18 minutes ago, ivyanddan said:

 

I didn’t misunderstand your question.

 

However, you seem to be under the impression that every act of sexual violence is reported to law enforcement and that every act reported to law enforcement undergo criminal proceedings. And you seem to be under the impression that all accusations have their day in court. And that anyone who was “truly assaulted” would stop at nothing to apprehend their attackers. 

 

How cute. I wish I could be as naive. Look up “backlog of rape kits” and “underreporting of sexual assault”.

 

Actually no. I was basing it on RAIIN statistics. Rape Abuse & Incest National Network. Out of 1000 assaults 310 are reported to the police. The 310 represent the quantity of accusations. Only 7 of those result in a conviction. That is where I get 3% (of the 310). 

52 minutes ago, ivyanddan said:

 

I presume you don’t have much knowledge of the justice system and government statistics. A criminal convinction does not mean it’s unsubstantiated.

 

And sexual violence is severely under reported and even more so, severely under reported to law enforcement.

Perhaps you misunderstood my question. I'll try again. You have an accusation that is made public. How is it determined if its false with regards to that statistic? I assume its determined through criminal proceedings correct?

By the way, I checked the conviction rate and it appears to be about 3%. So that means a total of 92% of all women that come forward are in limbo between false and true in the criminal court system. 

1 hour ago, ivyanddan said:

 

I was assaulted in 2010. I can’t remember what he looks like, I don’t know his name, I don’t even know why I was on that crowded bus. All I know is he assaulted me for what felt like an hour but was really just 5 minutes... and I remember that feeling of being violated.

 

Since then, I’ve had a fear of being in crowds, but if you wanna look at my history, you can’t say I’ve avoided crowds entirely. I also don’t ride public transportation if I could, but I still ride them out of necessity.

 

By the logic presented by most people trying to find so-called “holes”, I’m lying about my assault because I don’t panic when I’m in a crowd or when I’m on public transportation.

 

Less than 5% of people that report sexual violence are false claims. That’s been consistent in a lot of national and state surveys.

 

With that statistic, that means there’s a 95% chance that Judge Kavanaugh committed a sexual assault.

 

 

 

I have a question regarding the 5% claim. Those are proven false accusation correct? What is the percentage of proven accurate? That will tell you a more accurate percentage overall. For instance, if the conviction rate is 80% then the breakdown is 5/15/80 where in 15% of accusation are not proven either way. Likewise if there is a conviction rate of 10% it would be 5/85/10.

5 minutes ago, Marty Byrde said:

If he isn't appointed, it will be a slap in the face to anyone falsely accused. If the worse thing he has ever done in his life is get drunk at a party as a tenager and push another drunk teneager onto a bed, then he has lead a pretty tame life.

If he is falsely accused. The problem is there are no hard facts presented by either party, so we are left with hearsay.

14 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Just because a self-entitled man did badly at a job interview does not make his denials true either. If there is even a tiny question as to the potential truthfulness of his statements and actions he should not be accepted onto the court. There may be doubt yes (is she telling the truth? is he lying? or vice versa). But if that doubt exists in either direction or case, he should not be accepted. There are as I said, many more qualified individuals of which such questions would not arise.

 

If someone you loved had this happen to them, would you believe them? Or would you say just because they accuse somebody doesn't make it true. I'd hope you'd be supportive, and I'd hope you'd be angry when the rest of world laughs at their misfortune.

I think alot of the "unspoken rules" of politics were thrown out during this confirmation and that is why we, all of us, are where we are today.

In previous hearings, accusations were released early to  get the candidate to deny accusations but still politely withdraw. In this hearing Feinstein screwed up and introduced it in the 11th hour which has created a game of brinksmanship. At this stage you have one side trying to hold a line that says if there is any shade of doubt about a candidate, they should not be confirmed against another side that sees this as a situation where if any doubt can be acquired in the 11th hour it automatically discredits the nominee which isn't seen as a fair process.

Basically....Kavanaugh should have withdrawn, and that was the goal of the democrats. They played their hand wrong though by waiting so long putting the GOP up against the wall, so Kavanaugh can not withdraw under these circumstances.

Its a lose / lose scenario now. If he is confirmed, it will look like a slap in the face to women who have been assaulted. If he isn't confirmed, the future playbook will be to find any accusations...hold on to them, and then tank the process in the final day or two before a vote. 

43 minutes ago, Marty Byrde said:

 

I know he is a commie, but he has a point. Remember when everyone said if GM is too big to fail they are to big ? I hope he does not end up with a self inflicted gunshot wound to the back of the head 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/sen-sanders-wants-to-break-up-jp-morgan-berkshire-hathaway.html

 

Sen. Sanders wants to break up JP Morgan, Berkshire Hathaway and other large financials

• Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced a bill on Wednesday that would require the breakup of any financial company that has a total exposure of greater than 3 percent of gross domestic product.
• Based on that threshold, which is $584 billion, six banks and the four nonbanks would have to split up.
• The banks are J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo & Co., Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. The nonbanks are Berkshire Hathaway as well as Prudential Financial, MetLife and American International Group.

Why just financial? If there ever was  a candidate for being broken up its Alphabet.

Apparently two men have confessed to the Judiciary Committee that they attacked Ford. Sort of a big deal IMO because under state law they can still be prosecuted.

Lol okay this is getting stupid. Another woman has come forward saying he grinded on women at parties in highschool. Democrats are now saying he needs to be withdrawn. Talk about an absolute circus....

Also, not sure why they did this but Ford's attorney has now weakened their position. When the calendar pages were released (which is the silliest defense I've ever seen), her attorney stated that Ford thinks it was probably 1982 but it could have been anytime in the early 1980s. Her lawyer just discredited her....what an idiot, you can't take an accusation seriously if you're not even sure of the YEAR.

20 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

The only bed he has made so far is accepting the nomination there is no proof that he has done anything illegal. I think if there is any real proof then it's fair game for either side but at the moment there is nothing. 

 

The left seems to think that just because there is an accusation he should step aside. Can you imagine how frustrating it will get in the future, all the opposition party will have to do is find some have baked story to shut the other side down. 

 

Gutter politics at its best, the dems make it easy to not vote for them that's assuming I was allowed vote to begin with.

I sort of agree (especially regarding Feinstein and the gutter she crawled out of)  that there is no solid evidence of wrong doing and at the same time there is enough info out there now to realize the guy is an absolute douchebag.

By the way, regarding Kavanaugh - in a normal world, the vote would be postponed for an investigation. But the rule book was thrown out years ago by both parties so under the current system, I don't see how that could happen. Republicans must force a vote either late this week or next.

Feinstein should have chosen a course of action back in July. By waiting this long its basically forcing everyone's hand and clouds the issue. If there is anyone to blame regarding this process its squarely with Feinstein. Whatever legacy she may have had will be stained by how she handled this in my opinion.

4 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

How many didn't get an up or down vote?

Just Thornberry. (A democrat nomination)

Most of the republican nominations that were torpedoed involve either a no vote or a withdraw.

26 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

Sure let's talk about compromise, just as soon as you tell me the names of a nominee to the supreme Court, who failed to even receive a hearing, and in the last one hundred years, one who couldn't even get a up or down vote. I'll wait.

There have been a number of forced withdraws, but the only other non vote in the last century that I am aware of is Thornberry. This is not the example people are looking for however as it was similar to Garland's nomination in that conservatives stopped Fortas from becoming Chief Justice which terminated Thornberry's vote.

I will say that in the past 100 years, far more republican nominations have been torpedoed than democrat nominations. This could be viewed as democrats doing more against republicans, or republicans simply not naming sound candidates (as with most things, both are probably true.)

Sweden response should be as follows:

"We deeply regret that a Chinese family was not treated with the equal respect that they and others receive within China. We have contacted the hostal in question and will follow in the actions of the Chinese Communist Party by having the family 'disappear'. Again we apologize for the cultural misunderstanding."

6 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I have so hard tried to  explain that to a young  coworker that just bought this instead of moving out of his apartment

 

 

Thats Doug.

I love his youtube channel. He drives all sorts of weird vehicles, from Volkswagon's "Thing", to soviet cars, to a tank.

https://www.autotrader.com/oversteer

Um Actually....

the moon landing is one of the rare positives of hyper-nationalism. If there had been no Cold War, I think there  would have been no moon landing in the 20th century. 

1 hour ago, smilesammich said:

i don't think it's when a conservative speaker goes to a college (milo/richard spencer aren't just vanilla conservatives). i think you're relying too much on conservative media to tell you the truth about these incidents.

 

antifa is not anti free speech, they're anti hate speech. 

 

Whats your view on Ann Coulter or Ben Shapiro? Antifa in Berkeley blocked both (though Shapiro did come back later).

Within the US, hate speech is free speech.

5 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Notice how the anti police violent BLM group went away as soon as the election was over 

They had trouble keeping things organized IMO. Also, in comparison to ANTIFA, I consider BLM peaceful. The only things I'm aware of that they consistently did that  were bad were trying to shutdown freeways and occasional property damage.

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

source?

 

antifa is not new. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

I didn't say new, I said a new force...as in a new force in american politics. Prior to 2017 they weren't very mainstream. Technically Antifa dates back to the 1930s.

20 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

um what? where's the violence? i'm not seeing it.

as long as they're punching nazis it's all good with me.

There has been more violence in the streets in the past year then any other year since the LA Riots IMO.

ANTIFA has been a new force since the last election in the US. I guess the question to ask is, have their been more supremacist and facist demonstrations in the last year or is the spotlight just on them now? (Probably the former)

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

cant make this stuff up. Liberal Dem pushes gun control kills former treasurer 

 

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/former-congressional-candidate-accused-of-killing-campaign-treasurer/811132728

It wasn't that long ago that a California Democrat was convicted of arms trafficking. 

19 minutes ago, Neonred said:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/33893/south-africa-amending-constitution-white-farmers-amanda-prestigiacomo

 

South Africa Amending Constitution: White Farmers’ Lands To Be Seized And Given To Blacks

Another article that my son sent to me.  His wife and her family are originally from South Africa but fled several years ago when they saw this stuff coming.

 

Turning South Africa into S hole country.

 

If you are white and living in SA, what the heck are you still doing there?  Better get out NOW while you can.

Or the white farmers could form an organized militia and defend themselves. Most of them are decently armed.

8 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Wouldn't grades work? Perhaps combined with an admissions test? Many countries don't use standardized tests for university admissions. The problem nowadays is people can  study and even pay an instructor just to learn how to pass the test.

I explained grades above. Yes admission tests would be a way to do it as well.

8 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

that was my answer. i'm not a fan of standardized tests. especially not beginning in elementary school. i'm not thinking so much from a perspective of college admins.

...................I am asking how do you weigh that performance between them?

Student A goes to a difficult high school that has an average GPA of 2.0 (4.0 scale). Student A is an excellent student and gets a GPA of 3.5

Student B goes to a less difficult highschool that has an average GPA of 3.0 (4.0 scale). Student B is a slightly above average and gets a 3.65.

If you have to make a decision who gets accepted and obviously you have no way to know one school is more difficult than the other how do you weigh their GPAs? This is where standardized tests play a part. In theory Student A will get a slightly better score than Student B despite the lower GPA.

7 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

 

 

their academic performance.

My question was: What other means would properly weigh the academic performance of two students from two different schools?

(not being mean...its just that you basically copied and pasted "academic performance" out of my sentence without address the question.)

3 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

there are other means of comparing. 

besides, if a student is of remarkable intelligence but cannot function under the pressure of the standardized testing environment - the results aren't worth much.

What other means would properly weigh the academic performance of two students from two different schools?