US Politics: Donnie and the Mystery of the Anonymous Op-Ed

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

He wasn't on the list that Gorsuch got supplied on.

Please cite.  

[Fragile Bird]

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

I should know better... But I'll beg to differ. The problem about lowering the burden of proof in this case means it's then lowered for good, for all cases even remotely similar. That's a very powerful weapon to grant to whoever is in the opposition.

I totally disagree. You are not lowering any standard here, he's not been charged with a crime and is not in court. 

He is being considered for a life time position in the highest court in the land. All aspects of his character are being examined. He wasn't a 15 year old, he was a 17 year old. He was in the last year of high school, about to go to university. In my experience guys who were grabbing younger girls and assaulting them while drunk in the last year of high school didn't clean up their act in the summer before university. They went on to be frat boys in university who pulled girls on a bed and piled on top of them there as well. Many judges have not made the cut because of decades old skeletons in their closet.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I should know better... But I'll beg to differ. The problem about lowering the burden of proof in this case means it's then lowered for good, for all cases even remotely similar. That's a very powerful weapon to grant to whoever is in the opposition.

Again, this isn't prison time, this is a job interview. Are you really not okay with the burden of proof being lowered to 'credible accusations of rape'? Would you want to hire someone if they were credibly accused of raping someone and you had a lot of options? 

The reason the burden of proof for criminal cases is so high is because the consequences are so high. The consequences of not getting a SCOTUS nomination are basically...you aren't the SCOTUS. It doesn't preclude that person from keeping their old job, getting other jobs, etc. Bork's life wasn't ruined. 

 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Please cite.  

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-expands-list-of-possible-supreme-court-picks/ and 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominees.html

And here's more:

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/why-kavanaugh-wasnt-on-trumps-original-lists-and-why-he-was-added.php

 

[King Ned Stark]

5 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

"You guys aren't interested in discourse" says the guy who admittedly barely pays attention, doesn't try to keep up with current events, and who mostly just posts the latest Tucker Carlson-adjacent mediocre white guy resentment of the day and then collects grievance points when his bullshit gets rejected.

Yep, that’s me, a mediocre white guy.  I never claimed to be more than that, are you a mediocre black guy?  Or is that racist?  I should have taken the time to be more concise, because I should’ve realized that my weakest point (that I’m not a political junkie) would be seized upon.  I did clarify that I read this thread a couple times a week, and get a lot of my news from here; I’ve never seen a single post about him.

I’m sure all of you heard about Ellison, but I know that you guys didn’t spend 8 pages talking about him.  It didn’t fit your narrative.

Saying that it didn’t catch as much coverage because his (Ellison) position is not as important as Kavanaugh, was kind of my point.  

Most of my salient points were soundly ignored (again, that’s my fault), but you seized on a point where I was ignorant of a situation, and then moved on.  I’m a moderate conservative, I have misgivings about the 2nd amendment, abortion, among other things (but from both sides).  But I have to agree to be okay, right?

Again, why was my question for pro-choice people deleted?  You guys have a peculiar way of policing this website.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

Yep, that’s me, a mediocre white guy.  I never claimed to be more than that, are you a mediocre black guy?  Or is that racist?  I should have taken the time to be more concise, because I should’ve realized that my weakest point (that I’m not a political junkie) would be seized upon.  I did clarify that I read this thread a couple times a week, and get a lot of my news from here; I’ve never seen a single post about him.

I’m sure all of you heard about Ellison, but I know that you guys didn’t spend 8 pages talking about him.  It didn’t fit your narrative.

Saying that it didn’t catch as much coverage because his (Ellison) position is not as important as Kavanaugh, was kind of my point.  

Most of my salient points were soundly ignored (again, that’s my fault), but you seized on a point where I was ignorant of a situation, and then moved on.  I’m a moderate conservative, I have misgivings about the 2nd amendment, abortion, among other things (but from both sides).  But I have to agree to be okay, right?

Again, why was my question for pro-choice people deleted?  You guys have a peculiar way of policing this website.

I seem to remember OC Bonnet saying Ellison should resign when the allegations were first made.

[TrueMetis]

20 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I should know better... But I'll beg to differ. The problem about lowering the burden of proof in this case means it's then lowered for good, for all cases even remotely similar. That's a very powerful weapon to grant to whoever is in the opposition. 

Good, not having credible accusations of rape against them should be a bar anyone being nominated for SCOTUS should be able to fly over.

[Guy Kilmore]

16 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

I’m sure all of you heard about Ellison, but I know that you guys didn’t spend 8 pages talking about him.  It didn’t fit your narrative.

The pretty neat thing about a messageboard is those threads are archived, you can always look back to see what people said.

[King Ned Stark]

6 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

"You guys aren't interested in discourse" says the guy who admittedly barely pays attention, doesn't try to keep up with current events, and who mostly just posts the latest Tucker Carlson-adjacent mediocre white guy resentment of the day and then collects grievance points when his bullshit gets rejected.

Ya know, I don’t do social media, and this is the only Internet forum I post on; like 700 posts in seven years.  I’ve tried to be polite and understanding, but there are several, and that’s being conservative, people that are just internet bullies (people that wouldn’t actually say it to someone to their face), add that to how you turned on your own like ME, and guys like you and OG and others should just shut up.  Or call everyone a nazi, that helped you in the last election, right.  You guys are punks and bullies.

[King Ned Stark]

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I seem to remember OC Bonnet saying Ellison should resign when the allegations were first made.

Okay, that’s great.  Why call me a rape apologist?  You don’t see a problem from people of is ilk, that if you don’t agree with me you are evil and should be squashed?

For a forum that sucks up to GRRM about his writing on the nuance of humanity; this forum has really dumbed-down humanity to black versus white.  

[Zorral]

33 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

Yep, that’s me, a mediocre white guy.  I never claimed to be more than that, are you a mediocre black guy?  Or is that racist?  I should have taken the time to be more concise, because I should’ve realized that my weakest point (that I’m not a political junkie) would be seized upon.  I did clarify that I read this thread a couple times a week, and get a lot of my news from here; I’ve never seen a single post about him.

I’m sure all of you heard about Ellison, but I know that you guys didn’t spend 8 pages talking about him.  It didn’t fit your narrative.

Saying that it didn’t catch as much coverage because his (Ellison) position is not as important as Kavanaugh, was kind of my point.  

Most of my salient points were soundly ignored (again, that’s my fault), but you seized on a point where I was ignorant of a situation, and then moved on.  I’m a moderate conservative, I have misgivings about the 2nd amendment, abortion, among other things (but from both sides).  But I have to agree to be okay, right?

Again, why was my question for pro-choice people deleted?  You guys have a peculiar way of policing this website.

Maybe there weren't 8 consecutive pages on Ellison, but there was quite a bit, interspersed between the constant subject of interest that is finance and economic theory / theories, etc..  He is still referred to, often the context of other scandal-plagued politicians and officials, between the constant subjects of interest that take up a great deal of every political thread, finance and economics and elections and polling and voter repression tactics, etc.. But since you don't read here hardly at all, and don't bother with politics in other forums or formats, it's understandable that you are unaware.

 

[DanteGabriel]

22 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

Yep, that’s me, a mediocre white guy.  I never claimed to be more than that, are you a mediocre black guy?  Or is that racist?  I should have taken the time to be more concise, because I should’ve realized that my weakest point (that I’m not a political junkie) would be seized upon.  I did clarify that I read this thread a couple times a week, and get a lot of my news from here; I’ve never seen a single post about him.

I’m sure all of you heard about Ellison, but I know that you guys didn’t spend 8 pages talking about him.  It didn’t fit your narrative.

Saying that it didn’t catch as much coverage because his (Ellison) position is not as important as Kavanaugh, was kind of my point.  

Most of my salient points were soundly ignored (again, that’s my fault), but you seized on a point where I was ignorant of a situation, and then moved on.  I’m a moderate conservative, I have misgivings about the 2nd amendment, abortion, among other things (but from both sides).  But I have to agree to be okay, right?

Again, why was my question for pro-choice people deleted?  You guys have a peculiar way of policing this website.

Here's Bonnot OG saying Ellison should fuck off:

Here's DMC saying he finds the accusations against Ellison credible and that he should suspend his campaign. Started a discussion where there was some debate over the credibility of the accusation, but no one seriously pushed back against the idea that Ellison should be toast if allegations are true:

So what's your point? No one had serious disagreements about what should happen to Keith Ellison, and so libruls are unfair? Or we should have spent more time talking about what a scumbag Keith Ellison is?

 

3 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

Ya know, I don’t do social media, and this is the only Internet forum I post on; like 700 posts in seven years.  I’ve tried to be polite and understanding, but there are several, and that’s being conservative, people that are just internet bullies (people that wouldn’t actually say it to someone to their face), add that to how you turned on your own like ME, and guys like you and OG and others should just shut up.  Or call everyone a nazi, that helped you in the last election, right.  You guys are punks and bullies.

You know what, fuck your whiny, misremembered resentment. ME and I disagreed on the advisability of violence against Nazis. I told ME that I thought his own unwillingness to condone violence against Nazis was probably born of the fact that he wasn't in the Nazis' line of fire, and he agreed that was probably true. We had a real discussion about it. And while I disagreed with him about it and we got salty over it, we hashed it out. I definitely disagreed with Bonnot's calling him a Nazi sympathizer (gosh, board libruls do disagree) and I told him so in these threads and over PMs. When Dr. Pepper went overboard leveling accusations at people, I called her out on it too. I think Bonnot habitually goes overboard in his accusations. But I've come to accept that I'm not going to change his posting style.

All I ever see from you in these threads is whining about how unfair people are to your stupid whataboutist arguments. Find a new row to hoe.

[Rippounet]

29 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Good, not having credible accusations of rape against them should be a bar anyone being nominated for SCOTUS should be able to fly over.

The problem is, everyone can be credibly accused of something bad. Especially when it's said to have happened more than three decades ago.
By that standard, no one could be appointed to the SCOTUS ever again.

Do you really not see the problem here? What happens next time a Democratic president gets a SCOTUS pick? Or gets to make any appointment that the other side sees as crucial? Surely you can see that accusations should be a bit more than "credible."

Good grief I've partied so much myself that I could be "credibly" accused of a shitload of stuff. By your standard I would certainly never get a political appointment...

41 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, this isn't prison time, this is a job interview. Are you really not okay with the burden of proof being lowered to 'credible accusations of rape'? Would you want to hire someone if they were credibly accused of raping someone and you had a lot of options?

Well, if I was about to hire someone for a job (which I have done, as a matter of fact), and someone came out to accuse them of something, with the timing obviously meant to prevent them from getting the job... I'd wonder about the accusation at least as much as I would about the potential recruit. That would be a pretty damn difficult decision to make for me.

[OldGimletEye]

11 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

Do you feel that Karen Monahan’s accusations have been taken seriously?  Does she deserve a full and fair hearing the same as Ford?

Yes she sure in the hell does deserve to have her allegations taken seriously and investigated by some institution, whether that be the media or the DNC or whatever..

Can I ask why you'd think I'd think anything different?

Is this the poor christian white (and conservative) male being unfairly picked on thing again? 

You know, right now conservatives are playin' hardball. They are playin' for keeps. So if you're a conservative sort of person, coming to me whining about how you're just be treated so unfairly or somebody you might identify with is, here is a tip. Take that whiny belly aching bullshit somewhere else. Cause, truly, I don't really give a damn.

As far as the state of the investigation goes, to my knowledge the only institution that is doing one is the DNC. Whether that investigation is well done or whether it is a joke won't be known until it is released by the DNC, which has not been done. 

But to be honest about it, it wouldn't surprise me much if the DNC dropped the ball on this one.

Just because I think the Republican Party is a dogshit party and the world would be better off if it was thrown into a dumpster, gasoline poured on it, and a lit match thrown on it, doesn't mean I always feel the need to play team Democrat in every case.

[Altherion]

14 hours ago, Rippounet said:

That's kind of my point though. In my view, people defining their interests primarily in terms of gender or race for instance subscribe to a form of identity politics that is fundamentally individualistic. Or at least, significantly more individualistic in outlook than "great narratives" like nationalism or marxism.

And this is part of neo-liberalism. The constant need to redefine the identity of individuals along various axes, most of which will seem materially true. By that I mean that gender and ethnicity have a concrete existence, while nations and classes seem abstract on the surface. Hence the recent successes of ethno-nationalism, which is often easier to grasp than universalist-national narratives.

And the suspicion towards notions of public interest is part of it. While it is true that there are many demagogues out there, one cannot deny that there is such a thing as public interest at various geographical levels: local (city, region), national, and global. The suspicion may have been sown in an insidious way over decades, but in my view anyone who distrusts the very notion has already become a neo-liberal at heart by interiorizing the destruction of society that was put forward by the likes of Thatcher.

The notion is not the problem; it's the implementation that can't be trusted. For example, I completely agree that there is such a thing as public interest for, say, New York City, but I have absolutely no faith in the current government of said city to do anything close to this theoretical interest (it collects a truly amazing amount of money and gets amazingly little for the things it spends it on...). This is what I meant when I said the ship has already sailed: with some exceptions, government at all levels has already been captured by private interests. And yes, this leads to more alignment along materially true axes.

14 hours ago, Rippounet said:

And no offense, but I think you are a pretty good example of that. You claim to despise neo-liberalism or identity politics but you have in fact, over several years, been using the rhetoric of neo-liberalism and identity politics on this forum. While I agree with you that the usual liberal-conservative divide is much more artificial than it seems, and somewhat designed to preserve the socio-economic status quo, I still feel that you have been much closer to the neo-liberal doctrine than most contributors here. But I digress, perhaps...

I have opposed neo-liberalism from the point where I first understood what it was (I think it's been nearly a decade now) and I don't see how I can be closer to neo-liberal doctrine than the clear majority on these forums who supported Hillary Clinton (an archetypal neo-liberal if ever there was one) in 2016.

Regarding identity politics... sometimes the only way to fight fire is with fire, even if this carries a small risk of burning everything down. I would be pleased never to use the rhetoric of identity politics again if only everyone else would do the same, but as long as there are groups using such rhetoric, everyone must use it or be at a disadvantage (look at the various "diversity initiatives" and similar vileness). This is material to the struggle against neo-liberalism because, like most phenomena, these groups take the path of least resistance which is not fighting against the neo-liberals (this is really hard), but aligning with the latter in exchange for the right to take something (funding, positions, etc.) from less active groups (this is more or less what happened in the 2016 Democratic primary).

The tactics of identity politics are now so deeply entrenched in certain groups that there is no realistic way to get them to just drop it -- there are entire professions and academic fields whose jobs consist solely of pushing for advantages for one group or another. Thus, the only way to fight this evil is for everyone else to match them rage for rage, self-righteousness for self-righteousness. At that point, fighting other groups is no longer the path of least resistance.

15 hours ago, Rippounet said:

That's a very cynical and rather inaccurate way to describe what is happening. The division isn't coming from the outside, it's being fostered from the inside by people who define the public interest in rather narrow terms and fail to see (or deliberately ignore) the bigger picture.

It's cynical, but it's not inaccurate: by its very nature, division has two sides to it. I named one of them and you named the other.

15 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I don't think it's that difficult. But it's different in each country. More importantly, when you talk of a once-in-a-century leader... You are considering sudden change and turmoil. While I'm thinking in terms of slow evolution and gradual awakening. What I mean by that is that the politicians we know are not that remarkable: people like Sanders, Trump, or Ocasio-Cortez represent deeper movements within American society rather than are exceptional leaders*. In the long-run, what Trump represents is far weaker than what Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez do. It's just that i) we might not live to see the outcome of some political confrontations and ii) there may be great darkness before the dawn.

I do not see slow evolution and gradual awakening accomplishing much. Nearly every incremental change can be twisted until it serves the purposes of the people in power -- and if it can't, they'll circle back to it a few years and have it rolled back. I am not sure that what Sanders represents is ultimately stronger than what Trump represents: after all, Sanders didn't even make it to the general election whereas Trump is President despite the many, many personal flaws which are unique to him. Ocasio-Cortez is not in the same league and despite the best efforts of the media to promote here, I'm not sure that she will ever be. And yes, the possibility of a great darkness before the dawn is not trivial (nor the possibility of great darkness without a dawn), but we might be able to get by with merely the threat of this.

15 hours ago, Rippounet said:

*Ironically, Obama had all the attributes of a great leader. But it turned out he really didn't stand for radical change after all... Or perhaps the time wasn't right yet. He alone would know I suppose. 

If the time wasn't right in middle of the Great Recession, then we're well and truly screwed. However, I think it was simply the nature of the leader.

[fionwe1987]

21 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The problem is, everyone can be credibly accused of something bad.

Chipping in, here...

This isn't true. Everyone can be accused, yes, but not credibly.

Quote

Especially when it's said to have happened more than three decades ago.
By that standard, no one could be appointed to the SCOTUS ever again.

That's a wild exaggeration. There were, if you'll remember, no such accusations about any number of SCOTUS nominees in the past two decades.

Quote

Do you really not see the problem here? What happens next time a Democratic president gets a SCOTUS pick? Or gets to make any appointment that the other side sees as crucial? Surely you can see that accusations should be a bit more than "credible."

 You seem to be conflating accusation with credible accusation. Not all accusations are credible. The accusation that Obama was a Muslim who was born in Kenya and lied about his citizenship was not credible. The accusation that the Clintons murdered Vince Forster were not credible. The accusations that Democrats run a child sex ring from the basement of a pizzeria in DC are not credible. The accusation that Trump was born with Devil's horns that were surgically removed on his first birthday are not credible. 

Quote

Good grief I've partied so much myself that I could be "credibly" accused of a shitload of stuff. By your standard I would certainly never get a political appointment...

That would depend on the nature of the accusations and their credibility, but if you're saying that you can be credibly accused of major crimes, then yes, very probably, you don't deserve a political appointment. 

Quote

Well, if I was about to hire someone for a job (which I have done, as a matter of fact), and someone came out to accuse them of something, with the timing obviously meant to prevent them from getting the job... I'd wonder about the accusation at least as much as I would about the potential recruit. That would be a pretty damn difficult decision to make for me.

The bolded part is pure fabrication. Ford first spoke about this six years ago. She referred to the event to a friend last year. She sent a letter about it to her Congresswoman before Kavanaugh was officially named the nominee. She spent months after he was unsure whether she wanted to reveal her name. And, lastly, had no control over when her name was leaked to the media, thus forcing her hand and changing the cost-benefit calculus of publicly accusing Kavanaugh.

But no one is saying her mere public accusation should tank the nomination. To the contrary, everyone who supports her is calling for a thorough FBI investigation, followed by a public Senate hearing, with the vote pushed to after such investigations are concluded, and all evidence that can be found has been laid bare to allow Senators to make an informed decision.

This is not a weakening of any standards. This is an adherence to a fine standard. What, exactly, is your problem with this exact sequence of events proceeding?

ETA: Also, ask yourself this: why would she name Mark Judge, if this was an 11th hour fabrication to derail Kavanaugh's nomination? Anyone coming up with such a lie would have looked into Judge's public record, and he's clearly friendly to Kavanaugh. It helps her case not at all to have another person in the room who would also say "I don't remember this", or "It definitely didn't happen". More than anything, this, to me is what makes her credible. It is so easy to concoct a story with no other witnesses that adding this person just wouldn't happen. 

[TrueMetis]

24 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The problem is, everyone can be credibly accused of something bad. Especially when it's said to have happened more than three decades ago.
By that standard, no one could be appointed to the SCOTUS ever again.

There's a big difference between "something bad" and rape. I didn't say anyone credibly accused of something bad. I'm talking about rape, though I'm perfectly willing to include other crimes like murder and assault in there as well.

Quote

Do you really not see the problem here? What happens next time a Democratic president gets a SCOTUS pick? Or gets to make any appointment that the other side sees as crucial? Surely you can see that accusations should be a bit more than "credible."

No I don't, at least not with what I'm actually arguing rather than what you say I'm arguing.

Quote

Good grief I've partied so much myself that I could be "credibly" accused of a shitload of stuff. By your standard I would certainly never get a political appointment...

If there's a credible accusation of rape against you no you should not get a political appointment.

 

Is the issue here that we have different definitions of credible?

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

though I'm perfectly willing to include other crimes like murder and assault in there as well.

Gonna be a contrarian here, but "assault" is a pretty broad charge.  Definitely know there's people out there that would say I "assaulted" them in high school and college.  Luckily they all are male.  Wait..

And as for murder, swear there was nothing, other than ol' Dearborn, Michigan..

Anyway, @Rippounet has a point that these things should be subject to scrutiny from both sides.  However, what is not being emphasized is that's exactly what the Dems are trying to do in attempting to allow - or in some cases compel - further testimony.  And the Republicans are stonewalling it.  That's the story, guys.

[TrueMetis]

Fair enough, aggravated assault then. Or at least whatever the American equivalent is.

[DMC]

All I know is my assault these days would not be defined as aggravated by any objective means.