New SCOTUS Judge

[carlitos]

TDS started out as Obama Derangement Syndrome, and as usual the right has hijacked the term because apparently they don't have an original thought. Same with "fake news".

You may wish to google “Bush Derangement Syndrome” or BDS.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Someone needs to tell the FBI that they don't know how to do background investigations, since they missed all this debauchery and rape during several investigations.

Good point.

 

[Zambo]

Yes, although I imagine that that particular example would be unlikely to lead to a prosecutio.

I am not really interested in the example, more the concept. I feel rape is about concent, force and harm. Deception is a whole different issue. As an example you can be tricked into attending a strip club and want your money back as the show wasn't what was sold to you. But you did intend to see dancers.

 

[quadraginta]

Aren't "incels" just people who are single but not by choice? Or did I miss some subtlety about the group?

Yes. They're celibate but not by choice.

Basically this means that they're too creepy even for the prostitutes.

 

[crescent]

Two updates

Christine Blasey Ford: Four acquaintances of her's have submitted sworn statements declaring that she described her allegations against Kavanaugh before he was nominated for the supreme court.

Julie Swetnick: Her statement was released as sworn testimony. If she could be proven wrong, she could be prosecuted for perjury. She has had security clearances in some of her jobs, she could face significant professional blow-back if that (proven to have perjured herself) happened.

 

[quadraginta]

Michael Avenatti names client as Julie Swetnick in Brett Kavanaugh confirmation





Avenatti did not get pranked by 4Chan -- but The Big Dog seems to have fallen for it.

I doubt many will believe that story, though.

Oh, you can believe it.

Just scroll back through the thread. TBD really did get pranked by 4chan.

 

[Tero]

What’s so special about Kavanaugh? It’s just a job interview. Why can’t the GOP dig up another libertarian corporation loving pro Trump judge? One with less dick waggling frat boy history.

 

[Segnosaur]

Someone needs to tell the FBI that they don't know how to do background investigations, since they missed all this debauchery and rape during several investigations.

The way I see it:

The FBI is not omniscient. Nor do they have an unlimited resources. As such, when they do their investigations, they look at certain basic information... major financial transactions, the subjects closest friends, criminal records, etc. And they focus on the more recent history. (i.e. within the past decade)

Any individual will have interactions with hundreds if not thousands of individuals in their lifetimes, and they will likewise have hundreds of business dealings. There is just no practical way to go back and interview everyone who might have interacted with someone decades ago, just on the chance someone might have had a negative experience. So, they do the best they can: learn if there are any recent problems, and hope that they get some sort of indication (either from their initial investigation or from outside sources, like Ford's claims) about things they need to investigate further.

 

[Belz...]

it might or might not be a bit more complicated than that.
Supposedly, their standards are too high (basically, it's the "used shoe/chewing gum" story - if you aren't a virtuous virgin, you are a slut and not worthy of an incel).

I see. I get conflicting reports on what the word means.

 

[Belz...]

You may wish to google “Bush Derangement Syndrome” or BDS.

Correction noted. I didn't remember that.

Let's just say that, given the rather, ahem, strong reaction to Obama's election, it was easier to remember ODS.

 

[theprestige]

What's your alternative? Confirming everyone without looking into whether they have a history that could be damaging to the institution or if he can do the job?

A reasonably diligent background check, a two-month period for people to come forward, and a "speak now or forever hold your peace" seems like a practical and effective approach.

Extending the process indefinitely to accommodate people who had ample opportunity to come forward and chose not to, or who insist on speaking not now but later, does not.

Well, it was a terrible argument, so there.

See, this is a much better way of putting it, in my opinion. Direct and honest. If that's how you feel, and you don't care to mount an argument for it, then just say so. No need to bumble around with some half-assed analogy, just to say "I reject your argument out of hand."

Doesn't that give you pause?

The knowledge that I'm not a perfect person and I don't always live up to my ideals? It gives me pause every damn day, Belz...

Luckily for me, we're not in that situation. And luckily for you, you're not trying to hypocritically excuse such tricks.

 

[Belz...]

Yes. They're celibate but not by choice.

Basically this means that they're too creepy even for the prostitutes.

That's rather uncalled for. Some could just be unattractive, shy, socially awkward or a host of other, non-creepy alternatives. It's very easy for those in a situation to denigrate those who aren't or can't.

I met my wife-to-be at 35. Was I creepy before that?

 

[theprestige]

It's unverifiable evidence unless he told someone else about Kavanaugh attacking his wife before 2018.

His testimony is supposed to be the verification, remember?

From Ford's history of not discussing this trauma with anyone other than her therapist and her husband, I rather doubt Mr. Ford was blabbing about his wife's private trauma to his buddies.

Which part of the reason his testimony in 2018 about Kavanaugh's name coming up in 2012 doesn't really verify the claim that Kavanaugh's name came up in 2012.

Records from 2012 might verify the claim, but as SB points out, we don't have those records:

They've not been publicly released, but the Senate and the FBI have reportedly had copies of her therapist's session notes.

Substituting even more unverifiable testimony in place of verification of the previous claim doesn't really make sense.

 

[phunk]

That's rather uncalled for. Some could just be unattractive, shy, socially awkward or a host of other, non-creepy alternatives. It's very easy for those in a situation to denigrate those who aren't or can't.

I met my wife-to-be at 35. Was I creepy before that?

Incel doesn't just mean "someone who can't get laid", it is a specific set of people who can't get laid because they are creeps, and blame women for that instead of themselves.

 

[Dr. Keith]

A distinction you apparently are intent on conflating when it is convenient for you.




If you go back through the thread you will find that the first use of "coaching" was by TBD himself, in a post where he quoted from an article which described Ramirez "consulting" with an attorney before coming forward.

Since no testimony was on her schedule at that time, it would be difficult for her to be "coached" for it, whether such "coaching" would have been unethical or not.

TBD is, of course, unconcerned about such niceties, or about the fact that he seized upon the term "consulting", which he apparently finds no fault with in other situations, and disingenuously chose to substitute it with "coaching" so he could go on his bizarre, unfounded, and dubious tirade on ethics. (A subject about which he has proven himself to be an unreliable authority.)

Thanks for following up on this. I sometimes lose interest in chasing down every lie.

 

[theprestige]

My goal is to get information.

Well, you're going about it all wrong.

The information you choose to communicate is largely up to you. Thus far, it's that you won't answer a 'great question' because I reject your assessment of my asking.

Don't answer if you don't want to, but I'm not going to pretend your refusal is my fault.

I wouldn't say it's your fault, exactly. It's your choice how to engage with me. It's my choice how to respond to your engagement. I don't hold you responsible for my choices. I've told you how it's playing out on my side. What you choose to do about it is up to you.

You want me to give you information. I don't particularly want to give you information. Is there anything you can do to change the situation and get the information you want? Perhaps. Will you choose to try it? That's up to you, not me.

But alright. You want information? Let's do this: You say you've already gotten one person to agree with you. Point me at that discussion, and I'll read through it. If there's anything for me to add, I'll do so. If there isn't, I'll let you know. Either way, you'll have the information you seek.

 

[applecorped]

UVA......PART DEUX

 

[River]

Incel doesn't just mean "someone who can't get laid", it is a specific set of people who can't get laid because they are creeps, and blame women for that instead of themselves.

Your statement infers incels can only be men. Only blame women? Or can incels be women that blame men as well? I do find it rather amusing that people would use these in a forum setting. Is anyone here an incel? Do you know of some incels? Is this like an insulting term one would use like a racial insult? (only sexual?)

Curious minds want to know.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I am not really interested in the example, more the concept. I feel rape is about concent, force and harm. Deception is a whole different issue. As an example you can be tricked into attending a strip club and want your money back as the show wasn't what was sold to you. But you did intend to see dancers.

See the part of my post that you snipped out.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Oh, you can believe it.

Just scroll back through the thread. TBD really did get pranked by 4chan.

Perhaps he will take it as an opportunity to learn that leaping to conclusions from scant evidence the way he tends to isn't the best approach when it comes to having an informed opinion.