Law The Search For The 114th Supreme Court Justice: The Witch-Hunt Against Judge Brett Kavanaugh

[WhiteMousse]

Child...there is no rule that she has to respond within 36 hours.

I don't really think it's about a 36-hour rule. You are correct but it's a moot point, you're arguing something that hasn't been contested.

The point is that she was suddenly very vocal about this and now that people are saying "Let's hear it," she's as silent as she was during the 35 preceding years. Grassley is chairman, and he is getting very, very annoyed with all the wolf-crying. He'll talk to Flake, who will agree that the roaches have scattered now that the lights have been turned on, and they'll confirm Kav.

I know you're hoping for some sort of miracle, but you're not going to see it

 

[Jack V Savage]

Inslee was on Bill Maher a few months ago. I had never heard of him before, but it was immediately obvious he is considering a run for president. He turned every question into an opportunity to give an anti-Trump stump speech.

OK. I saw that, but I don't recall much from it.

Since you're familiar with Caplan, I can say that his "the Myth of the Rational Voter" was somewhat influential with me. But a flaw in it is that he doesn't account for the role that parties play in the process. Voters can be systematically irrational but legislative agendas are set by parties and are informed by experts. Or they have been. I think the process has completely collapsed on the right (which is how we still have tariffs and immigration restrictionists in 2018). It's intact but threatened on the left. That's why reasonable Americans have a special responsibility to denounce policies like Harris' housing bill or Sanders' Stop BEZOS Act, and candidates like Gabbard altogether. Basically, reasonable Democrats vs. populists in the party is the last battle for civilization (reasonable Republicans vs. Trumpists appears lost, though a revival would be the best thing that can happen for the country).

 

[waiguoren]

How do you see the mid terms going? I see the Dems either just taking back the house or maybe coming one or 2 short, and either breaking even or maybe even losing a seat in the Senate. Not a good map for them there this round. Though I certainly won't be betting your ass LOL.

To be candid, I haven't done the work to handicap most of the November races. I have been busy betting on other events. For some reason it seems hard to risk serious money betting on politics. 5Dimes offers lines sometimes, but the limits are laughably low. I think it might just be smart business; better for the big off-shore books to relinquish a small profit-making opportunity than to expose themselves to future accusations of "influencing elections" and the extra prosecutorial scrutiny that would bring along.

Basically, I'd rather research other events where I will ultimately risk five figures on the outcome than some other events for which victory would offer the mere satisfaction of growing my e-penis (shout out to @Rational Poster for teaching me that term, I love it).

I guess if someone pushes my buttons enough, I might give up profit opportunities in the name of taking names/sigs/AVs/accounts. That would be pretty retarded though, plus the clock is ticking and there are a lot of races to cap.

 

[glenwo2]

I don't really think it's about a 36-hour rule. You are correct but it's a moot point, you're arguing something that hasn't been contested.

The point is that she was suddenly very vocal about this and now that people are saying "Let's hear it," she's as silent as she was during the 35 preceding years. Grassley is chairman, and he is getting very, very annoyed with all the wolf-crying. He'll talk to Flake, who will agree that the roaches have scattered now that the lights have been turned on, and they'll confirm Kav.

I know you're hoping for some sort of miracle, but you're not going to see it

Care to explain why you think his assertion that there is a 36-hour-rule is correct? Grassley didn't even SAY THAT in the article!! What the hell?

(agree on everything else, though)

 

[waiguoren]

OK. I saw that, but I don't recall much from it.

Since you're familiar with Caplan, I can say that his "the Myth of the Rational Voter" was somewhat influential with me. But a flaw in it is that he doesn't account for the role that parties play in the process. Voters can be systematically irrational but legislative agendas are set by parties and are informed by experts. Or they have been. I think the process has completely collapsed on the right (which is how we still have tariffs and immigration restrictionists in 2018). It's intact but threatened on the left. That's why reasonable Americans have a special responsibility to denounce policies like Harris' housing bill or Sanders' Stop BEZOS Act, and candidates like Gabbard altogether. Basically, reasonable Democrats vs. populists in the party is the last battle for civilization (reasonable Republicans vs. Trumpists appears lost, though a revival would be the best thing that can happen for the country).

I don't have time to respond to this properly. I read Caplan's blog religiously for years before he wrote thaat book, my impression was that he simply collected arguments from his blog. Haven't followed him for years. Impression is I'm not very impressed with him as a thinker as I think he accepts the standard microeconomic models far too readily.

The Trumpian idea of threatening tariffs to achieve lower overall tariffs is totally absent from the undergraduate economics curriculum I went trrough. The Ricardian trade model assumes many small nations, not a polar world with differing degrees of dependency on trade, plus it couldn't hope to capture internal political decisions of trading partners. Ex: China has a lot more to lose from a trade war than we do, but Chinese people (really, people everywhere) are all aobut 面子 (face) and not backing down. Will be interesting to watch.

 

[RockstarChris]

if anything i would say you are not fit to hold office if you didnt try to touch girls boobs when you were 17

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't have time to respond to this properly. I read Caplan's blog religiously for years before he wrote thaat book, my impression was that he simply collected arguments from his blog. Haven't followed him for years. Impression is I'm not very impressed with him as a thinker as I think he accepts the standard microeconomic models far too readily.

I don't think that's accurate. I think he accepts that there are flaws in standard models but that there is excessive focus from the media and uneducated types on those flaws and an insufficient understanding of the extent to which they work. But anyway, I'm not sure why your general opinion of him would be relevant. I'm referring to a specific argument, which I said influenced my thinking (though I see a big flaw in it). Since you noted familiarity with him, I figured you'd be familiar with the argument and I wouldn't have to go over it.

The Trumpian idea of threatening tariffs to achieve lower overall tariffs is totally absent from the undergraduate economics curriculum I went trrough. The Ricardian trade model assumes many small nations, not a polar world with differing degrees of dependency on trade, plus it couldn't hope to capture internal political decisions of trading partners. Ex: China has a lot more to lose from a trade war than we do, but Chinese people (really, people everywhere) are all aobut 面子 (face) and not backing down. Will be interesting to watch.

Putting that all aside, unilateral tariff elimination is still good policy. Raising them with the understanding that there will be retaliation and the hopes of some far-off possible "win," is really stupid, and not something you'd expect to see from a modern party. The fact that is it happening so long after we've been aware of that is a very bad sign about the current state of American political leadership. I think the war against irrationality has to be fought at the party level. On the right, it appears lost, at least for now. On the left, it appears that the status has changed from "decisively won" to "in contention."

 

[andnowweknow]

he is clearly unfit to hold office because as a 17 year old boy he was trying to court a 15 year old girl. Who am i to judge, this happened before i was born.

I really hope at the hearing he says "I was just courting the bitch, what's the issue?"...

 

[RockstarChris]

he should just own up to it and say "at the time i thought she was hot and wanted to ask her to prom."

whats next, a witness comes out and says Kav drank beer at a party after a football game? LOL

 

[Arkain2K]

More fuckery :

Grassley suggests last-minute Kavanaugh hearing could be canceled if accuser doesn’t accept invite

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley on Tuesday raised the possibility that next week’s high-stakes open hearing to examine the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh could be canceled if the accuser doesn’t accept the committee’s invitation.


Grassley, R-Iowa, scheduled a hearing for Monday for Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford to answer questions from senators about the allegation. But Grassley said during a Tuesday radio interview that his office has reached out several times to Ford and her attorneys to discuss her allegation, but has heard nothing back.


“We have reached out to her in the last 36 hours three or four times by email and we have not heard from them, and it kind of raises the question, do they want to come to the public hearing or not?” Grassley said on The Hugh Hewitt Show.


Asked whether there would be a hearing if Ford did not agree to appear, Grassley suggested he couldn’t see a reason to hold one.


“What would be the purpose of the hearing if Dr. Ford doesn’t want to respond?” Grassley said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ed-invitation-to-testify-before-congress.html

It's almost as if you guys don't follow politics at all. Grassley is throwing any sort of shit at the wall he can hoping something sticks because next Monday is a lose lose situation politically for Republicans.

Are you insane?

Him trying to get in contact with Ford and her attorneys for 36 fucking hours and not getting any response is "throwing any sort of shit at the wall"

Get the fuck out of here with that shit.

Child...there is no rule that she has to respond within 36 hours.

I don't really think it's about a 36-hour rule. You are correct but it's a moot point, you're arguing something that hasn't been contested.

The point is that she was suddenly very vocal about this and now that people are saying "Let's hear it," she's as silent as she was during the 35 preceding years. Grassley is chairman, and he is getting very, very annoyed with all the wolf-crying. He'll talk to Flake, who will agree that the roaches have scattered now that the lights have been turned on, and they'll confirm Kav.

I know you're hoping for some sort of miracle, but you're not going to see it

That was the very definition of a Straw man argument.

A straw man is a common form of argumentand is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or an understanding of both sides of the issue.​

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

[Jack V Savage]

he should just own up to it and say "at the time i thought she was hot and wanted to ask her to prom."

whats next, a witness comes out and says Kav drank beer at a party after a football game? LOL

Did you ask 15-year-old girls to the prom by waiting for them to go to the bathroom, and then having a friend help you drag her to a bedroom, hold her down and cover her mouth so she can't scream, and then try to forcibly remove her clothes?

Anyway, he says he didn't do it so he's currently lying if he did, which should be disqualifying even if you think it's OK for 17-year-old boys to sexually assault 15-year-old girls.

 

[WhiteMousse]

That was the very definition of a Straw man argument.

A straw man is a common form of argumentand is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1]One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3]

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or an understanding of both sides of the issue.​

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Dude this is absolutely batshit insane.

How can anyone not see what's going on? They hate Trump. They want to get rid of Trump. They want one of their own on the SCOTUS. So they're just delaying this as long as possible, hoping they'll win this Fall.

How can any honest liberal not see this? How can any conservative not be worried by this?

 

[glenwo2]

if anything i would say you are not fit to hold office if you didnt try to touch girls boobs when you were 17

Sounds like something this guy would say ------- >

 

[glenwo2]

Dude this is absolutely batshit insane.

How can anyone not see what's going on? They hate Trump. They want to get rid of Trump. They want one of their own on the SCOTUS. So they're just delaying this as long as possible, hoping they'll win this Fall.

How can any honest liberal not see this? How can any conservative not be worried by this?

They do not exist.

Neither do conservatives but hey...you brought it up.

 

[glenwo2]

That was the very definition of a Straw man argument.

A straw man is a common form of argumentand is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or an understanding of both sides of the issue.​

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

So....would you like to explain to me then what Grassley was saying 'cause it sure sounded like after 36 hours of trying to get Ford to accept the invitation to testify, there was no response by her or her attorneys. Pretty cut and dry there.

 

[RockstarChris]

Did you ask 15-year-old girls to the prom by waiting for them to go to the bathroom, and then having a friend help you drag her to a bedroom, hold her down and cover her mouth so she can't scream, and then try to forcibly remove her clothes?

Anyway, he says he didn't do it so he's currently lying if he did, which should be disqualifying even if you think it's OK for 17-year-old boys to sexually assault 15-year-old girls.

burden of proof is on her. otherwise she is going to prison.

 

[Arkain2K]

So....would you like to explain to me then what Grassley was saying 'cause it sure sounded like after 36 hours of trying to get Ford to accept the invitation to testify, there was no response by her or her attorneys. Pretty cut and dry there.

Unfortunately, it's pretty cut and dry only to those who could read, comprehend, and think normally.

 

[Jack V Savage]

burden of proof is on her. otherwise she is going to prison.

Earlier you were saying that it was OK to sexually assault a young girl, and I was addressing that. Now you're saying she should have to prove it, and expressing a bizarrely inaccurate view of the law. Totally different issue.

 

[RockstarChris]

Earlier you were saying that it was OK to sexually assault a young girl, and I was addressing that. Now you're saying she should have to prove it, and expressing a bizarrely inaccurate view of the law. Totally different issue.

when you go out on a date with a girl do you ask permission if you can kiss her?

Or a boy, not sure which way you swing.

 

[SaiWa]

when you go out on a date with a girl do you ask permission if you can kiss her?

Or a boy, not sure which way you swing.

did you ask the girl on a date first or did you tie her up and throw her in the backseat of your car?...