US Politics: Red, Red Whine

[ThinkerX]

Regarding Kavenaugh's accusers, I have two points - one an observation from conversations at work and elsewhere, the second personal.

 

Most of the people I work with were unimpressed with Ford's testimony - including almost all of the women.  They regarded it very much as a he said/she said type fiasco.

 

Second, as I recounted here months ago, I made was involved in some episodes from my younger days that seemed casual and inoffensive at the time but, apparently are not.  Now, should I be fool enough to run for public office, should those past episodes be counted against me?

[Rippounet]

33 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

 the dopey comparison between Trump and Putin/Erdogan suggest the opposite.

Dopey? Trump's similarities with -and admiration for- autocrats is very well documented. Most of these similarities can be seen in Trump's statements and posturing alone. In fact, given his declarations, it's not a stretch to say that he would see being compared to Putin or Erdogan as a compliment.
His many attempts to politicize -and instrumentalize- law enforcement and his attacks against the very principle of a free press are matters of public record, among other examples...
And all that's just the tip of the iceberg, assuming you don't believe any of the stuff that's been leaked or rumored or published in Wolff's and Woodward's books...
Trump is still seriously constrained by US constitutional and institutional norms, but at this point there's no question that he is a would-be autocrat.
And you were talking about self-rebutting statements? That's funny.

[ThinkerX]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

1. I don't mind making a well reasoned critique of the left. In fact, once a while, I might find myself in disagreement with others on the left. However, there is a big difference between making a well reasoned criticism of the left, than just doing mindless "both sidism", which seems to what many self described centrist do.

2. Centrist just might have to make a decision here on what to do, unless they just want to keep on both sidin'. I'm not particularly asking centrist to agree with the left on every point, but what I would ask many centrist is to examine whether their "both siding" is remotely reasonable, at this juncture. I don't think it is. And I think many self described centrist do it because they think they are being reasonable and above the fray.

3. The current state of American Conservatism is atrocious. I want to smash it or put enough pressure on it until reforms. Some conservatives tried to reform it, but they failed as the dynamics within the movement make it nearly impossible. The only thing to do is hand it political defeat after political defeat, until Republican politicians fear the wrath of the general electorate more than they fear their own base and the Hannity's, Limbaughs and so forth. If such pressure was brought on American conservatism to change how it operates and if centrist want to go having some disputes with those on the left, I'm fine with that. I'd even have a civil conversation about it. But, right now, something needs to be done about the Republican Party and the conservative movement in general.

 

 

My concern with 1 is that 'those on the left' are becoming as enamored of 'fake news' and suspect arguments as those on the right.  Or, 'he who hunts monsters risks becoming one himself.'  

I stated my response to 2 earlier, though you hadn't posted yet.  Basically, work together on points that can be agreed upon (Medicare for all and Climate Change, and likely others.  This does involve compromise, of course)

Your point 3 has a significant possibility of either a messy revolution or civil war that ultimately results in a partial collapse of the country ('failed state' in current terminology).  That said, conservatism is deeply flawed at present.  I also see it as demographically doomed; conservative areas/demographics are undergoing a population implosion NOW, something I have a front row seat to. 

[Chaircat Meow]

9 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Dopey? Trump's similarities with -and admiration for- autocrats is very well documented. Most of these similarities can be seen in Trump's statements and posturing alone. In fact, given his declarations, it's not a stretch to say that he would see being compared to Putin or Erdogan as a compliment.
His many attempts to politicize -and instrumentalize- law enforcement and his attacks against the very principle of a free press are matters of public record, among other examples...
And all that's just the tip of the iceberg, assuming you don't believe any of the stuff that's been leaked or rumored or published in Wolff's and Woodward's books...
Trump is still seriously constrained by US constitutional and institutional norms, but at this point there's no question that he is a would-be autocrat.
And you were talking about self-rebutting statements? That's funny.

Dopey because the relevant question is whether Trump is governing like an autocrat in the way Trump and Erdogan are, and the answer to that is no. Trump likely does fancy himself a Putin/Xi sort of figure but this seems to be fancy in a pretty idle sense, as he's made no attempts to actually get autocratic powers - he backed down when the courts initially struck down the muslim ban, for instance.

Erdogan has conducted mass purges of the civil service/judiciary and army and altered the constitution to accord himself more power. Putin's political opponents live in fear of arrest or worse. We haven't had anything like this from Trump and the Republicans and we are a good way into the first term. 

[OldGimletEye]

6 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

I stated my response to 2 earlier, though you hadn't posted yet.  Basically, work together on points that can be agreed upon (Medicare for all and Climate Change, and likely others.  This does involve compromise, of course)

I know many "average joe" Republicans. I don't get nearly as furious at them as I do the conservative and Republican elites. Lots of your average Joe Republicans are kind of like the Jim Belushi character who likes to read the sports section in the newspaper first and never quite gets around to reading the news section. And simply just believes what he is told by conservative elites and Republican elites.

And elites within the conservative movement and within the Republican Party will never accept anything like climate change legislation or Medicare for all without a fight.

[HoodedCrow]

Trump and Kavanaugh make it cool to assault defraud and lie. Can we go Lowe?

[Altherion]

Here's a fun fact: every one of the five most recent Presidents (i.e. G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, G.W. Bush, Obama and Trump) has had exactly 2 nominations to the Supreme Court confirmed by the Senate. It'll be interesting to see if Trump can break the pattern -- the last President who did so was Reagan.

[Ice Queen]

5 hours ago, DMC said:

I think it's short-sighted to basically write-off the possibility completely.  First, no one knows what things will look like in six years and six years is a very long time in politics.  For instance, six years ago Obama was getting reelected.  The only thing we do know about 2024 is that it will a presidential rather than midterm electorate, which generally is advantageous (or less disadvantageous) to Democrats, all else being equal.

More importantly, finding the right candidate isn't about finding the right point on the line of a one-dimensional ideological spectrum.  It's about finding the right candidate.  Look at Richard Ojeda, who if he pulls off an upset in the WV 3rd would make Conor Lamb's victory look run-of-the-mill.  He might share Manchin's cultural values (and frankly I have no idea how he would have voted with Kavanaugh), but he's also far (far) to the left of Manchin on a host of issues.

I'm not writing it off completely at all. My grandfather was from Beckley (he was a bootlegger during Prohibition) and I've spent a lot of time in the state. There really aren't a lot of industries there to attract young people. There are areas that are so remote as to be inaccessible, and many people are dirt poor, especially the further south you go near the borders of North Carolina and Kentucky. The only up and coming industry I can see is solar, but Trump is killing even that.

I looked up Ojeda. I agree that you need the right candidate, but quite frankly, if you supported Bernie and then voted for Trump, in my book you're an idiot and have no idea what you stand for, but if his district likes him, then kudos to them. 

Maybe it's my pro-union, blue collar western PA upbringing, but I don't see him as particularly liberal at all. He's a centrist which plays well. Getting the unions behind him (especially the teachers, good job there) will definitely help him. I hope he wins. 

His opponent Carol Miller is a loon. 

 

[Mexal]

57 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I thought the bolded part would be completely uncontroversial: to the best of my knowledge, there were three accusers, but none of them had any evidence. If you disagree so vehemently, can you at least say what the evidence was?

Dude, it's a sexual assault. There isn't ever any direct evidence. But there was a shitload of evidence that shows this wasn't made up and if you read a single article about it or listened to Ford talk, you'd know that. Instead, you spout bullshit as usual, claiming this is all some Democratic plot made up to destroy the Kavanaugh nomination instead of one woman, risking the safety of her family to do what she thought was right.

[Rippounet]

4 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Dopey because the relevant question is whether Trump is governing like an autocrat in the way Trump Putin and Erdogan are, and the answer to that is no. Trump likely does fancy himself a Putin/Xi sort of figure but this seems to be fancy in a pretty idle sense, as he's made no attempts to actually get autocratic powers -

1) Relevant for you perhaps. My point was that American liberals expressing themselves on this board have very good reasons to be worried, since the face of conservatism in the US is a would-be autocrat, something you are astute enough not to deny at least.
2) You have a very odd definition of "idle." A president using social media and speeches to promote certain views is not "idle." Especially not if he is addressing law enforcement agencies or their heads and pushing them to act in ways that directly benefit him or his party. We also know for a fact that he personally calls or meets with people in order to influence and/or intimidate them. We also know for a fact that he has threatened his political opponents with imprisonment. ... etc. The list of troubling actions is fairly long.
What you're saying here is that the bar you set is for Trump to not ignore the constitutional framework altogether or actually jail his opponents. That's a pretty low bar.

Anyway, you were trying to use my initial comment as an example of "libruls" being disconnected from the truth... In fact, since I never claimed Trump was already an autocrat, you were just strawmnaning there. In doing that, you showed how unperturbed you are by Trump's antics however. In other words, the only thing you've proven is that you have no understanding of what is really making people worried. One would think a man of your education would do better tbh...

[Paladin of Ice]

On 10/5/2018 at 5:29 PM, DMC said:

Matt Grossmann, a premier scholar in American Behavior, posted an interesting article on 538 yesterday:

Voters Like a Political Party Until It Passes Laws

 

What I've come to believe over the years is that The Average Voter^(TM) only likes change as long you don't actually change anything about their lives, how they have to operate in society, or ask them to change anything about themselves. If you so much as change where a box to check off is located on a paper form, people will reel around like the Earth has been forcibly shifted under their feet and launch a hasty, usually ill-conceived backlash to try to undo what you did, often even if they were on the front lines shouting for changes to the paper forms.

Maybe that's just because it's much easier to get people to agree to oppose something than it is to get people to agree on how something should change, or maybe it's because The Average Voter^(TM) is ignorant, ill-informed, uses magical/childish thinking, and refuses to think out further than the next step they're going to take. Pick your poison as to which of those you believe in, or if it's both (or other choices not listed) all at the same time.

[Martell Spy]

3 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

So, are you saying all the vitriol I read here about conservatives isn't serious?  I mean, I know it is written, because I read it here on this thread every day.

 Or, you think that conservatives don't spout similar vitriol about liberals? You don't think conservatives also feel that liberals are hypocrites, destructive, violent, awful?  I'm confused as to what your point is here.  

Spouting vitriol does not make it true. And I assume anyone spouting vitriol, of any political persuasion, is serious.

However, it is a fact that Republican politicians advocate for the practice of torture. It is not an unreasonable statement to say that there is a large difference between the two major parties when it comes to this policy, at least in the last 15 years or so. Literally only one side is doing this. 

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

I thought the bolded part would be completely uncontroversial: to the best of my knowledge, there were three accusers, but none of them had any evidence. If you disagree so vehemently, can you at least say what the evidence was?

Among other things, testimony is evidence. So, if you’re going to retreat to being pedantic, get it right. What you mean is that there’s no direct physical evidence, but that’s a conversation best reserved for the parameters of a criminal trial. But, if it were a trial, the moment where Kavanaugh himself specified that one of the accusations was especially untrue would be a pretty big moment. Like, just for laughs, try explaining that distinction without including the possibility of guilt in the speakers mind. If you’re innocent of all the accusations, they are all equally untrue in your mind.  

[Martell Spy]

The Supreme Court Is Now a Partisan Institution
Kavanaugh’s confirmation means Trump controls all three branches of government. There’s only one check left on the president.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-confirmed-supreme-court-no-checks-trump.html

Quote

 

Supreme Court justices are no umpires. They are partisans, and increasingly naked ones to boot. In more ordinary times, that in itself would be bad enough. But in the extraordinary times in which we now live, it is terrifying. For as congressional Republicans have found over the past two years, to remain a member in good standing of the conservative tribe, it no longer suffices to embrace conservative social values or to have reverence for the constitution. Rather, it now means a willingness to ride the wave of conservative resentment wherever it may take you—and of course to back its foul-mouthed spokesman, whatever he might choose to do.

In the past year, conservatives on the court have already shown just how far they are willing to go in abandoning basic principles of political fairness if it happens to help their side. They have approved the Muslim ban by pretending, on the flimsiest of evidence, that it is not in fact a Muslim ban. They have allowed Ohio to purge its voter rolls in a transparent attempt to tip the state’s precarious political balance in the direction of the Republican Party. And they have upheld Texan electoral maps that had clearly been gerrymandered with a view to reduce the voice of African-American voters and make it more difficult for Democrats to get elected.

It doesn’t take an outsized imagination to envisage how conservatives, emboldened by their newfound majority, and carried along on the great wave of tribal anger, might in good time go one step further. If Trump managed to take full control of the FBI and the agency started to investigate the Democratic candidate in a presidential election, would they be sure to stop it? And if law enforcement agencies that are increasingly loyal to the president presented evidence suggesting that a key election result was tarnished by hacking or mass voter fraud, would they be sure to rule in an impartial manner?

The answer, it now seems to me, depends less on the integrity of the umpires-cum-partisans on the Supreme Court than it does on public opinion. Political scientists have long known that, in most democracies around the world, support for the government is a good predictor of court behavior, especially in times of great political strife: When an unpopular ruler with an authoritarian bend tries to stay in power through dubious means, judges usually live up to their responsibility of stopping him. But when a would-be authoritarian is carried along by significant public support, they rarely play their constitutionally mandated role.

Until recently, it may have been tempting to think that these lessons from foreign lands do not apply to the United States, a country with a much longer democratic tradition. But the similarity between the rise of Donald Trump and the experience of so many other embattled democracies is too obvious for us to keep believing such a clean distinction.

So, bearing in my mind how difficult it is to see around the next corner when history is intent on moving in an impetuous zig-zag, here is my prediction for the coming years: If Trump remains as unpopular as he is today, the conservative Supreme Court will skew the playing field even further to the Republicans’ advantage through a series of rulings on gerrymandering, voter fraud, and felons’ enfranchisement. But the court will not play along with a full assault on the independence of other institutions or with attempts to undermine how free (as opposed to how fair) elections are. If Trump, however, should somehow become significantly more popular than he is now—or do much better in the midterms than widely expected—the Supreme Court might change as radically over the next two years as the Republican-dominated Congress has over t

 

he past two.

[Rippounet]

23 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Dude, it's a sexual assault. There isn't ever any direct evidence. But there was a shitload of evidence that shows this wasn't made up and if you read a single article about it or listened to Ford talk, you'd know that. Instead, you spout bullshit as usual, claiming this is all some Democratic plot made up to destroy the Kavanaugh nomination instead of one woman, risking the safety of her family to do what she thought was right.

He's just trolling. Putting salt in the wound. Slightly uncharacteristic of him specifically, but many conservatives have been coming here to gloat over the Kavanaugh confirmation these past few days.

Which goes to show how much "understanding" is to be found between liberals and conservatives I guess. To think that Kennedy was confirmed by 97 votes back in the day... Or Ginsburg by 96...
The question now being: why would a Democratic president respect a SCOTUS decision in the future? As long as the judiciary kept the illusion of non-partisanship it could get the respect necessary for the checks and balances to work. Now that it's clearly partisan, it's only a question of time before they fail.

[mcbigski]

This thread title was prophetic, really.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

Among other things, testimony is evidence. So, if you’re going to retreat to being pedantic, get it right. What you mean is that there’s no direct physical evidence, but that’s a conversation best reserved for the parameters of a criminal trial. But, if it were a trial, the moment where Kavanaugh himself specified that one of the accusations was especially untrue would be a pretty big moment. Like, just for laughs, try explaining that distinction without including the possibility of guilt in the speakers mind. If you’re innocent of all the accusations, they are all equally untrue in your mind.  

No physical evidence of any kind and no testimony except that of the accuser. Yes, my statement was somewhat imprecise as the accusations themselves can be considered evidence, but this is precisely what the presumption of innocence is there to guard against. In retrospect, I should have said no corroborating evidence whatsoever, but I thought that was obvious given that the accusations themselves exist.

44 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

He's just trolling. Putting salt in the wound. Slightly uncharacteristic of him specifically, but many conservatives have been coming here to gloat over the Kavanaugh confirmation these past few days.

I guess it can come off this way, but my intent was to analyze this most recent iteration of the Democrat's strategy of reaching far back into the past of people they're trying to sink and making completely unverifiable allegations about that time. It's an interesting strategy and it worked for them before, but not this time.

52 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The question now being: why would a Democratic president respect a SCOTUS decision in the future?

For the same reason that Trump has deferred to the courts: defying them is not going to be a popular move. Also, it has a good chance of splitting the country into at least two groups and possibly more. Remember, each state of the US has its own governor and its own law enforcement and this would be really confusing for them: do they obey the judicial branch or the executive? I'm not saying it can't happen (especially with respect to things fully controlled by the federal government), but it's not something to be done lightly.

[felice]

15 minutes ago, Altherion said:

No physical evidence of any kind and no testimony except that of the accuser. Yes, my statement was somewhat imprecise as the accusations themselves can be considered evidence, but this is precisely what the presumption of innocence is there to guard against. In retrospect, I should have said no corroborating evidence whatsoever

The accusations are corroborating evidence for each other, for a start. And Kavanaugh's own calendar confirmed he attended a party with the people Ford claimed were present in the time period she claimed it happened.

It was a job interview, not a criminal trial, so presumption of innocence isn't relevant.

[Cas Stark]

9 minutes ago, felice said:

The accusations are corroborating evidence for each other, for a start. And Kavanaugh's own calendar confirmed he attended a party with the people Ford claimed were present in the time period she claimed it happened.

It was a job interview, not a criminal trial, so presumption of innocence isn't relevant.

If that were true, then anyone can be successfully ruined as long as multiple accusations are lined up, even if none are corroborated by any other evidence, as is the case here.

And I believe Ford's legal team already said that July 1 was not a viable date for the party in question.

*I guess I am naive, I believe that decisions should be based on evidence, and people deserve a fair process and should not be presumed guilty only because they are accused, inside and outside of a courtroom.

[Mexal]

10 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

If that were true, then anyone can be successfully ruined as long as multiple accusations are lined up, even if none are corroborated by any other evidence, as is the case here.

And I believe Ford's legal team already said that July 1 was not a viable date for the party in question.

*I guess I am naive, I believe that decisions should be based on evidence, and people deserve a fair process and should not be presumed guilty only because they are accused, inside and outside of a courtroom.

And I believe a justice on the Supreme Court should be above reproach on every level. As much as I dislike Gorsuch’s views, he was a choir boy and the type of background that maintains the dignity of the court.