greg1647545532

Is there a policy discussion anywhere in there? "Government is broken, ergo vote Trump" is missing about 30 steps in logic. "The news is broken, ergo vote Trump" is missing even more. Did voting for Trump fix those things? Will voting Republican in November fix those things?

I try to bring it up here every few weeks but it doesn't get the discussion going like a good wiener does.

OMFG that's all anyone's been asking for for like the last 2 weeks to which conservatives lost their fucking minds, yelling "WEAPONIZED METOO" and now you're all just gonna ask like it's NBD. Jesus christ, you're a bunch of inconsistent motherfuckers. Was that short enough for you?

God bless the USA.

I'm so glad I take the time to respond to you jabronis.

I don't know guys, I feel like I'm being pretty fair in my analysis here, am I coming off that way or does this seem like a blindly partisan position?

We've talked about this in this thread, but what do you mean by "evidence"? Because her own eyewitness testimony is evidence... Do you mean corroborating evidence? She named 3 of the 4 other people in the house, witnesses who have released statements but AFAIK have not been interviewed by any investigatory body, and were definitely not called to testify under oath like Ford and Kavanaugh were. Those eyewitness accounts, had they been requested, would have been the sort of corroborating evidence you're asking for. But Republicans weren't interested. Strange. She also presented her therapists notes from 6 years ago, which doesn't corroborate the act but at least corroborates her story that this has been something she's carried with her for a long time. So it's unclear what you're saying here. If you were pinned down and someone stuck a finger in your butt, and you knew exactly who it was, but you didn't have any corroborating physical evidence, you should just keep your mouth shut? That's sorta the entire national debate right now, women are tired of being molested and not being able to get justice because their word against his isn't good enough. And I'm not saying it should always be good enough, but it's a shitty situation all around. Pun intended? Maybe. Butt jokes. If this were a court of law, it would be a very weak case. I doubt any prosecutor would bring charges. But this isn't a court of law, it's an interview for one of the most important positions in the country, a lifetime appointment. You don't really have to believe that it happened 100% like she said it did to move on to someone else. It's OK to say, "Hmm, I don't know. He might be getting fucked, but people get fucked all the time in this country. Poor guy, but let's nominate someone else."

It's hard to believe these two posts were made by the same person. So you waffled over a confusing situation involving a plausible accusation. This is normal, human behavior. Ultimately, you picked a side. I mean, you didn't need to pick a side, you could just say "I don't know." But I get it, humans don't like not to know, so you picked a side. You didn't need to pick a side, this isn't like an election where you have to pick the lesser of two evils, but whatever, picking sides is reasonable, normal behavior. And then at this point you say that anyone who waffled the other direction and picked the other side is "seriously evil" and has "weaponized" plausible accusations of misconduct. Whoa. For waffling the other way? This is culture war rhetoric, not reasonable human behavior. Absent the culture war, I can't see why you'd go to bat for Brett Kavanaugh. He's a prep school kid, aside from liking beer I hardly see you two having much in common or thinking that he'd represent your point of view on the court. And it's not him or nothing. Can you even name any of the other candidates on Trump's short list? I can't name any, let alone tell you anything about any of their backgrounds. I bet if you and I sat down over some beers and read their resumes, we'd probably find someone we could both agree on. I just can't imagine at this point that Brett Kavanaugh is the best human our country can muster to sit on the supreme court. Confirming him, to you and Republican partisans, isn't about putting the best candidate possible on the supreme court though, is it? It's not. It's about not losing a battle in this culture war. Take a step back and think about what we're doing here, we're not putting country first, we're putting winning first. I just don't get it.

She's pretty much the reason you've heard of #metoo. Google her name with the hashtag if you want to know more.

What were they applauding?

I thought you'd consider she was telling the truth if I'd consider she wasn't. I held up my end of the bargain. How'd that work out for you?

Did we watch the same video? "No administration has been as great as mine." (paraphrased) <nervous laughter from the crowd> "America is..." <Trump, witnessing nervous laughter, stops his thought and says> "So true." <nervous laughter erupts into raucous laughter> "I didn't expect that reaction but that's OK." What little joke at the end are you talking about. "So true?" He literally had to interrupt his train of thought to deal with the crowd, and "so true" isn't a joke. What am I missing?

Consumers of conservative media will certainly remember the talking point that Obama was the laughing stock of the world, that world leaders didn't respect him. They might not know, since this hasn't been getting a lot of coverage on Fox, that Trump was literally laughed at at the UN yesterday. Most here will already know about it of course, being savvy media consumers. But in case you missed the news this morning, apparently Nikki Haley says that we can't believe our lying eyes on this one. “The media has got this so wrong,” Haley said. “I deal with these leaders every single day. I know exactly how they think. Do they love America? No. Do they respect America? Now they do. When he said that, they love how honest he is. And it’s not diplomatic. And they find it funny. I mean, when he goes and he is very truthful, they kind of were taken back (sic) by it.” They're laughing at Trump's ridiculous, bombastic proclamation about how great he is because it's honest. This is how dumb they think you are.

So she cooks up a story about a guy 6 years ago, tells her therapist and her husband, makes up all of these horrific details, then but forgets to make up that she remembered what house she was at. So close to a masterful plan, but you've cracked this thing wide open.

I would posit that your standard of evidence isn't as high as you claim it is for a job interview. Let's say you're hiring for a position and you call Joe's last employer, who says that Joe had a mean streak and would bully his subordinates. Whoever you're talking to could be lying, or mistaken, but how much effort are you going to put into verifying that information? If Joe isn't anything special, you're going to scuttle his application and hire someone who poses no risk to you (because if you hire Joe and he behaves as advertised, that's on you). Sucks to be Joe if it was a false accusation, but I'm guessing you wouldn't lose sleep over it. Or maybe I'm wrong and you'd go to bat for Joe. I don't think I said he shouldn't be a SC justice, I think I actually said "So, I'll be honest, I don't really care if he gets confirmed or not." Direct quote. Let's be frank, if it weren't a sexual assault allegation -- if it were, say, an 11th hour accusation of high school bullying, of the sort that was levied at Mitt Romney, I don't think much would go down different. Democrats would still be insisting that the accusations be heard, Republicans would still be insisting that it was all a bogus political stunt. The only difference is that there wouldn't be a hearing this Thursday, and there wouldn't be any accusations about "weaponized #metoo". And I think that's what this really comes down. This is politics as usual, with the added angle that Republicans are stuck humoring an accusation that they don't want to have to humor, which is one more foothold in the culture war that they're waging against the libs. And that's really what's going on here. Republicans can't back down from Kavanaugh, because the only thing conservative voters respond to anymore is sticking it to the libs, and confirming him would really stick it to the libs.

I get what you're saying. Thing is, in this case we have eyewitness testimony. It's not hearsay, it's not conjecture, it's the gold standard of trial evidence. It's pure, clean, the good stuff. In fact, I was on a jury a couple years ago, I forget the charge (it was a felony home invasion). There were some problems with the physical evidence that we didn't fully understand until the trial was over, so the prosecution's case really boiled down to the eyewitness testimony of two people who lived in the house. During jury selection, the prosecutor made it a point to ask every single one of us if we understood that eyewitness testimony was sufficient evidence to find someone guilty. I didn't really understand what she was going for at the time, but we spent 3 days deliberating because we're all cynical assholes and we considered every possible scenario in which the witnesses were lying. So let's talk about your philosophical definition here. Dr. Ford made a claim, so the burden of proof is on her. As proof she presented evidence -- her own eyewitness testimony, notes from her therapist, and testimony from her husband (which is hearsay but not necessarily inadmissable). If this were a trial, that evidence could be sufficient for a conviction, assuming the jury found the evidence convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. If the burden of proof weren't on Dr. Ford, what we'd see is her throw out an accusation, present no evidence (not even her own recollection), and demand that Judge Kavanaugh produce evidence to refute it. That's the philosophical argument I think you're trying to make, but I hope you see what it doesn't really apply here. What you mean to say is simply that you don't find the evidence convincing. You don't find it convincing beyond a reasonable doubt (I don't either), but you don't find it convincing even at whatever standard you consider reasonable for a job interview. Is that about right?

The FBI and others probably didn't care about hard partying and antics in high school, but this here's the problem with forum arguments. I was responding to kickass about why maybe Dr. Ford sat on this for 35 years. People find that very suspicious, so I presented what I think is a plausible rationale. And then you come at my words from a different angle.

You also don't get to sit on a SC nomination for a year just to get your way. You don't get to hold endless bogus Benghazi hearings to get your way. You don't get to make up lies about the president's birth certificate to way. I'll readily admit that Democrats are amping up the politics around this situation, but I believe the accusation is credible, and is amping up politics around a credible accusation of sexual assault really the line we're drawing now about what's kosher and what's not? Seems a bit fresh. If you sexually assault someone, you need to face justice. In our current culture, people get away with it. That is wrong. So of course I'll consider that he's not guilty, it's a true he-said she-said, we'll never know the truth, and the truth might be that she's confused or lying and he really didn't do it. But I'll go one further, and say that even if he did do it -- let's say he was arrested, tried, and convicted 35 years ago, I don't think that should necessarily disqualify him from the SCOTUS. If he did do it but got away with it for 35 years, and admitted it now with great remorse, I don't think that should disqualify him from the SCOTUS. It's a data point, but it's not the whole of someone's character. But he didn't admit to it and now we're in a pickle. He either really didn't do it, or he did do it and he's a piece of shit for not owning up to it. And, let's be frank, we'll never know. So now what? It's a very unsatisfying position to be in. It's ALSO unsatisfying, though, to know that most sexual assaults aren't reported, and most reported sexual assaults don't result in any justice. These are facts that should bother everyone, just as much and probably a lot more than whether or not some prep school kid makes the SC. Yes, Brett Kavanaugh might get fucked, but people get fucked every day, quite literally, and never get any justice. So, I'll be honest, I don't really care if he gets confirmed or not. I think it's somewhat bad taste to nominate two prep school east coast elites back to back, if we think the SCOTUS should be some cross section of America. But they're just going to replace him with another conservative, and frankly I don't really care that much about the SC anyway. I'll feel bad for Kavanaugh if he's innocent and he got screwed out of this, and I'll keep feeling bad for all the women who get assaulted and don't get justice, and that's about as far as I'm going to get on this.

I don't think it's coincidental at all. Look, at best, based on Mark Judge's tell-all and what we know about Kavanaugh, he was a rich white asshole who partied hard all through his upper-crust prep school and college years, and still managed to become a successful federal judge with a supreme court nomination. That's shitty. Guys who fuck off that hard in their formative years don't succeed in life, unless they're loaded, then the rules don't apply. Do you think if she'd come out 35 years ago the rules would have applied? Because I don't believe they would have applied to Bret "silver spoon" Kavanaugh in the slightest. Rich white kids didn't have to go to Vietnam, they don't have to study hard, they don't have to face consequences for their actions. Dr. Ford surely knew that, so what would the point have been in coming forward 35 years ago. "Boys will be boys, and besides its your word against his, and do you know who his father is?" Please. So she's carried this with her for 35 years, until, jesus christ, that shitbag is going to be on the SUPREME COURT!? Fuck that noise, this is her chance to finally put an end to his consequence free lifestyle. That's the way I see it, at least. I can see why "bone spurs Trump" and his rich elitist friends see no problem with yet another rich asshole being put in a position of great authority, but I don't see why Joe the Plumber is all up in arms about defending this guy. It's not a trial, there is no burden of proof. She can testify and the Senate can choose to do whatever they want with that information. They can choose not to confirm his nomination if they don't like the color of his socks. If he stinks, dump him and nominate someone else. The Senate doesn't owe him any benefit of the doubt like a jury would.

What if they're not doing it to get their way, but because rape and racism exist and are bad?

I must have missed both parties doing that, maybe I don't watch the right twitter feeds.

They should find something more outlandish to accuse future Democratic nominees of. Like, maybe they can say they weren't born in the US, and they faked their birth certificate, and they're really Muslim Kenyans. Think Republicans would ever stoop that low?

Republicans can vote to confirm whenever they want, they're the ones being cucks and holding additional hearings.

Attitudes like this are why human trafficking is such a massive problem. Sure, prostitution should be legal and regulated. In the absence of such regulation, people who pay women for sex really need to understand that it's an industry tied to human trafficking, that many of the victims are underaged and desperate, and they need to go out of their way to make sure they're not contributing to the problem. I don't feel bad for this guy at all.

If only the child victim had access to a 3D printer, she could have defended herself.