Jump to content

Huskerzoo

Mods
  • Content Count

    1,086
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Huskerzoo last won the day on October 25 2019

Huskerzoo had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

955 Excellent

About Huskerzoo

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Middle of nowhere Kentucky.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Not a good look at 36 seconds. I would get extremely upset if someone grabbed me by the jacket like that. It was fairly gentle, but I would be very close to walking away. Also, not a great way to garner votes for the primary or general.
  2. More and more I get the impression that hands are dirty all over the place. I've got to believe on some level that some of the Republicans care deeply about the country and what's happening and that would compel them to break with the party. However, if breaking with the party means going to prison or having their own shady dealings brought to light that changes how people would play it.
  3. The logic is just going to go in circles, It's a he says (Bolton) he says (Trump) with Trump saying there's a transcript that supports his side, but, to my knowledge, no full transcript having been released yet, so we go back to he says he says.
  4. There's a really interesting dynamic in play that I'm not sure will show up or not in a meaningful way. Judge Roberts is supposedly really concerned about his legacy. Given there's a somewhat limited role, I don't know how much he can do. However, given that he is presiding and that this process is making a mockery of any semblance of a fair trial, I wonder if he might be research things to do. There was an interesting article in the Atlantic the other day that may be relevant sooner rather than later: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/impeachment-trial-without-witnesses-would-be-unconstitutional/605332/ This is further backed up by this politico article: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/22/founders-wanted-john-roberts-assert-himself-impeachment-trial-101727 Now here's the thing, Roberts doesn't love activist judges. So it turns into a bit of a question of will he turn activist judge in order to prevent his legacy being that he presided over one of the most absurd instances in American history. Or will he want his legacy to be something else (who knows what). If Roberts doesn't get involved, we know the outcome already, Trump will be able to do whatever he wants. If Roberts takes actions, even if it's viewed as a problem, it would likely go to the Supreme Court and come back a 4-3 decision favoring whatever he chooses to do.
  5. That's never going to be an option. Talk about their behaviors instead of your interpretation of their behaviors.
  6. The problem with this analysis is that for psychologists, you can't make this analysis without an interview of sorts. As someone in the field, even if I think his behavior is bizarre, I would not feel comfortable making any statements about competence or ability to function. Below from the American Psychological Association ethics code. " 9.01 Bases for Assessments (a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments.) (b) Except as noted in 9.01c, psychologists provide opinions of the psychological characteristics of individuals only after they have conducted an examination of the individuals adequate to support their statements or conclusions. When, despite reasonable efforts, such an examination is not practical, psychologists document the efforts they made and the result of those efforts, clarify the probable impact of their limited information on the reliability and validity of their opinions, and appropriately limit the nature and extent of their conclusions or recommendations. (See also Standards 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, and 9.06, Interpreting Assessment Results.) (c) When psychologists conduct a record review or provide consultation or supervision and an individual examination is not warranted or necessary for the opinion, psychologists explain this and the sources of information on which they based their conclusions and recommendations." You're hearing a lot more about the diagnosis stuff from psychiatrists who have (arguably) less expertise in diagnosis. Their training focuses more on the biological influences of behavior.
  7. Sorry, evidence isn't allowed into this conversation. Impeachment rules in this thread.
  8. Unfortunately the rules really favor Mitch doing what he wants. I think it would be much more interesting if Roberts got to be like hey, people are leaving, you can't be unbiased if you don't hear all the information in the trial.
  9. Agree, there's a little smoke and his career trajectory would make sense.
  10. We could knight him and he could be Sir Held of Recruitment. Honorary Doctor? My guess is that they'll add some words to his title such as director of Juco Recruitment that don't mean a ton, but can be used to justify the pay bump.
  11. Yeah some interesting moves here. 300+ of them were for drug charges only which I'm in support of, but not sure I need many of the other folks he pardoned back in the community.
  12. Is the thinking he's number 1 on our board right now?
×
×
  • Create New...