Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:49 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:That might be relying overmuch on the example week. The calendar shown had up to 22 hours specified as private on some fridays.

I'm assuming she's not actually working 22 hour days, but that means her scheduled office hours must not be consistently the same as those shown in the example week.

I believe (without going back to re-read it) that was the "hours per every day of that month" example. 4 or 5 Fridays totalling 22 hours would be 5h30m a day or 4h24m a day, out of the 9ish 'working day' hours possible on those days (9-6, wasn't it?), given that they didn't count anything outside those hours,

(If, due also to public holidays excluding an entire Friday, that month, that'd be 7h20m, on average, blocked out of the three remaining days, also possible. Maybe even more taking of liberties, but not mathematically beyond bounds.)


Ah, odd. Upon closer inspection, it appears as if, on each day, they simply visualize the color based on rough number of hours, without detailed information(my misread on that). It does still bias heavily towards fridays, followed by mondays, though. Fridays after lunchtime is apparently by far the most frequent time for her to block out private time. So, either she's in a conspiracy that likes to work late on fridays, or she prefers to knock off early for the weekend.

The latter seems a good deal more likely.

It appears they considered 9-6 to be the workday every day, which is reasonable. Now, in fairness, some of them are probably legitimate private appointments, but the distribution of them points toward at least some being a bit of slacking. Honestly, probably not that great a sin overall, compared to what others in power get away with.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:54 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:That might be relying overmuch on the example week. The calendar shown had up to 22 hours specified as private on some fridays.

I'm assuming she's not actually working 22 hour days, but that means her scheduled office hours must not be consistently the same as those shown in the example week.

I believe (without going back to re-read it) that was the "hours per every day of that month" example. 4 or 5 Fridays totalling 22 hours would be 5h30m a day or 4h24m a day, out of the 9ish 'working day' hours possible on those days (9-6, wasn't it?), given that they didn't count anything outside those hours,

(If, due also to public holidays excluding an entire Friday, that month, that'd be 7h20m, on average, blocked out of the three remaining days, also possible. Maybe even more taking of liberties, but not mathematically beyond bounds.)


Ah, odd. Upon closer inspection, it appears as if, on each day, they simply visualize the color based on rough number of hours, without detailed information(my misread on that). It does still bias heavily towards fridays, followed by mondays, though. Fridays after lunchtime is apparently by far the most frequent time for her to block out private time. So, either she's in a conspiracy that likes to work late on fridays, or she prefers to knock off early for the weekend.

The latter seems a good deal more likely.

It appears they considered 9-6 to be the workday every day, which is reasonable. Now, in fairness, some of them are probably legitimate private appointments, but the distribution of them points toward at least some being a bit of slacking. Honestly, probably not that great a sin overall, compared to what others in power get away with.

Politco was being nice, and leaving open the anti-transparency option. If you fill your work day with "private appointments", nobody can FOIA you because if they did, all they would get is a worthless calendar marked private instead of actual meetings with names/dates/titles/agendas etc etc. It's not necessarily covering up an orgy with turtles and drugs, it might just be to avoid "meeting with lobbyists to accept bribes" from leaking.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:25 pm UTC

So... Trump has not been on Twitter lately.

Rumor from the Dark Web? The FBI has a deal with Trump. Trump shuts up for a week or two, and they will investigate Feinstein and other Democrats. The Senate is strongarmed into approving Kavanaugh, and in exchange FBI doesn't reveal their dirt.

Not sure how much I buy it.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:44 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:So... Trump has not been on Twitter lately.

Rumor from the Dark Web? The FBI has a deal with Trump. Trump shuts up for a week or two, and they will investigate Feinstein and other Democrats. The Senate is strongarmed into approving Kavanaugh, and in exchange FBI doesn't reveal their dirt.

Not sure how much I buy it.

The alt right is peddling the theory that the deep state is actually going to sweep up Democrats instead of Trump. Not valid unless you have hard proof.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:13 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Ah, odd. Upon closer inspection, it appears as if, on each day, they simply visualize the color based on rough number of hours, without detailed information(my misread on that).
That graphic?

Yeah, the number in the box is the date (consecutive days with numbers are consecutive in value, vertically-adjacent days are ±7 in values). The Friday with a 22 in it is the 22nd of that month. They heat-map days according to the intensity of the 'time of interest' because it's one of the more convenient ways to ascribe an additional dimensionality atop boxes already arrayed across the 2d of the image medium.

It does still bias heavily towards fridays, followed by mondays, though. Fridays after lunchtime is apparently by far the most frequent time for her to block out private time. So, either she's in a conspiracy that likes to work late on fridays, or she prefers to knock off early for the weekend.

The latter seems a good deal more likely.
That's pretty much the angle of the article. A version of the old "Someone who has this kind of evidence against them is either incompetent or corrupt, or both. Which are you?"

It appears they considered 9-6 to be the workday every day, which is reasonable. Now, in fairness, some of them are probably legitimate private appointments, but the distribution of them points toward at least some being a bit of slacking. Honestly, probably not that great a sin overall, compared to what others in power get away with.

This all seemed to be gone through in the article. Nice precis, but I'm not sure that's what you thought you were giving.

Opus_723
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Opus_723 » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:34 am UTC

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/trump-adds-to-confusion-over-scope-of-fbi-investigation-of-kavanaugh-accusations/2018/10/01/1aa5e922-c561-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html

Even after making some concessions to broaden the scope of the investigation, the White house is still stopping short of getting the FBI to investigate whether he was lying about his drinking habits. I feel like even they think he perjured himself over that.

It could happen, of course, that information about his alcohol use comes up unavoidably as part of the rest of the investigation.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:07 am UTC

Opus_723 wrote:Even after making some concessions to broaden the scope of the investigation, the White house is still stopping short of getting the FBI to investigate whether he was lying about his drinking habits.
Don't even need that.

Obligatory link.

Seems he perjured himself describing his "drinking games". Urban dictionary the other "drinking game" terms too - you'll find they deal with sexual encounters.

This is the man Republicans want to sit on the highest court and judge us all?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:27 am UTC

Republicans want him on the court because he isn't bound by ethics.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Oct 02, 2018 5:26 am UTC

Thesh wrote:Republicans want him on the court because he isn't bound by ethics.
Oh yeah.... right. Sorry. Just lost my head for a moment.

Carry on. :)

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:33 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:that's part of the point for Republicans, though.

"Government doesn't work, so vote for me, and I'll go to Congress and make sure it doesn't work!" (and ride that gravy train into the sunset).

You say that like Democrats and Independents aren't just as guilty.


as noted above, that is correct - they aren't. Democrats didn't stall a Supreme Court nominee for almost a year. They didn't stall or simply refuse to act on over 100 federal judgeships. They didn't go on record saying that their only job was to obstruct the President for his entire term, and if possible make him a one term president.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2149
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:02 pm UTC

They also didn't go on record saying that, although it was a good proposal for pretty much everybody concerned, had huge support among the population in all states and was already being offered by a lot of companies without being law, they'd vote *not* to make bereaved parent leave an entitlement because a member of the other party proposed the bill and there was an election coming up.

Well, shit. How do I persuade Google that I want articles about that and not about Bill Cosby, and nothing from the Daily Mail?

Can anyone find the citation for me, please? What I remember is a Republican (rep or sen?) saying that although the suggestion was really popular and everyone wanted it they'd be voting against it because it was a Democrat proposal in an election year. I think it was something about parents getting time off to deal with the death of a child, with midterms coming up.
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:12 pm UTC

I cannot find the quote, but it was the FAMILY Act of 2013/2014 that was being discussed.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Trump presidency

Postby natraj » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:30 pm UTC

trump administration starts denying visas to same-sex partners of diplomats/un employees

anyone who is already gearing up to be like "well this is just Fair And Equal treatment it's not anything bad because it's the same policy as heterosexuals" can choke on a hot poker and die, there are zero countries on earth where you can get jailed or killed for marrying your heterosexual spouse but forcing gay couples to marry puts a lot of people at risk of persecution in their home country.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

Chen
Posts: 5580
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:46 pm UTC

I was confused about the line that mentioned heterosexual partners also not being allowed.

So the change is now, "you must be married to your partner else you can't get a Visa"?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:07 pm UTC

natraj wrote:trump administration starts denying visas to same-sex partners of diplomats/un employees

anyone who is already gearing up to be like "well this is just Fair And Equal treatment it's not anything bad because it's the same policy as heterosexuals" can choke on a hot poker and die, there are zero countries on earth where you can get jailed or killed for marrying your heterosexual spouse but forcing gay couples to marry puts a lot of people at risk of persecution in their home country.
AHHH!! Just when we think Orange Hitler and his pet S&M partner evil elf are as low as they go....

It's morning.
I'm sick.

I hate this cruel administration.
They are robing the best we have to do the most awful things people ever do.

Torture, caging the innocent....Instilling Fear.
And; empowering the Frat Boys of the 1980's.

I'm going to vomit.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Euphonium
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: in ur bourgeois bosses' union, agitating ur workers

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Euphonium » Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:11 pm UTC

addams wrote:
natraj wrote:trump administration starts denying visas to same-sex partners of diplomats/un employees

anyone who is already gearing up to be like "well this is just Fair And Equal treatment it's not anything bad because it's the same policy as heterosexuals" can choke on a hot poker and die, there are zero countries on earth where you can get jailed or killed for marrying your heterosexual spouse but forcing gay couples to marry puts a lot of people at risk of persecution in their home country.
AHHH!! Just when we think Orange Hitler and his pet S&M partner evil elf are as low as they go....

It's morning.
I'm sick.

I hate this cruel administration.
They are robing the best we have to do the most awful things people ever do.

Torture, caging the innocent....Instilling Fear.
And; empowering the Frat Boys of the 1980's.

I'm going to vomit.


Hillary's only mistake was saying "half."

It's all of them. Every last one.

They're the worst people in America. The harm they've done is so much worse than any serial killer.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:14 pm UTC

Chen wrote:I was confused about the line that mentioned heterosexual partners also not being allowed.

So the change is now, "you must be married to your partner else you can't get a Visa"?

Yeah. So while heterosexual couples have the choice of turning down the post, getting married or living apart, most of the world's homosexual couples only have the choice of turning down the post or living apart.

I mean, it is a poke in the eye for all long-term partnerships, but, basically, gay diplomats are getting a total 'screw you' from this administration.

Chen
Posts: 5580
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:31 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Yeah. So while heterosexual couples have the choice of turning down the post, getting married or living apart, most of the world's homosexual couples only have the choice of turning down the post or living apart.

I mean, it is a poke in the eye for all long-term partnerships, but, basically, gay diplomats are getting a total 'screw you' from this administration.


Hmm actually reading it, it was the case for heterosexual couples since 2009 and there was an exemption for same-sex couples. It's the exemption that's being revoked. That's actually much worse, intention wise, than if it were a new blanket "all diplomatic staff needs to be married to get their partners a visa".

User avatar
Euphonium
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: in ur bourgeois bosses' union, agitating ur workers

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Euphonium » Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:56 pm UTC

When the adults are back in charge, how do we punish the 63,000,000 Trump-voting children for their misbehavior?

Is a time-out in order? 25-30 years should be enough to get them to think about what they've done and the harm they've caused, don't you think?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:13 pm UTC

Euphonium wrote:When the adults are back in charge, how do we punish the 63,000,000 Trump-voting children for their misbehavior?

Is a time-out in order? 25-30 years should be enough to get them to think about what they've done and the harm they've caused, don't you think?


This seems a wee bit premature. Democrats will struggle to retake the senate in this election, and there's no guarantee that Trump can't pull off another four years. Planning for 25-30 years of power seems wildly optimistic. Yeah, democrats can expect some gains, but assuming they are entitled to leadership hasn't worked out well for them in the past. Probably hasn't suddenly become a winning strategy since last election.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:23 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Hmm actually reading it, it was the case for heterosexual couples since 2009 and there was an exemption for same-sex couples. It's the exemption that's being revoked. That's actually much worse, intention wise, than if it were a new blanket "all diplomatic staff needs to be married to get their partners a visa".
Yeah. If this was some general policy that existed for both heterosexual and homosexual couples, you could make the case this has nothing to do with homosexual relationships (it'd be a shitty case, but you could still make it). But that's not what this is:
BBC wrote:The memo states: "As of 1 October 2018, same-sex domestic partners accompanying or seeking to join newly arrived United Nations officials must provide proof of marriage to be eligible for a G-4 visa or to seek a change into such status."
The original policy was an exemption for homosexual couples to provide relief on account of an inability to marry legally.

Which makes this part of the article so fucking infuriating:
USA Today wrote:The State Department said the rule change would promote equal treatment. It said it recognized that not all countries permit same-sex marriage and it was prepared to work with individual cases to find a solution for those not able to marry.
Motherfucker, what the fuck do you think the State Department was doing before you homophobic shitclowns showed up?

Don't claim you'll work with people to solve a problem while you are removing the precise solution to that problem.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:25 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:23 pm UTC

Euphonium wrote:When the adults are back in charge, how do we punish the 63,000,000 Trump-voting children for their misbehavior?
Is a time-out in order? 25-30 years should be enough to get them to think about what they've done and the harm they've caused, don't you think?

If you were into wishes/dictatorship/supermajority? Probably all the cultural stuff, pro regulation, and fixing the tax system. So then their gay son can come out, while they lose their jobs at the smoke & pollution factory. And then they'll be forced to pay 0$ on their death taxes. What? This just hoses the rich, and doesn't actually affect most of Trump voters?

But yes, a little early for that. Polling is pretty tight *(remember, the built in 7 point advantage for GOP rural stuff) Being only 8(read as 1) points ahead is crap. Lastly, there's been movement in the generic ballot. Democrats are down from +9, to +8. Turn out numbers in Texas are projected to be low (bad for Beto). the 80% of possible outcomes includes the GOP gaining seats in the house, iirc.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:08 am UTC

I find it odd that I'm the only one in my family who is suspicious of Brett. I mean, I personally don't think he's probably guilty of rape or attempted rape or whatever; I would've put the odds at 1/3 or 2/5 chance of him being a molester/rapist in his youth, but I think even probable cause should be an issue. Interesting that my sister, who actually had... her own stories... is incredibly defensive of Kavanaugh. Her take on it is that the whole thing was that Ford's story is very suspicious, and it's interesting more because my sister is an attorney specializing in dealing with bullshit stories.

Her (my sister's) big complaint is that Ford had told her therapist in 2012 that she was afraid that the guy who molested her back at a pool party when she was 15 would possibly be on the Supreme Court, which if we are assuming this was Kavanaugh would imply that Ford was following his career, yet had made absolutely no mention to anyone when he was confirmed by the senate in 2006, she made no mention when he had appeared on Trump's long list back in 2016, and had made no mention to anyone when he made the short list. Her second complaint is that if Ford's story was truly such a trump card, pun intended, Feinstein would not have waited until the very end to pull it out. Her third complaint is that if Ford really didn't want to be outed and had wanted to remain anonymous she took the opposite steps to do so. Her fourth complaint is more of a comment on how Ford had become a vehement anti-Trumper in 2017, like, you know, 1/3 the country.

Not sure what to think any more. Especially since my opinion against Kavanaugh was predicated on there being multiple allegations rather than just one, and the other allegations have fallen apart.

It is a bit... disconcerting to hear my parents (especially my mother, for... reasons) and their friends talking about how Ford may have been promiscuous (because why else would a 15 year old go to a party with 17 year olds), plus how she must be doing this in order to become a feminist icon or get a book deal or something. Ugh, my family.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:58 am UTC

Umm... Does she really think coming forward in 2006 would have changed anything? There was no #MeToo movement then, and even Democrats would dismiss her for the most part.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:08 am UTC

My sister is under the belief that Ford coming forward at the time Kavanaugh made the long list, or even the short list, would've been enough to avoid the nom in the first place.

My sister believes the calander thing, at least until a handwriting analysis is done or whatever to prove it was made 3 decades and not 3 weeks ago, and there's only 2 weekends that summer that Kavanaugh was in town. While parties could happen during the week, that's much less likely.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:12 am UTC

That sounds to me like she is looking for excuses to not believe her. Also, the calendar supports Ford:

https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/10/01/r ... ropaganda/
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5474
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:20 am UTC

"I know you're not thinking. You never do." - "I'm sorry?"

I already hated Trump, but now I actively regret that I'm not physically close enough to punch him in his smug stupid face.

(Partly because this strikes a particularly personal chord with me. My father used to berate me for making honest mistakes when my actions had unexpected consequences, and when I'd offer an explanation along the lines of "I didn't think that XYZ would happen" he wouldn't let me get more than three words into it before interrupting "That's right! You DIDN'T THINK!" And now I regret that I am close enough that I could go drive over to my dad's place and punch him in the face and have to resist that temptation).
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:23 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:My sister is under the belief that Ford coming forward at the time Kavanaugh made the long list, or even the short list, would've been enough to avoid the nom in the first place.

My sister believes the calander thing, at least until a handwriting analysis is done or whatever to prove it was made 3 decades and not 3 weeks ago, and there's only 2 weekends that summer that Kavanaugh was in town. While parties could happen during the week, that's much less likely.

Maybe she's drinking the partisan koolaid? If not, then it's one of those weird edge/anecdotal cases. Have the other cases fallen apart? Also, are you saying Kav did not rise to the level of guilty of rape, or didn't do it entirely?

gd1
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:14 am UTC

I don't think you guys are having enough fun. Here's some commentary from the yahoo comment sections for your literary consideration (and so you can get an idea of how people feel/why you should never visit the yahoo comment sections):

From Julie yesterday 368 TU/73 TD/50 Replies
We should also be looking in to Dr. Ford's background.


From Happy as a gopher in soft dirt 2 hours ago 600 TU/397 TD/97 Replies
"More than 500 law professors from nearly 100 law schools around the nation have signed a letter to the U.S. Senate to say that the volatile temperament Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed on Thursday as he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee disqualifies him from sitting on the nation’s highest court."? Well gosh, they must all be able to walk on water and never ever lost their temper for ANY reason whatsoever? I mean, if you(and your family) were constantly bombarded on a daily basis with insults and ridicule and readily viewed as a guilty animal prior to being able to defend yourself publicly, why would you ever have reason to lose your temper? Isn't that same reaction being used by these so called "victims" of past assaults that are bushwhacking Senators in going into restrooms and elevators? They scream, shout, and cry big doe tears looking for leverage to further their cause. It's okay for them to exhibit their anger or outrage publicly because that's just human nature and we need to have compassion, but if a man feels he's being falsely accused, he's supposed to remain composed and take it like a man does, huh? I wonder if it were a woman judge facing the same scrutiny or accusation and cried dramatically, if those same naysayers across the country would condemn her too, because we must always have more compassion for women than men? Welcome to women's liberation?


From BlairB 11 hours ago 1508 TU/630 TD/461 Replies
Marjie Lewis
September 30 at 1:52 AM ·
Written by a Female Physician who was wild in college. "This is not Justice. This is Wrong... I was immersed in the party scene in college. I drank to excess. I had black out nights. I WAS GROPED AT FRAT PARTIES. If advances were unwanted I pushed the person away and set personal boundaries. I chose to be a part of the party scene. Because of this I had fun and I have regrets. I HAVE BEEN ASSAULTED AND NOT RAPED. I could replay a scenario like Christine Ford described as very similar to things that happened when excessive drinking occurred in my own experiences.
At the age of 25 I settled down and now my idea of excitement is Netflix and yoga pants. If any of my current patients saw my behavior back then, I could understand why they wouldn’t want me to care for them.
I feel like being a physician is every bit as important as being a Supreme Court Justice. The decisions we make over the span of our careers could change the lives of thousands of people and their descendants for years to come. The same can be said for the Supreme Court or any other political office held. The thing is, poor choices in the past does not, and should not disqualify them. I chugged bankers club whiskey in a cornfield and peed behind a dumpster 25 years ago. But Friday I used tiny instruments to remove infected bony partitions from the ethmoid sinus a few millimeters away from the brain. Should I have a right to operate on humans despite my past? You are damn right I do. You know why? Because I spent 20 years educating myself and sacrificing countless hours to get there. I gave up so much to be good at what I do, to be confident enough in myself to put myself out there to care for people who put their lives in my hands. My hands are capable in spite of my weaknesses of the past.
Character is built partially on learning from mistakes. Brett Kavanaugh has devoted his life to public service and the past 20 years of his life is the definition of integrity. He deserves this appointment.
I AM AGAINST THE WEAPONIZATION OF VICTIMHOOD. Believing unequivocally the woman is right every single time no matter what is giving women power to take out anyone in their path. That is not equality. This radical position is not the answer to gender discrimination and victims rights.
No one can even place Brett Kavanaugh and the Christine Ford IN THE SAME ROOM at a party that zero people recollect except for the woman making the accusations.
If every single woman must be believed every single time, we all know there will be circumstances by which someone will use this power for selfish reasons. It sets women back so far. This is not breaking the glass ceiling. THIS IS NOT JUSTICE. THIS IS WRONG. (Please Note: The author of this testimonial is not me. The doctor who wrote this is a friend of my medical friend, so I can vouch for its authenticity. -- Marjie Lewis)
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:20 am UTC

sardia wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:My sister is under the belief that Ford coming forward at the time Kavanaugh made the long list, or even the short list, would've been enough to avoid the nom in the first place.

My sister believes the calander thing, at least until a handwriting analysis is done or whatever to prove it was made 3 decades and not 3 weeks ago, and there's only 2 weekends that summer that Kavanaugh was in town. While parties could happen during the week, that's much less likely.

Maybe she's drinking the partisan koolaid? If not, then it's one of those weird edge/anecdotal cases. Have the other cases fallen apart? Also, are you saying Kav did not rise to the level of guilty of rape, or didn't do it entirely?


In the second woman's case, the New York Times was unable to find anyone to corroborate with firsthand knowledge, and of the friends of hers she had spoken to, they said that at the time she herself wasn't sure who had exposed himself to her. In keeping with the apparent theme of 80's movies that seems to be politics these days, perhaps they could have a police lineup of men's penises so she can identify the one with the mole on it?.

The third woman's case probably wasn't worth mentioning, and the FBI seems to agree since they are ignoring it entirely. She saw Kavanaugh at a party where she claimed rapes were frequent but she never witnessed Kavanaugh doing anything.

As for me, I was under the view that Kavanaugh was "probably" innocent, but only just barely, and we would want Supreme Court justices to be possible rapists about as much as we would want our cars to be possible exploding death traps.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:24 am UTC

It's not really about what he did then. It's about what he does now and in the future. For a hint at that, look at his testimony now.

He's evasive and disingenuous. He out and out lies. Under oath. (Those things he called "drinking games" are sex acts, not drinking games.) He's belligerent, partisan, and contemptuous.

Those are the things that disqualifies him from holding the highest judgeship in the free world. Unless you no longer want a free world.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

gd1
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:31 am UTC

ucim wrote:It's not really about what he did then. It's about what he does now and in the future. For a hint at that, look at his testimony now.

He's evasive and disingenuous. He out and out lies. Under oath. (Those things he called "drinking games" are sex acts, not drinking games.) He's belligerent, partisan, and contemptuous.

Those are the things that disqualifies him from holding the highest judgeship in the free world. Unless you no longer want a free world.

Jose


I'm not fully seeing the magnitude of this. I feel like he's just one judge out of 9, but it seems like there's more to it then? Could you give me a rundown (brief or not is fine) of what we're looking at in that case?

Also, I get the feeling that a "crimson tide" as opposed to a blue wave would have consequences, but I'm not really seeing what those would be. Maybe I'm just jaded or numb from all the stuff I'm reading.
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:04 am UTC

gd1 wrote:I'm not fully seeing the magnitude of this.
Yes, he's "literally" one judge out of nine. And if the court weren't so polarized, he would be merely one judge out of nine... though on the highest court of the land - the one that decides what the Constitution means. Life is complicated, and rights and obligations spelled out in the Constitution have significant interplay. This judge (like all the other Supreme Court judges) is appointed for life, and cannot be removed except for super-extraordinary circumstances (which I'm not sure have ever happened). So, the choice of Supreme Court justice theoretically sets one ninth of the court's position and direction for the next fifty or so years.

But, the court has become more and more polarized, and more and more partisan. This is the opposite of what it should be, but it's the reality we have. In most of the interesting cases, the justice being seated now will be the tiebreaker, which in essence makes this choice the entirity of the Supreme Court. He is being rammed through in a Republican Trumpian Republican power play, which began with the Republicans refusing to even look at Obama's nomination to fill the slot (which opened up in Obama's term), and continues with Republican Senators pledging to vote for him irrespective of what is ultimately found out. Success here cements this as a legitimate method of staffing the Supreme Court, and will make the SC essentially an arm of the Party.

What's worse, the first significant case to come before the court is probably going to be whether or not the President can pardon himself, whether he can be charged with a crime in the first place... essentially whether or not the President is above the law. And thus, whether or not he can be, in effect, the first dictator of the United States.

So yeah, there is magnitude here.

If we are willing to tolerate the choosing of a Supreme Court Justice that repeatedly lies under oath, is evasive, and disrespects the idea of the rule of law, and who has been chosen because of their loyalty to the Party, rammed down the throat of a very unwilling half of the Senate, then democracy is pretty much over for this country.

In theory, other justices will die and be replaced over time. But in that time, irreparable damage is being done to the idea that the people's opinion matters.

Power is the ability to ignore the truth. Donald Trump is a very powerful person. The danger is hard to overstate.

Jose
Last edited by ucim on Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:12 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Plasma_Wolf
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:11 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Plasma_Wolf » Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:11 am UTC

Someone got ahead of me, but my $0.02

Politically, Kavanaugh is a conservative and if he were to be appointed, the supreme court would have 5 conservative justices, and 4 liberal ones. That's a crimson tide you can't just stop or cancel outright with an election. The supreme court would have this balance for however long it takes for a conservative justice to retire or die. That is assuming a conservative will leave before a liberal one. If a liberal leaves the balance could become 6-3. It just depends on who's in charge of the senate and who is the president at that time.

Ethically, appointing Kavanaugh shows that you can lie and be biased against half the voting population (he attacked Democrats and accused them of a smear campaign against it), and still make it to the supreme court. It shows the complete lack of decency in US politics, but in that regard nothing is new.

gd1
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:40 am UTC

Okay, so what does that mean in combination with a crimson tide in November? I don't know for sure, but I just don't have a feeling like Republicans are just waiting to spring a dictatorship if they control all 3 branches of government. It feels like more of a lull to me. I don't know how the Republican constituents would react?

The answer to this and the previous question are going to save me a lot of time reading the news to get an idea of what's happening (the previous answers have given me a good idea anyways).
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

duodecimus
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 12:25 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby duodecimus » Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:11 am UTC

As a Canadian, we sometimes joke that the US will someday march up here and annex Canada.

Recently it has become somewhat disconcerting to live 4 hours away from the border of the country with the largest military in the world, which seems to slowly be sliding into fascism.

I wonder if this is what Poland felt like.

User avatar
Plasma_Wolf
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:11 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Plasma_Wolf » Wed Oct 03, 2018 9:48 am UTC

Dictatorships never happen overnight. Hitler needed years to do it in Germany. Mussolini needed several years as PM until he got rid of the opposition and could stop pretending. The US will probably never become a dictatorship in its true form, there are too many checks for that. But the GOP has been corroding these checks for a very long time.

Things like voter suppression amd gerrymandering (that last thing is being commited by both parties, but I think the republicans are doing a "better" job) have been ongoing and this is having a damaging effect on the US democracy. To give an example, John Oliver did a piece on Felony Disenfranchisement in Florida. He mentioned 1.5 million people are unable to vote after they served their time in prison, blacks are hit disproportionately. We can have a debate about whether this is because of race issues or deep differences between rich and poor, but these are (1) connected and (2) should not be a factor in the decision on if you let someone vote after serving a sentence.

Given that Clinton lost Florida by 800k, the 1.5 million people not allowed to vote are a deciding factor. Not saying that this would make Florida permanently blue, but it's a failure in democracy that has an effect on a local and state-wide level. With representatives being elected by district and senators by state, the effect spills nationwide.

A dictatorship is a country being led by one person surrounded by a bunch of yes-men, but in the US case it would be approached by having a small group of legislators, or (more accurately) rich donors, pushing someone forward as figurehead. Rather than using the threat of violence to keep people under your thumb, you use white noise for the media. Trump is going one step further, by discrediting the same media. All the while people forget the truly important things and get represented by someone who doesn't share your interests at all. It may not be a dictatorship, but it's definitely on the road to a failed state. The main question then becomes: when do you want to put a stop to it. Many nations' citizens were too late and got a dictator. Here you get a different form, but the damage is coming, and I think in part it's already done.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:21 am UTC

gd1 wrote:Okay, so what does that mean in combination with a crimson tide in November? I don't know for sure, but I just don't have a feeling like Republicans are just waiting to spring a dictatorship if they control all 3 branches of government. It feels like more of a lull to me. I don't know how the Republican constituents would react?
The Republicans aren't waiting to spring fascism on anyone. They're stumbling blindly in the direction of it.

There's this old interview from 2011 that Chris Wallace did with John Stewart. During it, Wallace accuses the media of having a liberal agenda -- Stewart quickly corrects him, pointing out that while the media might come from a liberal background, their first and only master is ratings. They're not loyal to liberalism -- they're loyal to sensationalism. Wherever they have to go to get those ratings, that's where they'll go.

This is relevant here: The Republicans do not have a conscious pro-fascist agenda (well, most of them probably don't. Trump might, and I'm pretty certain Steve Miller would be delighted by a government-led Muslim genocide program. I would not be surprised in the slightest if it turned out Miller has already prepared charts and everything). They're not loyal to fascism, they're loyal to votes. Wherever they have to go to get those votes, that's where they'll go.

There's votes in the direction of Trump -- and Trump is in the direction of fascism. That sort of hyper-masculine macho culture that treats criticism as treason, compassion as weakness, and words with contempt (words don't mean anything save whatever Trump wants them to mean right now). The type of culture that thinks "virtue" is a thing losers talk about to make themselves feel better about all that losing (fuckin' losers). That's where the votes are, so that's where they keep going.

I don't think most of the Republican party realizes that this is the direction they're going in. But yes, that's the direction they're going in.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:56 pm UTC

Politicians showing open disdain for the media and for judges, and calling into question the veracity of the electoral process itself etc. certainly undermines the core pillars of liberal democracy. It's fortunate that you have so many checks and balances to ensure the peaceful transfer of power.

Populism appeals to the masses almost by definition, but there's a reason why democracy is the worst system apart from all the others: Power corrupts even the most noble of strongmen, let alone the amoral.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26528
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SecondTalon » Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:29 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Her (my sister's) big complaint is that Ford had told her therapist in 2012 that she was afraid that the guy who molested her back at a pool party when she was 15 would possibly be on the Supreme Court, which if we are assuming this was Kavanaugh would imply that Ford was following his career, yet had made absolutely no mention to anyone when he was confirmed by the senate in 2006, she made no mention when he had appeared on Trump's long list back in 2016, and had made no mention to anyone when he made the short list. Her second complaint is that if Ford's story was truly such a trump card, pun intended, Feinstein would not have waited until the very end to pull it out. Her third complaint is that if Ford really didn't want to be outed and had wanted to remain anonymous she took the opposite steps to do so. Her fourth complaint is more of a comment on how Ford had become a vehement anti-Trumper in 2017, like, you know, 1/3 the country.

Your sister is ignoring that Kavanaugh's been on the national stage since he was the primary author of the Starr report in 1998, calling for Clinton's impeachment for sexual impropriety.

I don't pretend to know the mind of a sexual assault survivor, but I'm pretty sure that if you're minding your own business and then see sixteen years after your assault the name of your assaulter loudly decrying someone else for sexual offenses.. you.. uh... probably don't forget it? Especially when the dude turns up again as a lawyer involved in the Elian Gonzales affair, Bush recount, then gets appointed a Federal Judge.

I can easily see someone making a bitter, sarcastic remark that said motherfucker is going to get rewarded with a lifetime job.

In regards to #2 - I actually am curious as to what is the correct course of action here. Maybe Yablo can help.

You're a highly politically ranked senator. You and the other senator of your State each get a letter talking about someone up for Supreme Court stating that they sexually assaulted the author decades ago. I'm just starting with the assumption that you go and have a nice private chat with said senator so that you're both on the same page as to the contents of the letter.....

So... then what? What is the proper course of action? Again, right now all you have is a letter stating some things. You've not looked in to shit. You've not had your aids do any research, you haven't even examined it enough to see if this person even exists. You're at the.. we'll say one hour mark. What now? What are the Right and Proper steps for investigation?

#3 - Ford was outed. The initial report did not mention a name. According to The Intercept's Ryan Grim - the author of the piece - after the report on the 12th the letter was added to the FBI file, making it accessible. From there, it was only a matter of time - likely days or hours - before some reporter found Ford simply by going through all Kavanagh's high school peers, so she and her lawyer picked the time. I do not know what further steps she could have possibly taken at that point.

#4 - Gosh, why would someone who states to have suffered sexual assault possibly object to Donald "Grab'em by the [genitalia]" Trump?

In conclusion, your sister's an idiot and I'd actually like to know the answer for #2.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: freezeblade and 17 guests