The Frankish Reich

HES is Harvard University Extension. Yes, it is part of Harvard University. But it is basically the open enrollment/continuing education/online extension. And it sure as hell ain't Harvard College, the elite undergrad component. Congratulations Mr. Rufo on your "Harvard degree"

The reference to Anchorman (and Scientology) in your name (good one!) tells me you are our rare relatively youthful Gen X poster.

Hail Satan!

I know EXACTLY why the electoral college and the distribution of electoral votes among the states was created: to give the southern slave-holding states a disproportionate representation in the House and a disproportionate share of the electoral votes for the President.

Is she still seeking refuge in that human rights paradise that is Russia?

Which is exactly the same thing. Try this one: "OJ Simpson was found by a jury to be responsible for the deaths of his ex-wife and Ronald Goldman" Same thing.

I can't answer for him, other than to say that there's a general lack of understanding here. For myself, i'll say: Yes, it is relevant that it was a civil verdict and not a criminal conviction. The standard of proof is considerably lower (here, the jury could have found that it is 51% likely that Trump did it). But it is also relevant that they returned a truly enormous award, which suggests that they were quite convinced that he needed to be punished for his outrageous behavior. So, sure, argue whatever you want about what it all means. But the fact is that the statement, "Trump was found by a jury to have digitally penetrated Carroll" is absolutely true.

On Travis Kelce and the creation/marketing of his "brand": https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/02/style/travis-kelce-managers-agent.html A cynic might say that Kelce is using Taylor in furtherance of his brand and his mission to be "as big as The Rock." That's kinda different from saying that the NFL fixed the playoff games to make sure KC was in the Super Bowl and that the NFL somehow manufactured the relationship.

Yeah. That's what it means to say "a jury found that he did it." And the "it" here is "rape" under the modern definition.

IT IS THE JUDGE'S ORDER. Not the WaPo's summary. The judge RULED that what the jury found Trump did constitutes RAPE under the current-day definition. It didn't constitute RAPE under the common law or under old NY law, since that require actual penis/***** contact. In short (haha): the jury found that Trump penetrated her with his fingers. Deal with it. EDIT: so weird that the automated censor lets you write penis but not its female counterpart ...

Agreed. Wentz was probably the start of the new trend toward drafting the "protectable" guys with great athletic skills. Wentz was good in college, but against minor league competition, so there were big doubts (now confirmed I guess) of how his skills would translate to the NFL.

Maybe that's because he's short-fingered. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

They didn't call him the "Short-Fingered Vulgarian" for nothing. And you need to pull out the law books. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. In a civil case, the plaintiff must convince the jury by a “preponderance of the evidence” (i.e., that it is more likely than not) that the defendant is responsible for the harm the plaintiff has suffered. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/civil-cases#:~:text=In a civil case%2C the,harm the plaintiff has suffered.

No. The burden of proof in a civil case is "preponderance of the evidence." So the jury found that it is more likely than not that Trump digitally penetrated Carroll. The burden is never on the defendant (Trump). Look, I didn't follow the case closely, and in my opinion there are problems with a lawsuit based on events that happened decades ago. But the jury obviously believed Carroll's testimony, which was corroborated by a couple other witnesses - friends of hers who say that she told them about her encounter with Trump (at least in part nonconsensual) around that time that it happened. And Trump's own deposition testimony was a killer, since he confused Carroll with his ex-wife Marla. That destroyed the "she's not my type" crude defense.

I think you're mixing up two things. "Neurodivergent" is used for people on the autism spectrum. Not for the mentally ill/schizophrenic.

And that's the other part of the draft equation: sometimes you need a little luck (most "insider" reports say Beane wanted Darnold)

Hmm, what is the common factor in Trump's "problems" with NY court cases? Is it "commie jury pools?" Maybe it's an awful/inept lead counsel. "Habba is licensed to practice law in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. She has served as lead counsel for three cases, including a federal class action suit against a New Jersey nursing home accused of various negligent acts and consumer fraud violations." Three cases. Really. That's who Trump chose, or perhaps who Trump was left with after all other attorneys found him impossible to work for.

True. But they still waited for an excuse this time, and the excuse was the U.S. unqualified support for Israel and its all-out war on Gaza.

Just like MLB, the NFL went through a Moneyball style analytics revolution. The key in Moneyball (and that Beane, Billy): scouts underrate actual performance, and overrate things like combine measurements. In football terms: draft the guy with a proven record of success at actually playing football and doing NFL QB type things (Baker Mayfield) rather than the guy with jaw-dropping physical attributes who doesn't have a record of success at NFL-type QB skills (Lamar Jackson, Josh Allen). Allen and Lamar caused an immediate shift in that thinking (maybe Carson Wentz a little bit too). All of a sudden the "project" guys with tremendous physical attributes shot up the charts. Trey Lance is the clearest example of the Allen/Jackson effect. I think things are moving in the right direction now. It's about college success + projectability. MLB has seen a similar shift, at least when it comes to drafting college (not high school) players.

Thanks for linking that. Awesome reading! I don't want to scroll thru the whole thing to see if I had any reaction at the time. But kudos to those posters who don't change their names here every 6 months. I have no idea who some of the Allen naysayers were, but I do know they're still here ....

OK, try this: 1. Should we have remained neutral in the Israel-Hamas war? 2. Should we be directly attacking Iran now?

What would Irv do? Sorry I'm taxing your Trump-level attention span. I hear Provigil may help.

So what would you do? The drone attacks on U.S. armed forces are a direct consequence of U.S. support - moral, legal, and real world weapons - of Israel. Should we have not expressed such support for Israel? Should we be officially neutral here, not get involved at all? So I hear we are soft on Iran. Should we get into a shooting war directly with Iran? You tell me.

Horseshoe theory is now reality.

Cancel All Groomers! (I read that right here)