Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 847

Impossible to know if Ford’s allegation against Kavanaugh is true. Partisans are going to believe what they want. Other allegations against him have been less credible, though some will vaguely refer to them. All other named witnesses have no recollection of any such behavior or events. Numerous character witnesses from his early 80s school days and on have said such behavior was never seen and would have been out of character. So we’re left with a well-qualified judge with a long track record and numerous people supporting his personal and professional character, stacked against one uncorroborated claim of assault.

On that background, Republicans only have a political calculation. Either they vote against Kavanaugh in case the allegation is true, less because it bears upon his ability to serve on the Court or because it has been proven true, but to send a message (to society and males in particular) and most importantly to try to not alienate women voters. Or they see the danger of validating this manner of undermining nominees with something that might have happened in high school, especially when it is uncorroborated and out-of-character with all other evidence and testimony. To be sure, Kavanaugh’s Fox News interview was ill-advised and the performance today was ugly, if understandable if he is telling the truth.

Democrats have been completely awful and untrustworthy. They wail and gnash their teeth about a further FBI background check but they fail to make any efforts, even behind closed doors, to investigate. They should have referred the matter to the FBI and the Chairman of the Committee right away. There is no excuse for that failure. Most incredible is that Feinstein was apparently going to remain silent about the allegation and let the vote go forward on the nomination. Only because it leaked to the press are we hearing about it. Democrats continue to be apoplectic about Garland and Trump and that explains quite a bit about their theatrics.

Republicans have little choice but to forge ahead. It’s not a good look for anyone, but this is apparently how our government operates. It’s possible that one or two GOP Senators defect and Kavanaugh doesn’t get confirmed but I also think that’s unlikely.

If you write a letter to a Senator for a purpose you kind of expect that the Senator would pursue that in some way. Otherwise it’s just venting to a US Senator. Whatever wishes Ford had, Feinstein had her own responsibility as Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee. IF she had brought it to the attention of the FBI or Chairman Grassley, there was a conceivable means of handling the matter behind closed doors, including possible withdrawal of the nomination. But instead Feinstein sat on her hands. Doesn’t make sense. The excuse DOES NOT make sense.

Mrebo said:

Impossible to know if Ford’s allegation against Kavanaugh is true. Partisans are going to believe what they want.

Without calling witnesses, that’s certainly the likely outcome. That’s why I bemoaned how little time was spent on the details that could steer things away from he-said/she-said.

All other named witnesses have no recollection of any such behavior or events.

What people say to the press and what they say under penalty of perjury are sometimes two very different things. If he wants to say that under oath, that’s fine. Give him that opportunity.

one uncorroborated claim of assault

Corroboration has degrees–parts can be corroborated if not the whole. You can corroborate that the claim predates the nomination, for example, so while the public revelation may be political, the underlying claim certainly isn’t. There’s also a witness that I believe should be called to testify who may or may not provide more corroborating detail. I’d describe it as one partly-corroborated claim with a yet-to-be-questioned witness, and other uncorroborated claims. YMMV.

It’s not a good look for anyone, but this is apparently how our government operates.

Weird how under such a dysfunctional, dramatic environment, Gorsuch sailed through the same Senate recently without even a mention of him assaulting anyone. It may just be equally possible that government always works like it did for Gorsuch, but only when you studiously avoid assaulting people.

It’s possible that one or two GOP Senators defect and Kavanaugh doesn’t get confirmed but I also think that’s unlikely.

Right there with you.

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Handman said:

Jay said:

That said, to argue against your point, the number of people on the right who show up for protests and marches are dwarfed by left. Trump inspires lefties to go nuts and march in the millions. The right largely just stays home and stockpiles guns 😉

Did you forget the other rallies Trump inspires? The left rallies may be larger…

It’s interesting that rallies on the right make you think of white nationalists. Do you immediately associate rallies on the left with Antifa? BLM?

Anti-fascists and Black Lives Matter are not the equivalent of white nationalists. Interesting that you make that connection.

Antifa is a violent organization packed with “good” fascists who think they’re saving the country from “bad” fascists. Just as nuts as anybody on the far right.

Uh, they’re not fascists. They’re anarchists and communists. There’s a clear political difference. I don’t support Antifa, but I’ve made clear that I am in favor of some types of political violence. Not all violence is the same. I think that we need to remove all judges and representatives that are bought and paid for by corporations. If we can do that peacefully, then that’s great, but I’m not opposed to people doing it forcefully.

Antifa may label themselves as something they view as honorable and worthwhile—and obviously you sympathize with their views—but they’re lying extremists who want to suppress free speech and are willing to use violence to achieve their goals.

I do sympathize with their views even though I don’t support them. My problem was calling them fascists. They’re anarchists and communists, which I think are stupid and destructive ideologies, but they’re factually distinct from fascism.

I shouldn’t have lumped BLM with them.

Of course you shouldn’t have, but I find it interesting that you did.

Just call me a racist and get it over with. I can see your eyelid twitching from here.

Oh, you’re one of these guys that thinks everyone is out to call him racist, huh? I don’t think that, I think that you’re someone that likes to equate outright racism against non-white people with less-outright racism against white people. It isn’t the first time you’ve done it either. You equated Trump’s refusal to denounce white supremacists with Obama’s neglecting to denounce black supremacists.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

That said, to argue against your point, the number of people on the right who show up for protests and marches are dwarfed by left. Trump inspires lefties to go nuts and march in the millions. The right largely just stays home and stockpiles guns 😉

What the hell are you talking about? Don’t you remember the Tea Party? What about the pro-life march every year? Of course they’re protesting less now, their side is in power.

And how the fuck is it nuts to march?

First of all, chill out. I didn’t say it was “nuts to march”. It was an expression.

You said they go nuts and march.

Yes, exactly. I didn’t say only nuts march.

I don’t see marching as a direct result of going nuts.

I also said conservatives stockpile guns, which is obviously hyperbole also.

It really isn’t. They aren’t necessarily nuts and they do stockpile guns. Not all of them, but a sizable amount.

I mean is it not obvious to anyone else I was exaggerating for effect? Was the little winky face not enough of an indicator?

It didn’t seem like an exaggeration. You say the left is crazy or nuts or whatever all the time so why should it be an exaggeration this time.

Conservative protesters typically don’t turn out in the same numbers as liberal protesters, even at their own marches.

Why does that matter? People that want change tend to protest more. Go figure. Protest is often a good thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protests_in_the_United_States_by_size

Do any of those look like conservative causes?

No, but to pretend that protest (especially crazy protest) is unique to the left is ridiculous.

Did I say protest was unique to the left? No. I said that conservatives don’t protest in the same numbers as liberals. I backed that up with data.

Yet another instance where you demonstrate that you read what you want into what I say rather than what’s actually written.

I felt like you were ignoring conservative activism (or attempts at activism) in this country. Countless boycotts, the Tea Party, pro-life bullshit, anti-gay activism (like Kim Davis and the rallies to support her). Not all protests take the form of marches.

moviefreakedmind said:

I prefer antagonistic discussion.

No shit. I’d argue it’s mostly unproductive and largely designed to get a rise out of people rather than exchange ideas.

I don’t care about getting rises out of people. I don’t see how being antagonistic is unproductive. That’s how shit gets changed. I also don’t really like “exchanging ideas” in the calm, tepid sense. I have things to say and I’m very passionate about them and when I see things that I disagree with or that I think are uninformed or unreasonable, then I call it out.

The most telling thing about Kavanaugh and his supporters is that they are the ones that are opposed to a true investigation by law enforcement. The alleged victims are interested in that, which, by the way, would make them felons if they are making these allegations up. Let the FBI investigate and then hold the confirmation hearing later.

Jay said:

Trident said:

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

All I know is that activism is slowly replacing reason on the left

While that may be true, activism has already replaced reason on the right. Both sides demonizing each other and glorifying themselves, as though either side has a monopoly on reason, to the detriment of reason itself.

Consider that Rush and Hannity cater exclusively to the right and have done so for a long time; and how many on the right are quick to defame Obama or Hillary, but are extremely hesitant, or flat out refuse, to oppose Trump’s views or actions (except in secret) now that he’s the president.

To be clear, and I’ve mentioned this before, one should not infer that I approve of or don’t see actions on the right that I’m currently criticizing on the left. I’ve seen this in a lot of political discourse, and not just here. It’s almost like some kind of reverse whataboutism, where if you criticize one side for something, people point out that you’re not criticizing the opposite side at the same time, which means you must condone the same actions on the opposite side. It’s bizarre.

Speaking for myself, I’m not a leftist nor a liberal. I’m a moderate devout-Christian Democrat from Oklahoma who is increasingly disenfranchised with the whole political scene in general. To be sure, my intellectual beliefs line up a lot with those on the left side of the aisle, but my faith purportedly not as much.

And that’s a big beef I have with either side. The left often belittles faith in God, and Christianity in particular, as archaic superstitious nonsense; and the right uses (pretend?) “faith” as a political tool to garner votes. Though I find the latter much, MUCH more irritating than the former, since they bizarrely cite faith while doing things wholly contrary to what their faith teaches them were they actually familiar with it (which amounts to them being Pharisees).

Yeah. I’m pretty much lining up with this here.

With the slight sway in that I’m probably more right than left. I mean my religion’s at war with my heart even on the best days. So I give a nod to keeping a bit right on the social side? But then when it comes to fiscal policy I guess I’m more of a bit left there. I mean I don’t believe in wide open capitalism. I think stores are getting way the hell too big and guys with deep pockets are buying too many votes.

That said? I also think our county’s got a problem with emotion winning instead of reason. I mean you see it in the news. You see it in the universities. You see it just about everywhere really.

So that’s where I’ve gotten to be a bit of a Jordan Peterson watcher. I mean that guy’s videos are sometimes pretty good. I connect with the way he lays things out most of the time. I mean I’m hardly a disciple? But that guy has a way of talking that’s usually a class act. At least in the ones I’ve watched anyway. I mean sometimes he comes across a bit angry or maybe stubborn in places? But usually he’ll admit when he’s wrong in an argument. So that scores points with me.

He started out really angry and stubborn, and admits as much, which is why he adjusted his style as his exposure increased. Nothing wrong with recognizing a fault within yourself and making active attempts to improve your behavior.

Peterson tends to lose me when he starts talking religion, but I think he has genuinely good intentions and find most of his advice to be grounded in common sense.

The common sense that if you’re an atheist, you’re really just a Christian that doesn’t know it yet.

chyron8472 said:

Trident said:

So that’s where I’ve gotten to be a bit of a Jordan Peterson watcher. I mean that guy’s videos are sometimes pretty good. I connect with the way he lays things out most of the time. I mean I’m hardly a disciple? But that guy has a way of talking that’s usually a class act. At least in the ones I’ve watched anyway. I mean sometimes he comes across a bit angry or maybe stubborn in places? But usually he’ll admit when he’s wrong in an argument. So that scores points with me.

I can’t get past that Cathy Newman interview where she kept saying “So what you’re saying is [not at all what he just said].” Peterson might even be crazy, but to strawman his words in such a comically farcical way makes it hard for me to take opposition to him seriously.

It’s fine to disagree with Peterson and even question him rigorously, but most of the venom directed towards him both in this thread and the media as a whole is misguided at best and dishonest at worst. Some left-leaning journalists blatantly lie about his positions and misrepresent him, which ironically has only fueled further interest in what he has to say. It’s backfired tremendously.

Peterson fans use that as an excuse to disregard all harsh criticism of him. How has most of the venom in this thread been misguided or dishonest? Pretty much all of it has come from me, so I think I can debunk these claims of it being dishonest if I hear some specifics.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Impossible to know if Ford’s allegation against Kavanaugh is true. Partisans are going to believe what they want.

Without calling witnesses, that’s certainly the likely outcome. That’s why I bemoaned how little time was spent on the details that could steer things away from he-said/she-said.

Indeed.

All other named witnesses have no recollection of any such behavior or events.

What people say to the press and what they say under penalty of perjury are sometimes two very different things. If he wants to say that under oath, that’s fine. Give him that opportunity.

Sure. Kavanaugh’s friend apparently did swear under penalty of perjury. Ford’s friend recalls no such party, not sure why that would change.

one uncorroborated claim of assault

Corroboration has degrees–parts can be corroborated if not the whole. You can corroborate that the claim predates the nomination, for example, so while the public revelation may be political, the underlying claim certainly isn’t. There’s also a witness that I believe should be called to testify who may or may not provide more corroborating detail. I’d describe it as one partly-corroborated claim with a yet-to-be-questioned witness, and other uncorroborated claims. YMMV.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve read that Ford never named Kavanaugh until his nomination. By degrees, that’s very late in the game. I think her husband says she used his name with him, but apparently not in front of the therapist. She only claimed an assault previously. It doesn’t corroborate her specific claims terribly well. Certainly, we’d want something more than that.

It’s not a good look for anyone, but this is apparently how our government operates.

Weird how under such a dysfunctional, dramatic environment, Gorsuch sailed through the same Senate recently without even a mention of him assaulting anyone. It may just be equally possible that government always works like it did for Gorsuch, but only when you studiously avoid assaulting people.

Opportunity doesn’t always knock. I have no idea if Gorsuch did something inappropriate in high school. Apparently nobody came forward. Or maybe Feinstein has a secret letter. It does appear that Gorsuch was a more buttoned-up young man. I don’t really know. What I do know is that Democratic handling of the present allegation has been disgraceful and bent entirely toward their political purposes and nothing else.

EDIT: And don’t forget the Democrats filibustered Gorsuch, which is less than “sailing.” I guess he was so bad that it’s good they didn’t hold off on filibustering, eh?

It’s possible that one or two GOP Senators defect and Kavanaugh doesn’t get confirmed but I also think that’s unlikely.

Right there with you.

Mhm. Now stop inspiring me to break my relative vow of silence!

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Democrats have been completely awful and untrustworthy. They wail and gnash their teeth about a further FBI background check but they fail to make any efforts, even behind closed doors, to investigate. They should have referred the matter to the FBI and the Chairman of the Committee right away. There is no excuse for that failure.

Should they make efforts behind doors to investigate? Yes.

Should they have referred the matter to the FBI and Chairman of the Committee right away? Yes.

Should the FBI be allowed to investigate now? Yes, I don’t see a good reason not to. Seems like the only excuse they can find for not allowing the FBI to investigate now is the fact that the Dems should have given to the FBI sooner. Well the question isn’t really what should have happened earlier, it’s what should happen now. I see no reason to not let the FBI investigate. If there is (other than that should have been done earlier), pleaese tell me.

The FBI would do what the Committee is responsible and able to do: follow leads and interview witnesses. The essential role of the FBI in a nomination process is to identify potential issues for Congress. I don’t know whether the FBI could subpoena witnesses who do not want to testify in this kind of situation, but the Committee can. The Democrats aim is to (at least) delay and that is what Republicans are fighting against. That is why Grassley isn’t subpoenaing witnesses. It’s why the White House isn’t asking for a halt in the process to allow the FBI to take over. There is the idea that even if Kavanaugh is innocent (as Republicans are apt to believe) then allowing a drawn-out investigation about an alleged event 36 years ago is unlikely to clear Kavanaugh. So for them it’s just a big waste of time. The idea today was allowing the only potentially credible witness against him to say everything she wanted and to hear Kavanaugh’s denial to provide a opportunity to evaluate credibility. If there were any other solid evidence or witness to back up the claims, that would have been presented too. The FBI investigation idea does look tempting, with the hope that there is some evidence somewhere that would definitely resolve the issue one way or another. Right now that looks unlikely.

Questions lurking in the background include: why would someone with as an otherwise impeccable background have been a violent sexual maniac that one time? If the allegation is true, how does that relate to who he has been in the 35 years since and his qualifications for the job on the Court?

.

Whatever keeps this man off the Supreme Court is fine by me. Kavanaugh’s 30+ year career is nothing but ruling after ruling against the common man and in favor of our corporate overlords.

moviefreakedmind said:

Whatever keeps this man off the Supreme Court is fine by me. Kavanaugh’s 30+ year career is nothing but ruling after ruling against the common man and in favor of our corporate overlords.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, you always seem to ignore.

I only watched bits and pieces through the day, so maybe there’s information that would fill the gaps, but two statements by Ford made me wonder.

One was where she said Kavanaugh pushed her through the door and maybe Judge too except she wasn’t sure since Judge was behind her. Made me wonder how she knew for certain that Kavanaugh pushed her but not certain if Judge did, if they were both behind her.

The other was where she said something like ‘one of them’ was on top of her. Was it her testimony that both were on top of her at different points? And why could she absolutely remember Kavanaugh being on top of her but at another point only that ‘someone’ was.

Again, maybe other details help explain those lapses, but they made me wonder.

I also wonder why her friend didn’t ask her later…‘hey, you disappeared the the other night, what was that about?’ I could get her not volunteering what happened, but the fact that she ran out of the house and there was nothing asked about it (?) struck me as odd.

Memory can work in mysterious ways but the fact that she is absolutely certain that it was Kavanaugh, but little else, combined with the fact that she only maybe started telling people it was him when he was nominated raises questions.