Jump to content

The Political Thread - Machiavelli Edition


Gorth

Recommended Posts

He confessed that he was criminal in high school, drinking under age, although he claimed that his crimes weren't crimes, he said that age limit for drinking alcohol in Maryland was 18 when he was high school senior even though limit was raised to 21 when he was 17, which is something that such fan of beer probably would remember quite well.

 

Altough his crimes were only misdemeanors, current government has already shown that commiting misdemeanor is enough to remove constitutional protections from people and he clearly supports current government's actions so one would think that such criminal should lose his ability to vote and especially his judgeship and all possibility to get Scotus but such treatment is saved only certain kind of people.

 

6/10

 

 

 

Whos next up behind him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although the tone he struck seems terribly bizarre for a judge, someone who is supposed to be impartial and rational, it is what has worked for Trump in his Presidency. I guess it is the new normal.

 

The degradation of political tact is the last step in hypernormalization. I thought more media exposure was supposed to keep people at the top of their game, but things are just slipping back into what history has probably always been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am surprised no one laughs at Graham when he rages on like this.

  • Like 2

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 "someone who is supposed to be impartial and rational"

 

Impartial and ration when acting as a judge in a courtroom when deciding the fate of others. Not when defending yourself. LMAO

 

Judges, of course, should go into a case with an open mind until they learn all the facts and then make a judgment based on hard facts, evidence, and common sense.

 

But, in this case, as the accused, he would know  if he's guilty or not? he does not have to be impartial. He very much is partial. It would be insanity if he wasn't. As for rational, his reaction is perfectly rational considering the accusation. LMAO

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched Kavanaugh's statement first, and thought he came off alright, for the most part if you grant him the benefit of the doubt and place that in context with his argued innocents.

 

Then he went on to be questioned and that looked extremely poor. It's like he didn't understand the judiciary process at all, and was more inclined that his prepared testimony would be enough to dispel and doubts. I don't expect him to not be emotional or irritated, but it came out in the wrong ways. There was a point in which he should have gathered composure worked constructively towards the clearing of his name. It's clear he was not comfortable stepping outside of his prepared testimony.

 

That's understandable though. One of the points of cross examining- same as for anyone who gets cross examines in an antagonistic setting- is to get the witness/ suspect to make inconsistent statements. They may be perfectly innocent inconsistent statements but the idea is to get him demonstrably 'lying' at which point you can call into question the rest of their testimony.

 

Sticking as close as possible to prepared answers is the absolute best policy to follow. People have a natural instinct to embellish stories and fill in gaps, and that isn't a great policy when you're being put under the microscope (see Hillary under sniper fire, or Brian Williams being shot at in helicopters as prominent examples; and they weren't under oath).

 

Welp, the chart kinda seems appropriate for the self-professed high school incel.

 

I rather zoned out at all his religious stuff but isn't he a self confessed high school 'volcel' instead of incel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if he attempted to rape someone, I'd call him an incel.

 

Well maybe, though a lot of rapists get plenty of consensual sex as well, but...

 

Welp, the chart kinda seems appropriate for the self-professed high school incel.

 

he certainly ain't 'self confessed' as an incel or a rapist by any stretch. His self confession was that he overstated his experience to others but was quietly proud to be a virgin- which would be voluntarily celibate or volcel, if such a term existed. He did say he had and has a lot of female friends, but that's not exactly diagnostic of anything except having a lot of female friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he's also married and has kids. Not 'incel behaviour'. LMAO

 

Most incels don't go around committings exual assault because they don't have the guts.

 

 

Also, weird that he just stopped. I wonder why he would do what he is accused of  yet didn't go through the act. Did she fight him off because she was stronger? Did he feel guilty? Did the friend stop him (doubtful according to Ford he was simply laughing).  Just more questions along with all the lack of evidence.

 

 

I did notice that a Clinton accuser who the Dems ignored and laughed at and who now they 'conviently' believe says she has her doubts about Ford's accusations. Curioursor curiiouser.

 

I say this, if he did do it,  he is scum. if he didn't she is scum.

Edited by Volourn

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought this was funny

 

42636008_10155937642517894_2577785121327

  • Like 8

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I watched Kavanaugh's statement first, and thought he came off alright, for the most part if you grant him the benefit of the doubt and place that in context with his argued innocents.

 

Then he went on to be questioned and that looked extremely poor. It's like he didn't understand the judiciary process at all, and was more inclined that his prepared testimony would be enough to dispel and doubts. I don't expect him to not be emotional or irritated, but it came out in the wrong ways. There was a point in which he should have gathered composure worked constructively towards the clearing of his name. It's clear he was not comfortable stepping outside of his prepared testimony.

 

That's understandable though. One of the points of cross examining- same as for anyone who gets cross examines in an antagonistic setting- is to get the witness/ suspect to make inconsistent statements. They may be perfectly innocent inconsistent statements but the idea is to get him demonstrably 'lying' at which point you can call into question the rest of their testimony.

 

Sticking as close as possible to prepared answers is the absolute best policy to follow. People have a natural instinct to embellish stories and fill in gaps, and that isn't a great policy when you're being put under the microscope (see Hillary under sniper fire, or Brian Williams being shot at in helicopters as prominent examples; and they weren't under oath).

 

My point is that as a judge he should be in on the tactics and have a bit more of a chin and back in playing his defensive role to the probing questionnaires. Instead we see a judge uncomfortable with the whole notion of the affair. It's fine if he sticks with his story, he showed very little awareness towards the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

velencia-kavanaugh-netsupport-0928.png

 

Welp, the chart kinda seems appropriate for the self-professed high school incel.

Meh, won't matter. He's their boy and nothing will change that.

 

Kavanaugh figured him getting red in the face and snarking at people (though pretty weak snark) would play well. Not sure the "I hire lots of women!" play was worthy but, eh.

 

Sort of disappointed Flake didn't vote no just for spite.

Edited by Malcador

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

having his reputation thrown in the trahs, having bhis family threatened with death, rape, and worst

All this is happening to his accusers as well

Really? Will he start a gofundme and cash grab half a milion dollars?

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/brett-kavanaughs-supreme-court-hearing-sparks-dueling-gofundme-pages-2018-09-28

 

PS I didn't click through every campaign but so far they all seem to be ran by other groups or people on their behalf and not by them personally

Edited by ShadySands
  • Like 1

Free games updated 3/4/21

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exclusive photo of the meeting of the senate judiciary committee:

 

fightingrats.jpg

Edited by Guard Dog

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exclusive photo of the closed door meeting of the senate judiciary committee:

 

fightingrats.jpg

 

Would be funnier/more memetic if the two had different colored jerseys on them.

 

 

Thought this was funny

 

-snip big image-

 

Not sure why the hawk/eagle (looks more like a hawk to me, but what do I know) would be flying in the general direction of the fire, but I suppose that's besides the point of the joke being made.

Edited by smjjames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that as a judge he should be in on the tactics and have a bit more of a chin and back in playing his defensive role to the probing questionnaires. Instead we see a judge uncomfortable with the whole notion of the affair. It's fine if he sticks with his story, he showed very little awareness towards the process.

Show me anyone who can be confortable being accused of such horrible crime

I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiene"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He could be uncomfortable without yelling and acting petulant

  • Like 1

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My point is that as a judge he should be in on the tactics and have a bit more of a chin and back in playing his defensive role to the probing questionnaires. Instead we see a judge uncomfortable with the whole notion of the affair. It's fine if he sticks with his story, he showed very little awareness towards the process.

Show me anyone who can be confortable being accused of such horrible crime

 

 

Let me rephrase, I wasn't using uncomfortable in that way. He can be visibly uncomfortable. He was taking issue with probing questions and becoming irritated that they would probe subject matters that are categorically relevant to the scenarios that existentially could have occurred. He was exasperated at the direction and line of the inquiries and had a juvenile manner of acting wronged for even being probed with regards to certain subject matter. He should know that whatever he says, even if true, can't be taken as fact. Thus inquiry is not just about developing granularity with respect to his purported truth, but also digs into the subject matter of the claims against him. His role is the humor

 

What is surprising is the lack of self-awareness of the judiciary process, and how knowledge and inquiry works. I realize he was already upset, but he found place to compose himself repeatedly through that ordeal, but at certain moments he couldn't help but become miffed that people would carry out thought experiments by probing potential scenarios. It was obvious through his statement that he wanted his word to be taken on his character, citing so many people to endorse his character regardless if true, comes across like a farce in what is supposed to be a epistemological process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James what you don't realize is there is only ONE team of rat. The fight like savages when the public is watching. When they are alone its:

 

343_001.jpg

 

Don't vote for rats!

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James what you don't realize is there is only ONE team of rat. The fight like savages when the public is watching. When they are alone its:

 

343_001.jpg

 

Don't vote for rats!

I don't know why I read that as "Don't vote for Israel!"

I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"*

 

*If you can't tell, it's you. ;)

village_idiot.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...