Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6455
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:21 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I mean, anyone getting shoved through is likely to be fairly firmly Republican. If they manage to get a nom through at all before the election, it's gonna be someone conservative. How fast can a nomination get shoved through if the Republicans get desperate?

Hopefully that person will be on the more moderate side of Conservativism. Or if hard-line, a Scalia-like approach to being hardline. Mostly relying on historical stuff, not just making stuff up out of whole cloth. I don't much want them to start redefining what a citizen is.

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/statu ... 2648931328 Nate has the answer, from a week ago Sep 17.
Confirmation times for current members of the Supreme Court. Roberts: 19 days Ginsburg: 50 days Gorsuch: 66 Sotomayor: 66 Breyer: 74 Alito: 82 Kagan: 87 Thomas: 99 Currently 50 days between now and the midterms.
Let's just say we shouldn't expect a confirmation in 19 days.

Edit: Holy shit, 3rd one already? Oh, it's the Avenatti one. I'd wait for the full article to come despite his impressive work with Stormy.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10149
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:28 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Confirmation times for current members of the Supreme Court. Roberts: 19 days Ginsburg: 50 days Gorsuch: 66 Sotomayor: 66 Breyer: 74 Alito: 82 Kagan: 87 Thomas: 99 Currently 50 days between now and the midterms. Let's just say we shouldn't expect a confirmation in 19 days.



Let me just use LinEst function in OpenOffice here and... holy crap the expected confirmation time increases by 9.5 days each time? Can someone plug the numbers into Excel? I can't figure out OpenOffice for the proper stats result...

Opus_723
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Opus_723 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:29 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:BREAKING
Third accuser expected


Yeah, let's just assume that Kavanaugh is not fit for SCOTUS


Avenatti announced that he had a client who would make these claims last night, around the same time the Ramirez story broke, but didn't say when she might come forward.

I was hesitant to bring up Avenatti's client because I sort of see him as a sleazy publicity hound, and I wanted to wait until she actually came forward. His claims are particularly awful. But I will say that the claim by Mark Judge's ex-girlfriend (I don't know where it was originally reported, but she is quoted in the New Yorker article) is somewhat consistent with what Avenatti is claiming, and feels like really depressing foreshadowing now.

User avatar
Euphonium
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: in ur bourgeois bosses' union, agitating ur workers

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Euphonium » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:37 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Fairly strict interpretation of the constitution


is a meaningless platitude that is nothing more than a smokescreen for enshrining one's personal preferences as fundamental law

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:39 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
sardia wrote:Confirmation times for current members of the Supreme Court. Roberts: 19 days Ginsburg: 50 days Gorsuch: 66 Sotomayor: 66 Breyer: 74 Alito: 82 Kagan: 87 Thomas: 99 Currently 50 days between now and the midterms. Let's just say we shouldn't expect a confirmation in 19 days.



Let me just use LinEst function in OpenOffice here and... holy crap the expected confirmation time increases by 9.5 days each time? Can someone plug the numbers into Excel? I can't figure out OpenOffice for the proper stats result...


That actually makes sense. Increasing partisanship and obstructionism in general. 50 days is definitely tight. If they stall for a while, and Kav ends up being a wash out due to failing to be a decent human being, they're on a tight schedule.

Thesh wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Actually a big fan of Scalia. Fairly strict interpretation of the constitution is the court's job; anything else, and why bother having a constitution?


LOL, he didn't strictly interpret the constitution, he always just looked for an excuse to rule in favor of conservatives. He cared about as much about the constitution as Trump does.

Like, even if he did. Fuck that whole "following the rules is more important than right and wrong" bullshit.


While I agree that Scalia was imperfect at keeping his opinions out of rules in some cases...like pretty much every other justice, I do value judges following the rules on principle. I'd rather that we got a principled, law abiding republican justice than some other sort.

That may be overly optimistic, though.

Opus_723
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Opus_723 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:43 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
sardia wrote:Confirmation times for current members of the Supreme Court. Roberts: 19 days Ginsburg: 50 days Gorsuch: 66 Sotomayor: 66 Breyer: 74 Alito: 82 Kagan: 87 Thomas: 99 Currently 50 days between now and the midterms. Let's just say we shouldn't expect a confirmation in 19 days.



Let me just use LinEst function in OpenOffice here and... holy crap the expected confirmation time increases by 9.5 days each time? Can someone plug the numbers into Excel? I can't figure out OpenOffice for the proper stats result...


That actually makes sense. Increasing partisanship and obstructionism in general. 50 days is definitely tight. If they stall for a while, and Kav ends up being a wash out due to failing to be a decent human being, they're on a tight schedule.


Down to 43 now, that's a week old. But I don't know that it really matters. They probably won't lose the Senate, and I don't think they'll have much issue pushing someone through in the lame duck session even if they do.

User avatar
Euphonium
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: in ur bourgeois bosses' union, agitating ur workers

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Euphonium » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:49 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
sardia wrote:Confirmation times for current members of the Supreme Court. Roberts: 19 days Ginsburg: 50 days Gorsuch: 66 Sotomayor: 66 Breyer: 74 Alito: 82 Kagan: 87 Thomas: 99 Currently 50 days between now and the midterms. Let's just say we shouldn't expect a confirmation in 19 days.



Let me just use LinEst function in OpenOffice here and... holy crap the expected confirmation time increases by 9.5 days each time? Can someone plug the numbers into Excel? I can't figure out OpenOffice for the proper stats result...


That actually makes sense. Increasing partisanship and obstructionism in general. 50 days is d


Except, y'know, those aren't listed in chronological order. The fact that Gorsuch is listed after Ginsburg, and Kagan and Roberts and Sotomayor are listed before Thomas, should be a dead giveaway.

User avatar
Euphonium
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: in ur bourgeois bosses' union, agitating ur workers

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Euphonium » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:51 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:While I agree that Scalia was imperfect at keeping his opinions out of rules in some cases...like pretty much every other justice,


Indeed. But Scalia is really the only one who has this (to a large extent self-created) mythology around him that he did anything different.

And, really, it's unavoidable. Objectivity in interpretation is not a thing that exists or is possible, after all; furthermore, no text ever has an "objective" meaning waiting to be unearthed even if it were within human capacity to do so.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:52 pm UTC

That's fair. Democrats trying to *not* get a Republican SC member are banking on a long shot in a few ways, and at the end of the day, a democratic senate doesn't seem that likely.

Any other likely candidates if Kav's sunk? From a strategic perspective, one would think that aiming as young as possible would be ideal. Not only from the standpoint of retaining control as long as possible, but easier vetting.

Euphonium wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
sardia wrote:Confirmation times for current members of the Supreme Court. Roberts: 19 days Ginsburg: 50 days Gorsuch: 66 Sotomayor: 66 Breyer: 74 Alito: 82 Kagan: 87 Thomas: 99 Currently 50 days between now and the midterms. Let's just say we shouldn't expect a confirmation in 19 days.



Let me just use LinEst function in OpenOffice here and... holy crap the expected confirmation time increases by 9.5 days each time? Can someone plug the numbers into Excel? I can't figure out OpenOffice for the proper stats result...


That actually makes sense. Increasing partisanship and obstructionism in general. 50 days is d


Except, y'know, those aren't listed in chronological order. The fact that Gorsuch is listed after Ginsburg, and Kagan and Roberts and Sotomayor are listed before Thomas, should be a dead giveaway.


I presumed that this'd been corrected in the estimate, and that the 9.5 days was merely the average increase. Perhaps incorrect?

User avatar
Euphonium
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: in ur bourgeois bosses' union, agitating ur workers

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Euphonium » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:58 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:That's fair. Democrats trying to *not* get a Republican SC member are banking on a long shot in a few ways, and at the end of the day, a democratic senate doesn't seem that likely.

Any other likely candidates if Kav's sunk? From a strategic perspective, one would think that aiming as young as possible would be ideal. Not only from the standpoint of retaining control as long as possible, but easier vetting.

Euphonium wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
sardia wrote:Confirmation times for current members of the Supreme Court. Roberts: 19 days Ginsburg: 50 days Gorsuch: 66 Sotomayor: 66 Breyer: 74 Alito: 82 Kagan: 87 Thomas: 99 Currently 50 days between now and the midterms. Let's just say we shouldn't expect a confirmation in 19 days.



Let me just use LinEst function in OpenOffice here and... holy crap the expected confirmation time increases by 9.5 days each time? Can someone plug the numbers into Excel? I can't figure out OpenOffice for the proper stats result...


That actually makes sense. Increasing partisanship and obstructionism in general. 50 days is d


Except, y'know, those aren't listed in chronological order. The fact that Gorsuch is listed after Ginsburg, and Kagan and Roberts and Sotomayor are listed before Thomas, should be a dead giveaway.


I presumed that this'd been corrected in the estimate, and that the 9.5 days was merely the average increase. Perhaps incorrect?


There is no "average increase" here. They're all over the map, over the time span represented by the current members there's no meaningful trend in any direction.

In chronological order:

Thomas- 99

Ginsburg - 50

Breyer - 73

Roberts - 23 (2nd nomination; originally nominated for O'Connor's seat before Rehnquist died and GWB decided he wanted Roberts as Chief Justice instead) + 39 (for the first nomination) = 62 (it's fair to combine them since the second nomination was greatly expedited by the fact that a lot of the vetting and shit from the immediately-concluded first nomination really didn't need to be repeated)

Alito - 82

Sotomayor - 66

Kagan - 87

Gorsuch - 65
Last edited by Euphonium on Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:01 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.

Opus_723
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Opus_723 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:58 pm UTC

There was a very religious conservative woman on the shortlist. As far as politics and optics goes, that would seem like the smart pick to me. Then again, I thought she was the smart pick the first time around as well.

I said they could push someone through even if the Democrats won the Senate, but I suppose there is the off chance that one or two of the retirees uses it as an excuse to give Trump the finger on their way out.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3573
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:59 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:While I agree that Scalia was imperfect at keeping his opinions out of rules in some cases...like pretty much every other justice, I do value judges following the rules on principle. I'd rather that we got a principled, law abiding republican justice than some other sort.

<insert Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic Good/Neutral/Evil matrix discussion here>

User avatar
Euphonium
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: in ur bourgeois bosses' union, agitating ur workers

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Euphonium » Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:04 pm UTC

Worth noting, too, that O'Connor is the last nominee to be confirmed in under 60 days, and even Harlan and Brennan's nominations went on for over 60 days, Potter Stewart's for over 100, and since the Eisenhower administration those have been more the norm than the exception (so this is hardly something unique to our specific period). But even before then, such lengthy nomination periods weren't completely unheard-of: Lewis Brandeis's lasted over 120.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:07 pm UTC

Fair enough, no progressively longer time, just a random scattering averaging 73 days. So if they get on it relatively soon, a replacement within lame duck time is reasonably safe.

Opus_723 wrote:There was a very religious conservative woman on the shortlist. As far as politics and optics goes, that would seem like the smart pick to me. Then again, I thought she was the smart pick the first time around as well.

I said they could push someone through even if the Democrats won the Senate, but I suppose there is the off chance that one or two of the retirees uses it as an excuse to give Trump the finger on their way out.


Ugh, more religion. You're right, though, such a pick is probably the best reasonable option we're going to get.

I can't picture the democrats grabbing all that many republican seats. Even if they managed to eke out a bare majority, there wouldn't be many Republicans outbound, and doing that would kind of be burning bridges to other political opportunities. Partisanship will probably remain reasonably strong so long as the candidate is considered okay.

Soupspoon wrote:<insert Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic Good/Neutral/Evil matrix discussion here>


Lawfulness becomes more important the less you trust the motives of the individual. I don't particularly trust either side, so I'd prefer both sides nominated folks that are as lawful as possible. Sure, personal opinion colors all justices to some extent, but I'm happiest when that factor is minimized.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby commodorejohn » Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:26 pm UTC

Opus_723 wrote:There was a very religious conservative woman on the shortlist. As far as politics and optics goes, that would seem like the smart pick to me. Then again, I thought she was the smart pick the first time around as well.

It probably would've been the smart pick, even if we assume that the parties responsible for putting together the shortlist didn't know about Kavanaugh's issues ahead of time. I am entirely convinced that the primary reason Kavanaugh was put forward was because somebody mentioned his views on presidential immunity to Trump.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

gd1
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:42 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
gd1 wrote:Yeah, I'm not sure how to feel about that. Though this is ordinarily where credit for the character of the presidency would be the deal maker. Never predicted a case where it would be a point against a deal. Though, with recent trends, I guess I should have seen it coming.


Agreed that we can't merely rely on Trump's judgement.

We're largely forced to decide between competing narratives of "guilty of a somewhat loosely defined crime taking place at an undefined place and time with no corroborating evidence" and "innocent, but is being accused because it is politically convenient. The accuser is an anti-Trump activist, and has taken steps to avoid others discovering information about the accusation. The supposed witness gave conflicting information, then admitted it was false."

We cannot be certain that the latter is true, but we have not been given any reason to make the former assessment reliable. The latter explanation does match up with all known information to this point.


Actually, for me I look at the way Congress is supposed to be structured. If neither side can reach an agreement, gridlock is what should happen here. In this case it would be better. Then thoroughly investigate if the accusation is true. If it is a lie, I (and perhaps others) will take that into serious consideration in future nominations and even political decisions with regards to the Democrats. Just as I am now taking Trump's poor integrity and the Merrick Garland nomination (In an "Is this a delay tactic?" sense) into consideration now.
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:00 pm UTC

Well, it's not really gridlock. Republicans have control. If they want to, they can probably still slam him through. Senators might defect, but that's only really an issue if the senators think the public at large will have an issue. And if they decide to bin him, they can slam through whoever the replacement is.

There'll only be gridlock if the republicans want gridlock. No need for a super majority for confirmations, really. The nuclear option has ceased to be novel there.

gd1
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:28 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Well, it's not really gridlock. Republicans have control. If they want to, they can probably still slam him through. Senators might defect, but that's only really an issue if the senators think the public at large will have an issue. And if they decide to bin him, they can slam through whoever the replacement is.

There'll only be gridlock if the republicans want gridlock. No need for a super majority for confirmations, really. The nuclear option has ceased to be novel there.


I mean gridlock in the sense that nothing happens rather than the strict definition though.
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

idonno
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:51 am UTC

Opus_723 wrote:I was going to edit the other post but this thread is moving faster than I'm used to.

The New Yorker article doesn't have witnesses, but at least one person (two? I can't remember now) claims to have heard about the incident, and specifically that it was Kavanaugh, in the following days. One of the reporters who broke the story also said today they had emails from Yale alumni discussing the incident before they actually tracked down Ramirez.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/24/17895740/new-yorker-jane-mayer-yale-university-emails-brett-kavanaugh-deborah-ramirez


Well, I am now happy to support dumping him over this. With multiple events, corroborating testimony, a reporter finding evidence and tracking down a specific victim it would be conspiracy theory level difficult for this to be constructed. This is how I think these things should go. Events like this are rarely 1 off occurrences which means that more events can be brought to light and build evidence.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6455
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:01 am UTC

That's a survivor bias, aka one time rapists will rarely get caught. The repeat rapists just roll the dice so often that they get caught.

In other news, Rosenstein gets to keep his job for now. What a strange day.

asoban
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 11:00 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby asoban » Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:17 am UTC

Something that concerns me, most of the people I know who voted for Trump held their nose to do so. Why? Supreme Court picks that went their way. If Kavanaugh isn't confirmed before the election then it is entirely possible that the SC seat he is going for will become the topic of the election. That being the case, I think that the Democrat's chances are greatly hurt by this. Thoughts?

In terms of the sexual accusations against him, I think that while notable, Ford's account isn't really actionable. Two of the three people strongly deny that it happened. To overcome that, we need evidence outside of Ford. The issue with the Therapist's notes is that their not evidence from outside Ford. All they tell us is what Ford said in 2012. Ramirez's accusation may be actionable, but for that to be the case, we need to get testimony from a couple of the other witnesses which do appear to exist. We get that evidence, and I think we may have something actionable. Until Avenatti's evidence actually comes forward, his statements are neither notable nor actionable.

User avatar
Euphonium
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: in ur bourgeois bosses' union, agitating ur workers

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Euphonium » Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:29 am UTC

asoban wrote:Something that concerns me, most of the people I know who voted for Trump held their nose to do so. Why? Supreme Court picks that went their way. If Kavanaugh isn't confirmed before the election then it is entirely possible that the SC seat he is going for will become the topic of the election. That being the case, I think that the Democrat's chances are greatly hurt by this. Thoughts?

Democrats' chances of taking the Senate are already pretty slim; it's hard for there to be anything that would make them meaningfully worse than they already are.

In terms of the sexual accusations against him, I think that while notable, Ford's account isn't really actionable. Two of the three people strongly deny that it happened. To overcome that, we need evidence outside of Ford. The issue with the Therapist's notes is that their not evidence from outside Ford. All they tell us is what Ford said in 2012. Ramirez's accusation may be actionable, but for that to be the case, we need to get testimony from a couple of the other witnesses which do appear to exist. We get that evidence, and I think we may have something actionable. Until Avenatti's evidence actually comes forward, his statements are neither notable nor actionable.


What do you mean, "actionable"? This isn't a court. No one's going to be taking action as a result of these allegations; rather, the question is whether these allegations should result in an inaction.

Which aren't just two sides of the same coin or anything; they're substantially different. "Taking action" generally implies taking from someone something that's already theirs (life, liberty, property, etc.); meanwhile, inaction in this context means deciding that it's not worth the risk to extend to this person an office of public trust he does not yet hold.

asoban
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 11:00 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby asoban » Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:59 am UTC

Democrats' chances of taking the Senate are already pretty slim; it's hard for there to be anything that would make them meaningfully worse than they already are.


30% isn't slim and there are plenty of things they could do to make things worse for themselves.

What do you mean, "actionable"? This isn't a court. No one's going to be taking action as a result of these allegations; rather, the question is whether these allegations should result in an inaction.


Inaction would be Kavanaugh getting confirmed as the default course for a nomination is a confirmation. Indeed, if a vote were forced today, I think Kavanaugh would be confirmed. To divert things away from that course, action needs to be taken. Actionable here means enough to potentially divert things away from that course.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby commodorejohn » Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:11 am UTC

asoban wrote:Inaction would be Kavanaugh getting confirmed as the default course for a nomination is a confirmation.

In the sense that that's usually how things go, sure. But arguing that, because most nominees pass, all nominees should pass unless proven to be criminals is missing the entire point of having a confirmation process. If all it took to be suitable for the Supreme Court were not having been found guilty of any crimes, they might as well just do a background check on nominees and then send them on their merry way, but that would be stupid. Someone getting a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land needs to be subject to a lot of scrutiny; they're not just entitled to get it because the president volunteered them and they aren't a known felon.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10149
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:24 am UTC

sardia wrote:That's a survivor bias, aka one time rapists will rarely get caught. The repeat rapists just roll the dice so often that they get caught.

In other news, Rosenstein gets to keep his job for now. What a strange day.


Murderers too. Half of known murders are never solved, and that doesn't include all the murders that successfully fool the police into believing it was a suicide/accident. Assuming of course the police were fooled, rather than just doing the Japanese method of ignoring any murder that isn't instantly solvable.

idonno
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:33 pm UTC

sardia wrote:That's a survivor bias, aka one time rapists will rarely get caught. The repeat rapists just roll the dice so often that they get caught.

I understand the concept but it seems far too common for a single accusation to get followed up by more. Maybe if someone really regrets the act after the fact they won't repeat it but I think humans are more likely to repeat crimes that they both enjoy and get away with.

Murder would be different in that a lot of murders involve wanting a specific person dead and you can't kill the same person twice.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:01 pm UTC

gd1 wrote:I mean gridlock in the sense that nothing happens rather than the strict definition though.


Ah, fair enough. Will be interesting to watch at any rate.

sardia wrote:That's a survivor bias, aka one time rapists will rarely get caught. The repeat rapists just roll the dice so often that they get caught.


Probably true for most crimes, but recidivism is fairly high for such offenses compared to other crimes, yes? I think that'd imply that offenders are more likely to be habitual in general, both caught and uncaught.

asoban wrote:Something that concerns me, most of the people I know who voted for Trump held their nose to do so. Why? Supreme Court picks that went their way. If Kavanaugh isn't confirmed before the election then it is entirely possible that the SC seat he is going for will become the topic of the election. That being the case, I think that the Democrat's chances are greatly hurt by this. Thoughts?


It'll be a topic, but I'm not sure it'll impact the Democrats chances greatly. I mean, yeah, Republicans might be enthused to vote if perception is that a SC seat is on the line, but the same could also be true of Democrats. After all, if this seat goes republican, it's probably a republican court for ages.

asoban wrote:In terms of the sexual accusations against him, I think that while notable, Ford's account isn't really actionable. Two of the three people strongly deny that it happened. To overcome that, we need evidence outside of Ford. The issue with the Therapist's notes is that their not evidence from outside Ford. All they tell us is what Ford said in 2012. Ramirez's accusation may be actionable, but for that to be the case, we need to get testimony from a couple of the other witnesses which do appear to exist. We get that evidence, and I think we may have something actionable. Until Avenatti's evidence actually comes forward, his statements are neither notable nor actionable.


I agree that, in a vacuum, Ford's accusations are lacking in oomph. However, the more accusations, particularly credible accusations that are levied, the more serious any given accusation seems. If you believe he's the sort of fellow that would cross those lines once, it's more likely that he's the sort of fellow that would do it twice. If another woman comes out accusing Bill Cosby, I'm not going to be surprised, yknow?

Yeah, we're still short of full on proof, but it's far more probable that one person makes an invalid accusation than that many do so independently. So, eyeballing the odds, one ought to view Kav with a lot more suspicion given the additional information.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26203
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:12 pm UTC

Tyr, others stating there is Not Enough Evidence and that the Claims Are Not Convincing -

What evidence could be presented to convince you that a particular illegal act took place in 1983 with few to no witnesses? And "There is no evidence that ever could" is a valid answer.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:26 pm UTC

Naw, I'm saying that the multiple accusations are sufficient to be concerning. When it was just one, sure, there was probable reason for doubt. But it's far less likely that multiple accusers are all making stuff up.

It might not be criminal level proof, but from the "do I think he did something wrong" perspective, the more independent accusations there are, the less likely his innocence looks. So, for me, corroboration in the form of independent verification or a second independent accusation suffices*. Others appear to have a different standard.

*At least for "we ought to look into this prior to confirmation" levels.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10149
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:08 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:What evidence could be presented to convince you that a particular illegal act took place in 1983 with few to no witnesses? And "There is no evidence that ever could" is a valid answer.


Sadly, the evidence that'd prove it would be long gone or isn't coming out.

1) Other witnesses coming forward, confirming story
2) Other victims coming forward with similar stories with same perpetrator
3) Semen samples, rape kit, etc (which wouldn't be in this case, obviously)
4) Video recordings of the party (again, extremely unlikely in the age before smartphones)
5) Brett's former frat bros confirming his bragging about it (extremely unlikely even if he did brag back in the day)

So really, only 1 and 2 would be possible at this point in time. Unfortunately, the other witness that could corroborate the story, Mark Judge, hasn't. The best evidence she has are the other two women coming forward with cases of sexually harassment by Kavanaugh.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8218
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:18 pm UTC

There are already other people saying they knew of the story at the time, and there's one more victim that came forward.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10149
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:55 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:There are already other people saying they knew of the story at the time


Citation? AFAIK they contradict Dr Ford's story, but if they don't, well, that doesn't bode too well for Brett.

there's one more victim that came forward.


Are you referring to the time Brett was said to have waved his penis in a woman's face? Because I mentioned that person, she was the second woman to come forward. A third woman is expected in a day or two.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 609
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:01 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:2) Other victims coming forward with similar stories with same perpetrator

This, in and of itself wouldn't be convincing. It would lend credibility and weight to the accusations as a whole, but even still, each accusation would have to be taken on its own first and as part of the group second. The initial accusation can and will encourage others in a similar position (if any) to come forward, but it's not exactly uncommon for false accusations to come out with the others.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6455
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:16 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:2) Other victims coming forward with similar stories with same perpetrator

This, in and of itself wouldn't be convincing. It would lend credibility and weight to the accusations as a whole, but even still, each accusation would have to be taken on its own first and as part of the group second. The initial accusation can and will encourage others in a similar position (if any) to come forward, but it's not exactly uncommon for false accusations to come out with the others.

you prefer Roy Moore levels of evidence? I'm guessing Cosby went way past the limit. I'm actually curious of your rankings of sexual misconduct cases among famous people. Is Al Franken a slam dunk case, but Justice Thomas's case total bullshit?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10149
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:22 pm UTC

It's entirely possible that one or more than one of the Harvey Weinstein accusers is latching on for profit or just petty revenge, but the odds that all of them are so remote, we might as well be arguing about the odds of quantum tunnelling.

The odds that the Dems can find one person who knew Brett back in high school/college who either can be convinced that Brett was the one who attacked them or convinced to lie about it for political purposes is within the realm of possibility even if unlikely. That they can find two, if not more, well, that's so extremely unlikely that it's better to just assume he's guilty of something.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:31 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1871
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:25 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:... even still, each accusation would have to be taken on its own first and as part of the group second.
If an accusation has to be "95% likely true" before you accept it, do you ignore ten 94% credible accusations or note that 1 - (0.0610) is 99.99999999999939533824% and conclude that GREAT STINKING PILES OF EVIDENCE, BATMAN! Something happened!

Pulling one card from a deck and noting that it's red doesn't prove much, but if you shuffle the deck and deal 20 red cards in a row I'd expect you to suspect someone's playing silly buggers with your decks of cards. I mean, really, what are the chances?

Really what are the chances? Well, assuming no Jokers, 26/52 * 25/51 * 24/50 * ... * 7/33 or ( 26! / ( 52! * 6! )) = 1.44 * 1044 to 1.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:27 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:2) Other victims coming forward with similar stories with same perpetrator

This, in and of itself wouldn't be convincing. It would lend credibility and weight to the accusations as a whole, but even still, each accusation would have to be taken on its own first and as part of the group second. The initial accusation can and will encourage others in a similar position (if any) to come forward, but it's not exactly uncommon for false accusations to come out with the others.


It's possible, but it's less likely. Particularly within a small group. Multiple folks from his college peers supports an impression of him during those years. And it's a smaller group of people. Finding two crazy people who say something false in the entire population of the US? Probably not that hard. But out of the group of his peers? Little harder.

And the second story appears to be validated by others, at a time when it couldn't reasonably be due to copycatting. To me, this greatly increases credibility. The idea that a number of his peers knew he was sketchy strikes me as more reasonable than the alternative. Proof, no, but definitely cause to look a good deal closer. As a number of unconnected events, it appears unlikely, and it would require significant coordination/conspiracy to all be a single orchestrated campaign. Thus, one would expect evidence of such before blaming a conspiracy. Either explanation seems comparatively unlikely.

In the end, it's all down to evidence. A complete lack, and sure, give the guy the benefit of the doubt. But if it piles up, the likelihood that there is something to at least one of the allegations is larger. This is because of the fact that they are independent events. If it were, say, two accusations from the same accuser, that wouldn't make one believe either was more likely, because there's no independence. But one ought to assume that the likelihood of multiple independent false accusations is significantly lower than of a single incident.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 645
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SDK » Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:29 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:The initial accusation can and will encourage others in a similar position (if any) to come forward, but it's not exactly uncommon for false accusations to come out with the others.

Don't want to pile on you too hard here, but do you have any examples of cases where multiple false accusations were piled on the same innocent person? I spent some time just now trying to find even one such case, but came up empty.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10149
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:33 pm UTC

SDK wrote:
Yablo wrote:The initial accusation can and will encourage others in a similar position (if any) to come forward, but it's not exactly uncommon for false accusations to come out with the others.

Don't want to pile on you too hard here, but do you have any examples of cases where multiple false accusations were piled on the same innocent person? I spent some time just now trying to find even one such case, but came up empty.


Well, some of Scientology's victims...

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:38 pm UTC

That's true, but in such a case, they're no longer independent events. There's a common cause behind 'em all. Basically it's a conspiracy theory that happens to be right, since Scientology is acting as a conspiracy in those cases.

If there's evidence that such a conspiracy is in play here, then sure, the perception changes again. But so far as I'm aware, no such evidence has been presented.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests