Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

These are those SCOTUS appointments by Republican Presidents over several decades who were *supposed* to overturn Roe vs. Wade, according to all the noisy radicals:

1. Scalia nominated by Reagan
2. Kennedy nominated by Reagan
3. Souter nominated by Bush Sr.
4. Thomas nominated by Bush Sr.
5. Roberts nominated by Bush Jr.
6. Alito nominated by Bush Jr.
7. Gorsuch nominated by Trump
8. Kavanaugh nominated by Trump

40 years of noisy scare tactics and scary fear mongering by Leftist media, protesters, and media types.

Results: Nothing, but precedence upon precedence confirming Roe.

Maybe that's cuz women have inalienable rights over her own body .... duh ...

Don't conservatives value the rights of the individual?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe that's cuz women have inalienable rights over her own body .... duh ...

Don't conservatives value the rights of the individual?

I think you are looking at this wrong. Why is it that 5 of the Supreme Court nominations are from Republicans and Ginsburg will have to serve until she is 90, and Breyer about 85 before retiring (that is on the hope that a democrat wins the next election and Trump is not reelected). Sorry, impeachment doesn't change that equation. You have railed against Trump for the last two years but the primary reason he was elected was because of the Supreme court.

Many, many people mock and insult, but the reality is the Supreme court began writing the constitution and stopped interpreting it, the majority knows it, and the majority has had enough.

Look at this mid term election. It seemed a sure thing that the Democrats would get a big win, but the whole confirmation process is surely going to motivate those who voted for Trump to turn out.

How many are shocked at how decent, upstanding people could vote for Trump, to me it is quite obvious. Look at how despicable the Supreme court has become. Do you really think the battle would have been this partisan and this ugly if the Supreme court was really just determining constitutionality of laws and not writing them?

So keep pushing that line and no doubt a republican will win in two years and nominate two more Supreme court justices.

[ZNPaaneah]

Let's give credit where credit is due.

1. Trump has honored his campaign promises and done what he said he would do. He has fought bloody confirmations to get nominees onto the Supreme court, he has gone toe to toe with trade partners, and he should now be given credit for the good economic news.

Generally speaking voters vote nationally based on three key factors:

Economy -- good marks

Peace -- good marks

SCOTUS -- Everyone who voted for Trump should be happy.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think you are looking at this wrong. Why is it that 5 of the Supreme Court nominations are from Republicans and Ginsburg will have to serve until she is 90, and Breyer about 85 before retiring (that is on the hope that a democrat wins the next election and Trump is not reelected). Sorry, impeachment doesn't change that equation. You have railed against Trump for the last two years but the primary reason he was elected was because of the Supreme court.

Many, many people mock and insult, but the reality is the Supreme court began writing the constitution and stopped interpreting it, the majority knows it, and the majority has had enough.

Look at this mid term election. It seemed a sure thing that the Democrats would get a big win, but the whole confirmation process is surely going to motivate those who voted for Trump to turn out.

How many are shocked at how decent, upstanding people could vote for Trump, to me it is quite obvious. Look at how despicable the Supreme court has become. Do you really think the battle would have been this partisan and this ugly if the Supreme court was really just determining constitutionality of laws and not writing them?

So keep pushing that line and no doubt a republican will win in two years and nominate two more Supreme court justices.

Citizens United

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Citizens United

Basic law of physics, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

[ZNPaaneah]

I saw some woman complaining about the Kavanaugh ruling because according to her there are usually not two witnesses to a sexual crime. Why do major networks allow these bozos to fill their broadcasts with erroneous drivel?

First, during a sexual crime it is impossible to prevent many "witnesses" from testifying what took place. In any criminal investigation physical evidence is seen as a much better witness than eye witnesses.

1. A ripped blouse -- that would be evidence of assault and we could also pull epithelial cells from the shirt. DNA would be a second witness.
2. A hair can be linked directly to a single person now.
3. Fibers can be linked to the perpetrators clothes.
4. DNA, hair and fibers on the suspects clothes can tie them to the scene.
5. Smart phones can prove precisely both time and gps where they were at a certain time.
6. Phone calls and text messages can also tie a person to a location in both time and space.
7. Rape kits performed in hospitals can confirm assault charges, rape charges and provide other evidence (DNA, Fibers, etc) linking a suspect to a crime.
8. How did these people meet? At a party -- you can gather every single person at that party and provide many eyewitness accounts. Perhaps they didn't witness the assault but surely they witnessed the suspect at the party, they saw the victim when they left, they saw the behavior of both of them, etc. We used to have chaperones, people rebelled against the need for a chaperone, and now they are crying that there are no witnesses present.
9. These days there will be twenty or thirty pictures at least taken at a party. They all become physical evidence.
10. Credit cards -- if the venue is a bar the credit cards will usually confirm who was there and what time they were there.
11. One of the absolutely best pieces of evidence is to scratch the perpetrator. This proves the assault was not consensual. We can get DNA from under the woman's fingernails, and when the police question the suspect they can photograph the scratch marks.
12. Police can also find evidence at the scene. In this case with Ford they could have found her hair in the bed she said she was pushed into.

All of this evidence can also be used to exonerate a person. You say the attack took place at 10pm, but this person was withdrawing money from an ATM cross town at 9:45, etc.

Shouldn't these news outlets be educating women at all the witnesses they are surrounded by, instead of pushing a false narrative that we need to convict a man based on the testimony of a single witness?

For example, you are going to a party with your friends. 1. Take a picture of your group outside the door. This shows what everyone looked like prior to anything. 2. Take many pictures within the party and post/email them as you take them. 3. Use credit cards and ATM cards. 4. In the event that someone is attacked have your friends take a picture of them (bruised face, scratches, ripped clothes, etc). 5. Tell your friends what happened. 6. Go to the hospital and have a rape kit done, etc. 6. The sooner the better. If the woman waits a day they cannot test her blood alcohol. This is very important because one common defense is that "it was consensual" and that "she was drunk". If you go the same night you can easily destroy both of those arguments with physical evidence. When you accuse someone 36 years later this might simply be regret. But if you are in the hospital at 2am 3 hours later this was clearly not consensual.

It seems to me this is a much more valuable lesson for #MeToo movement than trying to convict a man who was 17 of an alleged event 36 years ago, in which it isn't even clear if the police would have considered it a crime at the time, and which you cannot give the time or place. All of the evidence you could have is a two edged sword. On one hand it can be used to convict the guilty on the other it can be used to exonerate the innocent.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Shouldn't these news outlets be educating women at all the witnesses they are surrounded by, instead of pushing a false narrative that we need to convict a man based on the testimony of a single witness?

Sorry Bro, but while you were not paying attention, these "news outlets" became nothing more than Tabloid Rags.

Why should they care about "educating women?"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry Bro, but while you were not paying attention, these "news outlets" became nothing more than Tabloid Rags.

Why should they care about "educating women?"

Both of my parents are journalists. So, sorry bro, I am aware that Tabloid rags have their place, and real journalism also has its place.

For example there are many watching these events play out like myself. We have no dog in the fight. We don't want a sexual predator named to the Supreme court, we also don't want people convicted based on uncorroborated hearsay in which they are not given any possibility of clearing their name.

After watching this we will make our judgements. 1. Democrats need to be held accountable for the entire circus. 2. Certain news outlets are biased and did a shoddy job of reporting.

We will then act on our judgements -- turning certain news outlets off and voting in a month.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe that's cuz women have inalienable rights over her own body .... duh ...

Don't conservatives value the rights of the individual?

Women do have inalienable rights over their own bodies.

But the unborn have inalienable rights over their own bodies too.

And conservatives value the rights of all individuals!