Ten oz

Democrats have no power in Congress. The Senate Judiciary committee is majority Republican. It is Republicans who who controlled the hearings, the FBI investigation and the confirmation vote. What exactly did Democrats do which you feel I should be upset at? An investigation is what I have advocated. Believing the women to me means having a real investigation which doesn't ignore all but one accuser, puts a timeline on the investigation, and doesn't allow for interviews of the people involved. In my opinion one would only ignore accusers and scratch them from being interviewed if one doesn't believe them.

What exactly would have been "dangerous" about giving the FBI full anatomy to run an investigation? Kavanaugh had multiple accusers and the FBI was restricted to only investigating one, given only a week, and wasn't able to interview either the accuser or accused. You are complaining about Hirono and what her comments could potentially mean for due process while totally ignoring the manner in which Republicans manipulated the FBI's investigation which would have been to best chance of due process. Action matters to me more than rhetoric. Hirono's words impacted nothing. Republican action impact a lot. You seem to be more interested in discussing due process in theoretical terms as applied to situations which don't exist rather than address what is actually happening in real time.

If we look at History there is basically always a war everywhere at some point. So there is definitely a chance 2nd Civil War in the U.S. at some point, OP doesn't mention a time frame. I do not see one happening in the foreseeable future. The economics at not suitable for a Civil War at the moment. While it is true that there is a hard ideological divided between many of the States all of the most partisan States rely on larger more diverse States. While people in places like Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and etc might be staunchly opposed to the politics of California and Washington State they are also entirely economically dependent upon them. For example the 3 top employers in Idaho are Micron, HP, and Albertsons. Micron and HP are technology companies which operate via Silicon Valley in CA and there are more Albertsons Stores in CA than any other State. Same is true all over the Country. In the South TX and FL and the economic powerhouses. FL is a fairly evenly divided state politically and TX despite its reputation is as well. In the 2016 TX went 52-43 and FL went 48-47. Basically all the economic power housing in the Country CA, WA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, etc would stay together. During the First Civil War the South had an economy of its own rooted n slavery and agricultural. The South also had strong ideological unity across a vast geographical area which include key logistical locations along the Gulf and Atlantic. Today the strongest ideological divide in terms of geography is in the interior of the Country. They have land by no economic strength of strategic logistical locations. States like the Nebraska, Montana, South Dakota, and etc simple would be able to sustain themselves. During the first world war the South could have sustained itself.

It is bizarre to me that so many accept the notion that Ford, or any woman, would come forward for some malicious purpose. Ford has gotten nothing for doing this. Ford is a very success professional. She is a professor at Stanford. The idea that she came forward just to get on TV is stupid. This whole ordeal has done nothing for her. Ford hasn't been paid, isn't running for office, and now must deal with her name being associated with divisive partisanship for the rest of her life. I loosely understand why people claim Democrats would wanted to use Ford to delay the Kavanaugh vote but that doesn't speak to, totally ignores in my opinion, why Ford reached out in the first place. Ford is a very creditable individual so posters are attempting to bait and switch us into discussing what Democrats were doing. People have been posting things akin to that "Ford seems honest but DID YOU READ WHAT SEN. HIRONO SAID OMG this is just a strategy by Democrats".

The Salary in the House of Representatives in $174,000 dollars. Many political figures own cars worth more than that. Many members of Congress are millionaires some are worth hundreds of millions. I do not think many of then are worried about their political career and public image. That is the problem. Rather they are worried about networking with special interest groups and business so they can get high paying lobbyist jobs and and insider investment information. In my opinion there should be a Constitutional amendment which prohibits Politicians from owning businesses, stock , or receiving money for paid speaking while in office or for at least 2yrs (a single Congressional election cycle) after. We also need public financed elections. Imagine the sort of pro-populist messaging politicians might champion if they didn't have billionaires financing their campaigns for them. The problem isn't that Politicians can't win elections if they speak of amending the Constitution. The problem is politicians won't get rich if the do.

Perjury is your word. I said he lied so therefor it is accurate to call him a liar. If you choose to refer to his lies as mis-characterizations which may or may not meet the legal distinction for perjury that is your choice. iNow posted that it is purely speculative to call Ford a liar. StringJunky post that the same is true for Kavanaugh. My point is that it is not the same. Kavanaugh lied. He liked during his interview on TV and lied to the Senate. Whether or not he can or will be held accountable for the lies changes nothing.

No, he lied to the Senate. fortunately for Kavanaugh the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate any allegations besides Ford's. So the lies he told relating to the Rameriz case weren't part of the limited FBI scope.

No, one can accurately call Kavanaugh a liar because he was caught lying, Here .

Democrats didn't seek out Ford. Democrats didn't solicit for individuals to come forward against Kavanaugh. It was Ford who contacted her representatives on her own volition. What exactly are you suggesting Democrats should have done? Republicans controlled the whole situation. Republicans decided when hearings and votes would be held. Republicans decided the timeline and scope of the FBI investigation. Ultimately Kavanaugh was appointed. Kavanaugh has his lifetime position. What exactly are you complaining Democrats did?

Which is why it shouldn't be stated as fact that the whole situation was a Democratic strategy. The negative comments about Kavanaugh I have seen surround his testimony. Things he misrepresented to the Senate.

And of Ford isn't a shill it is reprehensible to imply she is.

If I posted something sexist, racist, homophobic, or etc I would get down votes. If mistermack could express their view without blatant victim blaming I suspect they would receive down votes. Their position is not massively different than that of MigL's and J.C.'s who are not receiving down votes.

Obama needed a super majority in the Senate to get anything done his whole tenure due to Republican filibuster yet still managed to get things passed. The bar isn't impossible high. There have been numerous amendments. The problem is that many have come to accept the written in stone mentality as an amendment hasn't been made in nearly 50yrs. It needs to be brought up more often that the Constitution can be amended. People need to hear the idea suggested so it can normalize as a real option. Not only can Amendments be made but they can replace existing one. The 2nd amendment can be replaced. The Constitution absolutely allows for it.

In stating that the investigation was a "delay" they are essentially claiming Ford was a Democrat shill. Demoguaging sexual assualt victims is beyond an innocent difference in opinion. It is an unsubstantiated claim which is hurtful to victims of sexual assualt.

Seems to me that via social media people have become more voyeuristic. Anyone who isn't shy, Lacks shame, humility, and integrity has a decent chance of acheive a modicum fame on outlets like YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram. I won't go any further into detail than that so not to encourage any specific actives.

The Constitution is the problem. As designed the Constitution can be amended, Article Five. Talk of the "Founding Fathers" is just a strawman conservatives in the U.S. use to justify disenfranchisement. The Constitution was never meant to be viewed through the written in stone lense. There has been 27 amendments made to the U.S. Constitution but none on the last 46yrs which is the longest gap without an amendment in the nation's history. The fallacy of the Constitution being a bibical like document which is unalterable has stymied our (U.S.) system of govt. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution prevents Congress from writing and passing any law we the people want.

In my opinion the problem with the exploitation of Supreme Court is actually rooted in the dysfunction of Congress. Many things which end up decided by the Supreme Court (gun laws, abortion, healthcare taxes, marriage, etc) could be resolved in Congress if members were willing to tackle them. The matters only remain legally ambiguous enough to head to the Supreme Court because Congress intentionally puts them off in hopes that courts will decide. In turn that makes it critical that judges are political ideologues and not apolitical centerists. Neither the portion of the public which follows politics or politicians view justices as impartial. People in the U.S. are resigned to the fact that abortion, gun laws, and etc are court battles rather than legislative ones. This is because in the U.S. democracy itself dysfunctional. Republicans have lost the popular vote on 6 of the last 7 national elections yet control every branch of govt. That shouldn't be possible in a healthy Democratic system. Because Republicans control Congress (have so for a decade) but do not have the popular support of the nation they are unable to advance policy. Instead they work to stall policy and look to the courts much as possible for assistance. Things like legalizied pot, govt managed healthcare, gun control, and etc have overwhelming public support yet Congress won't act and the matters.

Innocent till proven guilty isn't an exemption from inconvenience.

I am against capital punishment. Not out of fear of innocent people being executed but out of a basic belief that it is amoral to kill people who are in custody and pose no threat. Probabilities aren't used to convict people but they are used to investigate people all the time. When a woman goes missing the initial suspect is always the spouse or boyfriend. You are conflating investigating someone with convicting someone. I would refer to the majority of rapists as "some guilty people". It is a whole lot of guilty people. Too many to just shrug off part of making an omelette. If law enforcement relayed on people confessing prisons would have a whole lot less people in them. Most criminals are also liars.

Justice Thomas's wife Here is literally a conservative political lobbyist. Meanwhile all the Republican nominated Justices are affiliated with the same political action group, Here. There is nothing apolitical about it. The unaccountability of Justices, they can't be voted out, make them some of the most partisan ideologues in Washington.

People are being sanctimonious about the innocent till proven guilty standard. Here in the U.S. people have the right to a defense but are still arrested in advance of being able to launch that defense during trial. Those without enough financial means for bail or whom are considered flight risks stand trial from custody. In the U.S. people who are merely suspected of a crime can be tasered, peppered sprayed, and even killed by police if they don't cooperate as ordered. Being innocent till proven guilty doesn't mean one is treated "neutral". People are perp walked out of their homes in handcuffs in front of all their neighbors and often threated into plea deals. The U.S. has the highest prison population in the world. Millions of people are in prison. Most were treated in an inequitable manner at some stage in the process but that isn't who we are all talking about with all the innocent till proven guilty stuff. Rather we are talking about theoretical situations where an innocent man might be falsely accused of of sexual misconduct by a woman.

Fortunately you are wrong. The Constitution thankfully has been changed. Admendments like the 13th abolishing slavery and the 19th prohibiting denial of a vote based on gender are powerful examples.

The way believing the women would have worked with Kavanaugh is that all the allegations would have been referred to the FBI and the FBI would have been given autonomy to run a full investigation. Instead we got a politically filtered investigation which was limited in time and scope.

I can't weigh individual sexual assualt cases but I can weigh the historical trends of discrimination and disenfranchisement. That is what the complaint here is after all. That men will some how become discriminated against in the eyes of the law. Between men and women that has never happened. It is women who have been historically disenfranchised forced to marry, forced to bare children, forced to be obedient, beaten, raped, paid less, and etc. Even today the U.S. and your home UK play nice with countries like Saudi Arabia which have horribly oppressive restrictions on women. The Western world wants oil too much to stand against the abuse of women. As such I find the complaint that men will be disenfranchised at the hands of false accusations a bunch of sanctimonious b#llsh!t. It won't happen. Has never happened. Men murder, rape, beat, harrass, and etc women at rates which far and away exceed anything women do to men. The majority of men who beat and or rape woman get away with it. Yet we are in here carrying on about the rare man who might be falsely accused some day.

The status quo 20% of women are raped and 63% never come forward in part out of fear of not being believed. You rather we all just with that than believe women because you fear some miniscule (relative to the 63% of rape victims that never come forward) number of men might falsely accused? We'd do right by more people if we believe women while working towards improvements then sitting with the status quo while working towards improvements. That is simply a statistical fact. Doing right by the largest number of people is while continuing to improve the system makes far more sense to me.