Jump to content

Jiggy-Z

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2,591
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jiggy-Z

  1. 20 minutes ago, Hammock said:

    Yeah, it sucks that I even have to question a sexual assault. I don't feel good about it but that's how this stuff works. The burden of proof is on the accuser. I realize we are not in the court of law but we can't have a judge, jury, and executioner mentality about this. 

    If all it takes is an accusation from decades ago to derail someone's career in politics then things will get even worse for both parties. 

    No.  It takes more than an accusation.  It takes a credible accusation and the willingness to stand behind it. 

  2. Just now, mdmost said:

    Right. Today is not going to change a lot of minds. It's just going to stiffen the resolve of people who were for him and against him. 

    True.  But that is not what this is about.

    Aside from the general national discussion about sexual abuse, this is about procedure, vetting, due diligence, fitness for office, and politics.  There is no way this should have gone down like this.  Innocent or no, this is a national embarrassment.

  3. Just now, Lobwedgephil said:

    I believed her, but I believe him as well. 

    Which is the interesting irony here.  Had there been a full investigation, he might have swung this.  Not to say that he was in fact innocent, but a full telling might have been inconclusive.  there is some sort of lesson here.  Can't quite put mu finger on it.

  4. Just now, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

    It's really astounding to me with all the power the GOP wields right now, they manage to trip over their own dicks every single time. it's amazing theater and something historians will debate for a long time. can't wait for: America: Chapter 2

    Maybe this will signal the end of the Dems habitual dick tripping .  Did I say that right?

  5. 15 minutes ago, Blotto said:

    Nah. Stupid, exploitable people that are pissed off that life didnt go their way are rolling off the assembly line every day. Hell the factory in college station is ramping up production.

    I kind of think it is a baby boomer thing.  I am 50+ myself, but you must remember time marches on, and even though I am 52 I am not a boomer.  But what I can tell you from my experience starting out in the work force way back when, is that there was a definite difference in the mindset of workers even just a few years older than me that had nothing to do with experience or knowledge.  The best way I can describe it is that the boomers were much more team or company oriented to a fault and were pretty uptight about it. of course, this is a generalization of boomers and there are exceptions.

    I also noticed it when I got older.  Boomers typically wanted to do a t-shirt or a flag for everything, even when it was just for a fishing tournament or something that really had nothing to do with being a team.

    • Like 1
  6. 1 hour ago, Mdhorn said:

    Standing: On the far left, Ken Starr standing next to Brett Kavanaugh. Sitting: On the far right, Rod Rosenstein. Photograph courtesy of the White House. Ken Starr, standing, far left, with members of his independent counsel team, including Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, next to Starr, and Rod Rosenstein, sitting, far right. Photograph courtesy of the White House.

     

    My God.  Look at the decor! It's like their decorator went to.......Vassar.

  7. 10 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

    Remember back in 2010 when Ivanka and Don Jr. were being investigated for fraud because they were exaggerating the sales of units in the Trumo SoHo building in order to lure other customers? That's the family business model. No matter how much you suck, tell people how great you are. Prey on the suckers. 

    Then, of course, Don Sr's lawyer Mark Kasowitz made a $25,000 donation to the DA's reelection campaign and *poof* the investigation went away. 

    Also, another habit of dear leader is the gratuitous superlatives heaped on those he is trying to pump up.  In the best cases he knows nothing about the person and is just grandstanding..in the worst he does know the person, they have deep flaws, and he peddles outright lies.  He has been doing this for years-decades really. A most egregious case occurred in 1987 where he personally vouched in writing for  convicted cocaine trafficker Joseph Weichelbaum. Trump wrote that the drug trafficker was “conscientious, forthright, and diligent" and "a credit to the community.” David Kay Johnson has accused Trump of having been in business with Weichelbaum's drug operation as the risk involved with merely associating with such characters was enough to have his gaming licences revoked.  But as with any Trump story, that was just the tip of the iceberg.

    Full story in the link below.

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/the-donald-and-the-dealer-173892

  8. 19 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

    You did, and they are.  What's the answer to the last question though because we will probably be seeing a lot of it?

    Are you saying it would be thrown out as a matter of course because it looks like a mistake.  Is this even something that happens on the up and up?

  9. 8 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

    It wouldn't be cold feet as much as the fact that they wouldn't have done any research at all.  So when they get down to comptroller and dogcatcher all they see is names they know nothing about other than D or R.  For example, they may know Beto now, but they probably don't know much at all about the other races on the ballot.  So if there are too many of them, that single straight R bubble starts to look a lot easier than Beto and 10 R bubbles.

    In Texas, what happens to the ballot if you choose straight R and also Beto?  Thrown out?  Straight R overrides the Beto vote?  Or Beto vote and R otherwise?

    Thought I covered that scenario with "lazy".

  10. 1 hour ago, Chrispy said:

    People tend to get conservative in the voting booth, so the Republican Party will be just fine. Predictions of its demise are amusing, but hardly rooted in reality. 

    I would agree with you if intend that "conservative" means a well thought out position on issues and careful selection of options.  Just as an amateur musician might play a piece more conservatively in front of a small audience than they would in practice.  

    I would also agree with you if it meant that someone who had always voted R had gone to the voting booth with the intention of mixing it up a little bit, got cold feet or got lazy at the last minute and reverted back to a straight R ticket.

  11. 3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

    The FBI only needed 3 fucking days to handle Anita Hill.

    If Kavanaugh was 100% innocent, they could have had this open, investigated and closed by now and vote next week.

    Exactly my point.

    However, I think in this case it would take more than 3 days, but not more than say, two weeks.

  12. 3 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

    In agreement with the Clinton stance here. 

    Well, except for the fact that it has nothing to do with this particular case other than the nature of the actions.

    The Kavanaugh case is all about timing.  I fit were not, then I suspect the R's would have moved on to another candidate and started the process all over again.

    I think the D's would agree with looking at Clinton if it meant a similar amount of time be allowed to look at Kavanaugh-which is of course, ridiculous.

  13. 2 hours ago, Horndog said:

    I'm a moderate drinker, but I've had my moments of excess.  In my early 20's there were a couple of occasions where people described events that had happened the night before that I had absolutely no recollection of, including behavior completely out of character for me.  (Thankfully, none involved sexual assault.)  I would not have believed the accounts except for the fact they came from people I trusted and with no motive to fabricate.  It is entirely possible that Kavanaugh simply has no recall of this event  --  especially since he was not confronted about it at the time  --  and does not think he is capable of sexual assault.  But the accuser is much more likely to have specific recall of such a traumatic event, especially if she had not had much to drink.  The fact that she brought this up in therapy years ago is proof she is not making something up now.  She knew when she came forward what a hell her life would like be for years to come.  The bottom line is that they both might be telling the "truth" as they perceive it.  But I believe her.  It happened.  Kavanaugh may truly not remember it.   Or he may remember it differently  (it was just horseplay; I stopped when she said "no"; she was coming on to me; whatever).  Or he may remember it as it actually happened.  But he is now in too deep for anything other than total denial of anything happening at all.  

    I gotta say that has not been my experience.  Usually, a round-table debriefing on the day after got all the events out in the open, at which time I had many  an "aha-oh yeah, that's right, shit!" moments.  But perhaps his homies were not as thorough as mine.

×
×
  • Create New...