Nerm

I hear what everyone is saying on this issue, and I could very well be wrong on the points I made. I don't view his dishonesty as irrelevant. I'm going to bow out of this discussion now. I tend to avoid discussing things that relate to politics, but I occasionally put in my 2 cents... then regret it soon after. No disrespect to those who engaged me on these issues. I will continue to read this thread, and I enjoy the contributions of those discussing these issues.

I was wary about commenting on this issue, as I kind of expected to end up acting like the guy's defense attorney... and I don't even like him. I'm just making a distinction between him being dishonest and him committing the specific crime of perjury. I think he was stupid to portray himself as a boy scout. But that is different from saying that he couldn't possibly currently view himself as someone who was not out of control or disrespectful to females when he was younger. I think it is reasonable for people to think that his testimony was disqualifying, I'm really just arguing about the definition of perjury... and I fully admit that I am no expert on the issue.

Regarding links, looking at the Vox article I mentioned earlier, it is not actually addressing the testimony that he made this week. It was from past testimony, my mistake (but that doesn't mean that I committed perjury ?). https://www.vox.com/2018/9/7/17829320/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-hearing-perjury There are a lot of articles addressing the issue of what it means to be a material statement, but there is also a lot of grey area about what is considered material and what isn't. In general, I would say that nothing the judge said on Fox has anything to do with what would be considered perjury. He wasn't under oath, and he can make up whatever he wants to in that setting. I think the key is to look at the specific words he used while under oath. You then have to take those specific words and prove that he did not believe what he said at the time. How can you prove that Kavanaugh remembered blackouts in the past, or considered what he was feeling when really drunk to be a blackout? Those kinds of issues make perjury particularly difficult to prove. Also, there is a lot of subjectivity. Can you prove that Kavanaugh currently believes that his drinking 35 years ago was problematic and excessive? It doesn't matter what others think, you have to show that when he made the statement, he knew that it was objectively false. I think the way he avoided responding to questions directly, made statements that were tangentially related to the questions he was asked, and generally avoided giving specific information, will allow him to avoid any legal charges of perjury.

I have not read the transcripts, but this is a quote I found: “My friends and I, boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. I still like beer... The drinking age as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal. Senior year in high school, people were legal to drink.” So, I see this quote as misleading. But if you look at the words, he never even said that he was drinking legally. I think he was able to be deceitful with this comment without committing perjury. Again, not the kind of behavior that I would want from a judge, but I don't think it meets the legal definition of perjury.

The standard for perjury is not just if he lied. The lie has to be about a material fact that is important to the allegation. The legal drinking age thing is not relevant to the issue of whether he assaulted Dr. Ford. Same thing as his response to the question of whether he watched Dr. Ford's testimony. Perjury is not simply lying under oath, there are more elements to it, from what I understand. I'm not making the case that he was truthful, I'm just saying that he did not commit the crime of perjury this week. At least that is my understanding, and I very well could be wrong.

I have been hesitant to weigh in on this issue, as any comments perceived as supporting Kavanaugh tend to be viewed as an attack on women. So, please don't interpret my comments as being dismissive of what he is alleged to have done. I don't have a favorable opinion of the guy at all. However... From what I can tell, almost no legal analysts think that anything the guy has said amounts to perjury. Perjury isn't simply being dishonest under oath, there is more to it than that. Issues such as his descriptions of drinking patterns or blackouts may be untruthful, but then you would have to prove he was knowingly lying about these things this week. Can it be proven that he remembers times that he blacked out drinking 35 years ago? Even if you have video of him being blackout drunk in 1986, that does not mean that he committed perjury by denying it this week. My knowledge on this is limited, but from what I have read on fairly left wing outlets (such as Vox), there is not a case to be made for perjury. Also, I'm not surprised by the limitations of the scope of the FBI investigation. I assumed that the investigation would focus on the specific events of assaulting Dr. Ford and exposing himself. I think outcome of the investigation really comes down to finding corroborating witnesses to the event described by Dr. Ford, or some form of documentation from the mid 80's referencing the event. The best bet would be finding out who drove her home, and that person being able to remember that Dr. Ford was showing signs of distress at that time. I'm not even sure if corroboration of the exposure event would be enough, as it was so long ago, and it is much less serious issue than a sexual assault. Please don't take these comments as any kind of dismissal of the allegations, or support for Kavanaugh's confirmation. Just some thoughts I had about some of the issues being discussed.

I was thinking the other day that the problems with our government are never going to get better, because by definition we will always have politicians making the decisions. Maybe it would be better to "draft" groups of random citizens, then vote on them to see who gets the job. Obviously this would be flawed and unworkable, but I hate the nature of politics.

My guess would be that the scope would be limited to the specific allegations of assault. As in, what evidence is there that the specific events that he is being accused of happened as they are described. Not issues such as did he get drunk a lot, or was he sexually active.

My take on Dez (as a Cowboys fan). At this point, he is a very limited WR. I think he can still be an elite red zone wr, if you have a QB who will throw the fade and generally trust him to get the ball even if he has no separation. He is a terrible WR to have for a conservative QB (eg Dak Prescott). He never developed the skills, like route running, that could have helped him stay a #1 wr for a team as age and injury took away from his ability to dominate physically. His personality can be a distraction, but it isn't as horrible as some make it out to be. He doesn't get suspended or commit dumb penalties. He does complain a lot, but he also can bring a lot of positive intensity.

@visionary. I wanted to let you know that reading one of the stories you linked led to a surreal moment for me today. I was sitting outside of my office today reading this thread. I read the buzzfeed article about that Russian spy during her time in South Dakota. My office is in Sioux Falls, SD. The article has a picture of her apartment... Looks familiar... I look at the building directly in front of me... and I staring right at the apartment in the picture. The buisness she used to run was in the building next to my current office. Nothing ever happens in SD, but it was cool to be reading a national article and realize they were discussing the exact area I was in, while I read it. I felt like I was part of the story.

Thanks for all the responses, I think I understand a bit more. Do most people think that Trump himself will be charged with crimes based on this probe? Also, any expectations about how long before the investigation is officially concluded?

I really have not followed the investigation stuff regarding the Mueller probe. But, I have been reading various threads about politics here, which leaves me feeling out of the loop on some areas of disagreement about the severity of various allegations of wrongdoing. So, I ask this out of ignorance (not to defend Trump or attack democrats). But, what is the concern about meeting with Russians that said they might have dirt on Clinton... When there was also opposition research funded by others that sought Russian informants to provide dirt about Trump? What is the issue that differentiates the seeking of "dirt" in these situations. Again, this isn't a defense of Trump. I'm just unaware of the details, and trying to become more informed.

That is the tough part when it comes to the legal issues in these situations. When I watch the video, I think that once the guy pulls his gun the person who assaulted him looks like he is backing away. It looks like there is a good chance the altercation could have ended there. On the other hand, I can't say that it is unreasonable, for anyone that was just thrown on the ground, to still believe they were in danger 4 seconds later. When I took a gun safety class (30 years ago), I remember the people teaching the class emphasizing that you never pull a gun to try to de-escalate a situation. You only pull a gun if you think you have to shoot. In this situation, I think the shooting was probably unnecessary, but not criminal.

I think his Space-X accomplishments have been fairly impressive. The cost savings through reusable rockets should be enormous. He always gives unrealistic timelines for his space-x goals. But the improvements in reusability he has already demonstrated are a big leap forward in my opinion.

I get it now. I see what you are saying about the irony part, I misunderstood the point you were making initially.

No worries. I think Trump is a terrible person. Can't wait for him to be gone, but I don't think the comparisons to Nazis and genocide are reasonable (or helpful to those that oppose Trump).

Im confused. The example was the post I responded to, which included the suggestion that people on the right are supportive of genocide. I am not making any reference to leftist violence, or condoning any form of violence by anyone.

I agree that it is why moderates don't like the left. I'm not sure what is ironic about it. When people are running around comparing anything that Republicans are saying to actual genocide, the left looks far more vile and extremist than the right. It's pretty simple. Edit: not directing this at you, just a general comment about the topic.

I don't have many answers about what democrats need to do to win power back. But, I will say that comparing red state voters to Nazis is not a direction that I would go. If I'm a voter considering switching parties because of Trump's behavior, I don't think it is very appealing to vote for people arguing that me or my neighbors are just like Nazis and need to be treated accordingly. In my opinion, hostility directed at conservatives will make moderates more supportive of them.

I know I'm a couple months late to the discussion of favorite scenes, but for me it was the loot train battle. Visually, I think it is the most impressive thing I ever saw on tv. But I think the most epic thing about the battle was the shifting emotions. I was so pumped up by the Dothraki/dragon show of force after the Lannisters string of victories, wanting to see some payback. But then it is so brutal that I feel bad for Lannister army. I'm rooting for Bron and Jamie to live. Big sigh of relief when Bron kills the guy chasing him, straight to "oh no! He is going to kill Danny!" I love the back and forth tension and mixed feelings throughout the battle.

In my opinion, the size of the deficits that Bush and Obama ran were a big reason for the debates about debt limits. I see them as connected, but I could be wrong.

I guess where I see the disconnect is the part where the Republicans were "more" disingenuous. Below is a quote from Obama about his complaints regarding Bush deficits, versus what he thinks when he is president. He sort of acknowledges he was making a "political vote" rather than doing what is best for the country. It sounds like he may be acknowledging that he was being disingenuous, in a way similar to the behavior of Republicans during his administration. "I think that it’s important to understand the vantage point of a senator versus the vantage point of a president. When you’re a senator, traditionally what’s happened is, this is always a lousy vote. Nobody likes to be tagged as having increased the debt limit — for the United States by a trillion dollars. As president, you start realizing, you know what, we, we can’t play around with this stuff. This is the full faith and credit of the United States. And so that was just an example of a new senator making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And I’m the first one to acknowledge it."

I think we are talking past each other a bit. I'm not saying that both sides were equally correct in their assessments of acceptable deficit levels, and the benifits of increasing them. I'm just saying that I don't think that there is one side that is more disingenuous/dishonest than the other overall when making their case in those situations you discussed.

I hear what you are saying. I think the housing crisis was a huge economic event that required unprecidented action by the government. On the other hand, when discussing goals of improving the economy, I think that we have to acknowledge that there are fundamental disagreements about how to achieve those goals. On the left, there is the belief that government spending/investment will improve the economy and the quality of life for Americans. On the right, there is the belief that lower taxes and reduced regulation is the best way to get those results. I guess I don't see either side as being more principled with their stances. A person on the left will see deficit spending for stimulus purposes as being more reasonable than cutting taxes. A person on the right will see tax reductions that increase deficits as more reasonable for improving the economy.

That clip is funny, but I cringe when I see it. I remember a time in high school when one of my friends found his step dad's .22. My friend was sitting on the couch and he spun the pistol on his finger... Then BANG! It goes off. We both sat there for a second trying comprehend if one of us was just shot. Ended up finding the bullet hole in the floor, hidden by the carpet. His parents never found out.