*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

Still not sure you have all the facts here.

Oh, I definitely don't. That's fair criticism.

What's inappropriate is to have his PERSONAL lawyer speak to Kavanaugh. K is potentially being hired to work for the USA, not for Trump. Now, why in the great big world would his PERSONAL lawyer talk to K about Mueller? Does that not look a tad suspicious to you?

OK. I see your point vis-a-vis working for America, not Trump.

As to why they would talk, it could be any reason at all.
Whether or not you and I could imagine a tame scenario is not proof of anything aside from the efficacy of our imaginations.

It looks a tad suspicious, but my standard for being suspicious is pretty low, and that tad isn't really anything but a reflection of my ignorance to the content of the alleged conversation. It doesn't help me that her tone is openly combative and invites other reasons to not answer her directly and off-the-cuff.

Now, lets say K never spoke to those guys about Trump and Mueller and she's just trying to trick him. All he had to do was say 'fuck no' to her question and move on. The fact he's trying to dodge the question is suspicious.

Except that she's made it clear that she's asking a "gotcha" question and he doesn't know what she's trying to get him on.
Is it a yes? a no? She's clearly baiting him into something she wants to pounce on. His dithering could be nothing more than self-preservation against someone whom is clearly not playing nice.

If that was an honest question she'd lead with what she thinks she knows and ask him to affirm or refute that.

[BananaStand]

In other news, I'm looking for a word that can be used as a shortcut for saying the following:

The way for you to achieve maximum utility and meaning for your life, is for you to be set on fire. Not for as punishment, not as revenge, not as a deterrent, not as a public spectacle, not as an example, not as anything other than the barely consequential purpose of expediently helping something larger to catch fire.

I used to have something for this, but I lost it.....

[Poopadoop]

In other news, I'm looking for a word that can be used as a shortcut for saying the following:

The way for you to achieve maximum utility and meaning for your life, is for you to be set on fire. Not for as punishment, not as revenge, not as a deterrent, not as a public spectacle, not as an example, not as anything other than the barely consequential purpose of expediently helping something larger to catch fire.

I used to have something for this, but I lost it.....

Dunno. Maybe your angry cunt counsellor can help you with that problem.

[Poopadoop]

It looks a tad suspicious, but my standard for being suspicious is pretty low, and that tad isn't really anything but a reflection of my ignorance to the content of the alleged conversation. It doesn't help me that her tone is openly combative and invites other reasons to not answer her directly and off-the-cuff.

I believe it has something to do with the appearance of impropriety being nearly as bad as impropriety itself.

It's the kind of thing that keeps judges from being friends with mobsters, for example. Or having closed-chamber meetings alone with opposite-sex defendants. Yes, it's possible there's an innocent explanation. But that's not what people are going to think. And knowing that, as a judge, is why you don't let yourself get caught talking the president's personal lawyer team.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I believe it has something to do with the appearance of impropriety being nearly as bad as impropriety itself.

We both agree that's stupid, illogical reasoning, though, right?

... and that if that is her underlying reason for asking that question in that tone, then she's being childish...

... right?

[Poopadoop]

We both agree that's stupid, illogical reasoning, though, right?

... and that if that is her underlying reason for asking that question in that tone, then she's being childish...

... right?

Why is it stupid and illogical?

If someone puts themselves in an ambiguous situation, where they could either be up to no good or it could be nothing, they're the unwise one, not the person who asks them about it. Even I know not to have a closed-door meeting with a female student in my office. That's not because every time I do, I'm offering them an A for a blowjob, it's because it opens me up to false allegations. And to the outside, objective observer it's difficult to prove my innocence since it would just be my word against someone else's. So, to avoid such a situation arising, I don't allow that to happen.

And of course, it's not fair to assume that because he talked to someone on Trump's personal law team about Mueller that it necessarily was for unethical purposes, but it is fair to ask if they met and if so, what the contents of that meeting were.

[BananaStand]

And of course, it's not fair to assume that because he talked to someone on Trump's personal law team about Mueller that it necessarily was for unethical purposes, but it is fair to ask if they met and if so, what the contents of that meeting were.

WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THE BOLDED INFORMATION??????????????????????????????????????? ??????

[Poopadoop]

WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THE BOLDED INFORMATION??????????????????????????????????????? ??????

Dude, take a xanax.

I got it from Harris' question, the same place as you.

If you like, we can say 'a lawyer on the firm formerly employed by Trump as his personal attorney'. Feel better now?

[BananaStand]

If you like, we can say 'a lawyer on the firm formerly employed by Trump as his personal attorney'. Feel better now?

STILL FUCKING WRONG

TRY AGAIN

[MadMojoMonkey]

Why is it stupid and illogical?

Because blaming and/or punishing someone for something they didn't do is injustice.

If someone puts themselves in an ambiguous situation, where they could either be up to no good or it could be nothing, they're the unwise one, not the person who asks them about it. Even I know not to have a closed-door meeting with a female student in my office. That's not because every time I do, I'm offering them an A for a blowjob, it's because it opens me up to false allegations. And to the outside, objective observer it's difficult to prove my innocence since it would just be my word against someone else's. So, to avoid such a situation arising, I don't allow that to happen.

C'mon, man.

You were at home alone. It's possible you were watching kiddie-porn on the internets. Therefore, you should be treated like a pedophile.

I work on a college campus as well, and that rule is, of course, in place here. It's the reality that any student can accuse any member of the faculty or staff of assault and that's probably the end of that person's career. That is understandable from the administration's point of view, but still a miscarriage of justice. That staff or faculty member hasn't been found guilty of anything but breaking the company policy, but the result is that they will never work in academia again.

It's perverse and unjust. It's the reality of the college world, but it's no way for adults to treat each other.

And of course, it's not fair to assume that because he talked to someone on Trump's personal law team about Mueller that it necessarily was for unethical purposes, but it is fair to ask if they met and if so, what the contents of that meeting were.

That's my whole point. It's fair to ask, but her tone was not fair or open-minded.
She said she knows the answer.
She wants to trap him in some way.
How is that anything but childish?

[Poopadoop]

Because blaming and/or punishing someone for something they didn't do is injustice.

Who is blaming and punishing. All she did was ask a question. Try not to go full banana on filling in the blanks yourself here.

You were at home alone. It's possible you were watching kiddie-porn on the internets. Therefore, you should be treated like a pedophile.

Poor example, since it's easy to check my computer and see I was really looking at adult porn.

That's my whole point. It's fair to ask, but her tone was not fair or open-minded.
She said she knows the answer.
She wants to trap him in some way.
How is that anything but childish?

Fine, she's a nasty person by not offering him some milk and cookies and smiling sweetly at him.

FFS, it's a confirmation hearing, not a dinner with your grandma.

And I still want to see him answer the question.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Who is blaming and punishing. All she did was ask a question. Try not to go full banana on filling in the blanks yourself here.

What did you call me? Dude. I thought we were cool.


You changed the subject here:

I believe it has something to do with the appearance of impropriety being nearly as bad as impropriety itself.

My response was to that statement, in abstract.

Back onto your original topic, if you don't agree that her tone was pre-loaded with conclusions, then what would you call it?

Poor example, since it's easy to check my computer and see I was really looking at adult porn.

I don't need to check your computer. One of your douchebag neighbors said you were probably a pedo, so you appear to be a pedo.
Case closed.

Your entire point was that appearance of impropriety is close enough.

Fine, she's a nasty person by not offering him some milk and cookies and smiling sweetly at him.

I never said nasty. I said childish. I said combative tone.
I said it's understandable why any adult would clam up when faced with her tone.

I don't understand your hyperbole, here.
Milk and cookies?
That's nothing near my point.

I wonder if I've disrespected you in some way? If so it was unintentional. I apologize.
If not, please don't intentionally mischaracterize my points into paper tigers.

FFS, it's a confirmation hearing, not a dinner with your grandma.

My point exactly. Grandma can be as childish as she likes and we'll all love her just the same.

A representative of the people acting the fool like that is a whole different story.

And I still want to see him answer the question.

Me, too.
There's only a dearth of information at this point.