Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:21 pm**

Carpet_pissr wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:31 am Double post.

Can't delete posts anymore? Weird

Once someone posts after you, you can't delete it any longer. Have to be faster.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:36 pm**

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:40 pm
Isgrimnur wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:36 pm Bzzzt. College "solutions".
For the record I included that "in my head", only I didn't recognize the direct and obviously more appropriate comparison. I consider the two mediation examples to be identical in all but name anyway.

In any case, I'll guess better next time!

The college solution basically sticks the victim in a room alone with the offender. It's about as effective as the old witch tests. It will almost always fail regardless of the truth. The victim (rape victim or victim of false accusations) gains nothing and and is nearly always re-victimized.

In arbitration, it only fails if the corporate entity is in the wrong. And it's nothing like being forced to sit in a room with someone who attacked you.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:37 pm**

Rip wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:21 pm Have to be faster.

So says Lightning McQueen, a whole page later.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:40 pm**

Sure. Ok.

You can talk about the details all you want, in the end it's a conflict resolution method that is heavily stacked in favour of the guy who's forcing the mediation.

They even call it the same thing.

If you want to talk about how sexual assault is not like getting screwed by your employer, have at it. I'm not interested.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:41 pm**

Rip wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:21 pm
Carpet_pissr wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:31 am Double post.

Can't delete posts anymore? Weird
Once someone posts after you, you can't delete it any longer. Have to be faster.

For the record I have been unable to delete a post when using my phone that had not had any responses after it. I have never had that problem at any desktop.

Not sure why that would be, don't really care either. Just a data point.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:53 pm**

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:40 pm Sure. Ok.

You can talk about the details all you want, in the end it's a conflict resolution method that is heavily stacked in favour of the guy who's forcing the mediation.

They even call it the same thing.

If you want to talk about how sexual assault is not like getting screwed by your employer, have at it. I'm not interested.

Legally they are different. And I'd argue funtuonally too.

Arbitration is a legal-ish process stacked in favor of one side wanting an outcome favorable to that side (think giant corporation that pays arbiter and wants to avoid paying damages).

Mediation is an informal process stacked in favor of the 3rd party wanting the outcome most favorable to the 3rd party (think college that handles its own investigation and mediation and wants low campus crime stats).

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:55 pm**

You're the lawbeefaroni.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:02 pm**

Kavanaugh's friend Mark Judge, whom Dr. Ford says was in the room, is declining to testify in congressional hearings.

It's doubtful that GOP leaders will force him, but it speaks volumes that he refuses to deny her account under oath.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:00 pm**

Holman wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:02 pm Kavanaugh's friend Mark Judge, whom Dr. Ford says was in the room, is declining to testify in congressional hearings.

It's doubtful that GOP leaders will force him, but it speaks volumes that he refuses to deny her account under oath.

I would to if I already published a book that says I used to regularly drink until I blacked out in High School. There's no help he can bring after his own words already set the table.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:49 pm**

Holman wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:02 pm Kavanaugh's friend Mark Judge, whom Dr. Ford says was in the room, is declining to testify in congressional hearings.

It's doubtful that GOP leaders will force him, but it speaks volumes that he refuses to deny her account under oath.

Damn, it's too bad the senate doesn't have the ability to compel someone to come testify. We should do something about letting them do more than just ask nicely.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:24 pm**

In actual SCOTUS News:

This decision, following similar decisive decisions by the district court and court of appeals this week, means that effective immediately, anyone making more than $250 in express advocacy ads — ads that tell viewers who to vote for or against — must now disclose the identities of all contributors who gave more than $200 in a year. They must also identify who among those contributors earmarked their contributions for express ads. Because of this decision, the contributors for a major category of dark money spending this fall will have to be disclosed to the public.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:45 pm**

Pyperkub wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:24 pm In actual SCOTUS News:

This decision, following similar decisive decisions by the district court and court of appeals this week, means that effective immediately, anyone making more than $250 in express advocacy ads — ads that tell viewers who to vote for or against — must now disclose the identities of all contributors who gave more than $200 in a year. They must also identify who among those contributors earmarked their contributions for express ads. Because of this decision, the contributors for a major category of dark money spending this fall will have to be disclosed to the public.

So I go to figure out what you're talking about and naturally everything I find is linked to Rove and McConnell. It's like google is Emperor Palpatine and knows my fear, anger, and hatred. And I've also learned a new term to spit on "non-profit "social welfare" organization"

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:00 pm**

Now, the New York Times is reporting that Ford is being sent death threats. An unnamed source told the Times that following the threats, Ford and her two teenaged children moved out of their home. Ford also hired private security. One of the messages reportedly said that Ford had “6 months to live, you disgusting slime.”

Kavanaugh Accuser Christine Blasey Ford is Moving Out of Her Home Due to Death Threats

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:09 pm**

Gee, I can't imagine why she was so reluctant to come forward.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:20 pm**

Defiant wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:00 pm
Now, the New York Times is reporting that Ford is being sent death threats. An unnamed source told the Times that following the threats, Ford and her two teenaged children moved out of their home. Ford also hired private security. One of the messages reportedly said that Ford had “6 months to live, you disgusting slime.”
Kavanaugh Accuser Christine Blasey Ford is Moving Out of Her Home Due to Death Threats

The NY Times article referenced there does not mention the death threats the article alleges are happening. Either the NYT retracted the claim, or the Cut article quoted isn't referencing their sources.

Edit - saw other sites claiming the same thing, and linking to the same NYT article which is (currently?) omitting the Death Threats section.

Looks like they have at least temporarily retracted that claim.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:34 pm**

Ford wants the FBI investigation before she testifies....

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:34 pm**

I really hate what Supreme Court hearings have become. We need to amend the whole thing from A to Z to reduce the stakes. SC justices should not serve for life, they should be term limited, and every President should get something like 2 selections per term. That woulg a good ways towards reducing the stakes.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:47 pm**

Pyperkub wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:20 pm
The NY Times article referenced there does not mention the death threats the article alleges are happening. Either the NYT retracted the claim, or the Cut article quoted isn't referencing their sources.

The letter from Ford's lawyers notes that despite receiving a "stunning amount of support from her community," Ford has also "been the target of vicious harassment and even death threats" and has been forced to leave her home.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics ... index.html

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:02 pm**

Grifman wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:34 pm I really hate what Supreme Court hearings have become. We need to amend the whole thing from A to Z to reduce the stakes. SC justices should not serve for life, they should be term limited, and every President should get something like 2 selections per term. That woulg a good ways towards reducing the stakes.

The Founders imagined that justices would be men who were established, beyond public criticism, picked at about 60, and dead by 75.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:38 pm**

False flag. Deep state (Hillary ops) made the threats, to try and take away one of the criticisms (why not come fwd before now?).

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:52 pm**

Deeper state. Hillary actually assaulted her.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:04 pm**

LOCK HER UP!!!

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:35 pm**

Grifman wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:34 pm I really hate what Supreme Court hearings have become. We need to amend the whole thing from A to Z to reduce the stakes. SC justices should not serve for life, they should be term limited, and every President should get something like 2 selections per term. That woulg a good ways towards reducing the stakes.

This just trades 1 group of problems for another.

I don't have the answer.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:06 pm**

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:35 pm
Grifman wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:34 pm I really hate what Supreme Court hearings have become. We need to amend the whole thing from A to Z to reduce the stakes. SC justices should not serve for life, they should be term limited, and every President should get something like 2 selections per term. That woulg a good ways towards reducing the stakes.
This just trades 1 group of problems for another.

I don't have the answer.

Those changes would require a constitutional amendment, so the answer is that they won't happen in the current political climate.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:50 pm**

That's not the question being discussed.

What's the point of discussing how to implement a solution that doesn't exist yet?

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:01 am**

Max Peck wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:06 pm
GreenGoo wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:35 pm
Grifman wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:34 pm I really hate what Supreme Court hearings have become. We need to amend the whole thing from A to Z to reduce the stakes. SC justices should not serve for life, they should be term limited, and every President should get something like 2 selections per term. That woulg a good ways towards reducing the stakes.
This just trades 1 group of problems for another.

I don't have the answer.
Those changes would require a constitutional amendment, so the answer is that they won't happen in the current political climate.

I am totally aware of that.

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:09 am**

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:35 pm
Grifman wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:34 pm I really hate what Supreme Court hearings have become. We need to amend the whole thing from A to Z to reduce the stakes. SC justices should not serve for life, they should be term limited, and every President should get something like 2 selections per term. That woulg a good ways towards reducing the stakes.
This just trades 1 group of problems for another.

I don't have the answer.

What would be the new problems? Not serving for life takes the long term impacts out, every president having selections makes choices more evenly distributed. Yes, a party that gets more wins will make more choices, but then the voters will have spoken several times. You can’t totally divorce it from politics but this comes closes. You won’t have a Garland situational nor will you have timing of deaths playing a role.

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:14 am**

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:50 pm What's the point of discussing how to implement a solution that doesn't exist yet?

Are you enjoying your first day on the internet?

#PointlessDiscussionsAreUs

I was just pointing out that any change to the status quo is nearly impossible to implement due to the fact that the status quo is enshrined in the Constitution. It's difficult to see how any sort of constitutional amendment pertaining to the issue would be possible given the current state of open cultural warfare between Team Reactionary and Team Progressive.

I suppose my snarky/dismissive counter-question would be: What is the point of discussing a solution that cannot be implemented?

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:32 am**

Grif was engaged in a thought experiment.

You don't find those to have value?

Grif, if you think SCOTUS is partisan now, start swapping them out on a regular basis.

You do that with the president. How's that working out?

One of the features of a bi-partisan lifetime appointment is continuity. That would be lost. Either the court would stagnate or it would overturn itself constantly at the whim of the last election.

I'm not a SCOTUS scholar. I'm confident there are plenty of other reasonings than these few off the top of my head.

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:57 am**

What's humorous in all this is that if it wasn't for Roe Vs. Wade, Democrats and their hell spawn would have long ago seized control of the entire country. Republicans would have been permanently out at least a decade ago, no illegal alien voting required.

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:53 am**

Ford is now refusing to attend the hearing on Monday, saying that an FBI investigation should be conducted first to present the facts in a nonpartisan manner, before a hearing can be held.

Seems like great news for Kavanaugh and the GOP, honestly. Seems easy enough for them to refuse the FBI investigation, and then say "well, if she's not willing to testify, there must be nothing there" and go ahead and confirm Kavanaugh.

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:40 am**

El Guapo wrote: Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:53 am Ford is now refusing to attend the hearing on Monday, saying that an FBI investigation should be conducted first to present the facts in a nonpartisan manner, before a hearing can be held.

Seems like great news for Kavanaugh and the GOP, honestly. Seems easy enough for them to refuse the FBI investigation, and then say "well, if she's not willing to testify, there must be nothing there" and go ahead and confirm Kavanaugh.

That's always been their plan. That's why they restricted the Monday hearing to just calling Kavanaugh and Ford. They'd hear from those two, then say "well, it's he said she said. We think he's a nice guy who coaches basketball, and bitches be lying, so it's probably nothing, let's get our vote on!"

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:14 am**

She's smart enough to know that nothing is likely to come of an fbi investigation either. What's her motivation for that? To get Kavanaugh to lie to the police? Then what?

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:43 am**

Probably the strategy is simply to delay the vote as long as possible. Longer delay = less chance of a shoe in.

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:56 am**

Grifman wrote: Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:09 am
GreenGoo wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:35 pm
Grifman wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:34 pm I really hate what Supreme Court hearings have become. We need to amend the whole thing from A to Z to reduce the stakes. SC justices should not serve for life, they should be term limited, and every President should get something like 2 selections per term. That woulg a good ways towards reducing the stakes.
This just trades 1 group of problems for another.

I don't have the answer.
What would be the new problems? Not serving for life takes the long term impacts out, every president having selections makes choices more evenly distributed. Yes, a party that gets more wins will make more choices, but then the voters will have spoken several times. You can’t totally divorce it from politics but this comes closes. You won’t have a Garland situational nor will you have timing of deaths playing a role.

Deaths will always play a roll as you can't guarantee anyone will serve out a term. Accidents happen - to both presidents and justices. Does a someone who takes over for a president who either dies or resigns get a guaranteed appointment? What happens when there is an opening after a president has already gotten his maximum 2 appointments?

I don't hate the concept, but there are bugs to work out.

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:20 am**

GreenGoo wrote: Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:14 am She's smart enough to know that nothing is likely to come of an fbi investigation either. What's her motivation for that? To get Kavanaugh to lie to the police? Then what?

An investigation would mean formal interviews with the people she claims she has told about the assault over the years. The senate alone won't act to interview those people and get them on the record.

It's harder to claim this is all a Democratic plot if she was telling people about it years and years ago.

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:26 am**

Ok, I'll buy that.

How does statute of limitations enter into it, if at all?

a). Does it exist for sexual assault?
b) if it does, has it passed?
c). If it has, how do the FBI normally treat allegations of crimes past the limitations?
d). Is the FBI in the habit of investigating crimes that they can't do anything about, assuming that's true in this case?

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:28 am**

GreenGoo wrote: Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:14 am She's smart enough to know that nothing is likely to come of an fbi investigation either. What's her motivation for that? To get Kavanaugh to lie to the police? Then what?

Let's assume she is being honest then I think it is more that she realized she'd be on tv recounting her sexual assault and maybe she doesn't want to do that. Who would? Especially when everyone is just going to call you a liar and parse every sentence to make you into a monster destroying a "good man's" life. It'd be better to have someone independent weigh in and then defend their report but that isn't going to happen.

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:28 am**

Carpet_pissr wrote: Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:43 am Probably the strategy is simply to delay the vote as long as possible. Longer delay = less chance of a shoe in.

That would imply this is all just dirty politics. Is it?

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:30 am**

malchior wrote: Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:28 am
GreenGoo wrote: Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:14 am She's smart enough to know that nothing is likely to come of an fbi investigation either. What's her motivation for that? To get Kavanaugh to lie to the police? Then what?
Let's assume she is being honest then I think it is more that she realized she'd be on tv recounting her sexual assault and maybe she doesn't want to do that. Who would? Especially when everyone is just going to call you a liar and parse every sentence to make you into a monster destroying a "good man's" life. It'd be better to have someone independent weigh in and then defend their report but that isn't going to happen.

She's a professor and a woman and has had 35 years to think about it.

You think the ramifications of what's she's doing are only just occurring to her?

Octopus Overlords

SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch