|
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 September 28 2018 11:19 mozoku wrote:
My issue is that, when you set the burden of proof as low as it needs to be to sink Kavanaugh based on these allegations, how is a democracy even supposed to function?
There's a million Trumpkins and rabid anti-Trumpkins out there who have been "in the same house party" (or anywhere else a sexual assault could possibly occur... Which is, um, everywhere) as literally every potential electoral candidate in the US. Any of them could levy accusations with the same level evidence, and, with training from their side's party, could probably give compelling testimony. I don't trust every living American individual not to abuse this power in the future, and I'm not ready to risk our democracy over it.
Does this mean Kavanaugh is lying? No, I don't claim to know the answer to that. But from a purely pragmatic perspective, we can't run a country like this.
The fact that this doesn't actually happen all the time, and in situations where the allegations can in principle be proven they frequently are proven, makes this hypothesis very dubious to me.
|
On September 28 2018 11:19 mozoku wrote:
My issue is that, when you set the burden of proof as low as it needs to be to sink Kavanaugh based on these allegations, how is a democracy even supposed to function?
There's a million Trumpkins and rabid anti-Trumpkins out there who have been "in the same house party" (or anywhere else a sexual assault could possibly occur... Which is, um, everywhere) as literally every potential electoral candidate in the US. Any of them could levy accusations with the same level evidence, and, with training from their side's party, could probably give compelling testimony. I don't trust every living American individual not to abuse this power in the future, and I'm not ready to risk our democracy over it.
Does this mean Kavanaugh is lying? No, I don't claim to know the answer to that. But from a purely pragmatic perspective, we can't run a country like this.
How about this, before the allegations he was the most unpopular nominee in modern history and would be voted in with the slimiest margin in the last century. And his finances are shady as hell. Last I checked he has a his gross income for a year in credit card debt(200k) that got magically paid off before the nomination. He was hand picked by the federalist society for his political view, not his history and a judge. And he is a former political operative and showed his contempt for Democrats today. Democrats did noting but serve their as is expected in their elected positions. He has no place on the court if he is going to show that kind of bias. Even Thomas didn’t fight with senators questioning him. The man is a feckless hack.
And he also has a bunch of sexaul assault allegations and a pretty clear history of substance abuse.
|
20 pages ago: Wulfey, talk of impeaching KAVANAUGH is crazy. Today: well, yeah, the guy lied his ass off under oath so yeah we really should impeach him.
Abolish ICE started off kinda of fringe, but be damned if it isn't mainstream now. Impeach KAV is coming soon.
|
@Aquanim: I'm (cautiously) with you in traditional corporate/educational settings -- where the people ultimately in charge of making the termination/expulsion decisions are not reporting directly to an angry mob that mostly doesn't care about the truth.
Actually, I want to rephrase that. I'm less scared that the decision-makers are compromised in politics (though that's also a problem) than I am of the sheer number of potential abusers of this new proposed standard. Take me, for example. How many people want me fired from my job and would consider a fake sexual assault accusation against me to accomplish that? Probably none.
Now take generic presidential candidate X, and ask that same question. I would estimate that number in at least the hundreds, if not thousands. You can't play prisoner's dilemma with 300M people. It doesn't work.
In politics, this precedent (which hasn't existed until potentially this month) is multitudes more dangerous than it is in other settings.
|
On September 28 2018 11:19 mozoku wrote:
My issue is that, when you set the burden of proof as low as it needs to be to sink Kavanaugh based on these allegations, how is a democracy even supposed to function?
There's a million Trumpkins and rabid anti-Trumpkins out there who have been "in the same house party" (or anywhere else a sexual assault could possibly occur... Which is, um, everywhere) as literally every potential electoral candidate in the US. Any of them could levy accusations with the same level evidence, and, with training from their side's party, could probably give compelling testimony. I don't trust every living American individual not to abuse this power in the future, and I'm not ready to risk our democracy over it.
Does this mean Ford is lying? No, I don't claim to know the answer to that. But from a purely pragmatic perspective, we can't run a country like this.
I love the idea that it's okie dokie for Trump to accuse Obama of faking birth certificates and putting cameras in microwaves, but the "real threat" here is women.
I mean, like, what if cooties are real??
|
Wonder if they can tie gorsuch to kevinaugh for him going to the same chool and such at the same time, and then impeach both clowns to kill two birds with one stone?
|
I cannot for the life of me understand why some folks on the right see putting Kavanaugh on the bench as a win. If folks think the liberals and progressives were angry last year, they are in for a surprise. Putting him on the bench just ads fuel to the fire.
|
On September 28 2018 11:34 hunts wrote:
Wonder if they can tie gorsuch to kevinaugh for him going to the same chool and such at the same time, and then impeach both clowns to kill two birds with one stone?
They will never impeach them for real. It will be like overturning Roe. Impossible in practice, but an amazing way to fire up the base.
|
On September 28 2018 11:36 Plansix wrote:
I cannot for the life of me understand why some folks on the right see putting Kavanaugh on the bench as a win. If folks think the liberals and progressives were angry last year, they are in for a surprise. Putting him on the bench just ads fuel to the fire.
That and AFAIK he can be impeached, and I imagine he will be impeached before he can do too much damage if he does get through, while also causing the last reasonable people to turn their backs on the republican party.
|
On September 28 2018 11:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 11:19 mozoku wrote:
My issue is that, when you set the burden of proof as low as it needs to be to sink Kavanaugh based on these allegations, how is a democracy even supposed to function?
There's a million Trumpkins and rabid anti-Trumpkins out there who have been "in the same house party" (or anywhere else a sexual assault could possibly occur... Which is, um, everywhere) as literally every potential electoral candidate in the US. Any of them could levy accusations with the same level evidence, and, with training from their side's party, could probably give compelling testimony. I don't trust every living American individual not to abuse this power in the future, and I'm not ready to risk our democracy over it.
Does this mean Ford is lying? No, I don't claim to know the answer to that. But from a purely pragmatic perspective, we can't run a country like this. I love the idea that it's okie dokie for Trump to accuse Obama of faking birth certificates and putting cameras in microwaves, but the "real threat" here is women. I mean, like, what if cooties are real??
Obama's candidacy/presidency was never remotely threatened by those accusations, so I have no idea why that is at all relevant to what I said.
And I never defended Trump's conspiracy theory so I don't know why you're addressing this at me.
|
On September 28 2018 11:38 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 11:36 Plansix wrote:
I cannot for the life of me understand why some folks on the right see putting Kavanaugh on the bench as a win. If folks think the liberals and progressives were angry last year, they are in for a surprise. Putting him on the bench just ads fuel to the fire. That and AFAIK he can be impeached, and I imagine he will be impeached before he can do too much damage if he does get through, while also causing the last reasonable people to turn their backs on the republican party.
You are not thinking like a winner, you are thinking like a guy with a good idea. Republicans never gave a shit about reasonable people. They just fired up a base year after year after year. Mid term after mid term. You don’t need reasonable people. You need consistent voters and to not care how reasonable they are.
|
On September 28 2018 10:17 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 10:12 Doodsmack wrote:...
Even assuming that employers are generally unfair in this regard, that doesn't mean we need to be unfair when it comes to Supreme Court nominations.
... I'd also expect a Supreme Court nomination to be held to a higher standard than a common-or-garden job interview. Show nested quote + Regardless that doesn't change the fact that the system is unfair if a mere allegation is enough to sink someone. It's not a "mere allegation" at this point. It's several allegations in conjunction with: - Kavanaugh's reluctance to have any of them investigated further - The fibs he appears to have told already about his character and activities at the time (I don't promise this is an exhaustive list.)
Those are tangential and minor facts that just don't add up to much. Yes there are several allegations, but they're not all credible. The accusers are surrounded by Democratic operatives handling them, for one thing. There's just not enough evidence beyond the bare accusation. For example Kavanaugh's reluctance to call for an FBI investigation is just too far removed from the question of whether he was on top of Ford on the bed covering her mouth.
|
Please never let a supporter of the party who doesn't want a FBI investigation because time is of the essence if they're going to score their political win talk to you about how they're concerned that accusations are assumed to be true.
|
On September 28 2018 11:49 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 10:17 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 10:12 Doodsmack wrote:...
Even assuming that employers are generally unfair in this regard, that doesn't mean we need to be unfair when it comes to Supreme Court nominations.
... I'd also expect a Supreme Court nomination to be held to a higher standard than a common-or-garden job interview. Regardless that doesn't change the fact that the system is unfair if a mere allegation is enough to sink someone. It's not a "mere allegation" at this point. It's several allegations in conjunction with: - Kavanaugh's reluctance to have any of them investigated further - The fibs he appears to have told already about his character and activities at the time (I don't promise this is an exhaustive list.) Those are tangential and minor facts that just don't add up to much. Yes there are several allegations, but they're not all credible. The accusers are surrounded by Democratic operatives handling them, for one thing. There's just not enough evidence beyond the bare accusation. For example Kavanaugh's reluctance to call for an FBI investigation is just too far removed from the question of whether he was on top of Ford on the bed covering her mouth.
Just to be clear, the way I see it there are three options:
(1) Declare Kavanaugh is acceptable
(2) Investigate further
(3) Declare Kavanaugh is not acceptable
You are saying that (3) is unreasonable; are you saying that (2) is also unreasonable? In my view the burden on you to justify (2) being unreasonable is much, much higher and you're nowhere near to meeting it.
|
On September 28 2018 11:42 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 11:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 28 2018 11:19 mozoku wrote:
My issue is that, when you set the burden of proof as low as it needs to be to sink Kavanaugh based on these allegations, how is a democracy even supposed to function?
There's a million Trumpkins and rabid anti-Trumpkins out there who have been "in the same house party" (or anywhere else a sexual assault could possibly occur... Which is, um, everywhere) as literally every potential electoral candidate in the US. Any of them could levy accusations with the same level evidence, and, with training from their side's party, could probably give compelling testimony. I don't trust every living American individual not to abuse this power in the future, and I'm not ready to risk our democracy over it.
Does this mean Ford is lying? No, I don't claim to know the answer to that. But from a purely pragmatic perspective, we can't run a country like this. I love the idea that it's okie dokie for Trump to accuse Obama of faking birth certificates and putting cameras in microwaves, but the "real threat" here is women. I mean, like, what if cooties are real?? Obama's candidacy/presidency was never remotely threatened by those accusations, so I have no idea why that is at all comparable. And I never defended Trump's conspiracy theory so I don't know why you're addressing this at me.
Then why fear accusations ending democracy? This is seriously bizarre stuff.
|
Ignoring context, I think (2) is reasonable. In context, an FBI investigation means postponement and will have ramifications on the midterms. Which would still be fine, in a vacuum (GOP should vet its candidates blah blah blah), but all of these accusations have been handled by Democrat operatives and are mysteriously coming into the public light on the eve of confirmation during a confirmation process where the widely-acknowleged (by observers of all partisan stripes) Democratic goal has been "delay past the midterms."
In an ethical jungle like that, I think it's clear the both parties have committed moral transgressions.
|
On September 28 2018 11:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 11:42 mozoku wrote:On September 28 2018 11:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 28 2018 11:19 mozoku wrote:
My issue is that, when you set the burden of proof as low as it needs to be to sink Kavanaugh based on these allegations, how is a democracy even supposed to function?
There's a million Trumpkins and rabid anti-Trumpkins out there who have been "in the same house party" (or anywhere else a sexual assault could possibly occur... Which is, um, everywhere) as literally every potential electoral candidate in the US. Any of them could levy accusations with the same level evidence, and, with training from their side's party, could probably give compelling testimony. I don't trust every living American individual not to abuse this power in the future, and I'm not ready to risk our democracy over it.
Does this mean Ford is lying? No, I don't claim to know the answer to that. But from a purely pragmatic perspective, we can't run a country like this. I love the idea that it's okie dokie for Trump to accuse Obama of faking birth certificates and putting cameras in microwaves, but the "real threat" here is women. I mean, like, what if cooties are real?? Obama's candidacy/presidency was never remotely threatened by those accusations, so I have no idea why that is at all comparable. And I never defended Trump's conspiracy theory so I don't know why you're addressing this at me. Then why fear accusations ending democracy? This is seriously bizarre stuff.
Right, just like there's no difference between a nuclear strike and a targeted drone strike. I mean, they're, like, both using explosives as weapons, right? The magnitude of the destruction is obviously beside the point.
Hint:
On September 28 2018 11:19 mozoku wrote:
My issue is that, when you set the burden of proof as low as it needs to be to sink Kavanaugh based on these allegations, how is a democracy even supposed to function?
...
But from a purely pragmatic perspective, we can't run a country like this.
Even if you think "oh people won't sink that low", is there any reason to believe they won't get there in the next 10, 20, or 100 years? We've been on a firmly downward trend on political civility for a long time, and if we're not that low already then we will likely get there in my lifetime I think.
I wasn't making the argument on ethical grounds.
|
On September 28 2018 12:03 mozoku wrote:
Ignoring context, I think (2) is reasonable. In context, an FBI investigation means postponement and will have ramifications on the midterms. Which would still be fine, in a vacuum (GOP should vet its candidates blah blah blah), but all of these accusations have been handled by Democrat operatives and are mysteriously coming into the public light on the eve of confirmation during a confirmation process where the widely-acknowleged (by observers of all partisan stripes) Democratic goal has been "delay past the midterms."
In an ethical jungle like that, I think it's clear the both parties have committed moral transgressions.
By the second "party" are you referring to Ford, the Democrats, or both?
If Ford, unless you're claiming she's making it all up, I find it hard to see any moral fault on her part.
If the Democrats, I find it hard to see any moral fault in not sharing the letter without Ford's consent. Unless you're claiming they leaked it strategically and deliberately.
Can you elaborate?
|
On September 28 2018 11:36 Plansix wrote:
I cannot for the life of me understand why some folks on the right see putting Kavanaugh on the bench as a win. If folks think the liberals and progressives were angry last year, they are in for a surprise. Putting him on the bench just ads fuel to the fire.
You know why? This is the dude that advocated for illegal wars, torture, security state... he was a key operative. No wonder they want him on Supreme Court so badly. He'll obviously erode away our rights.
|
On September 28 2018 12:03 mozoku wrote:
Ignoring context, I think (2) is reasonable. In context, an FBI investigation means postponement and will have ramifications on the midterms. Which would still be fine, in a vacuum (GOP should vet its candidates blah blah blah), but all of these accusations have been handled by Democrat operatives and are mysteriously coming into the public light on the eve of confirmation during a confirmation process where the widely-acknowleged (by observers of all partisan stripes) Democratic goal has been "delay past the midterms."
In an ethical jungle like that, I think it's clear the both parties have committed moral transgressions.
I'll go further than Aquanim (unsurprisingly =) ), I hope the democrats did that, if they're finally fighting back that's awesome. The republicans can counter this cunning plan by not being the worst in the future, which would improve their chances of not losing a bunch of seats in a midterm election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
