• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mudguard

  • Rank
    Council Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Santa Clara, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

3,040 profile views
  1. I think the point is that believing something that is factually wrong doesn't affect your truthfulness. If a person actually believes that Obama was born in Kenya, then that person telling others that Obama was born in Kenya doesn't make that person more or less likely to lie. Only if that person believed that Obama was born in the US and then claimed that Obama was born in Kenya would such a statement be evidence that the person is untruthful. Does anyone have any evidence that Tweeden knew or believed that Obama was born in the US when she made her birther statements? If not, then I don't think it's appropriate to use her birther statements as evidence of her untruthfulness. If you can show that Tweeden has a propensity to lie, meaning knowingly telling a falsehood, about something important, then I think that's fair game.
  2. I have Brown in W-E, but I'm playing against him in W-C. A lot can happen over the weekend, but it's looking like I'll be going 1-1. I need the win more in W-E, so I don't mind.
  3. If he had apologized to her in the past before the story broke I would have believed him, but he's had over a decade to apologize, and he only apologized after he was exposed. That's one count against his apology being genuine. The second count against him is that he recently admitted that he's lied about an apology about a joke that could be construed as sexual harassment. It might not be exactly the same situation, but it seems pretty close to me. The third count against him was that his initial apology was completely inadequate. What objective reasons do you have that balance the scales and lead you to believe that his apology is genuine?
  4. I believe in Louis CK's apology. He apologized privately to several of the women he harassed years before the story broke. Doesn't lessen the wrongness of what he did, but I do believe that he's sorry. But most of the time I don't care enough to make any determination.
  5. Tweeden made it very clear after he kissed her that the kiss was unwanted and that he should never do that again. He knew he upset her, and according to her account, treated her with petty insults afterwards, and of course took the photo of him grabbing or pretending to grab her breasts. This wasn't a situation where he was unaware that he upset her. If he genuinely felt sorry, he would have apologized long ago. Another reason why I'm skeptical about Franken's current apology is that in 2008 when he was running for the Senate, he apologized about making a "joke" about drugging and raping Leslie Stahl when he worked at SNL. Recently, he published a book where he's admitted that the apology wasn't sincere, and that he apologized only to improve his chances at getting elected. Why should I believe his apology now, when under similar circumstances (it was a joke both times! haha!), he's admitted to giving a fake apology?
  6. That's a very interesting story. I think Flynn is fucked. The only question now is what type of deal, if any, is Mueller willing to give Flynn in exchange for testimony against Trump. I'm a little worried though that if Flynn is given immunity or a lesser sentence, he still maintains that Trump didn't do anything wrong. Not sure if that would be grounds for revoking the immunity or plea bargain. Can a deal be made conditional on providing dirt on Trump that leads to Trump's indictment, so that if the information he provides is crap the deal is void?
  7. I'm a patent lawyer, and law school doesn't teach you about the workings of Congress. Everyone pretty much takes the same courses in the first year, and then it's all electives. There might be an elective course that gets into it, but it's not required for graduation, at least not at my school and I doubt it would be required at others. Getting kicked out of all his committees would be more than a slap on the wrist. I'd agree with that. I personally would prefer to see him resign, but if he's at least kicked out of all his committees, then I think that's at least a step in the right direction. The punishment has to be more than receiving public condemnation.
  8. I'd have no problem with Trump's impeachment and removal for many, many reasons, but the reality is that under a Republican controlled Congress, it's not going to happen. But that's not the issue here. The issue is what should be done about Franken, and what should Democrats do about Franken? He should pay a heavy price behind closed doors? What does that actually mean? How would this actually hurt him? Why should this punishment be behind closed doors? All this seems like a slap on the wrist to me.
  9. Bad precedent is not taking any substantive action against a person committing sexual harassment when there's ample proof. If you let Franken go with a slap on the wrist despite there being photographic evidence seen be the entire world, what message does that send to female staffers that are harassed? It reinforces the message that there is no point complaining because nothing will be done anyway. It completely undermines the current effort in Congress at addressing this issue.
  10. If he thought it was OK to take a picture that looks like he was groping her when she was asleep, then I don't think it's hard to believe that he thought it was OK to lay his hands on her as a "joke." If he was going to mime doing it, he didn't need to put his hands anywhere near that close. I don't think he deserves the benefit of the doubt here. It should be clear that lots of men feel entitled to grab women without their consent, and I think a lot don't really think that it's bad.
  11. Franken is guilty at least of sexual harassment. The photo is more than enough evidence to prove that. Also, I don't see how people can be sure that Franken wasn't touching her in the photo. It looks to me that at least his fingertips were touching her breasts, or were extremely close to touching her. Just because you can see shadows under his fingers doesn't mean he wasn't touching her. Try putting your hands against a wall with some lighting from above. You'll have shadows under each finger that look similar to the shadows in the picture. I think it's reasonable for Tweeden to assume that she was groped based on that photo. And if Franken's fingertips were touching her breasts, that's sexual assault. Franken's initial apology was horrendous. It started out with essentially a denial of the unwanted kissing (he remembered things differently) and then tried to play off the photo as a joke. The second apology was better, but I question his sincerity. I'm sure that he's sorry that he's been caught and exposed, but I doubt that he's really sorry about what he did. If he really did regret his actions, he should have apologized to her privately long ago. Franken's apology is about damage control. If he resigns, then I'll believe that he's actually sorry. I think Franken should resign. If he doesn't, it sets a bad precedent. Even worse would be if he doesn't resign, runs for reelection, and then wins. That would be a terrible message.
  12. You probably have the hardest remaining schedule, so it's possible that could happen, but you probably just need one more win to get through. I think a lot will depend on whether Dak gets back on track. I probably need to win 2 of 3 to make the playoffs, so it's very possible that I could miss the playoffs with a power ranking somewhere in the top 4. It's possible we both finish with 7 wins and it comes down to tiebreakers, which favor you right now. The standings are so tight that anyone in the top 6 right now could miss the playoffs. I'm not even sure that anyone will clinch a spot in the playoffs after this weekend. There could be enough teams with 7 or more wins at the end of the regular season that it comes down to tiebreakers for those with 7 wins.
  13. I don't buy the conspiracy theory that both the liberal and conservative mass market media are out to destroy Moore and function simply as tools of a small group of people that don't like him. While owners of these companies certainly have influence, they don't have complete editorial control and can't restrict all the reporters and editors from doing their jobs. It would come out if the owners were trying to squash fact checking of this big of a story. Regardless, Breitbart has the resources and has sent reporters out to debunk the claims. I doubt they'll find anything of significance. McConnell and other Republicans are with Democrats because the evidence is overwhelming. You can see how almost all of them initially qualified their statements with the phrase "if true", but many have now dropped the phrase now that they've had time to review the evidence. Even if the 25% number was for doing something illegal, I think that's too low if you accept that Moore actively dated and pursued relationships with highschool girls while he was a 30 something district attorney. At least a couple of the women have accused him of sexual assault, which includes things like unwanted groping. Given that he was acting in a predatory manner to begin with, I think the allegations that he groped some of them without permission are credible. No one has presented a credible explanation for why these women would be lying. I don't see why you would believe Moore's denials over the accusations by these women. At worst, it should be a 50% chance that Moore did something illegal. Personally, I would have an extremely hard time voting for someone I found morally repugnant, but I suppose it would depend on how repugnant I found the act. If I thought a Democrat sexually assaulted women, I can't see myself voting for that person based on economic policy arguments or other policy positions of that nature. It would have to be something extraordinarily bad in their opponent for me to consider voting for the sexual predator. I'd have to be somehow convinced that their opponent was going to be the next Hitler, or something else on that level of horrendousness. A tax plan or job creation plan isn't going to do it.
  14. Although I mentioned that I thought hummingbirds were cool, I should also mention that some of them are jerks. I used to have a hummingbird feeder that would attract a bunch of hummingbirds. Most of the time, they would all happily share, but occasionally, one of them would be a real mean bastard and attack and chase away other hummingbirds from the feeder. It would just perch nearby, repeatedly sing a loud and angry hummingbird song, and chase away other hummingbirds.
  15. You may not have the resources to personally determine whether the allegations against Moore are true or false, but plenty of other organizations do, and I think it's safe to assume that many different people and organizations are fact checking the Washington Post story. As I've said in an earlier post, I can understand some initial skepticism to the Post story, but as time passes without anyone debunking or convincingly casting doubt on the major elements of the Post story, it becomes harder and harder to justify doubting the allegations. Even Moore's own denials, have been pretty weak. For example, he hasn't denied dating high school girls aged 16-18 while he was a 30 something year old district attorney. While not necessarily illegal per se, I find it at a minimum to be hugely problematic that a 30 plus year old district attorney, a person of authority, would be constantly pursuing relationships with high school girls that are legally considered minors. There's overwhelming evidence that he's done this. Are you saying that you don't find this behavior truly objectionable? Would you vote for a politician that admitted to this behavior if you agreed with his positions on policy issues? Or are you saying that you think there's only about a 25% chance that this allegation is true? If you think that this behavior is objection but it only has a 25% chance of being true, how did you come up with that number when there's tons of evidence that the allegations is true and no (that I'm aware of) evidence that it's false?