Jump to content


HERO Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by 薔薇語

  1. Again, what were his purjuous statements? La Rose.
  2. If we are honest with themselves you recognize that we don't know. We don't actually know what those phrases mean we have assumptions. And assumptions about facts required us to show a certain level of humility. the judge and his high school friends agree on the meaning of those terms. At some point we have to ask ourselves which passes the Occam's razor test that a group of 17 year old boys created some stupid phrasing for drinking game 30 years or that all of them are lying now and that actually our assumptions are The are assumptions are the unvarnished truth. La Rose.
  3. Who is the Joe with relevant info here? Has anyone in this proceeding said they have relevant info to the sexual assault we haven't heard? It doesn't Seem any of those people wanting to be interviewed are such a person. Perhaps there is a Jack who knows of a John? That was supposed to be the case with Ramirez until TheNewYorker showes that to be untrue. So who else is like that that we haven't heard from? It doesn't seem any of the 40 are either Johns or Jacks. At some point things are just fishing expeditions. La Rose.
  4. Witnesses to the sexual assualts alleged? La Rose.
  5. "I do not know if Brett attacked Christine Blasey Ford in high school or if he sexually humiliated Debbie in front of a group of people she thought were her friends. " So he has no info regarding the actually important sexual misconduct allegations. "Judge Kavanaugh seemed to suggest that my account was not credible because “it was a contentious situation” where I “did not like” the third suitemate. He then referenced a prank I pulled on the third suitemate and some redacted portion of his closed-door questioning by Senate Judiciary Committee staff. It’s true that I played a prank on the third roommate. We were not close. But that relationship has no bearing on my ability to observe Kavanaugh’s behavior then and to describe it now." He had an antagonistic relationship with the judge for a lobg time. So, his big issue he can give info on is that perhaps the judge drank to black out status. Nevermind that is a wholly subjective sense and the conversation above regarding the very subjective nature of 'too much' when regarding acceptable levels of drinking. As to the yearbook points, am I a bit confused here? Wasn't the yearbook from Highschool and this man is a college roommate. That leads me to put less faith in that account and especially in light of otger highschool friends supporting the Judge's assessments. So where does that leave us? Exactly where we started. This person could provide no witness knowledge of the real issue of sexual assault and has nothing substantial to say about anything else. So who is the witness we want interviewed regarding the sexual assault case that we haven't seen yet? La Rose.
  6. Ah. Benghazi 2.0. How relieving it would be to have another of those. La Rose.
  7. As to the FBI investigation, who else should have been talk to regarding the Prof Ford allegation? Prof Ford has made her statements and is still in contact with Senator Grassly regarding her reported evidence that she is unwilling to turn over. Are we expecting her to suddenly change her statements and commit purjury? The Judge has made his statements under oath. Are we expecting him to suddenly change and commit purjury? Everyone we have been lead to believe to be at the party has been talked to and denied knowledge of the allegations. What other witnesses do we reasonably expect? The Ramirez allegations has fallen apart by the NewYorker's own doing. She was never a particularly reliable source and the folks pushing some hearsay claims had their originating source flattly deny it. And Pizza Gate 2.0, aka Avenatti's case never had merit. With respect to the allegation of sexual misconduct, which witness are we lacking? La Rose.
  8. I am not so sure it is as cut and dry as you suggest. This does remind me of a popular-ish saying: 'When you disagree with a conservative, they think you're an idiot. When you disagree with a liberal, they think you're evil.' From personal experience, I nor my frienss have ever been called worse things than when we have disagreed with a left leaning individual. This isn't to say the above isn't the case. Folks on the right, especially the religious right, have made absolutely despicable comments about our fellow citizens. We should keep this in mind but in doing so not forget other examples. La Rose.
  9. What are you saying he committed purjury on? What were his words and what was the actual truth of the matter? La Rose.
  10. A Recent NYTimes article by David Brooks. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/opinion/kavanaugh-hearing-partisan-national-disgrace.html "Commentators and others may have acknowledged uncertainty on these questions for about 2.5 seconds, but then they took sides. If they couldn’t take sides based on the original evidence, they found new reasons to confirm their previous positions. Kavanaugh is too angry and dishonest. He drank beer and threw ice while in college. With tribal warfare all around, uncertainty is the one state you are not permitted to be in. This, of course, led to an upsurge in base mobilization. Persuasion is no longer an important part of public conversation. Public statements are meant to mobilize your mob. Senator Cory Booker can’t just sort through the evidence. He has to get Spartacus-like histrionic in order to whip Democrats toward his presidential candidacy. Kavanaugh can’t just dispassionately try to disprove the allegations made against him. Instead, he gets furious and stokes up culture war rage in order to fire up the Republican base. This leads to an epidemic of bigotry. Bigotry involves creating a stereotype about a disfavored group and then applying that stereotype to an individual you’ve never met. It was bigotry against Jews that got Alfred Dreyfus convicted in 1894. It was bigotry against young black males that got the Central Park Five convicted in 1990. It was bigotry against preppy lacrosse players that led to the bogus Duke lacrosse scandal. This past month we’ve seen thousands of people convinced that they know how Kavanaugh behaved because they know how “privileged” people behave. We’ve seen thousands of people lining up behind Kavanaugh because they know that there’s this vicious thing called “the Left,” which hates them." La Rose.
  11. Prof Haidt is a good author and that book is particularly well done. I just recently finished his newest one "The coddling of the American mind". In terms of overlap regarding moral intuitions, Typical Liberals and Typical Libertarians share the most in common, not Conservatives per his research. La Rose.
  12. And what of all the positions the Libertarians take in contrast to the the traditional right of the US? If people think of Libertarians as 'right wing' I worry that they are not really aware of what it means to be Libertarian or Right-wing in the US context or perhaps so far left that even centrists are right wing. And if one is defining 'right wing' as merely 'pro-capitalist' then we need to have a long talk about Le Pen in France cause she is solidly left wing, President Macron is to her Right and the fact that will mean redefining most right wing parties in Europe as solidly left wing. That seems like a bit of a stretch. La Rose.
  13. Huh? I have only one right wing source I listen to regularly and that person is largely anti Pres. Trump. Most of my news feeds are left wing, Libertarian or broadly centrist. You are of course free to think as you will, but perhaps before claiming someone is in a bubble, you'd be best to learn more about that person. Just a thought. La Rose.
  14. "Libertarians Cover the Polling Spread in 4 Senate Races. It's running strong candidates in toss-up races in a historically tight election year, yet America's third party still finds itself routinely left off polls." https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/03/libertarians-covering-the-polling-spread La Rose.
  15. What? I don't know the story you are referencing. La Rose.
  16. In terms of size of Agricultural production (USD), California is the largest. California is also not producing much in the way of staples (corn, soybean, wheat, rice) because they aren't as profitable. From the USDA's website, though: "Which are the top 10 agricultural producing States? In 2017, the top 10 agricultural producing States in terms of cash receipts were (in descending order): California, Iowa, Texas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Illinois, Kansas, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Indiana. These and related statistics can be found in ERS's Farm Income and Wealth Statistics." Those are 8 flyover states plus two very different "big" state. La Rose.
  17. You keep wanting to equate Senators with House-Reps. Senators were designed to protect the explicit interests of small urban states against large rural states at creation. They were also suppose to ensure the states could have a say in the level of federalism being observed. So trying to expect this office to somehow be based on proportional population would be an odd desire inconsistent with the office's design. I am not saying you are incorrect in your view of how illsuited senators are at representing proportionality, but that you are incorrect in desiring that of an office explicitly not designed for that purpose. La Rose.
  18. Good Point. Why should the UK, Japan, US, and India all have the same vote share in the UN? Also, why shouldn't we be able to directly elect our UN ambassador? La Rose.
  19. Never said otherwise. The difficulty here is not in MY desire to see states as people but perhaps in yours to expect them to be such. Senators represent STATES. They are fairly distributed based on that criteria. They were originally even selected by the state legislatures and not by direct popular vote. So we again get back to my only potential solution for the problem you perceive: reframing how you look at it. If, however, you have another possibility to the solution I didn't already point out above, I would be curious what you think it is. La Rose.
  20. The alternative in the 18th century was to simply not have a unified country. Is the perceived problem you speak of today worth not ever having had a unified nation? I assume you'd say no. If the perceived problem today worth breaking up the nation ala some desires of Canadians and Alaskans to form a more 'representative' smaller nation acceptable? I would generally assume you think no, Mega. So what are we left with? A constitutional amendment process that would absolutely require those smaller states to willfully relegate themselves into nothingness. I know you can understand the practical issue with this and why it won't happen. So what are we left to do? I can't think of another alternative. Can you? Perhaps the one 'solution' I can devise is for is to change how we frame this facts. The senate isn't unfair to populous states, it is perfectly even to states by judging thwm based on thw statehood and nothing more. Perhaps we could even go back to having state legislators picking the senators and restore them to their original role of representing states, not people. This might help us push back on some national government creep and restore more federallism. La Rose.
  21. By giving voters a direct say are we not forcing a judge to be a politician for those 8 years? Rather than disinterested concerns of law they would be compelled to consider the political fallout. We already have such worries without adding on explicit partisan political pressures. I worry that doing so would bring the court's reputation down to congressional levels. Likewise, nuanced issues of law expressed in concurring opinions yea or nay are likely going to be lost in the noise of public discourse even more so than they are now. Also, like the above it would require a constitutional amendment process likely to be even more bitterly partisan and dividing. La Rose.
  22. I am well aware of that. But to change it to have set rolling term limits would require a constitutional amendment. La Rose.
  23. Very unlikely. It would mean we would have major swings in court makeup probably once a decade as opposed to once a generation. The steadiness of a court helps protect that veneer of non-partisanship and reliability. By making every president selecting at least 2 nominees a term and potentially 4, we are going to have this as a campaign fight every cycle. That won't be good. Next there is the procedural issue: how do you compell the senate to confirm? Is there a default to appoint? If not, what prevents a senate from doing what it did in '16 and securing one nominee for the bew guy on top of his guaranteed 2? Next up, unless there is some provision preventing reappointment, it means judges become actual political figures concerned about a re-election of sorts. Lastly, it requires an extreme overhaul of Article 3 of the constitution. There is no way anyone is going to get that kind of change delt with well. Either party will accuse the other of wanting to pack the court, which some Dems are already expressing as a good idea for heaven's sake! Can you imagine the level of animosity that would erupt from Republicans trying to amend the constitution and adding 9 more conservative judges to the 4 and a half that are already there? La Rose.
  24. A fair summation of the hearing by DeFranco. La Rose.
  • Create New...