Gyroscopic Investing

Oh yeah, there is no doubt that there was also a lot of that old school sleep your way into films stuff going on. I remember Howard Stern asking him about it and Weinstein said, “I was born to late. That was in the 60s, blah blah blah.” Howard later replayed that during the inchoate phase of #metoo and said, “I just knew he was lying!”

But, then the real rape allegations came to light and it wasn’t so funny anymore.

Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Thu Nov 01, 2018 7:17 pm BTW dualstow, this was the one I was referencing.

The woman also told the detective — identified by Weinstein’s lawyer as Nicholas DiGaudio — that sometime after Evans’ office meeting with Weinstein, she suggested what happened was consensual, according to the letter. Weinstein had promised to get her an acting job if she agreed to perform oral sex, and she agreed, it said.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have another recanter.

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/1863210002

But certainly there is no shame in making false accusations against a man who might take away your right to kill your fetus. The God-given right that was written into the Constitution in plain English (albeit ye olde Englishe) by George Washington himself back in 1776.

dualstow wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:33 am Ladies and gentlemen, we have another recanter.

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/1863210002

Of course she recanted. Now that the white male patriarchy is fully entrenched on the supreme court and the Nazis have complete control over all the branches of government she probably feared for her life.

(I'm learning how this game is played. When the narrative starts to collapse, double down on it. Eventually people will get so confused they won't be able to tell what's real and what isn't).

@Stuper, I know it’s beside the point, but: 1787.

Well, that was an interesting election result.

No way to know for sure but my guess is that if it had not been for the Kavanaugh hearings, the Democrats would have probably won the senate as well as the house. Instead they actually lost 3 seats.

Normally, I don't really care all that much of late who wins elections and don't remember even voting in a midterm election before. So my advice to the Dems would be to stop motivating voters like me to go to the polls and vote a straight Republican ticket.

From what I've been hearing I doubt that is advice they are going to take.

dualstow wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 12:42 pm

@Stuper, I know it’s beside the point, but: 1787.

You know that, and I know that, but do you think the people who I was parodying know that?

Be bold. Make them look it up if they doubt you. :-)

Oh boy.....

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/08/supreme ... -fall.html

Kavanaugh was bad enough, but if Trump replaces RBG it will get UGLY

clacy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:55 am Oh boy.....

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/08/supreme ... -fall.html

Kavanaugh was bad enough, but if Trump replaces RBG it will get UGLY

Certainly people will be angry... But he could nominate Amy Coney Barrett and how could they stop it?

Xan wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:10 am

clacy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:55 am Oh boy.....

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/08/supreme ... -fall.html

Kavanaugh was bad enough, but if Trump replaces RBG it will get UGLY

Certainly people will be angry... But he could nominate Amy Coney Barrett and how could they stop it?

If RBG hangs on for another year it will be interesting to see if the Republicans still believe in the rule of not confirming a supreme court judge in a presidential election year.

jacksonM wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:12 am

Xan wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:10 am

clacy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:55 am Oh boy.....

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/08/supreme ... -fall.html

Kavanaugh was bad enough, but if Trump replaces RBG it will get UGLY

Certainly people will be angry... But he could nominate Amy Coney Barrett and how could they stop it?

If RBG hangs on for another year it will be interesting to see if the Republicans still believe in the rule of not confirming a supreme court judge in a presidential election year.

I think that was more of a "the Senate doesn't have to", not that they must not. And anyway, didn't Biden come up with that "rule" in the first place back when he was the Senate judiciary chairman in the.. early 90s?

Love or hate Trump, these supreme court appointments show why his election was so pivotal.

Tyler wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:40 am Love or hate Trump, these supreme court appointments show why his election was so pivotal.

No kidding. He hasn't been there two years and has made two picks. One was a "refresh", one a sort-of-flip, now there's a flip potentially on the table and another flip (Breyer?) isn't out of the question. A refresh for Thomas is also a possibility.

[deleted]

Tyler wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:40 am Love or hate Trump, these supreme court appointments show why his election was so pivotal.

What do you mean...is it not just coincidence that these appointments came about while hes in office? I got the impression Trump supporters just hated Hillary and immigration and didnt think about the court.

The judicial philosophy difference couldnt be more stark. I’m waiting to see if Republican justices become “activists” for causes on the right. If they stay true to the philosophy they should (basically) be overturning judicial legislating at lower levels and kicking things back to state and federal legislatures. For example, overturning Roe v Wade would be entirely consistent if the decision was in a way that gave it back to the states while a ruling that broadly made abortion illegal would be activist.

One that seems activist to me is political money being considered free speech.