Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Badger]

8 hours ago, Starlord said:

So Mrs. Ford asked Feinstein that she not reveal the letter.  Clearly she ignored that.

 

A clearly underhanded political maneuver, yet for me it also lends credibility to Ford.

 

Revealed it weeks late apparently,  either respect her wishes and don't reveal or reveal it ASAP.  Nothing against Ford,  but I clearly do with Feinstein on this matter.  I can only interpret this as a pure political move on Feinstein's part to maximize its value (I would like to hear Feinstein on this matter, so I possibly could be proven wrong).  To more answer, Mega's statement, it obviously cant be a smear job if true.  But, the more I keep thinking on this case, the more perplexing and bizarre Feinstein's actions are becoming (from my non-political eyes of course).

 

In any case, it unfortunate that like anything political, righteous indignation won the day over actually any desire for truth.  But, I am not surprised on even a mild level  

 

  

[megaplayboy]

8 minutes ago, Badger said:

I agree with you on the smear job (mostly*), disagree on the temperament.  He did a pretty good job of restraint, with the exception of interrupting questions.  And I am not a fan. (admittedly I only saw on my break from Orrin Hatch to Hirano, so if something before or after I cant comment.

 

*though I don't particularly understand why Feinstein allegedly seems to have sat on this info.  And if the reasons I suspect of are true, then I have absolutely no respect for her.  And Hirano is pretty low on my respect-o-meter last week with her little rant on men shutting up.  Despite, her opinion, men do have a right to defend themselves.

 

I found the GOP a little too anxious to grandstand on the "horrible injustice", and the Dems too interested in anger baiting than getting any real info.  Which I imagine was vice-versa during her testimony.  In other nothing conclusive happened and our opinions on who did what will merely reflect our political inclinations.

 

 

 

 

She didn't "sit on" the information.   Ford specifically asked not just for confidentiality,  she asked her not to share the letter.  

The nominee told numerous small lies during his testimony today.  Particularly about the meaning of various phrases in the yearbook.  And he largely stonewalled the Democratic questions.  The general demeanor of the Republican members did them no service.  For all the talk about grandstanding,  I note that all the yelling and shouting and backtalk was coming from one side of the aisle and it was not the left side.

[Badger]

Just now, megaplayboy said:

She didn't "sit on" the information.   Ford specifically asked not just for confidentiality,  she asked her not to share the letter.  

The nominee told numerous small lies during his testimony today.  Particularly about the meaning of various phrases in the yearbook.  And he largely stonewalled the Democratic questions.  The general demeanor of the Republican members did them no service.  For all the talk about grandstanding,  I note that all the yelling and shouting and backtalk was coming from one side of the aisle and it was not the left side.

 

So, according to that she just lied to Ford?

[megaplayboy]

Just now, Badger said:

 

So, according to that she just lied to Ford?

No.  The letter was forwarded to the FBI to investigate and was leaked by someone shortly afterward.   Then when Ford was swarmed by reporters she decided to go public.

[Badger]

Ok, I'll give some leeway on the matter on Feinstein.  In any case the 2 Dems I saw most of were Blumenthal and Hirano, and they were very much a disappointment.

 

I wish I got see Ford's testimony, but at this point I think I can probably only watch by splitting my mind into 3 different parts and to see which part can get most pissed off.  

[薔薇語]

7 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

No.  The letter was forwarded to the FBI to investigate and was leaked by someone shortly afterward.   Then when Ford was swarmed by reporters she decided to go public.

 

The Senator said she forwarded the allegations. And if it was her intent to forward the documents the whole time, why not do so immediately? Her own actions betray her claims. 

 

La Rose. 

 

 

[TheDarkness]

On 9/26/2018 at 9:35 PM, 薔薇語 said:

 

 

Again, he didn't characterize himself as a saint. Even people of good character are allowed to get drunk. I can almost guarantee that everyone here drinks far more than I, but I would never use that as an excuse to impune one's character. Nor is being supportive of women exclusive with flirting. 

 

It seems as though lots of folks are establishing caricatures of what the person has actually said. The pursuit of justice requires us to try our eternal best to set aside such exaggerations. 

 

La Rose. 

You forgot the other quote I put in the post you pulled that from. " I spent most of my time in high school focused on academics, sports, church, and service."

 

THAT one he specifically stresses while downplaying the drinking, but people on both sides who knew him during that time have painted him during that time as a heavy drinker, and no one gets labelled as a heavy drinker for a few beers. Either he is in denial, which pretty much only happens when one is still a heavy drinker, or he's lying. He repeatedly brings up stuff like the quote above in response to the drinking thing to minimize it, and it's not everyone else's fault that apparently, he can't even admit to drinking in excess in high school when he obviously did.

 

I'm sorry, but he does not come off as credible. Further, she seems entirely credible, and the whole idea that she is misremembering seems a bit of a stretch, trying to make the problem with eyewitness testimony apply to aspects that it simply doesn't apply to.

 

He's trying to dodge both any claim that he was a heavy drinker and that he was a rapist, and it's almost like he's fighting against the first harder than the second, which is really, really not helping his cause. People on both sides seem to have a clearer memory of what kind of drinker he was, and none of those match his claims in a public hearing before senate.

 

And what on earth does 'Nor is being supportive of women exclusive with flirting. ' have to do with rape accusations?

[薔薇語]

Being focused on school, church, sports, etc., does not make one a saint. Does not mean one has done nothing less than great. Nor are those focuses exclusionary of drinking. I have known top students who drank and did drugs in school. Doesn't mean that they were of poor character but that they were merely mortals. And we should never expect one of us to be more than mere mortals with all of our virtues and vices. He hasn't painted himself as a saint and strawmanning him as such isn't helpful or productive.  

 

That quote of mine has a typo. Should be 'exclude'. 

 

La Rose. 

[megaplayboy]

The American Bar Association is now calling for a delay in the confirmation vote pending an investigation by the FBI.  The logic of not having the FBI follow up leads, take statements and interview persons of interest such as Mark Judge, eludes me.  It could be done in a week.  It has been done before under similar circumstances. 

[Old Man]

Especially as the evidence piles up. We have what, three credible witnesses attesting under oath that Kavanaugh assaulted girls; Mark Judge’s book about his friend “O’Kavanaugh”; Judge’s former gf offering to testify to the FBI; a likely date for the “party” in question based on Ford’s testimony, Judge’s book, and Kavanaugh’s calendar; and assorted witnesses corroborating the frat-boy atmosphere and reputation of Kavanaugh at the time. This is enough evidence to convict a Cosby, Sandusky, or random Catholic priest, let alone block a nomination for SCOTUS. 

[Old Man]

Trump and the GOP senators are blaming the woman they hired to question a woman for not questioning her hard enough to wreck her credibility: https://amp.businessinsider.com/trump-rachel-mitchell-questioning-christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-2018-9

[Lord Liaden]

2 hours ago, 薔薇語 said:

Being focused on school, church, sports, etc., does not make one a saint. Does not mean one has done nothing less than great. Nor are those focuses exclusionary of drinking. I have known top students who drank and did drugs in school. Doesn't mean that they were of poor character but that they were merely mortals. And we should never expect one of us to be more than mere mortals with all of our virtues and vices. He hasn't painted himself as a saint and strawmanning him as such isn't helpful or productive. 

 

The implications of the word "saint" seem to be the sticking point in this discussion. Kavanaugh never used it to describe himself. However, his initial description of his own conduct in his youth clearly asserted that it was exemplary, which no one else from that time and place in his life has corroborated, and quite a few have contradicted. He was at the very least being disingenuous, and has subsequently had to walk back his self-characterization. If this was a trial that would have little evidentiary significance, but for a job interview it doesn't bode well.

[Lord Liaden]

3 minutes ago, Old Man said:

Trump and the GOP senators are blaming the woman they hired to question a woman for not questioning her hard enough to wreck her credibility: https://amp.businessinsider.com/trump-rachel-mitchell-questioning-christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-2018-9

 

In other words, they wanted an attack dog who would take all the heat for being ruthless, to the detriment of her own career, so they could keep their hands clean.

 

Stephen Colbert had an interesting take on this:

 

 

[archer]

On 9/26/2018 at 9:59 AM, Iuz the Evil said:

As long as you aren't running for elected office, I agree with you.

 

There's no requirement anywhere to release your income tax filings for the public to look over.

 

You have to fill out financial disclosure statements if you are an elected federal official or high enough in the executive branch. Some of those people get in trouble from time to time for not being thorough enough on those.

 

You have to fill out financial disclosure statements if you are a candidate for federal office.

 

All those disclosures become available to the public.

 

But there's no obligation to release your income tax statements to the public, whether you are a candidate or an elected official. If you want that to become a requirement, you need to talk to your congressman and senators about passing a law to require it.

 

I don't respect this president or the motives he might have had for refusing to release his income taxes for public scrutiny. But he is well within his rights to refuse to do so just as I was within my rights to campaign against him from July 31, 2015 until around June 2017.

[薔薇語]

3 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

The implications of the word "saint" seem to be the sticking point in this discussion. Kavanaugh never used it to describe himself. However, his initial description of his own conduct in his youth clearly asserted that it was exemplary, which no one else from that time and place in his life has corroborated, and quite a few have contradicted. He was at the very least being disingenuous, and has subsequently had to walk back his self-characterization. If this was a trial that would have little evidentiary significance, but for a job interview it doesn't bode well.

 

I don't think characterizing what he said as him claiming to be "exemplary" is fair either. Drinking, even to excess, in one's youth is hardly grounds to condemn someone. And the fact he hasn't gone out of his way to say he drank a lot is hardly surprising. He either thinks he didnt* or doesn't want that to be the narrative for the very real concern akin to Dean's idea above. 

 

*And this is a subjective standard. Drinking a bottle or two a night to some is perfectly normal. But to me, a person who drinks less than once a year, drinking more than once a week makes you a drunkard. 

 

Again, I feel we are mischaracterizing his statements and trying to demand this holier than thou standard from a mere mortal. 

 

La Rose. 

 

 

 

 

[薔薇語]

1 hour ago, archer said:

But there's no obligation to release your income tax statements to the public, whether you are a candidate or an elected official. If you want that to become a requirement, you need to talk to your congressman and senators about passing a law to require it.

 

I wonder and doubt any such standard would be ruled constitutional if challenged for any constitutional office (Senate, House, Pres.). If made law, I doubt anyone would actually challenge it, too. 

 

La Rose. 

 

[archer]

On 9/26/2018 at 12:58 PM, DShomshak said:

 I wonder if the blocking of Merrick Garland has something to do with current Republican intransigence on Kavanaugh. They escalated from trench warfare to scorched earth, total warfare; that no rules would constrain their attempt to win a total victory. They may feel they can't afford to back down, ever, to any degree. If they showed any weakness, they would invite worse attack and lose the support of their base. Pinker's Better Angels of our Nature has a good discussion of this prickly need to never back down in cultures that lack the restraining -- but also the protecting -- hand of law.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

Well, if you look at how this story came to the attention of the public, people behind the scenes were shopping around the story of Ford's allegation to Democrat senators and various media outlets like the Washington Post.

 

The Post and others couldn't publish the story because when they looked into it, there was no corroborating evidence for the accusation. Even the accuser herself doesn't remember the date it supposedly happened and none of the people who were supposedly in the room have stepped up to confirm the story. The media couldn't move forward to publish a story like it was at that point in time without evidence because they'd be sued for defamation of character.

 

Senator Feinstein, according to what she said, was frustrated that the media hadn't published the story and made a public statement about the allegation. A Senator, while on the floor of the Senate, can say whatever she wants without fear of any legal repercussions like being sued for slander. And while she didn't make her statement on the floor of the Senate, it has become difficult to successfully sue a Senator regardless of where she makes a public statement even though she is only technically given a free pass while on the floor of the Senate.

 

Since a Senator was making a statement about something, all the various media outlets were freed up to publish stories about the alleged incident based on the fact that they are covering what various public figures are talking about (rather than pushing forward the allegation themselves).

 

Feinstein wanted the FBI to investigate and other Democrat Senators stepped forward immediately to echo that demand.

 

Trump is the one person who could order the FBI to investigate. But he immediately responded to Feinstein (before any more details became public) and essentially stated she was full of crap and that there would be no investigation.

 

Trump can't go back on those initial statements without flip-flopping, something which he has made clear he sees as a sign of weakness. Or else he would have to absorb lots of new information (about the allegations), when he is notorious for trying to avoid absorbing new detailed information (such as insisting that his daily foreign policy briefing be only bullet points and no longer than one page regardless of what's going on in the world).

 

So Trump isn't backing down partially because he idoesn't want to "show weakness".

 

But I personally thinks it goes deeper.

 

Investigating sexual crimes, even for federal employees, isn't part of the FBI's normal job (rather that is a job for local law enforcement). But if Trump sets a precedent of his administration ordering the FBI to investigate alleged sexual crimes, it becomes much more difficult to justify keeping the FBI out of such future controversies.

 

Trump has admitted on tape that he has sexually assaulted women (dictionary definition, even if not necessarily according to the parameters of that state's law). The guy is in his 70's and has probably been doing that kind of thing for at least 50 years.

 

If Trump ordered an FBI investigation into Kavaugh, Trump is probably sure in his own mind that there'd be 20-40 accusers lined up against him within the month and the Democrats would be calling for an FBI investigation into all of that as well (either alone or as part of the impeachment proceedings).

 

Whether Kavanaugh is guilty or innocent is immaterial to Trump's behavior: Trump would refuse to order an FBI investigation either way. Trump doesn't know whether Kavanaugh is guilty because Kavanaugh, if he is guilty, isn't stupid enough to tell that to a president who has extreme trouble keeping his mouth shut. Trump probably doesn't want to know whether Kavanaugh is guilty and Trump, given how little empathy he displays on a vast range of subjects, probably doesn't care if Kavaugh is guilty.

 

In the most extreme case, Trump rather than being cornered into ordering an FBI investigation, would be much more likely to force Kavanaugh into withdrawing and remove the reason for there being a call for an FBI investigation.

 

As for the "Republicans", Trump has made it clear that he expects their backing on major issues or he'll cut off their party funding, marginalize and belittle them, and recruit people to primary them and force them out of office. I expect enough of them would vote against Kavanaugh if there's some tangible evidence he's guilty of something (evidence not accusation) that he wouldn't be confirmed. But "Republican" officeholders publicly pushing the president to order an FBI investigation when it isn't clear that an investigation would come up with anything which would disqualify Kavanaugh? That's a big enough political risk that I doubt many of them would do it. In their political calculation, they'd be ticking off a president who wouldn't forget it in order to appease a public which would forget it very quickly.

[archer]

3 hours ago, 薔薇語 said:

 

I don't think characterizing what he said as jim claiming to be "exemplary" is fair either. Drinking, even to excess, on one's youth is hardly grounds to condemn someone. And the fact he hasn't gone out of his way to say he drank a lot is hardly surprising. He either thinks he didnt* or doesn't want that to be the narrative for the very real concern akin to Dean's idea above. 

 

*And this is a subjective standard. Drinking a can or two a night to some is perfectly normal. But to me, a person who drinks less than once a year, drinking more than once a week makes you a drunkard. 

 

Again, I feel we are mischaracterizing his statements and trying to demand this holier than thou standard from a mere mortal. 

 

La Rose.

 

"Drinking to excess" is inherently an arbitrary judgement. Many alcoholics don't think they drink to excess nor do many frat boys who regularly get obliterated.

 

Some people vomit easily when they drink, others have a cast iron stomach. Remembering forty years later that someone vomited is easier than forty years later remembering all the times that person didn't vomit.

 

I didn't drink at all until I was 54, then I my first and only sip: Redd's Apple Ale because my niece was drinking it and I was curious. Not a life-changing event and I wouldn't want to repeat it, more sad about breaking my record of not drinking.

 

To me, it's hard to think in my head that if someone is drinking that they aren't drinking to excess. Well, I guess I know it in my head but that isn't what my gut tells me. (I saw you take a sip of beer! You are drinking too much!!!)

 

I consciously tried to be an upstanding person in high school and college, being religious, and all that crap because I wanted to go into politics and hold elected office someday. And because I thought of myself as a genuinely nice person. But you could find people who could tell you about me breaking a federal law (funny story), playing strip poker badly, having to cheat my way through a statistics final because of the first incident in what has become a lifelong neurological problem, sneaking a crossbow in when I went to hear a speech by a congressman who a couple of years later was a presidential candidate then a VP nominee, etc.

 

But you could find dozens more who would tell you that they expected me to be a minister or some other type of do-gooder. And you'd probably find that even most of the people who know all the "dirt" on me thought I was a nice guy and would I'd turn out to be a great guy regardless.

 

I can't say it makes me trust Kavaugh when I see him playing up the good memories and downplaying the bad. I think people who are nominated for the court have a responsibility to truth and their oath of office to make every attempt to be truthful. Maybe it's naive to expect that, and I don't expect that to actually happen. But that's an ideal we should strive toward, in my opinion.

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, 薔薇語 said:

 

I don't think characterizing what he said as jim claiming to be "exemplary" is fair either. Drinking, even to excess, on one's youth is hardly grounds to condemn someone. And the fact he hasn't gone out of his way to say he drank a lot is hardly surprising. He either thinks he didnt* or doesn't want that to be the narrative for the very real concern akin to Dean's idea above. 

 

*And this is a subjective standard. Drinking a can or two a night to some is perfectly normal. But to me, a person who drinks less than once a year, drinking more than once a week makes you a drunkard. 

 

Again, I feel we are mischaracterizing his statements and trying to demand this holier than thou standard from a mere mortal. 

 

La Rose.

 

In an interview Kavanaugh gave to Fox News, he said, "I went to an all-boys Catholic high school. I was focused on academics and athletics, going to church every Sunday at Little Flower, working on my service projects, and friendship – friendship with my fellow classmates, and friendship with the girls from the local all-girls Catholic schools." He also denied not just sexual impropriety, but having sex at all during high school and "for many years thereafter." If you don't believe the word "exemplary" suits how Kavanaugh characterized his behavior at that time, what word would you suggest?

 

The point raised by the above is not whether he drank or not, not even how much, or whether or not that's acceptable. The point, per evidence from multiple other people who knew him at that time, is that Kavanaugh misrepresented his conduct in the context of determining his fitness for one of the highest offices in the country. That speaks to his honesty, his motivations, and his character, and casts doubt on his denials of the more reprehensible behavior he's been accused of.

[薔薇語]

16 minutes ago, archer said:

To me, it's hard to think in my head that if someone is drinking that they aren't drinking to excess. Well, I guess I know it in my head but that isn't what my gut tells me. (I saw you take a sip of beer! You are drinking too much!!!)

 

 

This I can relate to! When I drink it is only because it's a social occasion that seems to require it. I can remember getting a housewarming gift of a can of nice beer here in Japan. It sat in my fridge for 2 and 1/2 years until I gave it to the person who replaced me at work as a housewarming gift.

 

A few years back when I was feeling a bit depressed because I wasn't getting out and meeting people, I thought that it would be a good idea to buy some liquor try and drink it at home as a mood booster to go out. Those two bottles are still sitting in my fridge 3 years later.

 

I sometimes even tease my girlfriend when she goes out and drinks and call her an alchy and she drinks less than once every couple months.

 

La Rose. 

[assault]

Just for comparison, here is a New Zealand politician. OK, on Colbert, so very softly handled, but still:

 

[archer]

3 minutes ago, assault said:

Just for comparison, here is a New Zealand politician. OK, on Colbert, so very softly handled, but still:

 

 

The head of the Labor Party went into labor while in office.

[TheDarkness]

7 hours ago, 薔薇語 said:

Being focused on school, church, sports, etc., does not make one a saint. Does not mean one has done nothing less than great. Nor are those focuses exclusionary of drinking. I have known top students who drank and did drugs in school. Doesn't mean that they were of poor character but that they were merely mortals. And we should never expect one of us to be more than mere mortals with all of our virtues and vices. He hasn't painted himself as a saint and strawmanning him as such isn't helpful or productive.  

 

That quote of mine has a typo. Should be 'exclude'. 

 

La Rose. 

You're skipping the part of the post you're responding to that points out he solely does his virtue signalling when he's trying to undermine claims of drinking and/or rape allegations.

 

You might want to consider that while you claim others have a bias, you might not be exempt.

 

Also, I was actually trying to clarify when I asked what what 'Nor is being supportive of women exclusive with flirting. ' have to do with rape accusations? This statement seems out of nowhere,

[megaplayboy]

He lied about fairly obvious stuff--the meaning of "the Devil's Triangle", e.g.  Used to be that Lindsay Graham really cared about lying under oath.  He was the House impeachment manager when they impeached Clinton for lying once under oath.  

 

[薔薇語]

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

In an interview Kavanaugh gave to Fox News, he said, "I went to an all-boys Catholic high school. I was focused on academics and athletics, going to church every Sunday at Little Flower, working on my service projects, and friendship – friendship with my fellow classmates, and friendship with the girls from the local all-girls Catholic schools." He also denied not just sexual impropriety, but having sex at all during high school and "for many years thereafter." If you don't believe the word "exemplary" suits how Kavanaugh characterized his behavior at that time, what word would you suggest?

 

The point raised by the above is not whether he drank or not, not even how much, or whether or not that's acceptable. The point, per evidence from multiple other people who knew him at that time, is that Kavanaugh misrepresented his conduct in the context of determining his fitness for one of the highest offices in the country. That speaks to his honesty, his motivations, and his character, and casts doubt on his denials of the more reprehensible behavior he's been accused of.

It is less about the word choice but the view folks choosing it are expressing. 

Lord Liaden, do you think being "focused on academics and athletics, going to church..." precludes one from also drinking? Do you think someone who drinks is definitionally incapable of being "focused on academics" etc? Are these mutually exclusive in your mind? If so, why so? If not, then perhaps you can start to understand where I am coming from. Does drinking sully one's character? No. 

People seemed very oddly focused on the Judge's drinking as a kid and seem to be using that as a way to sully his name. Most everyone here probably drank in highschool, especially if they are of that generation. Most everyone here has probably drank to some subjective sense of extreme (Even teetotaller me is a drunkard by Archer's standards 0.0).  But if I asked most any of you if you were good kids, a great number of you would likely answer yes. You would likely point to good actions as signs of positive character. No one would go out of their way to express some negative characteristic, especially if doing so would play into a terrible narrative of you as a violent rapist. As Archer pointed above above as it relates to drinking and I more broadly before that, memory is a fickle thing. To quote Archer's good point "Some people vomit easily when they drink, others have a cast iron stomach. Remembering forty years later that someone vomited is easier than forty years later remembering all the times that person didn't vomit." Our memory and minds play tricks on us. I have vomited from alcohol precisely once in my life when I was 21. But if you were to ask my roommate at the time about my ability to handle alcohol, he is far more likely to recall that activity despite is low modality than the few times where I drank just as much consequence free. 

 

The judge is under extraordinary scrutiny. He has every reasonable incentive to play up his positive characteristics and to avoid negative ones just as I don't mention how much I hate most sports when I hang out with my sports loving friends - that is not the appropriate time to express those thoughts. Nor does his talking up his positive characters preclude him from having negative ones like drinking in highschool. And drinking in highschool is by no means an stepping stone to violent rapist. If we want to question the veracity of his statements, then lets actually assess what he actually said, not caricatures of it.

La Rose.