Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, September 24, 2018

OTP 2018 September 24: Baseball and the presidency

He tells us that Theodore Roosevelt, for all his heroics and man of action persona, detested baseball. For TR, the game was too slow, too staid, too devoid of the rough and tumble he loved – even though as a good pol he sang its praises as it grew in popularity.

His daughter, Alice Roosevelt Longworth: “Father and all of us regard[ed] baseball as a mollycoddle game. Tennis, football, lacrosse, boxing, polo, yes. They are violent, which appealed to us. But baseball? Father wouldn’t watch it, not even at Harvard!”

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 24, 2018 at 08:48 AM | 3291 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: off topic, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 8 of 33 pages ‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 >  Last ›
   701. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:05 PM (#5751664)
I don’t know if Brett Kavanaugh was lying or telling truth yesterday when he confessed to premarital sex. I took him at his word.
   702. Ray (CTL) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:05 PM (#5751665)
No. I'm saying a man credibly accused of attempted rap should not be confirmed to the SCOTUS. That you invoke a higher requirement for credibility because you're a pedantic dick nozzle on occasion is on you, not me.


Ford may be credible -- less and less so as she demands to the committee that they play Simon Says before she will testify -- but there are two structural problems that you can never surmount on the current record even if you believe her 100%:

1. She could be mistaken.
2. There are no corroborating witnesses or evidence and therefore a reasonable person can never get to any even minimally heightened standard of evidence.

I have seen absolutely zero reason to believe Ford is lying. Zip. None.


Yes, but this just shows why we can't rely on folks with this view to guide us here. There are plausible reasons why she could be lying, because -- real humans know -- people lie for many reasons. If you're God and know she's not lying, why don't you also post the video of the party on YouTube so we can all see if Kavanaugh was there? If you're God.
   703. BrianBrianson Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:05 PM (#5751666)
I'm totally, totally willing to give a pass to an undergrad who lied about not being a virgin. I myself had sex with more than zero* people in high school, but if that weren't the case, I might well have lied about it to avoid embarassment. Telling another undergrad you've had sex has identically zero information content.

*one, duh.
   704. -- Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:06 PM (#5751668)
No one is certain he was lying then. Nor are we certain that he is lying now.


I'm absolutely certain he's lying now, last night on Fox, that he can affirmatively recall not being a party 36 years ago based on the details he says lead him to that conclusion. That's probably the only one of the relevant facts I have certainty about, though I might be missing one.

When there's no danger to simply fessing up to the fact that it's possible you were at a party like the one Ford describes, given the geography, but it's so long ago that you can't possibly remember ... but then you don't do that and claim affirmatively and definitively that you were not at such a party ... well, that's a big, huge, massive red flag to anyone paying even cursory attention. And particularly so when we consider that he admitted the possibility that he may have met Ford.

"I may have met Dr. Blasey back then, and may have been at a party with her at some point, but I have no recollection of either, it was a long time ago, it's very possible I never was. I categorically deny doing to her what she claims I did, or anything like it."

Simple. The thing one would say if one was confident that was the truth.

But he obviously doesn't want to say that.

Just. Does. Not. Add. Up.
   705. BrianBrianson Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:08 PM (#5751669)
2. There are no corroborating witnesses or evidence and therefore a reasonable person can never get to any even minimally heightened standard of evidence.


Sure, but if they both testify and have roughly equal credibility, and like a bad Bayesian* you take really uninformative priors and conclude it's roughly 50-50 he did it, is "Well, there's only a ~50% chance he's an attempted gang rapist" a solid enough argument to confirm a Supreme Court nominee?

*It's probably more like 95-5, this ain't arson, but I don't think the exact numerical value here is the critical point.
   706. -- Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:08 PM (#5751670)
2. There are no corroborating witnesses or evidence and therefore a reasonable person can never get to any even minimally heightened standard of evidence.


We don't know this. Judge could crack or deviate from his current lawyer's statements, if put under oath in public (or even if questioned hard by the FBI or Montgomery County detectives). Most likely though, his failure to recall is because he was wasted. Given everything we now know about him, Ford's account of his actions and presence is eminently possible.

Or, it's of course possible that Ford has that part wrong.
   707. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:10 PM (#5751672)
Yes, but this just shows why we can't rely on folks with this view to guide us here. There are plausible reasons why she could be lying, because -- real humans know -- people lie for many reasons.


Of all the actors in this debacle, Ford has the very least reason to lie.
   708. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:10 PM (#5751673)
I'm not aware of any law that would prevent the Committee issuing a subpoena to Miz Ramirez, if only for the purpose of embarrassing her. And that certainly hasn't prevented the Republicans from issuing their opinions about her accusation.
Don't pretend to be even stupider than you are. Republicans are not going to force an purported quasi-sexual assault victim to testify against her will. If she wants to come forward and testify, they will have no political choice but to allow her, but there is no chance on the planet that they would subpoena her, especially not "for the purpose of embarrassing her."
   709. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:11 PM (#5751674)

And it's now pretty clear why they had the testimonials lined up,
They didn't.
   710. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:11 PM (#5751675)
To be pedantic, as I'm sure you'll agree, Ford's statements are evidence.

It's somewhat charitable to call an unsworn statement "evidence", especially when the person offering the statement has gone to great lengths to avoid the normal process requiring sworn statements under questioning by bipartisan Senate investigators. Whatever it's termed, it's awfully weak even standing alone, and when the all contradictory evidence is factored in, there's pretty much nothing left.
   711. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:11 PM (#5751676)
It's interesting that Zonk knows Kavanaugh is lying now but telling the truth then to the freshman roommate at Lawrance Hall, in the living room of the suite. The level of certainty folks here such as Zonk, Sam, Davos, SBB have about any and all aspects of this is really interesting to me.


I don't know if he's lying.

I just know that - based on watching his interview and comparing that to the contradictory evidence of his youth, the guy was spinning some real whoppers about his youth.... and based on the fact that he's a talking rug (lies quite a bit!), I'm less and less inclined to believe anything he says.

Tell me stupid, farcical lies - and I'm just generally going to believe the person to be an inveterate liar.
   712. Ray (CTL) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:12 PM (#5751677)
We don't know this. Judge could crack or deviate from his current lawyer's statements, if put under oath in public (or even if questioned hard by the FBI or Montgomery County detectives).


Matlock wasn't a documentary.
   713. Ray (CTL) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:13 PM (#5751679)
Yes, but this just shows why we can't rely on folks with this view to guide us here. There are plausible reasons why she could be lying, because -- real humans know -- people lie for many reasons.

Of all the actors in this debacle, Ford has the very least reason to lie.


Is it no reason or the very least reason?

If the latter you're now just haggling over price.
   714. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:15 PM (#5751680)
Yankee Clapper, #693"
People contemporaneously heard about it from people who did see it contemporaneously, including with accurate details. That's of far more import than what people can remember now, 35 years later.

According to the New Yorker, one person, who refused to be identified, claimed to have heard an account similar to what Ramirez described, but he couldn't point the reporters to anyone with first hand knowledge of the incident, or even someone to repeat his claim to have heard it. For all we know he got his information from, or through, those telephone calls Ramirez recently made trying to obtain corroboration - the ones where she reportedly admitted she wasn't even sure it was Kavanaugh. Rank hearsay is not corroboration.


That might be for all you know, but the person who co-wrote the article knows a little more.

Vox:
Yale University classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh were corresponding about the alleged incident well before reporters contacted Ramirez, New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer told NBC News on Monday. Mayer said she first saw Yale alumni emails discussing the incident in July.

.........“What happened was, the classmates at Yale were talking to each other about it, they were emailing about it. We’ve seen the emails, back in July before Christine Blasey Ford came forward, and eventually word of it spread. It spread to the Senate. It spread to the media. And we [the New Yorker] reached out to her.”
   715. TDF, trained monkey Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:15 PM (#5751681)
The Senate confirmation process is provided for in the Constitution
No it's not. All the Constitution says is that the President "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the supreme Court". There was even quite a bit of debate in the early republic exactly what "advice and consent" entailed.
   716. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:16 PM (#5751682)
If the latter you're now just haggling over price.


Since objective truth is unobtainable in this case that is ALL anyone is arguing about.
   717. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:16 PM (#5751683)
No one is certain [Kavanaugh] was lying then. Nor are we certain that he is lying now. Nor are we certain that he lied, outright, with regard to the stolen Dem memos. What we are absolutely certain about is that his relationship with truth is, at best, Clintonian (Bill, not Hill.)

I'm not certain Kavanaugh was either lying or telling the truth in his denial of Ford's claims, and I'm not certain that she's telling the truth.

But I think it's reasonable to believe that given what we've heard from Ford, what we've learned about Ford, what we've learned from here therapist's notes and her husband's explanation, what we've learned about Judge's social crowd in high school, what we've seen written about him by his drinking buddy and football teammate Judge, and what we know about the relative infrequency of false rape charges made years later by adult acquaintances----putting all that together, I think it's more than likely that Ford is telling the truth, that Kavanaugh and Judge are either lying or merely guilty of forgetting the events of a drunken evening, and that this likelihood should be more than enough to deny Kavanaugh a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. One Clarence Thomas is more than enough.
   718. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:17 PM (#5751684)
Brett Kavanaugh met his wife in 2001 and got married in 2004, but in his Fox News puff piece he said he had sex in college (ie, premarital sex.)
I can't imagine what difference it makes, but he said no such thing. here's the exchange, as quoted on the previous page of this thread:
MacCallum: So you’re saying that through all these years that are in question, you were a virgin?

B. Kavanaugh: That’s correct.

MacCallum: Never had sexual intercourse with anyone in high school –

B. Kavanaugh: Correct.

MacCallum: – and through what years in college since we’re probing into your personally life here?

B. Kavanaugh: Many years after. I’ll leave it at that. Many years after.
   719. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:17 PM (#5751685)
As the Talking Heads sang, "Four -- hun -- dred -- thir -- ty -- five -- dis -- tricts, burning down the House."

The Cook Report's Dave Wasserman:
The House polling we've seen - both public and private - was already pretty terrible for Republicans, but has gotten noticeably worse since Labor Day (with a few exceptions, mostly in substantially Hispanic districts)


Several recent Sabato Crystal Ball ratings changes— seems to be a theme here:
AZ-9 Open (Sinema, D) Likely D > Safe D
Coffman (R, CO-6) Toss-up > Leans D
FL-15 Open (Ross, R) Likely R > Leans R
Paulsen (R, MN-3) Toss-up > Leans D
Holding (R, NC-2) Likely R > Leans R
NM-2 Open (Pearce, R) Leans R > Toss-up
Collins (R, NY-27) Likely R > Leans R
   720. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:18 PM (#5751686)
Is it no reason or the very least reason?


I see none. You want to count some insanely low probability that she's some sort of political plant or something, but I don't have to descend to that level of idiocy just because you do. We have a he said/she said where the first party (he) has shown himself to be something of a congenital liar, and the second party (she) has a reason to lie so infinitesimal as to be non-existent. You side with the he because you don't like to admit the liberals are right. I side with the she because I think even a 50/50 coin flip that a man might be an attempted rapist should disqualify him from the goddamned Supreme Court.
   721. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:18 PM (#5751687)

Kavanaugh's roommate from college says he was frequently near black-out drunk and became aggressive when he was.
There is literally no such thing as "near black-out drunk."
   722. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:19 PM (#5751688)
There is literally no such thing as "near black-out drunk."


There literally is.

   723. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:20 PM (#5751689)
718- My apologies! I was listening in real time and I must have misheard them.
   724. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:20 PM (#5751690)
Is sanity coming to the UK? The chances of a second Brexit referendum just got higher


The chances of Britain holding a second referendum on Brexit just got higher.

Britain's opposition Labour party was voting Tuesday on a policy that would put a new public vote on the table if Prime Minister Theresa May failed to get an eventual Brexit deal through the UK Parliament.

And Labour's Brexit spokesman, Keir Starmer, received rapturous applause at his party's annual conference when he raised the prospect that staying in the European Union would be on the ballot paper.

"Nobody is ruling out 'Remain' as an option," he said.


What a mess the whole thing has been. As terrible as Trump has been as President - yes you can now officially call him a global laughingstock - Brexit could easily have worse long term consequences for the UK than Trump will for the US.
   725. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:21 PM (#5751691)
And so it begins: the NRCC just cancelled all of its scheduled ad buys in PA-17, the Republican House seat being defended by incumbent Keith Rothfus. Preemptive congratulations to Conor Lamb, a ¼-term Representative who seems to have made a shrewd decision in switching districts on the new Pennsylvania map. Lamb just won a highly-contested special election in PA-18 this past March.


Meanwhile, the DCCC just disclosed over $900,000 in new targeted spending in ten districts: CA-25, CA-45, CO-06, IL-06, MI-11, MN-02, MN-08, NJ-07, NM-02, and VA-02. It'll come as no surprise to hear that eight of the ten races are Republican-held seats rated as "Toss Ups," and a ninth district is one of the two Democratic-held "Toss Ups." The tenth is MN-03, where incumbent Erik Paulsen is considered a probable loser; apparently the DCCC is putting its boot on Paulsen's throat.


And another poll in another Republican-held Toss Up district: Dave Brat (VA-02) is trailing 47% to 42%. Brat won his last two races by 15% and 24%. And the Republican-held KY-06 has received a 47-47 tie poll. The incumbent, Andy Barr, won his last two races by 22% and 20%.

One race bucking the trends (at least based on the last poll) is The “Lean Republican” NE-02 which just saw a 11% margin favoring the Republican incumbent, Don Bacon. Bacon won in 2016 by just 1% as a freshman candidate. It’s an exceptionally swingy district of late, having been won by three different people in the last three cycles, by 1% (R) , 3% (D) and 2% (R). Before that, Republican Lee Terry held the seat for eight terms.
   726. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:22 PM (#5751692)
Fancy Banana to David N, #522:
I handwaved it away because the alleged incident would've been a drunken prank by a college freshman

Which is what makes you a horrendously awful person (sorry, I know you prefer the term libertarian).


So, what, nobody's gonna say "good line"? I will, then. Good line.
   727. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:22 PM (#5751694)
There is literally no such thing as "near black-out drunk."


David, "black-out drunk" is a state that can only be confirmed for certain by the person who is drunk (Kavanaugh.) Thus, the roommate's reportage of his state of inebriation can't be said to be certain that he was in fact black-out gone. Only that he was incoherent, angry and aggressive. Thus, "near."

You had a good run there for a bit. Now you're back to being willfully stupid for ideological reasons.
   728. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:24 PM (#5751699)
Ford may be credible -- less and less so as she demands to the committee that they play Simon Says before she will testify -- but there are two structural problems that you can never surmount on the current record even if you believe her 100%:
1. She could be mistaken.
2. There are no corroborating witnesses or evidence and therefore a reasonable person can never get to any even minimally heightened standard of evidence.

There's a third factor that undermines Ford's credibility : she hasn't told the same story twice. The evidence Ford herself invokes to corrobate her story - the counselor's notes - contradict her as to the number of attackers, the gender of those at the party, and most importantly when it occurred, "late teens", not age-15. The gaps, inconsistencies, and contradictions, coupled with Ford's repeated refusal to cooperate or repeat her claim under oath, severely undermine her credibility.
   729. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:25 PM (#5751700)
My Baptist friend actually got divorced (his wife was non-religious; she’s now dating a woman) and remarried. The night before his second wedding he was talking to me about how excited he was for the big day, and concluded with “But the thing I’m most looking forward to? I really really really really miss having sex.”
   730. Lassus Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:25 PM (#5751701)
Gonfalon, do you have a link with anything recent on NY-22?
   731. BrianBrianson Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:25 PM (#5751702)
David, "black-out drunk" is a state that can only be confirmed for certain by the person who is drunk (Kavanaugh.) Thus, the roommate's reportage of his state of inebriation can't be said to be certain that he was in fact black-out gone. Only that he was incoherent, angry and aggressive. Thus, "near."


This isn't really true. If you know someone, and they often express no memory of things you witnessed them do while drunk, you can reasonably conclude they were often blackout drunk.
   732. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:26 PM (#5751704)
This isn't really true. If you know someone, and they often express no memory of things you witnessed them do while drunk, you can reasonably conclude they were often blackout drunk.


Fair enough. But that's not quite what the roomie said. Regardless, David is clearly and obviously wrong on this.
   733. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:27 PM (#5751705)
Re: #730--
The most recent NY-22 poll listed on 538 and RCP and Ballotpedia is the same Siena poll from the end of August. So, nope.
   734. JL72 Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:28 PM (#5751706)
Dave Brat (VA-02) is trailing 47% to 42%. Brat won his last two races by 15% and 24%.


Interesting in that Brat was the tea-party candidate that knocked off Eric Cantor, then the House Majority Leader.
   735. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:29 PM (#5751707)

Not a single person in history -- at least before now -- has ever lost a job opportunity because of something written in his or her high school yearbook.

Roy Moore?
Touche; I LOLed. (But that was the girl's yearbook, not his!)
   736. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:29 PM (#5751708)
I'm not aware of any law that would prevent the Committee issuing a subpoena to Miz Ramirez, if only for the purpose of embarrassing her. And that certainly hasn't prevented the Republicans from issuing their opinions about her accusation.

Don't pretend to be even stupider than you are. Republicans are not going to force an purported quasi-sexual assault victim to testify against her will. If she wants to come forward and testify, they will have no political choice but to allow her, but there is no chance on the planet that they would subpoena her, especially not "for the purpose of embarrassing her."


They could issue a subpoena and then withdraw it if she objects, which if she did would effectively be killing two birds for the Republicans with one stone: They'd have made a public offer for her to testify, and she'd come off in some quarters as being afraid, however fairly or unfairly. At the very least it'd make for a good talking point to the base.

But until they at least make her a public offer to testify, they won't gain either of those advantages.

And BTW we'll see after all this is over just how brilliant you and Clapper will appear. These events aren't just being played out to a jury of right wing fundamentalists, aging Hefnerites, and the Trump wing of the GOP. The Judiciary Committee majority isn't the only group that'll be reaching its verdict.
   737. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:30 PM (#5751709)

People have lost jobs or not been offered positions based on Facebook posts.
Sure. And tweets. That wasn't the topic; the topic was yearbooks. The ludicrous claim I was responding to was that the people at Georgetown Prep could only write what they wanted in their yearbooks because they're privileged and so it didn't matter for them the way it does for the rest of us.
   738. JL72 Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:30 PM (#5751710)
David, "black-out drunk" is a state that can only be confirmed for certain by the person who is drunk (Kavanaugh.) Thus, the roommate's reportage of his state of inebriation can't be said to be certain that he was in fact black-out gone. Only that he was incoherent, angry and aggressive. Thus, "near."


Not sure how the roommate is using the term. If he means Kavanaugh was so drunk that once he sobered up, he had no recollection of his actions, then that could be confirmed later to the roommate.
   739. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:32 PM (#5751712)
David, "black-out drunk" is a state that can only be confirmed for certain by the person who is drunk (Kavanaugh.) Thus, the roommate's reportage of his state of inebriation can't be said to be certain that he was in fact black-out gone. Only that he was incoherent, angry and aggressive. Thus, "near."


I would add -

I would consider near-black out drunk to be drunk such that one remembers the actions, but cannot comprehend the reasoning or how in the #### the actions were a good idea.

To wit - sophomore year in college, after a frat formal - I did a Rick Dempsey across a muddy quad for reasons that were quite unclear to me, ruining my one and only suit. I likewise incurred dry cleaning costs for some friends - and the extensive anger of my date - when I came to the conclusion that it was such fun, everyone else must wish to get involved... and hence, began slinging mud.

I remember - vaguely - doing all of this... but I could not explain the thought process.

I did not black out.

But I was "near black-out drunk".
   740. dlf Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:32 PM (#5751713)
There are no corroborating witnesses or evidence and therefore a reasonable person can never get to any even minimally heightened standard of evidence.


Hypothetical Ray. Your firm is hiring a new Associate and you are on the hiring committee. A candidate comes in with a great law school transcript from a T14 school, a clerkship for the Federal Circuit where she had extensive experience in patent appeals, then a couple of years with one of your competitor law firms that has a reputation for good work. She interviews well, seems to have a good grasp of the law, and excellent written samples of prior work. You call around to attorneys you know who have had the opportunity to work with her and clients that were represented. Most give good reviews, however, one of them that you don't know personally but who has a solid reputation in the industry says to you that while it wasn't reported to the Bar, when she was a new attorney she used client trust funds for personal purchases. You call the candidate back and she strenuously denies the allegation. Do you hire her even though the impropriety wasn't reported to the proper authorities and the assertion has no supporting evidence other than the statement? I don't.

As stated in last week's thread, I don't yet take a position vis a vis Kavanaugh(*) - I haven't followed the various leaks and would, regardless, keep an open mind pending their testimony. But the standard I would apply is much, much lower than requiring the Ford backers to prove their case by a preponderance, and many seem to be arguing that absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt, he should be confirmed.

(*)My concerns about him were stated two+ months ago when I went through several decisions and found him well within the judicial mainstream but having a tendency to add too much dicta, that is a tendency to attempt to essentially legislate from the bench. But of course that sub-topic is too esoteric(**) for any significant discussion here.

(**)What ever happened to the poster who went by the moniker of Esoteric?
   741. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:32 PM (#5751714)
734- Brat’s team has done some real dirty pool this month, including accessing his opponent’s unredacted NSA clearance form and using info from it in a push poll.
   742. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:33 PM (#5751715)
But until they at least make her a public offer to testify, they won't gain either of those advantages.

They've already asked her to contact the Committee, what more do you want?
   743. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:33 PM (#5751717)
There's a third factor that undermines Ford's credibility : she hasn't told the same story twice.


Clapper has two different and opposing lines of attack. In one "there is no evidence, she has never testified under oath!" and in the second "This evidence is terrible she keeps changing the story!"

I don't know how to break this to you gently Clapper but you are being silly. She has not yet had the opportunity to testify yet, so yelling about how there is no sworn testimony yet is dumb. Secondly we have not seen what she has to say under oath. Comparing various second and hand sources - including notes from her therapist - is kind of dumb, especially when you are so lightly gliding over all the inconsistencies in the various BK prevarications of the day.
   744. Lassus Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:36 PM (#5751719)
Re: #730--
The most recent NY-22 poll listed on 538 and RCP and Ballotpedia is the same Siena poll from the end of August. So, nope.


Thanks. I am slightly surprised the seat isn't being paid more attention to, primarily because Tenney had some recent airplay as bleating SuperTrumper "crisis actor" promoter and the area has been a red given for awhile. But maybe she has less cache than I imagine.
   745. -- Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:37 PM (#5751720)
Kavanaugh never really says Ford isn't telling the truth and even admits that he isn't questioning whether Ford had been sexually assaulted at some point in her life. Nor does he really say specifically that he didn't do what she said, preferring instead the once-removed "I never did it to anyone, therefore I didn't do it to her" construction:

MS. MacCALLUM: So, where do you think this is coming from? Why would she make this up?

JUDGE KAVANAUGH: What I know is the truth. And the truth is, I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone in high school or otherwise. I am not questioning and have not questioned that perhaps Dr. Ford at some point in her life was sexually assaulted by someone in some place. But what I know is I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone in high school or at any time in my life —


Also, in my opinion, an odd construction. In both respects -- (a) that he'd concede that she had been assaulted, when he has no clue one way or the other and when, given what she's said about him, she's a liar; and (b) that he wouldn't just say straight up something like, "But I assure you I never did any such thing," in lieu of doing it by inference.

Obviously, I know why he said (a) -- political calculation. But it's not the thing a genuinely falsely accused person would say. Again, it's practiced and calculated. Practiced and calculated bouts of rhetoric are inherently untrustworthy.
   746. Lassus Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:38 PM (#5751721)
(**)What ever happened to the poster who went by the moniker of Esoteric?

Hypertensive, annoyed by others' political meanness, quit the thread. I mean, honestly, I sincerely miss McOA, but it's really the mirror complaint.
   747. McCoy Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:38 PM (#5751722)
And Eraser-X
   748. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:40 PM (#5751723)
JL72, #734:
Dave Brat (VA-02) is trailing 47% to 42%. Brat won his last two races by 15% and 24%.

Interesting in that Brat was the tea-party candidate that knocked off Eric Cantor, then the House Majority Leader.


But Eric Cantor will live forever, in 538.com's House election model CANTOR, which was named and then backronymed as "Congressional Algorithm using Neighboring Typologies to Optimize Regression." The lower-case "using" is such cheating.
   749. Morty Causa Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:40 PM (#5751724)
This place is really getting loony. The let's lynch Kavanaugh contingent are like the cretinous witch burners in a Monty Python sketch.

   750. -- Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:41 PM (#5751725)
You want to count some insanely low probability that she's some sort of political plant or something, but I don't have to descend to that level of idiocy just because you do. We have a he said/she said where the first party (he) has shown himself to be something of a congenital liar, and the second party (she) has a reason to lie so infinitesimal as to be non-existent.


You're being too kind. It really isn't "he said/she said" since she risked naming a third party participant. Again, a fully calculating person who wanted to tell the perfect lie wouldn't do such a thing.
   751. McCoy Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:42 PM (#5751726)
Got to love DC. Ted Cruz chased out of Fiola in DC by angry chanters. At this point I'm not sure why GOP politicians dine in large public DC restaurants.
   752. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:43 PM (#5751728)
I don't know how to break this to you gently Clapper but you are being silly.


At this point, Clapper is more worthy of a killfile than even SBB.
   753. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:46 PM (#5751729)

That wasn't how it worked at my high school or junior high(early to mid 90's). Only official school clubs and programs appeared in the yearbook and beyond that we only had funniest male and female, most likely to succeed, and we might have had best dressed. That was it.
Just pulled out my 1988 high school yearbook. Opened it up at random, pointed to random entry with my eyes closed:
Times w/ DS, Disney World – JS, Helleo! Allies, 76-streets, spring break w/ boxtops, Ninja, Prince! SHE LOVED MM, Schmitty, JT, NJW-SH, Sundays River, MH, JK, TH, TK, JJ, BP, Rightcheere – BTAD!, carts w/ AH & AB, Summer '86!
Not a person I hung out with, and I don't have the first clue what any of that refers to. Looking around, I don't see any entries that are just a list of clubs or the like, though certainly some do include that information. For example:
Poms, French Club, Class Council, "Zorking," H-coming '87 w/ John, honey lover, Chief, Friends – RM, YM, RD, HO, KC, GR, DD, KD, BP, NO & SK.
Again, I don't know what lots of that means.

And for future confirmation purposes: looking at my own entry, I don't know what half the things refer to.
   754. Morty Causa Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:46 PM (#5751730)
It isn't a yearbook, but in hiring people, we do review their social media history and have rejected potential candidates for things they posted sometimes as much as a decade earlier which, for some, would go back to their high school years. Not sure there is a meaningful distinction between the yearbook of yore and the facebook of today.

What would be an example of a disqualifying post and could anyone in OTP ever get hired?

Why haven't any of you silly people answered this?
   755. BDC Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:46 PM (#5751731)
Ted Cruz chased out of Fiola in DC by angry chanters. At this point I'm not sure why GOP politicians dine in large public DC restaurants


Especially Cruz. I mean if all you're going to order is a can of Chunky Chicken 'n' Dumplings.
   756. -- Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:47 PM (#5751732)
And the truth is, I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone in high school or otherwise. I am not questioning and have not questioned that perhaps Dr. Ford at some point in her life was sexually assaulted by someone in some place. But what I know is I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone in high school or at any time in my life —


This leaves wiggle room for K doing something physical with F, but it falling short of what K might term, "sexual assault." Again, too cute by half.
   757. BrianBrianson Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:49 PM (#5751733)
The lower-case "using" is such cheating.


If you think that's cheating, you'll have the acronyms in astronomy. For instance, the Search for habitable Planets EClipsing ULtra-cOOl Stars, or HIgh Precision PARallax COllecting Satellite, or MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry and Ranging
   758. spycake Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:49 PM (#5751734)
There's a third factor that undermines Ford's credibility : she hasn't told the same story twice. The evidence Ford herself invokes to corrobate her story - the counselor's notes - contradict her as to the number of attackers, the gender of those at the party, and most importantly when it occurred, "late teens", not age-15. The gaps, inconsistencies, and contradictions, coupled with Ford's repeated refusal to cooperate or repeat her claim under oath, severely undermine her credibility.


I have explained to you several times now that there are not necessarily any inconsistencies here. Therapy is not a testimony, interrogation, or cross-examination. Nothing had to be disclosed, asked, or clarified that wasn't relevant to the goal of the therapy session. If Ford said there were 4 others at the party, and the therapist noted that 4 were "involved", or if the therapist hears "high school" and notes "late teens" (as opposed to junior high age), it is not any kind of inconsistency, much less one that would contribute to a "severe undermining of credibility."
   759. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:50 PM (#5751735)
This place is really getting loony. The let's lynch Kavanaugh contingent are like the cretinous witch burners in a Monty Python sketch.


Literally no one here is advocating lynching BK. No one. Sadly nothing will ever convince you of that, so carry on.
   760. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:52 PM (#5751736)
He's lying about being able to recall never being at a party at a house near Columbia Country Club (*), and everyone else who says they can remember the same is lying, too. It isn't remotely credible and doesn't pass the lowest bar of laugh tests.
Not sure whether this counts as Fake Lawyering or TrollBoying.

(The answer, as so often is the case for FLTB, is both.)
That's part of why he turned "near Columbia Country Club" into "near Connecticut Avenue and East-West Highway" -- to limit the geographic scope in case he gets called on it.
Using the address of a place rather than a name of the place does not "limit the geographic scope" in any way.

The correct, truthful answer for him is "it's too long ago for me to remember whether I was at a party with Dr. Ford or at a party at a house near Columbia Country Club. It's possible, given where I grew up, that I was."
He has calendars. Also, there are two obvious reasons one would remember. One is if one rarely went to parties. That probably doesn't apply to him. The other is if one always went to certain places for parties. That might.
   761. Ray (CTL) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:53 PM (#5751737)
Kavanaugh never really says Ford isn't telling the truth and even admits that he isn't questioning whether Ford had been sexually assaulted at some point in her life. Nor does he really say specifically that he didn't do what she said, preferring instead the once-removed "I never did it to anyone, therefore I didn't do it to her" construction:


It's 2018 and we're at the height of MeToo. He can't call her a liar and indeed there's no reason for him to do so. He can only say that he didn't do what she alleges. That leaves open the quite reasonable possibility that she's mistaken rather than lying.

Of course he's not going to say that she was never assaulted. Come on. He can say the allegations are false which does _not_ necessarily mean that she's lying.

This is how it works, SBB. If you accuse me of robbing a bank in Ohio I can say that's completely false either because I never robbed a bank so I don't care where and when the bank was robbed or (secondarily) I can say I was never even in Ohio. There is absolutely nothing telling about "I can't have done this to her because I have never done it to anyone at that time or any other time."
   762. Morty Causa Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:53 PM (#5751738)
759

It's the definite mentality. How many degrees from actually doing it or doing something comparable. A half, maybe. You idiots should be ashamed.

You embody the mindset displayed in that link to Jezebel Nieporent posted upthread, which none of you took note of either. This is disgusting.
   763. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:53 PM (#5751739)
According to the New Yorker, one person, who refused to be identified, claimed to have heard an account similar to what Ramirez described, but he couldn't point the reporters to anyone with first hand knowledge of the incident, or even someone to repeat his claim to have heard it. For all we know he got his information from, or through, those telephone calls Ramirez recently made trying to obtain corroboration - the ones where she reportedly admitted she wasn't even sure it was Kavanaugh. Rank hearsay is not corroboration.

That might be for all you know, but the person who co-wrote the article knows a little more.

No, that's - no surprise - highly misleading. Here's what the New Yorker article claimed:
Mark Krasberg, an assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of New Mexico who was also a member of Kavanaugh and Ramirez’s class at Yale, said Kavanaugh’s college behavior had become a topic of discussion among former Yale students soon after Kavanaugh’s nomination. In one e-mail that Krasberg received in September, the classmate who recalled hearing about the incident with Ramirez alluded to the allegation and wrote that it “would qualify as a sexual assault,” he speculated, “if it’s true.” [emhasis added]

People weren't initially e-mailing about the alleged incident, they were e-mailing about Kavanaugh's nomination - it's pretty big news for a classmate to be nominated to the Supreme Court, even if you went to Yale. Then the one unnamed classmate mentioned earlier in the NYer article as having heard of the incident raised some version of it in the e-mail chain, but even that apparently didn't produce anyone claiming to have witnessed the incident, or even having heard of it earlier. It's just the same unnamed classmate in both instances. Suggesting that there are others is misleading - whether by Jane Mayer or Gonfalon.
   764. McCoy Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:56 PM (#5751741)
The reality is there are plenty of ultra conservative judges that the GOP can vote for and put on SCOTUS if they wanted to do that. To pick Kavanaugh as the hill to die on is stupid. Pull him and nominate the far right woman. Seems simple enough. Why go through all of this?
   765. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:59 PM (#5751744)
Re: Clapper, #7634--

Fantastic. Now, Yankee Clapper knows more about what the New Yorker's reporter heard and saw than the New Yorker reporter who said what she heard and saw. Is there any limit to his insight?
   766. Morty Causa Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:59 PM (#5751745)
The Very Proper Gander. Thurber nailed your kind precisely.

Not so very long ago there was a very fine gander. He was strong and smooth and beautiful and he spent most of his time singing to his wife and children. One day somebody who saw him strutting up and down in his yard and singing remarked, „There is a very proper gander.“ An old hen overheard this and told her husband about it that night in the roost. „They said something about propaganda,“ she said. „I have always suspected that,“ said the rooster, and he went around the barnyard next day telling everybody that the very fine gander was a dangerous bird, more than likely a hawk in gander’s clothing.
   767. Jack Keefe Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:59 PM (#5751746)
Hey Al remember our High School Year Book. I found it again Al. Here's what it says under my pic.

JOHN ALOYSIUS KEEFE. Baseball (4). Baseball Bake Sale (4). 69. Rim Job Special, Rocket Fuel, Garbage Pail. Fifty 40s Club. Sloe Comfortable Screw. Puking. Boofing. Puling. Mewling. Rowlfing. Driving the Porcelain Bus. Round the World. Round the World in a Rickshaw. Option J. Hooters. Shotgun Tallboy. Spin Cycle. Domestic Longneck. BJ, FU, C.S'er. Toga Toga Toga. Shoot the Moon. Three Nights in a Hammock. Rodeo Goat. They Call Him the Streak. Muff Diving. Carpet Munchkin. Brown Eye. Hubba Hubba. Most Likely to Suck Seed.

Ha ha Al I do not remember any of that as you know I was a Verging and did not touch a drap of Alcohol till I joined the Chi. Sox and A.J. Pierogi introduced to me the pleisures of pairing a fine Puligny-Montrachet with a crispy Feta Bruschetta.
   768. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:00 PM (#5751747)
Morty C, #749:
This place is really getting loony. The let's lynch Kavanaugh contingent are like the cretinous witch burners in a Monty Python sketch.


Brett Kavanaugh on his treatment: "Help! Help! I’m being repressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!"

Lindsey Graham on the accusations: "'Tis but a scratch."

Dianne Feinstein on Dr. Ford's letter: "O Lord, bless this thy hand grenade, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits."

Mitch McConnell, 2016: "NONE shall pass."

Yankee Clapper on Gorsuch and Garland and Kavanaugh: "This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed who."


Cheer up, Morty. On Thursday you'll get to witness a farcical sclerotic ceremony.
   769. Morty Causa Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:01 PM (#5751748)
The present-day New Yorker would have revolted Thurber and sent White into a deep depression.
   770. -- Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:03 PM (#5751749)
Using the address of a place rather than a name of the place does not "limit the geographic scope" in any way.


That isn't what happened, and yes it does. Columbia Country Club is a huge tract of land; an intersection of two streets is a tiny sliver of land. The number of houses "near Columbia Country club" outnumber those near the intersection of C and E-W H by a factor of hundreds.

He has calendars.


LOL.

Also, there are two obvious reasons one would remember. One is if one rarely went to parties. That probably doesn't apply to him.


No, it doesn't, you're right about that.

The other is if one always went to certain places for parties. That might.


And that doesn't apply to him either. It really doesn't apply to any 17 year old in a place like Bethesda who goes to parties.



   771. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:04 PM (#5751750)

It isn't a yearbook, but in hiring people, we do review their social media history and have rejected potential candidates for things they posted sometimes as much as a decade earlier which, for some, would go back to their high school years. Not sure there is a meaningful distinction between the yearbook of yore and the facebook of today.
First, if you're actually disqualifying people for ten-year old Facebook posts from when they were in HS, I question your judgment, assuming that they weren't confessing to serious crimes (i.e., more than underage drinking) or posting pictures of themselves burning crosses or something. (And how much time do you guys have to scroll back through ten years of FB posts anyway?)

Second, there may be no substantive distinction between a yearbook and a Facebook feed, but they are factually distinct, in that nobody actually ever has gone and looked at someone's high school yearbook to decide whether to hire them. Which was my whole point.
   772. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:04 PM (#5751751)
488

One of my favorite movies is Secret Sunshine, largely because its take on forgiveness and repentance is so incredibly thoughtful:

A single mother experiences an unthinkable tragedy: her only son is murdered in a kidnapping attempt gone wrong. The trauma nearly destroys her; in a moment of desperation, she clings to the Church like an overboard sailor grasping for a reed.

And it seems to help. She attends services, reads Scripture, says the right things, etc. Her pain begins to fade. And then one day she announces to her new friends that she wants to go to prison to meet the man who murdered her son....because she is ready to forgive him.

She goes to the prison the next day, nervous but excited to share her good news. She’s even brought the murderer a gift. But when she finally meets him, and tells him that she has found Christ and come to forgive him, he says the one thing she never prepared for: ”I have already sought and received forgiveness from God. Everyday since I have prayed for you. You cannot imagine how happy it makes me to see you here. That means that my prayers have been answered. I am happy for you.

The pain she feels after this is even worse than the pain from losing her son. She feels as though God has played a joke on her, by forgiving this man before she could.

Which of course....is in a scene the difference between worldly remorse and godly remorse. The forgiveness the mother was trying to provide was selfish. She wasn't doing God's will. She was acting out of pride, and tgis pride has resulted in her downfall. She is ungrateful because of how much peace God appeared to have granted to her heart but when she learns that the peace is being shared with her enemy, she doesn't consent to this, and reacts with violence and anger.

The Killer, on the other hand: he actually has sought godly forgiveness and been born again in Christ....and that is why he is at peace. He has repented his sins and is serving his sentence with no complaints, and that is why he is sincerely happy to learn that she will get to share in his joy.

....This conflict is incredibly difficult to accept. And no art has done as good a job dramatizing it.
   773. BrianBrianson Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:08 PM (#5751752)
First, if you're actually disqualifying people for ten-year old Facebook posts from when they were in HS, I question your judgment, assuming that they weren't confessing to serious crimes (i.e., more than underage drinking) or posting pictures of themselves burning crosses or something. (And how much time do you guys have to scroll back through ten years of FB posts anyway?)


This is kind of dependent on your industry and situation, but whenever I apply for jobs, I can rely on them getting 100-400 applications from entirely qualified people who'd do great jobs. Given the glut of candidates, it's easy to ditch candidates for even the most minor things, because, hey, you've still got scads of great candidates.
   774. Tony S Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:08 PM (#5751753)
Kavanaugh is too important to the Republicans to not be confirmed. It won't matter whether he has one, or two, or 50 allegations of sexual assault against him. The GOP will trade a couple of weeks of bad press and maybe a couple of years of being the minority party in the House (they won't lose the Senate) to get one of their allies on the bench for the next 30 years.

Plus, "sexual assault" is an unknown concept in conserva-land. It's like the idea of an "iceberg" in the Fang language. You might as well say "Kavanaugh is accused of hubcapping tomatoes" and it would make just as much sense in their universe.

   775. Traderdave Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:10 PM (#5751755)
And how much time do you guys have to scroll back through ten years of FB posts anyway?)



Asks the man with more than 40,000 posts, most during work hours.
   776. -- Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:10 PM (#5751756)
It's 2018 and we're at the height of MeToo. He can't call her a liar and indeed there's no reason for him to do so. He can only say that he didn't do what she alleges.


He didn't really say that, though, did he? I'd suggest another look at the transcript. Looks like he kind of avoided saying that. (And see 704)

There is absolutely nothing telling about "I can't have done this to her because I have never done it to anyone at that time or any other time."


Note, though, how carefully "this" is defined. (See 756)

Typically, I'd agree with you about the Ohio example, but here we have a situation where the one thing he's actually the least certain about, and has the least access to certainty about, he's claiming the most certainty about -- that he wasn't at "the party." He purports to know way more about that than whether he knows Ford and whether he did the things she said he did. Which is nuts and not credible.
   777. GordonShumway Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:10 PM (#5751757)
Plus, "sexual assault" is an unknown concept in conserva-land.

...if the victim isn't a white female and the suspect isn't a minority.
   778. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:12 PM (#5751758)
Clapper has two different and opposing lines of attack. In one "there is no evidence, she has never testified under oath!" and in the second "This evidence is terrible she keeps changing the story!"

Those are complimentary, not conflicting, lines of attack. Flimsy evidence contradicted by the same person offering the evidence is even weaker than flimsy evidence standing alone. Pretty basic, even for non-lawyers, but Bitter Mouse misses quite a bit here.
I don't know how to break this to you gently Clapper but you are being silly. She has not yet had the opportunity to testify yet, so yelling about how there is no sworn testimony yet is dumb. Secondly we have not seen what she has to say under oath. Comparing various second and hand sources - including notes from her therapist - is kind of dumb, especially when you are so lightly gliding over all the inconsistencies in the various BK prevarications of the day.

The only reason Ford hasn't had "the opportunity to testify yet" is that she has gone to great lengths to avoid doing so. As Gonfalon sagely noted recently, Ford has placed more limitations on her testimony than Frank Costello.
   779. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:12 PM (#5751759)
Brett Kavanaugh will stare down the Democratic Senators and cow them into submission by calling his treatment "a high-tech boofing."
   780. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:13 PM (#5751760)
Pull him and nominate the far right woman. Seems simple enough. Why go through all of this?

trump is a child who can't be insulted. He and the trumponistas will do ANYTHING to say they win.
   781. dlf Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:13 PM (#5751761)
(And how much time do you guys have to scroll back through ten years of FB posts anyway?)


Really? After all the discussion here about the Comey reveal of the late treasure trove of HRC emails and near instantaneous verification days later? It's basically a slightly more sophisticated version of ctrl-f and we get a report back from our screening vendor in one business day. It is also getting to the point where the ML software is sufficient to pick out pictures as well as text, but the hit rate there isn't quite as good.
   782. Traderdave Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:13 PM (#5751762)
This conflict is incredibly difficult to accept. And no art has done as good a job dramatizing it.


I agree, it is incredibly difficult to accept that talking to an imaginary playmate can absolve a person of such a crime, even more difficult to accept that the majority of those who spout these incantations their their preferred imaginary playmate would scoff (or worse) at others' imaginary playmates.
   783. Tony S Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:18 PM (#5751765)
Pull him and nominate the far right woman. Seems simple enough. Why go through all of this?


Well, this particular judge has certain particular opinions on record that could prove very useful to Trump should Mueller get a bit too close.
   784. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:21 PM (#5751768)
765. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 25, 2018 at 03:59 PM (#5751744)
Re: Clapper, #7634--

Fantastic. Now, Yankee Clapper knows more about what the New Yorker's reporter heard and saw than the New Yorker reporter who said what she heard and saw. Is there any limit to his insight?

I encourage everyone to read #763 again, and note the absence of any substantive rebuttal by Gonfalon here.
   785. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:22 PM (#5751770)
Yankee Clapper, #778: As Gonfalon sagely noted recently, Ford has placed more limitations on her testimony than Frank Costello.


Picking at your scab will only make it hurt more.
   786. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:23 PM (#5751772)
783 I don’t think that’s it. The overriding reason they’re sticking with Kavanaugh is because liberals want him withdrawn. “Screw the libs” is the governing principle of the 2018 GOP.
   787. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:26 PM (#5751776)
Literally no one here is advocating lynching BK. No one. Sadly nothing will ever convince you of that, so carry on.


A fact compounded by the fact that Morty is probably the most likely regular here to have attended an actual lynching.
   788. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:31 PM (#5751777)
Picking at your scab will only make it hurt more.


I have never seen Clapper so passionate about an issue. I guess because he initially made some arrogant comments on the issue and now he feels he can't let it go, BK or bust!

It is interesting in light of the fact that he has never articulated why he prefers conservative judges other than "Go Tribal GOP!" and he continues to do so on the same day that the leader of his party got laughed at - to his face - by the world.

Heck maybe that it is, he is embarrassed by GOP President Trump and horrified by the oncoming Blue Wave and so is trying to score points while he can.
   789. -- Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:36 PM (#5751778)
If Kavanaugh gets ramrodded through 51-49 or somesuch on this record or something like it, the chance of a party/faction/group ignoring a Supreme Court ruling goes up to uncomfortable heights from the essentially-zero it was at for decades.

I shudder to contemplate a situation where he's part of a 5-4 majority that overturns Roe or Casey. Particularly if Trump is still in office.

The center, and our institutions, continue to fray and unravel.

The Supreme Court was never intended to be this important, and should never have been allowed to be this important.

We're at a dangerous moment in history.
   790. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:39 PM (#5751784)
The overriding reason they’re sticking with Kavanaugh is because liberals want him withdrawn. “Screw the libs” is the governing principle of the 2018 GOP.

The obvious reasons no one on the GOP side wants Kavanaugh withdrawn: (1) the accusations don't appear to be true; (2) he likely has the votes; (3) withdrawing would increase the political impact of the [false] accusations; (4) there is no political fallout to confirming a vindicated Kavanaugh; and (5) Democrats are lying when they say the next nominee would have an easier time - with their anti-Kavanaugh tactics rewarded, Dems would go even lower given the opportunity.
   791. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:41 PM (#5751786)
I have never seen Clapper so passionate about an issue. I guess because he initially made some arrogant comments on the issue and now he feels he can't let it go


Well, judicial appointments is HIS THING. It's his absolute lodestar of political need. His swallowing whole anything needed to put an R in office - inclusive of Trump - is in service of this need. This is his entire reason to exist as a political animal.
   792. -- Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:42 PM (#5751787)
The obvious reasons no one on the GOP side wants Kavanaugh withdrawn: (1) the accusations don't appear to be true;


They very much do appear to be true. You're simply deluded on the matter. Part of your delusion stems from you focusing like a laser beam on every last word and inference of the accusers, and not an iota to the howlers Kavanaugh has unleashed.
   793. Howie Menckel Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:42 PM (#5751788)

(I think this is a Fox guy but)

Peter Doocy
‏Verified account @pdoocy
2h2 hours ago

NEW: Sen. Feinstein, D-Ca, just told me "I have no way of knowing" if Dr. Ford is actually going to show up to Kavanaugh hearing Thursday - if outside counsel is asking the questions
   794. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:44 PM (#5751789)
(1) the accusations don't appear to be true


You have no clue about this.

(2) he likely has the votes


Then why not just vote already? The GOP can vote whenever they want.

(3) withdrawing would increase the political impact of the accusations


Wait a minute. You mean if the accusations have an effect they will have had an effect? Brilliant! (EDIT: And you have no idea what the political impact is anyway)

(4) there is no political fallout to confirming a vindicated Kavanaugh


Then why not just vote already? The GOP can vote whenever they want.

(5) Democrats are lying when they say the next nominee would have an easier time


Sure Clapper. Sure. Because every possible candidate has the same issues. Every possible candidate comes with a Turtle Mitch warning. And anyway I don't remember huge numbers of Democrats promising any such thing, but whatever.
   795. -- Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:46 PM (#5751790)
If outside counsel is asking questions in public -- against all tradition and necessity -- she shouldn't show up.

This situation has descended to fiasco at this point.
   796. PreservedFish Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:49 PM (#5751792)
Heck maybe that it is, he is embarrassed by GOP President Trump and horrified by the oncoming Blue Wave and so is trying to score points while he can.


You can tell YC is embarrassed by Trump because he rarely comments on Trump.
   797. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:55 PM (#5751795)

Swoboda's point about Facebook posts is a good one. Additionally, we aren't talking about just any job. Brett Kavanaugh is not being interviewed to deliver pizza. He's not being interviewed to run your marketing department. He's interviewing to be given a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, where he will be a critical member of the panel of justices that decide the most fundamental elements of justice and legal rights in America, for the next 30 odd years. We can, and SHOULD, have a higher standard for this position than we do for the guy looking to fill the mid-management position down in QA.
I wish people would not respond to comments without reading the context in which they were made. In the one to which you were responding I did not express a view on whether his yearbook posts should play a role in his confirmation.¹ I was merely pointing out that there was no reason why anyone at any school, from Georgetown Prep to Falling Down Inner City School #7, would have been concerned about the long term ramifications of their yearbook quotes. I was responding to a claim by one of the two farthest left kooks (Perros/Davo - I forget which and don't feel like checking) that writing something potentially offensive in a yearbook entry was a sign of Rich White Male Privilege because they didn't have to worry about how it would affect their careers the way the rest of us do. Nobody had to worry about it.



¹I will now: no. That's stupid. It doesn't matter that SC justice is a more important position than pizza deliverer. Though, yes, obviously there is conduct that would disqualify one for the former job that would not disqualify one for the latter. The issue here though, is the usefulness of the information imported by a (decades old) high school yearbook entry.

Incidentally, I think it kind of incongruous to sneer at the phenomenon of people who appear to have been groomed their whole lives for a job like SC justice, but then also arguing that a blemish from someone's distant past should be held against them. (To be clear, I am not talking about rape when I say "blemish.") It's SC justice, not saint. So triumphantly saying "But SC justice" any time any issue arises does not resolve anything.
   798. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: September 25, 2018 at 04:55 PM (#5751796)
767 is some vintage Keefe.
   799. zenbitz Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:02 PM (#5751800)
This is kind of dependent on your industry and situation, but whenever I apply for jobs, I can rely on them getting 100-400 applications from entirely qualified people who'd do great jobs. Given the glut of candidates, it's easy to ditch candidates for even the most minor things, because, hey, you've still got scads of great candidates.


I am sure I've told this story... but FOAF says that the first thing he does is toss 1/2 the resumes in the garbage. Because he doesn't want to work with unlucky people.

This is the essence of the hiring process.
   800. Jeff Frances the Mute Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:03 PM (#5751801)
Incidentally, I think it kind of incongruous to sneer at the phenomenon of people who appear to have been groomed their whole lives for a job like SC justice, but then also arguing that a blemish from someone's distant past should be held against them. (To be clear, I am not talking about rape when I say "blemish.") It's SC justice, not saint. So triumphantly saying "But SC justice" any time any issue arises does not resolve anything.


Isn't Kavanaugh's career filled with blemishes though?
Page 8 of 33 pages ‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Rough Carrigan
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Gonfalon CubsNow what?
(115 - 12:21pm, Oct 21)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogMLB -- Manny Machado, Yasiel Puig embrace their villain roles all the way to the World Series
(2 - 12:17pm, Oct 21)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogMLB must fix glaring problem that ruined an all-time classic
(98 - 12:09pm, Oct 21)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(803 - 11:58am, Oct 21)
Last: Booey

NewsblogOTP 2018 October 15: The shift in focus from sport to politics
(1454 - 11:13am, Oct 21)
Last: baravelli

NewsblogMookie Betts to second base? Alex Cora isn’t ruling it out | Boston.com
(7 - 10:52am, Oct 21)
Last: Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens

NewsblogLEAGUE CHAMPION SERIES OMNICHATTER! for the 2018 Playoffs!
(2616 - 10:43am, Oct 21)
Last: perros

NewsblogWhat It Took to Write About Baseball as a Woman
(26 - 10:27am, Oct 21)
Last: AndrewJ

NewsblogThe Brewers are becoming more and more positionless on defense | SI.com
(23 - 10:26am, Oct 21)
Last: Greg Pope

NewsblogFor Dave Dombrowski, Another World Series on the Path to the Hall of Fame - The New York Times
(3 - 7:43am, Oct 21)
Last: Der-K: at 10% emotional investment

NewsblogOT - October 2018 College Football thread
(156 - 11:42pm, Oct 20)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogWhy The Dodgers' WS Odds are So High
(27 - 11:28pm, Oct 20)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogCatch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (October 2018)
(544 - 10:57pm, Oct 20)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogBest 2018-19 Hot Stove value may be in trade
(2 - 6:44pm, Oct 20)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogAstros' Jose Altuve underwent surgery to repair right knee injury
(1 - 6:01pm, Oct 20)
Last: Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB)

Page rendered in 0.7354 seconds
46 querie(s) executed