All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[Dalak]

Did we all miss Larry Kilgore? The name isn't familiar and I don't think WBE has profiled him yet, or at least my quick google check didn't think so.

but this popped up on my twitter timeline today: https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/12/...ll-gay-people/

There are things like this and the Textbook issue that make me regret where I live, but they drive me to encourage everyone to vote regardless of whether they think their vote will matter.

[Mister Mets]

Did we all miss Larry Kilgore? The name isn't familiar and I don't think WBE has profiled him yet, or at least my quick google check didn't think so.

but this popped up on my twitter timeline today: https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/12/...ll-gay-people/

He got 1.33% of the vote in the primary.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180310..._325_state.htm

[Dalak]

He got 1.33% of the vote in the primary.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180310..._325_state.htm

Over 20 thousand Texans in that percentage, but if you didn't have such a Republican-Popular guy like Greg Abbot on the ticket I guarantee Kilgore would have gotten more. Over 20 THOUSAND people in Texas alone support that sort of thing, that's nothing to see as a positive or even a mitigating factor IMO. "At least only 20 thousand Americans want to kill those who breach their biblical laws." isn't something that should be able to be said in this day and age.

[Mister Mets]

Over 20 thousand Texans in that percentage, but if you didn't have such a Republican-Popular guy like Greg Abbot on the ticket I guarantee Kilgore would have gotten more. Over 20 THOUSAND people in Texas alone support that sort of thing, that's nothing to see as a positive or even a mitigating factor IMO. "At least only 20 thousand Americans want to kill those who breach their biblical laws." isn't something that should be able to be said in this day and age.

With a percentage that small, a good chunk of the vote is going to be people who bubbled in the wrong circle, or who have no idea who they're voting for.

[Dalak]

With a percentage that small, a good chunk of the vote is going to be people who bubbled in the wrong circle, or who have no idea who they're voting for.

No Mets, no they didn't. It might help you to feel better to think that but take it from someone who lives here - The vast majority of people who voted for this man knew exactly what they were doing.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

He got 1.33% of the vote in the primary.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180310..._325_state.htm

And that was 1.33% more than a nutbag like him deserved.

[aja_christopher]

"California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault"

"Earlier this summer, Christine Blasey Ford wrote a confidential letter to a senior Democratic lawmaker alleging that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than three decades ago, when they were high school students in suburban Maryland. Since Wednesday, she has watched as that bare-bones version of her story became public without her name or her consent, drawing a blanket denial from Kavanaugh and roiling a nomination that just days ago seemed all but certain to succeed.

Now, Ford has decided that if her story is going to be told, she wants to be the one to tell it.

Speaking publicly for the first time, Ford said that one summer in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and a friend — both “stumbling drunk,” Ford alleges — corralled her into a bedroom during a gathering of teenagers at a house in Montgomery County..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...17b_story.html

[PaulBullion]

"California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault"

"Earlier this summer, Christine Blasey Ford wrote a confidential letter to a senior Democratic lawmaker alleging that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than three decades ago, when they were high school students in suburban Maryland. Since Wednesday, she has watched as that bare-bones version of her story became public without her name or her consent, drawing a blanket denial from Kavanaugh and roiling a nomination that just days ago seemed all but certain to succeed.

Now, Ford has decided that if her story is going to be told, she wants to be the one to tell it.

Speaking publicly for the first time, Ford said that one summer in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and a friend — both “stumbling drunk,” Ford alleges — corralled her into a bedroom during a gathering of teenagers at a house in Montgomery County..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...17b_story.html

I don't believe much in polygraphs, but the fact that she passed one increases the pressure on Kavanaugh and his GOP backers.

[Malvolio]

"California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault"

"Earlier this summer, Christine Blasey Ford wrote a confidential letter to a senior Democratic lawmaker alleging that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than three decades ago, when they were high school students in suburban Maryland. Since Wednesday, she has watched as that bare-bones version of her story became public without her name or her consent, drawing a blanket denial from Kavanaugh and roiling a nomination that just days ago seemed all but certain to succeed.

Now, Ford has decided that if her story is going to be told, she wants to be the one to tell it.

Speaking publicly for the first time, Ford said that one summer in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and a friend — both “stumbling drunk,” Ford alleges — corralled her into a bedroom during a gathering of teenagers at a house in Montgomery County..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...17b_story.html

I understand why she wanted to keep her identity a secret, but I also understand why she's coming forward publicly now.

[Mister Mets]

National Review's David French has a sober analysis from a conservative perspective.

Do not count me among those who would minimize this alleged assault. I went to a high school that had more than its share of drunken parties, and my classmates could do crazy and stupid things, but an act like this was beyond the pale. This isn’t “boys will be boys.” Actions have consequences, and it’s hardly unjust to tell a person that if he mistreated another human being like this — even a long time ago — he has to remain “merely” a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Since Kavanaugh has denied the story, however, the question of whether the event is so egregious that it should disqualify him is moot. At the very least, if the attack happened, he should be disqualified for lying.

Yet unless all parties start telling the same story, there is no way to know for certain if this event occurred. We don’t need certainty, however, to make a decision on whether a man should sit on the Supreme Court. I have the same standard for Brett Kavanaugh as I did for Roy Moore, for Donald Trump, for Bill Clinton — or for any other politician who’s accused of misconduct. Is it more likely than not that the allegation is true?

Given the totality of the evidence, I believe it is more likely than not that Bill Clinton committed rape and sexual harassment. I believe it is more likely than not that Donald Trump has committed sexual assault. I believe it is more likely than not that Roy Moore engaged in sexual misconduct with underage girls. But the evidence against Kavanaugh falls far short of the evidence arrayed against each of these men. So far at least it falls far short of the evidence against virtually any other politician or celebrity who has faced consequences during this #MeToo moment. Here’s why:

First, one way to help test the veracity of old claims is to ask whether there is any contemporaneous corroboration. Did the accuser tell a friend or family member or anyone about the alleged assault when it occurred? With Clinton, Trump, Moore, and many other politicians and celebrities, there was ample contemporaneous corroboration. Here, there was not. According to the Washington Post, “Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband.”

That’s almost three decades of silence — three decades when memories can grow cloudy and recollections can change.

But even the allegedly corroborating notes of the therapist raise a separate problem. They actually contradict her story on a key detail. According to the Post, “The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy that Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.” Nor do the notes mention Kavanaugh’s name, even though her husband says Ford named Kavanaugh in the sessions.

Those are important discrepancies, and if six years ago she told the therapist four men and says two men now, that suggests that her memory of the event may be suspect.

As a former trial lawyer, I can tell you that while neither notes nor memories are infallible, in a contest between contemporaneous notes and later verbal testimony about those notes, the content of the written notes usually prevails. Juries are extremely skeptical of witnesses who contradict written notes — after all, the notes are taken when the words are immediate and there isn’t the overwhelming pressure of a trial to conform your testimony to the desired outcome.

At least the investigation seems somewhat manageable. If there were only four boys there, who were the other two? Let’s hear from them. In fact, investigators should interview everyone else at the party.

Yet given all the years that have passed, would it be possible to find anyone who remembers being at that party? Would they remember any details at all? If someone saw Kavanaugh stumbling drunk at the party, that would obviously bolster Ford’s account. If another attendee says, “He was totally sober and with me the whole time,” that helps Kavanaugh. But the odds of getting details that precise are long indeed, and there is always a chance that a motivated classmate might lie — for either person.

Finally, there are no other allegations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. If there’s one thing we’ve seen time and again, it’s that one allegation often triggers a cascade of additional claims. There seem to be precious few men who engage in serious sexual misconduct just once. If this was the kind of behavior that Kavanaugh engaged in, then look for more people to come forward. If no one does, however, we’re left with a sole claim, made by an opposing partisan (Ford is an outspoken progressive), that Kavanaugh strenuously denies, that lacks any contemporaneous corroboration, and that is contradicted in material respects by her therapist’s own notes.

That does not add up to “more likely than not.”

But these conclusions are tentative and preliminary. The next three days are crucial. We’ll likely hear more from Ford. I expect we’ll hear more from Kavanaugh. People who were at the party may come forward with their own accounts. The news cycle is moving so fast that it seems almost absurd to speculate about the state of our knowledge even 24 hours from now, but if this is the core evidence supporting the (very serious) claim against Kavanaugh, it’s not sufficient to derail the nomination of a man with an otherwise sterling record of professional excellence and personal integrity.

Lindsey Graham would like to hear from Ms. Ford as soon as possible.

Future Senator Mitt Romney agrees.

Outgoing Republican Senator Jeff Flake says he won't vote until after the accuser is heard. He's on the Judiciary committee where Republcans have a one Senator lead.

Bob Corker, another outgoing Republican Senator, wants to hear from Ford before the vote.

Republicans have 51 Senators, with Mike Pence available for any time-breaker vote, so if several Republican Senators say they won't vote for him until Ms. Ford has an opportunity to tell her story, no vote's happening.

[Username taken]

National Review's David French has a sober analysis from a conservative perspective.



Lindsey Graham would like to hear from Ms. Ford as soon as possible.

Future Senator Mitt Romney agrees.

Outgoing Republican Senator Jeff Flake says he won't vote until after the accuser is heard. He's on the Judiciary committee where Republcans have a one Senator lead.

Bob Corker, another outgoing Republican Senator, wants to hear from Ford before the vote.

Republicans have 51 Senators, with Mike Pence available for any time-breaker vote, so if several Republican Senators say they won't vote for him until Ms. Ford has an opportunity to tell her story, no vote's happening.

As much as I have a problem with Kavanaugh, the analysis has presented a lot of valid points.

We need to hear more from the accuser and there needs to be a very detailed investigation before any conclusion is drawn.

[Username taken]

Rasmussen Reports, RASMUSSEN! gives Gillum his biggest poll lead yet in the FL governor race.

Nice one.

Hopefully, Gillum can maintain the momentum.

Crazy as Florida already is, it deserves better than a lowkey racist clown like DeSantis.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Lindsey Graham would like to hear from Ms. Ford as soon as possible.

Future Senator Mitt Romney agrees.

Outgoing Republican Senator Jeff Flake says he won't vote until after the accuser is heard. He's on the Judiciary committee where Republcans have a one Senator lead.

Bob Corker, another outgoing Republican Senator, wants to hear from Ford before the vote.

Republicans have 51 Senators, with Mike Pence available for any time-breaker vote, so if several Republican Senators say they won't vote for him until Ms. Ford has an opportunity to tell her story, no vote's happening.

I doubt that will happen. Republicans care more about angering Trump if they don't rubber stamp Kavanaugh's nomination. Short of reports coming out that Bob 'n' Weave Brett went full Chappaquiddick with some poor girl a year ago, Republicans won't give a **** about what happened thirty years ago, even if Ms. Ford does testify.

====================

Rivers Rise, Rescues Continue As Florence Rain Pounds North Carolina

The city of Lumberton is underwater for the second time in as many years. Meanwhile....

**********

Hong Kong Hit By Typhoon Mangkhut, World’s Strongest Storm This Year

The storm battered parts of Asia while, on the opposite side of a warming planet, Hurricane Florence caused massive flooding in parts of the United States.

**********

Kellyanne Conway’s Husband Rips Trump’s ‘Ceaseless, Shameless, Witless’ Lies

George Conway erupts after the president goes after Barack Obama’s slip of the tongue a decade ago. Sewer Rat Barbie slurps Trump chance she gets while her hubby slams him. How on earth does that couple stay together?

**********

Michael Moore Thinks Donald Trump Or ‘One Of His Minions’ Wrote Anonymous NYT Op-Ed

The “Fahrenheit 11/9” director also said Americans should expect the “evil genius” to be re-elected in 2020. I hope to god that DOESN'T happen.

**********

Trump’s Denial Of Puerto Rican Death Toll Is An Insult To My Father’s Memory.

“I’m sorry for your loss.”

That’s all he should have said to the family and friends of the 2,975 people who lost their lives in Puerto Rico during and in the aftermath of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. It’s the normal thing to say, the decent thing, the human thing. The bare minimum.

But that’s never what President Donald Trump has said. It’s not what he said in the days after, or any of the days since. Instead, Trump has repeatedly insulted the survivors and the dead alike by ignoring their loss. On Thursday, he denied that thousands of people died at all, claiming Democrats had made up this staggering death toll.

But people did die in Puerto Rico. People like my father, who died alone, without power and without his medication. According to our president, though, it wasn’t the inaccessibility of lifesaving medicine that killed him. Democrats are to blame.

To be clear, I don’t blame anyone for my father’s death. Unfortunately, natural disasters have always been part of our lives, and with climate change warming the Earth to dangerous levels, they will only get more devastating and more common.

My anger is not at the possibility that he could have been saved, or that the island’s crippled infrastructure should have been fixed years ago (though it should have). I stand here enraged because the person we put in charge of our country is intentionally devaluing life, creating rifts and sowing disbelief in people’s suffering.

Our elected leader cannot even do the bare minimum. Nothing he does is normal, decent or human. In a time of crisis, when our country looks to our leadership, he is only concerned about how it might make him look. I’ve heard people call him sadistic, but that assumes he understands others’ pain. He doesn’t. It’s clear the only thing he cares about is his feeling of superiority, and he is willing to put us all through hell to retain that.

I want to ask the president: Have you ever lost a loved one?

Imagine if that loss were called into question, denied by the very people who were meant to help you. Imagine you weren’t able to give your loved one a traditional funeral, and were forced to cremate the body, because the power still hasn’t come back on and your loved one is decomposing.

We are losing the ability to empathize, to see our fellow Americans’ pain and help them through their grief. The onslaught of tragedy has put nearly all of us in a position of pain in recent years, but because our president has no compassion, we are devolving. We need to forge our own path and hold on tightly to humanity, because we won’t be getting it from our president.

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2014, 2015, 2016, as well as 2017, that "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" published profiles of the U.S. House Representative from Colorado’s 5th Congressional District, Doug Lamborn, who first won office in 2007 by gay-baiting and claiming his primary opponent “supported the homosexual agenda” (which wasn’t the case). Lamborn was also named the most conservative member of Congress in 2010 by the National Journal, which makes sense when you realize he was one of the original member of the GOP to push legislation fueled by FOX News’ “War on Christmas”, as well as being the guy the guy who co-sponsored a bill to try to defund National Public Radio. Plus, long before Mitt Romney ever talked about defunding PBS and speaking ill of Big Bird, Rep. Lamborn did it first. Lamborn even once gave an interview where he described being associated with President Obama “like touching a tar baby”, which he defended by saying he had no idea “tar baby” was a racial slur. That may be part of the reason that he once called for American generals to resign to protest President Obama's foreign policy or the time he made a spectacle of himself back in 2012 by announcing that he was boycotting President Obama's State of the Union Address, then complaining when the media actually reported it, and saying he was being "unfairly singled out". Lamborn has also took to claiming President Obama was doing nothing to prevent Christian persecution around the globe because he was too busy supporting LGBT causes, instead.

His recent voting record looks a little like this:

• January 30th, 2017: Upon the announcement of Donald Trump’s Muslim ban, Rep. Lamborn goes on record that he feels it was “prudent” to do so. The courts, of course, have repeatedly defined it as “unconstitutional”.
• February 16th, 2017: Lamborn votes for HJR 69, to make it legal for hunters on wildlife reserves to kill several species of hibernating bears or wolves while they’re sleeping. Because… well, the logic really isn’t there as to why, it’s just awful.
• March 16th, 2017: Doug Lamborn votes for HR 1181, which would allow veterans deemed mentally incompetent to continue to own firearms, and not have them taken away without a judge's written order. We feel safer already.
• March 28th, 2017: Rep. Lamborn votes for SJ Res 34, which allowed internet providers to sell the data information of their customers' internet usage to businesses. Well, so much for privacy.
• May 4th, 2017: Lamborn votes for the House GOP's healthcare plan, that would kick roughly 24 million people off their health insurance plans, allow up to 28,000 more people to die a year, give $50,000 in tax breaks to millionaires, and would eliminate coverage for pre-existing conditions which would include such medical conditions as pregnancy (current or past), postpartum depression, or prior sexual assault. Oh, and a provision in the bill would make sure that Lamborn would be allowed to keep his healthcare plan as it exists under the ACA, which would be repealed for the rest of the country. He and his Republican compatriots threw themselves a beer bash to celebrate taking away healthcare from millions and then gloated about it with Donald Trump at a White House press conference, as well.
• June 8th, 2017: Doug Lamborn votes for HR 10, the GOP’s attempt to repeal Dodd-Frank financial reform, because what the country really needs is to allow the big banks to make the same mistakes that imploded the economy only a decade earlier.
• September 8th, 2017: Rep. Lamborn chooses to be one of 90 Republicans in Congress who votes against disaster relief for Hurricane Harvey.

Needless to say, Doug Lamborn has been getting a lot of grief at his town hall meetings. Lamborn already had to fend off two primary challengers in the form of fellow CSGOPOTDs Owen Hill, and Darryl Glenn, which may have put enough of a dent in his campaign coffers to give a big chance to Democrat Stephanie Rose Spaulding, a 39 year old Baptist minister, an opening this fall. Making things even more fortuitous for Team Blue… Lamborn has been implicated as someone who benefited from stock advice from fellow Congressman Chris Collins, whose stock advice really amounts to insider trading. Whether or not Lamborn is indicted as well… his public image is sure taking a hit over it.

[Mister Mets]

As much as I have a problem with Kavanaugh, the analysis has presented a lot of valid points.

We need to hear more from the accuser and there needs to be a very detailed investigation before any conclusion is drawn.

The vote was scheduled for Thursday and the contents if the letter have been known to some members of Congress since June. I don't think the people who don't want Kavanaugh on the court should be rewarded for their indecision.

Whatever happens should be done quickly, barring new revelations (ie- new accusers, the other two people at the party coming forward.)