gbear

I remember hearing about a race between a kkk member and a thief. The campaign slogan I remember hearing about most was, "Vote for the crook. It's that important!" The point was even if our guy did everything you said he did, it would still not mean anyone should vote for your guy. It's that important. I feel like that now with denying the current version of the Republican party more unfettered power. Honest though, that scares me because it's the logic that gave us Trump when enough of them said anyone but Clinton.

Am I just imagining things or does the picture above looks like Leslie Nelson. https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=leslie+nelson+actor&id=CBD71C3CD291C40E61BE36B51576FF9992066A5D&FORM=IARRTH

More and more, I think our politicians should have to watch this. I think they need it every bit as much as our teens.

I just laugh/cringe reading the comments on some of the Twitter feeds. That goes double when I notice a number of them have odd handles: Nikita, Niki, Norris, etc or just abrieviations and characters not on an English keyboard. It's not like it is most of them, but it is not trivial either. Do we learn nothing? Ever? I feel like/ worry we are being massively trolled and hope it is just because I am tired. I dont want to think feeling like both witnesses were equally compelling is a sentiment most share. So maybe I just dont read enough twitter feeds to know those names and symbols in the names with abrieviations is normal for Americans.

Kilmer, I worry you disregard the different levels of proof required for a criminal charge versus a preponderance of evidence to make what they say credible and not likely to be sued for liable. If I thought there would likely be some republican who would refuse to believe any evidence brought forward against somebody the president says is a good guy, I would think twice about going through the "file charges" route. I think anyone hearing how Manafort's trial had one juror who refused to convict on more might wonder if justice was a likely outcome of someone the president supports.

I keep coming back to the claimed attempted assault and the claim of virginity, and my mind keeps coming back to the definition of "is" and the definition of sex with all the different possible answers...going back to Clinton.

So Trump's MO has been to take every scandal and try to choke out the news cycle with some bigger news. For example, Russians have an interest in the election, well grab them by the kitty should make that news go unnoticed. So which is the legit fire, witnesses cooperating with Mueller or BK nomination hitting pot hole w assault allegations? What are the odds Trump knew before nomination of the potential scandal? Too crazy?

I will say I have had conversations w Kilmer for years, before this was a Snyder owned web site and maybe pre Snyder owned skins. He has always been conservative, but a conservatism reached through logic and thought. Even if I frequently disagree with him, I don't think I would ever pass him off as a mouth peace for the Republican party. He is too critical of them for that and too open minded in general. I say this because I get the impression some may only read this thread and think he has blinders on for a Republican nomination. I would encourage anyone who thinks him a know nothing conservative Trumper to read more of his posts over the past couple of years. What conservative wouldnt want a conservative court? I figure there are issues where I undoubtedly come across as a raging liberal whose heart is leaving a huge blood stain everywhere I go, like foster care, healthcare systems and rape. On those issues I probably seem unlistening or dense, and I probably am. However, I know it drives my parents nuts when I said voting for Hillary over Trump was the first time I ever voted for a Clinton because of their refusal to back a needle exchange program. Sorry for the derailment. Now back to regularly scheduled vitriol.

Good question kilmer. Can we turn that around to BK and ask how he and judge know he wasnt at the party in question? Did he go to lots of parties? Which party did he miss that he heard this happened? I just worry when I hear absolutes like "I wasnt there." Makes me want to follow up with where and when questions because they seem to have info the victim is having trouble remembering (also not unusual in trauma victims). Good question kilmer. Can we turn that around to BK and ask how he and judge know he wasnt at the party in question? Did he go to lots of parties? Which party did he miss that he heard this happened? I just worry when I hear absolutes like "I wasnt there." Makes me want to follow up with where and when questions because they seem to have info the victim is having trouble remembering (also not unusual in trauma victims).

Do you wonder why Comey took notes? I know as a manager, I am told to document actions and conversations because it makes my version told years later more believable than just my memory in a he said he or she said situation. So I now submit that is why it is relevant that she told others she hax been assaulted. It is why it is relevant that she seems to have some ongoing issues consistant with an assault survivor. For those saying no evidence, I say you are missing what is being presented to you because you require a semen stained dress. If you think that is the only way a case can be made, rape reporting will become even less frequent after rapes because people like you on a jury will never believe. Whether she has enough evidence or enough can be found is a different question, but I am sick of hearing there is no evidence. For what little it is worth, my friend wont sit to eat at a restaurant with her back to the door. So the need for an exit in every room isn't bazaar.

Where I find myself getting hung up is the level of proof we think we need to influence our decisions. If she went to the police, they would only press charges if they were likely to get evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it crazy fir her to think there is no way to get to that point this many years later but still hope people find a perponderence of evidence saying most likely guilty and that changes their mind on whether to give him the trust of a life time appointment? Put it this way, if you had a teenage daughter in the 80's would you have wanted her around him kniwing what we think we know now? If not, why not? It's not like he was convicted of anything, and. He grew to be an upstanding man, right? If you believe the story made up, it should be fine right? That is what I mean by a different level of trust we are giving with this life time apt to the Supreme Court. We should be comfortable with whom we entrust life time positions of power. That's my take, admittedly from the left where people like me wonder how our politicians prosper.

I wish this article rang untrue for me. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/these-are-the-stories-of-our-lives-prep-school-alumni-hear-echoes-in-assault-claim/2018/09/19/b6343f74-bc2e-11e8-b7d2-0773aa1e33da_story.html?utm_term=.f6dda40c9bc3 I went to a different prep school in DC about a decade later, and I remember a lot of girls from the schools mentioned in the article talking about why they liked to hang out with Abbey boys because our attitudes seemed so different from the other prep schools of the area. I think the truth is most of us were too nerdy and nervous to act this way. I don't think any of us had the confidence to be such jerks, and we were mainly a small group of boys from St. Anselms Abbey School. We had Abby Saturdays which were we would have chaperoned where we could mix with girls from local female prep schools like Seton, Stone Ridge and Georgetown Visitation. I know dating a few girls from those schools that we were thought tame and safe where the parties mixing kids from the other schools were drunken danger zones where "anything could happen." I heard enough stories from those times to believe the culture described as accurate.

I wonder if many on here who suggest she should "just go to the police" know somebody who has done so for a sexual assault claim. What about one that happened years ago? It's just not that easy. Usually the victim gets to lose control of the narrative of their life again. If you had been raped, how much do you want to relive it for everyone else knowing they are unlikely to believe you. Knowing that even if some do, some and maybe in even most will find it expedient not to do so because you have no "proof." Remember when Comey kept notes after meetings with Trump, and that was thought smart because it showed what he thought of the interactions before being asked? That was supposed to lend credence to his version as not made up in response to something unrelated currently happening. Now there is a woman claiming to have been assaulted with a record of telling others it happened. How is this different, and what should she or any other victim do? Instead she has come forth after telling a few and put her name publicly behind the accusation. She has the history of telling some for a record saying she didn't make this up this month. No, she didn't go to the police right away...which from having a friend do that, is a miserable experience. She, like most victims, probably thought she wouldn't be believed

I hate that some people seem to think it coming up in couples counseling means she made it up to save her weak marriage. It makes me wonder how many of them have dated or married a sexual assault survivor. If they had and were perceptive, they would probably have recognized the impact of the assault on their current relationships. It coming up in counseling would be more telling if it did not come up. Her marriage needing counseling is actually more of a tell in favor of something happening and her trying to work her way through it, and yes decades later is not uncommon nor is having a reaction to seeing a person involved. I have no idea if what she says happened actually did. I can only comment that what I have read fits right in with my experiences.

I agree. There should be more to be considered. Ironically, this is when I start to question why he has a list of women saying he never raped them. Who the heck has that list in their back pocket to whip out? I think only someone who expects these types of charges would. While I supose "my people" could get 60 people to say I never assaulted them, ut wpuld be quicker for them to just say go ask any 60 people...no need for a list. It's a denial that makes one look guilty. Still not enough, but it does remind me of a 90's song,

Gee, do people wonder why a woman wouldnt come forward? Anyone remember a lady named Anita Hill? How did that questioning go? Think that is unusual? As for FBI, what crime bas been comitted whose statute of limitations has not passed? What should they investigate? The question is whether the standard for being sworn into a life time term on the Supreme Court should require more than just "not convicted."

Jack Ryan on Amazon Prime has been entertaining through the first 6 episodes I have seen. There are lots of little eater egg jokes in it for those who have read the books too.

We should stop drinking alcohol. How's that for an unpopular opinion? Every now and then in a drug discussion I hear, "but it's safer than smoking." Less often I hear, "but it's safer than alcohol." The truth is we should do neither. There is no safe amount of regular drinking. Sure, a drink or two a day may lower your risk for a heart attack or a particular type of cancer according to some studies, but those studies ignore it's contribution to the odds we will die from other likely causes of death. This article sums it up pretty well Safest level of alcohol consumption is none .

Collussion between FBI and DOJ? I hope so. I would like to think the federal buraeu of investigation would work hand in hand with the department of justice. I know all about death by acronym, but sometimes I wonder if people using them know for what they stand. BTW, does anyone else get the feeling we are living in a Saturday Night Live skit?

We need to keep our heads up. This is the first of two manafort trials, and I thought it was only meant to be a teaser to the trial dealing with foreign governments. I thought I read the stuff directly pertaining to Trump is expected in the next trial. This was like an opening salvo in a fight likely to last longer than any of us want. Now with both rulings, Trump has to worry about both fronts exposing him. Am i understanding correctly? Btw, what is the possible jail time manafort is looking at for the 8 convictions?

Didn't that show first air on USA? Or is this another take with the same premise?

Guys should pee sitting down when the options for both standing and sitting are present. Any idea how much less cleaning is involved? On a secondary point , they should throw ia peace of tp in the bowl before peeing if standing. It reduces the splash a lot.

Did anyone else catch John Oliver's interview with Anita Hill last week. It is rather sobering that we have been saying the same things about sexual harassment of women for decades. In any event, I thought the interview was very well done. I am aware the difficulties of relying on a comedian to do a serious interview on a show whose calling is humor, but I am not sure of a better way to get people's attention to the subject and our history. I recommend watching the segment. Time's write up: http://www.time.com/5352446/john-oliver-anita-hill-metoo/

People forget watergate took years. The Washington Post put a comparison timeline together a month or two ago showing how fast this investigation has moved compared to all previous special council investigations of former presidents nixon and Clinton. Expect years as I think there is more to unravel in this than the previous ones.

Can immunity be used to prevent someone from taking he 5th?