Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blotsfan

Trump Regime thread.

Recommended Posts

First off, underpaying is also a bad problem. Secondly, if those 14% are the most expensive ones, (hint: they mostly are) that's way too high of a number. Third, it completely depends on insurance. ACA's study showed it was completely dependent on insurance, with some insurances having as high as 45% claim denial and some having as low as 1% claim denial. Taking insurance across the board when we are talking specifically about poor people getting their insurance denied- who by definition almost certainly have low-end insurance- the claim of 14% is misleading at best.

What you are looking at, I assume, is the American Medical Associations number. But that number has long been disputed by healthcare workers, because it only looks at at all itemized lines that are denied. It does not consider the type of claim that was denied. It also does not consider how long you had to wait to get your claim approved, its merely a blanket look at it.

In 2017, the Doctor-Patient Rights Project found a denial rate of 24% among people with insurance who had chronic or persistent conditions- the ones who would be most affected by denials, since they are in constant need of medication. In addition, the vast majority of consumers- 70%- said they had to wait more than a month to even hear whether or not their claim was denied or approved, during which time a third of them said their condition worsened.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we want to know why Donald Trump will be re-elected (and probably quite easily, at that), it'll be because of things like the NYT running with a clearly false new accusation against Brett Kavanaugh. As a matter of fact, he probably made onto SCOTUS because of all the silly, clearly fake secondary accusations that surfaced after Blasey-Ford's accusation, but she was the only one with an even slightly believable accusation, though it held very little water.

People get irritated by shit like this. Shit like this swings moderate voters. Might as well expect 8 years of the Orange Man, at this point.

Edited by BwareDWare94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2019 at 11:22 PM, Thanatos said:

First off, underpaying is also a bad problem. Secondly, if those 14% are the most expensive ones, (hint: they mostly are) that's way too high of a number. Third, it completely depends on insurance. ACA's study showed it was completely dependent on insurance, with some insurances having as high as 45% claim denial and some having as low as 1% claim denial. Taking insurance across the board when we are talking specifically about poor people getting their insurance denied- who by definition almost certainly have low-end insurance- the claim of 14% is misleading at best.

What you are looking at, I assume, is the American Medical Associations number. But that number has long been disputed by healthcare workers, because it only looks at at all itemized lines that are denied. It does not consider the type of claim that was denied. It also does not consider how long you had to wait to get your claim approved, its merely a blanket look at it.

In 2017, the Doctor-Patient Rights Project found a denial rate of 24% among people with insurance who had chronic or persistent conditions- the ones who would be most affected by denials, since they are in constant need of medication. In addition, the vast majority of consumers- 70%- said they had to wait more than a month to even hear whether or not their claim was denied or approved, during which time a third of them said their condition worsened.

There is actually more than one source, but yes the AMA is one. The NAIC is another, there are a couple others.

No bullshit question, did you actually read the report? The reason it took me so long to reply is because I did so I don't waste your time.  First and foremost that study says 1 in 10 get denied. So ten percent. Then of those 40 percent appeal. So 60 don't, so there is 6% of claims. Of the 40 that appeal half are denied. So we have the 6 plus the 2 of the 4 denied. So 8% are denied by the study you cited.

Then there is the methodology of this study. They literally cite nothing but medical statistics and none of which are about insurance claims. They say things like," Preventative care is up to a 3rd cheaper." Which on its face is true, but tell us what preventable disease. Are we talking heart disease brought on by obesity ? Are we talking lung cancer by a smoker? They have no specifics.

So your study undermines what your saying. Do you have a better one? I will read that too. The one you got your statistics from is 31 pages of generalizations and stats they don't cite where they get most.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BwareDWare94 said:

If we want to know why Donald Trump will be re-elected (and probably quite easily, at that), it'll be because of things like the NYT running with a clearly false new accusation against Brett Kavanaugh. As a matter of fact, he probably made onto SCOTUS because of all the silly, clearly fake secondary accusations that surfaced after Blasey-Ford's accusation, but she was the only one with an even slightly believable accusation, though it held very little water.

People get irritated by shit like this. Shit like this swings moderate voters. Might as well expect 8 years of the Orange Man, at this point.

I don’t think that’s gonna be the only reason either. Watching these debates makes me fear for the next 4 years of our country. Almost seems like destiny that Trump wins again. 

Biden is losing his mind (literally, I genuinely feel bad for him)... Unless something crazy happens, I think Warren May cruise to this nomination and Trump will obliterate her 1 on 1 I feel. I’m really surprised this is the field they are backing , it’s almost like they want Trump to win lol. 

I would be shocked if Trump didn’t have something up his sleeve to give him a big bump in the polls.... holding onto this trade war until the election then claiming that we won it bigly ... moving forward on federal marijuana regulation .... mass troop withdrawal... idk what it’s gonna be but it’s coming  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I used to believe in Warren, but she has ZERO charisma or original ideas. She would get wrecked imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren is already getting Hillary's super delagates. She's already been annointed. This primary process is a total farce. We don't live in a democratic society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if it's any solace, she will lose too.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BwareDWare94 said:

If we want to know why Donald Trump will be re-elected (and probably quite easily, at that), it'll be because of things like the NYT running with a clearly false new accusation against Brett Kavanaugh. As a matter of fact, he probably made onto SCOTUS because of all the silly, clearly fake secondary accusations that surfaced after Blasey-Ford's accusation, but she was the only one with an even slightly believable accusation, though it held very little water.

People get irritated by shit like this. Shit like this swings moderate voters. Might as well expect 8 years of the Orange Man, at this point.

Did you see the statement they NYT made about the "victims"? The friends that was there allegedly said she doesn't remember anything that lady is saying. And she refused to be interviewed so formal charges could be brought up, and won't talk to anyone? 

 

ALL of the friends whom she cited as coroborating witness to a person says they don't recall the incident.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, BwareDWare94 said:

If we want to know why Donald Trump will be re-elected (and probably quite easily, at that), it'll be because of things like the NYT running with a clearly false new accusation against Brett Kavanaugh. As a matter of fact, he probably made onto SCOTUS because of all the silly, clearly fake secondary accusations that surfaced after Blasey-Ford's accusation, but she was the only one with an even slightly believable accusation, though it held very little water.

People get irritated by shit like this. Shit like this swings moderate voters. Might as well expect 8 years of the Orange Man, at this point.

Puhlease, no one except Republicans give a fuck about manufactured outrage over a dude who is clearly a slimebag and absolutely did do what Ford is accusing him of. The Right does not care they stole a SC seat from Merrick Garland. The right does not care they used 9/11 as a decoy to get the Dems out so they could ram through a veto to steal Medicare from thousands of people.

The right does not care that Brett Kavanaugh is not beyond reproach, is a complete sleazebag, or anything. All they care about is that he is politically on their side. People like McConnell getting all up in arms over Kavanaugh accusations doesn't move my sympathy meter one inch. Mitch is also outraged over vaping killing six people and not cigarettes killing tens of thousands. Or guns killing tens of thousands. Or any number of election security bills he refuses to even let hit the floor. The hypocrisy of the GOP is fucking hilarious. Trump has what, 22 people who have accused him of sexual assault? Kavanaugh has like 8. There is no reason for these women to come forward and lie about this. They get lambasted by people on the right. Sure maybe a couple hangers on tried to get their moment in the spotlight, but where is this much smoke, there is fire. Im not saying the guy belongs in jail unless we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but he absolutely should not be a SC justice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Omerta said:

There is actually more than one source, but yes the AMA is one. The NAIC is another, there are a couple others.

No bullshit question, did you actually read the report? The reason it took me so long to reply is because I did so I don't waste your time.  First and foremost that study says 1 in 10 get denied. So ten percent. Then of those 40 percent appeal. So 60 don't, so there is 6% of claims. Of the 40 that appeal half are denied. So we have the 6 plus the 2 of the 4 denied. So 8% are denied by the study you cited.

Then there is the methodology of this study. They literally cite nothing but medical statistics and none of which are about insurance claims. They say things like," Preventative care is up to a 3rd cheaper." Which on its face is true, but tell us what preventable disease. Are we talking heart disease brought on by obesity ? Are we talking lung cancer by a smoker? They have no specifics.

So your study undermines what your saying. Do you have a better one? I will read that too. The one you got your statistics from is 31 pages of generalizations and stats they don't cite where they get most.

I have read the report, yes. Im not sure you're looking at the correct report. The sources are at the end here- 128 of them. This is part 1. http://doctorpatientrightsproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Access-Denied_How-Utilization-Management-Protocols-Can-Block-Access-to-Life-Saving-Treatments.pdf

Part 2 is here. 123 sources listed on this one- https://doctorpatientrightsproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Marathon_DPRP_Access-Denied-2_NOV2018_FINAL.pdf

We are talking mainly- at least we are concerned mainly- about people with chronic conditions. Not people who go in for an antibiotic and get denied once every four months when they get sick- though that is annoying- people who need medicine on a daily basis. 

Secondly, the 1 in 10 claim is for medical screenings- preventive care- not meds in general.

This is absolutely not a controversial subject. 90% of doctors polled agreed with principal points of the study. I've honestly never heard anyone take the insurance's side on this one except the insurance company.

The insurance wants to cover the cheaper drugs to save money- okay, fine. But there are a lot of times a reason why the doctor wants the patient on a specific medication, and the insurance, in essence, overrides the doctor by saying either A) this won't be covered or B) we need to try these 5 other alternatives first and then maybe we'll let you try this one. The insurance company is not staffed by medical professionals and their opinion is not valid towards what a patient needs for treatment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s just an opinion piece but I’m glad that nuclear power is getting some attention. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/17/2020-democrat-president-climate-change-andrew-yang-nuclear-power-column/2342031001/

Also.... What really troubles me about Kavanaugh (other than him seemingly being a chode) is that the GOP goes to such lengths to protect him. Theoretically... He get a impeached. Trump still is filling that seat, so why fight to the death over Kavanaugh ? 

Oh... right.... because of Trumps known “short list” of nominees for the SCOTUS he Brett was the swampiest most corrupt piece of trash available. I guarantee his appointment came about through back door channels to fulfill or receive a favor down the line. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DalaiLama4Ever said:

It’s just an opinion piece but I’m glad that nuclear power is getting some attention. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/17/2020-democrat-president-climate-change-andrew-yang-nuclear-power-column/2342031001/

Also.... What really troubles me about Kavanaugh (other than him seemingly being a chode) is that the GOP goes to such lengths to protect him. Theoretically... He get a impeached. Trump still is filling that seat, so why fight to the death over Kavanaugh ? 

Oh... right.... because of Trumps known “short list” of nominees for the SCOTUS he Brett was the swampiest most corrupt piece of trash available. I guarantee his appointment came about through back door channels to fulfill or receive a favor down the line. 

It absolutely did. Someone paid off a few hundred grand right before Kavanaugh was nominated. Justice Kennedy's son was part of the Deutche Bank that loaned Trump money when no one else would- loans that were co-signed by Russian oligarchs as well. They're all rotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Thanatos said:

Puhlease, no one except Republicans give a fuck about manufactured outrage over a dude who is clearly a slimebag and absolutely did do what Ford is accusing him of. The Right does not care they stole a SC seat from Merrick Garland. The right does not care they used 9/11 as a decoy to get the Dems out so they could ram through a veto to steal Medicare from thousands of people.

The right does not care that Brett Kavanaugh is not beyond reproach, is a complete sleazebag, or anything. All they care about is that he is politically on their side. People like McConnell getting all up in arms over Kavanaugh accusations doesn't move my sympathy meter one inch. Mitch is also outraged over vaping killing six people and not cigarettes killing tens of thousands. Or guns killing tens of thousands. Or any number of election security bills he refuses to even let hit the floor. The hypocrisy of the GOP is fucking hilarious. Trump has what, 22 people who have accused him of sexual assault? Kavanaugh has like 8. There is no reason for these women to come forward and lie about this. They get lambasted by people on the right. Sure maybe a couple hangers on tried to get their moment in the spotlight, but where is this much smoke, there is fire. Im not saying the guy belongs in jail unless we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but he absolutely should not be a SC justice. 

There is literally no corroborating evidence for even Blasey-Ford's accusation. You're making an obvious stretch, there.

And what exactly makes him a sleazeball? Is it that he hired an all female staff after being named to the SC? Is it the fact he hired more women on average throughout his career? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BwareDWare94 said:

There is literally no corroborating evidence for even Blasey-Ford's accusation. You're making an obvious stretch, there.

And what exactly makes him a sleazeball? Is it that he hired an all female staff after being named to the SC? Is it the fact he hired more women on average throughout his career? 

Did you see the shit he said in high school and college. He seemed like a total douche. Like the type of phrat boy you could totally see date raping girls. That said, I think it overshadowed how the dude just wipes his ass with the bill of Rights and was caught perjuring himself. The dude is just so fucking horrible. He's really a danger to us all but he did Bush a solid and everyone in Trump's administration that isn't a family member was part of the Bush admin. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't give even the slightest shit what a person says in high school or college. And what are we referring to as perjuring himself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BwareDWare94 said:

I don't give even the slightest shit what a person says in high school or college. And what are we referring to as perjuring himself?

In my experience on that front people don't change and we're talking about putting the guy on the supreme Court. It's not like he's applying for some private sector job. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/17/did-brett-kavanaugh-give-false-testimony-under-oath/%3foutputType=amp

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Thanatos said:

It absolutely did. Someone paid off a few hundred grand right before Kavanaugh was nominated. Justice Kennedy's son was part of the Deutche Bank that loaned Trump money when no one else would- loans that were co-signed by Russian oligarchs as well. They're all rotten.

I didn’t even know this... ha. Makes me feel better just blurting our what seemed obvious tho haha. 

9 hours ago, seanbrock said:

Warren is already getting Hillary's super delagates. She's already been annointed. This primary process is a total farce. We don't live in a democratic society.

Yup. And the reason for that is because she’s pandering to elites within the DNC. Her to them behind closed doors is a different vision than this BS she’s spewing to the public. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-democrats.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DalaiLama4Ever said:

I didn’t even know this... ha. Makes me feel better just blurting our what seemed obvious tho haha. 

Yup. And the reason for that is because she’s pandering to elites within the DNC. Her to them behind closed doors is a different vision than this BS she’s spewing to the public. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-democrats.html

 

Where have we seen this public position and private position thing before? We need rank choice voting and we need a constitutional amendment or some other kind of radical campaign finance reform so that we get away from this one party bullshit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

Where have we seen this public position and private position thing before? We need rank choice voting and we need a constitutional amendment or some other kind of radical campaign finance reform so that we get away from this one party bullshit. 

Who are you talking about ? 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/warren-clinton-talk-behind-scenes-2020-race-intensifies-n1049701

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't believe Blasey-Ford either. It's just seemed so forced.

A few things that bothered me.

1.) The $750,000 she got on suspicious gonfund me with plenty of deep pocketed "anonymous" donors. That is suspicious, but ok.

2.) She can't recall the most basic of things. She is not sure what year it happened, or what grade she was in,  or how old she was. I mean really? The most traumatic event if her life and she can't give you the year or her age? Super suspect.

3.) There is literally no coroborating evidence, no witnesses who were there, she didn't tell anyone until 3 decades later. The no evidence is a problem. That said the waiting I could understand. Her reason though was because she didn't want him in the supreme Court, but she let a rapist sit there on the bench for 20 years and say nothing when she felt compelled by virtue to help other women? That seems odd.

The lifelong friends she says was there, has no idea what she is talking about. The other witnesses she called... No idea.

4.)  Her story changes a lot. She said talk to her shrink but the story her shrink documented was different from the one Congress got. She got the men in the room wrong, her age, and other pertinent details. She said she was angry in 2016 when Trump won because Kavanaugh was mentioned as a candidate. Well sure, but he wasn't mentioned or added to the list until mid 2017.  Her claiming she was claustrophobic but an ex says he never noticed especially when they were on a 2 seater plane to Hawaii and countless other occasions.

5.) Her own family won't come back to attest to her character when she was coming out talking about her impeccable character. The ONLY family that did were her current husband's. It is telling imo.

Now any one or two of these on there own, and sure it suspicious but no big deal. All of those combined and AT THE VERY LEAST she is unreliable. Personally, I think she is lying about it.

That obviously doesn't mean I'm right but her evidence of the actual alleged crime was very weak. 

And yes the guy is a douche, but I think the standard of proof has to be met seeing as how unimaginably foul rape is. If there is some ACTUAL proof he did it, then fuck jailing him, blow his brains out in the middle of the street. 

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Omerta said:

I didn't believe Blasey-Ford either. It's just seemed so forced.

A few things that bothered me.

1.) The $750,000 she got on suspicious gonfund me with plenty of deep pocketed "anonymous" donors. That is suspicious, but ok.

2.) She can't recall the most basic of things. She is not sure what year it happened, or what grade she was in,  or how old she was. I mean really? The most traumatic event if her life and she can't give you the year or her age? Super suspect.

3.) There is literally no coroborating evidence, no witnesses who were there, she didn't tell anyone until 3 decades later. The no evidence is a problem. That said the waiting I could understand. Her reason though was because she didn't want him in the supreme Court, but she let a raise sit there on the bench for 20 years and say nothing when she felt compelled by virtue to help other women? That seems odd.

The lifelong friends she says was there, has no idea what she is talking about. The other witnesses she called... No idea.

4.)  Her story changes a lot. She said talk to her shrink but the story her shrink documented was different from the one Congress got. She got the men in the room wrong, her age, and other pertinent details. She said she was angry in 2016 when Trump won because Kavanaugh was mentioned as a candidate. Well sure, but he wasn't mentioned or added to the list until mid 2017.  Her claiming she was claustrophobic but an ex says he never noticed especially when they were on a 2 seater plane to Hawaii and countless other occasions.

5.) Her own family won't come back to attest to her character when she was coming out talking about her impeccable character. The ONLY family that did were her current husband's. It is telling imo.

Now any one or two of these on there own, and sure it suspicious but no big deal. All of those combined and AT THE VERY LEAST she is unreliable. Personally, I think she is lying about it.

That obviously doesn't mean I'm right but her evidence of the actual alleged crime was very weak. 

And yes the guy is a douche, but I think the standard of proof has to be met seeing as how unimaginably foul rape is. If there is some ACTUAL proof he did it, then fuck jailing him, blow his brains out in the middle of the street. 

That's what should happen to rapists but it's just too hard to prove with 100% certainty. I wish it were simpler. Based on the available evidence, he's innocent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case it's hard to prove. In the cases it's not, we could clear out a lot of the prison population tomorrow if we rounded up rapists and child molesters and merc'ed their punk ass's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Omerta said:

I didn't believe Blasey-Ford either. It's just seemed so forced.

A few things that bothered me.

1.) The $750,000 she got on suspicious gonfund me with plenty of deep pocketed "anonymous" donors. That is suspicious, but ok.

2.) She can't recall the most basic of things. She is not sure what year it happened, or what grade she was in,  or how old she was. I mean really? The most traumatic event if her life and she can't give you the year or her age? Super suspect.

3.) There is literally no coroborating evidence, no witnesses who were there, she didn't tell anyone until 3 decades later. The no evidence is a problem. That said the waiting I could understand. Her reason though was because she didn't want him in the supreme Court, but she let a raise sit there on the bench for 20 years and say nothing when she felt compelled by virtue to help other women? That seems odd.

The lifelong friends she says was there, has no idea what she is talking about. The other witnesses she called... No idea.

4.)  Her story changes a lot. She said talk to her shrink but the story her shrink documented was different from the one Congress got. She got the men in the room wrong, her age, and other pertinent details. She said she was angry in 2016 when Trump won because Kavanaugh was mentioned as a candidate. Well sure, but he wasn't mentioned or added to the list until mid 2017.  Her claiming she was claustrophobic but an ex says he never noticed especially when they were on a 2 seater plane to Hawaii and countless other occasions.

5.) Her own family won't come back to attest to her character when she was coming out talking about her impeccable character. The ONLY family that did were her current husband's. It is telling imo.

Now any one or two of these on there own, and sure it suspicious but no big deal. All of those combined and AT THE VERY LEAST she is unreliable. Personally, I think she is lying about it.

That obviously doesn't mean I'm right but her evidence of the actual alleged crime was very weak. 

And yes the guy is a douche, but I think the standard of proud has to be meet seeing as how unimaginably foul rape is. If there is some ACTUAL proof he did it, then fuck jailing him, blow his brains out in the middle of the street. 

1. Sure, weird, but I mean come on she was going against the dude in public, some people are gonna donate to her.

2. This is exactly how it works if you're burying a memory.

3. Again, sitting on things is a typical survivor thing.

4. Even mis-remembering exactly how events go is a lot of times how people deal with trauma.

5. I don't really see this as any indicator one way or another. Maybe its because I am also basically estranged from my family and wouldn't expect them to come to my defense, (religion issues have gotten so much worse recently), but this has no bearing on truth or falsity.

Look I'm not saying Kavanaugh should be in jail, but you don't have to be able to convict him at trial to be like, "something stinks here, multiple people accused him of sexual assault, probably shouldn't admit this man to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court." Same way I feel about Roy Moore. He shouldn't be in jail, he also shouldn't be in the Senate. I think its nonsense to say "no matter how bad something looks, we have to prove someone guilty beyond any reasonable doubt or else they can hold whatever position they want to." Everyone is acting like it'd ruin his life, but he'd just go back to his cushy job as a judge and that would be that. No one did this to Gorsuch, and everyone was really mad at his appointment because his seat should have been filled by Merrick Garland except the GOP didn't care about rules and got away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BwareDWare94 said:

There is literally no corroborating evidence for even Blasey-Ford's accusation. You're making an obvious stretch, there.

And what exactly makes him a sleazeball? Is it that he hired an all female staff after being named to the SC? Is it the fact he hired more women on average throughout his career? 

You mean like the clerk he hired as a favor to her mother supporting him, after specifically saying she wasn't going to be hired? The same woman who told multiple women that they needed to cultivate a certain look if they wanted to clerk for Kavanaugh?

The dude's a fucking conman sleazebag. Even Favre can see through this one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Thanatos said:

1. Sure, weird, but I mean come on she was going against the dude in public, some people are gonna donate to her.

2. This is exactly how it works if you're burying a memory.

3. Again, sitting on things is a typical survivor thing.

4. Even mis-remembering exactly how events go is a lot of times how people deal with trauma.

5. I don't really see this as any indicator one way or another. Maybe its because I am also basically estranged from my family and wouldn't expect them to come to my defense, (religion issues have gotten so much worse recently), but this has no bearing on truth or falsity.

Look I'm not saying Kavanaugh should be in jail, but you don't have to be able to convict him at trial to be like, "something stinks here, multiple people accused him of sexual assault, probably shouldn't admit this man to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court." Same way I feel about Roy Moore. He shouldn't be in jail, he also shouldn't be in the Senate. I think its nonsense to say "no matter how bad something looks, we have to prove someone guilty beyond any reasonable doubt or else they can hold whatever position they want to." Everyone is acting like it'd ruin his life, but he'd just go back to his cushy job as a judge and that would be that. No one did this to Gorsuch, and everyone was really mad at his appointment because his seat should have been filled by Merrick Garland except the GOP didn't care about rules and got away with it.

I get people wanting to believe her, especially people on the left. That said, to remember literally NOTHING with accuracy. It's odd to me that no evidence had become evidence in the court of public opinion.

I also have to disagree about a burden of proof too. This thread is exactly why. Why are we trying to ruin a man's career over something there is no proof for ? Saying," Well he sure seems like the kind of guy" is the same reason black people are treated unfairly by SOME cops. Those cops are the," They seem like trouble" type without knowing them. 

Most people only know him through people trying to slander him. If you judge him on the things you can prove, he's not a bad guy. I get a bad vibe from him, but my vibes have been wrong before so I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that about his character. 

I think you also need to have proof because this believe all women shit has gotten out of hand. Women can now character assassinate people and be caught, and they can say well I must have misremembered band the retraction of the story gets less than one 10th the attention the accusation does. We have to be careful about these things.

All I am saying is it is not unreasonable to think Blasey-Ford is full of shit. She may be burying the memories, and that is the lens you look through if you want to believe. Or it never happened and she is making it up and can't remember details because if that. That is the lens I see it from. Not remembering how many guys in the room, not remembering how old, what year, what house, any of that. But, somehow being able to remember which friends were there when they don't, and the coup de grace imo, emphatically remembering you only had one beer. You can't remember shit else but the one thing that would make you look like a typical lush teenager and cast doubt on your story, you emphatically remember? It just seems to convenient, doesn't it?

I am not saying he will make a good justice. I am saying Trump would have got another guy, and this would probably happen to him. The next conservative judge will probably have this happen to him as well. What I am saying is the logic you use of where there is smoke there is fire, can be applied to Blasey-Ford and bullshit. There is evidence she at the very least has no idea what happened. Also something stinks here and it's not just Kavanaugh, if it's him at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×