Split (1)

train · 6.74k rows

subreddit stringclasses 11 values	text stringlengths 246 28.5k
politics	anecdotal evidence is less than useful for achieving anything and often times is the reason used to support decisions that lead to the opposite of the desired outcome. see republican policy logic. I want what they are saying to be true nationwide but I will not get my hopes up about one anecdote. we all need to work towards the goal and look outside our comfort zones for real evidence based areas we can improve and reasonably make advancements towards our goals.
politics	Actually I would prefer a bigger cushion. Two separate pieces of legislation. One expanding the court to 33 justices, and a separate piece of legislation allowing the court to meet and adjudicate cases in panels. In the event that the latter is tossed out as unconstitutional, the former remains in place. 33 justices prevents overt politicization of the court and also makes it very unlikely that there is ever a "swing vote" the way that Kennedy functioned for more than a decade. That's just a totally unacceptable situation.
politics	okay do you expect it or just really really want it to be true? look at the 538 article. gender is less a determining factor for kavanaugh support than party affiliation is. republican women still back him in high numbers. focusing the wave campaign on any bloc of voters without accurately and brutally honestly observing the increase in voter turn out from that message over the time and money spent delivering the message is how you make waves. I want it to be true that highly progressive women are going to come out of the woodwork around the country in republican held districts. that would be amazing. but I want to actually see some evidence and polling before getting my hopes up or thinking our work is done with them.
politics	> but I want to actually see some evidence and polling before getting my hopes up or thinking our work is done with them. That's your personal thing man. I'd like to know a lot more too but information is limited. I'm not saying the US is going to go hard blue overnight in November, but I do expect a significant shift. That's it. just enough to be noticeable on a national level. Personally I've already gotten my hopes up and I won't consider my work done until Trump is gone and his existence shamed.
politics	Perhaps not the 9th, as en banc decisions in the 9th do not require the full court (as I believe they do in most other circuits). [Here](https://law.vanderbilt.edu/files/publications/George-Guthrie-The-Threes-Re-Imagining-Supreme-Court-Decisionmaking.pdf) is one law review article discussing the possibility, which examines some historical consideration of this possibility by Congress as well (intermediate appellate courts were the option ultimately selected to relieve the court's high caseload, but the minority position at the time, circa 1880, favored Supreme Court panels).
politics	There are 12 regional intermediate appellate courts, but in practice the DC Circuit is really less of a regional court and more of a specialized federal question court. So instead we look at the 11 other regional courts and imagine a 3 member supreme court panel for each circuit. That gives us 33 justices. It is also an uneven number for when the "full" court meets, in the event that there are split decisions it makes it more likely there will still be a majority decision. Edit: Typos.
politics	Ok, so I revised my claim to the exact situation we have at hand here(AND I still believe my initial claim that it is wrong to believe any one person's testimony without physical evidence). Everyone who was supposedly at this "party" said Kavenaugh was innocent. You are the one who drew the comparison to courts in the first place. You're right, it's not a court proceeding so we don't have to worry about the testimonies anyway. Anyone with common sense can determine that two thirty year old, weak testimonies can't beat out other one's calling him innocent ;). https://nypost.com/2018/09/25/eight-big-problems-for-christine-blasey-fords-story/ Read one article from the other side please.
politics	You're just being disingenuous now. If you weren't referring to evidence and testimony as it's applied in court then you're even more wrong. Testimony is often accepted as fact in the context of Senate confirmation hearings. > Everyone who was supposedly at this "party" said Kavenaugh was innocent. This is also a lie. "I do not recall" isn't a declaration of innocence. The testimonies aren't weak. There's nothing in the link that indicates she's lying. It just outlines the difficulties of her situation.
politics	She's not a victim of sexual assault. She was complicit in it. That's abundantly clear. You are being disengenious by believing a woman who was an adult attending parties with minors where alcohol and drugs were being used and where gang rapes were occurring, who waited 40 years to come forward (decided to miraculously come forward the week of his vote - great timing!), who has been sued for defamation before, who uses a porn lawyer as her counsel, who owes massive amounts to the IRS, etc. Please look at the facts and stop going off of emotion.
politics	So you condone gang rapes and drugging minors because it's politically expedient. Have you reported these frats to the police? If you know something you should say something, unless you're waiting 40 years for one of them to get famous? Since this accuser was an adult at the time and KNEW these things were going on and STILL attended these parties with minors, She is guilty of the following: 1. Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor 2. Conspiracy to Commit Rape 3. Rape 4. Conspiracy to Conceal a Felony 5. Obstruction of Justice Its also important to note that she never says kavanaugh raped her. Facts are important. Movie franchises? Wtf?
politics	Yeah I dont beleive that, Ive been around a lot of shit and I dont believe lily white rich kids from georgetown were running gang-rape parties that girls kept going too. You arent talking about gang members in some horrible inner city crime ridden neighborhood with cultural fears of the police. This doesnt even pass the perception of activities young teenage boys would get into, most of them are affraid to talk to girls much less repetadly rape them. This story shatters my bullshit meter.
politics	The accusers seem to be successful, highly educated women with no criminal pasts, no prior allegations of improper statements made by them (perjury, slander, etc), and each have offered sworn affidavits as to their testimony, as well as testimony corroborating it. For example, Dr. Ford's allegation stems back to 2012, long before Kavanaugh was a nominee for the supreme court, with associated notes from a therapy session discussing it. Each woman is willing to testify before the senate and directly make these allegations under oath, and then be questioned about it by the Senate judiciary committee. None of this seems made up, at all. However, that makes you feel better, and that's what you want to think, so there ya go. Go for it dude. "Fake news" or whatever helps you not think critically.
politics	> the media sued for liable They would only be "liable" for libel (lol) if both of the following are true: 1. They reported Kavanaugh assaulted these women, as opposed to merely being alleged to have assaulted them. 2. They knew for a fact they were printing something they knew to be false, but did so anyway with reckless intent. As neither of these are true, the reporting on these allegations thus far do not meet the legal definition of libel.
politics	> the media sued for liable They would only be "liable" for libel (lol) if both of the following are true: 1. They reported Kavanaugh assaulted these women, as opposed to merely being alleged to have assaulted them. 2. They knew for a fact they were printing something they knew to be false, but did so anyway with reckless intent. As neither of these are true, the reporting on these allegations thus far do not meet the legal definition of libel.
politics	> the media sued for liable They would only be "liable" for libel (lol) if both of the following are true: 1. They reported Kavanaugh assaulted these women, as opposed to merely being alleged to have assaulted them. 2. They knew for a fact they were printing something they knew to be false, but did so anyway with reckless intent. As neither of these are true, the reporting on these allegations thus far do not meet the legal definition of libel.
politics	1) the FBI doesnt investigate these types of crimes. 2) what are they going to find, we are all publically witnessed to the eviddence available. We dont know who, wehn, or where and the only people said to be witnesses other than the accusers say it didnt happen. Unlike the fantasy world of the far left, male and female testimony holds the same wieght. So the investigation will find that there is no way to know if it did or did not happen if Kavanaugh or Judge were involved at all or if it is even paritally true or untrue. Thats the point of these wild accusations, You cant say it didnt happen, and you cant say it did. Which is why its damaging for real casses because it breaks down our understanding of justice and it causes suspicion and skeptcism. Congradulations everybody lets see how insane this can get before the violence starts.
politics	>the FBI doesnt investigate these types of crimes. Lol, where you you goofballs getting this from? Hannity? You're not the first this week to mistakenly assert this like its some fact. I'm genuinely curious what snake oil saleslman is peddling you bullshit. Yes, of course the FBI can investigate a rape claim lol. What on Earth are you talking about? >We dont know who, wehn, or where and the only people said to be witnesses other than the accusers say it didnt happen. This is why you investigate. The point is to gather knowledge as to potential witnesses, and they can confirm or corroborate or deny. Boy, the wheels are really falling off the jalopy now. When you have to reach this desperately to avoid a mere investigation, you've got a major critical thought issue. You're not even making sense. "The FBI can't investigate! And they wouldn't find out anything its impossible!" Lol, what in the fuck are you on about. This is the spin now? Yikes, back to the drawing board dude. >Congradulations everybody lets see how insane this can get before the violence starts. Oh Jesus, settle down. If you can't handle a vexatious conversation, go sit at the kiddy table while the adults discuss. You sound like a nonsensical child.
politics	Then have the FBI investigate it. Edit: >Oh please this entire charade is absurd and only being entertained becasue you want to delay Trumps nominee. Gaslight Obstruct Project Hello friend, you are at "project" in GOP. We merely want a supreme court nominee accused of rape investigated. no more, no less. It is you who is unable to view this outside of a lens of partisan politics. Your insistence that no investigation occur, despite no logical reason to deny it, is proof positive of that.
politics	>It cant be proven true or false and thats the whole point, if you cant see taht then you must be willingly blind or exceedingly stupid You can cross-examine witnesses, determine the status of alibis, subpoena testimony, corroborate dates, locations, and other witnesses, invalidate portions of the witness statement, etc. The fact that you apparently have absolutely no working knowledge about how federal agencies perform investigations isn't my problem. Run the investigation and find out what you can. Not rocket science, though I do now feel like I'm explaining how an airplane works to a fucking neanderthal. Yikes.
politics	Right and none of that is happening, the accusers are refusing to do so, little to no witnesses have been named. The locations and timing of these events havent even been stated and they dont appear to be know, the attendents uncertain, the people there intoxicated. This is impssible to determine truth, it is impossible to determine innocence or guilt in any way and its done that way on purpose. This is a poltiical stunt, playing on the current hysteria we have about sexual assaults to derail a fundemental function of the federal government. Its dispicable and you are foolish for not being outraged by it. And before you claim im partisan if this was done to Keagan or Sotomeyor I would be just as angry about it.
politics	The GOP opperated within the rules of the congress and constitution to not hear Garlands case, They didnt call into question the very notion of presumption of innosence and try to destroy a mans life to delay his vote. If the DNC was in control of the senate and postponed Kavanaugh like the GOP did Garland, I would be annoyed but its the way the process should work. These are not comparable situations.
politics	I'm not particularly conservative but I actually do kinda agree with your take on the Kavanaugh situation. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say the GOP operated within the rules of congress and the constitution to not even have a hearing for Garland, there was no precedent to deny it and was Mitch McConnell imo overstepping his authority. Also not how the way the process should work. That's why I bring it up.
politics	First, that's not true at all. There is a diminished right to free speech in schools. I think what the 11th circuit said was basically you have this tension between the parents rights to raise their child, and the childs right to free speech. But within this tension, the court couldn't say the government was the one infringing speech. It's really the parent. And the school is merely enforcing the parents wishes. I think the facts of this particular case make it a little different, and more problematic, because it doesnt seem like Texas is trying to defend parents who choose not to exempt their kids. But these types of statutes will likely withstand facial challenges.
politics	The issue isnt what students are forced to do. I agree, a school cant force students to stand any more than it may force students to salute or recite the pledge. The issue is who is forcing the student. In states, like Texas, that provide a parental exemption, the school isnt forcing the student to stand. The parent is. That's why these statutes have withstood first amendment challenges, because a student does not have a free speech right to disobey their parent at school. It raises the question why, in this case, the parent didn't give permission. And it also appears there may have been political bias against the student. But these statutes have been upheld against facial challenges.
politics	I am aware of the legal distinction but that is very distinct from what I said. Though, I do think the 11th circuit is wrong both legally and morally and anyone who supports reducing the rights of any US citizen should be impeached from any position they possess. A parent may reduce the rights of a child within their own home and at to a point where the child is under their control. But asking the government to enforce their tyranny or to prevent their child from expressing themselves? No. That is immoral and anti-American in the extreme.
politics	You don't understand what word of mouth means... Testimony is evidence and if you try to say hearsay instead of word of mouth you still don't understand the terms you are using. He is not being tried criminally so physical evidence and proof don't need to be provided. FBI background checks aren't an FBI investigation. Yesterday when asked if he would welcome an FBI investigation Kavanaugh danced around the question. You post in the donald which has been well documented to have been infiltrated by Putin's disinformation army. The Donald is Putin's propaganda arm hosted on reddit. Do you not have an answer to the ABA publicly asking for an FBI investigation?
politics	This is what candor looks like. You are used to presidents who are experienced lawyers, afraid of giving too much information, reading prepared remarks from a teleprompter. Everybody needs to chill. EDIT: So I watched the entire press conference. I am floored at how many questions the president took. It must have been over 200. Obama never once stood before the media and exposed himself like this to pushing and prodding by the media. Imagine Bush trying to answer these questions. No past administration would ever do something like this. Trump is setting the bar very high folks. That's the honest truth.
politics	Trump administration is not going to start a massive military conflict by empowering the Kurds to take a chunk of Turkey, Syria, and Iraq and form their own country. We don't need to use them as tools anymore since we aren't making war in the region anymore so they are on their own now. Should we give them a few Billion dollars for fun? I say no. That's the answer if you care. Trump isn't going to outright state that at a press conference. As far as North Korea? I notice they seem to be in line with the opinions expressed by the president of Japan Shinzō Abe. As far as WW3? Yeah I think we were very close to another world war until Trump administration took over and pulled us back from the brink.
politics	I don't get how people still find this okay. There is literally nothing in this world I would pledge allegiance too. If my parents decided to go out and murder people... they're dead to me. If the Niners decide to hire a convicted rapist as their coach... dead to me. If Disgaea 6 doesn't have Prinnies... dead to me. There is nothing and no one out there that wouldn't lose my allegiance if they did something awful.
politics	Yeah, probably they only time I could see using the pledge is for naturalized citizens a few seconds before handing them their papers. Even then it would just be a weird show without much meaning. I stopped saying the pledge around 16 years old I think. We were supposed to do it every day at the same time but every teacher I had during that time was just mad about the wasted class time.
politics	I told my kids they didn't have to say it, but that they should stand respectfully because other people choose to say it. And that if anyone have them grief about not saying it, they should say it's their right not to say it, and then tell me and I would defend them. I explained that I didn't think it was a good idea to say stuff you don't understand, and it was completely their choice what to do.
politics	The anthem glorifies that one time we tried to take over Canada because we wanted to murder indigenous Americans for the arable land that they wouldn't give to us, and since their sovereignty was never acknowledged by the American government it made sense at the time to just go ahead and kill whoever had to be killed to get the land grow the 'conomy. In response, England told us to fuck off then burned down White House. There's even a stanza in there (that you will never hear unless you look for it) that glorifies the massacring of slaves who had been conscripted by the British and offered their freedom in return. I would say that that the subject of the National Anthem should be a point of humiliation given today's general moral standards. TL;DR The National Anthem glorifies an aggressive war that was wildly unpopular, that we started (and sentiment was built using fabricated intelligence, even! Iraq wasn't the first time!) on home turf, where we drastically outnumbered the foreign defending force but still managed to take nearly twice as many soldiers KIA, and we achieved nothing for it. The best thing about the National Anthem is Colin Kaepernick pissing off stupid \[mostly white\] people.
politics	The anthem glorifies that one time we tried to take over Canada because we wanted to murder indigenous Americans for the arable land that they wouldn't give to us, and since their sovereignty was never acknowledged by the American government it made sense at the time to just go ahead and kill whoever had to be killed to get the land grow the 'conomy. In response, England told us to fuck off then burned down White House. There's even a stanza in there (that you will never hear unless you look for it) that glorifies the massacring of slaves who had been conscripted by the British and offered their freedom in return. I would say that that the subject of the National Anthem should be a point of humiliation given today's general moral standards. TL;DR The National Anthem glorifies an aggressive war that was wildly unpopular, that we started (and sentiment was built using fabricated intelligence, even! Iraq wasn't the first time!) on home turf, where we drastically outnumbered the foreign defending force but still managed to take nearly twice as many soldiers KIA, and we achieved nothing for it. The best thing about the National Anthem is Colin Kaepernick pissing off stupid \[mostly white\] people.
politics	It's from the video game series Disgaea. They're penguin looking slaves things in the under world that blow up when you throw them. In Disgaea 4 the main character is a vampire that believes Sardines are the source of his strength, hence my username. It's a turn based RPG. The character design is very Animeih and that turns some people off, but tactically it's a great RPG. It also doesn't take itself serious at all. One character's weakness is sexy women and he will actually lose stats when he's on a tile next to one.
politics	Democrats: We want 10 days for an FBI investigation. Republicans: Ok, you have 10 days. D: (9th day at midnight) We need another day to complete the investigation R: No, you've has the 10 days you asked for. D: YOU HATE WOMEN, YOU DON'T WANT THE TRUTH, YOU'RE HIDING SOMETHING AND PROTECTING A RAPIST. REEEESSSIIISSST. You don't want an investigation. You don't want facts. All you want is time...delay this confirmation. That's ok...just be honest about it. You don't care about this woman. You don't even care about Kavanaugh. We see it, and even the moderates and independents are finally seeing it.
politics	If that was a possibility, you'd have no argument from ANYONE on the right. Unfortunately, even if it was possible to put that on the table, it would be absolutely reneged on by the democrats. And if inducted into the supreme Court, there can STILL be an investigation and if he was untruthful or if any of these allegations can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt he absolutely can and SHOULD be impeached and removed.
politics	As a victim of a violent beating and gang rape in my teens that left me hospitalized for days I fully support Senator Graham's passionate speech against the horrific and grotesque charade of rape exploitation these past two weeks. Nothing has upset me more in the past 20 years since my experience than to see rape being used as a political tool by the left. It is quite honestly one of the most soulless and disgusting displays of inhumanity I will ever witness. Shame on everyone who has debased and devalued victims of sexual assault the world over with this ridiculous display of political assassination. I am beyond thankful that both Kavanaugh and Graham were there today to stand up and fight for us rape victims against this type of exploitation. Fuck your downvotes, fuck your dishonesty, everyone knows this is a bullhshit charade, everyone. This inhumane debasement and exploitation of my rape and countless others is now on your souls.
politics	Why do you doubt her? What makes yours real and hers not? She's asked for an investigation and has testified, she's even submitted herself to questioning. Nothing about her, her story, or her requests make this seem bogus. You accuse others of wielding tales of rape as a weapon, while doing exactly that. You want us to value your opinion more because of your own experience, or you wouldn't have shared it in this context. I hope you find peace, but it alarms me that you don't want the same for other victims. This is why these crimes go unreported, fear of being accused of lying, or worse yet, being blamed for being a victim. If you truly doubt her story you'd want the same thing she does, a legitimate investigation.
politics	I thought there was no statute of limitations for sex crimes in MD but there's no corroborating evidence for a prosecutor to indict. It would devolve into a he-said, she-said much like this hearing with the difference that there would be a higher burden of proof on the State's part in a criminal investigation. But since this is a job interview for a position which would have enormous consequences for the medical lives of women in this country, it ought to be disqualifying if Senators were concerned about the SC appearing to be neutral on the abortion issue.
politics	> Based on Blasey Ford's account, prosecutors could have theoretically charged Kavanaugh with a crime like attempted rape or unwanted sexual touching over clothing. However, in 1982, those crimes had a one-year statute of limitations. In other words, Blasey Ford would have had to report the allegations to law enforcement by 1983. She did not. > It is worth noting, Maryland has done away with statute of limitations on most sexual offense charges, including rape, attempted rape and sex abuse of a minor, however, Kavanaugh is grandfathered in, so to speak. https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/kavanaugh-says-he-wont-let-false-accusations-push-him-out
politics	Let me preface my comment by saying that I don't think Kavanaugh should be confirmed -- because he's nakedly campaigned to anti-abortion groups and to the President for their support of his nomination. But what do people think is going to come from an FBI investigation? What evidence can there be apart from the testimony of the people involved? And what can be done about any of it? More polygraphs? Polygraphs have very widely been discredited. I sincerely doubt there's a stained dress hiding in somebody's closet that the FBI is going to find. I think best case scenario is the FBI does a whole bunch of interviews, and then they come back and say "we think there are credible allegations against Mr. Kavanaugh, but we have no physical evidence, and we've uncovered nothing that hasn't already been uncovered." I personally believe the accusers... but I just don't understand what else can be done about it. Can somebody enlighten me?
politics	I don't know what will come of an investigation with the limited info we have and the allegations from 35 years ago. But part of the process should be investigating credible allegations and Dr. Ford was every bit credible. And I do find it suspicious that the GOP is against any investigation they do not control. If there is a credible investigation that returns no new evidence then I will be satisfied. I would otherwise question if the Senate could have done more and if they were knowingly covering up a crime.
politics	There were always abortions and there will always be abortions. Instead of a doctor’s office, it will be back down in the basement at the hands of non-medical people or a wire hanger. But, throughout history, there have always been abortions. And, realize, the rich will always be able to afford a safe abortion, no matter the law. It will be the poor who are forced to term. So, how will they be able to raise these unwanted babies? It will take a village. I expect the Republicans to step up and lend help. And they just don’t seem to want to contend with the result of this issue. But they will learn what happens when they don’t.
politics	Basically the republicans have been terrified of taking a close look at Kavanaugh. That’s why they won’t release his documents from the bush years and that’s why they won’t investigate now. Even Kavanaugh responded to a question today, “ask Mike Judge.” The point is that everyone can see the senate Judiciary Committee is scared to call witnesses or actually investigate. The great thing about th Supreme Court is that you only need to find 9 people to be on it at a time. No one has a right to be on it and if your work for Ken Star or George Bush makes it hard for you to get confirmed, there’s another equally qualified judge right behind you. My takeaway from today is that Kavanaugh is far to partisan to be a good justice. He’ll never again be able to put the interests of every American above his desire for revenge. He even admitted it during his testimony. Sorry but judges need to be disinterested and Kavanaugh showed that he is not.
politics	Every rape case is like that. You don't have video evidence. What you'll have is character witness. Attesting gropy behaviour etc., Investigation leads to a lot more than you believe. Just asking the right questions to a bunch of different people can give you a fair understanding of th situation. That and it's not as easy to lie as you might think. Many witnesses will have the chance to come forward
politics	Honestly I think the whole thing is silly, because people skirt around the topic. They talk about things like "Oh, it's alive"/"It's not alive" "It's a bunch of cells"/"It's a human being!" "A heart beat starts at X time"/"It won't survive on it's own" etc. Look, in the end of the day, it boils down to "Do we think it's ok to kill this thing?" "Is it moral?" The exact semantics aren't important. And unfortunately, since it's a moral argument, it does come down to 'feels'. There's no science that can tell us if it's moral or not. And we'll never be able to convince everyone one way or another.
politics	Interesting indeed. So, you are suggesting that mothers could opt to have an 'abortion' in which case we would transfer the fetus to an artificial womb and finish gestation there? And what then of all the extra children born of this? Who cares for them? Who pays for all this? The taxpayer, presumably. Personally, I think people should be more responsible and not have so many kids they can't or don't want to care for, but in lieu of that, I am pro-abortion. I really don't care about the unborn child at all. But I'm willing to compromise, if say, some people want a certain point in development, where you can no longer carry out abortions, for example.
politics	> I think people should be more responsible and not have so many kids they can't or don't want to care for Agreed. Unfortunately, human activity is the product of both their individuality and their environment, neither of which can guarantee rationality. Education helps, but it can only go so far. Cancer exists on both ends of the political / economic spectrum, monopolizing resources with exponential growth. It is only by taking the best of both outlooks, driven by their respective concerns over boundary conditions, that we may optimize for the living conditions most generally hospitable for civilization. If humanity has any hope of surviving long-term, there will need to be a balance between safety nets and population management. Edit: To be clear, the left-right balance here is the simultaneous prevention of both public and private monopolization of the economy by linking baseline economic activity to individuals. It definitely ends up being authoritarian in a way, but ... the alternative is mortal conflict which threatens to topple the entire infrastructure of modern industrial life.
politics	Even your awful scenario is too optimistic. We're fucked. The reality is that Kavanaugh will be seated and the blue wave won't happen. At best, we might pick up a majority in the House and even that is in question due to Russian election meddling, of which nothing is being done. The Rapepublicans hold all of the power and they won't give it up without a bloody fight. Too few people give a flying shit in this shithole of a country and I fear the only answer now is violence.
politics	Easy the answer to when violence is needed is when violence is invited upon you. We've been in a political existential crisis since Reagan that's not new but unless they start a civil war there is no reason to bring violence into it. Just get everyone you know to register and talk constantly about the issues. Win hearts and minds because the only thing that's ever been won at the end of a bayonet is less overall death it's never peace simply moderated death counts. Which is why it is and always should be a last resort
politics	Well all I can say to that is pessimism has literally never solved anything. I'm glad you're voting because if it turns out we aren't counted you'll have a fucking sticker to prove you weren't part of the problem and you can have some righteous fury. I didnt like Hillary but I voted for her because it was the only option, view the midterms the same way. There is no choice you just have to do everything you can now because if we dont now, then you dont even have to be proven right we just lose.
politics	I understand the concern about she said/he said, but there’s also the fact he’s been constantly lying throughout these proceedings. Also the fact his roommates/classmates have mentioned he engaged in risky/bad behavior is already a red flag. He’s also shut down the idea of an investigation to get the facts. This is a life time appointment. It shouldn’t be a cake walk to get the position. It’s disgusting how the political right is normalizing sexual assault and saying things like “boys will be boys”.
politics	Goes to a dead link. And it’s also the Washington Examiner which is the same publication I mentioned posted the opinion piece. You see where I’m going with this? The claim you’re making isn’t credible and isn’t being reported on by reputable sources. Dr Ford is being assaulted by literal “fake news” from the right and this unsourced, frequently repeated claim that her four witnesses are refuting her testimony is not only unsubstantiated, it’s deliberately misleading. If you can find me an actual source that reports on the actual witnesses making such a statement, I will stand corrected. Otherwise, be careful making such salacious claims without checking AP or Reuters first.
politics	Privately I might be a little upset, but I wouldn't go yell at congress. He's a judge judges don't get to have winny crying outbursts in court. And your quest for evidence is weird, this is a job interview not a court case. He failed the interview portion by being an aggressive liar, it doesn't matter if he's also a rapist because he's already failed to meet the lowest of standards for character.
politics	Yes, I've been noticing Sheldon's conduct through some hearings now and I find him to be of a most candid and honorable character who's never afraid to cut straight to the chase and state the root of the problem. I don't know his voting record but I bet he's got one of the best (according to my views of course). Thank you Rhode Island. Ps: Cruz is whining now and he's projecting so much about Dems obstructing (SUCH FUCKING HYPOCRISY) that i think the weasel community might finally excommunicate him.
politics	Sen. Whitehouse is awesome, not my Senator but I think he's one of the best we have in the Senate right now. Here's some info on him, he's generally left of center of the Democratic party, so more towards the progressive side of things and is real big on climate change. https://voteview.com/person/40704/sheldon-whitehouse https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/sheldon_whitehouse/412247 https://ballotpedia.org/Sheldon_Whitehouse Also, here's his time on Kavanaugh from the first hearing a few weeks ago, it's fantastic: https://youtu.be/_XxHjM3lMDs
politics	He's a human senator for the providence of Texas! It is among the largest of territories of U'SA: many of the humans of this state take great pride in its size. The human residents of Texas also enjoy a toasted meat dish called "B'B'Q": vote for human Senator Ted Cruz or B'B'Q may be outlawed by Ted's less desirable, less Texan opponent. Just remember this November: "Ted Cruz is definitely one being and not several!"
politics	From "Please respect my privacy, I'm a victim too, but of alcohol, please leave me alone and dont let my life be ruined by this" to "I'll talk with FBI so long as its kept quiet" in less than 24 hours. A thing I dont often say: Good work today Democrats and Jeff Flake. Edit: To the two women at the elevator, who exercised righteous and beautiful freedom of speech today, and to my Americans who champion the first amendment rights everywhere: Thank you. I owe you a meal, I'll buy it for you on the evening of November 6th. Bonus selected material, spoken with tears in the voice, while Flake felt his insides melt quietly in the corner of the elevator: > "Look at me when I’m talking to you! You’re telling me that my assault doesn’t matter, that what happened to me doesn’t matter and that you’re going to let people who do these things into power! That’s what you’re telling me when you vote for him! Don’t look away from me! Look at me and tell me that it doesn’t matter what happened to me — that you’ll let people like that go into the highest court in the land!"
politics	Sorry yes Judge. If Judge talks to the FBI and confesses to crimes and that evidence is made public, then it is plausible that Maryland LE could request that evidence and use it against Judge. Judge is then stuck between a rock in and a hard place. Admit the confession was true and he faces state criminal charges or claim the FBI evidence is false and he's open to federal perjury charges.
politics	Hey I'm sure Kavanaugh believes in "If you've got nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" or that victims of police brutality should just "cooperate". So surely he's totally fine with how this is playing out? He's a good beer drinking, totally didn't rape anyone on this day, calendar saving normal American. /s More seriously, I can't wait for him to explain things like "Reminders to everyone to be very, very vigilant w/r/t confidentiality on all issues and all fronts, including with spouses"to the FBI.
politics	Yup, his ex-girlfriend from college said she would be willing to talk to the Senate and the FBI about things he had disclosed to her: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/09/26/mark-judges-girlfriend-is-ready-to-talk-to-fbi-and-judiciary-committee-her-lawyer-says/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/09/26/mark-judges-girlfriend-is-ready-to-talk-to-fbi-and-judiciary-committee-her-lawyer-says/?utm_term=.64f1ca4c3f34) &#x200B; "Rasor recalled that Judge had told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman. Rasor said that Judge seemed to regard it as fully consensual. She said that Judge did not name others involved in the incident, and she has no knowledge that Kavanaugh participated in it."
politics	I think someone is going to tell him he won't have the votes, this will add another week to the media circus and protests, and at the end of the line he may not get the seat ... and Brett will withdraw. I believe if the FBI starts talking to Mark Judge we'll see an announcement that this is 'too much' for his family to endure and for his family he must withdraw. Fist in the air he'll shout "Democratic witch hunt" and tears in his eyes he'll slink away to the nearest craft brewery.
politics	He should claim to be another victim of Kavanaugh's unchecked aggression. The near-rape he was involved in that summer caused him PTSD which he has attempted to self medicate with alcohol, from which spawned his alcoholism. It's all shame driving him since that horrible night of July 1st 1982. That's when it started. He could plea out. Worst possible outcome: stop drinking, go through rehab. Wear an anklet for a while. He was a minor when it happened so he can probably avoid the sex offender database
politics	It's also been proven beyond any doubt that Trump has obstructed the special counsel's investigation. Truth means nothing to these people. Look how much has come out against Kavanaugh and R's are still almost unanimous in support of him. As long as the FBI report doesn't clearly state that Ford's allegation are 100% verified (which is a nearly impossible burden), they'll sweep the little lies under the rug and vote to confirm.
politics	Especially if he can spin it as "I was the one that actually stopped Kavanaugh from attacking her, after she left I was the one that got him out from in front of the door and helped her get away". Maybe he is sorry after all these years, sorry enough to do his 30 days probation and rehab and write another tell-all book that would sell more copies than the first.
politics	He was jumping on the bed over and over again, eventually toppling everyone off the bed and giving Ford a chance to escape. Maybe he wasn't jumping around? maybe he was trying to push his friend off the young lady in distress... All that peer pressure to be seen as a cool guy and not some cock-blocking loser by his friends and partner in drug abuse, Bart O'Kavanaugh. And the shame of not preventing it, of being part of it.. Then she started screaming in earnest and fighting like a desparate animal. It shocked him to his core and in that moment he knew he had no stomach for what was happening. He had to do something, anything. In college, Judge tried to get over his fears and develop the tastes his friends had, but had no stomach for rape. Ultimately he was cast out for being a coward, for having some modicum of morality. For being a risk. Booze and drugs helped..for a while, but her screams and struggle still haunt him to this day. ---- There you go Judge. You slimy piece of shit. There's your way out of this mess. Your path back to morality. Now betray your supposed friend and start the healing process.
politics	It's kind of moot. The current law for the statute of limitations was passed in 1996. What Kavanaugh and Judge did is likely pass the 1980's law defining the statute of limitation. But just as a thought experiment, immunity for a crime can only be granted by the governing body. Which means the feds couldn't grant immunity for state crimes and vise versa. The exception being if the state agrees to grant immunity if a witness meets some condition made by the feds.
politics	He's going to say he doesn't recall because anything else opens him up to perjury charges. The obviously erroneous speculation in this sub is hilarious. It's not a criminal investigation and it's limited in scope. FBI agents will question him, write a summary report, and hand it back to the senate committee. That's it. There isn't going to be some bombshell because that would mean whoever dropped it would be committing a felony. No one will do that.
politics	I don't understand this thinking, as much as I'd like it to happen judge is hardly going to implicate himself in anything when he really doesn't need to, and he has no real reason to implicate Kavanaugh These aren't people who tell the truth, and if the women are to be believed they are the type of characters that get involved in gang rape, I wouldn't rely of one of them becoming a shining beacon of hope.
politics	> There's no statute of limitation in Maryland. If he confesses to crimes, that could be used against him in state charges. If he denies those state charges that opens him up to federal perjury charges. If he's smart, he shop for a plea deal in exchange for cooperation. Because you know that everyone else at that party is now in a game of prisoners' dilemma: If anyone talks, then anybody denying the party lied to the FBI and will have a helluva time in court. So the right thing is to talk immediately and not try and cover up unless you REALLY trust everyone from 30 years ago to keep their mouth shut.
politics	[It's all a show.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/27/trump-rod-rosenstein-meeting-postponed). Rosenstein was supposed to be fired on Monday. The same day the original vote for Kavanaugh was supposed to be. Then they delayed both to Thursday, the same day as the trial. Then Trump moved the meeting with Rosenstein to next week, and low and behold, the Kavanaugh vote will now be held next week after the FBI investigation had ended. Isn't it magical that both are being scheduled for the same day and then magically changing timelines to exactly the same day? I wonder why!
politics	Nope, not Bernie. Not after he tried to overturn the popular vote with the superdelegates. That is undemocratic bull. Edit: I'm not sure why this is controversial. That was his plan, right? The whole argument that he polls better so the superdelegates should give him the nomination? Here's an article from the time. >Despite badly lagging in the delegate count, Bernie Sanders' campaign manager told NPR the campaign believes Sanders can and will be the Democratic nominee by winning over superdelegates at the 11th hour. >"If we can substantially close the gap between Secretary Clinton and Sen. Sanders in terms of pledged delegates," Jeff Weaver told NPR's All Things Considered, "he can go into the convention with a substantial momentum from having won the vast, vast majority of states at the end of the process." >It's a sharp contrast from earlier in the campaign when Sanders supporters called superdelegates "undemocratic" and petitioned for them to support the candidate who has the most votes by the Democratic convention this July. >"When they get to the convention," Weaver continued, "nobody has the delegates to win with pledged delegates. It's going to be the superdelegates who are going to have to decide this." https://www.npr.org/2016/05/19/478705022/sanders-campaign-now-says-superdelegates-are-key-to-winning-nomination
politics	He wasn't right. Hillary faced non-stop Republician smears, attacks from Russians and Israelis, and there was the first ever large scale psych ops campaign against US citizens waged against her. She still got almost 4 million more votes with the press giving the most favorable coverage to Sanders and Russia backing his campaign. These head to head polls this far out are meaningless, even ignoring Russia, the Republician smear campaign against Sanders would be devastating. He's faced absolutely no opposition yet.
politics	I think you are misunderstanding what his campaign manager says in that article. He says that if neither candidate has the required 2,382 pledged delegates to win the primary that it would be up to the superdelegates as was required by the Democratic primary rules. As the campaign manager he’s not exactly going to go out and say that superdelegates should just vote for the opponent if there was no winner. This was in May so there were several states still to vote in June. I wouldn’t see anything nefarious about any campaign manager describing a path to victory in an interview during a primary.
politics	Of course they would have. And the bread lines statement and everything else, but you act like the entire campaign and the entire party would have stood idly by, or that Sanders never would have had a chance to defend himself. He would have done so fervently, and toward an audience of people that already genuinely trusted his motives, even if they didn't like his politics. There's no proof that the public would've been as persuaded by those smears as his liberal detractors seem to be.
politics	Is it? Political legitimacy can't challenge the norms without financial backing in modern society. Taking money from willing people is the primary job of representatives, and this has become especially-so since the citizens United ruling. Your political opinions don't gain traction if you don't have financial backing. Institutions will not take you seriously at all if you don't, and even if you do, if they are counter to establishment they will still belittle and talk to erroneous points to deflate them. The fact that Bernie gained capital had allowed him to push for progressive idealogies in other sectors. Universal health Care is a legitimate topic in the Democratic party, and that wouldn't have happened so soon without an idealogue like Bernie to push it. And please, Hillary didn't lose to a lack of capital. And I do vaguely remember the Unqualified statement. I can't tell you what Bernie's internal thoughts are regarding that. I assume it was mostly politics, but if you remember after the convention Bernie dropped all of that rhetoric entirely and campaigned for her. I'm not sure what you're asking of progressives other than something extremely condescending.
politics	He did go from being totally unknown to winning 45% of the Democratic primary against the most well-groomed, well-funded candidate in its history after all. Context is a bitch. The pill that you can't seem to swallow here is that this isn't about Sanders, it's about HRC. Clinton was uniquely qualified to lose against Trump. Sanders wins against Trump just like Biden wins and nearly everyone else who runs against him.
politics	I've referenced nothing but easily searchable facts to support my argument. For example, the poll which is the topic of the thread we're in right now, haha. Meanwhile, you're relying on yarns like "the first ever psy-ops campaign run against a candidate by US citizens" and suggesting that Dems wouldn't have rallied behind Sanders in the general. Not to mention your misunderstanding and misrepresentation of other items from the news like the Russians' actual effect on the election and the media "favoring" Sanders. Get off it, dude.
politics	Here's Sanders praising Venezuela. Bernie Sanders can not win, he's a shit candidate with tons of baggage https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/close-the-gaps-disparities-that-threaten-america Here's a Harvard study proving that Sanders the most positive coverage of any candidate in the primaries https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/06/14/harvard-study-confirms-refutes-bernie-sanderss-complaints-media Here's Mueller's investigation stating Russia backed Sanders https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/17/indictment-russians-also-tried-help-bernie-sanders-jill-stein-presidential-campaigns/348051002/ Here's a study proving that Russian interference absolutely swayed the vote for trump. Why it would be different for Sanders is beyond me. You saw those crazy kooks holding a fart in at the DNC, how much you wanna bet that shit was spurred on by the Russians? https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump
politics	>Here's Sanders praising Venezuela. This has been addressed. >Bernie Sanders can not win, he's a shit candidate with tons of baggage This is your opinion. >Here's a Harvard study proving that Sanders the most positive coverage of any candidate in the primaries I am very familiar with the Shorenstein study. If you actually read it, it claims that Sanders and Trump benefited from a "horserace narrative" in the media, but does not qualify actual statements made by pundits regarding the candidates. To use this as proof that legacy media preferred Sanders over Clinton for the nomination is pure gaslghting and a feeble attempt to rewrite history. >Here's Mueller's investigation stating Russia backed Sanders Okay? >Here's a study proving that Russian interference absolutely swayed the vote for trump. The article doesn't prove your claim nor does it attest to. It lays out an argument that the author deems compelling, but offers nothing more concrete than anything else that has been previously discussed time and time again. Dropping citations is not the same thing as using facts to back up your argument. You actually have to be telling the truth to do that.
politics	Also: >The down-to-the-wire 2017 tax act passed in late December contained a mix of permanent and temporary changes that had to result in a net increased cost that fell within a structural limit of $1.5 trillion that allowed the Senate to approve the bill with a simple majority They made the corporate/rich person tax cuts perminant and the tax cuts for everyone else (such as they were) temporary. So this is a bill to make those temporary tax cuts stick as well. A bill which will never pass. Which they definitely knew last year.
politics	Smash and grab operation. They'll grab as much cash as they can now, tanking the economy. During the downturn, they'll use the money that they grabbed to buy all the valuable assets now at fire-sale prices. The Dems then win the next few cycles, re-invest in infrastructure and the American people, and put the economy in order. All those assets bought at a discount are now extremely valuable. Sell those assets at over inflated prices, smash the economy again; rinse, repeat.
politics	Don't misconstrue my original comment, I don't believe there is some massive top down directed conspiracy. There's no one "bad guy" or cabal of evil doers sitting in a room planning this out like in the movies. This is just the cyclical bear/bull nature of the markets and people just playing against that for maximum advantage. Buy low, sell high. Get as much as you can while the market is up, hold and look for deals when the market is down. As I see it, there are those in this country that place a value on short term gains and those that value long term gains. The Republicans, as I see it, are very short term gain oriented and they somehow see this as being an advantage long term; and I see the Democrats as more long term, invest in the future and insure America's supremacy as being more valuable then some short term payoff.
politics	I think that there are really too many to name. From the war on drugs to subsidizing tourism in Jordan, the federal government puts its hands into places it has no business being. I think there are very few things the government should be doing, and I think a flat income tax of 10-20% could take care of all of it. And I mean that would be the ONLY tax, no sales tax, no death tax, no capital gains tax, etc. When you're spending other people's money on other people, it's very easy to be wasteful.
politics	Why do you think that your ideal would bring about a better life for Americans? I mean literally all rich countries in the world spend a considerable share of their GDP publicly (I hope I phrased that correctly, otherwise I'll try and specify what I mean). Not only on security and justice, but social services, financial transfers (like child benefits etc.), education, housing etc. Why do you think that is and actually the poorer countries spend only a small share of their GDP publicly?
politics	> I don't believe there is some massive top down directed conspiracy. There's no one "bad guy" or cabal of evil doers sitting in a room planning this out like in the movies. I'm not entirely sure that's accurate. I mean, there's no ruthless fanatical organization that will stop at nothing to control the world, but there is a fairly small group of like-minded people (though maybe in the hundreds) who likely know each other or at least are in a loose network where they're all friends with the same people. They want to change the rules to benefit the ultra-rich. It's not just tax breaks; it's underfunding the IRS and the FBI financial divisions so they can't investigate white collar crimes; it's fighting transparency laws on corporations and donations; it's creating a system where offshore tax havens can launder money and still use it to chase investments in the US; it's endorsing and supporting politicians who will undercut education, infrastructure, policing, health care and justice reform; it's creating think tanks and news outlets that only exist to justify their actions. Their reason for doing all these things might just be basic greed, or they might actually believe in the trickle-down theory, or they're so insulated from the effects of their decisions that they really don't know how their wealth-making efforts are damaging the economy for everyone else. But even a loosely organized group with their money is capable of rewriting rules for their own benefit, which impact all of us. I think the image that a lot of people have of a conspiracy is that, if the world is a pinball machine, the conspirators want to control where the ball is going. Wouldn't you call the people who decide where the bumpers and walls are the ones who actually in control? Isn't that what they're doing?
politics	> I really wonder if Republicans hate bridges, infrastructure and clean energy or why else would they decrease government revenue that is needed to invest in these things? Had this discussion with a Trump-touting family member this week who blames Obama for the failure of their shitty businesses (instead of that free market they love). Like, do you really want to personally pay absurd prices for your plethora of medical issues, not have your public transit channels maintained, and rely on the people you claim to hate in the Middle East for fuel? Really? Oh, and the infuriating cherry on top: they just retired and are collecting Medicare and social security.
politics	additinal tax revenue through tariffs on china $600B-$1.2T over the next decade additional revenue through gdp growth. additional revenue from higher wages additional revenue from more employed repatriation of offshore profits I could go on for a while.... I'm going to withhold judgement until we see what happens. The federal government is allready seeing additional revenues from the first round of tax cuts, and I am seeing more money in my paycheck, thousands this year alone. Of course I care about hte national debt, frankly I'm glad democrats are starting to talk about it after 8 years of doing nothing but adding $9T+ to the debt under obama. It is the single greatest issue our government needs to solve.
politics	They do. They want all roads and utilities to be privatized, so that they can own and invest in it with their billions, and make more billions for doing nothing but signing a check. It also helps that they can then cut the tax burden even further (for themselves; not for anyone else, of course). Meanwhile your entire commute (which is 3 hours because you can't afford to live anywhere near a decent job anymore) is now a toll route and costs you a quarter of your day's pay to get there and back, and your electric bill is $800 a month instead of $100, but zoning laws conveniently outlaw micro wind turbines and solar panels because they're not owned and invested in by Republican backers (no, really, it's about 'curb appeal', sure it is). This is the Republican "ideal" in the 21st century. Everyone pays through the nose for everything, except them, who get paid for doing nothing.
politics	My insurance just increased by a little over $2000 for 2019. That 2% cost of living raise I got this year isn't going to cover that. The tariffs are going to trickel down to consumers. Walmart and Target et al will have to increase their prices to cover. Car and motorcycle companies have already said their vehicles will cost thousands more. Thanks to all the immigration issues, agriculture that depends on migrant workers have a labor shortage issue, thus certain fruit, vegetables and nuts will see price increases. I'm glad you are seeing benefits. I am not.
politics	The modern oligarchs. During FDR it was the Rockefeller’s and Carnegie’s, during 2008 and now it’s the investment bankers, Koch brothers, and Blue Brothers (funny name but they own the largest drone manufacturing business in the world) If you really wanna know more, read Pay Any Price by James Rosen and/or Crash of 2016 by Thom Hartmann. Both do a great job of explaining who actually run the show around here and the latter explains how they profit from crashing the economy.
politics	I don't know what the solution to the health care debacle is. If the costs weren't so high, insurance wouldn't need to be so high. But the "free market" means it's perfectly fine that pharma companies jack up the price for things like insulin and the EpiPen. Or getting sick and requiring extended hospital stays drives people to bankruptcy. The ACA is a mess because it never could pass into law with its full intensions. It's been gutted. I'd love to see a real bipartisan attempt at fixing insurance and health care costs. Probably never going to happen in my lifetime.
politics	Deuteronomy 22:23-24 New International Version (NIV) 23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 New International Version (NIV) 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
politics	This is pretty fucking horrible for the women who are victims. In one case they are saying “you apparently didn’t fight hard enough to stop it so you deserve to die as much as the rapist” and in the other case they are forcing the girl to marry the dude who just fucking raped her! Because she is now worthless. God damn people are fucked up and so is the Bible.
politics	Arm thy teachers with assault rifles, remove health care from the poor and non Caucasians. Gerrymander in the name of the lord, as the rich are entitled to the earth and heavens above. Never permit a football player to kneel, for moses wrote the anthem, god gave the arsenal of nukes to the United States of America for Putin to control. Also no abortions. May maga and the holy spirit bless us all.
politics	In historical context it's actually pretty radical. Back then, a woman could not live on her own: she had to get married. Oftentimes, if a woman was not married, then she'd end up in a system of institutionalized prostitution and basically have to live life as a sex slave. That's the Ancient Near East. The reason why this is actually pretty radical for those times is that a raped woman was considered soiled goods. She would not be able to find a husband. So basically, if a woman was raped, she was condemned to sexual slavery. Here, she instead gets a husband who has a legal obligation to provide for her and she can continue to live as part of society. Obviously that's batshit crazy to us, but that was socially progressive for the time and place
politics	In principle you have a point. But the Bible is not just a book. It's a library of many books, some of which are poetry and some of which are history and some of which are theology, allegory, or even explicit fiction (Book of Job for instance). Your take it or leave it kind of presupposes biblical literalism, which is an absurdity that leads to contradictions. In the 400s AD, Augustine of Hippo wrote a treatise about the literal reading of Genesis and noted how it lead to self-contradictions if taken literally. Leviticus is about the code of law for the Jewish nation—most of the Patristics considered it good for general principles, but bad as the actual code to live by even when they wrote in the 1st Century. Context and genre necessarily matters.
politics	I agree that it is many books written by many men in many styles for many purposes. It is a handbag of contradictory messages that is only embraced by Christians when it is convenient , and even then, not in its entirety. It is impossible to take anyone seriously when they claim that the Bible is the word of God and the source of truth, but you are just supposed to muck about in there deciding which parts are literal and which are allegorical - which are relevant and which are not. This is especially hard when Christendom, over space and time, lacks consensus on...well all of it. Over time, literalism has reigned. And even in the snapshot of the present, Christians have failed to agree on which parts of the Bible matter and how they should be interpreted. My argument is that you can't have it both ways.
politics	It does though? They asked if he drank to excess. He denied it outright. If he did drink to excess, he's a liar. To your other point: You still keep doing things when you're blackout drunk. Your brain just stops with short term memory so you get a time gap. When you wake up, you have a gap in your memory and you're aware of that, usually because you wake up in a place that isn't where you last remember being and there's evidence you did stuff around you. That's the difference between blacking out and passing out. They didn't ask him what he remembers doing while blackout drunk or anything. They just asked if he had ever been in that state.
politics	In this case, I'm not sure my personal definition matters. In the hearing, they defined excess as passing out or blacking out. They also asked him to give his personal definition of excess so that they could establish a common standard, and he couldn't answer beyond "whatever the chart says." It's not hard to infer that means he knows there is a limit legally and health risk-wise, but he doesn't recall what it is. Meanwhile, what the former classmates describe involves stumbling, incoherence, aggressive behavior, etc, which is consistent with blackout drinking or at the very least being drunk to the point of significant impairment. That means even by his own "chart" standard that he himself gave, he'd be lying.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.