Page 163 of 218

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:56 am UTC
by Pfhorrest
By ‘liberals’ do you mean ‘Democrats’?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 4:23 am UTC
by gd1
Pfhorrest wrote:By ‘liberals’ do you mean ‘Democrats’?


Yes. I use them interchangeably because it's easier for me.

Now, as to the post I wanted to make:

Greentext Stories- It's Her Turn

WARNING: THIS VIDEO LINK CONTAINS THE N-WORD A FEW TIMES.

This is what the Trump presidency has brought out. People with a desire to kill fellow Americans and relish the thought so much that they write a story glorifying it. I was searching for "It's her turn" and I got this video. To be fair, I don't know if this is the way to author of the video feels or maybe its a joke (?), but the comments section doesn't give me much faith.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:44 am UTC
by The Great Hippo
gd1 wrote:To be fair, I don't know if this is the way to author of the video feels or maybe its a joke (?), but the comments section doesn't give me much faith.
It's just the alt right. IE, the people who chanted "You/Jews will not replace us" at Charlottesville while wearing Nazi paraphernalia, and then proceeded to murder a woman and injure a bunch of other people.

You know -- Neo-Nazis. Those folks the president describes as "good people".

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 10:57 am UTC
by ijuin
Pfhorrest wrote:By ‘liberals’ do you mean ‘Democrats’?


By the standards of 21st century definitions of “ liberal politics”, the 1860s Republican party was more liberal than the 1860s Democratic party.

Note which party got the most votes from the White Supremacy crowd and when—those guys tend to vote for the party that is furthest to the right at the time. When the Democratic party signed onto Civil Rights, those who opposed that action left the party in droves.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:16 am UTC
by Opus_723
I think this is getting too bogged down in what is/isn't a prosecutable crime, statutes of limitations and so on. It's a job interview, not a criminal case.

In a sane world, if I had a list of qualified people and found out that my first choice MAY be rapey, I'd just move on to the second choice on my list. I don't have to have proof, it's just a job offer. It would be very easy to find a candidate who has not been accused of sexual assault. There does not need to be a high standard of evidence in that situation.

I would think that, when offering one of the most powerful positions in the U.S. government to a man who already has a really cushy job to fall back on, one would be even quicker to just say nope and move on. All this talk I'm seeing from people about destroying his career is nonsense unless you think some people are *entitled* to be a freaking Supreme Court Justice instead of just a federal judge.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:22 am UTC
by idonno
Opus_723 wrote:In a sane world, if I had a list of qualified people and found out that my first choice MAY be rapey, I'd just move on to the second choice on my list. I don't have to have proof, it's just a job offer. It would be very easy to find a candidate who has not been accused of sexual assault. There does not need to be a high standard of evidence in that situation.


I think you need some burden of proof for accusations for anything as politically charged as this. No matter what the validity of current accusations are, if you can win a political fight like this, there will likely be a lot of manufactured allegations and screwing up careers is not the only issue to worry about. If manufactured allegations become common some of them will fall apart and once it becomes clear that there are a lot of fake allegations, real ones will be much easier to dismiss. It is a tough issue but it is certainly not clear that the better safe than sorry approach is the best one in the long run.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:27 am UTC
by Prefanity
idonno wrote:real ones will be much easier to dismiss.


It seems to me that, for the right, real allegations are already pretty easy to dismiss.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:07 am UTC
by idonno
Prefanity wrote:
idonno wrote:real ones will be much easier to dismiss.


It seems to me that, for the right, real allegations are already pretty easy to dismiss.


Tell that to Roy Moore. If a story had broken in the last decade about politically manufactured allegations, do you really think he would have lost the election no matter what the difference in the level of evidence was. I don't think there are any options that don't suck but I doubt that blindly accepting allegations without any standard of evidence as justification to block people from power is the least bad option.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:25 am UTC
by gd1
idonno wrote:
Prefanity wrote:
idonno wrote:real ones will be much easier to dismiss.


It seems to me that, for the right, real allegations are already pretty easy to dismiss.


Tell that to Roy Moore. If a story had broken in the last decade about politically manufactured allegations, do you really think he would have lost the election no matter what the difference in the level of evidence was. I don't think there are any options that don't suck but I doubt that blindly accepting allegations without any standard of evidence as justification to block people from power is the least bad option.


If he could be removed from the job afterwards with absolute certainty if the allegation was proven to be true or if the job didn't carry the lasting societal weight that it does... maybe. If the president in question who nominated him was of a very high caliber in integrity we could even take his word for this. Regrettably, we've got to make due with what we have.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:40 am UTC
by idonno
gd1 wrote:or if the job didn't carry the lasting societal weight that it does...

Do you think his guilt materially changes how he would rule on cases? If the crime doesn't change that, the chance of him being guilty doesn't change the result so it seems to me that the only reason this would matter is if you are concerned about the result. This sort of politically motivated thought process is the tip of the iceberg that I am concerned about and I think it is very likely going to hurt a lot more victims than it will help.

gd1 wrote:If the president in question who nominated him was of a very high caliber in integrity we could even take his word for this.

The Presidents integrity isn't really relevant because there is no reason for us to believe he has any more knowledge of this than any of us. A liar and an honest person are on equal footing when they have no way of knowing the truth.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:48 am UTC
by gd1
idonno wrote:
gd1 wrote:or if the job didn't carry the lasting societal weight that it does...

Do you think his guilt materially changes how he would rule on cases? If the crime doesn't change that, the chance of him being guilty doesn't change the result so it seems to me that the only reason this would matter is if you are concerned about the result. This sort of politically motivated thought process is the tip of the iceberg that I am concerned about and I think it is very likely going to hurt a lot more victims than it will help.

gd1 wrote:If the president in question who nominated him was of a very high caliber in integrity we could even take his word for this.

The Presidents integrity isn't really relevant because there is no reason for us to believe he has any more knowledge of this than any of us.


It would show the caliber of his person by the fact that he didn't disclose it. It would show that he's willing to apply justice with a double standard. It would potentially show a lack of remorse and thus perhaps conscience. By extension he might not have a problem doing other activities if there were no consequences or even if there were. That becomes a real problem with someone who has maybe 50 years of landmark decisions on very important cases where companies would certainly like to purchase or coerce a justice to make a decision that might be beneficial for them but not for the people of the country or the integrity of what the laws are supposed to protect.

The president does seem to be taking an interest in this process to the point of attacking the accuser, but the focus here is that he nominated the judge and if he was known for integrity we could take that into consideration as well as perhaps taking a guarantee from him (and we'd probably need one from congress at this point too) that they would take steps to remove the justice if the accusation were proven. Regrettably, I seriously doubt even either the legislative involvement or executive involvement would do anything if the allegations became proven. As such, it seems we need an investigation to be completed beforehand. Similar in practice to how a bank with whom you have a bad history will require more assurances to deal with you in the future.

EDIT: Added some blue text for safety.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:51 am UTC
by Prefanity
idonno wrote:
Prefanity wrote:
idonno wrote:real ones will be much easier to dismiss.


It seems to me that, for the right, real allegations are already pretty easy to dismiss.


Tell that to Roy Moore. If a story had broken in the last decade about politically manufactured allegations, do you really think he would have lost the election no matter what the difference in the level of evidence was. I don't think there are any options that don't suck but I doubt that blindly accepting allegations without any standard of evidence as justification to block people from power is the least bad option.


I'm pretty sure the right largely ignored the allegations against Roy Moore.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:14 am UTC
by Thesh
Made excuses for, dismissed claims, attacked victims, but didn't ignore - they simply didn't care if he raped children.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:50 am UTC
by Opus_723
One problem I have with the idea that Democrats gin up these accusations to take down opponents is that MANY, many men who the Democrats would love to see burn are oddly immune, and have no accusations whatsoever.

People have been raising the fear that this would become a craven political tactic for quite a few years now. If that's the case, I just can't fathom that more swing state senators haven't been accused.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:57 am UTC
by Mutex
It's interesting that some people seem to think that "not taking either person's side" still means Kavanaugh gets appointed to the supreme court for life. Because that totally doesn't amount to taking his side. Making him a justice of the supreme court.

The way I see it, since we don't have enough evidence to know Ford's accusations are true, Kavanaugh doesn't go to jail for sexual assault. Since we don't have enough evidence that Kavanaugh's side of the story is true, he doesn't get to be a justice of the supreme court. That seems like a more neutral position to me. Given the enormous impact a justice's appointment has, "not guilty" isn't a high enough standard. The "actual innocence" standard should apply instead.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:45 am UTC
by The Great Hippo
idonno wrote:Tell that to Roy Moore. If a story had broken in the last decade about politically manufactured allegations, do you really think he would have lost the election no matter what the difference in the level of evidence was. I don't think there are any options that don't suck but I doubt that blindly accepting allegations without any standard of evidence as justification to block people from power is the least bad option.
Just as an aside -- not to counter your point, but something I think people forget about the Roy Moore situation:

An adult man was accused of multiple accounts of sexual harassment and, in at least one case, outright sexual assault -- targeting young, underage girls. All of them pretty credible, well-corroborated claims. Fuck, it was so bad that they actually had records of banning him from the local mall because he kept harassing the children there. And yeah, that killed his chances. But do you know what he lost by?

20,000 votes. That's just a little over 1.5% of the total tally.

Let that sink in for a moment: Out of about 1,300,000 voters, approximately 650,000 of them still voted for Roy Moore. Why? Well, sure; he might want to rape our kids, but at least he's not a fucking Democrat.

The failure of the Republican party's leadership to stand up to Trump and unite behind the banner of "Hey, No, Fuck You Mr. President, We Are Not Letting The Guy Who Literally Wants To Fuck Our Kids Get Elected" is, on its own, so breathtaking in its magnitude that it is reason enough to abolish the entire fucking shitshow of a party and start from scratch.
Opus_723 wrote:In a sane world, if I had a list of qualified people and found out that my first choice MAY be rapey, I'd just move on to the second choice on my list. I don't have to have proof, it's just a job offer. It would be very easy to find a candidate who has not been accused of sexual assault. There does not need to be a high standard of evidence in that situation.

I would think that, when offering one of the most powerful positions in the U.S. government to a man who already has a really cushy job to fall back on, one would be even quicker to just say nope and move on. All this talk I'm seeing from people about destroying his career is nonsense unless you think some people are *entitled* to be a freaking Supreme Court Justice instead of just a federal judge.
The Republican fixation on him makes a lot more sense when you consider he's one of the few candidates out there who thinks it's perfectly fine for the President to pardon himself.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:12 pm UTC
by Chen
The Great Hippo wrote:The Republican fixation on him makes a lot more sense when you consider he's one of the few candidates out there who thinks it's perfectly fine for the President to pardon himself.


It's more timing. They need to push this through now or they run higher and higher risks of not getting to put anyone there. They know after their play with Garland the democrats will do the exact same thing back to them if they can. If they don't put him in now, they have to wait until after midterms and they try to push it in the following lame duck session, if the Democrats do take the senate. If they don't take the senate it would make sense to just throw another nominee in without the same baggage and go with that. Even though the democrats have only a slight chance of taking the senate, the reward here is high so the risk is still something on their minds.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:54 pm UTC
by idonno
gd1 wrote:The president does seem to be taking an interest in this process to the point of attacking the accuser


I'd just like to say that anyone attacking an accuser without evidence they are lying is a horrible person and clearly a part of the problem. If you crucify people who come forward, you make it a lot less likely to be able to get evidence to remove the guilty from power and without evidence there is no reason to believe they are lying.

Opus_723 wrote:One problem I have with the idea that Democrats gin up these accusations to take down opponents is that MANY, many men who the Democrats would love to see burn are oddly immune, and have no accusations whatsoever.

People have been raising the fear that this would become a craven political tactic for quite a few years now. If that's the case, I just can't fathom that more swing state senators haven't been accused.
Has such a low level of evidence ever cost someone an election? Cases with way more evidence have been glossed over historically. There is no reason to waste time with an attack if it isn't expected to work and could blow up in your face if proven to be a political ploy. It is only if the public starts accepting low evidence cases that they become worth exploiting. Also as a side note, I don't think this is actually a R/D issue. I don't trust either side to not exploit this.

Prefanity wrote:I'm pretty sure the right largely ignored the allegations against Roy Moore.

There was a large enough shift in votes that any party that wishes to maintain power has to take note.

The Great Hippo wrote:Why? Well, sure; he might want to rape our kids, but at least he's not a fucking Democrat.
A lot of people at least claimed to think that he was being set up and there was a major effort to push this narrative.

I'm not going to be torn up if he isn't appointed but I think changing outcomes with no real evidence is a bad precedent (although not as bad as the historical precedent of ignoring actual evidence).

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:47 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
Yablo wrote:With all due respect to an alleged victim of sexual assault, if she wants her story to be heard and considered, it's on her and her lawyers to tell it. She's not in a position to place conditions on her testimony. She has a reasonable expectation of accommodation from the Senate committee, but if she's not willing to give her testimony without demands, she's basically forfeiting her right to give that testimony in that venue.


Yeah. She's got a right to tell her story if she wishes, but I don't think she has a reasonable right to all the various preconditions. There's not a lot that can really be done without even knowing what there is to be investigated. Prosecutable or not, I think if a persuasive case can be made that he's a scumbag, then his confirmation chances get a bit lower. Maybe not zero, partisanship is strong....but the actual bar of evidence is merely convincing folks that he's likely guilty. Refusing to testify seems like it hurts that, not helps it.

Mutex wrote:It's interesting that some people seem to think that "not taking either person's side" still means Kavanaugh gets appointed to the supreme court for life. Because that totally doesn't amount to taking his side. Making him a justice of the supreme court.


That's what innocent until proven guilty means. The default scenario is that it didn't happen until it's proven to.

Now, I'd be satisfied with a persuasive "he probably did it" scenario, even if that falls short of absolute proof, as reason to withhold confirmation. But if we have literally nothing either way, we don't have a good reason to alter the process.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:33 pm UTC
by Mutex
Tyndmyr wrote:
Mutex wrote:It's interesting that some people seem to think that "not taking either person's side" still means Kavanaugh gets appointed to the supreme court for life. Because that totally doesn't amount to taking his side. Making him a justice of the supreme court.


That's what innocent until proven guilty means. The default scenario is that it didn't happen until it's proven to.

Now, I'd be satisfied with a persuasive "he probably did it" scenario, even if that falls short of absolute proof, as reason to withhold confirmation. But if we have literally nothing either way, we don't have a good reason to alter the process.

Emphasis mine - this is a good example of what I'm talking about. Confirming Kavanaugh is framed as the default, passive, neutral. Shouldn't the default be that the candidate being considered to wield an enormous amount of power for a lifetime doesn't get confirmed unless everyone is really sure about them? Even a mere rumour should be concerning, and in this case we have someone putting herself in the public eye (and at risk) making an actual accusation, which isn't the same as "literally nothing".

Put it this way. If your daughter was dating a guy, and a woman came to you and claimed he sexually assaulted her in the past, how concerned about your daughter would you be? Innocent until proven guilty, after all.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:40 pm UTC
by sardia
Rosenstein expects to be fired as he heads towards white house. https://www.npr.org/2018/09/24/65109330 ... ense-morni
Rumor has it he's offered his resignation, you know cuz he mentioned removing Trump from power via wiretap into 25th amendment. This would leave a Trump loyalist in charge of Mueller investigation.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:05 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
Mutex wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Mutex wrote:It's interesting that some people seem to think that "not taking either person's side" still means Kavanaugh gets appointed to the supreme court for life. Because that totally doesn't amount to taking his side. Making him a justice of the supreme court.


That's what innocent until proven guilty means. The default scenario is that it didn't happen until it's proven to.

Now, I'd be satisfied with a persuasive "he probably did it" scenario, even if that falls short of absolute proof, as reason to withhold confirmation. But if we have literally nothing either way, we don't have a good reason to alter the process.

Emphasis mine - this is a good example of what I'm talking about. Confirming Kavanaugh is framed as the default, passive, neutral. Shouldn't the default be that the candidate being considered to wield an enormous amount of power for a lifetime doesn't get confirmed unless everyone is really sure about them? Even a mere rumour should be concerning, and in this case we have someone putting herself in the public eye (and at risk) making an actual accusation, which isn't the same as "literally nothing".

Put it this way. If your daughter was dating a guy, and a woman came to you and claimed he sexually assaulted her in the past, how concerned about your daughter would you be? Innocent until proven guilty, after all.


An accusation isn't evidence. We don't even have testimony, let alone evidence. Axing someone's job on the basis of an accusation without testimony seems contrary to any sort of standards of evidence, and we have these for good reason. Without that, pretty much anybody could toss accusations at anyone, and this is something that gets horribly misused.

The default is always "no change".

As for the rest, that would entirely depend on the credibility involved. Do I know the woman? Does she have other apparent motivations? In almost any scenario, I can see passing on the information to my hypothetical daughter, but if she decided that it was not credible due to, say, a combination of the woman's unwillingness to tell her herself, other motivations, lack of evidence, and so on....cool. That's her decision to do so.

Of course, dating isn't really a job application decided on by the father. I'm not sure what result you would expect.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:48 pm UTC
by JudeMorrigan
Tyndmyr wrote:An accusation isn't evidence. We don't even have testimony, let alone evidence. Axing someone's job on the basis of an accusation without testimony seems contrary to any sort of standards of evidence, and we have these for good reason. Without that, pretty much anybody could toss accusations at anyone, and this is something that gets horribly misused.

The default is always "no change".

As for the rest, that would entirely depend on the credibility involved. Do I know the woman? Does she have other apparent motivations? In almost any scenario, I can see passing on the information to my hypothetical daughter, but if she decided that it was not credible due to, say, a combination of the woman's unwillingness to tell her herself, other motivations, lack of evidence, and so on....cool. That's her decision to do so.

Of course, dating isn't really a job application decided on by the father. I'm not sure what result you would expect.

I'm pretty sure "no change" would be him staying as a circuit judge. While I'm sure plenty of people would be ok with the idea of seeing him impeached, I'm also pretty sure most people in that category are just fine with the idea of a proper investigation happening first.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:51 pm UTC
by gd1
Tyndmyr wrote:
Mutex wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Mutex wrote:It's interesting that some people seem to think that "not taking either person's side" still means Kavanaugh gets appointed to the supreme court for life. Because that totally doesn't amount to taking his side. Making him a justice of the supreme court.


That's what innocent until proven guilty means. The default scenario is that it didn't happen until it's proven to.

Now, I'd be satisfied with a persuasive "he probably did it" scenario, even if that falls short of absolute proof, as reason to withhold confirmation. But if we have literally nothing either way, we don't have a good reason to alter the process.

Emphasis mine - this is a good example of what I'm talking about. Confirming Kavanaugh is framed as the default, passive, neutral. Shouldn't the default be that the candidate being considered to wield an enormous amount of power for a lifetime doesn't get confirmed unless everyone is really sure about them? Even a mere rumour should be concerning, and in this case we have someone putting herself in the public eye (and at risk) making an actual accusation, which isn't the same as "literally nothing".

Put it this way. If your daughter was dating a guy, and a woman came to you and claimed he sexually assaulted her in the past, how concerned about your daughter would you be? Innocent until proven guilty, after all.


An accusation isn't evidence. We don't even have testimony, let alone evidence. Axing someone's job on the basis of an accusation without testimony seems contrary to any sort of standards of evidence, and we have these for good reason. Without that, pretty much anybody could toss accusations at anyone, and this is something that gets horribly misused.

The default is always "no change".

As for the rest, that would entirely depend on the credibility involved. Do I know the woman? Does she have other apparent motivations? In almost any scenario, I can see passing on the information to my hypothetical daughter, but if she decided that it was not credible due to, say, a combination of the woman's unwillingness to tell her herself, other motivations, lack of evidence, and so on....cool. That's her decision to do so.

Of course, dating isn't really a job application decided on by the father. I'm not sure what result you would expect.


Except that this isn't a job application where he won't have a job, it's a promotion to c level in the company and it can be done later. Raking back this decision being unlikely is also a factor. If someone doesn't meet the requirements (or there's concern about it) for the promotion academic or in this case moral you either investigate if it's worth it to keep them or move to the next candidate.

Like I said earlier, if the president had a level of quality in his morality I'd be inclined to give leeway, but like a bad credit debtor I'm going to want a lot more assurances. I'm only dealing with him at all because he's the only game in town right now.

Edit: I got ninja'd? On a forum with this pace? How does that even happen?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:54 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
I feel uncomfortable with "accusations of rape would automatically disqualify one in a job-interview situation" because, without wanting to go all MRA on this, it would be too easy to cloud any prospective employment to just have someone whisper the possibility in the right ears (indeed, anti-discrimination efforts are there to prevent undue 'blackballing', for whatever reason).

I'm also unsure how you'd define "cleaner than clean" as a standard such that anybody could pass that candidacy validation stage, without going "he's the least rapey, that other guys fiddled the least taxes, and she's the one with the least likelihood she's committed vehicular homicide… so that's now our short-list of three to decide between".

OTOH, I get the impression that the man of the discussion is an unsuitable candidate for various (other) reasons and the potentiality of these accusations may be not over the threshold of legally proven (yet!) but if they add grist to the mill to prevent the other valid concerns being deliberately overlooked (or even lauded as a partisan bonus to his character) in a decision that has long-term consequences once enacted then I'll probably not feel too bad.

(Ideally the SCOTUS should reflect the attitude of the country, tempered by the terms of the current legislation so that neither radicalism nor steadfast by-the-bookism wins out. Yet, at the moment, the barely-half-voted-for (technically, by just the one count) party in power has something of an approach of driving the SCOTUS towards a reflection of it's attitude (and the same tempering, one would hope), and if it can possibly get away with ignoring the 'other half' then it would. Look at the complaints that a +1 advantage to conservative voices might have tipped to +1 advantage to liberal voices (give or take actual degrees of conservatism and liberalism) would be 'unfair', in the opposition to Garland, using the "we have to wait and see" approach. And yet "sorry, you can't complain if +1 to our side could becomes +2 or more" seems to be the attitude of the same people who wanted 'fairness' before, when asked about that possibility. Consistency of partisanship but inconsistency against a depolarised and flipped background isn't exactly new or unexpected, but does somewhat bulldoze the top off some people's self-proclaimed High Ground that they claimed to be King Of The Castle of. And both teams use the same Pitching Mound when trying to strike out their opposing batsman, right? (…I say, making it look like I actually know anything about baseball.))

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:56 pm UTC
by Thesh
It should also be noted that there is solid proof that he has also committed perjury.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:02 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
Thesh wrote:It should also be noted that there is solid proof that he has also committed perjury.

I just hope that this doesn't get forgotten if/when the rape(ish)-claim eventually gets shoved to one side. It could have been a better tack to sail with, if this other gets dismissed as a nothingburger. But if the burger is still meaty, it can't be ignored as an important part of a meal-deal.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:09 pm UTC
by Euphonium
Tyndmyr wrote:An accusation isn't evidence.

This might be the stupidest thing I've read today, and I've read Youtube comments today.

An accusation absolutely is evidence! Evidence is anything that can be used to support a claim! Like all evidence, its credibility has to weighed, but it absolutely is evidence.

Axing someone's job

Stop lying. Even if he's not confirmed for the Supreme Court, he'd remain a federal appellate judge.

on the basis of an accusation without testimony seems contrary to any sort of standards of evidence, and we have these for good reason


We have different standards of evidence for different situations, based on the severity. For criminal convictions, where your freedom or even your life might be taken, we have pretty fucking high standards. For civil cases, where all that can happen is that you'll be told to make someone whole, we have lower standards. No reason why lower standards still aren't appropriate for a situation where we're not even taking anything from someone, but simply deciding whether or not to give them something they don't already have.

The default is always "no change".

In other words, he's not made a Supreme Court justice. That would be "no change" from the current status quo, where he's not a Supreme Court justice.

This might be one of the most disingenuously dishonest posts I've ever read here. Holy shit. It just reeks of bad faith from top to bottom.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:15 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
JudeMorrigan wrote:I'm pretty sure "no change" would be him staying as a circuit judge. While I'm sure plenty of people would be ok with the idea of seeing him impeached, I'm also pretty sure most people in that category are just fine with the idea of a proper investigation happening first.


No change as in "no impact". Getting him disqualified would be a change as a result of the accusation.

Proper investigation is fine. The timing and refusal to testify point to a desire to get the disqualification, not a desire to see justice done.

gd1 wrote:Except that this isn't a job application where he won't have a job, it's a promotion to c level in the company and it can be done later. Raking back this decision being unlikely is also a factor. If someone doesn't meet the requirements (or there's concern about it) for the promotion academic or in this case moral you either investigate if it's worth it to keep them or move to the next candidate.

Like I said earlier, if the president had a level of quality in his morality I'd be inclined to give leeway, but like a bad credit debtor I'm going to want a lot more assurances. I'm only dealing with him at all because he's the only game in town right now.

Edit: I got ninja'd? On a forum with this pace? How does that even happen?


Except, of course, in a political sense, it probably can't be done later. That's the crux of all this.

Soupspoon wrote:I feel uncomfortable with "accusations of rape would automatically disqualify one in a job-interview situation" because, without wanting to go all MRA on this, it would be too easy to cloud any prospective employment to just have someone whisper the possibility in the right ears (indeed, anti-discrimination efforts are there to prevent undue 'blackballing', for whatever reason).

I'm also unsure how you'd define "cleaner than clean" as a standard such that anybody could pass that candidacy validation stage, without going "he's the least rapey, that other guys fiddled the least taxes, and she's the one with the least likelihood she's committed vehicular homicide… so that's now our short-list of three to decide between".

OTOH, I get the impression that the man of the discussion is an unsuitable candidate for various (other) reasons and the potentiality of these accusations may be not over the threshold of legally proven (yet!) but if they add grist to the mill to prevent the other valid concerns being deliberately overlooked (or even lauded as a partisan bonus to his character) in a decision that has long-term consequences once enacted then I'll probably not feel too bad.


My impression is that people are supporting or opposing Kav for primarily partisan reasons. Some of these are quite sound. If one is complaining that he has a pro-corporate leaning in his history, you're on quite safe ground. Some, like talking about a repeal of Roe v Wade, are more speculative, but are still definitely partisan territory. The chap is definitely taking a right wing view here, but...any conservative nominee probably would. I don't particularly think that it'll extend to actually overturning Roe v Wade, but yeah, the guy's going to take a conservative viewpoint on the issue that might pose a problem for other decisions. He's also not a fan of the ACA, but again, this seems to be a partisan issue, not something specific to this candidate.

Thus, the biggest reasons why folks are opposed to him seem to be that he's a republican leaning justice*.

I suppose one could make a case for his expansive view on presidential powers, but IIRC, his article about that was "congress ought to pass a law increasing the presidents powers", not a claim that the president has such a power already. In fact, advocating that congress needs to pass a law would seem to imply a belief that the president does NOT currently possess such powers. Said article also was in 2009, and the context had nothing to do with Trump. So, this particular objection seems comparatively weak to me. But, anyways, these are the actual objections, and the accusation seems to be merely a handy issue to fight over.

*There's a lot wrapped up in judges being unbiased and all that, but in practice, all of us can look at the voting history of the existing judges and prospects, and this degree of lean is utterly typical.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:23 pm UTC
by commodorejohn
Thesh wrote:It should also be noted that there is solid proof that he has also committed perjury.

Yeah, this. In a sane world, that would be an automatic disqualification right there.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:41 pm UTC
by gd1
Tyndmyr wrote:
gd1 wrote:Except that this isn't a job application where he won't have a job, it's a promotion to c level in the company and it can be done later. Raking back this decision being unlikely is also a factor. If someone doesn't meet the requirements (or there's concern about it) for the promotion academic or in this case moral you either investigate if it's worth it to keep them or move to the next candidate.

Like I said earlier, if the president had a level of quality in his morality I'd be inclined to give leeway, but like a bad credit debtor I'm going to want a lot more assurances. I'm only dealing with him at all because he's the only game in town right now.

Edit: I got ninja'd? On a forum with this pace? How does that even happen?


Except, of course, in a political sense, it probably can't be done later. That's the crux of all this.


Yeah, I'm not sure how to feel about that. Though this is ordinarily where credit for the character of the presidency would be the deal maker. Never predicted a case where it would be a point against a deal. Though, with recent trends, I guess I should have seen it coming.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:56 pm UTC
by Opus_723
Tyndmyr wrote:
No change as in "no impact". Getting him disqualified would be a change as a result of the accusation.


Why is the neutral, fair option to give him everything he wants? If that's neutral, what the hell is the Pro-Kavanaugh bias option? We give him cookies, too?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:05 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
commodorejohn wrote:
Thesh wrote:It should also be noted that there is solid proof that he has also committed perjury.

Yeah, this. In a sane world, that would be an automatic disqualification right there.


The perjury question seems open. https://www.vox.com/2018/9/7/17829320/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-hearing-perjury The two statements are potentially troublesome, but it looks as if it is a common legal opinion that they are clearly not perjury. It doesn't even appear as if Democrats are accusing him of such, though it's somewhat close. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/17/did-brett-kavanaugh-give-false-testimony-under-oath/?utm_term=.dec08f0e0516

So, calling it solidly proven is definitely an overstatement. Is he trying to distance himself from conservative missteps? Sure. Did he perjure himself in doing so? It appears that even the opposition doesn't generally think so.

gd1 wrote:Yeah, I'm not sure how to feel about that. Though this is ordinarily where credit for the character of the presidency would be the deal maker. Never predicted a case where it would be a point against a deal. Though, with recent trends, I guess I should have seen it coming.


Agreed that we can't merely rely on Trump's judgement.

We're largely forced to decide between competing narratives of "guilty of a somewhat loosely defined crime taking place at an undefined place and time with no corroborating evidence" and "innocent, but is being accused because it is politically convenient. The accuser is an anti-Trump activist, and has taken steps to avoid others discovering information about the accusation. The supposed witness gave conflicting information, then admitted it was false."

We cannot be certain that the latter is true, but we have not been given any reason to make the former assessment reliable. The latter explanation does match up with all known information to this point.

Opus_723 wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
No change as in "no impact". Getting him disqualified would be a change as a result of the accusation.


Why is the neutral, fair option to give him everything he wants? If that's neutral, what the hell is the Pro-Kavanaugh bias option? We give him cookies, too?


That's what innocent until proven guilty means. You don't treat a defendant as half-guilty unless he proves his innocence.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:09 pm UTC
by Euphonium
Tyndmyr wrote:That's what innocent until proven guilty means. You don't treat a defendant as half-guilty unless he proves his innocence.


More bad-faith argumentation.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is used in courts because courts are often in the business of deciding whether or not you should have something that's already yours, such as your life, freedom, or property, taken from you, whether as punishment (in criminal cases) or to make someone you wronged whole (in civil cases).

But a confirmation hearing isn't a court. They're not taking from him anything that's already his. Here, there's no potential for harm to come to him, while there's a lot of potential for harm to come to the public credibility of our judicial institutions, democratic framework, etc. So why should they be bound by the same standards? Why shouldn't we be exceptionally risk-averse?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:10 pm UTC
by Leovan
Opus_723 wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
No change as in "no impact". Getting him disqualified would be a change as a result of the accusation.


Why is the neutral, fair option to give him everything he wants? If that's neutral, what the hell is the Pro-Kavanaugh bias option? We give him cookies, too?


Pro would be him suing his accuser for defamation and being rewarded cash for emotional damages.

The status quo is he's a circuit judge and the president wants to make him a supreme court justice. If the accuser can't prove guilt, we go back to him being a circuit judge and the president wants to make him a supreme court justice.

When people call for him to have to prove his innocence I always wonder what proof he could bring that shows he's innocent? As of now, the accuser can't remember the date or the place, so he can't even prove he wasn't at the party. If he was, it's even harder to prove he wasn't in a room with her, etc. It's extremely hard to prove a negative, especially when you have no data on the supposed event.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:13 pm UTC
by The Great Hippo
Leovan wrote:When people call for him to have to prove his innocence I always wonder what proof he could bring that shows he's innocent? As of now, the accuser can't remember the date or the place, so he can't even prove he wasn't at the party. If he was, it's even harder to prove he wasn't in a room with her, etc. It's extremely hard to prove a negative, especially when you have no data on the supposed event.
I... don't think anyone's really calling for him to prove his innocence? As an above poster pointed out, this is more like me interviewing a guy for a job, only for someone to accuse him of doing something awful ages ago. I can examine the claim and determine whether or not it's credible and should be part of my calculation for hiring him or not -- and hey, if he himself wants to respond to the accusation and pony up some evidence that's relevant? Go nuts.

But he doesn't have to prove anything. He's not being charged. He's just getting an extended job interview.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:20 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
Euphonium wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:That's what innocent until proven guilty means. You don't treat a defendant as half-guilty unless he proves his innocence.


More bad-faith argumentation.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is used in courts because courts are often in the business of deciding whether or not you should have something that's already yours, such as your life, freedom, or property, taken from you, whether as punishment (in criminal cases) or to make someone you wronged whole (in civil cases).

But a confirmation hearing isn't a court. They're not taking from him anything that's already his. So why should they be bound by the same standards?


Even on civil court levels of proof, preponderance of evidence, there's no reason to think he's guilty.

It's literally just an accusation. And one that scores fairly low in terms of credibility. The stalling and attempts to put preconditions on testifying hurt credibility. The lack of detail hurts credibility. At the end of a day, we have an accusation and literally no other reason to believe it. Now, it could still be true, but even the accuser does not seem interested in demonstrating that.

Why should republicans care? Why should the general public? The partisan struggle here is not terribly well hidden, why should we view it as anything more than that?

Leovan wrote:Pro would be him suing his accuser for defamation and being rewarded cash for emotional damages.


Fair. He'd need to prove the falsehood, or at least make a reasonable case for it in a civil court, but that might be possible. If he is passed over for selection as a result, that'd suffice to show damages. That would be a reasonably pro-Kav stance.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:24 pm UTC
by Leovan
The Great Hippo wrote:
Leovan wrote:When people call for him to have to prove his innocence I always wonder what proof he could bring that shows he's innocent? As of now, the accuser can't remember the date or the place, so he can't even prove he wasn't at the party. If he was, it's even harder to prove he wasn't in a room with her, etc. It's extremely hard to prove a negative, especially when you have no data on the supposed event.
I... don't think anyone's really calling for him to prove his innocence? As an above poster pointed out, this is more like me interviewing a guy for a job, only for someone to accuse him of doing something awful ages ago. I can examine the claim and determine whether or not it's credible and should be part of my calculation for hiring him or not -- and hey, if he himself wants to pony up some evidence that's relevant? Go nuts.

But he doesn't have to prove anything. He's not being charged. He's just getting an extended job interview.


I was going off Mutex:
Mutex wrote:It's interesting that some people seem to think that "not taking either person's side" still means Kavanaugh gets appointed to the supreme court for life. Because that totally doesn't amount to taking his side. Making him a justice of the supreme court.

The way I see it, since we don't have enough evidence to know Ford's accusations are true, Kavanaugh doesn't go to jail for sexual assault. Since we don't have enough evidence that Kavanaugh's side of the story is true, he doesn't get to be a justice of the supreme court. That seems like a more neutral position to me. Given the enormous impact a justice's appointment has, "not guilty" isn't a high enough standard. The "actual innocence" standard should apply instead.


This seems to me to be calling for him having to prove his innocence. I don't think you need to prove him guilty beyond a doubt to disqualify him from a promotion, but you need a bit more than a testimony that recalls no details on the actual event. If you get a mountain of circumstantial evidence like Roy Moore, it's a clear call that you should think twice.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:25 pm UTC
by Euphonium
Tyndmyr wrote:
Euphonium wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:That's what innocent until proven guilty means. You don't treat a defendant as half-guilty unless he proves his innocence.


More bad-faith argumentation.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is used in courts because courts are often in the business of deciding whether or not you should have something that's already yours, such as your life, freedom, or property, taken from you, whether as punishment (in criminal cases) or to make someone you wronged whole (in civil cases).

But a confirmation hearing isn't a court. They're not taking from him anything that's already his. So why should they be bound by the same standards?


Even on civil court levels of proof, preponderance of evidence, there's no reason to think he's guilty.

And as I explained in an earlier response to an earlier bad-faith post of yours, the risk to him doesn't even rise to what he'd be exposed to in a civil court.

It's literally just an accusation. And one that scores fairly low in terms of credibility.

Now you're into full-on rape-enabler territory.

What reason, exactly, would Christine Blasey Ford have to subject herself to literal threats to her safety and well-being unless she was fucking serious about it?

You're part of rape culture, you know that?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:28 pm UTC
by The Great Hippo
Leovan wrote:This seems to me to be calling for him having to prove his innocence. I don't think you need to prove him guilty beyond a doubt to disqualify him from a promotion, but you need a bit more than a testimony that recalls no details on the actual event. If you get a mountain of circumstantial evidence like Roy Moore, it's a clear call that you should think twice.
I mean, uh... she definitely recalls details of the event. To go back to your previous post, for a second:
Leovan wrote:Pro would be him suing his accuser for defamation and being rewarded cash for emotional damages.
...you are aware that there's corroborating reports from her therapist from years ago, right? Like, she was clearly sexually assaulted -- or at least believes she was. That's pretty much an indisputable fact (unless you're just going to presume women randomly make up shit about sexual assaults to privately tell their therapists about). The best you could argue here against her is that she's grossly "misremembering" what happened and/or who was there.

Unless you genuinely believe women save up their experiences with sexual assault like coupons you can cash in for political gain at later dates.