dagblog - Comments for "Dr. Ford should say "Yes.""

Older women are doing it,

artappraiser — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:29:49 +0000

In reply to Everything public with Trump

Older women are doing it, telling sexual assault stories on C-Span instead of twitter. For me it's dejas vus allover again Anita Hill, when every Tom Dick & Harry learned about sexual harassment from Jill, Mary and Sue spilling their stories.

I think lots of women don't tell because they assume most men are complicit and it's just the way things are and men won't be supportive. Clarence Thomas was still appointed, yes, but another end result was more acceptance of sexual harassment laws. When before that many men wouldn't think it necessary because they thought it rare.

Makes me think of this tip to men who are afraid of women right now because of #MeToo, the walking on eggshells syndrome: if you attempt somehow to just once express sympathy for a woman going through this kind of thing, you then break the spell of war of the sexes. You don't really have to be Mr. Feminist all the time, you've just indicated you are an individual apart from tribe Men vs. women.

See the statement by an

artappraiser — Tue, 25 Sep 2018 16:38:06 +0000

In reply to I hope you're right, I know

See the statement by an organization of 6,000 Mormon women:

Nonpartisan group of 6,000+ Mormon women calls on Judiciary Committee—naming "the four members who share our faith,” Hatch, Lee, Flake & Crapo—"to immediately suspend the confirmation proceedings” for thorough independent investigation of K, to "prevent harm to SCOTUS legitimacy" https://t.co/by6D90cDGc
— Philip Gourevitch (@PGourevitch) September 25, 2018

The reasoning is the same as I suggested it might be: our leaders should not have this kind of taint. It comes from a perspective of a job interview for a leader. It's not about empathy for victims, it's about role models. Some women may excuse this stuff away for an average joe, but most women are not going to be happy to see that kind of guy get a role model position.

And once again, Trump is different because his misogyny or whatever you want to call it, that which has been publicized, it is not assault but consensual stuff. And Mormon women don't for the most part go along with feminist political correctness as regards sex roles.

Two accusers and a third in

ocean-kat — Tue, 25 Sep 2018 01:58:18 +0000

In reply to The scuttlebutt from Fox News

Two accusers and a third in the wings. That makes one wonder how many shoes there are and how many are still left to drop. There has got to be some limit to how much they will push him through.

The scuttlebutt from Fox News

artappraiser — Tue, 25 Sep 2018 01:31:59 +0000

In reply to Dr. Ford should say "Yes."

The scuttlebutt from Fox News reporter trusted by NYT reporter and Politico's editor-in-chief is that McConnell doesn't have the votes and Kavanaugh is in trouble

More than that... one of the most diligent/experienced Hill reporters... https://t.co/JXDQu421CK
— Glenn Thrush (@GlennThrush) September 25, 2018

"Palmer Report had some dodgy

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 24 Sep 2018 20:56:00 +0000

In reply to Tribe quotes Avenatti,

"Palmer Report had some dodgy stories with hyperbolic headlines that I couldn't be bothered to read, so I went to Slate to find an old non-specific but damning-sounding complaint."
As I've said before, much of what Palmer is doing is just aggregating important stories - with a headline - from major news outlets like Reuters & AP. Those are actually the stories you've seen here, except when I post an obvious interesting bit of Palmer speculation *WITH A QUESTION MARK*. If someone is too fucking braindead to tell the difference, they should put down the laptop & go find rubber bands or non-dangerous pets to play with instead (though even that has its hazards - YMMV). And since I use Palmer's work, I'd feel like a shit just ignoring his effort & posting the source (though I sometimes do that if the direct source makes the news much clearer).

2) You (Lulu) do realize the irony of Buzzfeed - aka the group that released the still-unconfirmed Steele Dossier 18 months ago - attacking Laurence Tribe for "spreading unconfirmed information"? That Wikipedia stuff you quote is 9 months old - you're welcome to actually read Seth Abramson's Tweets & Palmer's Report to see if they've improved over a very long news cycle, if they've been relatively accurate - or you can be lazy as fuck and rely on Wikipedia to toss some turds in the wind & hope the stink fouls the air. i mean, we've got a GOP that this week used a PR firm & possibly the SOC nominee himself (who perjured himself several times last week) to create an alternate reality smear of an alternate universe rapist up on the grass knoll while covering up new accusations & trying to "plow through" before the Dems could catch on - but you're concerned that Palmer Report uses too big print & excitable headlines?

Yeah, Palmer's repetitive & overblows his headlines & makes you click more than you'd like - which is presumably how he funds his lemonade stand. Alternatively he could take anonymous feeds form the White House and publish a completely bogus 180-degrees-untrue story to try to sabotage the career of the acting head of the FBI, only to be shot down within hours by a respectable newspaper - that would be the NY Times flacking for Trump & getting their dicks whacked by WaPo almost immediately, and *STILL* doubling down with another obvious misreading of events leaked by people who weren't even there.

p.s. This is not reporter

artappraiser — Mon, 24 Sep 2018 20:16:25 +0000

In reply to jesus Lulu why does

p.s. This is not a reporter or journalist or even a blogger making up a complete narrative, a story that splains it all for you! If that's what you want, experts tweeting is not where you want to go, go to Russia Today or Washington Post or whatever is your want. This is an expert trying to figure out and analyze WTF is going on in real time on the topic of his expertise and sharing it with his list of followers. He is not vouching for sources, he is looking at all that he finds useful, just like one does in a court of law. He is pointing to them and saying "what about this?" And maybe one of his followers chimes in replying "nah, that's no good, here's why."

And yes, he is someone with a transparent agenda once he has figured out what is going on. So if your agenda doesn't match his, for example, you'd like to see more extremely conservative Supreme Court justices, you might want to dis things he's pointing to. Or maybe you have some other agenda about yourself, like cutting down his credibility as an expert for your own so you get more followers, or maybe you think he has gone mad and lost it and has Alzheimers. Then you might also dis what he's pointing to. This is Twitter, not journalism, it's just a tool to communicate with others of your chosing. Nothing to get so het up about trying to figure some mysterious conspiracy.Get it?

If you don't agree with the guy, maybe you still learn something about his type of thinking, if not, don't look at his stuff. No reason for a jihad unless you are looking to steal some of his followers away, in which case you are at the wrong site. All you had to say here was "I don't trust this guy because he's a liberal constitutional expert that hates what Trump is doing to this country."

jesus Lulu why does

artappraiser — Mon, 24 Sep 2018 19:32:23 +0000

In reply to I didn't know much of

jesus Lulu why does everything have to be a hidden conspiracy with you? he's one of the foremost scholars of Constitutional Law in this country, wrote the textbook they use in Constitutional Law courses, and also an expert on impeachment. Became a talking head expert during the Clinton impeachment. Not ashamed of his slant in that field against originalist conservatives, he is very transparent about it, he is one of the co-founders of the liberal American Constitution Society, the law and policy organization formed to counter the conservative Federalist Society. He therefore helped "Bork" extremist orignalist Judge Bork for the Supreme Court, testifying against him in the hearings. He was part of Gore's legal team in trying to dissuade the Supreme Court from handing the presidency to George Bush.

I would be very surprised if such a person was not disturbed by the secretive non-transparent, goofy, zany, crazytown irregular and maybe anti-constitutional Trump presidency and interested in and would seek out all kinds of sources of information on it that might help understand the situation.

I would be very surprised if such a person did not fight like the dickens to make sure the Supreme Court did not have an originalist conservative majority for decades to come.

He put his whole life into caring about the U.S. Constitution and how it should be read and followed--as a liberal--that is his agenda, it's very transparent. Nothing hidden here and I don't get why it bothers you knowing your politics you should be all for him-he's such a peacenik that he supports some animal rights organizations-- the only reason I can think of is that you have gone off the deep end with the paranoia. The only thing to be suspicious about would be if he didn't have an opinion.

Tribe quotes Avenatti,

rmrd0000 — Mon, 24 Sep 2018 19:14:01 +0000

In reply to According to..... blah blah..

Tribe quotes Avenatti, therefore I went to the Palmer Report. I had no other choice (snark)

According to..... blah blah..

NCD — Mon, 24 Sep 2018 18:40:39 +0000

In reply to I didn't know much of

According to..... blah blah....where's the actual evidence, not somebody's opinion.

According to "political scientist" (there are scientists in politics?) Brenden Nyhan, whose gig seems to be Up and Coming Chief Tribe Critic, this, from a link in your link, is a "wildly delusional" re-tweet by Tribe:

Mr. Tribe had retweeted a Twitter user who had claimed that Steve Bannon, President Trump’s chief strategist, was being investigated for physically threatening White House staffers.

I didn't know much of

A Guy Called LULU — Mon, 24 Sep 2018 17:58:44 +0000

In reply to Avenatti has a third woman

I didn't know much of anything about Laurence Tribe so I went to Wikipedia to get an overview. There are a few criticisms of the man who is obviously both smart and accomplished.

Tribe has stirred controversy due to his promotion of unreliably sourced and conspiratorial claims about President Trump.[35][36]Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan harshly criticized Tribe, saying that he "has become an important vector of misinformation and conspiracy theories on Twitter."[35] According to McKay Coppins of The Atlantic, Tribe has been "an especially active booster" of the Palmer Report, "a liberal blog known for peddling conspiracy theories".

Seeing that he is a supporter of The Palmer Report which has been sighted here quite often as a reliable source I looked it up too to see if that offers any clues to judging either Tribe or Palmer. Turns out that Palmer has a few critics of his own.

Palmer Report is a liberal American political blog.[1] It is written by Bill Palmer, who describes himself on his website as a political journalist who covered the 2016 election cycle from start to finish, along with more than fifty additional writers.[2] Palmer previously ran a site called Daily News Bin, described by Snopes.comeditor Brooke Binkowski as “basically a pro-Hillary Clinton'news site.' It was out there to counter misinformation with misinformation.”[3] The site has been criticized for building a large following based on "wildly speculative theories about Donald Trump."

The Palmer Report has been criticized by the Slate for publishing misinformation. Palmer Report also has false and unproven claims according to Snopes, which Mr. Palmer calls the National Enquierer. The Atlantic has some more:

It’s more wish-fulfillment stuff. “Trump About to be Arrested!” Well, yeah, when’s that gonna happen? And we know it’s coming from the left because I know it’s coming from known players. Bill Palmer used to run the Daily News Bin, and it was basically a pro-Hillary Clinton “news site.” It was out there to counter misinformation. Which, okay, fair enough. But then he started to reinvent it as a news site, more and more, and he changed the name to the Palmer Report. The stuff that he puts out there, it’s nominally true. When you click on it, it’s some innocuous story [with an outlandish headline]. That is very harmful, I think.

Seems to me that it is easy to despise Trump, actually hard not to, without having to invent lies or deliberately distort the truth.