All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[TheDarman]

President Obama endorsed Joe Biden today after Bernie Sanders did yesterday. I expect a flood of endorsements over the next couple of weeks to culminate in a VP pick.

[TheManInBlack]

Women are not robots, we are not all exactly the same. It's actually insulting to make this kind of comparison. Just as it would be insulting and wrong to say that Every Man is a sexual deviant who sexually assaults women on a regular basis.

Ford and Reade are two different women, just as Biden and Kavenaugh are two different men. You have to look at the facts, at the evidence, and make a judgement just as would be done if this was a court trial.

The clarion call during the Me Too movement and subsequent political activism was "Believe Women." I'm sure you remember that. I'm not the one who came up with it, defined it, or leveraged the phrase politically. I'm simply raising an eyebrow about how it's suddenly no longer a thing when it's inconvenient.

Back a year ago when I said exactly what you're saying, (look at facts and evidence) I was called every name in the book by progressives who told me that we simply needed to 'believe women' and that a woman would never come out with a false claim and how dare I so much as suggest the need for evidence. But now all of a sudden evidence and facts matter. It's just a bit curious, is all.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

The trials that looked promising involved some very dodgy data gathering techniques. Only people who completed the entire regimen were counted, thereby missing people who got worse and were moved into ICU or died before the trial was concluded.

Which reminds me of the battle damage study of US fighter planes in WWII that almost resulted in additional armor being placed on the wings and rear fuselage until one person mentioned that they had no data on planes that were shot down, and maybe the lack of damage to the engine and cockpit was because those were the ones that never made it out of Axis territory to be looked at.

Survival bias can be a terrible thing if it isn't accounted for, as it can lead to less survival in the long run.

This is why situations like this should just be made states of emergency where only scientists have a say. The politicians are not equipped to weigh in here. The good ones are just following advice and the bad ones aren’t

[PaulBullion]

The clarion call during the Me Too movement and subsequent political activism was "Believe Women." I'm sure you remember that. I'm not the one who came up with it, defined it, or leveraged the phrase politically. I'm simply raising an eyebrow about how it's suddenly no longer a thing when it's inconvenient.

Back a year ago when I said exactly what you're saying, (look at facts and evidence) I was called every name in the book by progressives who told me that we simply needed to 'believe women' and that a woman would never come out with a false claim and how dare I so much as suggest the need for evidence. But now all of a sudden evidence and facts matter. It's just a bit curious, is all.

This is the worst "gotcha" of 2020.

[TheDarman]

What happened to believing women? I mean, at this point the story's no more inconsistent than Christine Blasey Ford's.

“Believe women” was never meant to insist belief above and beyond evidence. I don’t expect you see too many people who are willing to stick their neck out for Amber Heard now that more evidence has come out. And the more that she talks about her story, the more coverage she gets, makes it less and less clear that we should believe her. That wasn’t necessarily the case with Ford’s allegation and Kavanaugh’s own calendar seemed to confirm there was an event similar to the one Ford described. Meanwhile, Biden has been unable to get a like alibi because Reade can’t narrow it down past a season in 1993. And, while Kavanaugh reacted angrily, in a manner that should have disqualified him even absent these allegations, and wouldn’t agree to an investigation, Biden’s camp is pushing for a thorough one into the allegations.

[TheManInBlack]

This is the worst "gotcha" of 2020.

Exactly what part of what I said was inaccurate?

“Believe women” was never meant to insist belief above and beyond evidence.

It absolutely was. It was said over and over and over again that we needed to give women the benefit of the doubt even with a complete lack of evidence. It's amazing that anyone would attempt to retcon this.

I don’t expect you see too many people who are willing to stick their neck out for Amber Heard now that more evidence has come out.

Because things are now changing, as noted above. The 'Believe Women,' slogan has become inconvenient in the recent past and has been abandoned entirely, and unless it's brought up, progressives are now acting like it was never even a thing (or that it is, in fact, insulting as said above. Which, ironically,is what I always said.)

[TheDarman]

It absolutely was. It was said over and over and over again that we needed to give women the benefit of the doubt even with a complete lack of evidence. It's amazing that anyone would attempt to retcon this.

As I recall, folks were mostly calling for Ford’s allegations to be taken seriously. It wasn’t completely lacking in evidence and numerous people came forward with corroboration for Kavanaugh’s behavior. “Believe women” meant that we need to take it seriously enough to more thoroughly vet this guy before forcing him through. That was until he acted like a petulant child throwing a tantrum and made clear he lacked both the expertise and the temperament necessary to be on the Court.

I don’t think, meanwhile, any single one of us has had to dismiss Reade’s allegations. But, as I laid out in a long post a few pages back, there are a number of issues with her story. Lack of evidence would be one thing. Completely contradictory evidence and evidence that seems to point to her not telling the truth is another. At best, one could argue Ford lacked evidence. Reade falls clearly into the latter category however.

Because things are now changing, as noted above. The 'Believe Women,' slogan has become inconvenient in the recent past and has been abandoned entirely, and unless it's brought up, progressives are now acting like it was never even a thing (or that it is, in fact, insulting as said above. Which, ironically,is what I always said.)

Nah. I think that there were a number of people who were more bullish on it than others—believe women prior to evidence of any sort. I will admit that I was one of them. But that’s a refinement of the approach, not a change all together. Because, in spirit, we still want these allegations thoroughly investigated before they get dismissed. What changes is merely the judgment we have in the meantime.

[PaulBullion]

Exactly what part of what I said was inaccurate?

)

It's like when people say "believe in science" we don't mean crappy, badly done science like the studies that showed a link between vaccines and autism. You can't just take a short slogan and treat it like Moses brought it down on marble cakes.

[Tami]

Exactly what part of what I said was inaccurate?



It absolutely was. It was said over and over and over again that we needed to give women the benefit of the doubt even with a complete lack of evidence. It's amazing that anyone would attempt to retcon this.



Because things are now changing, as noted above. The 'Believe Women,' slogan has become inconvenient in the recent past and has been abandoned entirely, and unless it's brought up, progressives are now acting like it was never even a thing (or that it is, in fact, insulting as said above. Which, ironically,is what I always said.)

'Me Too' was a sledge hammer used to break through the Social Wall that kept women who truly were victimized afraid to come forward. It was needed at the time, but now that the wall has been broken (or at least severely cracked and damaged) it's time to step back. Time to work on legal reforms that will allow women to come forward at the time the incident happens.

It's also time to make sure that those legal reforms, while protecting victims, also holds true to the tenant of innocent until proven guilty.

Sexual Harassment/sexual assault should be a matter for the courts to decide. The court of public opinion only works when the legal system fails.

If an incident occurs that does not rise to the level of criminal, then there should be other forms of immediate recourse. But again, it must be handled fairly, and with an eye to facts, evidence, and corroboration.

This is the next step forward as I see it.

[Robotman]

It's like when people say "believe in science" we don't mean crappy, badly done science like the studies that showed a link between vaccines and autism. You can't just take a short slogan and treat it like Moses brought it down on marble cakes.

This will be an issue going forward. Conservatives tend to see the world in “black or white” with few shades of gray. They don’t care about the source of societal problems, there’s just good guys and bad guys. Trump and the GOP know that using simple slogans is a great way to speak to their base. Things like “believe women” and “me too” will be used to prop up Reade’s story on Fox News and right wing media, despite the inconsistencies in her story (and praise of freaking Putin!).

[AnakinFlair]

OH! Speaking of Wisconsin and Republicans, it is official. Jill Karofsky has defeated Daniel Kelly for the Wisconsin Supreme Court seat! Wooooooo~


Also, and for you WBE, here's a little something about Kelly that you can use for a future profile to really drive home how good it is that he is gone.

Oh, I'm sure ol' Moscow Mitch will appoint him for a federal judgeship any day now.

[skyvolt2000]

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...cdonalds-china

McDonald’s is issuing an apology after footage showing a notice that was being displayed inside one of its restaurants in China saying that black people were “not allowed to enter” went viral online.
Footage that has been circulating on social media over the past few days shows the sign being displayed at a restaurant in Guangzhou, according to CNN.
“We’ve been informed that from now on black people are not allowed to enter the restaurant,” the notice read. “For the sake of your health, consciously notify the local police for medical isolation, please understand the inconvenience caused.”

[Mister Mets]

You know exactly what people mean when they say the Republican party goes low.

Moreover, they do it in so many different ways they cover nearly all of the definitions -- which is something else you already know.

As you've dodged this question many times before I didn't expect this time to be any different.

If Democrats start going low in response to the behavior of the Republicans, you have no one to blame but your own party for lowering the bar.

The argument wasn't about ways Republicans go low; it was that Democrats should go low. And I don't know what specifically people here mean when they're calling for Democrats to go low. Different people might have different definitions.

You're accusing me of dodging questions, but you do have a habit of responding to my comments with questions that don't address my initial point. Whatever I have to say about supporting the Republican party has nothing to do with what someone else thinks Democrats should do in order to win.

I've posted about why I'm a Republican before, and the main aspect is that I disagree with Democrats on many policy issues, and I am concerned about the party's leftward shift. If the argument is that I should support them despite disagreeing with them on policy, they would have to meet higher standards (the argument about one party behaving better or worse would only really matter in cases where someone agrees equally with them on policy.) In general, I don't think they meet these much higher standards.

The issue is that if your opponent is going low and punching you in the crotch, swinging high will miss them.

But I'm still not sure what you mean by going low in a political context.

What are the things you want Democrats to do?

Wow! Forcing the election was real helpful for the GOP!

I've written about this before here, but there is some literature on the idea that perceived restrictions drive up turnout. This may be an example of that.

[Mister Mets]

It's a LOT more inconsistent than her story. As in, hers wasn't. If you'd like to present us with a timeline of three times where Ford changed her story to prove your point be our guest.

There were plenty of inconsistencies in Ford's story.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/1497661002/

I mean the most simple comparison of how different they are is the details in the origin.

Kavanaugh has a history of drinking and partying, at an off hours party he got wasted and assaulted Ford. Completely probable (this shit happens all the time with college students) and Kavanaugh is still a drinker.

Meanwhile Reade cant even determine WHERE the assault took place, Bidens history shows him devoted to his wife and never straying and Reade claims she wasnt wearing standard office wear for EVERY women in washington.

Ford didn't know where the assault occurred. She did also accuse Kavanaugh of something he did as a high school student.

And I'm gonna go ahead and lead off before any of are right-leaning posters try to do the "you never hold anyone on the left accountable for sexual misconduct..."

And point out John Conyers, Al Franken, and Anthony Weiner sure as f*** did not get propped up by the left. Meanwhile on the right, they'll keep Farenthold in office for years, or approve Kavanaugh, when they could have just nominated anyone else who was worthy.

How about Justin Fairfax?

He's still Lieutenant Governor of Virginia despite two women accusing him of sexual assault, both of whom independently told others about it years ago.

There were calls for Ralph Northam to resign as Governor of Virginia, until it turned out that the next people in line were deeply problematic, and it could lead to a Republican taking over. This seems to suggest a willingness of Democrats to hold people on their side accountable when there is no political cost, such as when Al Franken was replaced by a standard Democrat. At the same time, they insist Republicans hold people to account when there is a political cost, such as a general election.

Ford also did not go public - she was dragged out into public by other people. Plus, the 'investigation' the feds did into her allegations were pretty much a joke, as they were forbidden to interview most of the key people of interest.

Ford was dragged out by Democratic staffers.

This will be an issue going forward. Conservatives tend to see the world in “black or white” with few shades of gray. They don’t care about the source of societal problems, there’s just good guys and bad guys. Trump and the GOP know that using simple slogans is a great way to speak to their base. Things like “believe women” and “me too” will be used to prop up Reade’s story on Fox News and right wing media, despite the inconsistencies in her story (and praise of freaking Putin!).

Right wing media isn't referencing "Believe all women" because they think it's a good strategy, but because they want to call out Democrats for being inconsistent, perhaps using the argument in bad faith.

[jetengine]

Of course this leaves out the fact that Ford has never said where she was allegedly assaulted. She can not tell you what house this party was at or even generalize the location. She also has been inconsistent on how she got to the party and who was there. She can’t tell you how she got away from the party. Nobody can corroborate that this party happened much less the actual assault allegation. And she never told anybody about this until decades later when he was an accomplished judge who was known as a possible SC candidate. In addition to a dozen or so minor details of inconsistency between multiple statements they just really isn’t worth going into

This doesn’t mean she wasn’t at a party where Kavanaugh could have assaulted her. But you’re taking a lot on faith that this event in a vacuum of extremely relevant details is more credible than Reade’s.

In both cases, they are allegations that would never hold up to any legal level scrutiny.

For the purposes of Biden specifically it’s a terrible way to attack him imo because it’s not vetted at all. And it’s quite frankly unfair to drag him for that. But yeah a lot of people are going to call hypocrisy on people turning a blind eye to this when they put someone they didn’t like through hell for saying something happened without any real tangible details to follow up on.

The people attacking Biden with this should be more responsible and so should the people going after Kavanaugh.

Except its more believable that a guy known to drink heavily in college (and still does) assaulted a girl whilst in college then it is that Reade randomly teleported to three different locations, wasnt wearing standard uniform during a cold period and was attacked by a guy who literally runs home to his wife, whilst in a period where every guy is under the spotlight for abuse.