agreement. This could be also bad for Vietnam, Indonesia, and other "non market" nations that will be not be eligible to make any direct trade agreements with the US. IMO, soon only the Western nations - and possibly Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan - will be free-trading among themselves. China and everyone else will be excluded. This seems to be the beginning of a huge reorientation of the manufacturing hubs and production chains.

I read the news reports of the FBI investigation. I don't see a problem with the investigations. The investigation was done as well as it could be. Ford gave a bunch of names in her accusation and testimony. The FBI went to look for those people and interview them. None of them could corroborate Ford's story. That was a pretty big hole and red flag here for her credibility and story. And now Democrats say the FBI should have also looked into Kavanaugh's drinking??!? So they could not get him on the sexual assault, and they want to move to goal post and nail him on something else? That just does not sound right.

If Dianne Feinstein had come forward with the accusation a month earlier, Republicans could have possibly replaced Kavanaugh with another nominee. IMO, Feinstein deliberately delayed coming forward because she wanted to delayed the confirmation until after the midterm, after Democrats would have possibly retake the Senate. It was a stupid decision that has backfired. I hate that old hag Feinstein. She is a corporatist neoliberal shill who refused to step a aside and should have been primaried and replaced by Kevin de Leon. And now she has ****ed over Democrats for the next thirty to fifty years. Now Kavanaugh will be confirmed and sit on the Supreme Court, and he will definitely hold a grudge against Democrats for her shenanigan. This will hurt Democrats for any and every Supreme Court decision related to elections and politics for the next thirty to forty years - or even longer.

Except that we don't know what they looked at or talked to during those other six background checks, and we'll never know because it's all classified (not to mention a ton of private details). I do agree though, if he really did commit something, then the FBI really dropped the ball somewhere. Also, the Democrats are saying that there is evidence of inappropriate behavior in the previous six investigations (why they're bringing that up NOW rather than a whole bunch earlier in the proccess, I don't know), but again, the public can't see the stuff.... @ktchong: The FBI isn't supposed to reach a conclusion in the investigation as it's not a criminal investigation, all they're doing is gathering the facts. And yeah, it's hard to tell whether Kavanaugh actually did it or not as there is no conclusive evidence or not. The best way to find out is to do a full on investigation. Theres plenty of other reasons to oppose Kavanaugh like his judicial views for example. I know the FBI is not supposed to reach a conclusion in this case, but we can look at what the seven witnesses said in their interviews with the FBI and use reasons come to our own conclusions. Ford said Smyth and Keyser were at the party. Smyth and Keyser said they were not. So they were already the huge holes and problems in Ford's memory and/or testimony. So, if no one else really knew about the incident, if no one could confirm her allegation or corroborate her story, that means the whole thing basically becomes a "she says vs. he says" situation. And so we are back to square one: Why should we believe her over him? Because she seems more believable on the TV? Does he still have the presumption of innocence? Should we just assume he is guilty simply because a woman - or women - accuse him? Should we always believe a woman over a man over an allegation of sexual assault? Should we still always believe women after The Duke lacrosse and the "Rape on a Campus" story? IMO, Democrats - particularly Dianne Feinstein - have really botched this whole thing.

I've changed my mind on Brett Kavanaugh. I opposed the fast-tracked confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh. However, after I read today's new reports of the FBI investigation, I am now leaning towards being OK with Kavanaugh's confirmation. Here are four of the witnesses named by Dr. Ford - she claimed they were at the party - and interviewed by the FBI: * Patrick "PJ" Smyth: He denied being at the party. * Leland Keyser: She also denied being at the party. * Chris "Squi" Garrett: Also denied having knowledge of Ford's accusation. * Tim Gaudette: It is unknown what he said in his interview, but given the result of the investigation, I assumed he also denied knowing anything about Ford's accusation. The FBI also interviewed Debbie Ramirez (the second woman who accused Kavanaugh) and Mark Judge (who is being accused of having participated in the sexual assaults Kavanaugh and other women). I disregard their interviews with the FBI because both were personally involved in the accusations, so neither could be considered as impartial nor neutral. The FBI interviewed nine people. So there are another three who have not yet been named by the media. I assumed they gave similar answers to Smyth's, Keyser's, Gerrett's and Gaudette's - because the FBI concluded that none of the people interviewed could corroborate Ford's story. Also, the FBI did expand the investigation and interview more people than what the White House had initially mandated. I would consider that as a sign of good will on the White House's part. Here is how I look at it: Ford give a bunch of names and said those people were at the party and knew about the incident. The FBI went to the first person named by Ford, and that person said he was not at the party. So maybe there was a little gap in Ford's memories of the event. The FBI went to the second person. This second person (Keyser) was supposed to be Ford's best friend in high school. Yet that second person also said that she was not at the party... okay, so Ford's memories have a much bigger gap than I initially thought. The FBI went to the third person. Oh, finally, someone who was at the party! But then he said he did not know anything about the accusation. He had never heard about it before. Hm. Personally, if I was the investigator, I would have stopped at this point - because three strikes and she was out. However, the FBI went to the fourth person whom Ford said was at the party. He also said he had never heard about the incident. Ford's memories are certainly full of big gaps. Now I have to wonder, when Ford said she was 100-percent that the man who tried to rape her was Kavanaugh, was there a big gap there as well? Anyway, the FBI continued. They got new leads of who were at the party. They expanded the investigation, found people who were not initially mandated by the White House, and went on and interview the fifth, sixth, seventh, etc., witnesses. Nope, nope, nope. None of them could corroborate Ford's story. Frankly, at that point, after seven witnesses giving the similar answers to their FBI interviews, (i.e., "I wasn't there/I had never heard anything about it,") I think the FBI could reach a conclusion. So. What am I supposed to think about Ford and Kavanaugh at this point? Am I suppose to insist that the FBI must continue the investigation *until they finally find the one person who can corroborate Ford's story? If the FBI found that one person who could finally corroborate her story, were they supposed to discount all the other eight witnesses and believe that ONE person? Frankly, after seven "witnesses", most of whom were named by Ford herself, none of them could confirm or corroborate Ford's story, I think their consistent answers were more than enough to draw a conclusion. As for Kavanaugh's drinking problem: I do not care. The investigation was supposed to be about sexual assaults. So when the FBI could not find any evidences or witnesses who could corroborate with Ford's (or Ramirez's) story, then they were supposed to look for something else to disqualify Kavanaugh? That seems to be "moving the goal post" and unfair. And frankly, even if Kavanaugh was supposedly drunk and could not remember that he had tried to rape woman, why did not Smyth remember it? Or Keyser? Garrett? Gaudette? Are we supposed to find some reasons to show that they were drunk or lying, destroy their credibility, and disprove their interviews and testimonies as well? That does not seem right.

People here are gonna be ticked off by what I am about to say, but I am not gonna mince words here Link: https://www.newsweek.com/sexual-assault-should-not-disqualify-kavanaugh-proven-majority-republicans-1141877 Hey, if the President can be a rapist so should Judges. Yikes, just goes to show ya the extent of the immorality and depravity of Americans - i.e., the American people. The USA is Sodom and Gomorrah. If the Judea-Christian God actually exist, he should have already be smitten, drowned and rained down fire and brimstone onto the USA. The fact that the USA is still standing is the proof that God do not exist.

Link: https://www.newsweek.com/sexual-assault-should-not-disqualify-kavanaugh-proven-majority-republicans-1141877

Putting all of the sexual assault allegations aside, I found Kavanaugh's behavior during the hearing yesterday to be distasteful enough to disqualify him from holding a Supreme Court seat. He came off as aggressive, belligerent, condescending, and generally like an entitled little brat.

Brett Kavanaugh's Georgetown Preparatory School, where the alleged rapes happened, is in Maryland. Links? I thought most of them happened in Georgetown Prep, one (the second woman) in Yale, and one (the fifth woman, the most recent case and an actual rape in 1989) in Washington.

Not in Maryland, which does not have a statue of limitation for rapes. Also, the investigation does not have to lead to a prosecution. Its only purpose is to prove or disprove the women's allegations. If the investigation proves the rapes happened, it will do serious damage to Republicans who rushed through the confirmation and put a rapist on the Supreme Court. Republicans will become the "Party of Rapists" - the ® will stand for Rape. The Party of Bigots, Racists, and Rapists. It will be glorious.

This is already the "normal" when Republicans obstructed and denied Obama his right as the President in nominating a replacement to Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court . The obstruction was unprecedented, and it was Republicans who did the obstruction.

I would not worry about it. Whether Kavanaugh is confirmed or not, there definitely should be investigations into the women's allegations. If the investigations later shows that the rapes happened and then possibly lead to the prosecution and/or conviction of Kavanaugh, then Republicans won't be able to say any BS - because they will be proven to have been dead wrong on Kavanaugh in retrospect. So, Democrats' best play right now is to ensure that an investigation into the women's allegations will happen, whether Kavanaugh is confirmed or not. If Kavanaugh is confirmed and then the investigation shows that the rapes did happened, that is actually the worse outcome for Republicans and a favorable one for Democrats. Personally, I did not believe when there was only one accuser. However, now that there are the second, third, fourth and fifth women, then the sum of their accusations add up - and I believe the outcome will favor Democrats whether Kavanaugh is confirmed or not, as long as there is an investigation into the women's allegations to find out the truth.

Frankly, Republicans' best play at the moment is to withdraw Brett Kavanaugh's nomination, and nominate Amy Cony Barrett as a replacement. They still have time to confirm her. She is ultra-conservative and a woman. It would be difficult for Democrats to block a female nominee to the Supreme Court, and I doubt she would have allegations of sexual misconducts from her high school or college. So, if you want to falsely accuse Democrats of foul play in blocking Kavanaugh's confirmation, then it would be wise to nominate a woman to "outplay" Democrats.

If you can say that with a straight face I would applaud you. Let's forget that she have nothing to back this up. Let's forget she is represented by creepy porn lawyer. Let's forget she only now reveals knowledge of gang rape ring. Let's forget she claims she saw this multiple times and still was going to those parties. Let's forget all that. Please explain to me what 18 year old college student was doing at 15 year olds parties without using the words: "sexual predator" I was going to respond, but someone else already did: As for if there are anyone who could corroborate with the accuser's allegation of gang rape: Elizabeth Rasor is Mike Judge's college girlfriend. (Mike Judge is Brett Kavanaugh's best friend in high school, and they hanged out together in high school and parties.) She has stepped forward and said that she is willing to testify in a sworn affidavit and to the Congress. Apparently there are currently also the FOURTH and FIFTH women coming out and making similar accusations (of rape) against Brett Kavanaugh. Given the pattern of how these things go, I say their identities will be revealed shortly. (The media confusingly reports both as the "fourth" women but they are really two separate women, two separate additional accusations, coming out at the same time.) Anyway, I would not worry about if Kavanaugh is confirmed. Given the nature of the allegations, an investigation or multiple investigations will look into the allegations, and the investigations will continue after the confirmation. If the investigations later conclude that the rapes happened and Kavanaugh was a participant or accessory, Democrats will most definitely impeach and remove him from the Supreme Court when they take back the Congress and White House. The impeachment and removal of a Supreme Court Justice is unprecedented, but so is having a criminal and rapist sitting on the Supreme Court. An unprecedented scenario calls for an unprecedented measures.

Except the "Prime Directive" is the Chinese explicit and guiding principle on dealing with other nations, (which, of course, contrasts sharply with the US foreign policies of endlessly interfering and meddling in the domestic affairs and politics of all other nations.) Dotard "Joffrey" Drumpf is conflating China's retaliations to his tariffs with meddling in the US midterm election. He started the trade war, and when China reacted by targeting red and particularly swing states for tariff retaliation, he started complaining and whining, "That is interfering in US election!!!" Retaliation is not meddling. It is fair game.

Two points on Brett Kavanaugh and the latest - and most serious - accusation against him: 1. The third accuser, Julie Swetnick, made a very serious allegation against Kavanaugh, i.e., GANG RAPE of MULTIPLE WOMEN. I don't know if she is telling the truth. Her claim is so shocking that, I have to admit, it's kinda difficult to believe. HOWEVER, consider this: she has security clearance - which means she had gone through an intensive background check - and her career depends on having the clearance. She has submitted a sworn affidavit against Kavanaugh, and a sworn affidavit carries criminal liability. If she perjured herself, (i.e., meaning if she lied in her sworn affidavit,) she will be criminally charged, and perjury is a definitive reason to revoke her security clearance. That will destroy her career. So she is literally putting her whole life on the line by coming forward and making a sworn a sworn affidavit to accuse Kavanaugh. Take that for what it's worth. 2. At this point, it would be shortsighted for Republicans to try to rush through Kavanaugh's confirmation now that the third woman has come forward with such a serious allegation. The allegation is not unwanted sexual harassment or groping. I know a lot of conservatives and Republicans think of as harassment and groping as "what is the big deal?" and not really a crime; and, frankly, it is debatable whether saying the wrong things to a woman or simply touching a woman when she did not want to be touched should be considered as sexual harassment or assault, and the man's life and career should be destroyed for that reason. However, the current allegation is GANG RAPE of MULTIPLE WOMEN. There is no doubt that an ACTUAL rape is a heinous felony. Now that Kavanaugh has been accused of being an accessory/participant in multiple gang rapes, there will be an on-going investigation whether he is confirmed or not. Even if Republicans hurriedly confirmed him, the investigation will continue. If the investigation later confirms that the gang rapes actually happened, then Democrats will have the perfect reason to call for an impeachment and removal of Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court based on the rape charges. So, if Republicans want to play this game, then Democrats should time the impeachment and removal of Kanavaugh after a Democrat wins back the presidency. Then the next President will be able to able to replace Kanavaugh with a liberal Justice and flip the Supreme Court. In fact, Democrats will be able to run on "Impeach and Remove Gang Rapist Kanavaugh" in 2020 - and continue to run on "give us the Senate majority so we can finally impeach and remove the gang-rapist from the Supreme Court," to drive women turnout, in every election cycle, until he is successfully impeached and removed. Republicans should carefully consider the potential consequence s before rushing through Kanavaugh's confirmation.

Another woman - the FOURTH woman - has come forward to accuse Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault: https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/3kek75/another-kavanaugh-accuser-is-taking-to-maryland-authorities

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/18/report-youtubes-alternative-influence-network-breeds-rightwing-radicalisation

BTW, the second woman was interviewed by Ronan Farrow, and she went to Yale University with Kavanaugh. Both which add to her credibility.

Seems like there are potentially a second and third women who may be coming forward to make accusations of sexual assaults against Brett Kavanaugh: * https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez * https://nypost.com/2018/09/23/avenatti-says-he-represents-woman-with-credible-information-about-kavanaugh/

I didn't believe you when said that but after watching it... Hollie mollie This is some Lannister-level family backstabbing drama, and they are even blonde!