US Politics: Crossing that Ford

[Ice Queen]

34 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

Rumor mill is saying that the Avenatti stuff isnt coming. That he got trolled on the phone and went all in. He's locked his twitter account. 

 

False. Avenatti says no. 

Those 4chan wackos are something else. Truly sickening people.

 

[fionwe1987]

43 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Collins speaks out of both sides of her mouth, it looks like she believes they should have a hearing as due process, but she still obviously really wants to vote for him. She still defends every other shitty thing which should make her a “no”, like the perjury, or his views on abortion- she is in using the flimsiest cover there, his mealy mouthed speil about precedent in the hearing which is contradicted by his long history of comments about precedent elsewhere. 

Well, of course she will hedge her bets. You don't expect her to say anything straight out, do you? But she's now asking for Debbie Ramirez to be allowed to testify too, and that's standing out even more, compared to all the other Republicans calling it a smear job.

36 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

Rumor mill is saying that the Avenatti stuff isnt coming. That he got trolled on the phone and went all in. He's locked his twitter account. 

 

This seems to be pretty much wishful thinking from Breitbart. He has locked his twitter before. Its more of his bombast.

He may be a showboater, but he isn't close to stupid enough to do what he did based on phone calls. 

[Fragile Bird]

Yes, Avanetti got calls about Trump. Months ago when Stormy was the hot topic he said he was talking to and researching several more women with accusations against Trump. When he was interviewed by CNN the other day and announced he’d have a big reveal on Wednesday, he was asked about those other women. He said research made him determine he would not take any of them as clients. He’s damn careful. He doesn’t want to be sued and disbarred.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, drawkcabi said:

I would think this behavior and suffering was rampant far further back than only 40 years, maybe as far back as Yale, Harvard, Princeton existed. It probably wasn't even thought of as behavior that needed to be covered up until the 20th century. The 80's maybe was the point it that the boys network cover up began to show cracks in it cracking more bit by bit  up until today when it's been partially exposed but still intact as much as obviously seen by the goings on with Kavanaugh among others today.

As women weren't allowed to matriculate at such schools until the 1960's century, one doubts it.  As I tried to make clear, they of course behaved like this to women who weren't of their class.  The whole world's men did / do.  But as they didn't have that kind of intimate, unsupervised access to women of their own class until very recently as history rolls, the women of their own class were generally quite safe.

 

[drawkcabi]

30 minutes ago, Zorral said:

As women weren't allowed to matriculate at such schools until the 1960's century, one doubts it.  As I tried to make clear, they of course behaved like this to women who weren't of their class.  The whole world's men did / do.  But as they didn't have that kind of intimate, unsupervised access to women of their own class until very recently as history rolls, the women of their own class were generally quite safe.

 

I understand now. Thank you.

[Maithanet]

In the past month, there have been nine polls of the FL senate race, and all had the race between Scott +2 and Nelson+1.  Today a Quinnipiac poll shows Nelson up 53-46.

I doubt he's actually up by that much, but it's nonetheless a good sign to get a result outside the 4 point margin of error. 

[Zorral]

45 minutes ago, drawkcabi said:

I understand now. Thank you.

However-- men of all classes could do with their wives whatever they wanted until very recently, outside of homicide, and even then , , , , And fathers and brothers and uncles and their friends of every class did sexually abuse the girls.*  But it was never spoken of.  And this is the culture out of which come all these women, so very near, so much still for so many, especially their mothers, etc.,  who haven't spoken out, who don't tell. Nobody believed them.  Even if believed they were still damaged goods, they were blamed, ostracized and that was the end of their lives,

This is one of reasons for the heavily chaperoned and supervised debutante balls, receptions, dinners.  Generally, boys of that class seldom had any contact with a woman of his class unsupervised, other than his own relatives.

The Roaring 20's was the first break with this -- read for social history F. Scott Fitgerald what this was like -- he knew that class better than just about anyone, observing it carefully with both disdain and envy (as he wasn't as rich as so many -- and yah, no women at Princeton!).

-----------------

* I am not saying all men did this, or that there weren't many loving father - daughter, husband-wife, brother-sister relationships, because the social history also teaches us there were.  Just as it teaches us that there are always sexual predators among them, and the less it is spoken of, excused, etc., the more there come to be.  It comes to be considered socially normal.

[lokisnow]

I finally clicked on the 538 house forecast

interesting in the fourth graph, the scatter plot. Note that democrats can still win the popular vote by +12 and still lose the house.

They need to win the house by +13 to be assured of winning a majority, and their seat share at winning the popular vote by +13 would be between 218 and 280.

but gerrymandering isn't a thing that affects outcomes nor elections, experts all agree, it is just the right and natural order of things that majorities do not equal majorities. duh.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/?ex_cid=rrpromo

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

42 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

In the past month, there have been nine polls of the FL senate race, and all had the race between Scott +2 and Nelson+1.  Today a Quinnipiac poll shows Nelson up 53-46.

I doubt he's actually up by that much, but it's nonetheless a good sign to get a result outside the 4 point margin of error. 

I think the key with Florida is how much of a boost will Nelson get from Gillum and vice versa how much will DeSantis hold Scott back? The gap in the governor's race has been consistently wider than the senate race.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Regarding Kavanaugh, the reason he won't withdraw or be withdrawn is entirely political and has nothing to do with ethics. There are two factors driving this. First is enthusiasm during the midterms. I think it's fair to conclude that enthusiasm among Democrats won't be affected one way or the other. They are fired up. Republicans, OTOH, remain an open question. If Kavanaugh is pulled, the Supreme Court seat will be open on Election Day, and it remains unreal if that would enthuse or depress the Republican base. The second reason is that Republicans are dead set on getting Kavanaugh (or any other person) seated before the midterms. While it has been well documented that Republicans don't care about fairness and hypocrisy, they do know it will be a lot harder to get a nominee through in a lame duck session if they lose the Senate. They still could, but that would all but assure that Democrats play hardball on every single Trump nominee for any position that requires a Senate confirmation. 

[Martell Spy]

4 hours ago, Zorral said:

Excellent thread title choice.

Again, as iterated here several times, the 1980's began this kind of culture.  Such events among the students in schools all over the country that cater to the progeny were commonly in the news. The perpetrators and victims (the victims who were worthy of news coverage) were usually legacy progeny.  They were groomed for the Ivys, such as Yale, where went more of these women assaulted by these male white elite over-privileged ilks

The posh and wealthy elite were not infrequently in the newspapers and magazines such as Vanity Fair fairly regularly for behaving very badly.  A woman describes in Slate what it was like for the girls of one these prep for the Ivys schools having to deal with the boys of these prep for the Ivys schools in the 80's:

https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/09/kavanaugh-judge-prep-school-parties.html

There have been many other stories like this in the media -- all describing these behaviors.

We are suffering nearly FORTY years of this ever escalating behavior, to which everyone turned a blind eye, and which has been increasingly covered up and ignored.

Right down to sometimes pretending murder didn't happen, when it did.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2000/10/dominick-dunne-martha-moxley-murder-greenwich

 

 

Not to worry, it is just afluenza.

[Ice Queen]

55 minutes ago, Zorral said:

However-- men of all classes could do with their wives whatever they wanted until very recently, outside of homicide, and even then , , , , And fathers and brothers and uncles and their friends of every class did sexually abuse the girls.*  But it was never spoken of.  And this is the culture out of which come all these women, so very near, so much still for so many, especially their mothers, etc.,  who haven't spoken out, who don't tell. Nobody believed them.  Even if believed they were still damaged goods, they were blamed, ostracized and that was the end of their lives,

This is one of reasons for the heavily chaperoned and supervised debutante balls, receptions, dinners.  Generally, boys of that class seldom had any contact with a woman of his class unsupervised, other than his own relatives.

The Roaring 20's was the first break with this -- read for social history F. Scott Fitgerald what this was like -- he knew that class better than just about anyone, observing it carefully with both disdain and envy (as he wasn't as rich as so many -- and yah, no women at Princeton!).

-----------------

* I am not saying all men did this, or that there weren't many loving father - daughter, husband-wife, brother-sister relationships, because the social history also teaches us there were.  Just as it teaches us that there are always sexual predators among them, and the less it is spoken of, excused, etc., the more there come to be.  It comes to be considered socially normal.

In Pennsylvania, it was legal for a man to rape his wife until 1995.

[Zorral]

20 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Not to worry, it is just afluenza.

Perhaps that remark is just too close to the boys will be boys, boys is drunk, so be cool about what is an epidemic of violence / sexual violence?  You have noticed this behaviors is not confined only to the rich and famous.  

 

[Bonnot OG]

Republicans are fucking scum. They plan on voting on Kavanaugh's confirmation on Friday morning, a day after they are interviewing one of his victims. It's all a fucking show. 

[Serious Callers Only]

Li' Ron is planning to call a vote to suspend the Russia sanctions... again. Krompromat works, the CIA should get on that, since obviously the GOP does.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/rand-paul-wants-to-scrap-some-us-sanctions-on-russia

 

[Martell Spy]

31 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Perhaps that remark is just too close to the boys will be boys, boys is drunk, so be cool about what is an epidemic of violence / sexual violence?  You have noticed this behaviors is not confined only to the rich and famous.  

 

It's so hard being rich though. It's a fucking burden.

Kavanaugh’s Drinking Should Be Investigated
It’s possible the Supreme Court nominee was so intoxicated that he doesn’t remember assaulting his accusers. We must find out.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-alcohol-assault-allegations.html

Quote

 

On Tuesday, President Trump dismissed the latest sexual misconduct accusation against his Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. Trump scoffed that Deborah Ramirez, who says Kavanaugh exposed his genitals to her during a drinking game in college, was too “inebriated” and “messed up” to know what happened. It’s reasonable to ask whether alcohol impaired Ramirez’s memory or the memory of Kavanaugh’s other accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. But it’s just as reasonable—and based on current evidence, more warranted—to raise that question about Kavanaugh himself.

Broadly speaking, in the debate over Kavanaugh’s guilt or innocence, there are four possible answers. One is that Kavanaugh is lying. The second is that his accusers are lying. The third is that nobody’s lying: The accusers believe Kavanaugh did what they allege, but he didn’t. The fourth scenario, too, posits that nobody’s lying. On this theory, Kavanaugh believes he didn’t do what his accusers allege, but he did.

The fourth option is worth a closer look. Ford says Kavanaugh drunkenly pinned her down at a teen party, groped her, and tried to pull off her clothes. Ramirez says Kavanaugh stood next to her and dropped his pants when they were drinking with classmates at Yale. Is it possible that Kavanaugh did these things, even if he doesn’t remember them? Is there evidence that makes that scenario particularly plausible in his case? Are there steps that the Senate can and should take to investigate that possibility? The answer to all three questions is yes.

 

 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is warning his colleagues publicly and privately that his plan is to hold a floor vote on Kavanaugh no matter what happens in the Judiciary Committee, possibly as soon as early next week. Though Kavanaugh currently lacks the votes to be confirmed, the GOP leader is signaling that he will hold the vote anyway to force all 100 senators to go on record and put maximum pressure on red state Democrats that the GOP is hoping to defeat this fall, Republican senators said.

Whether that vote will be successful remains in doubt, the senators said.

 

GOP support for Kavanaugh wavers
Republicans signal they will wait to pass judgment on the Supreme Court nominee until hearing from him and an accuser later this week.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/24/kavanaugh-senate-republican-support-838392

[DMC]

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

interesting in the fourth graph, the scatter plot. Note that democrats can still win the popular vote by +12 and still lose the house.

Also note you immediately went to the worst possible probability upon viewing their models.  If you were in a Dan Brown novel you'd flog yourself.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

So that’s a dead issue, right? Maybe not.

Lisa Murkowski is one of a few Republican senators thought to be still on the fence about Kavanaugh. And here’s what she had to say today:

 I just asked Sen. Lisa Murkowski, key GOP swing vote, if there should be a full FBI investigation into allegations from Kavanaugh’s past. “It would sure clear up all the questions, wouldn’t it?” she said

Murkowski’s comment got the attention of National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, who made the case that for the price of a few days’ delay, an FBI investigation might bolster Kavanaugh’s credibility. But here was his bottom line:

Lots of people reject all of this and say that the GOP should stop the circus and just vote right now. That would be a great idea if Kavanaugh had the votes. He doesn’t. And something will have to change for him to get them.

 

An FBI Investigation Could Become GOP’s Backup Plan on Kavanaugh

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/an-fbi-investigation-could-be-gops-backup-plan-on-kavanaugh.html

[Zorral]

39 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

On Tuesday, President Trump dismissed the latest sexual misconduct accusation against his Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. Trump scoffed that Deborah Ramirez, who says Kavanaugh exposed his genitals to her during a drinking game in college, was too “inebriated” and “messed up” to know what happened. It’s reasonable to ask whether alcohol impaired Ramirez’s memory or the memory of Kavanaugh’s other accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. But it’s just as reasonable—and based on current evidence, more warranted—to raise that question about Kavanaugh himself.

Broadly speaking, in the debate over Kavanaugh’s guilt or innocence, there are four possible answers. One is that Kavanaugh is lying. The second is that his accusers are lying. The third is that nobody’s lying: The accusers believe Kavanaugh did what they allege, but he didn’t. The fourth scenario, too, posits that nobody’s lying. On this theory, Kavanaugh believes he didn’t do what his accusers allege, but he did.

The fourth option is worth a closer look. Ford says Kavanaugh drunkenly pinned her down at a teen party, groped her, and tried to pull off her clothes. Ramirez says Kavanaugh stood next to her and dropped his pants when they were drinking with classmates at Yale. Is it possible that Kavanaugh did these things, even if he doesn’t remember them? Is there evidence that makes that scenario particularly plausible in his case? Are there steps that the Senate can and should take to investigate that possibility? The answer to all three questions is yes.

 

How in the world does the orange nazi know anything about what happened?  He wasn't there.  O! Wait!  He did the same damned stuff himself, so he knows how it rolls, and the excuse was always she was drunk.  Except when she wasn't but then he was such a famous rich fellow he could do whatever he wanted.

Hell, he still can.  He can stand in front of the world at the UN and claim to be the bestest of the bestest ever and think the representatives of the world laughing at him are laughing in appreciation of his sheer awesomeness.

Get him outta there!

As far as that Kavanaugh vote -- the rethugs must be lacking confidence they've got the votes or else they would have called the vote already, wouldn't they?  It's the way they do shyte.