redskins59

The number can't be right.  If you are looking at gun deaths, some states alone have 1000+. California has 3000 alone.

I am reading on twitter that 8chan is very radical. Just today, they have posts there about how to create chemical weapons.  All I know is, 8chan is an offshoot of 4chan, and was created because 4chan wasn't radical enough. Think about that for a second.

It seems to be similar to Isis or Al Qaeda websites, but catering to White extremists. So why has it not been labeled a terrorist website yet?   All these White terrorists have been using these websites for a while now.  From what I recall, the Synagogue terrorist from last year was also another 8chan guy.

Can't sites like 4chan and 8chan be labeled terrorist sites and be shut down?  If these white supremacists are being radicalized by going to these sites, that's proof enough.  

Honestly, the FBI needs to do a much better job of identifying these people before they start shooting.  Aren't they monitoring these websites?  When did the El Paso shooter publish his manifesto?  The FBI seems to be busy fighting Antifa (who I think have a murder count of 0) rather than tackle the real threat.  How diverse is the FBI?

7 minutes ago, visionary said:

Something has to be done.  We can’t let Trump or right wing media poison people’s minds like this without consequences.  How many more people are going to die in the next few days?

They need to be punished financially.  Target all companies that advertise on these networks.  The conservative media will not stop.  

7 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

There's a Sikh temple not far from where I live on rt 124 out here. Think about this kinda bull**** every day, often passing by there.

A couple of years ago, there was a shooting at a Sikh temple.  The White supremacist who did the shooting  mistook them for Muslims.

The right has been demonizing Soros for a long time.  It's pretty much anti-semitism.  They don't wanna say "Jews", but of course they are going to demonize the Jewish guy, without mentioning his religion/ethnicity. 

Honestly, the mainstream media needs to start pointing out the fact that the far right is way more violent in America than, let's say, Muslims.  Why don't they do that?  They seem to love reporting whatever the heck Trump is tweeting.  They are complicit in that regard. 

There is a possibility that Maine is going Republican.  Trump barely lost Maine.  Frankly, I don't trust that state just as I don't trust the Rust Belt states.  Susan Collins probably thinks Maine is trending red.  Look at their governor.  

Let's see how John Roberts reacts.  Maybe he shifts left. I mean, he is already in the middle, just slight to the right of Kennedy.  It's very important that the next democrat president (assuming Trump loses) forces the two older liberal justices to retire.  You can't have a republican president replacing those two key justices (when they die).

Just now, NoCalMike said:

Sidenote:

 

So my facebook feed is full of people giving high fives over the prospect of Roe V. Wade getting overturned. I am no legal scholar but would that in essence just take it back to making it a state-by-state decision not outlaw abortion?  And secondly, haven't most states hostile to abortion pretty much already gone out of their way to skirt the law anyway by passing all these crazy regulations for what a place that offers abortions need to have in order to operate? In other words they have made it so hard to get one in those states (some of them) already anyway?

 

Lastly, I am not sure if overturning Roe v. Wade is even a smart play for conservatives, based on the likely reaction it would generate.

Honestly, who wants to live in a state where abortion is illegal?  Expect people migrating out of those states.  If you look at West Virginia, do they even have net immigration?    The other thing is, companies can put pressure on the state government to do the right thing (like in North Carolina where they passed the transgender law).  It's not over even if Roe v Wade gets overturned.  

5 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

Is it really that important to GOP senators that they get someone with Kavanaugh's views on executive power? I don't understand why they wouldn't just nominate another Gorsuch clone otherwise. 

It is important to Trump.  Trump's thinking is that Kavanaugh will protect him against any criminal cases brought against him.  He is supposed to be the only guy who has such a track record, from what I understand.

2 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

I highly doubt that the people of West Virginia are ecstatic for an Ivy league asshole who will continue to rule in favor of the same people who have turned their state into the toxic wasteland of the US. But who knows. Manchin might as well switch parties if he votes in favor of Kavanaugh.

I think that if he votes no, it would not hurt him a whole lot.  He has like a 10 point lead .  He is popular in West Virginia, so he should get reelected even if he votes no.  

1 minute ago, visionary said:

So are we really putting a (at best) known serial perjurer on the Supreme Court  He’s really going to get away with all this?  ****.

 

Well, he is replacing Kennedy.  Sure he was more a moderate, but ultimately he was another conservative judge.  No question though, there are some things where he sided with liberal judges--those cases might be in trouble.  

We should hope that Justice Ginsburg survives for a while.  

Also, given that an average man in the US has a lifespan of 76 years, it's possible that Clarence Thomas does not last very long (he is 70).  Also, Alito is 68.

Just now, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

There's still a glimmer of hope with Murkowski and Collins.....who always let me down.

I read yesterday(don't know where) that Manchin will do what people in West Virginia would want.  So he seems like a yes to me. 

1 minute ago, No Excuses said:

Joe Donnelly is a no. Someone reported yesterday that Donnelly, Manchin, Collins and Murkowski are expected to vote in line with each other.

 

Hope that's true.

Well, but Flake was supposed to be part of that.  He is saying yes.  

I think he gets voted in.

My prediction:  Murkowski will vote no, Collins will vote no, Flake will vote no, Manchin will vote yes. These 4 moderates just had a meeting.  It's all a game for them.  What these politicians care the most about is getting reelected.  Basically I'm watching a soap opera.

1 minute ago, tshile said:

In my opinion he’ll vote against the Left any chance he gets now. He’s viewing this as his entire family being attacked by the left. 

 

This is exactly what I believe as well.  He wants revenge now.  

There is still a chance that he gets confirmed.  I will put it at 50-50.

He's going to be as far right as Clarence Thomas.  Another guy who was accused.

Just now, Popeman38 said:

First of all, no one can make him take a poly. Second, even if you could make them and they both failed, there is a 30% chance the test is wrong. It DOES NOT mean they are not telling the truth. Why can’t you comprehend that?

Okay then, how are you going to prove that Kavanaugh didn't do it? This was 30 something years ago.  Without a polygraph, you can't prove anything.

  The number that I see most often when it comes to polygraph is  that it is 90% accurate.  He doesn't need to take a poly, but disqualify him if he doesn't take one.  

There is strength in numbers.  Let's say that there was an  assault involving 10 people.  Let's suppose that they are all guilty. Now, let's use the 70% accuracy number.  The 10 people are given a polygraph test.  They all deny it.  Now, if 7 out of 10 people fail it, are you going to believe that they are lying or not?  The more people you polygraph, the more accurate it becomes.

I will say that if both Mark Judge and Kavanaugh fail the test, they definitely did it.

5 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

That’s not what you are asking here. What you are asking is for a man to take a polygraph that if any flags get raised will disqualify him forever from the peak of his profession. And likely ends his career. And you want to compare that to taking a poly to get a job?

 

Here’s a hint, the govt asks if you have been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor (not traffic related misdemeanors) in their security clearance process. Not accused. So in theory, Brett Kavanaugh could apply for a position requiring a clearance right now and not be disqualified. 

Here is the deal though. Kavanaugh says he didn't do it.  Ford says Kavanaugh did it.  How are you going to prove that Kavanaugh did it?  Mark Judge, the other guy in the room according to Ford, says he does not remember.  It is something that nobody can prove since it's been a long time. How are they going to investigate?  What will they be able to prove?  Nothing will come out of an investigation.   What I would do is, in order to make the results more robust, make both Mark Judge and Bret Kavanaugh take a polygraph test. I will bet that the test becomes more accurate if you test more than one person.  

If both Mark Judge and Bret Kavanaugh fail the test, they are not telling the truth, period.

1 minute ago, Popeman38 said:

You have established over the last page and half that you have no idea how polygraphs work, are administered, and have never taken one. So forgive me if I give little weight to you “thinking” the 90% number is the accurate number. 

 

And a polygraph for situations like like this are for show only. Ford passed a “polygraph” that her attorney set up. No LEA polygraphed her. No intel agency polygraphed her. 

I am reading that you need to take a polygraph test for certain security clearance applications.  How bad can it be if even the government uses it like that? 

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

Which Dem that is currently a no will become a yes if he passes a poly?

I would say that right now all Dems are a no.  If he passes a poly, Manchin from West VA comes to mind. A couple of others from red states I bet.  

I also bet that the republican senator Collins would quickly vote yes.  Right now she probably does not know what to do.

Just now, SkinsHokieFan said:

If you have gone through a poly you realize what BS it is. Get the right or wrong examiner & suddenly anyone comes off as “deceptive” 

Of course questions can make a difference.  That's why you need to make it as specific as possible.  If you ask something like "Have you assaulted someone ever", I wonder how many men would pass a general question like that.  90% of us would fail.  This is why you need to make it specific.

4 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Dollars to donuts that if your livelihood and reputation were at stake, your lawyer (you would have one) would all but forbid you to take a polygraph. 30% chance of you losing everything even if you are being 100% honest and have nothing to hide. Think about that. 1/3 basically. You playing Russian roulette with a 1 in 3 chance of dying? 

Polygraph tests are not admissible in courtrooms anyway.  I am fine with using it in situations like this.  Here we are trying to judge a person's character.  And I believe the 90% is the accurate number

4 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I still go back to the point if this is true, and this is the only objectionable thing he has done in the past thirty years, can he not be forgiven for it? I’m fine with waiting till after the election to nominate/confirm a supreme court justice that will in office for life, but this seems likes a huge political game.

He is probably a millionaire by now.  The assault has not affected him until now, has it?  If he did it, time to pay the price.

4 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

No it won’t. This is the reason no democrats will vote for him. Regardless of the outcome. 

 

Did her her attorney not say Ford cannot recall when or where the alleged assault took place? How does the accused account for that? How can the accused provide an alibi? How can anyone defend themselves from those vague details?

 

Look, I am torn on this. There is a chance that Ford was assaulted by Kavanaugh. I have a daughter, and can’t imagine having to go through this with her. I don’t want Ford to be dragged through the mud on this. But the way this was handled by Feinstein, and now demanding a “full FBI investigation before any testimony” smacks of political games.  

It was at a party of some kind.  The confusing part was whether 2 or 4 people were involved.

When I was 12 years old, I broke my hand.  I remember my cousin, who was responsible for it.  But I don't remember all other people around me.  

I would say that since this was like 30 years ago, she is not going to remember everything.  She remembers Kavanaugh, as well as Mark Judge.  Now, why would she take Mark Judge's name?  I think she remembers this part vividly.

7 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

No it doesn't. Nor are they anything remotely close to how they are portrayed onscreen. Two of the most honest people I know have both failed them.  In fact, most people fail the first time.  The agenda of lie detectors is not to detect lies, but rather to extract confessions from people who believe they are being caught. Polygraphs are about as accurate as a 10 day weather forecast. If I were accused of a crime of which I knew I was innocent, I still would refuse to take one.

They are accurate enough.  I am reading that they can be 90% accurate.  And critics say it is 70% accurate.  Which is good enough for me.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92847&page=1