|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 13 2020 07:56 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2020 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 01:30 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 01:19 IgnE wrote:On April 12 2020 04:17 ChristianS wrote:On April 12 2020 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2020 03:24 ChristianS wrote:On April 12 2020 03:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2020 02:35 ChristianS wrote:On April 12 2020 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
The people to the left of Bernie and the "swing voters" in swing states at the allegorical switch are largely distinct groups, though there is some overlap. Typically I'm speaking from/about/raising the perspective of the countless people on the tracks.
I think the trolly question is a moral abstraction meant to distance the people pushing the trolly over their countrymen and fellow humans around the planet of their role/responsibility by starting the question with the presumption the trolly, tracks, and people tied to them are inevitable and unquestionable.
Within this faulty framing I suggested the only ethical action imo was to derail the trolly. In that way this ties into Wombat's point about striking while the iron is hot. Covid-19 has the trolly teetering and both Biden and Trump (and their supporters) want to get it back on the tracks (Trump's tracks lined with more people). Which is the place from which I argue derailing the teetering train is not only the ethical action, but necessary and more possible than it has been in our lives while what we'll need to do and how many people will be lost increases by the second.
We've seen coronavirus already impact Wisconsin/Illinois and Republicans/Democrats are fully willing to exploit it for political gain. With that and the Mueller investigation/Ukraine impeachment I think your confidence in a valid election even by US standards just prior to Trump is misplaced. That said I'd put the odds that there isn't more significant foreign interference, election fraud, voter suppression, etc. than 2016 very low and the odds that there will be enough to argue the results are questionable for more than just some of the losing side is closer to 50/50.
That said, I think most Americans will consider the election valid regardless if for no other reason than they can't imagine an alternative.
With all respect I disagree with pretty much everything about what you're saying but to try to wrap up the specifics you asked if I disagreed with I sorta missed: [quote] as a matter of fact isn't true without a LOT of *'s and what you describe/what we have is a low bar for an election objectively/compared to other democracies in "1st world" countries would be my position. Then to abandon the analogy you object to, and return to the original question: are you thinking this political movement will somehow produce a reasonable chance of neither Trump nor Biden being president in 2021? And if so, can you briefly describe a reasonable path from here to there? Because I honestly can’t picture it, and maybe a specific scenario would help people understand where you’re coming from. Might be easier to amend the trolly analogy to a less imperfect (anything short of a treatise will be) one but let's see. Odds aren't great it will, but revolutionary optimism springs eternal. What would it look like? Starting today it would be Biden's support plummeting when people see both his record and mental/physical condition with more scrutiny (our media is unlikely to provide). Then, desperate to replace him (before whatever becomes of the convention) Democrats across the country reject someone like Cuomo, Clinton, Buttigieg or anyone to the right of Bernie as a suitable replacement and he cleans up enough delegates in June to make it clean electorally. Unfortunately it seems that the overwhelming number of the most politically involved Democrats have seen the worst of Biden and chose to actively support it and demand those that find it unacceptable support him anyway. Just to be clear Bernie isn't really "derailing" imo, but hopping to an off-screen track that has far fewer people than the others with them spaced further out. Trolly version: + Show Spoiler +"Derailing" would fall more under refusing to move forward electorally until we committed to rebuilding the whole thing from trolly to track. I'm more just trying to encourage the people getting kicked off the trolly to the front to work to slow the trolly and untie people from the tracks (solidarity from newly unemployed middle class), encourage those kicked off to the back to not start pushing ( not tell people "Vote for Biden! It's the only moral mature choice!"), and those kicked to the sides of the trolly (affluent/comfortable onlookers under minimal/temporary financial stress) to try to tip that bih over before the billionaires send it over the edge of a rollercoaster style drop heading straight for the most marginalized people in society on both the Biden and Trump track (significantly less so, like a much bigger distance than between Biden and Trump, is the Bernie track,). The Bernie track the one being still a reasonable and viable path within the political imagination of most Americans imo. Would you agree that the Bernie track (of all the tracks you might be persuaded to include under “acceptable”) has demonstrated the broadest appeal? And that we just recently concluded an electoral contest in which the Bernie track couldn’t find plurality support even among the “left?” The very first contest (if you ignore everything leading up to it in media and the party) demonstrated that electoral contest was not valid imo. Several subsequent state contests demonstrated that as well. If you set aside the electoral fraud we all witnessed in Iowa and the subsequent voter suppression lines in Texas, Chicago, Wisconsin, etc.. the small fraction of the general electorate that constitutes the Democratic primary (typically a moderate group) selecting Biden doesn't allow me to draw the conclusions you have. Bernie support among the left is overwhelming, the left is only a small part of the Democratic primary (for many reasons within and beyond their control) I mean, don’t get me wrong, a scenario in which Bernie somehow convinces Democrats to back him at the last minute sounds great to me. But Bernie just spent a year trying to convince them any way he knew how, and it didn’t work, right? What do you think will change? Coronavirus certainly didn’t seem to hurt Biden’s polling. If anything the opposite, actually. I'm suggesting the increased scrutiny a competent and non-complacent media would provide could expose people to enough to realize how terrible of an idea it is to put Biden up against Trump and there's more than enough votes left to prevent that fate. Also that doing so by way of delayed primary voting and a delayed convention (made possible/unavoidable by covid-19) is far preferable than trying to come up with solutions after Biden is nominated or if he wins, or worse, if he loses. But your assessment of the validity of the election isn’t the issue here. Whether you think those irregularities cost Bernie the primary (and I think it’s pretty clear they didn’t), there’s not any clear metric by which Bernie could claim legitimacy. He didn’t win the primary, he hasn’t been ahead in polls at almost any point, and at this point he himself has dropped out. You’re hoping some negative media will take Biden down, but he’s been in the public eye for decades, including as VP for eight years. If there’s an angle the media could cover him by that would sink him, why would it only happen in the next 6 months?Do you think Bernie was wrong to drop out? Do you think he was likely to turn it around? And more importantly, do you really think there’s a real chance of convincing voters to support a guy who already dropped out? What about Tara Reade's accusations? Yeah, that one’s a little more plausible. If we’re answering “how will the public respond once this story is widely reported?” I have no idea what the answer is, or what would happen if more women came forward. My intuition is that it would damage but not sink him, but that’s really nothing more than a guess. What if we had an Access Hollywood-style “in his own words” proof of sorts? Probably the more difficult question is “how should we respond to credible but unproven allegations against powerful figures like this?” I had a long back-and-forth with Mohdoo a few months ago that felt productive (to me, at least), but I suspect the same conversation in this context would be impossible to have. Tempers are a lot higher now than they are then. #BelieveWomen was the Democratic mantra when it was Kavanaugh. Can anyone here make a case that the evidence against Kavanaugh was greater than the evidence against Biden is now?
IIRC Ford had therapist notes proving she had alleged this for years, which I don’t believe Reade has. If one of the concerns is insulating our political system from disinformation, that’d be a reason to give Ford more credence than Reade. There’s other stuff that could cut the other way, though.
|
On April 13 2020 08:32 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2020 07:56 IgnE wrote:On April 13 2020 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 01:30 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 01:19 IgnE wrote:On April 12 2020 04:17 ChristianS wrote:On April 12 2020 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2020 03:24 ChristianS wrote:On April 12 2020 03:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2020 02:35 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
Then to abandon the analogy you object to, and return to the original question: are you thinking this political movement will somehow produce a reasonable chance of neither Trump nor Biden being president in 2021? And if so, can you briefly describe a reasonable path from here to there? Because I honestly can’t picture it, and maybe a specific scenario would help people understand where you’re coming from. Might be easier to amend the trolly analogy to a less imperfect (anything short of a treatise will be) one but let's see. Odds aren't great it will, but revolutionary optimism springs eternal. What would it look like? Starting today it would be Biden's support plummeting when people see both his record and mental/physical condition with more scrutiny (our media is unlikely to provide). Then, desperate to replace him (before whatever becomes of the convention) Democrats across the country reject someone like Cuomo, Clinton, Buttigieg or anyone to the right of Bernie as a suitable replacement and he cleans up enough delegates in June to make it clean electorally. Unfortunately it seems that the overwhelming number of the most politically involved Democrats have seen the worst of Biden and chose to actively support it and demand those that find it unacceptable support him anyway. Just to be clear Bernie isn't really "derailing" imo, but hopping to an off-screen track that has far fewer people than the others with them spaced further out. Trolly version: + Show Spoiler +"Derailing" would fall more under refusing to move forward electorally until we committed to rebuilding the whole thing from trolly to track. I'm more just trying to encourage the people getting kicked off the trolly to the front to work to slow the trolly and untie people from the tracks (solidarity from newly unemployed middle class), encourage those kicked off to the back to not start pushing ( not tell people "Vote for Biden! It's the only moral mature choice!"), and those kicked to the sides of the trolly (affluent/comfortable onlookers under minimal/temporary financial stress) to try to tip that bih over before the billionaires send it over the edge of a rollercoaster style drop heading straight for the most marginalized people in society on both the Biden and Trump track (significantly less so, like a much bigger distance than between Biden and Trump, is the Bernie track,). The Bernie track the one being still a reasonable and viable path within the political imagination of most Americans imo. Would you agree that the Bernie track (of all the tracks you might be persuaded to include under “acceptable”) has demonstrated the broadest appeal? And that we just recently concluded an electoral contest in which the Bernie track couldn’t find plurality support even among the “left?” The very first contest (if you ignore everything leading up to it in media and the party) demonstrated that electoral contest was not valid imo. Several subsequent state contests demonstrated that as well. If you set aside the electoral fraud we all witnessed in Iowa and the subsequent voter suppression lines in Texas, Chicago, Wisconsin, etc.. the small fraction of the general electorate that constitutes the Democratic primary (typically a moderate group) selecting Biden doesn't allow me to draw the conclusions you have. Bernie support among the left is overwhelming, the left is only a small part of the Democratic primary (for many reasons within and beyond their control) I mean, don’t get me wrong, a scenario in which Bernie somehow convinces Democrats to back him at the last minute sounds great to me. But Bernie just spent a year trying to convince them any way he knew how, and it didn’t work, right? What do you think will change? Coronavirus certainly didn’t seem to hurt Biden’s polling. If anything the opposite, actually. I'm suggesting the increased scrutiny a competent and non-complacent media would provide could expose people to enough to realize how terrible of an idea it is to put Biden up against Trump and there's more than enough votes left to prevent that fate. Also that doing so by way of delayed primary voting and a delayed convention (made possible/unavoidable by covid-19) is far preferable than trying to come up with solutions after Biden is nominated or if he wins, or worse, if he loses. But your assessment of the validity of the election isn’t the issue here. Whether you think those irregularities cost Bernie the primary (and I think it’s pretty clear they didn’t), there’s not any clear metric by which Bernie could claim legitimacy. He didn’t win the primary, he hasn’t been ahead in polls at almost any point, and at this point he himself has dropped out. You’re hoping some negative media will take Biden down, but he’s been in the public eye for decades, including as VP for eight years. If there’s an angle the media could cover him by that would sink him, why would it only happen in the next 6 months?Do you think Bernie was wrong to drop out? Do you think he was likely to turn it around? And more importantly, do you really think there’s a real chance of convincing voters to support a guy who already dropped out? What about Tara Reade's accusations? Yeah, that one’s a little more plausible. If we’re answering “how will the public respond once this story is widely reported?” I have no idea what the answer is, or what would happen if more women came forward. My intuition is that it would damage but not sink him, but that’s really nothing more than a guess. What if we had an Access Hollywood-style “in his own words” proof of sorts? Probably the more difficult question is “how should we respond to credible but unproven allegations against powerful figures like this?” I had a long back-and-forth with Mohdoo a few months ago that felt productive (to me, at least), but I suspect the same conversation in this context would be impossible to have. Tempers are a lot higher now than they are then. #BelieveWomen was the Democratic mantra when it was Kavanaugh. Can anyone here make a case that the evidence against Kavanaugh was greater than the evidence against Biden is now? IIRC Ford had therapist notes proving she had alleged this for years, which I don’t believe Reade has. If one of the concerns is insulating our political system from disinformation, that’d be a reason to give Ford more credence than Reade. There’s other stuff that could cut the other way, though.
fwiw those notes didn't include anything about Kavanaugh and conflicted with her later testimony. Claiming her therapist notes were mistaken.
How would therapist notes decades after the incident that didn't even include her attacker (Kavanaugh) and conflicted with her testimony be reason to give her more credence?
|
|
|
On April 13 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2020 08:32 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 07:56 IgnE wrote:On April 13 2020 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 01:30 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 01:19 IgnE wrote:On April 12 2020 04:17 ChristianS wrote:On April 12 2020 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2020 03:24 ChristianS wrote:On April 12 2020 03:01 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Might be easier to amend the trolly analogy to a less imperfect (anything short of a treatise will be) one but let's see. Odds aren't great it will, but revolutionary optimism springs eternal. What would it look like? Starting today it would be Biden's support plummeting when people see both his record and mental/physical condition with more scrutiny (our media is unlikely to provide). Then, desperate to replace him (before whatever becomes of the convention) Democrats across the country reject someone like Cuomo, Clinton, Buttigieg or anyone to the right of Bernie as a suitable replacement and he cleans up enough delegates in June to make it clean electorally. Unfortunately it seems that the overwhelming number of the most politically involved Democrats have seen the worst of Biden and chose to actively support it and demand those that find it unacceptable support him anyway. Just to be clear Bernie isn't really "derailing" imo, but hopping to an off-screen track that has far fewer people than the others with them spaced further out. Trolly version: + Show Spoiler +"Derailing" would fall more under refusing to move forward electorally until we committed to rebuilding the whole thing from trolly to track. I'm more just trying to encourage the people getting kicked off the trolly to the front to work to slow the trolly and untie people from the tracks (solidarity from newly unemployed middle class), encourage those kicked off to the back to not start pushing ( not tell people "Vote for Biden! It's the only moral mature choice!"), and those kicked to the sides of the trolly (affluent/comfortable onlookers under minimal/temporary financial stress) to try to tip that bih over before the billionaires send it over the edge of a rollercoaster style drop heading straight for the most marginalized people in society on both the Biden and Trump track (significantly less so, like a much bigger distance than between Biden and Trump, is the Bernie track,). The Bernie track the one being still a reasonable and viable path within the political imagination of most Americans imo. Would you agree that the Bernie track (of all the tracks you might be persuaded to include under “acceptable”) has demonstrated the broadest appeal? And that we just recently concluded an electoral contest in which the Bernie track couldn’t find plurality support even among the “left?” The very first contest (if you ignore everything leading up to it in media and the party) demonstrated that electoral contest was not valid imo. Several subsequent state contests demonstrated that as well. If you set aside the electoral fraud we all witnessed in Iowa and the subsequent voter suppression lines in Texas, Chicago, Wisconsin, etc.. the small fraction of the general electorate that constitutes the Democratic primary (typically a moderate group) selecting Biden doesn't allow me to draw the conclusions you have. Bernie support among the left is overwhelming, the left is only a small part of the Democratic primary (for many reasons within and beyond their control) I mean, don’t get me wrong, a scenario in which Bernie somehow convinces Democrats to back him at the last minute sounds great to me. But Bernie just spent a year trying to convince them any way he knew how, and it didn’t work, right? What do you think will change? Coronavirus certainly didn’t seem to hurt Biden’s polling. If anything the opposite, actually. I'm suggesting the increased scrutiny a competent and non-complacent media would provide could expose people to enough to realize how terrible of an idea it is to put Biden up against Trump and there's more than enough votes left to prevent that fate. Also that doing so by way of delayed primary voting and a delayed convention (made possible/unavoidable by covid-19) is far preferable than trying to come up with solutions after Biden is nominated or if he wins, or worse, if he loses. But your assessment of the validity of the election isn’t the issue here. Whether you think those irregularities cost Bernie the primary (and I think it’s pretty clear they didn’t), there’s not any clear metric by which Bernie could claim legitimacy. He didn’t win the primary, he hasn’t been ahead in polls at almost any point, and at this point he himself has dropped out. You’re hoping some negative media will take Biden down, but he’s been in the public eye for decades, including as VP for eight years. If there’s an angle the media could cover him by that would sink him, why would it only happen in the next 6 months?Do you think Bernie was wrong to drop out? Do you think he was likely to turn it around? And more importantly, do you really think there’s a real chance of convincing voters to support a guy who already dropped out? What about Tara Reade's accusations? Yeah, that one’s a little more plausible. If we’re answering “how will the public respond once this story is widely reported?” I have no idea what the answer is, or what would happen if more women came forward. My intuition is that it would damage but not sink him, but that’s really nothing more than a guess. What if we had an Access Hollywood-style “in his own words” proof of sorts? Probably the more difficult question is “how should we respond to credible but unproven allegations against powerful figures like this?” I had a long back-and-forth with Mohdoo a few months ago that felt productive (to me, at least), but I suspect the same conversation in this context would be impossible to have. Tempers are a lot higher now than they are then. #BelieveWomen was the Democratic mantra when it was Kavanaugh. Can anyone here make a case that the evidence against Kavanaugh was greater than the evidence against Biden is now? IIRC Ford had therapist notes proving she had alleged this for years, which I don’t believe Reade has. If one of the concerns is insulating our political system from disinformation, that’d be a reason to give Ford more credence than Reade. There’s other stuff that could cut the other way, though. fwiw those notes didn't include anything about Kavanaugh and conflicted with her later testimony. Claiming her therapist notes were mistaken. How would therapist notes decades after the incident that didn't even include her attacker (Kavanaugh) and conflicted with her testimony be reason to give her more credence?
If the concern is specifically that somebody could falsely allege something to manipulate the system, the fact that the claims can be proven to go back years before the political process they’re meant to influence is relevant, no?
It turns the defense’s narrative from “she heard this guy was getting nominated and made this up” to something like “she made this up years ago just in case he was ever nominated.”
|
On April 13 2020 08:44 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 08:32 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 07:56 IgnE wrote:On April 13 2020 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 01:30 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 01:19 IgnE wrote:On April 12 2020 04:17 ChristianS wrote:On April 12 2020 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2020 03:24 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
Would you agree that the Bernie track (of all the tracks you might be persuaded to include under “acceptable”) has demonstrated the broadest appeal? And that we just recently concluded an electoral contest in which the Bernie track couldn’t find plurality support even among the “left?” The very first contest (if you ignore everything leading up to it in media and the party) demonstrated that electoral contest was not valid imo. Several subsequent state contests demonstrated that as well. If you set aside the electoral fraud we all witnessed in Iowa and the subsequent voter suppression lines in Texas, Chicago, Wisconsin, etc.. the small fraction of the general electorate that constitutes the Democratic primary (typically a moderate group) selecting Biden doesn't allow me to draw the conclusions you have. Bernie support among the left is overwhelming, the left is only a small part of the Democratic primary (for many reasons within and beyond their control) I mean, don’t get me wrong, a scenario in which Bernie somehow convinces Democrats to back him at the last minute sounds great to me. But Bernie just spent a year trying to convince them any way he knew how, and it didn’t work, right? What do you think will change? Coronavirus certainly didn’t seem to hurt Biden’s polling. If anything the opposite, actually. I'm suggesting the increased scrutiny a competent and non-complacent media would provide could expose people to enough to realize how terrible of an idea it is to put Biden up against Trump and there's more than enough votes left to prevent that fate. Also that doing so by way of delayed primary voting and a delayed convention (made possible/unavoidable by covid-19) is far preferable than trying to come up with solutions after Biden is nominated or if he wins, or worse, if he loses. But your assessment of the validity of the election isn’t the issue here. Whether you think those irregularities cost Bernie the primary (and I think it’s pretty clear they didn’t), there’s not any clear metric by which Bernie could claim legitimacy. He didn’t win the primary, he hasn’t been ahead in polls at almost any point, and at this point he himself has dropped out. You’re hoping some negative media will take Biden down, but he’s been in the public eye for decades, including as VP for eight years. If there’s an angle the media could cover him by that would sink him, why would it only happen in the next 6 months?Do you think Bernie was wrong to drop out? Do you think he was likely to turn it around? And more importantly, do you really think there’s a real chance of convincing voters to support a guy who already dropped out? What about Tara Reade's accusations? Yeah, that one’s a little more plausible. If we’re answering “how will the public respond once this story is widely reported?” I have no idea what the answer is, or what would happen if more women came forward. My intuition is that it would damage but not sink him, but that’s really nothing more than a guess. What if we had an Access Hollywood-style “in his own words” proof of sorts? Probably the more difficult question is “how should we respond to credible but unproven allegations against powerful figures like this?” I had a long back-and-forth with Mohdoo a few months ago that felt productive (to me, at least), but I suspect the same conversation in this context would be impossible to have. Tempers are a lot higher now than they are then. #BelieveWomen was the Democratic mantra when it was Kavanaugh. Can anyone here make a case that the evidence against Kavanaugh was greater than the evidence against Biden is now? IIRC Ford had therapist notes proving she had alleged this for years, which I don’t believe Reade has. If one of the concerns is insulating our political system from disinformation, that’d be a reason to give Ford more credence than Reade. There’s other stuff that could cut the other way, though. fwiw those notes didn't include anything about Kavanaugh and conflicted with her later testimony. Claiming her therapist notes were mistaken. How would therapist notes decades after the incident that didn't even include her attacker (Kavanaugh) and conflicted with her testimony be reason to give her more credence? If the concern is specifically that somebody could falsely allege something to manipulate the system, the fact that the claims can be proven to go back years before the political process they’re meant to influence is relevant, no? It turns the defense’s narrative from “she heard this guy was getting nominated and made this up” to something like “she made this up years ago just in case he was ever nominated.”
Who is accusing her of making this up because she heard Biden was getting nominated?
The part Ford would be making up (I don't think she did) is that it was Kavanaugh, not that she was assaulted. Which the therapist notes do nothing to substantiate. Also, while only bias witnesses, Reade does have multiple parties willing to confirm she told them about the incident prior to the election cycle.
|
On April 13 2020 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2020 08:44 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 08:32 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 07:56 IgnE wrote:On April 13 2020 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 01:30 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 01:19 IgnE wrote:On April 12 2020 04:17 ChristianS wrote:On April 12 2020 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
The very first contest (if you ignore everything leading up to it in media and the party) demonstrated that electoral contest was not valid imo. Several subsequent state contests demonstrated that as well. If you set aside the electoral fraud we all witnessed in Iowa and the subsequent voter suppression lines in Texas, Chicago, Wisconsin, etc.. the small fraction of the general electorate that constitutes the Democratic primary (typically a moderate group) selecting Biden doesn't allow me to draw the conclusions you have. Bernie support among the left is overwhelming, the left is only a small part of the Democratic primary (for many reasons within and beyond their control)
[quote]
I'm suggesting the increased scrutiny a competent and non-complacent media would provide could expose people to enough to realize how terrible of an idea it is to put Biden up against Trump and there's more than enough votes left to prevent that fate. Also that doing so by way of delayed primary voting and a delayed convention (made possible/unavoidable by covid-19) is far preferable than trying to come up with solutions after Biden is nominated or if he wins, or worse, if he loses. But your assessment of the validity of the election isn’t the issue here. Whether you think those irregularities cost Bernie the primary (and I think it’s pretty clear they didn’t), there’s not any clear metric by which Bernie could claim legitimacy. He didn’t win the primary, he hasn’t been ahead in polls at almost any point, and at this point he himself has dropped out. You’re hoping some negative media will take Biden down, but he’s been in the public eye for decades, including as VP for eight years. If there’s an angle the media could cover him by that would sink him, why would it only happen in the next 6 months?Do you think Bernie was wrong to drop out? Do you think he was likely to turn it around? And more importantly, do you really think there’s a real chance of convincing voters to support a guy who already dropped out? What about Tara Reade's accusations? Yeah, that one’s a little more plausible. If we’re answering “how will the public respond once this story is widely reported?” I have no idea what the answer is, or what would happen if more women came forward. My intuition is that it would damage but not sink him, but that’s really nothing more than a guess. What if we had an Access Hollywood-style “in his own words” proof of sorts? Probably the more difficult question is “how should we respond to credible but unproven allegations against powerful figures like this?” I had a long back-and-forth with Mohdoo a few months ago that felt productive (to me, at least), but I suspect the same conversation in this context would be impossible to have. Tempers are a lot higher now than they are then. #BelieveWomen was the Democratic mantra when it was Kavanaugh. Can anyone here make a case that the evidence against Kavanaugh was greater than the evidence against Biden is now? IIRC Ford had therapist notes proving she had alleged this for years, which I don’t believe Reade has. If one of the concerns is insulating our political system from disinformation, that’d be a reason to give Ford more credence than Reade. There’s other stuff that could cut the other way, though. fwiw those notes didn't include anything about Kavanaugh and conflicted with her later testimony. Claiming her therapist notes were mistaken. How would therapist notes decades after the incident that didn't even include her attacker (Kavanaugh) and conflicted with her testimony be reason to give her more credence? If the concern is specifically that somebody could falsely allege something to manipulate the system, the fact that the claims can be proven to go back years before the political process they’re meant to influence is relevant, no? It turns the defense’s narrative from “she heard this guy was getting nominated and made this up” to something like “she made this up years ago just in case he was ever nominated.” Who is accusing her of making this up because she heard Biden was getting nominated? The part Ford would be making up (I don't think she did) is that it was Kavanaugh, not that she was assaulted. Which the therapist notes do nothing to substantiate. Also, while only bias witnesses, Reade does have multiple parties willing to confirm she told them about the incident prior to the election cycle.
“Heard he was getting nominated” was in reference to Kavanaugh, not Biden. I’m not aware of the specifics of her therapist’s notes, I thought it specified something like “a man who’s in a powerful position now” or something? How many rich and powerful men did she go to school with/in close proximity to?
|
On April 13 2020 09:00 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2020 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 08:44 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 08:32 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 07:56 IgnE wrote:On April 13 2020 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 01:30 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 01:19 IgnE wrote:On April 12 2020 04:17 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
But your assessment of the validity of the election isn’t the issue here. Whether you think those irregularities cost Bernie the primary (and I think it’s pretty clear they didn’t), there’s not any clear metric by which Bernie could claim legitimacy. He didn’t win the primary, he hasn’t been ahead in polls at almost any point, and at this point he himself has dropped out. You’re hoping some negative media will take Biden down, but he’s been in the public eye for decades, including as VP for eight years. If there’s an angle the media could cover him by that would sink him, why would it only happen in the next 6 months?
Do you think Bernie was wrong to drop out? Do you think he was likely to turn it around? And more importantly, do you really think there’s a real chance of convincing voters to support a guy who already dropped out? What about Tara Reade's accusations? Yeah, that one’s a little more plausible. If we’re answering “how will the public respond once this story is widely reported?” I have no idea what the answer is, or what would happen if more women came forward. My intuition is that it would damage but not sink him, but that’s really nothing more than a guess. What if we had an Access Hollywood-style “in his own words” proof of sorts? Probably the more difficult question is “how should we respond to credible but unproven allegations against powerful figures like this?” I had a long back-and-forth with Mohdoo a few months ago that felt productive (to me, at least), but I suspect the same conversation in this context would be impossible to have. Tempers are a lot higher now than they are then. #BelieveWomen was the Democratic mantra when it was Kavanaugh. Can anyone here make a case that the evidence against Kavanaugh was greater than the evidence against Biden is now? IIRC Ford had therapist notes proving she had alleged this for years, which I don’t believe Reade has. If one of the concerns is insulating our political system from disinformation, that’d be a reason to give Ford more credence than Reade. There’s other stuff that could cut the other way, though. fwiw those notes didn't include anything about Kavanaugh and conflicted with her later testimony. Claiming her therapist notes were mistaken. How would therapist notes decades after the incident that didn't even include her attacker (Kavanaugh) and conflicted with her testimony be reason to give her more credence? If the concern is specifically that somebody could falsely allege something to manipulate the system, the fact that the claims can be proven to go back years before the political process they’re meant to influence is relevant, no? It turns the defense’s narrative from “she heard this guy was getting nominated and made this up” to something like “she made this up years ago just in case he was ever nominated.” Who is accusing her of making this up because she heard Biden was getting nominated? The part Ford would be making up (I don't think she did) is that it was Kavanaugh, not that she was assaulted. Which the therapist notes do nothing to substantiate. Also, while only bias witnesses, Reade does have multiple parties willing to confirm she told them about the incident prior to the election cycle. “Heard he was getting nominated” was in reference to Kavanaugh, not Biden. I’m not aware of the specifics of her therapist’s notes, I thought it specified something like “a man who’s in a powerful position now” or something? How many rich and powerful men did she go to school with/in close proximity to?
They reportedly said (I don't know anyone outside WaPo saw them?) her alleged attackers were from an elitist boys’ school, so a lot.
|
On April 13 2020 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2020 09:00 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 08:44 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 08:32 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 07:56 IgnE wrote:On April 13 2020 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 01:30 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 01:19 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
What about Tara Reade's accusations?
Yeah, that one’s a little more plausible. If we’re answering “how will the public respond once this story is widely reported?” I have no idea what the answer is, or what would happen if more women came forward. My intuition is that it would damage but not sink him, but that’s really nothing more than a guess. What if we had an Access Hollywood-style “in his own words” proof of sorts? Probably the more difficult question is “how should we respond to credible but unproven allegations against powerful figures like this?” I had a long back-and-forth with Mohdoo a few months ago that felt productive (to me, at least), but I suspect the same conversation in this context would be impossible to have. Tempers are a lot higher now than they are then. #BelieveWomen was the Democratic mantra when it was Kavanaugh. Can anyone here make a case that the evidence against Kavanaugh was greater than the evidence against Biden is now? IIRC Ford had therapist notes proving she had alleged this for years, which I don’t believe Reade has. If one of the concerns is insulating our political system from disinformation, that’d be a reason to give Ford more credence than Reade. There’s other stuff that could cut the other way, though. fwiw those notes didn't include anything about Kavanaugh and conflicted with her later testimony. Claiming her therapist notes were mistaken. How would therapist notes decades after the incident that didn't even include her attacker (Kavanaugh) and conflicted with her testimony be reason to give her more credence? If the concern is specifically that somebody could falsely allege something to manipulate the system, the fact that the claims can be proven to go back years before the political process they’re meant to influence is relevant, no? It turns the defense’s narrative from “she heard this guy was getting nominated and made this up” to something like “she made this up years ago just in case he was ever nominated.” Who is accusing her of making this up because she heard Biden was getting nominated? The part Ford would be making up (I don't think she did) is that it was Kavanaugh, not that she was assaulted. Which the therapist notes do nothing to substantiate. Also, while only bias witnesses, Reade does have multiple parties willing to confirm she told them about the incident prior to the election cycle. “Heard he was getting nominated” was in reference to Kavanaugh, not Biden. I’m not aware of the specifics of her therapist’s notes, I thought it specified something like “a man who’s in a powerful position now” or something? How many rich and powerful men did she go to school with/in close proximity to? They reportedly said (I don't know anyone outside WaPo saw them?) her alleged attackers were from an elitist boys’ school, so a lot.
Just went and refreshed my memory. From the WaPo article:
Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.
So it was not 100% Kavanaugh, but you could probably put together a fairly short list of possibles that went to school by her and were high-ranking DC society members in 2012.
|
On April 13 2020 11:18 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2020 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 09:00 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 08:44 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 08:32 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 07:56 IgnE wrote:On April 13 2020 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 01:30 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, that one’s a little more plausible. If we’re answering “how will the public respond once this story is widely reported?” I have no idea what the answer is, or what would happen if more women came forward. My intuition is that it would damage but not sink him, but that’s really nothing more than a guess. What if we had an Access Hollywood-style “in his own words” proof of sorts?
Probably the more difficult question is “how should we respond to credible but unproven allegations against powerful figures like this?” I had a long back-and-forth with Mohdoo a few months ago that felt productive (to me, at least), but I suspect the same conversation in this context would be impossible to have. Tempers are a lot higher now than they are then. #BelieveWomen was the Democratic mantra when it was Kavanaugh. Can anyone here make a case that the evidence against Kavanaugh was greater than the evidence against Biden is now? IIRC Ford had therapist notes proving she had alleged this for years, which I don’t believe Reade has. If one of the concerns is insulating our political system from disinformation, that’d be a reason to give Ford more credence than Reade. There’s other stuff that could cut the other way, though. fwiw those notes didn't include anything about Kavanaugh and conflicted with her later testimony. Claiming her therapist notes were mistaken. How would therapist notes decades after the incident that didn't even include her attacker (Kavanaugh) and conflicted with her testimony be reason to give her more credence? If the concern is specifically that somebody could falsely allege something to manipulate the system, the fact that the claims can be proven to go back years before the political process they’re meant to influence is relevant, no? It turns the defense’s narrative from “she heard this guy was getting nominated and made this up” to something like “she made this up years ago just in case he was ever nominated.” Who is accusing her of making this up because she heard Biden was getting nominated? The part Ford would be making up (I don't think she did) is that it was Kavanaugh, not that she was assaulted. Which the therapist notes do nothing to substantiate. Also, while only bias witnesses, Reade does have multiple parties willing to confirm she told them about the incident prior to the election cycle. “Heard he was getting nominated” was in reference to Kavanaugh, not Biden. I’m not aware of the specifics of her therapist’s notes, I thought it specified something like “a man who’s in a powerful position now” or something? How many rich and powerful men did she go to school with/in close proximity to? They reportedly said (I don't know anyone outside WaPo saw them?) her alleged attackers were from an elitist boys’ school, so a lot. Just went and refreshed my memory. From the WaPo article: Show nested quote +Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room. So it was not 100% Kavanaugh, but you could probably put together a fairly short list of possibles that went to school by her and were high-ranking DC society members in 2012.
I suppose? So is there more to this case that the evidence against Kavanaugh was greater than the evidence against Biden is?
|
On April 13 2020 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2020 11:18 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 09:00 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 08:44 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 08:32 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 07:56 IgnE wrote:On April 13 2020 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
#BelieveWomen was the Democratic mantra when it was Kavanaugh. Can anyone here make a case that the evidence against Kavanaugh was greater than the evidence against Biden is now? IIRC Ford had therapist notes proving she had alleged this for years, which I don’t believe Reade has. If one of the concerns is insulating our political system from disinformation, that’d be a reason to give Ford more credence than Reade. There’s other stuff that could cut the other way, though. fwiw those notes didn't include anything about Kavanaugh and conflicted with her later testimony. Claiming her therapist notes were mistaken. How would therapist notes decades after the incident that didn't even include her attacker (Kavanaugh) and conflicted with her testimony be reason to give her more credence? If the concern is specifically that somebody could falsely allege something to manipulate the system, the fact that the claims can be proven to go back years before the political process they’re meant to influence is relevant, no? It turns the defense’s narrative from “she heard this guy was getting nominated and made this up” to something like “she made this up years ago just in case he was ever nominated.” Who is accusing her of making this up because she heard Biden was getting nominated? The part Ford would be making up (I don't think she did) is that it was Kavanaugh, not that she was assaulted. Which the therapist notes do nothing to substantiate. Also, while only bias witnesses, Reade does have multiple parties willing to confirm she told them about the incident prior to the election cycle. “Heard he was getting nominated” was in reference to Kavanaugh, not Biden. I’m not aware of the specifics of her therapist’s notes, I thought it specified something like “a man who’s in a powerful position now” or something? How many rich and powerful men did she go to school with/in close proximity to? They reportedly said (I don't know anyone outside WaPo saw them?) her alleged attackers were from an elitist boys’ school, so a lot. Just went and refreshed my memory. From the WaPo article: Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room. So it was not 100% Kavanaugh, but you could probably put together a fairly short list of possibles that went to school by her and were high-ranking DC society members in 2012. I suppose? So is there more to this case that the evidence against Kavanaugh was greater than the evidence against Biden is?
I don’t really feel like I’m the one to make this case, but the two reasons I’d give more credibility to Ford would be:
1) Documentary evidence suggesting her allegations predate the nomination, and
2) she never came forward with a more mild allegation, then updated it later with more serious allegations.
I think a lot of people might cite Ford’s Senate testimony as extremely credible, but I don’t put much stock in that. Not that she didn’t seem credible, but I think people are way overconfident in their ability to judge that. I think it stems from being uncomfortable with uncertainty, and recognizing the evidence is inconclusive, so they decide to place their faith in their ability to hear the testimony of the accuser or accused and *just know* who’s telling the truth. It leads to cases like this where a victim is unable to tell their story “believably” enough so everyone treats them as a liar.
|
On April 13 2020 13:04 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2020 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 11:18 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 09:00 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 08:44 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 08:32 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 07:56 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
Can anyone here make a case that the evidence against Kavanaugh was greater than the evidence against Biden is now?
IIRC Ford had therapist notes proving she had alleged this for years, which I don’t believe Reade has. If one of the concerns is insulating our political system from disinformation, that’d be a reason to give Ford more credence than Reade. There’s other stuff that could cut the other way, though. fwiw those notes didn't include anything about Kavanaugh and conflicted with her later testimony. Claiming her therapist notes were mistaken. How would therapist notes decades after the incident that didn't even include her attacker (Kavanaugh) and conflicted with her testimony be reason to give her more credence? If the concern is specifically that somebody could falsely allege something to manipulate the system, the fact that the claims can be proven to go back years before the political process they’re meant to influence is relevant, no? It turns the defense’s narrative from “she heard this guy was getting nominated and made this up” to something like “she made this up years ago just in case he was ever nominated.” Who is accusing her of making this up because she heard Biden was getting nominated? The part Ford would be making up (I don't think she did) is that it was Kavanaugh, not that she was assaulted. Which the therapist notes do nothing to substantiate. Also, while only bias witnesses, Reade does have multiple parties willing to confirm she told them about the incident prior to the election cycle. “Heard he was getting nominated” was in reference to Kavanaugh, not Biden. I’m not aware of the specifics of her therapist’s notes, I thought it specified something like “a man who’s in a powerful position now” or something? How many rich and powerful men did she go to school with/in close proximity to? They reportedly said (I don't know anyone outside WaPo saw them?) her alleged attackers were from an elitist boys’ school, so a lot. Just went and refreshed my memory. From the WaPo article: Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room. So it was not 100% Kavanaugh, but you could probably put together a fairly short list of possibles that went to school by her and were high-ranking DC society members in 2012. I suppose? So is there more to this case that the evidence against Kavanaugh was greater than the evidence against Biden is? I don’t really feel like I’m the one to make this case, but the two reasons I’d give more credibility to Ford would be: 1) Documentary evidence suggesting her allegations predate the nomination, and 2) she never came forward with a more mild allegation, then updated it later with more serious allegations. I think a lot of people might cite Ford’s Senate testimony as extremely credible, but I don’t put much stock in that. Not that she didn’t seem credible, but I think people are way overconfident in their ability to judge that. I think it stems from being uncomfortable with uncertainty, and recognizing the evidence is inconclusive, so they decide to place their faith in their ability to hear the testimony of the accuser or accused and *just know* who’s telling the truth. It leads to cases like this where a victim is unable to tell their story “believably” enough so everyone treats them as a liar.
I'm unconvinced but perhaps IgnE is? Neither of those overcome the rest of the comparison (or stand as much in themselves imo). Like I've never seen Kavanaugh (did he have other women report him inappropriately touching them?) touch a woman inappropriately, kiss her without her consent, etc. I have seen Biden do those things on several occasions (I know this is unconvincing to you) as one aspect.
If it wasn't a sort of "hey I heard you liked me what gives" allegation and instead was more of a "he locked me in his basement" sort of allegation I'd say his behavior wasn't indicative of his potential guilt in Reade's case. But if he acts like what we see with women he thinks are just there to say hi or whatever, it's quite reasonable to believe he would approach an underling he believed (for whatever reason) was into him in such an aggressive way in the 90's and for her to be shunned and have duties (as interns of the time corroborate and her employment history suggests) removed after rejecting him.
What Ford describes is easily more horrific an accusation than Reade, but imo that makes Reade's all that more reasonable. It's hard to believe someone that lived a life that resulted in becoming a SCJ also was willing to try to trap and rape a woman then lie under oath about it (I mean not for me, but I'm cynical). Much easier to believe a creepy politician went too far/was too aggressive (to the point of what is now recognized as rape/sexual assault) pursuing what he may have thought was a mutual attraction between him and an underling in the 90's (just a few years before we found out the Democrat president was getting adulterous blow jobs from an intern in the oval office).
|
On April 13 2020 14:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2020 13:04 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 11:18 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 09:00 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 08:44 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 08:32 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
IIRC Ford had therapist notes proving she had alleged this for years, which I don’t believe Reade has. If one of the concerns is insulating our political system from disinformation, that’d be a reason to give Ford more credence than Reade. There’s other stuff that could cut the other way, though. fwiw those notes didn't include anything about Kavanaugh and conflicted with her later testimony. Claiming her therapist notes were mistaken. How would therapist notes decades after the incident that didn't even include her attacker (Kavanaugh) and conflicted with her testimony be reason to give her more credence? If the concern is specifically that somebody could falsely allege something to manipulate the system, the fact that the claims can be proven to go back years before the political process they’re meant to influence is relevant, no? It turns the defense’s narrative from “she heard this guy was getting nominated and made this up” to something like “she made this up years ago just in case he was ever nominated.” Who is accusing her of making this up because she heard Biden was getting nominated? The part Ford would be making up (I don't think she did) is that it was Kavanaugh, not that she was assaulted. Which the therapist notes do nothing to substantiate. Also, while only bias witnesses, Reade does have multiple parties willing to confirm she told them about the incident prior to the election cycle. “Heard he was getting nominated” was in reference to Kavanaugh, not Biden. I’m not aware of the specifics of her therapist’s notes, I thought it specified something like “a man who’s in a powerful position now” or something? How many rich and powerful men did she go to school with/in close proximity to? They reportedly said (I don't know anyone outside WaPo saw them?) her alleged attackers were from an elitist boys’ school, so a lot. Just went and refreshed my memory. From the WaPo article: Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room. So it was not 100% Kavanaugh, but you could probably put together a fairly short list of possibles that went to school by her and were high-ranking DC society members in 2012. I suppose? So is there more to this case that the evidence against Kavanaugh was greater than the evidence against Biden is? I don’t really feel like I’m the one to make this case, but the two reasons I’d give more credibility to Ford would be: 1) Documentary evidence suggesting her allegations predate the nomination, and 2) she never came forward with a more mild allegation, then updated it later with more serious allegations. I think a lot of people might cite Ford’s Senate testimony as extremely credible, but I don’t put much stock in that. Not that she didn’t seem credible, but I think people are way overconfident in their ability to judge that. I think it stems from being uncomfortable with uncertainty, and recognizing the evidence is inconclusive, so they decide to place their faith in their ability to hear the testimony of the accuser or accused and *just know* who’s telling the truth. It leads to cases like this where a victim is unable to tell their story “believably” enough so everyone treats them as a liar. I'm unconvinced but perhaps IgnE is? Neither of those overcome the rest of the comparison (or stand as much in themselves imo). Like I've never seen Kavanaugh (did he have other women report him inappropriately touching them?) touch a woman inappropriately, kiss her without her consent, etc. I have seen Biden do those things on several occasions (I know this is unconvincing to you) as one aspect. If it wasn't a sort of "hey I heard you liked me what gives" allegation and instead was more of a "he locked me in his basement" sort of allegation I'd say his behavior wasn't indicative of his potential guilt in Reade's case. But if he acts like what we see with women he thinks are just there to say hi or whatever, it's quite reasonable to believe he would approach an underling he believed (for whatever reason) was into him in such an aggressive way in the 90's and for her to be shunned and have duties (as interns of the time corroborate and her employment history suggests) removed after rejecting him. What Ford describes is easily more horrific an accusation than Reade, but imo that makes Reade's all that more reasonable. It's hard to believe someone that lived a life that resulted in becoming a SCJ also was willing to try to trap and rape a woman then lie under oath about it (I mean not for me, but I'm cynical). Much easier to believe a creepy politician went too far/was too aggressive (to the point of what is now recognized as rape/sexual assault) pursuing what he may have thought was a mutual attraction between him and an underling in the 90's (just a few years before we found out the Democrat president was getting adulterous blow jobs from an intern in the oval office).
Obviously there’s a lot of YMMV to all of this. I don’t put much stock in character assessments as a way of resolving the uncertainty for the same reason I don’t trust “believable testimony” - I think people are swayed mostly by factors that aren’t actually very relevant to the veracity of the person’s claims. Not directly relevant to this case, but I’m sure race, gender, class, etc. are all subconscious factors in people’s perceptions of character and believability, for instance.
But I also think the subjectivity is part of why I’m uncomfortable cancelling people without clearer proof. For the record, I doubt I said this at the time and I realize it’s awfully convenient for me to say now, but I think I would have been sympathetic to a Republican who had said “we should investigate Blasey Ford’s allegations fully; but if nothing else corroborating comes up, this shouldn’t be grounds to reject his nomination.” I had other reasons to disagree with his nomination, obviously, not least his behavior in that hearing, but purely on the sexual assault charges I don’t think the evidence presented was incontrovertible or anything. The push to force the nomination through without allowing any more investigation was a lot more objectionable to me.
|
On April 13 2020 14:59 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2020 14:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 13:04 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 11:18 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 09:00 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 08:44 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
fwiw those notes didn't include anything about Kavanaugh and conflicted with her later testimony. Claiming her therapist notes were mistaken.
How would therapist notes decades after the incident that didn't even include her attacker (Kavanaugh) and conflicted with her testimony be reason to give her more credence? If the concern is specifically that somebody could falsely allege something to manipulate the system, the fact that the claims can be proven to go back years before the political process they’re meant to influence is relevant, no? It turns the defense’s narrative from “she heard this guy was getting nominated and made this up” to something like “she made this up years ago just in case he was ever nominated.” Who is accusing her of making this up because she heard Biden was getting nominated? The part Ford would be making up (I don't think she did) is that it was Kavanaugh, not that she was assaulted. Which the therapist notes do nothing to substantiate. Also, while only bias witnesses, Reade does have multiple parties willing to confirm she told them about the incident prior to the election cycle. “Heard he was getting nominated” was in reference to Kavanaugh, not Biden. I’m not aware of the specifics of her therapist’s notes, I thought it specified something like “a man who’s in a powerful position now” or something? How many rich and powerful men did she go to school with/in close proximity to? They reportedly said (I don't know anyone outside WaPo saw them?) her alleged attackers were from an elitist boys’ school, so a lot. Just went and refreshed my memory. From the WaPo article: Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room. So it was not 100% Kavanaugh, but you could probably put together a fairly short list of possibles that went to school by her and were high-ranking DC society members in 2012. I suppose? So is there more to this case that the evidence against Kavanaugh was greater than the evidence against Biden is? I don’t really feel like I’m the one to make this case, but the two reasons I’d give more credibility to Ford would be: 1) Documentary evidence suggesting her allegations predate the nomination, and 2) she never came forward with a more mild allegation, then updated it later with more serious allegations. I think a lot of people might cite Ford’s Senate testimony as extremely credible, but I don’t put much stock in that. Not that she didn’t seem credible, but I think people are way overconfident in their ability to judge that. I think it stems from being uncomfortable with uncertainty, and recognizing the evidence is inconclusive, so they decide to place their faith in their ability to hear the testimony of the accuser or accused and *just know* who’s telling the truth. It leads to cases like this where a victim is unable to tell their story “believably” enough so everyone treats them as a liar. I'm unconvinced but perhaps IgnE is? Neither of those overcome the rest of the comparison (or stand as much in themselves imo). Like I've never seen Kavanaugh (did he have other women report him inappropriately touching them?) touch a woman inappropriately, kiss her without her consent, etc. I have seen Biden do those things on several occasions (I know this is unconvincing to you) as one aspect. If it wasn't a sort of "hey I heard you liked me what gives" allegation and instead was more of a "he locked me in his basement" sort of allegation I'd say his behavior wasn't indicative of his potential guilt in Reade's case. But if he acts like what we see with women he thinks are just there to say hi or whatever, it's quite reasonable to believe he would approach an underling he believed (for whatever reason) was into him in such an aggressive way in the 90's and for her to be shunned and have duties (as interns of the time corroborate and her employment history suggests) removed after rejecting him. What Ford describes is easily more horrific an accusation than Reade, but imo that makes Reade's all that more reasonable. It's hard to believe someone that lived a life that resulted in becoming a SCJ also was willing to try to trap and rape a woman then lie under oath about it (I mean not for me, but I'm cynical). Much easier to believe a creepy politician went too far/was too aggressive (to the point of what is now recognized as rape/sexual assault) pursuing what he may have thought was a mutual attraction between him and an underling in the 90's (just a few years before we found out the Democrat president was getting adulterous blow jobs from an intern in the oval office). Obviously there’s a lot of YMMV to all of this. I don’t put much stock in character assessments as a way of resolving the uncertainty for the same reason I don’t trust “believable testimony” - I think people are swayed mostly by factors that aren’t actually very relevant to the veracity of the person’s claims. Not directly relevant to this case, but I’m sure race, gender, class, etc. are all subconscious factors in people’s perceptions of character and believability, for instance. But I also think the subjectivity is part of why I’m uncomfortable cancelling people without clearer proof. For the record, I doubt I said this at the time and I realize it’s awfully convenient for me to say now, but I think I would have been sympathetic to a Republican who had said “we should investigate Blasey Ford’s allegations fully; but if nothing else corroborating comes up, this shouldn’t be grounds to reject his nomination.” I had other reasons to disagree with his nomination, obviously, not least his behavior in that hearing, but purely on the sexual assault charges I don’t think the evidence presented was incontrovertible or anything. The push to force the nomination through without allowing any more investigation was a lot more objectionable to me.
Fair enough.
I think it was pretty ubiquitously agreed here prior to the rapid consolidation around Biden that his best years were behind him and he should retire from politics as a dutiful VP. Polling on TL (not scientific) indicated he topped out at less than 10% support here and fell when the field narrowed to ~9 candidates.
Which is just to say no one is "cancelling" him over this particular incident. It's just one more thing on a list that led to 2 failed presidential campaigns already and why he shouldn't be the Democrats nominee for president. From my perspective, that Biden is considered the best nominee by Democrats now speaks more to me of the degradation of the party than the growth of Biden (who has struggled to keep up with the times in more ways than his record player comment).
|
On April 13 2020 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2020 01:30 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 01:19 IgnE wrote:On April 12 2020 04:17 ChristianS wrote:On April 12 2020 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2020 03:24 ChristianS wrote:On April 12 2020 03:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2020 02:35 ChristianS wrote:On April 12 2020 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2020 01:44 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
I mean, neither of our votes matter, I know that. But if “the American people” or “the American left” or “swing voters” (all nebulous concepts, maybe so much so to be meaningless) are being asked to throw the switch and decide which track the trolley goes on, you probably have an opinion what they should decide, and I’m inferring it’s something like “don’t throw the switch at all, and let the trolley try to call you complicit.”
I think there will almost certainly be an election in November (and if you disagree, I’d be interested to know why). It won’t be devoid of the sorts of undemocratic abuses you’re describing, and it remains to be seen if the coronavirus will present new and creative ways to suppress the vote, but at the end of the day, I think any citizen sufficiently motivated will be allowed to vote, their votes will be tallied accurately within a reasonable margin of error. Low bar for an election, maybe.
And then I think Americans will accept the legitimacy of whoever won as being president in 2021, even if there are irregularities. And that person, either Biden or Trump, will have all the powers associated with the presidency.
Do you disagree on any particular point? The people to the left of Bernie and the "swing voters" in swing states at the allegorical switch are largely distinct groups, though there is some overlap. Typically I'm speaking from/about/raising the perspective of the countless people on the tracks. I think the trolly question is a moral abstraction meant to distance the people pushing the trolly over their countrymen and fellow humans around the planet of their role/responsibility by starting the question with the presumption the trolly, tracks, and people tied to them are inevitable and unquestionable. Within this faulty framing I suggested the only ethical action imo was to derail the trolly. In that way this ties into Wombat's point about striking while the iron is hot. Covid-19 has the trolly teetering and both Biden and Trump (and their supporters) want to get it back on the tracks (Trump's tracks lined with more people). Which is the place from which I argue derailing the teetering train is not only the ethical action, but necessary and more possible than it has been in our lives while what we'll need to do and how many people will be lost increases by the second. We've seen coronavirus already impact Wisconsin/Illinois and Republicans/Democrats are fully willing to exploit it for political gain. With that and the Mueller investigation/Ukraine impeachment I think your confidence in a valid election even by US standards just prior to Trump is misplaced. That said I'd put the odds that there isn't more significant foreign interference, election fraud, voter suppression, etc. than 2016 very low and the odds that there will be enough to argue the results are questionable for more than just some of the losing side is closer to 50/50. That said, I think most Americans will consider the election valid regardless if for no other reason than they can't imagine an alternative. With all respect I disagree with pretty much everything about what you're saying but to try to wrap up the specifics you asked if I disagreed with I sorta missed: any citizen sufficiently motivated will be allowed to vote as a matter of fact isn't true without a LOT of *'s and what you describe/what we have is a low bar for an election objectively/compared to other democracies in "1st world" countries would be my position. Then to abandon the analogy you object to, and return to the original question: are you thinking this political movement will somehow produce a reasonable chance of neither Trump nor Biden being president in 2021? And if so, can you briefly describe a reasonable path from here to there? Because I honestly can’t picture it, and maybe a specific scenario would help people understand where you’re coming from. Might be easier to amend the trolly analogy to a less imperfect (anything short of a treatise will be) one but let's see. Odds aren't great it will, but revolutionary optimism springs eternal. What would it look like? Starting today it would be Biden's support plummeting when people see both his record and mental/physical condition with more scrutiny (our media is unlikely to provide). Then, desperate to replace him (before whatever becomes of the convention) Democrats across the country reject someone like Cuomo, Clinton, Buttigieg or anyone to the right of Bernie as a suitable replacement and he cleans up enough delegates in June to make it clean electorally. Unfortunately it seems that the overwhelming number of the most politically involved Democrats have seen the worst of Biden and chose to actively support it and demand those that find it unacceptable support him anyway. Just to be clear Bernie isn't really "derailing" imo, but hopping to an off-screen track that has far fewer people than the others with them spaced further out. Trolly version: + Show Spoiler +"Derailing" would fall more under refusing to move forward electorally until we committed to rebuilding the whole thing from trolly to track. I'm more just trying to encourage the people getting kicked off the trolly to the front to work to slow the trolly and untie people from the tracks (solidarity from newly unemployed middle class), encourage those kicked off to the back to not start pushing ( not tell people "Vote for Biden! It's the only moral mature choice!"), and those kicked to the sides of the trolly (affluent/comfortable onlookers under minimal/temporary financial stress) to try to tip that bih over before the billionaires send it over the edge of a rollercoaster style drop heading straight for the most marginalized people in society on both the Biden and Trump track (significantly less so, like a much bigger distance than between Biden and Trump, is the Bernie track,). The Bernie track the one being still a reasonable and viable path within the political imagination of most Americans imo. Would you agree that the Bernie track (of all the tracks you might be persuaded to include under “acceptable”) has demonstrated the broadest appeal? And that we just recently concluded an electoral contest in which the Bernie track couldn’t find plurality support even among the “left?” The very first contest (if you ignore everything leading up to it in media and the party) demonstrated that electoral contest was not valid imo. Several subsequent state contests demonstrated that as well. If you set aside the electoral fraud we all witnessed in Iowa and the subsequent voter suppression lines in Texas, Chicago, Wisconsin, etc.. the small fraction of the general electorate that constitutes the Democratic primary (typically a moderate group) selecting Biden doesn't allow me to draw the conclusions you have. Bernie support among the left is overwhelming, the left is only a small part of the Democratic primary (for many reasons within and beyond their control) I mean, don’t get me wrong, a scenario in which Bernie somehow convinces Democrats to back him at the last minute sounds great to me. But Bernie just spent a year trying to convince them any way he knew how, and it didn’t work, right? What do you think will change? Coronavirus certainly didn’t seem to hurt Biden’s polling. If anything the opposite, actually. I'm suggesting the increased scrutiny a competent and non-complacent media would provide could expose people to enough to realize how terrible of an idea it is to put Biden up against Trump and there's more than enough votes left to prevent that fate. Also that doing so by way of delayed primary voting and a delayed convention (made possible/unavoidable by covid-19) is far preferable than trying to come up with solutions after Biden is nominated or if he wins, or worse, if he loses. But your assessment of the validity of the election isn’t the issue here. Whether you think those irregularities cost Bernie the primary (and I think it’s pretty clear they didn’t), there’s not any clear metric by which Bernie could claim legitimacy. He didn’t win the primary, he hasn’t been ahead in polls at almost any point, and at this point he himself has dropped out. You’re hoping some negative media will take Biden down, but he’s been in the public eye for decades, including as VP for eight years. If there’s an angle the media could cover him by that would sink him, why would it only happen in the next 6 months?Do you think Bernie was wrong to drop out? Do you think he was likely to turn it around? And more importantly, do you really think there’s a real chance of convincing voters to support a guy who already dropped out? What about Tara Reade's accusations? Yeah, that one’s a little more plausible. If we’re answering “how will the public respond once this story is widely reported?” I have no idea what the answer is, or what would happen if more women came forward. My intuition is that it would damage but not sink him, but that’s really nothing more than a guess. What if we had an Access Hollywood-style “in his own words” proof of sorts? Probably the more difficult question is “how should we respond to credible but unproven allegations against powerful figures like this?” I had a long back-and-forth with Mohdoo a few months ago that felt productive (to me, at least), but I suspect the same conversation in this context would be impossible to have. Tempers are a lot higher now than they are then. #BelieveWomen was the Democratic mantra when it was Kavanaugh.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but why should it matter at this point? America clearly doesn't care about electing a sex criminal, why should Biden be any different?
My god even just typing that makes me want to vomit. But this is where we are now.
|
On April 13 2020 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2020 14:59 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 14:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 13:04 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 11:18 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 09:00 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 08:44 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
If the concern is specifically that somebody could falsely allege something to manipulate the system, the fact that the claims can be proven to go back years before the political process they’re meant to influence is relevant, no?
It turns the defense’s narrative from “she heard this guy was getting nominated and made this up” to something like “she made this up years ago just in case he was ever nominated.” Who is accusing her of making this up because she heard Biden was getting nominated? The part Ford would be making up (I don't think she did) is that it was Kavanaugh, not that she was assaulted. Which the therapist notes do nothing to substantiate. Also, while only bias witnesses, Reade does have multiple parties willing to confirm she told them about the incident prior to the election cycle. “Heard he was getting nominated” was in reference to Kavanaugh, not Biden. I’m not aware of the specifics of her therapist’s notes, I thought it specified something like “a man who’s in a powerful position now” or something? How many rich and powerful men did she go to school with/in close proximity to? They reportedly said (I don't know anyone outside WaPo saw them?) her alleged attackers were from an elitist boys’ school, so a lot. Just went and refreshed my memory. From the WaPo article: Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room. So it was not 100% Kavanaugh, but you could probably put together a fairly short list of possibles that went to school by her and were high-ranking DC society members in 2012. I suppose? So is there more to this case that the evidence against Kavanaugh was greater than the evidence against Biden is? I don’t really feel like I’m the one to make this case, but the two reasons I’d give more credibility to Ford would be: 1) Documentary evidence suggesting her allegations predate the nomination, and 2) she never came forward with a more mild allegation, then updated it later with more serious allegations. I think a lot of people might cite Ford’s Senate testimony as extremely credible, but I don’t put much stock in that. Not that she didn’t seem credible, but I think people are way overconfident in their ability to judge that. I think it stems from being uncomfortable with uncertainty, and recognizing the evidence is inconclusive, so they decide to place their faith in their ability to hear the testimony of the accuser or accused and *just know* who’s telling the truth. It leads to cases like this where a victim is unable to tell their story “believably” enough so everyone treats them as a liar. I'm unconvinced but perhaps IgnE is? Neither of those overcome the rest of the comparison (or stand as much in themselves imo). Like I've never seen Kavanaugh (did he have other women report him inappropriately touching them?) touch a woman inappropriately, kiss her without her consent, etc. I have seen Biden do those things on several occasions (I know this is unconvincing to you) as one aspect. If it wasn't a sort of "hey I heard you liked me what gives" allegation and instead was more of a "he locked me in his basement" sort of allegation I'd say his behavior wasn't indicative of his potential guilt in Reade's case. But if he acts like what we see with women he thinks are just there to say hi or whatever, it's quite reasonable to believe he would approach an underling he believed (for whatever reason) was into him in such an aggressive way in the 90's and for her to be shunned and have duties (as interns of the time corroborate and her employment history suggests) removed after rejecting him. What Ford describes is easily more horrific an accusation than Reade, but imo that makes Reade's all that more reasonable. It's hard to believe someone that lived a life that resulted in becoming a SCJ also was willing to try to trap and rape a woman then lie under oath about it (I mean not for me, but I'm cynical). Much easier to believe a creepy politician went too far/was too aggressive (to the point of what is now recognized as rape/sexual assault) pursuing what he may have thought was a mutual attraction between him and an underling in the 90's (just a few years before we found out the Democrat president was getting adulterous blow jobs from an intern in the oval office). Obviously there’s a lot of YMMV to all of this. I don’t put much stock in character assessments as a way of resolving the uncertainty for the same reason I don’t trust “believable testimony” - I think people are swayed mostly by factors that aren’t actually very relevant to the veracity of the person’s claims. Not directly relevant to this case, but I’m sure race, gender, class, etc. are all subconscious factors in people’s perceptions of character and believability, for instance. But I also think the subjectivity is part of why I’m uncomfortable cancelling people without clearer proof. For the record, I doubt I said this at the time and I realize it’s awfully convenient for me to say now, but I think I would have been sympathetic to a Republican who had said “we should investigate Blasey Ford’s allegations fully; but if nothing else corroborating comes up, this shouldn’t be grounds to reject his nomination.” I had other reasons to disagree with his nomination, obviously, not least his behavior in that hearing, but purely on the sexual assault charges I don’t think the evidence presented was incontrovertible or anything. The push to force the nomination through without allowing any more investigation was a lot more objectionable to me. Fair enough. I think it was pretty ubiquitously agreed here prior to the rapid consolidation around Biden that his best years were behind him and he should retire from politics as a dutiful VP. Polling on TL (not scientific) indicated he topped out at less than 10% support here and fell when the field narrowed to ~9 candidates. Which is just to say no one is "cancelling" him over this particular incident. It's just one more thing on a list that led to 2 failed presidential campaigns already and why he shouldn't be the Democrats nominee for president. From my perspective, that Biden is considered the best nominee by Democrats now speaks more to me of the degradation of the party than the growth of Biden (who has struggled to keep up with the times in more ways than his record player comment).
No argument from me on Biden not being the best candidate! I voted Bernie and probably would have liked several of the other candidates over Biden (Warren maybe, definitely not Buttigieg or Bloomberg, maybe some of the <1%ers though). But he’s clearly won the nomination. Finding a way to remove it from him (changing bylaws, redoing primaries, or rallying everyone in the remaining primaries to vote for someone who dropped out) would absolutely be cancelling him.
|
On April 13 2020 22:45 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2020 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 14:59 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 14:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 13:04 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 11:18 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 09:00 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Who is accusing her of making this up because she heard Biden was getting nominated?
The part Ford would be making up (I don't think she did) is that it was Kavanaugh, not that she was assaulted. Which the therapist notes do nothing to substantiate. Also, while only bias witnesses, Reade does have multiple parties willing to confirm she told them about the incident prior to the election cycle. “Heard he was getting nominated” was in reference to Kavanaugh, not Biden. I’m not aware of the specifics of her therapist’s notes, I thought it specified something like “a man who’s in a powerful position now” or something? How many rich and powerful men did she go to school with/in close proximity to? They reportedly said (I don't know anyone outside WaPo saw them?) her alleged attackers were from an elitist boys’ school, so a lot. Just went and refreshed my memory. From the WaPo article: Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room. So it was not 100% Kavanaugh, but you could probably put together a fairly short list of possibles that went to school by her and were high-ranking DC society members in 2012. I suppose? So is there more to this case that the evidence against Kavanaugh was greater than the evidence against Biden is? I don’t really feel like I’m the one to make this case, but the two reasons I’d give more credibility to Ford would be: 1) Documentary evidence suggesting her allegations predate the nomination, and 2) she never came forward with a more mild allegation, then updated it later with more serious allegations. I think a lot of people might cite Ford’s Senate testimony as extremely credible, but I don’t put much stock in that. Not that she didn’t seem credible, but I think people are way overconfident in their ability to judge that. I think it stems from being uncomfortable with uncertainty, and recognizing the evidence is inconclusive, so they decide to place their faith in their ability to hear the testimony of the accuser or accused and *just know* who’s telling the truth. It leads to cases like this where a victim is unable to tell their story “believably” enough so everyone treats them as a liar. I'm unconvinced but perhaps IgnE is? Neither of those overcome the rest of the comparison (or stand as much in themselves imo). Like I've never seen Kavanaugh (did he have other women report him inappropriately touching them?) touch a woman inappropriately, kiss her without her consent, etc. I have seen Biden do those things on several occasions (I know this is unconvincing to you) as one aspect. If it wasn't a sort of "hey I heard you liked me what gives" allegation and instead was more of a "he locked me in his basement" sort of allegation I'd say his behavior wasn't indicative of his potential guilt in Reade's case. But if he acts like what we see with women he thinks are just there to say hi or whatever, it's quite reasonable to believe he would approach an underling he believed (for whatever reason) was into him in such an aggressive way in the 90's and for her to be shunned and have duties (as interns of the time corroborate and her employment history suggests) removed after rejecting him. What Ford describes is easily more horrific an accusation than Reade, but imo that makes Reade's all that more reasonable. It's hard to believe someone that lived a life that resulted in becoming a SCJ also was willing to try to trap and rape a woman then lie under oath about it (I mean not for me, but I'm cynical). Much easier to believe a creepy politician went too far/was too aggressive (to the point of what is now recognized as rape/sexual assault) pursuing what he may have thought was a mutual attraction between him and an underling in the 90's (just a few years before we found out the Democrat president was getting adulterous blow jobs from an intern in the oval office). Obviously there’s a lot of YMMV to all of this. I don’t put much stock in character assessments as a way of resolving the uncertainty for the same reason I don’t trust “believable testimony” - I think people are swayed mostly by factors that aren’t actually very relevant to the veracity of the person’s claims. Not directly relevant to this case, but I’m sure race, gender, class, etc. are all subconscious factors in people’s perceptions of character and believability, for instance. But I also think the subjectivity is part of why I’m uncomfortable cancelling people without clearer proof. For the record, I doubt I said this at the time and I realize it’s awfully convenient for me to say now, but I think I would have been sympathetic to a Republican who had said “we should investigate Blasey Ford’s allegations fully; but if nothing else corroborating comes up, this shouldn’t be grounds to reject his nomination.” I had other reasons to disagree with his nomination, obviously, not least his behavior in that hearing, but purely on the sexual assault charges I don’t think the evidence presented was incontrovertible or anything. The push to force the nomination through without allowing any more investigation was a lot more objectionable to me. Fair enough. I think it was pretty ubiquitously agreed here prior to the rapid consolidation around Biden that his best years were behind him and he should retire from politics as a dutiful VP. Polling on TL (not scientific) indicated he topped out at less than 10% support here and fell when the field narrowed to ~9 candidates. Which is just to say no one is "cancelling" him over this particular incident. It's just one more thing on a list that led to 2 failed presidential campaigns already and why he shouldn't be the Democrats nominee for president. From my perspective, that Biden is considered the best nominee by Democrats now speaks more to me of the degradation of the party than the growth of Biden (who has struggled to keep up with the times in more ways than his record player comment). No argument from me on Biden not being the best candidate! I voted Bernie and probably would have liked several of the other candidates over Biden (Warren maybe, definitely not Buttigieg or Bloomberg, maybe some of the <1%ers though). But he’s clearly won the nomination. Finding a way to remove it from him (changing bylaws, redoing primaries, or rallying everyone in the remaining primaries to vote for someone who dropped out) would absolutely be cancelling him.
Not getting to be president isn't what I understand "cancelled" to mean. It's not like he'd get kicked out of Democrat politics altogether.
|
On April 13 2020 23:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2020 22:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 14:59 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 14:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 13:04 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 11:18 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 09:00 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
“Heard he was getting nominated” was in reference to Kavanaugh, not Biden. I’m not aware of the specifics of her therapist’s notes, I thought it specified something like “a man who’s in a powerful position now” or something? How many rich and powerful men did she go to school with/in close proximity to? They reportedly said (I don't know anyone outside WaPo saw them?) her alleged attackers were from an elitist boys’ school, so a lot. Just went and refreshed my memory. From the WaPo article: Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room. So it was not 100% Kavanaugh, but you could probably put together a fairly short list of possibles that went to school by her and were high-ranking DC society members in 2012. I suppose? So is there more to this case that the evidence against Kavanaugh was greater than the evidence against Biden is? I don’t really feel like I’m the one to make this case, but the two reasons I’d give more credibility to Ford would be: 1) Documentary evidence suggesting her allegations predate the nomination, and 2) she never came forward with a more mild allegation, then updated it later with more serious allegations. I think a lot of people might cite Ford’s Senate testimony as extremely credible, but I don’t put much stock in that. Not that she didn’t seem credible, but I think people are way overconfident in their ability to judge that. I think it stems from being uncomfortable with uncertainty, and recognizing the evidence is inconclusive, so they decide to place their faith in their ability to hear the testimony of the accuser or accused and *just know* who’s telling the truth. It leads to cases like this where a victim is unable to tell their story “believably” enough so everyone treats them as a liar. I'm unconvinced but perhaps IgnE is? Neither of those overcome the rest of the comparison (or stand as much in themselves imo). Like I've never seen Kavanaugh (did he have other women report him inappropriately touching them?) touch a woman inappropriately, kiss her without her consent, etc. I have seen Biden do those things on several occasions (I know this is unconvincing to you) as one aspect. If it wasn't a sort of "hey I heard you liked me what gives" allegation and instead was more of a "he locked me in his basement" sort of allegation I'd say his behavior wasn't indicative of his potential guilt in Reade's case. But if he acts like what we see with women he thinks are just there to say hi or whatever, it's quite reasonable to believe he would approach an underling he believed (for whatever reason) was into him in such an aggressive way in the 90's and for her to be shunned and have duties (as interns of the time corroborate and her employment history suggests) removed after rejecting him. What Ford describes is easily more horrific an accusation than Reade, but imo that makes Reade's all that more reasonable. It's hard to believe someone that lived a life that resulted in becoming a SCJ also was willing to try to trap and rape a woman then lie under oath about it (I mean not for me, but I'm cynical). Much easier to believe a creepy politician went too far/was too aggressive (to the point of what is now recognized as rape/sexual assault) pursuing what he may have thought was a mutual attraction between him and an underling in the 90's (just a few years before we found out the Democrat president was getting adulterous blow jobs from an intern in the oval office). Obviously there’s a lot of YMMV to all of this. I don’t put much stock in character assessments as a way of resolving the uncertainty for the same reason I don’t trust “believable testimony” - I think people are swayed mostly by factors that aren’t actually very relevant to the veracity of the person’s claims. Not directly relevant to this case, but I’m sure race, gender, class, etc. are all subconscious factors in people’s perceptions of character and believability, for instance. But I also think the subjectivity is part of why I’m uncomfortable cancelling people without clearer proof. For the record, I doubt I said this at the time and I realize it’s awfully convenient for me to say now, but I think I would have been sympathetic to a Republican who had said “we should investigate Blasey Ford’s allegations fully; but if nothing else corroborating comes up, this shouldn’t be grounds to reject his nomination.” I had other reasons to disagree with his nomination, obviously, not least his behavior in that hearing, but purely on the sexual assault charges I don’t think the evidence presented was incontrovertible or anything. The push to force the nomination through without allowing any more investigation was a lot more objectionable to me. Fair enough. I think it was pretty ubiquitously agreed here prior to the rapid consolidation around Biden that his best years were behind him and he should retire from politics as a dutiful VP. Polling on TL (not scientific) indicated he topped out at less than 10% support here and fell when the field narrowed to ~9 candidates. Which is just to say no one is "cancelling" him over this particular incident. It's just one more thing on a list that led to 2 failed presidential campaigns already and why he shouldn't be the Democrats nominee for president. From my perspective, that Biden is considered the best nominee by Democrats now speaks more to me of the degradation of the party than the growth of Biden (who has struggled to keep up with the times in more ways than his record player comment). No argument from me on Biden not being the best candidate! I voted Bernie and probably would have liked several of the other candidates over Biden (Warren maybe, definitely not Buttigieg or Bloomberg, maybe some of the <1%ers though). But he’s clearly won the nomination. Finding a way to remove it from him (changing bylaws, redoing primaries, or rallying everyone in the remaining primaries to vote for someone who dropped out) would absolutely be cancelling him. Not getting to be president isn't what I understand "cancelled" to mean. It's not like he'd get kicked out of Democrat politics altogether.
Losing the job you currently have or are about to have (Democratic nominee) absolutely qualifies as being cancelled, but it would also be fucking wild if the left simultaneously said “we have to rewrite the rulebook to remove Joe Biden because he’s a rapist” but still said “But don’t worry about it Joe, you’re cool! Keep coming to parties and campaigning and stuff!”
Would you count Al Franken as having been cancelled?
|
On April 13 2020 23:43 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2020 23:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 22:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 14:59 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 14:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 13:04 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 11:18 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
They reportedly said (I don't know anyone outside WaPo saw them?) her alleged attackers were from an elitist boys’ school, so a lot. Just went and refreshed my memory. From the WaPo article: Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room. So it was not 100% Kavanaugh, but you could probably put together a fairly short list of possibles that went to school by her and were high-ranking DC society members in 2012. I suppose? So is there more to this case that the evidence against Kavanaugh was greater than the evidence against Biden is? I don’t really feel like I’m the one to make this case, but the two reasons I’d give more credibility to Ford would be: 1) Documentary evidence suggesting her allegations predate the nomination, and 2) she never came forward with a more mild allegation, then updated it later with more serious allegations. I think a lot of people might cite Ford’s Senate testimony as extremely credible, but I don’t put much stock in that. Not that she didn’t seem credible, but I think people are way overconfident in their ability to judge that. I think it stems from being uncomfortable with uncertainty, and recognizing the evidence is inconclusive, so they decide to place their faith in their ability to hear the testimony of the accuser or accused and *just know* who’s telling the truth. It leads to cases like this where a victim is unable to tell their story “believably” enough so everyone treats them as a liar. I'm unconvinced but perhaps IgnE is? Neither of those overcome the rest of the comparison (or stand as much in themselves imo). Like I've never seen Kavanaugh (did he have other women report him inappropriately touching them?) touch a woman inappropriately, kiss her without her consent, etc. I have seen Biden do those things on several occasions (I know this is unconvincing to you) as one aspect. If it wasn't a sort of "hey I heard you liked me what gives" allegation and instead was more of a "he locked me in his basement" sort of allegation I'd say his behavior wasn't indicative of his potential guilt in Reade's case. But if he acts like what we see with women he thinks are just there to say hi or whatever, it's quite reasonable to believe he would approach an underling he believed (for whatever reason) was into him in such an aggressive way in the 90's and for her to be shunned and have duties (as interns of the time corroborate and her employment history suggests) removed after rejecting him. What Ford describes is easily more horrific an accusation than Reade, but imo that makes Reade's all that more reasonable. It's hard to believe someone that lived a life that resulted in becoming a SCJ also was willing to try to trap and rape a woman then lie under oath about it (I mean not for me, but I'm cynical). Much easier to believe a creepy politician went too far/was too aggressive (to the point of what is now recognized as rape/sexual assault) pursuing what he may have thought was a mutual attraction between him and an underling in the 90's (just a few years before we found out the Democrat president was getting adulterous blow jobs from an intern in the oval office). Obviously there’s a lot of YMMV to all of this. I don’t put much stock in character assessments as a way of resolving the uncertainty for the same reason I don’t trust “believable testimony” - I think people are swayed mostly by factors that aren’t actually very relevant to the veracity of the person’s claims. Not directly relevant to this case, but I’m sure race, gender, class, etc. are all subconscious factors in people’s perceptions of character and believability, for instance. But I also think the subjectivity is part of why I’m uncomfortable cancelling people without clearer proof. For the record, I doubt I said this at the time and I realize it’s awfully convenient for me to say now, but I think I would have been sympathetic to a Republican who had said “we should investigate Blasey Ford’s allegations fully; but if nothing else corroborating comes up, this shouldn’t be grounds to reject his nomination.” I had other reasons to disagree with his nomination, obviously, not least his behavior in that hearing, but purely on the sexual assault charges I don’t think the evidence presented was incontrovertible or anything. The push to force the nomination through without allowing any more investigation was a lot more objectionable to me. Fair enough. I think it was pretty ubiquitously agreed here prior to the rapid consolidation around Biden that his best years were behind him and he should retire from politics as a dutiful VP. Polling on TL (not scientific) indicated he topped out at less than 10% support here and fell when the field narrowed to ~9 candidates. Which is just to say no one is "cancelling" him over this particular incident. It's just one more thing on a list that led to 2 failed presidential campaigns already and why he shouldn't be the Democrats nominee for president. From my perspective, that Biden is considered the best nominee by Democrats now speaks more to me of the degradation of the party than the growth of Biden (who has struggled to keep up with the times in more ways than his record player comment). No argument from me on Biden not being the best candidate! I voted Bernie and probably would have liked several of the other candidates over Biden (Warren maybe, definitely not Buttigieg or Bloomberg, maybe some of the <1%ers though). But he’s clearly won the nomination. Finding a way to remove it from him (changing bylaws, redoing primaries, or rallying everyone in the remaining primaries to vote for someone who dropped out) would absolutely be cancelling him. Not getting to be president isn't what I understand "cancelled" to mean. It's not like he'd get kicked out of Democrat politics altogether. Losing the job you currently have or are about to have (Democratic nominee) absolutely qualifies as being cancelled, but it would also be fucking wild if the left simultaneously said “we have to rewrite the rulebook to remove Joe Biden because he’s a rapist” but still said “But don’t worry about it Joe, you’re cool! Keep coming to parties and campaigning and stuff!” Would you count Al Franken as having been cancelled?
Just to be clear, they don't have to rewrite anything for Joe not to be nominee. Bill Clinton still gets invited.
Al Franken is still invited on prime time news shows, so no he's not cancelled imo. He just faced the slightest of consequences for his inappropriate actions. Facing consequences and getting cancelled aren't equivalent.
Weinstein and Epstein (major figures in Dem donation circles for decades) got cancelled. Al Franken going on CNN and having former Obama officials on his podcast is not being cancelled.
|
On April 13 2020 23:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2020 23:43 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 23:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 22:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 14:59 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 14:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 13:04 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 11:18 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
Just went and refreshed my memory. From the WaPo article:
[quote]
So it was not 100% Kavanaugh, but you could probably put together a fairly short list of possibles that went to school by her and were high-ranking DC society members in 2012. I suppose? So is there more to this case that the evidence against Kavanaugh was greater than the evidence against Biden is? I don’t really feel like I’m the one to make this case, but the two reasons I’d give more credibility to Ford would be: 1) Documentary evidence suggesting her allegations predate the nomination, and 2) she never came forward with a more mild allegation, then updated it later with more serious allegations. I think a lot of people might cite Ford’s Senate testimony as extremely credible, but I don’t put much stock in that. Not that she didn’t seem credible, but I think people are way overconfident in their ability to judge that. I think it stems from being uncomfortable with uncertainty, and recognizing the evidence is inconclusive, so they decide to place their faith in their ability to hear the testimony of the accuser or accused and *just know* who’s telling the truth. It leads to cases like this where a victim is unable to tell their story “believably” enough so everyone treats them as a liar. I'm unconvinced but perhaps IgnE is? Neither of those overcome the rest of the comparison (or stand as much in themselves imo). Like I've never seen Kavanaugh (did he have other women report him inappropriately touching them?) touch a woman inappropriately, kiss her without her consent, etc. I have seen Biden do those things on several occasions (I know this is unconvincing to you) as one aspect. If it wasn't a sort of "hey I heard you liked me what gives" allegation and instead was more of a "he locked me in his basement" sort of allegation I'd say his behavior wasn't indicative of his potential guilt in Reade's case. But if he acts like what we see with women he thinks are just there to say hi or whatever, it's quite reasonable to believe he would approach an underling he believed (for whatever reason) was into him in such an aggressive way in the 90's and for her to be shunned and have duties (as interns of the time corroborate and her employment history suggests) removed after rejecting him. What Ford describes is easily more horrific an accusation than Reade, but imo that makes Reade's all that more reasonable. It's hard to believe someone that lived a life that resulted in becoming a SCJ also was willing to try to trap and rape a woman then lie under oath about it (I mean not for me, but I'm cynical). Much easier to believe a creepy politician went too far/was too aggressive (to the point of what is now recognized as rape/sexual assault) pursuing what he may have thought was a mutual attraction between him and an underling in the 90's (just a few years before we found out the Democrat president was getting adulterous blow jobs from an intern in the oval office). Obviously there’s a lot of YMMV to all of this. I don’t put much stock in character assessments as a way of resolving the uncertainty for the same reason I don’t trust “believable testimony” - I think people are swayed mostly by factors that aren’t actually very relevant to the veracity of the person’s claims. Not directly relevant to this case, but I’m sure race, gender, class, etc. are all subconscious factors in people’s perceptions of character and believability, for instance. But I also think the subjectivity is part of why I’m uncomfortable cancelling people without clearer proof. For the record, I doubt I said this at the time and I realize it’s awfully convenient for me to say now, but I think I would have been sympathetic to a Republican who had said “we should investigate Blasey Ford’s allegations fully; but if nothing else corroborating comes up, this shouldn’t be grounds to reject his nomination.” I had other reasons to disagree with his nomination, obviously, not least his behavior in that hearing, but purely on the sexual assault charges I don’t think the evidence presented was incontrovertible or anything. The push to force the nomination through without allowing any more investigation was a lot more objectionable to me. Fair enough. I think it was pretty ubiquitously agreed here prior to the rapid consolidation around Biden that his best years were behind him and he should retire from politics as a dutiful VP. Polling on TL (not scientific) indicated he topped out at less than 10% support here and fell when the field narrowed to ~9 candidates. Which is just to say no one is "cancelling" him over this particular incident. It's just one more thing on a list that led to 2 failed presidential campaigns already and why he shouldn't be the Democrats nominee for president. From my perspective, that Biden is considered the best nominee by Democrats now speaks more to me of the degradation of the party than the growth of Biden (who has struggled to keep up with the times in more ways than his record player comment). No argument from me on Biden not being the best candidate! I voted Bernie and probably would have liked several of the other candidates over Biden (Warren maybe, definitely not Buttigieg or Bloomberg, maybe some of the <1%ers though). But he’s clearly won the nomination. Finding a way to remove it from him (changing bylaws, redoing primaries, or rallying everyone in the remaining primaries to vote for someone who dropped out) would absolutely be cancelling him. Not getting to be president isn't what I understand "cancelled" to mean. It's not like he'd get kicked out of Democrat politics altogether. Losing the job you currently have or are about to have (Democratic nominee) absolutely qualifies as being cancelled, but it would also be fucking wild if the left simultaneously said “we have to rewrite the rulebook to remove Joe Biden because he’s a rapist” but still said “But don’t worry about it Joe, you’re cool! Keep coming to parties and campaigning and stuff!” Would you count Al Franken as having been cancelled? Just to be clear, they don't have to rewrite anything for Joe not to be nominee. Bill Clinton still gets invited. Al Franken is still invited on prime time news shows, so no he's not cancelled imo. He just faced the slightest of consequences for his inappropriate actions. Facing consequences and getting cancelled aren't equivalent. Weinstein and Epstein (major figures in Dem donation circles for decades) got cancelled. Al Franken going on CNN and having former Obama officials on his podcast is not being cancelled.
Weird. I’ll try to avoid using the term to describe someone being forced out of a job then, just so we’re all on the same page.
|
On April 14 2020 00:34 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2020 23:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 23:43 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 23:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 22:45 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 14:59 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 14:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2020 13:04 ChristianS wrote:On April 13 2020 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I suppose? So is there more to this case that the evidence against Kavanaugh was greater than the evidence against Biden is? I don’t really feel like I’m the one to make this case, but the two reasons I’d give more credibility to Ford would be: 1) Documentary evidence suggesting her allegations predate the nomination, and 2) she never came forward with a more mild allegation, then updated it later with more serious allegations. I think a lot of people might cite Ford’s Senate testimony as extremely credible, but I don’t put much stock in that. Not that she didn’t seem credible, but I think people are way overconfident in their ability to judge that. I think it stems from being uncomfortable with uncertainty, and recognizing the evidence is inconclusive, so they decide to place their faith in their ability to hear the testimony of the accuser or accused and *just know* who’s telling the truth. It leads to cases like this where a victim is unable to tell their story “believably” enough so everyone treats them as a liar. I'm unconvinced but perhaps IgnE is? Neither of those overcome the rest of the comparison (or stand as much in themselves imo). Like I've never seen Kavanaugh (did he have other women report him inappropriately touching them?) touch a woman inappropriately, kiss her without her consent, etc. I have seen Biden do those things on several occasions (I know this is unconvincing to you) as one aspect. If it wasn't a sort of "hey I heard you liked me what gives" allegation and instead was more of a "he locked me in his basement" sort of allegation I'd say his behavior wasn't indicative of his potential guilt in Reade's case. But if he acts like what we see with women he thinks are just there to say hi or whatever, it's quite reasonable to believe he would approach an underling he believed (for whatever reason) was into him in such an aggressive way in the 90's and for her to be shunned and have duties (as interns of the time corroborate and her employment history suggests) removed after rejecting him. What Ford describes is easily more horrific an accusation than Reade, but imo that makes Reade's all that more reasonable. It's hard to believe someone that lived a life that resulted in becoming a SCJ also was willing to try to trap and rape a woman then lie under oath about it (I mean not for me, but I'm cynical). Much easier to believe a creepy politician went too far/was too aggressive (to the point of what is now recognized as rape/sexual assault) pursuing what he may have thought was a mutual attraction between him and an underling in the 90's (just a few years before we found out the Democrat president was getting adulterous blow jobs from an intern in the oval office). Obviously there’s a lot of YMMV to all of this. I don’t put much stock in character assessments as a way of resolving the uncertainty for the same reason I don’t trust “believable testimony” - I think people are swayed mostly by factors that aren’t actually very relevant to the veracity of the person’s claims. Not directly relevant to this case, but I’m sure race, gender, class, etc. are all subconscious factors in people’s perceptions of character and believability, for instance. But I also think the subjectivity is part of why I’m uncomfortable cancelling people without clearer proof. For the record, I doubt I said this at the time and I realize it’s awfully convenient for me to say now, but I think I would have been sympathetic to a Republican who had said “we should investigate Blasey Ford’s allegations fully; but if nothing else corroborating comes up, this shouldn’t be grounds to reject his nomination.” I had other reasons to disagree with his nomination, obviously, not least his behavior in that hearing, but purely on the sexual assault charges I don’t think the evidence presented was incontrovertible or anything. The push to force the nomination through without allowing any more investigation was a lot more objectionable to me. Fair enough. I think it was pretty ubiquitously agreed here prior to the rapid consolidation around Biden that his best years were behind him and he should retire from politics as a dutiful VP. Polling on TL (not scientific) indicated he topped out at less than 10% support here and fell when the field narrowed to ~9 candidates. Which is just to say no one is "cancelling" him over this particular incident. It's just one more thing on a list that led to 2 failed presidential campaigns already and why he shouldn't be the Democrats nominee for president. From my perspective, that Biden is considered the best nominee by Democrats now speaks more to me of the degradation of the party than the growth of Biden (who has struggled to keep up with the times in more ways than his record player comment). No argument from me on Biden not being the best candidate! I voted Bernie and probably would have liked several of the other candidates over Biden (Warren maybe, definitely not Buttigieg or Bloomberg, maybe some of the <1%ers though). But he’s clearly won the nomination. Finding a way to remove it from him (changing bylaws, redoing primaries, or rallying everyone in the remaining primaries to vote for someone who dropped out) would absolutely be cancelling him. Not getting to be president isn't what I understand "cancelled" to mean. It's not like he'd get kicked out of Democrat politics altogether. Losing the job you currently have or are about to have (Democratic nominee) absolutely qualifies as being cancelled, but it would also be fucking wild if the left simultaneously said “we have to rewrite the rulebook to remove Joe Biden because he’s a rapist” but still said “But don’t worry about it Joe, you’re cool! Keep coming to parties and campaigning and stuff!” Would you count Al Franken as having been cancelled? Just to be clear, they don't have to rewrite anything for Joe not to be nominee. Bill Clinton still gets invited. Al Franken is still invited on prime time news shows, so no he's not cancelled imo. He just faced the slightest of consequences for his inappropriate actions. Facing consequences and getting cancelled aren't equivalent. Weinstein and Epstein (major figures in Dem donation circles for decades) got cancelled. Al Franken going on CNN and having former Obama officials on his podcast is not being cancelled. Weird. I’ll try to avoid using the term to describe someone being forced out of a job then, just so we’re all on the same page.
Democratic nominee isn't even a job imo, but if we say it is, he's still not finished the hiring process. It's not like he's being removed from an office. We're talking about Democrats using the existing process to either have someone else win the nomination based on 1st round delegates, or not picking Biden in a second round of voting if he fails to get enough delegates to clinch.
Bernie's the only person that expressed having a problem with Democrats not nominating the person with the plurality of delegates anyway, every other Democratic candidate expressed clearly they're fine with it as part of the agreed upon rules. Something tells me Bernie could change his mind on that if the alternative was him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
