America - The Official Thread

[Imari]

No, because there's been no official ruling declaring that Trump or Kavanaugh committed rape. However, studies show that only two out of 100 women who claim they are raped are making false accusations. You seem to come off as if Kavanaugh and Trump's accusers of sexual misbehavior are all liars and doing it for attention.

Unless evidence proves otherwise, I see no reason why not to believe the woman if she alleges she is raped or violated in a different form. Imagine living through that type of assault, which never can be truly healed, only be told you're "ruining his life" or "lying"?

You seem to have some misapprehension about how justice works. Justice is not served by using statistical likelihoods to convict people without evidence. Justice is served by making sure that a crime has occurred and that the people convicted are indeed the people who committed it.

Kavanaugh appears to be a pretty scummy dude, and quite the liar, but there's no evidence that he did what he's accused of beyond he said/she said. I don't think he should be on the Supreme Court, but that's for other reasons. After 30+ years it's not terribly surprising that there's no supporting evidence, and that's just how it is sometimes. Maybe he did do it and he's going to get away with it. Maybe he didn't. Maybe it was some other guy. Maybe it didn't happen at all like Ford remembers and years of trauma have changed things for her. Maybe she's making it up. We'll probably never know the truth to any level of certainty.

The answer to not knowing is not to label someone as a rapist because, well, someone did it and it was probably him and she's probably not lying or misremembering. That's profoundly unjust.

I'd point out as well that what he's accused of is not rape, and that there's a worthwhile distinction between rape and sexual assault just as there's a worthwhile distinction between assault and battery. But let's take it as read that you believe that what occurred was of equivalent severity to rape and therefore deserves the label "rapist".

Trump is a bit of a different case to Kavanaugh. There's objective evidence of him confessing to sexual assault in the Hollywood Access tapes. He's confessed in other interviews to walking into the dressing rooms at his pageants to see the women naked. Large numbers of women have accused him of behaviours similar to those he's confessed to.

Again, I'm taking it as read that you consider the sexual assaults as equivalent to rape even though others might not, and that in such a case it would be reasonable to refer to him as a rapist as even though he hasn't been convicted there's ample evidence that events of this type occurred. As far as I know he's only been accused of actual rape by Ivana, and that one is a bit of a twisted tangle to unravel what might really have happened given that she's subsequently retracted that claim.

Although it is still amusing to come across the Michael Cohen quote of "you can't rape your spouse". Technically in law perhaps, but in an age where your wife is no longer considered your property, I'd argue that you absolutely can rape your spouse now that marriage doesn't grant you unfettered rights to do whatever you like to her body.

 

[Biggles]

Trump is a bit of a different case to Kavanaugh. There's objective evidence of him confessing to sexual assault in the Hollywood Access tapes. He's confessed in other interviews to walking into the dressing rooms at his pageants to see the women naked. Large numbers of women have accused him of behaviours similar to those he's confessed to.

Let's just leave it at this: there's a greater likelihood that Trump has committed rape than the average Mexican illegal immigrant.

 

[FerrariF1GT]

What would qualify as overwhelming evidence?

It would be 'overwhelming evidence' if and only if the evidence found from the investigation made it obvious that Kavanaugh was guilty. I don't know how to explain it further without making it more confusing.

 

[PocketZeven]

Again, Bollacks. The concession to the slaveowners was that blacks were to be counted as 3/5ths of a person in the census. Compared to the plague that is illegal immigration today, that small concession at least provided a very good estimate on how many slaves there were in the US at any one time.

Speaking of which...

You are seriously going to play the privilege card? Seriously? Do you actually know HOW slavery started in America? It started with a black man saying that "I bought him" in court. Slavery is very much an African tradition, where there are more slaves compared to the rest of the world.

Before that statement, people were brought over to serve a period of seven years and no more on their own free will in exchange for passage to America.

To be clear the electoral college was implemented at a time where voters could not be provided with enough information to make an informed decision. A large amount of people were illeterate and/or not educated and in part of the fear of mob mentality you suggested. However times have changed and information is not provided via a horseback courier or stagecoach, but via the internet, TV, newspapers etc. Most importantly the North had the majority of voters at the time and would therefore be dominant with direct elections. I did some research and indeed salveryowners could count their slaves and their vote would count as 3/5ths. That way the vote in the south (minority) could have more gravtitas in an election. But that also made the slaveowners in the south's vote much more powerfull then anyone who didnt own any slaves. So you indirectly confirmed my statement in that it was a concession to the slaveowners in the south.

And you are saying that was a good thing, because you could register immigrants? What are you suggesting?

Suggesting that slavery is a african tradition and how it was a good way to keep tabs on immigrants, somehow justifying its practice is plainly just morally wrong. There was slavery all over the world including asia, europe, south america etc. My country also has a dark history with being a premier player in slave trade. But that does not justify slavery at all.

Although i acknowledge illegal immigration is a problem to every country, you seem to have a personal problem with illegal immigration?
Again it is not as big as a problem in the USA as Trump is claiming (the majority of illegal immigrants are *felony criminals).

edit: *edited ad suggestion of @mustafur

 

[mustafur]

Every Illegal immigrant is a criminal, it's in the name illegal.

 

[PocketZeven]

Every Illegal immigrant is a criminal, it's in the name illegal.

Not disputing that fact. But I am referring to felony crimes. If I am not mistaken illegally crossing the border is a misdemeanor.

I always consider the extreme outrage of rightwing americans about illegal immigration such Irony, since the usa was taken from the indigenous people in the first place.

 

[ryzno]

since the usa was taken from the indigenous people in the first place.

What does that have to do with immigration in our modern society?
There were no immigration laws back then. We came over and found land we wanted, we conquered the natives to claim the land for ourselves. Since then we've been doing what we need to do to maintain our land.

 

[PocketZeven]

What does that have to do with immigration in our modern society?
There were no immigration laws back then. We came over and found land we wanted, we conquered the natives to claim the land for ourselves. Since then we've been doing what we need to do to maintain our land.

The relevance is that the USA is a land built upon the shoulders of immigrants legal and illegal. And now a group of descendants have problems with immigrants (not only illegals). Not only that, but a certain group (mexicans) are more indigenous to the land then the people who are vilifying them.

I find that quite ironic.

 

[ryzno]

The relevance is that the USA is a land built upon the shoulders of immigrants legal and illegal. And now a group of descendants have problems with immigrants (not only illegals). Not only that, but a certain group (mexicans) are more indigenous to the land then the people who are vilifying them.

I find that quite ironic.

You find it ironic a country that didn't care about murdering 10's of thousands of natives, used/killed 100's of thousands of slaves still doesn't care about illegal immigrates?
There are reasons we have immigration laws. We can not afford to let everyone and their momma come in cause they want in.
Not everyone believes they are all rapists. Don't let your local Trump news make you think that's how everyone thinks.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Not disputing that fact. But I am referring to felony crimes. If I am not mistaken illegally crossing the border is a misdemeanor.

I always consider the extreme outrage of rightwing americans about illegal immigration such Irony, since the usa was taken from the indigenous people in the first place.

You admonish others for bringing slavery into the discussion but you find no irony in bringing up things that happened during and before slavery to justify your position? I'm guessing your example is somehow "different" and more relevant to modern times right?

 

[Biggles]

What does that have to do with immigration in our modern society?
There were no immigration laws back then. We came over and found land we wanted, we conquered the natives to claim the land for ourselves. Since then we've been doing what we need to do to maintain our land.

You find it ironic a country that didn't care about murdering 10's of thousands of natives, used/killed 100's of thousands of slaves still doesn't care about illegal immigrates?
There are reasons we have immigration laws. We can not afford to let everyone and their momma come in cause they want in.
Not everyone believes they are all rapists. Don't let your local Trump news make you think that's how everyone thinks.

Ah ... the conservative philosophy in a nutshell. What's mine is mine, what's yours is mine - if I have the power to take it - & don't even think about getting a piece of what now belongs to me. "Self-evident truths", I guess.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It would be 'overwhelming evidence' if and only if the evidence found from the investigation made it obvious that Kavanaugh was guilty. I don't know how to explain it further without making it more confusing.

Again though, given the age of the crime, lack of corroboration even from the witnesses the alleged victim put forward herself, and the extremely long odds of any forensic evidence ever being created let alone preserved for 35 years, the odds of them finding anything other than that which has already been found, had to be very close to zero.

 

[PocketZeven]

You admonish others for bringing slavery into the discussion but you find no irony in bringing up things that happened during and before slavery to justify your position? I'm guessing your example is somehow "different" and more relevant to modern times right?

If you read correctly I brought it up as one of the reasons for the origin of the electoral college. I was not using it in any other context.

However somebody else claimed that the good thing about slavery and the electoral college was there was registration of slaves as apposed to now lack of registration on illegal immigrants now. You dont see something wrong with that comment at all?

And seeing his criticism on illegal immigrants I saw some irony in his views. Which example where you referring to?

 

[Johnnypenso]

If you read correctly I brought it up as one of the reasons for the origin of the electoral college. I was not using it in any other context.

However somebody else claimed that the good thing about slavery and the electoral college was there was registration of slaves as apposed to now lack of registration on illegal immigrants now. You dont see something wrong with that comment at all?

First, I don't see where @Sanji Himura said it was a "good thing about slavery". He was comparing two situations brought up in the discussion. Second, in the context of the discussion, his response makes sense and I see nothing wrong with his comment.

 

[Northstar]

Ah ... the conservative philosophy in a nutshell. What's mine is mine, what's yours is mine - if I have the power to take it - & don't even think about getting a piece of what now belongs to me. "Self-evident truths", I guess.

Yes, because a Liberal would never have that sort of mindset.

Be careful on that high horse of yours my friend.

 

[PocketZeven]

Compared to the plague that is illegal immigration today, that small concession at least provided a very good estimate on how many slaves there were in the US at any one time.

If I read correctly he compares favourably, the situation of slaves being registered, to illegal immigration in modern times. And redusing it as "small concession".

And to be clear that that 3/5 , didnt mean the slaves were allowed to vote. *It gave the slaveowning states more power in the governement.

Yes, because a Liberal would never have that sort of mindset.

Be careful on that high horse of yours my friend.

This isnt just about liberal vs conservative. Both sides are doing it. Thats why america should finally get rid of pac money and go with a multi party system. That way you there is even more reasons to get rid of the electoral college. The vote of the minority will have more weight in such a system.


edit: *inaccurate statement corrected

 

[Joey D]

Yes, because a Liberal would never have that sort of mindset.

Be careful on that high horse of yours my friend.

It's more of a socialist state of mind, but seeing as most socialist identify as liberals, it makes sense.

I think conservatives are more along the lines of "what you do is against my morals, so, therefore, I need to ban it."

 

[DK]

This isnt just about liberal vs conservative. Both sides are doing it. Thats why america should finally get rid of pac money and go with a multi party system. That way you there is even more reasons to get rid of the electoral college. The vote of the minority will have more weight in such a system.

Good luck making a third party relevant in a First Past The Post system.

 

[PocketZeven]

Good luck making a third party relevant in a First Past The Post system.

Not suggesting a third party. The current republican and democratic parties should split up.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If I read correctly he compares favourably, the situation of slaves being registered, to illegal immigration in modern times. And redusing it as "small concession".

And to be clear that that 3/5 vote, didnt mean the slaves were allowed to vote. It was added to the slaveowners vote.

Do you understand the nature of the 3/5ths compromise and why it led to slaves counting as 3/5ths of a person for purposes of representation and taxation?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Do you actually know HOW slavery started in America? It started with a black man saying that "I bought him" in court.

I've read some mad things on GTP but this may be the maddest by far.

With a 35 year old allegation

Your personal statute of limitations seems to vary wildly depending on the person against whom allegations are made.

 

[PocketZeven]

Do you understand the nature of the 3/5ths compromise and why it led to slaves counting as 3/5ths of a person for purposes of representation and taxation?

I only know what I researched relevant to the electoral college. I edited my post to reflect this.

"The implementation of the Three-Fifths Compromise would greatly increase the representation and political power of slave-owning states. The Southern states, if represented equally, would have accounted for 33 of the seats in the House of Representatives. However, because of the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Southern states accounted for 47 seats in the House of Representatives of the first United States Congress of 1790. This would allow for the South to garner enough power at the political level, giving them control in Presidential elections."

 

[Johnnypenso]

Your personal statute of limitations seems to vary wildly depending on the person against whom allegations are made.

Your attempt at tripping me up is misplaced. I didn't say anything about a statute of limitations, I used the 35 years as a frame of reference regarding the unlikelihood of finding any new evidence beyond that which is already known. For reference though, the statute of limitation would have run out on this allegation after one year.

I only know what I researched relevant to the electoral college. I edited my post to reflect this.

"The implementation of the Three-Fifths Compromise would greatly increase the representation and political power of slave-owning states. The Southern states, if represented equally, would have accounted for 33 of the seats in the House of Representatives. However, because of the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Southern states accounted for 47 seats in the House of Representatives of the first United States Congress of 1790. This would allow for the South to garner enough power at the political level, giving them control in Presidential elections."

I assume that's from Wikipedia or some other source. I'm asking if you know the story behind the comprimise, why it took place etc. Your quote seems to imply purpose of the compromise was to allow the southern states more power which isn't the case.

 

[Dotini]

Is it too cynical and cliche of me to immediately link a mooted US invasion of Venezuela to oil?

You got anything new on this? I'm currently running across reports which imply an invasion in the immediate future. I'm against such an action, of course, since I think the communists need to stew in their own juices. But there may be more than one carrion bird circling around this stinking corpse of a nation. Trump may roll out the Monroe Doctrine to justify an invasion before someone else swoops in.

 

[mustafur]

The relevance is that the USA is a land built upon the shoulders of immigrants legal and illegal. And now a group of descendants have problems with immigrants (not only illegals). Not only that, but a certain group (mexicans) are more indigenous to the land then the people who are vilifying them.

I find that quite ironic.

Mexican isn't a race though, and it doesn't really need to be explained why you can't have a welfare state and open borders you can have one or the other, just ask France why it doesn't work like that.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Not disputing that fact. But I am referring to felony crimes.

Most immigration crimes ARE felonies. You cross the border illegally, then you committed a felony. What does a minor crime or two added after the fact have to add anything to the discussion? But rather than prosecute them as such, we just catch and release.

Hey, why don't we open both ends of the border it immigrants and see where that will get us in the next five to ten years?

 

[McLaren]

Not disputing that fact. But I am referring to felony crimes. If I am not mistaken illegally crossing the border is a misdemeanor.

I always consider the extreme outrage of rightwing americans about illegal immigration such Irony, since the usa was taken from the indigenous people in the first place.

Indigenous people in the US did the same thing to each other well before the white man took complete control. Look at the Beaver Wars when the Iroquois wanted the fur trade from Hurons, Algonquians and their French allies. The Iroquois were nothing more than a league of 6 tribes trying to expand and monopolize the fur trade and had the backing of the Dutch and British. The Iroquois would constantly push smaller tribes off their land to take over.

A lot of people like to use your statement in this country and present it as if the Natives were one, big happy family except for they committed the same acts Europeans used to do to each other. They fought for land, resources, warriors, etc. They committed slavery that varied from adopting into the tribe, to peace trades, chopping off feet so they couldn't run, cannibalism as sacrificial rituals, and when the Europeans were here, they would sell their slaves to the Europeans. It was really just the nature of man himself back then.

The relevance is that the USA is a land built upon the shoulders of immigrants legal and illegal. And now a group of descendants have problems with immigrants (not only illegals). Not only that, but a certain group (mexicans) are more indigenous to the land then the people who are vilifying them.

I find that quite ironic.

American & Indian conflicts are not unique; South America had a very similar timeline of history with Natives. We had the Aztec empire that was eventually invaded by the Spanish. The Spanish would use them as forced labor. We've also had the Caste War of Yucatan when the Mayans would revolt against the Europeans until the Mexican Army occupied the land. There were also the Comanche Wars when the Comanche would raid and kill thousands for livestock in Mexico. When the US finally invaded during the Mexican-American war, much of the Mexican region was suffering and the US put an end to the Comanche raids.

So yes, it is ironic to use the Native people of America as an argument for Mexican immigration when said Natives used to attack Mexico or that Mexican armies also conquered Native land....

What transpired during those times was repeat of past history. Bigger forces would eventually come in and take over lands. That was a sad reality of the past.

 

[UKMikey]

I've read some mad things on GTP but this may be the maddest by far.

Up until now I had been convinced that Kent Brockman's "democracy simply doesn't work" quote was intended to be satirical.

 

[PocketZeven]

I assume that's from Wikipedia or some other source. I'm asking if you know the story behind the comprimise, why it took place etc. Your quote seems to imply purpose of the compromise was to allow the southern states more power which isn't the case.

If I am wrong, please elaborate. The sources I read all exactly imply that. Because the north was far more populous, the slaveowning south were afraid that they would not have any power in the governement.

Most immigration crimes ARE felonies. You cross the border illegally, then you committed a felony. What does a minor crime or two added after the fact have to add anything to the discussion? But rather than prosecute them as such, we just catch and release.

Hey, why don't we open both ends of the border it immigrants and see where that will get us in the next five to ten years?

Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor not a felony.

What is your problem with illegal immigration? Does it effect you personally? Again immigration is a problem, but not that much as you obviously think. Why counter my statement with an extreme like opening borders? Who is claiming opening borders? I am not, neither any politician in the usa I know of.
The last time the USA had open borders the USA started to become the richest country in the world, so it wasnt that bad of an idea in the past.

Indigenous people in the US did the same thing to each other well before the white man took complete control. Look at the Beaver Wars when the Iroquois wanted the fur trade from Hurons, Algonquians and their French allies. The Iroquois were nothing more than a league of 6 tribes trying to expand and monopolize the fur trade and had the backing of the Dutch and British. The Iroquois would constantly push smaller tribes off their land to take over.

A lot of people like to use your statement in this country and present it as if the Natives were one, big happy family except for they committed the same acts Europeans used to do to each other. They fought for land, resources, warriors, etc. They committed slavery that varied from adopting into the tribe, to peace trades, chopping off feet so they couldn't run, cannibalism as sacrificial rituals, and when the Europeans were here, they would sell their slaves to the Europeans. It was really just the nature of man himself back then.


American & Indian conflicts are not unique; South America had a very similar timeline of history with Natives. We had the Aztec empire that was eventually invaded by the Spanish. The Spanish would use them as forced labor. We've also had the Caste War of Yucatan when the Mayans would revolt against the Europeans until the Mexican Army occupied the land. There were also the Comanche Wars when the Comanche would raid and kill thousands for livestock in Mexico. When the US finally invaded during the Mexican-American war, much of the Mexican region was suffering and the US put an end to the Comanche raids.

So yes, it is ironic to use the Native people of America as an argument for Mexican immigration when said Natives used to attack Mexico or that Mexican armies also conquered Native land....

What transpired during those times was repeat of past history. Bigger forces would eventually come in and take over lands. That was a sad reality of the past.

You misunderstood me. I wasnt criticizing the USA for taking the country, but I am criticizing the hypocracy. The USA I know is the country of the american dream where settlers from all over the world could achieve there dreams.

The Irony i was talking about is how proud the americans are of taking the country and essentially built by immigrants and know suddenly even legal immigrants are a threat to the country. Almost all US citizens are immigrants!

Mexican isn't a race though, and it doesn't really need to be explained why you can't have a welfare state and open borders you can have one or the other, just ask France why it doesn't work like that.

Who said mexicans are a race?
I live near France and I think you are reading too much rightwing media. I read both to balance it out. Immigration is not that large a problem as you might think in france. And more importantly the problem is caused by refugees of war, not because of open borders. In short if there was no problem in Syria then immigration would have not been as big of an issue.
Comparing Mexican immigrants with Muslim refugee immigrants is not very accurate. They have different motivations, cultures etc.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If I am wrong, please elaborate. The sources I read all exactly imply that. Because the north was far more populous, the slaveowning south were afraid that they would not have any power in the governement.

The abolitionists of the north wanted the slaves counted as zero because that would mean less seats in the House of Representatives and less power for the southern slave owning states. The North argued that the South did not want to consider the slaves as persons but property instead. The South of course wanted the slaves to be counted as 1 person to increase their power and influence in the Congress. The 3/5ths Comprimise was a way to appease both sides and without it, there likely would not have been a Constitution agreed upon and you might have had two separate countries formed and likely at odds with each other much more than they eventually were. Ironically, although only counted as 3/5ths of a person, it was the first formal recognition that slaves were indeed people and not property and this wording was deliberate on the part of the framers of the Constitution.

The South was faced with somewhat of a dilemma after the Constitution came into effect. Because counting more slaves also meant more taxation, some slave owners might be tempted to undercount their slaves for that reason. However, their representation in Congress depended on an accurate census count and this is the direction the Southern States went for the most part. Eventually of course, the North being the freer and more capitalist and industrial society, was far more prosperous, grew faster and gained an upper hand in Congress as a result and this eventually led to the Civil War. The 3/5ths compromise was, in effect, a way of reducing the power of the Southern slave owning states, not increasing it. It also takes away the simplistic but popular narrative that the framers were just a bunch of racists who didn't even count black people as a whole person. It was much more complicated than that and it's easy to argue that the 3/5ths compromise hastened the elimination of slavery in the U.S.