And the sky is blue? Women tend to vote for the party that provides social programs, welfare, and other safety nets. I find it odd that we keep trying to victimize women with this Patriarchy business when they do, in fact, exercise their rights, are leaders throughout various industries, have every right to compete throughout virtually all sectors in the West, and can get tattoos.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
This weird place where Leftists exist is baffling. One the one hand women are warrior-goddesses and can totally flex with the best of them, and on the other hand you have Nazi Patriarchal shadowmasters controlling th3 wimminz like an evil puppeteer controls his helpless marionettes.
It's definitely a head scratcher.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Republicans now have complete minority control over every single aspect of Federal government. The House, Senate, Presidency, and Supreme Court were all won over with more votes going in the opposite direction. The implications of that should make everyone a bit easy as that formula doesn't tend to bode well for healthy politics.
Don't let me slow you down, though. Please continue with whatever misogynistic point you're trying to make, something about how women are supposed to be docile and obedient and vote the way you want them to vote. I'm sorry the strength and independence of a woman like Susan Collins intimidates you so much.
Correction: Republicans won the National House vote by a point in 2016. They are massively overrepresented relative to that, but they are not in pure minority control there.
EAllusion wrote:Republicans now have complete minority control over every single aspect of Federal government. The House, Senate, Presidency, and Supreme Court were all won over with more votes going in the opposite direction. The implications of that should make everyone a bit easy as that formula doesn't tend to bode well for healthy politics.
That sure is an inefficient way to say "I love marxism" or "I hate the constitution." Republic, not a democracy. California, California, California. Funny how so many are leaving that socialist utopia and heading to Texas. If you guys want to make coherent arguments based on numbers and charts you're gonna have to first learn a few basic things. Like, context.
Today, what was once accepted as “boys will be boys” behavior is condemned even by national fraternity organizations, which realize their reputations and perhaps long-term survival are on the line.
In August, the North-American Interfraternity Conference, which represents more than 80 percent of national and international fraternities, adopted a rule banning hard alcohol from fraternity houses and events unless it is served by licensed third-party vendors, effective next September.
But some say that the culture change has to happen at a younger age.
In recent years, after a string of sexual assault allegations involving students and faculty members at private preparation schools, a number of them made changes.
EAllusion wrote:Republicans now have complete minority control over every single aspect of Federal government. The House, Senate, Presidency, and Supreme Court were all won over with more votes going in the opposite direction. The implications of that should make everyone a bit easy as that formula doesn't tend to bode well for healthy politics.
That sure is an inefficient way to say "I love marxism" or "I hate the constitution." Republic, not a democracy. California, California, California. Funny how so many are leaving that socialist utopia and heading to Texas. If you guys want to make coherent arguments based on numbers and charts you're gonna have to first learn a few basic things. Like, context.
Voicing disapproval of complete minority control of all branches of Federal government is not "Marxism" much less noting that this is problematic for healthy political culture. Feel free to explain otherwise. The US is a democracy as any system of government where political power is distributed through the free election of representatives by the people is a democracy. The US is a Republic, but that doesn't make it not a democracy. If I recall, this was literally the first thing I was expected to learn in my first American political science class, so it's hard to get more basic than that. "Republic, not a democracy" is something ignorant pedants are fond of saying in bars. And it's not even relevant to the point you are making since being a Republic or not has nothing to do with what allows for minority coalitions to win control of the Federal government. What you probably mean to point out is that we have a Federal system of government that retains some autonomy to the states and some of that autonomy is expressed through the structure of elections where where minorities can take control of the Federal government. That's pretty basic, so you're welcome.
The Constitution was not an infallible document, which is why it has an amendment process, and there are issues with how it is structured. The bicameral legislature compromise that gave equal apportionment of Senators to the states did not adequately anticipate how distorted population differences between states would become, as they weren't nearly as distorted when that compromise was adopted in the late 1700's. Small state Senators therefore are way more powerful than they were originally set up to be. A Wyoming voter's say in what the Senate does is 66 times larger than a Californian's say. This was not the case when Virginia was agreeing to have the same number of Senators as Delaware in 1789. And that compromise existed as a practical matter to ensure quasi-independent colonies would stay within the Union when that was in doubt. It is possible that this might need reform. Constitutional hardball over states joining the Union with their two Senators did lead to a civil war after all. The electoral college doesn't function at all like it was intended to, which seems like it might be a reason for reform. My point; however, is just that a minority controlling everything is going to lead to extreme discontent among the majority that is a risk for unhealthy politics that undermine norms that make a democracy function.
Well, as it appears we've got as much of the facts as we're likely to ever get, this is where I am.
I avoided watching F and K testify because I think what they say is more important than what they look like when they say it. I did hear snippets of both. Ford's testimony reads like typical witnesses testimony. Most folks are nervous in a deposition, where there are only a couple of lawyers and a court reporter. Imagine giving testimony in room where half of the high government officials are just waiting for anything to grab onto to paint you as a liar or a nutcase. Most folks would be terrified.
Lawyers coach witnesses to be careful in their answers. To make sure they understand the question. To ask for clarification if they don't. And to think through their answers. They also coach witnesses to answer "I don't know" if they don't know; to say "I can't remember" if they don't remember; and never to guess at an answer. That's what I read in F's transcript. She was careful to listen and not to guess.
I didn't get any hint of her playing the "dumb blonde." Things she didn't know or couldn't recall were not out of line with typical witnesses. I get calls from friends and acquaintances asking me for advice on finding lawyers out of my area of expertise because they don't know how to go about finding a lawyer who is good at what they do and who they can trust. She said that she wanted to call the matter to the attention of the Senate and the President. I'm not sure what the best way of going about it is, either. Hitting the link on a web page gets you a staffer who may or may not be helpful. Besides, I wouldn't trust this story to whoever it is that reads the Senator's mail. In my opinion, all of this nitpicking at her testimony by people who have no idea about how witnesses typically testify means exactly nothing.
K's transcript, on the other hand, reads exactly like a witnesses who is hiding stuff. He's evasive. He answers a different question than the one asked. He's argumentative. Now that doesn't mean he's hiding that he tried to rape F. It could be that he feels some shame over drunken behavior from high school through law school. It could be that he's hiding something we haven't heard about. But the way he responded to questioning would lead me to make sure I tried to verify the details of his story as best I could.
Now, in my ideal world, the FBI would have conducted an investigation before the hearing. I've already described upthread what that would look like. What's helpful about an interview by professionals is that it takes the grandstanding out of questioning. Instead, the investigators are trying to gather as much detail as they can out of the witnesses, looking especially for facts that can be corroborated or refuted by others. That didn't happen. It absolutely should have happened after K's testimony, which was in essence a protracted argument for why the incident could not be true. That argument was based on lots and lots of alleged facts. For that reason, the FBI's post-hearing investigation should have begun with interviews with K and F -- nailing down the facts that each testified to and looking for corroborate or refute. In my mind, from the perspective of conducting an investigation aimed at finding out what happened, that omission was inexcusable.
As to what happened between K and F, as I said upthread, I think it's important to try and reconcile the evidence. I find it plausible to believe that the events in the bedroom led F to conclude that K intended to rape her and that he had no such intention. I find it plausible that the events, from K and J's perspective, were some kind of drunken prank. J jumping on the bed twice and knocking them all off the bed seems more consistent with a drunken prank than a rape attempt. They don't recall it because drunken hijinks were nothing unusual for the two of them. No one else recalls the gathering because nothing special happened that would cause them to recall that particular gathering. It's understandable that everyone involved recalls what they recall and has forgotten what they forgot.
I agree with the prosecutor who questioned F that a responsible prosecutor would not bring a sexual assault charge on the the committee had just after the hearing. The standard of evidence in a criminal case is proof beyond reasonable doubt, and I think there is reasonable doubt here, especially with respect to intent. A prosecutor is not supposed to put a case in front of a jury unless she believes there is proof beyond reasonable doubt. So, I agree that a responsible prosecutor would not bring charges based on the record at the time she wrote the memo. (Leaving open the possibility that there is other evidence I'm not aware of.)
I disagree with her conclusion regarding the burden of proof in a civil case, as long as that case is civil assault and battery. I think that a reasonable juror could decide either way on this set of facts. Battery is unpermitted touching, and that's what F testified to. Assault is being put in reasonable fear of bodily harm, and I think that is what F testified to. At best, K's denial is more honestly phrased as "I don't remember that." And there are good reasons why his lack of memory would happen.
As to the other allegations, I don't think there has been anything close to an adequate investigation, so I have no opinion other than that they should be.
My major concern with K is over his truthfulness under oath. A guy who lies under oath should not be on the bench. Period. And there is too much evidence out there indicating that K lied about his drinking, the contents of his yearbook, and other things raised in the OP and throughout the thread. Sadly, Supreme Court Justice has become just another political trophy -- all about who wins and not about the integrity of who sits on the bench.
How long did Relief Society investigate Benghazi? How long did Relief Society investigate Hillary's e-mails? But when it comes to the integrity of our highest court? One that requires its members to abstain not only from impropriety but from the appearance of impropriety? Shrug.
Oh, and I was pretty harsh on Feinstein upthread. I'm actually persuaded that both she and F were going to let this whole thing go until the letter was leaked. I'm totally in favor of investigating who that was and firing their ass.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Man, if the Repubs retain control of Congress and the Senate, Ginsberg better drink the blood of some young virgins or we just might have a civil war...
I hear she can find a few over at r/incels. HEY-O!
- d0K
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
