Gyroscopic Investing

MangoMan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:07 pm

Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:06 am I hear what you're saying, but personally I think that believing there's any conservative judge out there that the "Resistance" won't similarly attempt to derail at all costs is naive. Both the timing of the accusations and the strange string of delaying tactics in hearing the accuser's testimony indicate that this really has nothing to do with a genuine pursuit of justice. It's all about delay and claiming a scalp in the process.

This ^.

Desert wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:14 am The goal of this appointment (and indeed the reason so many Evangelicals held their noses and voted for Trump) is to overturn Roe v Wade. With that goal, it would be very good to have either a woman or a man not suspected of sexual assault in that seat. It's going to be a very rough time in the country, and we don't need that distraction while the abortion battle rages.

Maybe I'm naive, or misinformed, but I thought Roe v Wade was considered settled law in this country.

That's the thing about the Supreme Court: they can change settled law.

Well, they can change previous interpretations. Since abortion was enshrined as a right not in any law, not in any document, not by any state, and not by any vote, it can be overturned just as easily as it was invented. That it, by five people agreeing to.

Roe v Wade is based on the constitutional "right to privacy", which the founders certainly never contemplated would be the foundation for the right to have abortions.

If Roe v Wade were overturned, then abortion would become a state-by-state decision, which the founders certainly would have been in favor of.

Desert wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 5:36 pm

Xan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:13 pm
That's the thing about the Supreme Court: they can change settled law.

Well, they can change previous interpretations. Since abortion was enshrined as a right not in any law, not in any document, not by any state, and not by any vote, it can be overturned just as easily as it was invented. That it, by five people agreeing to.

This post is worth re-reading a few times.

Sober. If you're into that kind of thing.

It's amazing how the interpretation of events changes to fit the mood of the day. Remember Anita Hill describing how Justice Thomas cracked a joke, in the company of a whole group of law clerks, about there being a pubic hair on his coke? It didn't take a lot of imagination--then or now--to picture the roar of laughter that elicited. Decades later, she's traumatized by it. I feel rather sickened by this whole thing--not by the allegations but by the "little girl victim" behavior that these grown up women revert to when they want something.

Maddy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 7:52 am It's amazing how the interpretation of events changes to fit the mood of the day. Remember Anita Hill describing how Justice Thomas cracked a joke, in the company of a whole group of law clerks, about there being a pubic hair on his coke? It didn't take a lot of imagination--then or now--to picture the roar of laughter that elicited. Decades later, she's traumatized by it. I feel rather sickened by this whole thing--not by the allegations but by the "little girl victim" behavior that these grown up women revert to when they want something.

So if true you aren't sickened by the allegations, if they are true?

And what do you think she wants? Besides death threats and public shaming by 30% of the population, that is?

moda0306 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 7:59 am And what do you think she wants? Besides death threats and public shaming by 30% of the population, that is?

I don't pretend to understand, but from Emma Sulkowicz to Crystal Mangum to "Jackie" at UVA, there are plenty of examples of women who falsely accuse men of sexual assault for a variety of reasons. In this case, politics and money (if you don't think massive amounts aren't being spent on this battle you're kidding yourself -- even the protesters are being paid) rank high on the list of possible motivations.

To be clear, I have an open mind and am willing to be convinced something did happen. Truth wins out. But the idea that we must trust all accusers without question because "why would they lie?" is dangerously blind to the flawed human condition and is not how justice works in this country.

Public shaming? Because in this society (particularly within her peer group) chastity is such a sacrosanct value?

Seems that this woman has just been given more time to "decide" whether or not to pursue her allegations. "Decide?" Gee, it didn't take much deliberation on her part to pop the cork. Sorry, but this is just plain over the top.

Query whether she toyed with Kavanaugh the same way she's toying with the public. "Maybe I will, maybe I won't. Maybe I just need a little push."

Sometimes I wonder if things are set up just to serve as a “rally point”for political groups regardless of what the end result turns out to be.

This event will serve that purpose for both sides. The tribal talking points have all been established and the believers will believe convinced of the righteousness of their cause.

So Maddy are you sickened by the allegations if they are true?

Pushed into a room... held down... hand over mouth... friend turned music up sobody can here?

Or are you just sickened by folks who oppose your preferred political outcome?

They might not be true. But apparently you're in the Don Jr camp of openly ridiculing a potential rape victim to get a preferred judicial nominee.

Classy.

Remember that Sen. Feinstein has had this information, which was subsequently passed on to the FBI, since July. There is no chance in hell that this matter has not been investigated from top to bottom since that time. And the result: Absolutely nothing in the way of corroboration, and not even a credible story.

If this woman's unsubstantiated allegations alone are worthy of being taken at face value, aren't we obligated to give similar regard to the other allegations that have been made? Say, for example, this:

https://brassballs.blog/home/christine- ... holas-deak

And this:

https://beforeitsnews.com/v3/politics/2018/3026017.html

Whether this is true or not, I have no idea, but as long as this matter is being judged on allegations, I think they all should be considered.

As a woman who works in a place that is classic "old boy network", has gone through every kind of discrimination there is, and (yes) was once groped up at a drunken frat party in college, I think these allegations trivialize what is true sexual violence. It's also symptomatic of our times, where even a politically incorrect comment is enough to get you fired from a job, and we are starting to see rules aimed at regulating thought that are getting way too close to the ideals of "1984". I get to find out more of that next week at a mandatory training session. Oh, I can't wait. It's becoming an "everyone is either a victim or a perpetrator at any given moment in time" mentality. And the roles can switch at a moment's notice.

As far as this goes...given the precedent set by Clarence Thomas, I expect the nomination will go through. Thomas was flat out unqualified for the position and the accusations against him showed a long-term pattern of inappropriate workplace behavior - which is far more relevant. In contrast, Kavanaugh is one of the best candidates I can remember, judging from his credentials plus statements from recent court decisions. Hopefully, reason will prevail, that is if there is any of that left inside the Beltway.

They're going to force you to sit through a training session designed to publicly cast you and your fellow female colleagues as fragile little girls whose vulnerabilities require understanding and intervention? Sounds discriminatory to me.

WiseOne wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:54 am ...the ideals of "1984". I get to find out more of that next week at a mandatory training session. Oh, I can't wait. It's becoming an "everyone is either a victim or a perpetrator at any given moment in time" mentality. And the roles can switch at a moment's notice.

Give us a full report!
Well, it certainly seems to be going that way in schools, victim and perpetrator.

https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/09/23/fa ... re-common/

The thrill trust is gone

The trust is gone away
The trust is gone baby
The trust is gone away
You know you done me wrong baby
And you'll be sorry someday
The trust is gone

It's gone away from me
The trust is gone baby
The trust is gone away from me
Although, I'll still live on
But so lonely I'll be
The trust is gone

I'm free now baby
I'm free from your spell
Free, free, free now
Baby I'm free from your spell
And now that it's over
All I can do is wish you well

moda0306 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:08 pm So Maddy are you sickened by the allegations if they are true?

Pushed into a room... held down... hand over mouth... friend turned music up sobody can here?

Or are you just sickened by folks who oppose your preferred political outcome?

They might not be true. But apparently you're in the Don Jr camp of openly ridiculing a potential rape victim to get a preferred judicial nominee.

Classy.

Personally, I'm sickened by the fact that the accuser(s) do not have the courage to come forward promptly and testify before the selection committee and the accused. Why all the demands by Dr. Ford as to the timing and the process of her testifying?

If there is a legitimate accusation here, there is no reason it should not have been made weeks ago.

Lonestar wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:23 am

moda0306 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:08 pm So Maddy are you sickened by the allegations if they are true?

Pushed into a room... held down... hand over mouth... friend turned music up sobody can here?

Or are you just sickened by folks who oppose your preferred political outcome?

They might not be true. But apparently you're in the Don Jr camp of openly ridiculing a potential rape victim to get a preferred judicial nominee.

Classy.

Personally, I'm sickened by the fact that the accuser(s) do not have the courage to come forward promptly and testify before the selection committee and the accused. Why all the demands by Dr. Ford as to the timing and the process of her testifying?

If there is a legitimate accusation here, there is no reason it should not have been made weeks ago.

I've never been "sickened" by someone not doing what it takes courage to do. That's the thing about courage... not many of us have it, therefore we usually understand when it's not employed... not sickened.

moda0306 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:54 am

Lonestar wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:23 am

moda0306 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:08 pm So Maddy are you sickened by the allegations if they are true?

Pushed into a room... held down... hand over mouth... friend turned music up sobody can here?

Or are you just sickened by folks who oppose your preferred political outcome?

They might not be true. But apparently you're in the Don Jr camp of openly ridiculing a potential rape victim to get a preferred judicial nominee.

Classy.

Personally, I'm sickened by the fact that the accuser(s) do not have the courage to come forward promptly and testify before the selection committee and the accused. Why all the demands by Dr. Ford as to the timing and the process of her testifying?

If there is a legitimate accusation here, there is no reason it should not have been made weeks ago.

I've never been "sickened" by someone not doing what it takes courage to do. That's the thing about courage... not many of us have it, therefore we usually understand when it's not employed... not sickened.

If one has the "courage" to make an allegation that will dramatically affect the life of another individual, it appears the accuser should possess at minimum the courage to stand up to appropriate questioning. I'm sorry but I just can't understand why, if you have been through a life altering experience, and it is that important to you that you share it, you would not want to face the person that has caused you this misery and tell them and the rest of the world how you feel.

Lonestar wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:12 am

moda0306 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:54 am

Lonestar wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:23 am

Personally, I'm sickened by the fact that the accuser(s) do not have the courage to come forward promptly and testify before the selection committee and the accused. Why all the demands by Dr. Ford as to the timing and the process of her testifying?

If there is a legitimate accusation here, there is no reason it should not have been made weeks ago.

I've never been "sickened" by someone not doing what it takes courage to do. That's the thing about courage... not many of us have it, therefore we usually understand when it's not employed... not sickened.

If one has the "courage" to make an allegation that will dramatically affect the life of another individual, it appears the accuser should possess at minimum the courage to stand up to appropriate questioning. I'm sorry but I just can't understand why, if you have been through a life altering experience, and it is that important to you that you share it, you would not want to face the person that has caused you this misery and tell them and the rest of the world how you feel.

Not understanding how a sexual assault victim would want to respond is a very different position than being "sickened" by her waiting. If it were your daughter, or sister, and she wanted people to know, but it took her decades to be comfortable with it, and was reluctant to be grilled by senators, would you be "sickened" by her?

And it sounds like she's testifying this week... so I think a lot of this fuss about willingness to speak to congress is moot.

So much to me has to do with the mindset after the event.

Let's say again that he did commit this, while drunk, and even the second one alleged at Yale.

Did he then go on to become a Cosby or Weinstein, and fantasize about overpowering women and taking advantage and do it more?

It doesn't seem like it. I would bet, if he remembers the event(s) seconds/minutes/years later that he hopefully wass shaking his head thinking about what a stupid, stupid thing it was to do, esp. having two young girls of his own.

It doesn't excuse it, because I know I would never have done similar without consent, so there is that little bit of doubt about what in his character caused him to go that far (with his hand over her mouth).

At this point, I'm sure he'd be happy to go back to his federal judgeship and wish he was never nominated.

Just saw a local news item on Cody Wilson, the 3D-printed-gun-plan guy, who happens to be from here. It said they had arrested him in Taiwan and dragged him back to Houston.

This was a starting point for a piece that described how US Marshals track down people they've been asked to help locate.

How useless is that! What about the pattern of people who are "inconvenient" suddenly having sexual assault allegations against them? What about investigating the charges? (For the record I have no idea of the details; maybe they're true and maybe they're not.)

It's sexual assault that's keeping Julian Assange a prisoner. Now it just so happens that the person who could make attacks on the 2nd amendment utterly obsolete is, you guessed it, a sexual assaulter! And of course the person who could overturn Roe is, undoubtedly, a sexual assaulter.

It's just all so convenient.

Xan wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:38 pm Just saw a local news item on Cody Wilson, the 3D-printed-gun-plan guy, who happens to be from here. It said they had arrested him in Taiwan and dragged him back to Houston.

This was a starting point for a piece that described how US Marshals track down people they've been asked to help locate.

How useless is that! What about the pattern of people who are "inconvenient" suddenly having sexual assault allegations against them? What about investigating the charges? (For the record I have no idea of the details; maybe they're true and maybe they're not.)

It's sexual assault that's keeping Julian Assange a prisoner. Now it just so happens that the person who could make attacks on the 2nd amendment utterly obsolete is, you guessed it, a sexual assaulter! And of course the person who could overturn Roe is, undoubtedly, a sexual assaulter.

It's just all so convenient.

Obviously, any sort of unverifiable allegation can seem convenient, but citizens under the thumb of a corrupt justice system with actual threat of jail time is in a different moral universe than a part-of and cheerleader-for our ridiculous criminal justice system at NO risk of jail time but at partial risk of a promotion due to an allegation.

In-fact, the story of Julian Assange should be a warning bell AGAINST snakes like Kavanaugh and the criminal-justice elite in our country continuing to perpetuate corrupt, violent executive power... not a reason to be extra skeptical of women accusing men of rape and maybe not promoting powerful statists when they have allegations.

Desert wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:53 pm I'm still officially open minded on this, but it's not looking real good for Kavanaugh. The second woman appears to have many classmates backing her claims. I haven't heard much about Avenatti's client/accuser yet.

A few other thoughts:
1. Gorsuch managed to be confirmed quite easily. So either Soros was on vacation that month, or maybe there really isn't a vast left-wing conspiracy trying to derail all GOP nominees.

2. Garland didn't get a vote at all, and as far as I know he wasn't accused of assaulting anyone.

3. Kavanaugh was very concerned about Bill Clinton's dalliances, and was possibly more than a little obsessed with Lewinsky's privates. It almost makes me believe in karma:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/p ... edirect=on

Yeah the fact that Obama lost an entire nomination shows the dems really aren't playing any sort of nuclear hardball.

Is it really so hard to see? These careerists on "the left" don't really care who gets nominated/confirmed. They do their part in the dog and pony show to rile up their base, and confirm another threat to the 4th amendment and proponent of permanent war.

Desert wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:53 pm I'm still officially open minded on this, but it's not looking real good for Kavanaugh. The second woman appears to have many classmates backing her claims. I haven't heard much about Avenatti's client/accuser yet.

Link

• "Deborah Ramirez, who is fifty-three, attended Yale with Kavanaugh [in 1983]."
• "her memories contained gaps..."
• "she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident." [she was playing a drinking game and got "quickly inebriated"]
• "she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty"
• "After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say..."
• "She recalled another male student shouting about the incident. “Somebody yelled down the hall, ‘Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie’s face,’ ” she said. “It was his full name. I don’t think it was just ‘Brett.’ "
• "Ramirez acknowledged that there are significant gaps in her memories of the evening"

One of the male classmates who Ramirez said egged on Kavanaugh denied any memory of the party. “I don’t think Brett would flash himself to Debbie, or anyone, for that matter,” he said. Asked why he thought Ramirez was making the allegation, he responded, “I have no idea.” The other male classmate who Ramirez said was involved in the incident commented, “I have zero recollection.”

In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and one other classmate, Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.”

Two students who initially signed the statement, Louisa Garry and Dino Ewing, approached The New Yorker after the publication of this article and asked that their names be removed from it. “I never saw or heard anything like this,” Garry said. “But I cannot dispute Ramirez’s allegations, as I was not present.” Ewing also said he had no direct knowledge of the allegation and considered it out of character for Kavanaugh

Has nobody read Witness For The Defense?

Uh oh, 3rd accuser now.

P.S. Andrew Sullivan can write.

And so it seems that Kavanaugh is either a perfect exemplar of judicial expertise and impeccable moral conduct, or he is a lying rapist determined to destroy and control the lives of all women. Ghomeshi is evil, and granting any space for such a monster to defend or account for himself is itself an act of oppression, which must be shamed and punished. Those appear to be our choices, ladies and gentlemen, in this particular polarization cycle. There is little nuance in these battles and absolutely no mercy for anyone unlucky enough to get caught up in their swirling vortex. This is what our culture is driving us toward, and it’s a culture where each moment of conflict galvanizes and tribalizes us still further, in what seems like an endlessly repeating loop of resentment, righteousness, and revenge

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... aries.html