• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About OldGimletEye

  • Rank
    Assistant To The Assistant Manager

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Straight Outta Flea Bottom

Recent Profile Visitors

15,600 profile views
  1. Okay, let me go over this again. This whole thing got started because another poster made comment about Ms. Tweeden’s political leanings, her appearances on Fox News, and the fact that she was a birther. Manhole responded to that post, and I added that I don’t think Ms. Tweeten’s political orientation was relevant to the credibility of her claims. I added though that I believed that anyone promoting birther conspiracy theories would have to take a hit to their credibility. And then after that, I stated that I believed the original poster had confused Ms. Tweeden with Ms. Morgan as I was not aware of Ms. Tweeden promoting any sort of conspiracy theory or making any other outlandish claims. Sometime later another poster, linked a transcript from Media Matters where Ms. Tweeden apparently was pushing the idea that Barack Obama should produce a birth certificate. There was some posts thereafter to the effect that Ms. Tweeden’s dabbling in birtherism isn’t relevant or that is what it seemed to me. I added a comment, that I believe, that pushing birtherism is relevant in assessing a persons basic credibiliy, but based on what I saw in the transcript I did not believe that the transcript was enough to not believe Ms. Tweeden. Now sometime later you posted your comment. Now, I have no idea if was addressed to me, in part or in whole, but I thought it might be. And in reading that post it was clear to me that you were specifically talking about Franken’s case, but it wasn’t clear to me that you were not speaking in more general terms. But anyway I felt the need to address it. Speaking in general terms in these sort of cases, I do think that persons propensity to go out and repeat crackpot theories or outright falsehoods, like birtherism or Holocaust Denial or whatever, does and should impugn on their credibility. Now depending on the facts of the case, it may not be enough to overturn the presumption of truth telling we should give in these cases. But, I feel it is incorrect to hand wave them away and say they simply are not relevant. I did the best I could to explain why I thought so. In Ms. Tweeden’s case, I do not feel that short transcript of her dabbling with birtherism we should come to conclude that she is not telling the truth as regard to Mr. Franken. I do not expect accusers to have a 100% record in accuracy in telling the truth as nobody could meet that standard. However, saying that dabbling with bitherism isn’t relevant doesn’t sit quite right with me. I think it’s relevant, but based on what I know of this case, it’s not enough to overturn the idea that Ms. Tweeden is being truthful as what occurred between her and Franken. Now had Ms. Tweeden had a history of repeating crackpot theories and outright falsehoods, publicly, I might think differently. But, basically, I don’t really seeing her having done that. But, I don’t think, you can say her promoting birtherism has no relevance to the facts here. Now if you want to make the claim that birtherism or holocaust denial or any other crackpot claim, that goes beyond normal ideological disagreements, is all “subjective” and shouldn’t have any effect on the credibility of somebody, then fine, you go right on ahead and make that claim. I don’t buy it.
  2. Because in responding to your post, I wasn’t sure whether you were taking about this specific case only or speaking more generally. But, if we are talking about these cases, generally, of which there will be many, its important to get to the actual crime or crimes committed. Its possible that one crime was committed where another was not and the evidence that tends to prove each crime might be different. And where the evidence of one crime is largely testimony it is certainly relevant to inquire into past statements of the accuser. I think it’s bad form not to analyze these cases correctly. Saying something is simply not relevant when it is isn’t quite right. I mean certainly Ms. Tweeden engaging in birther nonsense is relevant in my opinion, and should be regarded so, even if it ultimately doesn’t change the presumption that she is being truthful. I truly get this is not a criminal court and where not going to use the same well defined procedures you find in a criminal court of law. And nor should we in these sort of cases. But, I don’t think we should should just assume because one accusation is true that every other one is. And dividing up what is specifically alleged and what the evidence is for each allegation is a useful exercise and I’m not talking about this Franken case specifically. As I said, I find Tweeden’s claims credible despite her dabbling in birtherism. But if this were another case, and one of the allegations rested primarily on the testimony of the accuser and the accuser had a history of making false claims, I might think differently. Well it seems to me that a rather large number of Republicans were willing to believe in a rather dishonest delusion. And certainly somebody willing to go out and repeatedly push that falsehood would have to take some hit to their credibility. Except I didn’t, unless your saying that the birther issue I raised counts here. This is complete horeseshit. I have really no idea where you are getting this. At what point did I say prior political opinions or viewpoints are relevant in this sort of case. I did not do such a thing. And at no point have I every indicated that a persons mode of dress or occupation is remotely relevant in this sort of case. I do not believe that a person mode of dress, general political affiliation, or occupation has any relevance to their credibility. Knowingly spewing false bullshit does however. And finally, I really don't give damn if you believe me or not. Well, again, it wasn’t clear to me whether you were talking about this one specific case or more generally. Secondly, it’s not ridiculous to point out that promoting birtherism (or any other big whopper) is relevant.
  3. Okay, I didn't know that. Last I heard I was under the impression she was going to make claims similar to Tweeden and hadn't done so yet or just started with them.
  4. This whole thing got started because another poster brought up Ms. Tweeden’s affiliation with Fox News, Hannity or whatever. And then he said Ms. Tweeden was a birther. You responded to that post, and I responded to your’s basically saying I don’t really care what Ms. Tweeden’s political beliefs are as I don’t find that relevant to her basic honesty over these matters. I did however say that promoting birther conspiracy theories would be somewhat damaging to her credibility, but then concluded that I believed the original poster had got Ms. Morgan mixed up with Ms. Tweeden. Another poster, then posted a link for Media Matters where Ms. Tweeden apparently dabbled with birther nonsense. Some post then followed, that seemed to indicate that Ms. Tweeden’s dabbling with birtherism wasn’t particularly relevant. I don’t hold that view. I think there is just a tad bit of dishonesty in promoting that sort of thing. Now, from what I read of that transcript, I do not believe it’s enough to overturn the very strong presumption that Ms. Tweeden should be believed. Now, I think it’s important that an accuser be given a very strong presumption that they are telling the truth. I don’t believe that presumption should hold in all cases, depending of course, in part, on the accusers history of being truthful. Now as far as I know, Ms. Morgan has started accusing Franken too. Now at this time, I don’t know what exactly to make of Ms. Morgan’s claims. But, it would seem Ms. Morgan has had past incidences of stretching the truth. And it would seem to me, that would be a bit relevant in determining whether she be believed or not.
  5. Huh? What are you talking about. At no point, did I say, that figuring out what happened had anything to do with figuring out the motives of the accuser. You put those words into my mouth. Also, when I wrote what I wrote, it wasn’t exactly clear to me whether you were talking about this case or other cases. A lot of what I wrote had to with other cases as well. Because I think assessing her prior statements to asses the truth or validy of her story (or anyone else) as a general principle is a worthy line of inquiry. You seemingly desired to cut that right off. As far as I know, Franken didn’t say or outright admit he kissed her in the manner that Ms. Tweeden alleges. Now I believe Ms. Tweeden. But, I’d feel better about it if she hadn’t engaged in birther nuttery. And raising problematic statements by an accuser isn’t putting “them on trial” as you say. Or maybe you just think defendants should never bring them up, even if it means getting them sent to the gas chamber. It may have some relevance to the other charge. I don’t deny that. But, the evidence of the other charge is largely based on her testimony. Oh seriously. You don’t think somebody willing to engage birther conspiracy theories shouldn’t have their credibility impugned just a little? Uh, yeah, I think in prior post I did make it fairly clear that in assessing her truthfulness her basic political orientation doesn’t matter that much to me. There is not much to say about this other than it’s a load of baloney. And really what is your problem with me saying basically, I think the birther stuff is troublesome as to her credibility, but then concluding it’s not enough to disbelieve her. And I was wondering whether, you thought prior statements were ever relevant in these sort of cases, which apparently you do.
  6. And I don't recall ever stating or asserting that proposition. I think her prior startements are relevant. I just don't think they are strong enough to rebut her base accusations, which I'm more than willing to give a very strong presumption that they are correct. I understand this isn't a court of law. And the burden of proof in the court of public opinion may be different. Still that shouldn't stop us from a bit of logic based reasoning. The photograph pertains to one of the charges, not both. Her willing to toy with birtherism certainly calls into question her attachment to facts. Never said it did. And secondly, this fact wouldn't convince me that someone is basically not truthful. Nor her political preferences, which I think I have made clear. Okay, I hope you're not implying that I would think this is remotely relevant. I couldn't give a damn whether she was in Playboy, or Hustler or starred in XXX films. None of that is remotely relevant. I'm not really doubting her version of events. But, what I really bulk at is the notion that prior statements are not relevant in determining the truth of what occurred, where determining the truth is going to based on the witness statement. And I don't think its simply correct to say the photograph proves the kissing allegation, though I do believe Ms. Tweeden's version of events. I think what I'm thinking is that: This goes beyond Franken. And were probably going to see a lot more of this stuff. And I think we need to think really hard about how we want to judge this stuff when it comes done the pike, which I'm sure more will come.
  7. Okay, lets go through this, very slowly. A guy punches another guy. And another guy hits a guy with a baseball bat. They are both wrong. But most people when crafting a punishment to fit the crime would say using a baseball bat is much worse and deserves a heavier sanction. I mean both are wrong. But, the factual differences matter here when determining what ought to be done to the criminal. Now in this case there are two acts. One is proven to be true per a picture. The other, which is more egregious, I think relies on a statement from a witness. Now if you don’t think the witnesses propensity for telling the truth isn’t an issue or should never be, then that’s just not right. I believe Ms. Tweeden’s claims based on what I know about her. And if all her statements about birtherism was just that transcript, then I don’t think that is enough. And, again, I think her political leanings are irrelevant. But, when assessing, what ought to be done with people like Franken, you know it’s kind of crucial to get to the bottom of what crimes were committed. And since, I believe Ms. Tweeden , despite her birther commentary, I believe it’s best for Franken to go. But, to say, prior statements are not relevant to getting the bottom of things is nonsense. Fact of the matter is we are probably going to see more Franken’s in the future. And there is going to be a question of what we should do with them. And then is a big question we as society are going to have to answer. And often that is going to turn on the particular facts of the case. And in determining those facts, if were saying, that not considering a witness’s propensity for truthfulness isn’t relevant, then that is not right. I’m very interested in getting to the bottom of this shit and putting a stop to it. I’m not so much interested in Kangaroo Courts or Soviet Style Show Courts. And if saying that a witnesses propensity to tell the truth can never be implicated, than is exactly what were going to do. Now it’s my understanding that Melanie Morgan is accusing Franken of harassment. At this time, I really don’t know what to make of her claims. But, I do know that at times Ms. Morgan has taken a few big liberties with the truth. And if your saying that doesn’t matter with regarding the truth or veracity of her claims, that’s just nuts.
  8. Well for me, her political leanings are irrelevant, unless she is known to be willing to tell and or promote blatant falsehoods. Her comments per media matters are kind of a grey area, so I don't think I'd let that make me not believe her. Still it's a bit troubling she was willing to give credence to a blatant falsehood. Now with regard to comparing to the Moore allegations. As far as I know there is nothing to question any of those women's credibility. And there seems to be a ton of corroborating evidence in that case. So, I don't think the comparison works.
  9. Like you I’m not willing to change my assessment of somebody’s credibility just because their political beliefs are different from my own. And at this juncture, I’m very inclined to believe Ms. Tweeden’s version of events, her basic political beliefs notwithstanding. However, if somebody has gone around actively promoting birther conspiracy theories or other insane nutball theories that have no basis in reality, then there is, in my estimation, a reason to call into question their basic attachment to facts. Now of all this stuff that Franken has done, I find the forced kiss to be the most egregious act. Now unlike Franken’s highly inappropriate touching, the issue of the kiss depends largely on believing Ms. Tweeden’s version of events, it would seem. And I’m willing to have a very strong prior that she is in fact relating events accurately. But, if she has gone around promoting birther conspiracies, then that prior in my view needs some revision. One cannot expect to be considered an intellectually honest player, after going around spewing pure nuttery. Now, as far as I know, I’m not aware of any credible source at this time that Ms. Tweeden has in fact ever promoted any birther conspiracy or anything like it. I think their maybe a mixup here between Ms. Tweeden and Ms. Morgan, who to my understanding has been willing to engage in outright falsehoods.
  10. I hope Sherrod Brown said fuck you right back to Hatch. And Hatch can whine all he wants. The fact is the tax bill is about helping the rich. Hatch doesn't like it? Then tough shit. I hope Brown and other Democrats tell him he can just go to hell.
  11. I’m not particularly thrilled about the idea of Biden running, as I think the Democratic Party badly needs some new blood, but anyway interesting. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/15/16655154/joe-biden-trump-2020-poll .............................................. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/16/black-men-sentenced-to-more-time-for-committing-the-exact-same-crime-as-a-white-person-study-finds/ ................................................... A somewhat interesting essay about your libertarian feudal overlords. https://niskanencenter.org/blog/libertarian-democracy-skepticism-infected-american-right/ ..................................................... Reading for the weekend about that Brownback Boom. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2958353
  12. The thing to understand about chickenhawks is: They love the idea of war. Cleaning up the aftermath of war? Well not so much.
  13. Yeah, austerity doesn't do much for the long term deficit when your at the ZLB or in a liquidity trap. 20 Trillion dollars seems like a lot. And conservatives always really tell us its a lot. But basically that is not our problem so long as the G>R condition holds, which I expect to last a while. Our real problem is meeting the future demographic challenges ie baby boomers retiring and an older population, and at some point G>R might flip, and that is when things get scary.
  14. Of course not. I’m not suggesting that we should, particularly at this time when there are legitimate concerns about growing wealth inequality. In fact, we might thinking about raising taxes on the wealthy, not just because of only revenue concerns but because higher taxes might to a certain extent combat rent seeking behavior. But anyway, the Democratic Party needs to think about how its going to fund stuff in the future. And it cant just simply say were going to do this and then do the old Paul Ryan asterisk which says “details to be fleshed out in the future.” Now I don’t think finding extra revenue has to be particularly painful. I mean fixing our damn health care would solve a lot of problems. And social security isn’t in as bad shape as many conservatives would claim and there are some policy options, like allowing the Social Security Trust Fund to buy some Equities (and yes I’m aware of Chile and don’t want to do the Chile thingy) that might be explored. There is some time to get this resolved. But, the Democratic Plan, in my opinion, needs to tell us what he game plan is and the numbers need to work.
  15. While I'm certainly no fan of cutting the taxes for the rich, long term all this stuff simply can't be payed for by just taxing the wealthy, I don't think. If you like your Social Security, and Medicare, and Universal Health coverage, chances are its going to require a bit more from most us. Now it's true that a lot of the future tax burden could be relieved if we are ever able to fix our god awful over priced healthcare system, and I'd hope we would continue to reform it, but simply taxing the rich isn't going to work. And some of the burden could be relieved if we get better wage growth, which we should pursue. Generally speaking, people in this country like Social Secrurity and Medicare. But, isn't going to come from the tooth fairy. In 2045, the CBO predicts the debt/GDP ratio is going to be about 145%. Now, I have no idea whether that will be true or not. In fact, I don't even think its that scary. And I think we can run some kind of deficit forever, so long as G>R. And what is scary about 2045 is G<R, at least according to the CBO. Now that may not come to pass. But, I don't think we should wait and find out.