Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 2:03 pm
1. Beach Week as a 17-year-old? Their parents let them do that?
2. If he couldn't spell "achievement" by the age of 17, he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.
For public school kids around here, Beach Week is almost exclusively held right after graduation and is pretty much just seniors.
BUT, the private school kids start going pretty much as soon as they get into high school. It's not unusual to see a pack of 15 year olds roaming around.
As you would imagine, they're not having to rent, so the threshold of having someone who is 18 in the home isn't a problem.
Last edited by Nonlinear FC on Wed Sep 26, 2018 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 2:06 pm
I get what you’re saying, Steve, but I hazard that there are considerably more unreported rapes than there are false rape accusations. And I also hazard that there are a much higher percent of unreported rapes than there are a percentage of false accusations. So for me, I tend to believe the woman’s story simply out of playing the percentages.
Absolutely true. And in a great many of the false accusation cases, there is some kind of malicious intent of someone scorned. I don't get that vibe from any of these at all.
You know what you need? A lyrical sucker punch to the face.
Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:57 pmIt sucks that one natural consequence of not taking accusations at face value is that accusations of direct sexual assault are uniquely disbelieved. But because accusations of sexual assault are so serious to the accused, I don't see that as a reason to depart from the principle.
Because 19 out of 20 times you're harming the already harmed party?
(And because I don't think the harm to 1 falsely accused man, however horrific I can imagine it is, even comes close to the harm to the 19 women who aren't believed.)
Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:57 pmIt sucks that one natural consequence of not taking accusations at face value is that accusations of direct sexual assault are uniquely disbelieved. But because accusations of sexual assault are so serious to the accused, I don't see that as a reason to depart from the principle.
Because 19 out of 20 times you're harming the already harmed party?
(And because I don't think the harm to 1 falsely accused man, however horrific I can imagine it is, outweighs the harm to the 19 women who aren't believed.)
I've been down this rabbit hole on the swamp. I love you guys, but so many lawyers in here make it tough to just have an emotionally honest conversation without all the (absolutely true) legal ramifications. It's not a bad thing, it's just a really weird thing that is hard to turn off because these lawyers seems to care about, you know, the actual law and are far enough removed to be able to dispassionate.
You know what you need? A lyrical sucker punch to the face.
degenerasian wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 2:46 pm
they should track down Nikki
I'd put those names in a "careful what you wish for' category. If he was ballsy enough to leave them in and they had dirt, that would be a killer. Nikki is as likely to be a staunch defender as not. Almost seems like bait.
You know what you need? A lyrical sucker punch to the face.
For guys that don't just willy nilly go clicking on links, that's a piece from "reformed" GOP operative David Brock about his association and knowledge of Bart during his time as a shitheel operative during the Clinton years.
Blood boiling that this guy is a sham hearing away from being voted on for confirmation.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
I'd say that making that one little slip-up that opens the door for total invalidation is what worries me about Avenatti, but given how impotent the Dems are he's probably more help than harm at this point.
Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 2:51 pmFor guys that don't just willy nilly go clicking on links, that's a piece from "reformed" GOP operative David Brock about his association and knowledge of Bart during his time as a shitheel operative during the Clinton years.
I didn't know of Brock from his Clinton days but now that I do know of him, its insanely gross that he's given a redemption platform.
Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 2:51 pmFor guys that don't just willy nilly go clicking on links, that's a piece from "reformed" GOP operative David Brock about his association and knowledge of Bart during his time as a shitheel operative during the Clinton years.
I didn't know of Brock from his Clinton days but now that I do know of him, its insanely gross that he's given a redemption platform.
Oh, I remember him well from back then. POS.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
Give Brock some credit that he "came out" about the toxicity in the GOP like 10 or 15 years ago though and has been working to counteract it since then. It's not like this is some "never Trump" dipshit that will just go back to toeing the company line when Trump's heart explodes from too much KFC.
brian wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:32 pm
Give Brock some credit that he "came out" about the toxicity in the GOP like 10 or 15 years ago though and has been working to counteract it since then. It's not like this is some "never Trump" dipshit that will just go back to toeing the company line when Trump's heart explodes from too much KFC.
It's tough for me. That shit was almost personal back then. It's not a fair comparison, but it's kind of like forgiving a guy that used to have a swastika tat, who is now working to counteract. I respect it, I wish him the best of luck, but it's REAL difficult to not be skeeved out.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
mister d wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:53 pm
He’s also presumably well compensated in his current role.
I don't think he "converted" for financial reward though. In fact if anything, it was probably pretty fraught with financial peril at the time. I'm not gonna begrudge a guy making a living. In the final analysis in my opinion he's still better than someone like Steve Schmidt or one of those guys who were fine with the GOP agenda as long as someone didn't come right out like Trump and make the racist, sexist heart of it bare for all to see.
L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 2:06 pm
I get what you’re saying, Steve, but I hazard that there are considerably more unreported rapes than there are false rape accusations. And I also hazard that there are a much higher percent of unreported rapes than there are a percentage of false accusations. So for me, I tend to believe the woman’s story simply out of playing the percentages.
Oh, no doubt there are more unreported rapes than false accusations overall. But every situation has its own characteristics, so the general rule may or may not apply in every situation, especially where the accuser has a financial or other motive to lie (which covers most of the situations where we would be discussing an allegation on the Swamp).
And his one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death.
mister d wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 2:28 pm(And because I don't think the harm to 1 falsely accused man, however horrific I can imagine it is, even comes close to the harm to the 19 women who aren't believed.)
I definitely disagree with this. At the time an accusation is made, the assault already happened (or didn't happen). Believing the accusation won't make the assault not happen. I don't think the harm of having an accusation not believed is close to the harm of wrongly being branded a rapist.
And his one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death.
Christ, even 1:1. An already traumatized person being told she’s lying or people just don’t care versus being thought of as something you aren’t, without the underlying trauma?
Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
mister d wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:24 pm
Christ, even 1:1. An already traumatized person being told she’s lying or people just don’t care versus being thought of as something you aren’t, without the underlying trauma?
I agree that being disbelieved can be traumatic and can compound the trauma already suffered.
But it's not just "being thought of as something you aren't." It's being thought of - publicly, possibly in a university setting, possibly in a criminal trial - as a *rapist*. Felony convictions are pretty fucking serious. Being kicked out of a school with a written report saying it was because you raped someone is pretty fucking serious.
So my point isn't that being disbelieved isn't serious, it's that being wrongly labeled a rapist is really fucking serious.
Anyway, I thought we were talking about message board discussions. I don't think a conversation where I say "I don't necessarily believe the accuser without corroboration" is traumatic. The accuser has no idea who I am or what I'm saying.
And his one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death.
DaveInSeattle wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:02 am
I still want to know how the fuck did he spend $200K on baseball tickets...and why his 'friends' decided to pay them off suddenly.
And I hope someone...like Kamala Harris...asks him "Do you still drink? When did you stop drinking? Did you go to re-hab?"
That would be awesome
But what bothers me most is that there are many stories from the women of inappropriate things that Kavanaugh may or may not have done at parties in public places but there are no witnesses. I think the Republicans defend this tomorrow unless there is more proof.
Kung Fu movies are like porn. There's 1 on 1, then 2 on 1, then a group scene..
DaveInSeattle wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:02 am
I still want to know how the fuck did he spend $200K on baseball tickets...and why his 'friends' decided to pay them off suddenly.
And I hope someone...like Kamala Harris...asks him "Do you still drink? When did you stop drinking? Did you go to re-hab?"
That would be awesome
But what bothers me most is that there are many stories from the women of inappropriate things that Kavanaugh may or may not have done at parties in public places but there are no witnesses. I think the Republicans defend this tomorrow unless there is more proof.
What bothers me is how rag sites like The Daily Caller iare running smokescreen stories to chum the waters / deflect from the truth.
I posted this on Facebook on a thread from one of my fraternity brothers, and it fully articulates my thoughts. Sory for the length:
me, on facebook wrote:A lot of people (many of whom are non-lawyers) are bringing up legal concepts like “due process”, “presumptions of innocence”, and proof thresholds. I agree that these are paramount in criminal actions. I hold these especially true as I have represented many criminal defendants in my career. But what we have before us with Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing is not a criminal trial, nor is it even akin to one. It’s a job interview.
The result of a criminal conviction is a person loses something tangible that they had before, so we afford the accused the highest standards and advantages. A person can lose money or property on paying a fine, restitution, or property forfeiture. They can lose their liberty, such as imprisonment or probationary requirements. In some cases, they can even lose their life. These are all major, tangible things a person can lose, so of course we issue the highest possible standards to convict them.
But here, we as a populace have empaneled the 100 Senate, through our votes, to determine if Brett Kavanaugh is fit to serve on our Supreme Court. This is a job interview. It’s up to the Senate to determine whether he has the character and fitness to do the job. The possibility that Brett Kavanaugh assault a woman or women with his dick most certainly calls into question his character and fitness to do the job.
And let’s remember my comparison to the criminal consequences. If Kavanaugh isn’t confirmed, he loses NOTHING tangible. He doesn’t go to prison. He pays no fine. He keeps his job as a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. It most likely wouldn’t warrant even a censure on his license to practice law, yet alone a disbarment.
Despite all that, Brett Kavanaugh still enjoyed the presumption of innocence. When he was initially nominated, it was presumed that he did not assault anyone with his dick. There are witness now that rebut that presumption that he never assaulted anyone with his dick.
To argue that there is no due process here is also false. The accuser is testifying today. She is going to be questioned by an attorney on behalf of the Senate (because let’s be frank, those Senators on the Judiciary Committee are too cowardly to ask her themselves). Kavanaugh will have the chance to provide testimony in response to hers. That’s the very definition of due process in this case.
Going back to the point that this is a job interview and not a criminal trial, think of if there was a candidate for a position at your firm or company. If there are multiple accusations of the candidate assaulting people with his dick, you as a potential employer would be perfectly within your rights to think this isn’t worth the headache and pass on offering that candidate the position. And what happens to the candidate? He goes back to his old job.
While it sucks for everyone involved that this is out in the open, Brett Kavanaugh tacitly agreed that his life is to be played out in the open when he chose under his own free will to work a public-facing position as a federal judge. If his privacy was that important, he could’ve stayed in private practice.
Separate and apart from that, guys like Brett Kavanaugh are eminently fungible. He isn’t some great legal scholar or a judicial dynamo. His top legal work was the Starr investigation that blew up in their faces like Wily E. Coyote when the Senate failed to convict Clinton, and the Democrats ended up gaining seats. You can shake a stick and find plenty of Federal judges who want to overturn Roe v Wade and think the President can pardon himself who don’t haven’t assaulted women with their dicks. Kavanaugh is a nobody.
In reality, at least 90 of the 100 Senators have their minds made up before the nomination was even made. And he goes down in flames and you’re mad he didn’t make it to the bench, remember, at least he was given a hearing.
My avatar corresponds on my place in the Swamp posting list with the all-time Home Run list. Number 45 is Paul Konerko with 439.
Am I the only one who sees a failed vote as the only way republicans can lose here? Confirmation is a gross win. Withdrawing him after today is a "they followed procedure and did the right thing" win. Only a Roy Moore-esque full support loss can really harm them.
Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
mister d wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:52 am
Am I the only one who sees a failed vote as the only way republicans can lose here? Confirmation is a gross win. Withdrawing him after today is a "they followed procedure and did the right thing" win. Only a Roy Moore-esque full support loss can really harm them.
Everything I've read says that will only happen if Trump refuses to withdraw the nom despite being told by Mitch that the votes are absolutely not there. The Senate would inch towards a full vote hoping to shame Trump into backing down.
I'm a bit cynical in that they knew all of this about him from the beginning and have always planned to run him out there before ultimately pulling him back before confirmation. This is to demonstrate that they aren'y morally bankrupt and are sharing in the #metoo movement right before the elections in November. Gaining back those white female voters will be much easier if they can use this as an example of how they care about women.
Trump did act strangely when the accusations initially came out. Like someone had coached him into saying that there was another game being played and to be open to initial character questions about his nominee. Is there another case where Trump did something and then accepted criticism? It does look like he has come off the rails a bit and has now gone back to his typical ranting. That also matches with his inability to remember what the hell he's trying to do.
Here's what you have to remember: people don't pay that much attention, and certainly not for any length of time. The GOP has lost the women that were even marginally on the fence. That ship has sailed. The only game for them now is to dig in and make it look like a Dem conspiracy/con job.
Feinstein is just raking them over the coals right now. This is gonna be a loooooong day.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
But what bothers me most is that there are many stories from the women of inappropriate things that Kavanaugh may or may not have done at parties in public places but there are no witnesses. I think the Republicans defend this tomorrow unless there is more proof.
I'm not an expert, but I'm going to guess most rapes and attempted rapes at parties don't occur in front of witnesses. That said, Kavanaugh's buddy that allegedly helped with the first accused sexual assault, the guy who wrote a book about his drunken sexual escapades with "Bart O'Kavanaugh," isn't a relevant person to testify in GOP's opinion.
LJAM, nice work on your post. It drives me nuts when people say innocent until proven guilty. The standard here is whether there is an appearance if impropriety. If your past makes laypeople doubt your integrity, that's it. The sexual assault allegations are taking away the stink of the numerous lies Bart told during the hearings, and the fact that the GOP pushed to rush the hearings to prevent 96% of the public records on Kavanaugh from being produced. Initially, they said it would take until October to retrieve all of the documents. Since the process has been stalled, did they continue working to present all of the documents? That'd be a great twist if this delayed long enough that the documents are released.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
