US Politics Mega-Blog - Page 35

On October 07 2018 05:43 IgnE wrote:


See I think you are fundamentally misinterpreting what the drama was even about. It was about believability regarding the kind of person Brett Kavanaugh is, and had little to nothing to do with legalistic weighing of evidence with regard to a specific and isolated charge. It had little to do with "qualifications." I don't know what happened back when Brett was in high school, but on balance I think that he was probably a hard-drinking, typically misogynistic jock and asshole. If I believe that much, regardless of whether he sexually assaulted Ford, is that enough to say that I don't think he should be the next supreme court justice? I think probably yes. As you know there are many brilliant lawyers in this country almost all of whom would drop everything at the chance to become a supreme court justice.

As for how conservatives should have responded, my understanding is that they had a list of 25ish judges that were basically all equivalent in judicial terms. Perhaps they should have quickly torpedoed any candidate themselves that met any resistance and just put up another? You think the Dems could have brought unseemly allegations against all 25? So why him? Because the democrats played politics and tried to control the release of allegations from a woman who by all accounts firmly believes she was assaulted by Brett back in high school?

Don't give me something like, "it's the principle of the thing." Sorry, but the prestige and legitimacy of the Court was and has been under fire since long before Kavanaugh. Any person worthy of being placed there would know that appearances matter. This whole drama has been a referendum on what kinds of people are allowed to be on the Supreme Court. You should read that with full understanding of the implicit tension inherent to it. What kinds of people are allowed on the Supreme Court? Who is actually nominated and confirmed? Who are these people deciding whether abortion is constitutionally protected? The whole thing has been a referendum on entitled white boys, born with a host of economic, educational, and social privileges, who acted like assholes for a significant portion of their lives and whether or not they should be the ones making decisions of such importance for so many.

I do think that there's a possible world in which Kavanaugh met this criticism and appropriately addressed it. That is not the one we are living in.

On October 07 2018 07:11 IgnE wrote:
It's not mob rule for senators to reject candidates that the people they represent reject for obvious character flaws.

On October 07 2018 07:31 xDaunt wrote:

It is mob rule when the decision is being made on and derived from baseless allegations of rape.

On October 07 2018 07:07 IgnE wrote:
You know it's not bigotry to dislike assholes right?

The whole thing has been a referendum on entitled white boys, born with a host of economic, educational, and social privileges, who acted like assholes for a significant portion of their lives and whether or not they should be the ones making decisions of such importance for so many.

On October 07 2018 07:48 Danglars wrote:

Presuming him to have been a "misogynistic jerk and asshole" absolutely is. You think he's white and entitled and probably a misogynistic jerk and asshole. It's not too different than seeing a black candidate for office, and presume he's a misogynistic rapper, gang-banger, and asshole. At least you aren't calling him entitled, but you think you know enough about him or his type to conclude he's an asshole on the balance. That's the very essence of prejudice and bigotry.

I'd say the same to any KKK guy that says he dislikes blacks from inner cities based on them being assholes etc.

Contrary to your point, your individual reliance on group stereotypes of jocks and heavy drinking absolutely gets down the principle of the matter. I totally expect people that call so and so an asshole to have something specific to that individual to make the conclusion.

This is a hill I'm willing to die on. Group prejudice against whites, or some version of entitlement (He'll say he earned top of his class and captain of the various sports teams, so perhaps you're just lying to yourself about what entitlement means), is no reason to throw up your hands and say this is all just some referendum on "true" social prejudice. It's all about flatly rejecting bias against certain groups EVEN if it's culturally accepted that hatred towards DC preppies is totally cool.

On October 07 2018 07:47 GreenHorizons wrote:


"baseless" is not the word you're looking for.

On October 07 2018 07:55 xDaunt wrote:

When the allegations are made with internal inconsistencies and contradicted by all known independent evidence, baseless is the right word.

On October 07 2018 07:48 Danglars wrote:

Presuming him to have been a "misogynistic jerk and asshole" absolutely is. You think he's white and entitled and probably a misogynistic jerk and asshole. It's not too different than seeing a black candidate for office, and presume he's a misogynistic rapper, gang-banger, and asshole. At least you aren't calling him entitled, but you think you know enough about him or his type to conclude he's an asshole on the balance. That's the very essence of prejudice and bigotry.

I'd say the same to any KKK guy that says he dislikes blacks from inner cities based on them being assholes etc.

Contrary to your point, your individual reliance on group stereotypes of jocks and heavy drinking absolutely gets down the principle of the matter. I totally expect people that call so and so an asshole to have something specific to that individual to make the conclusion.

This is a hill I'm willing to die on. Group prejudice against whites, or some version of entitlement (He'll say he earned top of his class and captain of the various sports teams, so perhaps you're just lying to yourself about what entitlement means), is no reason to throw up your hands and say this is all just some referendum on "true" social prejudice. It's all about flatly rejecting bias against certain groups EVEN if it's culturally accepted that hatred towards DC preppies is totally cool.

On October 07 2018 08:14 Howie_Dewitt wrote:

We got to look into his early life and see that, while he was not a rapist or sexually assaulting anyone, he was not a great person. He constantly had to make up shit excuses for what was obviously just plain old assholery in his yearbook. This isn't just bias; the hearing and investigations gave us an okay idea of what Brett Kavanaugh was like when he wasn't out of college, and it wasn't pretty. Yes, it wasn't illegal, but it's also not the kind of thing me and Igne want to see out of someone holding a life seat on the highest court in the country.

There are plenty of kids in preppy high school environments that manage to come out looking like some kind of golden child, and that's not really a good reason to hate someone, as you've made clear multiple times; those golden kids, even if you have a bias against them, are the kind of people you would reluctantly do a group project with. Young Brett Kavanaugh sounds like the kind of person who would flake out, get blackout drunk, and tell you that he was busy working on something with his family after you'd already heard all the stories about how wild that party was. The kind of person you'd try to get out of a group with, because at least the other kids will do their work. I don't want someone who I wouldn't trust to do a group project to decide controversial rulings for many people across the country.

On October 07 2018 08:25 xDaunt wrote:

What? You don’t want the guy who graduated at the top of his class and always had exemplary grades in your group? Are you sure you are describing the right person?

On October 07 2018 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:


You know the guy was part of a frat notorious for the entitled, misogynistic jerks?

So it's more like assuming a gang member has a past that resembles other members of the gang.

On October 07 2018 08:14 Howie_Dewitt wrote:

We got to look into his early life and see that, while he was not a rapist or sexually assaulting anyone, he was not a great person. He constantly had to make up shit excuses for what was obviously just plain old assholery in his yearbook. This isn't just bias; the hearing and investigations gave us an okay idea of what Brett Kavanaugh was like when he wasn't out of college, and it wasn't pretty. Yes, it wasn't illegal, but it's also not the kind of thing me and Igne want to see out of someone holding a life seat on the highest court in the country.

There are plenty of kids in preppy high school environments that manage to come out looking like some kind of golden child, and that's not really a good reason to hate someone, as you've made clear multiple times; those golden kids, even if you have a bias against them, are the kind of people you would reluctantly do a group project with. Young Brett Kavanaugh sounds like the kind of person who would flake out, get blackout drunk, and tell you that he was busy working on something with his family after you'd already heard all the stories about how wild that party was. The kind of person you'd try to get out of a group with, because at least the other kids will do their work. I don't want someone who I wouldn't trust to do a group project to decide controversial rulings for many people across the country.

On October 07 2018 08:51 Danglars wrote:

He's gone faster than a bullet if he was ever connected to these your allegations of notorious frat behavior. The reason the best weapon they could find was a barfight where he threw ice was because they tried and failed to put some frat smear onto him.


Just a common guy regretful and embarassed that he drank so much at 18 and in his college years. I'm going to try and be more conciliatory here because he won and in the craziness I might've missed a news story or section of testimony (that happened during work for me). The best of the yearbooks was drinking games. Yearbooks and calendars were a typical teenage mess of in-jokes and fun. Again, maybe I missed something. I still saw the stereotype dragged out as a kind of banner under which nobody would look closer to see if he was a bad person in addition to being a partier.

I think you get my perspective pretty right. I haven't seen enough of a reason to hate the person because some other people hate the person's social class and upbringing.

If I was in high school, or a Freshman or Sophomore in College, I might stay away, based solely on the stereotype of jocks that like to drink. In that case, I would be a peer of him, also young, and stereotypes are useful at the basic level to protect yourself from wasted time and headaches. For a 53-year-old, I'd look to his career. All two or so decades of his career. I'd totally still look to see if he was arrested for drugs, property damage, assault and battery, and indecent exposure in his youth. What I wouldn't do is have a friend of a friend tell me that one story about what happened with a keg and a balcony, and be wondering if he's secretly a middle aged frat boy. It just really stinks of partisanship and factionalism, but I'm really trying to presume this is a genuine nonpartisan worry. My moral reckoning is you're responsible for your own actions, not the reputation other people think your Frat has achieved, not what people think about white jocks at elite private schools, just your actions. The race and class and social circle taint is not so overpowering of a smell to make individuals too problematic to trust.

Suit yourself if you're the boss and are thinking about hiring him onto your company. I'm not preaching that you have to abandon your stereotypes. I just need more evidence to be persuaded it's a good plan to fail to give him the benefit of the doubt. I've seen the flip side, how unfounded gossip has destroyed the character of good man, and behind it all was a person looking for advancement or a rejected date. I really seek to weigh the sides to not privilege the gossiper and rumor-spreader out of overcaution or playing it ridiculously safe. I'm also not willing to conclude he was "not a great person" based on what I've read and heard. I'm prepared to change that if he did routinely get blackout drunk instead of overdrink, or harassed women in his drunkenness, who have remained silent afterwards. If you hold to your standard of rumor and "kind of people" for the Supreme Court, I simply don't agree, and don't really fault you for holding to your beliefs at what kind of person you won't to serve as judge on that court.

On October 07 2018 07:48 Danglars wrote:

Presuming him to have been a "misogynistic jerk and asshole" absolutely is. You think he's white and entitled and probably a misogynistic jerk and asshole. It's not too different than seeing a black candidate for office, and presume he's a misogynistic rapper, gang-banger, and asshole. At least you aren't calling him entitled, but you think you know enough about him or his type to conclude he's an asshole on the balance. That's the very essence of prejudice and bigotry.

I'd say the same to any KKK guy that says he dislikes blacks from inner cities based on them being assholes etc.

Contrary to your point, your individual reliance on group stereotypes of jocks and heavy drinking absolutely gets down the principle of the matter. I totally expect people that call so and so an asshole to have something specific to that individual to make the conclusion.

This is a hill I'm willing to die on. Group prejudice against whites, or some version of entitlement (He'll say he earned top of his class and captain of the various sports teams, so perhaps you're just lying to yourself about what entitlement means), is no reason to throw up your hands and say this is all just some referendum on "true" social prejudice. It's all about flatly rejecting bias against certain groups EVEN if it's culturally accepted that hatred towards DC preppies is totally cool.

On October 07 2018 09:08 GreenHorizons wrote:


You know him and David cop-a-feel were part of the same frat, then he went on to work for cop-a-feel's son. Judging by the reference Bush sr. used when he sexually assaults women it's not a new activity. Turning a blind eye to sexually abusing women isn't some aberration, it's definitively something they did for decades.

On October 07 2018 09:13 Danglars wrote:

The George H. W. Bush connection is a conspiracy theory I hadn't really heard yet, but thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Incidentally, that reminds me of a similar discussion about Obama and Romney in their high school/college years. Obama smoked weed (and possibly more than that?) and Romney dressed up as a police officer to fake arrest people. Want to hold that against them too, or should we have looked at the people they were in their working years instead?

On October 07 2018 09:20 IgnE wrote:
obama smoking weed made him more likable. what are you smoking?