Null



TitanTiger

ADMIN
  • Content count

    43,435
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

TitanTiger last won the day on September 17

TitanTiger had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6,047 Sterling

About TitanTiger

  • Rank
    Secretary of Crowd Control

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Location
    Montgomery, AL
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

5,451 profile views
  1. I'm wondering why I keep hearing variations of "Dems always do this." That's demonstrably false - they didn't do it to Gorsuch because there was no credible charge against Gorsuch, a guy who seems to have spent his prep school years sipping Coke floats and going to class. It also didn't happen to Roberts or Alito. So let's dispense with that just line of argumentation anywhere we see it. Roy Moore and Donald Trump do not equal a conspiracy. But they've got the Nuts and Sluts defense all ramped up now which seems to have clouded their vision from being able to support an even more reliable conservative like Amy Coney Barrett. Going to the mat over this one is an odd strategy.
  2. There's a difference in saying it didn't happen and saying you have no recollection of it. Which isn't all that surprising considering in her allegations she clearly said there was loud rock music playing and that the only ones in the bedroom were her, Kavanaugh, and Mark Judge. You're over selling what they said.
  3. She wasn't a "purported witness" as Ford said clearly that there were only her, Kavanaugh, and Mark Judge in the room where it happened. You need to work on your article summaries.
  4. TitanTiger

    Congressman Ellison Accused

    This has mostly been a fruitful discussion. But it's entirely reasonable to question what was being suggested and, in some parts, call BS on it. But you know, if you think it's fruitless to get into longer discussions with some of us, nobody's holding a gun to your head keeping you here suffering through it all. I can even make it so you don't even see the politics forums anymore so you won't be tempted to get sucked into all the fruitless banner. Your call.
  5. TitanTiger

    Rosenstein Now Implicated

    I think that's a bit flippant and shows your biases. You're not getting past it being about Trump. Say it had been Bill Clinton, Hillary or Obama. If they had staff (more than just one guy) who genuinely felt that one of them as President were suffering from mental issues that seriously clouded their judgment and ability to perform the functions of the office, should they not try to do something to demonstrate that? If they go to Congress or the FBI or whoever, they're going to need to show some proof if the President is managing to hide it well in public. You really see that as a coup?
  6. TitanTiger

    Rosenstein Now Implicated

    1. I think if they really feel there's reason to suspect he might be mentally "not all there," they not only should but have an obligation to do so. 2. Like, all by themselves? No. But talking with other members of the President's staff/cabinet and if there's a consensus to do so, proceed? Yeah, probably. What about you?
  7. TitanTiger

    Rosenstein Now Implicated

    Taking Trump out of the equation for a second, if people in an administration did suspect that the POTUS was unfit (not morally, but mentally) to execute the responsibilities of his office. And let's assume they had good reason to think this and that the president has managed thus far not to do anything in the public eye to show he's having problems, but behind the scenes it's very worrisome and apparent to his staff. What should they do? Should they do things such as wear a wire, secretly video him, etc. to show proof as to his mental state and why the 25th amendment might be invoked? Again, assume for a second it's not Trump. Just speaking generally.
  8. Ok, but it would also be incorrect to say that therapists always or normally take notes and/or include names of others in them, legal issues or no legal issues. And thus it would be incorrect to assume there's anything suspicious or untoward about notes that don't have names.
  9. So are you. The section entitled "Legal Issues" is preceded by this: Of course, there are some exceptions. There are always exceptions. Here are some times when a therapist may choose to take notes in therapy: (emphasis mine). In other words, it's not unusual at all for therapists to not even take notes, much less take meticulous notes that name names.
  10. We are now doing some of those things, but it is still more job interview than criminal proceeding. If they decide they believe her to be credible and believe her story is true, he's not going to jail, he's simply not getting the job. He'll most likely go back to just being a judge, and even if it reaches further than that and he steps down from that, he'll make a lucrative living as a lawyer. The analogy is fine. Quit being a pedant over a non-essential point.
  11. I don't know. I think the bottom line is, it deserves to be looked into deeper and for the accused and accuser to be questioned on the matter. It's too important to just ignore. Good analogy. See? I can do that too. It may not be a typical job interview, but as was said above, this process is much closer in kind to a job interview than a criminal court. He's being evaluated as to whether he's fit for the position he aspires to. Character and reputation come into play, especially as you go up the chain in responsibility and in terms of ethical requirements of the job.
  12. This one does. It's just a more important job interview. Analogy is just fine. The case isn't strong enough to warrant conviction, but no one is seeking that. It is an important enough accusation to look into it further when considering someone to such a powerful lifetime position.
  13. It's not laughable. It may be hearsay, but nothing about it is "laughable." Well the thing is, that's not what this is. This isn't a court of law and he's not facing conviction and jail time. It's a job interview. Sadly though, what you say is true of most cases of sexual assault. Usually the only ones who witness it are the victim and the perpetrator. Very few if any people who would do such a thing do it where anyone else could witness it. And if all she has is her word against his, it wouldn't go very far in any sort of legal setting anyway. That's especially true in the case where it's an attempted rape. There's very little, if any, physical evidence.
  14. What level of detail are you expecting to make it credible? She remembers quite a few details, details about the home's layout, what vicinity of town it was in, people who were there, specific names of the the two guys she's accusing, and so on. This is an odd critique to me. That's not true. The two perps don't remember it, or at least say they don't. Two of the other people she named at the party have so far refused to comment. That's not "NOBODY" remembers.
  15. I think "coincidental" is a weird term too. I don't think anyone has suggested that she is bringing this up randomly and it just happened to be just as he's nominated for the SCOTUS. In fact, I've argued something almost the opposite. I've pointed out that experts will tell you it's completely normal for victims of rape and sexual assault to not say anything at the time to anyone and to go years or even decades keeping that silence. And that it's also not unusual for the ones who break their silence to finally do so because of a particular event or circumstance - such as the alleged perpetrator possibly being given a role of great power, responsibility and influence. So no, I don't think it's a coincidence at all. She may be lying or delusional. There's nothing in her past or professional life to suggest she's that kind of person, but it's possible. But if she's telling the truth, it's precisely because he was said to be on the short list for a SCOTUS nomination and she felt at that point she had to come forward and tell what happened.