The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Meth should NOT be legalized. I can see cocaine and heroin, but meth poses significant harm to those other than the user. Those idiots who cook meth in clandestine labs risk blowing their surroundings to smithereens, so meth is a public safety hazard. Legalizing meth only leads to more potential harm to not only the user but his or her neighbors. Good people should not be subjected to that kind of risk.  

It's not legalized, though. It's decriminalized, which means people caught in possession of small amounts of the drug will no longer be thrown in jail and branded a criminal. Dealing and manufacturing is still criminalized.

All I know is, I've seen too many friends affected by drug addiction and I come from an area that was beaten pretty bad by it. Jail/prison does not help. It only makes their life a hell of a lot more difficult, which in turn pushes them deeper into drugs in many cases. What they need is proper treatment. Addiction is simply not a criminal justice issue, and the system is not equipped to handle it.

Virginia said this perhaps much better than myself.

1.) "Decriminalization" is NOT "Legalization".

2.) I have seen firsthand how addiction to Hard Drugs has impacted the lives of friends, co-workers, neighbors, and even family members, in relatively small "rural" communities in places where we all know each other, and word gets around the grapevine real fast....

3.) This proposal was actually first promoted by top Law Enforcement officials throughout Oregon, including County Sheriffs and Police Chiefs in most parts of the State.

http://portlandobserver.com/news/2016/oct/04/new-approach-drugs/

4.) The fundamental concept is that hard drug addiction is a medical issue, and not a criminal issue, so long as individuals don't commit other crimes to feed their addition.

5.) So many other posters have made excellent points regarding the cost of incarceration for non-violent drug addicts, versus alternative diversion programs for tax-payers.

6.) The societal costs of drug addiction are ultimately hidden costs (Externalities), that are absorbed elsewhere, even after looking at the costs to Taxpayers when it comes to incarceration in City and County Jails, let alone in the State Pens in Oregon....

7.) Oregon actually has the 3rd highest % of Medicaid expansion programs under ACA (Behind Kentucky and West Virginia). These programs actually fund addiction programs to an extent that private insurance does not.... Anyone tried to look at the cost of a three week in-patient service under your employer insurance if you want to quit your drug addiction?

Quitting drug addiction in America is only for the Rich it seems....

8.) Oregon has a massive problem with Meth addiction, one of the first States hit hard, which I recall Hunter Thompson mentioned in this book.

It started with Biker Gangs, and quickly spread to 3rd shift workers in the factories and Timber Mills of Oregon in the '70s and '80s, not to mention Long Haul Truckers running the I-5 corridor from SoCal to Seattle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell%27s_Angels:_The_Strange_and_Terrible_Saga_of_the_Outlaw_Motorcycle_Gangs

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/etc/synopsis.html

Now, with the dramatic collapse of decline in decent paying jobs and opportunities in Mill Towns throughout Oregon, it is prevalent, even in the places where it was a minor phenomenon some 10 years back.

Hell, just nine months back spent a week in a cheap hotel on the Oregon Coast, in an economically depressed City, and every time I walked out my door it seemed like I had Tweakers trying to bum smokes off me....

9.) IDK about the morality play that many of y'all are throwing out here.... Drug Addiction is a medical problem and not a criminal problem and should be treated as such.

Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult in America, unless you come from a fairly wealthy background, to have the proper health and support that you need to quit what are extremely dangerous and addictive substances.

10.) Proud to be an Oregonian, and hopefully if this bill becomes law we get the proper support in resourcing from the Federal Government, so that we can address the root causes of substance abuse and addiction, rather than stereotyping drug addicts, or believing that the various 12 step programs alone can solve the issue....

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Well, although I don' t have the time and energy to scrutinize the thousands of posts this individual has made, it's pretty clear that there is Atlas legal precedent when it comes to items such as trolling and hate speech.

It is also remarkably clear to me personally, that after going over eight years with no reported posts, right after I called out Sanchez on one of his Anti-Muslim rants a few months back, suddenly I had multiple reported posts....

Anyone who has followed my posting history knows that I am not an individual with any type of posts that violate the ToS, other than accidentally quoting a direct line from the Big Lebowski in an image that I posted in response to Sanchez, as well as mentioning in another thread a Homophobic assault that I experienced as a Teenager back in the late '80s.

Sanchez is an individual who is very skilled at walking the on the "right side of the crosswalk", as he basically admitted to me in a personal conversation, essentially gloating about how has said and done much worse on Atlas without sanctions....

I will leave the legal review of his posting history to others, and any decisions regarding sanctions to others, but at this point at the very least it is best just to ignore the troll, since the wheels of justice move slowly....

I have many Conservative and Libertarian Republicans that actually provide significant and meaningful contribution. Chairman Sanchez is not one of them.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The war against improving the standard of living outside the cosmopolitan major urban areas, waged by socially liberal laissez-faire capitalists (or corporatists) that views Everytown, USA as a blighted uncultured wasteland because they don't have a mosque or tax breaks for tech start ups or a tesla charging station or whatever - thus deserving to fall into ruin and drug addiction.

Bernie derangement syndrome is real on this board because the wealthier members resent being called the villains of society, and this board skews wealthy.

Yeah, that's a damn good post indeed.

This.

Agreed and QFT.

I'd hardly call a comically ridiculous strawman a "good post".

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

There's also another way of looking at it if you broaden "SJW Politics" to basically encompass any policies against racism, sexism or other social justice issues like some do.  Which is that, quite frankly, that sort of stuff has been an integral part of "the left" (using that term in an incredibly broad context) for over a hundred years at least, and this idea that you need to stop talking about those issues in order to bring white folk back into your group is both misguided (since people who care about anti-racism and similar issues are a significant number of people, not to mention that candidates have managed to string the two together in the past) and also quite frankly wrong; since there are some things that a party should stand for even if they are unpopular just because they are the right things to do.  Its also rather insulting to white people in a way...

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The sexism happening on social media, and just overall meaningless hate is horrific... how the f**k is it a bad thing that the Doctor is female?! It's not, ok, just deal with it
/rant

Maleness is at the core of the Doctor, as is generally understood. Females deserve more leading roles, but the best solution for that is new female characters, not messing with old characters that are historically male. It just robs a character of much-needed consistency.
It'd be like if they wanted to make James Bond a female. Such an effort would be terrible and bad.
The higher ups have made a bad decision re: the new Doctor, no doubt about it.  If Jodie was a good actor (I'll willing to believe that being the case) they should have made her a side character, a companion. And made her important, like how Romana was.

I'm sorry, but this is just a load of crap.  "Maleness" is not a feature that was integral to the Doctor - and many of the other big things have been dropped over time - remember for years the Doctor was always meant to be an old grandfather type person; until they went younger with Tom Baker and didn't ever really go for an actor that appeared older again until Capaldi.  There's also the fact that timelords can regenerate into the opposite sex, it can be done well (Michelle Gomez was the best master ever, imo) and so why not?  In a television programme that's all about gradual evolution; its something worth giving a go.  Attitudes like the one you have, namely vigorously against any kind of change and locking the series in a set hole, led to the series being cancelled in 1989 and not returning for 16 years (in a very different format).  It freshens the series up, which is always a good thing (and last time they did it they got a really good series out of it, so...).   Also, for what its worth, the original producer (who was behind the first few series back in the 60s) said more than a couple of times before she died that she would support there being a female doctor were there an appropriate person to do it; which I think works in this case.

Also, its not like Romana was really used properly on the TV shows - on the audio plays yeah sure, but on television they just stuck her in the same old generic assistant role.  To suggest that actresses should only be considered for that role even though the Doctor isn't, well, a gendered role is a perfect example of sexism; and that doesn't change no matter how much you try to coach it in feminist language.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I reject the premise of this question. There is no way to post on this site that can be considered productive.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I would like some of the more "progressive" posters on this forum to realize that criticizing Bernie Sanders does not make one a brainless Hillary bot.

Also labeling anyone who disagrees with you on giving away everything for free as a right-wing Wall Street shill is not going to win you a nationwide election.

This is one of the major complaints I had with a lot of the Bernie supporters I knew, and a little bit with Bernie himself. I agreed with some (but certainly not all) of parts of his platform, and thought seriously about voting for him on Super Tuesday, but I decided at the end of the day that he wouldn't be an effective force for enacting well thought-out policy. I have some progressive tendencies but I also really value pragmatism. The thing that bothered me about die-hard Bernie supporters was they equated people who valued pragmatism, the rigorous critique of policy and appreciation of nuance with being ideologically opposed to them. Combine this antagonism with the incredible sense of self-righteous moral superiority that a lot of liberals have and it makes them really unpleasant to talk with sometimes (yes, I recognize that there are a lot of Clinton supporters who are also self-righteous and combative so spare me your "both sides do it!"). I would have much more faith in a Liz Warren-type Democrat as President than Bernie, but because I criticized Bernie for being really unrealistic, I got labelled by a lot of Bernie supporters I knew (including good friends) as a DINO, enemy of the working class, neoliberal shill, etc. And by the tenth time I got one of those comments it really got to me I started to get combative.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

To which my response is "no sh*t, sherlock."

Sanders' bill is unworkable in its current form. And I don't trust Democrats to have a workable version when they regain power because the GOP has been crying repeal and replace for 7 years only to not have anything workable.

We have three options. We could ignore healthcare entirely (something I don't agree with but I do think next time we regain power it should be lower on the bucket list than immigration, criminal justice reform, and infrastructure) we could tweak the Sanders bill while we still can so that it isn't horrendous, or we could look elsewhere. There are other members of Congress with decent plans, either standalone or as a path to an eventual workable single-payer. Brown has medicare buy-in, Kaine and Bennett have their Medicare X bill, Conyers has AmeriCare, and so on.

Is Sanders' bill garbage? Yes. Is the idea of single-payer bad? Absolutely not. But we should under no circumstances let this particular bill become law.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Supporting an immoral ideology is a grave moral failing. To claim otherwise means to be fundamentally unserious about one's political beliefs.

Of course, everyone has their moral failings and we shouldn't be too quick to judge people for them, but I thought "terrible person" was pretty widely accepted forum hyperbole for someone who does something that's clearly bad and is unrepentant about it.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

You are deliberately framing this issue in the wrong way. BLM has no stated goal to make it “okay” to resist lawful detention. The fact that you see no issue with how Eric Garner was detained is absolutely appalling. It’s perhaps no coincidence that you have repeatedly mentioned Mr. Garner’s previous criminal convictions in an attempt to muddy the waters. But despite what you may believe, no, choking a man to death is no okay simply because he is a criminal. There was absolutely no need to resort to using an illegal tactic in order to restrain him. The officers reacted in a completely unprofessional manner, period.

You repeatedly, albeit without any proof, assert that Black Lives Matter isn’t, “serious”, which is utterly false. Activists have elected prosecutors, worked to reform issues like probation, cash bail, poverty, and other issues in communities across this country. In Phoenix, for example, activists have helped fund several community centers and engage in a dialogue with Mayor Stanton. The fact that you have utterly dismissed them without so much as listing their accomplishments simply shows that you have no interest in addressing their complaints.

And let’s talk about race, shall we. Why do black people commit crime at a higher rate than white people? Well, first off, if we’re going down this rabbit hole, let’s reframe this question: why do men (of all races) commit crimes at a hugely disproportionate rate compared to women. Is this not a valid question our society should ask then?

Regardless, let’s address race. If you believe that this is an inherent flaw with black people or a cultural problem or some sort of moral failing on a mass scale, there are only two real options: ethnic cleansing or outright genocide. There’s no middle ground here. You cannot seriously argue that this is a widespread moral failing on the part of black people and then argue for compassion.

If, however, this is a problem rooted in history, in inequality, and in the treatment of black people in today’s society, there are concrete actions we can take to address the problem. Concrete actions that are already being taken by black communities and organizations. In Chicago, advocacy groups are working overtime to reduce homicide rates, in Richmond, California, a new program gives at-risk youth the means to connect with other men emotionally and talk about their emotions. Across this country, communities are fighting this issue.

Should I, perhaps uncharitably, chastise white communities for the opioid epidemic? Or how the murder rate in recent years has increased at a higher rate among white people when compared with black people? And the answer is an unequivocal NO. Absolutely none of this would justify police brutality or systemic racism. The issue of crime does not have to be answered in the same conversation on police brutality. There is no reason that it needs to be included in the debate.

You may now ask, “well what the hell have you done, DC? Seems like you’re all talk and no action”. Well, I have contributed, albeit not as much as I possibly could, towards the movement for police reform and for black communities. I have worked with a local charity (Wellspring’s Women’s Center in Oak Park, if you’re curious) in my hometown of Sacramento to provide a durable library for the children of impoverished mothers, I have marched with demonstrators. I can always do more, of course, and I feel as though I haven’t done enough. Simply put, I don’t say this out of self aggrandizement. But I say this to show that I actually give a damn about the issue. I’m not arguing in bad faith.

You have broached this issue not out of interest of combating crime in black communities. Rather, you sit at home and use it to bludgeon political opponents on a decades old forum. You are arguing in bad faith, and for that, I cannot respect you in any meaningful way.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Both Texas, Georgia, and Florida have distinct traits that make it such that from what I can tell, aren't exactly good examples. For Georgia, outside of (Democratic-controlled) Atlanta, the state isn't doing too well. For Texas, a big driver of the economy is the oil industry, which is a caveat that other states lack. Lastly, Florida has an economy built largely on tourism, much more so than any other state - it's literally called the Sunshine State - and the aerospace industry (favors from the U.S. government).

Even if the point above can be completely discarded, there are still two glaring fallacies:

• There needs to be an effective cause-effect relationship proven between "supply-side economics" and "economic growth", which has not been proven.
• Disproving examples of where supply-side economics have failed requires addressing the situations directly, not just using whataboutism and pointing to a different example...and this deflection suggests a lack of ability to justify these clear failures of supply-side economics (needlessly cutting taxes on the rich --> massive budget deficits --> social programs cut).

I generally harbor this sentiment:

There is no one-size-fits-all economic policy. That said supply side as it's typically described is generally a terrible idea without significant wealth redistribution programs.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Goes without saying that this is a horrible tragedy, and as much as I know it's insensitive to be "that guy", let's just wait and see how many "thoughts and prayers" tweets and statements go out. It hasn't worked before, but maybe this time it will.

Let's face it: this nation views school shootings as a regular part of our zeitgeist. Nothing concrete has been done (and I'm not talking about just gun control here) to at least try and stop these types of massacres from happening, therefore we are all complicit in the murders of these kids. It is quite literally the price we have agreed to pay for the right to own guns...a right that many of us choose not to even exercise. This is not me saying "ban guns" because I personally don't think that's the solution (or if it's even a solution) yet how much longer can we pretend that these shootings are "tragic" without actually trying to prevent them?

We're all complicit. No one wants to try solutions, conservatives, liberals, progressives, what have you. After Sandy Hook, I accepted that if we did not rally together immediately to try and find some kind of solution, we never would. And we haven't.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Thinking black people and other minorities should have equal rights is condescending, but assuming someone you disagree with is not contributing to society, and dogwhistling that poor black people don't work, don't pay taxes, and are lazy, sexually loose, socially-deviant criminals is not condescending? Personal experience tells me that these tired, disgusting, and borderline libelous stereotypes are false.

So what accounts for the disparity in crime statistics by demographic categories?

I'm listening.  Perhaps if folks will respond earnestly to THIS question, it might lead to a solution to THIS problem.

Gee, I don’t know. Maybe the fact that in places like New York City, there are jurisdictions where black people are ten to twelve times more likely to undergo stop-and-frisk than white people. Maybe the fact that black people have consistently been given worse or no education until 40-50 years ago affects the culture. Maybe the fact that FDR’s redlining continues to affect the black community to this day* has something to do with it. Maybe the fact that “certain neighborhoods” - that just happen to be black, regardless of income, - to this day have a heavier police presence than white neighborhoods results in more blacks being caught committing crimes. Yet we continue to see black people and BLM stereotyped as “violent thugs who hate the police” because of a few dozen marchers. Yet we continue to advocate for these “law and order” policies. Now you tell me - have I responded earnestly to THIS question?


*Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/upshot/how-redlinings-racist-effects-lasted-for-decades.html

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I don't think it's all that different from the so-called "states rights" movement. It's never about rights, but about subjugating a particular group.

As I see, having authority shouldn't be seen as a "right". There's a reason that the founding fathers talked about the states having "powers" and not "rights".

That's absolutely right. The Bill of Rights are not really rights, but are actually restrictions on the state.

So-called "parental rights" have nothing to do with any tangible right. It's all about ensuring older whites keep power as long as they can. "Parental rights" is almost always about being able to strike your child, marry your child away, cut your child's genitals, and/or force religious dogma despite their opposition.

All three of them.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Can a Democrat explain to me why a work requirement to use social services isn’t just common sense. If you were personally paying a homeless person to eat wouldn’t you want that person to make an effort to get out of their situation before writing a blank check? That just seems obvious to me. I’m not talking about cutting benefits (indeed I would be fine with reinvesting the savings from a work requirement back into social programs) but it is insane to me that one of the major parties opposes having any incentive to not be homeless.

The farm bill failing is also sad, could someone explain to me why Dems oppose that as well? I really don’t get Dem opposition to this at all. Couldn’t give less of a sh**t what the Freedom Caucus thinks.

Cheap labor is drying up...so you Republicans are trying to increase the labor supply by making all kinds of rules and regulations that whips people into working so business can keep wages low.

People have a right to eat.  You do not, nor does the government, have the right to peoples labor or time.  People don’t work for plenty of reasons and like a parent feeding a 17yo physically capable child as per the law...society has to feed the vagrants and everyone else.  And we should do so with a smile.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Education is basically a really protracted apprenticeship for people under 18.

NO IT'S NOT

Considering education's purpose to be preparing for work is the hallmark of neoliberal dogma.

Well it should be a primary purpose of public education. (The other of course is preparing children to be good citizens when they grow up, something Trump's teachers either never tried to do or failed miserably when it came to him.)

Now sometimes the best way to accomplish those goals is indirectly, which is why the arts should be a part of public education for all students. However, that doesn't mean we should be subsidizing the education of art history majors.

The primary purpose of education is to foster children's cultural, intellectual and moral flourishing and give them the tools they need to become well-rounded individuals as adults capable of making conscientious choices for themselves and the collectivity. Job training is not and should never be the goal. To claim otherwise is to pave the way for Brave New World.

Spoken like a true Alpha minus.

There are many laudable things that it isn't the government's responsibility to pay for because of the simple reason that it can't pay for every laudable thing. The sort of broad education you advocate is very laudable but it is not and never has been something schools could accomplish all by themselves. It takes much more than a school to raise well-rounded young citizens.

Of course it takes more than a school, I'm not saying there's no role for families and local communities. But not every child has a chance to be born in a loving family or among a supportive community, so the school has to be there to provide a baseline of cultural and intellectual development. It's a moral obligation, so whether it's hard or easy to accomplish is irrelevant. If it costs a lot of money then all it means is that the state should either raise taxes or cut back on something else.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

My god, the amount of thoughtless praise of this overall awful person is getting so tiresome and disgusting. The man's entire life has largely been a series of him exploiting his situation and dodging the consequences, whether it's his habitual cheating on his ex-wife that he dumped for a wealthy heiress; appointing Palin, which helped launch the Tea Party and its thoughtless demagoguery; bloodthirsty warmonger who exploited his military history and media friendliness to advance causes that cost the lives of over a million innocent people; and crafting, along with the gleeful assistance of the media, this image of some maverick, while he voted nearly lockstep with the right-wing and treated the health care coverage of millions of Americans with such lack of seriousness that, preceding his vote, he ginned up media attention by telling them to "wait for the show."

I guess all that's perfectly cool because "muh maverick" and "muh war hero." Give me a break.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

My god, the amount of thoughtless praise of this overall awful person is getting so tiresome and disgusting. The man's entire life has largely been a series of him exploiting his situation and dodging the consequences, whether it's his habitual cheating on his ex-wife that he dumped for a wealthy heiress; appointing Palin, which helped launch the Tea Party and its thoughtless demagoguery; bloodthirsty warmonger who exploited his military history and media friendliness to advance causes that cost the lives of over a million innocent people; and crafting, along with the gleeful assistance of the media, this image of some maverick, while he voted nearly lockstep with the right-wing and treated the health care coverage of millions of Americans with such lack of seriousness that, preceding his vote, he ginned up media attention by telling them to "wait for the show."

I guess all that's perfectly cool because "muh maverick" and "muh war hero." Give me a break.

This isn't the hofoid house.

That's why I'm putting a good post in here.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

My god, the amount of thoughtless praise of this overall awful person is getting so tiresome and disgusting. The man's entire life has largely been a series of him exploiting his situation and dodging the consequences, whether it's his habitual cheating on his ex-wife that he dumped for a wealthy heiress; appointing Palin, which helped launch the Tea Party and its thoughtless demagoguery; bloodthirsty warmonger who exploited his military history and media friendliness to advance causes that cost the lives of over a million innocent people; and crafting, along with the gleeful assistance of the media, this image of some maverick, while he voted nearly lockstep with the right-wing and treated the health care coverage of millions of Americans with such lack of seriousness that, preceding his vote, he ginned up media attention by telling them to "wait for the show."

I guess all that's perfectly cool because "muh maverick" and "muh war hero." Give me a break.

This isn't the hofoid house.

That's why I'm putting a good post in here.

The slander of an honorable man and the fantasy that every action he did was evil and driven by malovolent intentions is a good past?

Yes, how could anyone slander a guy with such awfulness as pointing out terrible s##t he did.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I mean, I have ProudModerate2 on ignore because of stuff like this, but banning him while continuing to let vicious bigots like Reaganfan continue posting or worse yet not banning 1) a literal rape apologist who is also pretty clearly a white supremacist (Famous Mortimer) and 2) a literal sexual assault and sexual harassment advocate (Smoltchanov who, lest we forget, has literally bragged about sexually harassing [it might've actually been sexually assaulting, but I don't remember for sure] women on at least one occasion).  Honestly, it seems pretty difficult to justify banning anyone else currently on Atlas while Famous Mortimer and Smoltchanov are still around.    

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Sorry, but I can't feel sympathetic at all. There's something to the pragmatic critique, but I don't take it as a principled point that public figures who have real power have a right not to be bothered.

People who hold positions of power in rich countries have made things better for them and worse for all but the top 10-20% over the past few decades. Those who are closest to the top have also made themselves almost immune to accountability for wrongdoing, as we've seen in everything from financial crisis to the Iraq War.

Even if they cannot feel shame, and even if they face no other consequences for their abuses, these people deserve to be loathed. And they deserve to know that they are loathed.

The biggest problem with these protestors is that they would not do the same to other politicians: Barack Obama, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and so on.

Actually, it would be better to protest only figures like these. Unlike Ted Cruz, some of them actually would care, on account of where their votes come from if nothing else. For someone like Cruz it's just a passing discomfort and inconvenience.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

No, never really crossed my mind. However, I think that enough people in my personal circle including my wife and my colleagues at work would confirm that I'm not the kind of guy who does these things and my credability would be higher than someone who makes false accusations. I do believe, though, that only a tiny percentage of women make bluntly false accusations.

I mean, humor me for a second and entertain the idea that Kavanagh’s accuser is in that tiny percentage.  Don’t you think he thinks the same things about himself?

Obviously he didn't want to FBI to investigate. If you have nothing to hide, why not welcoming an investigation? Of course, it would be wrong and stupid to missbehave because you think your credability is higher. Usually it is difficult to make stuff completely up and get away with it. Most false accusers can't get or keep their story straight, especially when witnesses are involved and then it all comes out. For Ms. Ford, I don't see why she should be lying, considering the negative impacts her coming out has led to.

But of course, a tiny risk always remains. You could also be accused of other crimes you didn't commit. I guess it's the risk of life.

One of the things about this behavior we are talking about with Kavanaugh is that it is often done in secret, or in venues where people can "hide in plain sight".  The character witnesses were shielded from Kavanaugh's behavior because he didn't do that when he was around them.  Then, too, there are lots of folks who'll be character witnesses for folks they don't know all that well, or know in only one area of their life (only work, only church, etc.) and knew little about the rest of one's life.  There are lots of co-workers I think highly of, but I couldn't say from experience what kind of parent they really are, or how they treat women in their personal lives.

In something like this, I'm not really interested in character witnesses.  Kavanaugh shows them what he wants them to see.  That's not a knock; that's the way it is with all of us. 

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The fact that the Supreme Court, which ideally should not be biased toward any political party, has basically become a channel for partisan activism, and ramming one’s agenda through at all costs is a better example. The fact that a justice who is so clearly biased toward a political party is rushed through merits a very negative reaction from those who will suffer from his nomination. Not to mention there are allegations against which were not thoroughly investigated and it’s very clear that he perjured himself and has temperament issues. Or that a far more moderate nominee was not given the same treatment.

While liberal reactions to the Trump administration thus far annoy many Republican posters here, I’m sure (even those who are civil and do have qualms about Trump), if you can’t honestly see the cause of said reaction, you need to try walking a mile in our shoes.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

It's a shame protesters couldn't be bothered to behave more like humans, and less like animals. Such as when one of the guys in our group was punched by a protester (she was arrested, and he plans to press charges), and another group of protesters that blocked our path to Jeff Flake's office and screaming "Traitors to women, traitors to history, traitors to humanity".

wow, FF! sad she only got one of y'all

You'd have to be a pretty scummy person to wish that people you disagree with are assaulted for simply exercising their constitutional rights. I'm not even angry that you hold those views, I feel sorry that you feel the need to act like every other edgy internet socialist to feel better about yourself. 

you have this weird trait of attempting to psychoanalyze people who disagree with you. it's not particularly charming or effective and really ought to be left to trained professionals.

if i may indulge in a bit of it in return, it's indicative of an extremely limited worldview wherein people who disagree with you must be defective in some way -- seeking validation, mentally ill, whatever other label you like to throw around ("subhuman," perhaps!). you simply cannot come to grips with the idea that someone might disagree with you, perhaps even vehemently, on any sort of legitimate grounds. personally, would recommend getting outside for a bit and talking to your neighbors for half an hour. i think it'd do you a world of good.

anyway, cath is right -- i believe that you are promoting an effort (is aiding and abetting too edgy?) to inflict mass violence of vast swaths of the american (and by extension global) public, which i view as morally abhorrent. you cloak your violence in the tools of the state and excuse it with the framework of "constitutional rights," which is fine, and typically enough to persuade most liberals that you are "in the moral right" in some sense, insert Voltaire quote here. i'm not particularly persuaded by that framing and, in the broader scheme of things, am not interested in condemning one of the victims of the violence you are promoting for attempting to hit back. after all, isn't self-defense against an unjust state what you people are all about?

(edit: deleted bc i'm trying to get off this place, not bc i don't stand by it)

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Don't I have an old post where I already answered this question for you?  lol

The myth of the "winners' streak" demonstrates a misunderstanding of conditional probabilities, somewhat akin to the famous Monty Hall problem. 

Basically, an incumbent only has two possible outcomes for his reelection:  he either increases his margin or not.  If he does increase his margin then he is always reelected, definitionally.  This conditionality creates the seemingly unusual probability for presidents to win second terms with better margins.

If you remove the conditionality (i.e., treat all incumbent reelections the same) then you're left with nothing spectacular at all.  17/28 incumbent presidents seeking reelection have had decreased margins.