All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[jetengine]

"Believe women" isnt "Yes you're right" its "Take this case seriously" because too many women were ignored and told "Were you drinking too much ?". We had something like this in the uk in the....90s I think ? When they showed a clip of an officer talking to a rape victim in....not a great way. It became apparent that a new way of dealing with these situations was beeded.

[Gray Lensman]

There were plenty of inconsistencies in Ford's story.

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

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

I'm more concerned about the shackles Trump put on the investigation - it could have exonerated him, but by forbidding any interviews of the most notable people it prevents that from happening too.

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.

I think they did call for resignations, but don't really have much power to do so beyond that.

Ford was dragged out by Democratic staffers.

True, but I'm comparing the two individuals. Ford was going through channels rather than the press, and did so much earlier in the appointment process (when she found out he was on the shortlist instead of waiting for him to have the nomination). By the way, she is still receiving enough credible threats against her to where she still can't return to her home.

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.

Except their record is even worse - it's as if the only reason they call attention to things to so they can yell "Gotcha!" as loud as they can. Like any time an environmental advocate takes a plane, Sanders actually having a couple million dollars from a relatively recent book deal, Or McConnell insisting that the vote should matter for a Supreme Court nomination. The real effect has been that when the right calls stuff out, I tune it out since it has been hypocrisy far more often than not. One day they may actually have a real point and not enough people will take them seriously for it to matter.

[worstblogever]

How about Justin Fairfax?

See, I bet you feel like this is some GOTCHA argument...

I just pointed out my own disgust for him on April 1st. Originally posted on this forum.

And So. MANY. DEMOCRATS. Have called on him to resign. He just hasn't. But nobody has re-elected him. Which is a thing Republicans do in the face of sexual assault cases with their candidates.

Try again, Mets. Try harder.

[aja_christopher]

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 you're more concerned about a Democratic "leftward shift" than the Republican party's penchant for racism, homophobia, record deficits, lying, corruption, environmental destruction and -- at this point -- blatant imcompetence in the face of a global crisis that has lead to countless deaths due to Trump's complete lack of understanding regarding federal leadership, then that says more about you than it does the Democratic party.

It's always interesting to see you engage in conversations regarding morals and ethics while simultaneously supporting the Republican party -- just to be clear that automatically makes nearly everything you say regarding said matters seem hypocritical in nature.

See, I bet you feel like this is some GOTCHA argument...

I just pointed out my own disgust for him on April 1st. Originally posted on this forum.

And So. MANY. DEMOCRATS. Have called on him to resign. He just hasn't. But nobody has re-elected him. Which is a thing Republicans do in the face of sexual assault cases with their candidates.

Try again, Mets. Try harder.

We know that's not how it works -- it's not about holding Democrats responsible but trying to pretend that they aren't any better than Republicans.

Meanwhile, Al Franken is no longer a Senator and Brett Kavanaugh sits on the Supreme Court.

When your chosen party is indefensible the only thing you can do is try to act as if everyone else is just as bad, even if the facts don't back it up.

[worstblogever]

If you're more concerned about a Democratic "leftward shift" than the Republican party's penchant for racism, homophobia, record deficits, lying, corruption, environmental destruction and -- at this point -- blatant imcompetence in the face of a global crisis that has lead to countless deaths due to Trump's complete lack of understanding regarding federal leadership, then that says more about you than it does the Democratic party.

It's always interesting to see you engage in conversations regarding morals and ethics while simultaneously supporting the Republican party --

The Republican Party's ethos at this point boils down to, "Why it's okay to be an ***hole."

• Denying human rights to LGBTQ citizens.
• Arguing against human rights for migrant families in detention.
• Putting the privileges of gun owners over the lives of school children.
• Emboldening white nationalists and Neo-Nazis while demonizing civil rights protesters who oppose them (As a matter of policy, as well, by stripping the Homeland Security's white nationalism task force of funding).
• Trying to take rights away from women and deny them equal pay or autonomy over their own bodies.
• Attempting to strip poor people of their medical insurance.
• Redirecting tax burdens onto the working class in favor of the rich, who don't need it, and don't want it.
• Joining in lockstep to put an accused rapist on the Supreme Court.
• Stripping the voting rights of everyone who doesn't vote Republican, traditionally, to subvert democracy.
• Allowing a foreign power (Russia) to funnel money through the NRA to their candidates, including but not limited to the president in 2016, and joining in lockstep to not only protect themselves from any repercussions to this crime, but refuse to impeach the president when he did the exact same thing with Ukraine in the build up to the 2020 election. It's not treason as long as you end up being given the win in the end, you see.
• Arguing that protecting the economy is more important than people surviving Covid-19.

I mean, I could go on, but this is the GOP brand today. Nothing but death, bigotry, and trying to keep people away from their guaranteed rights. Trump's just a symptom of an overall disease.

[Mister Mets]

"Believe women" isnt "Yes you're right" its "Take this case seriously" because too many women were ignored and told "Were you drinking too much ?". We had something like this in the uk in the....90s I think ? When they showed a clip of an officer talking to a rape victim in....not a great way. It became apparent that a new way of dealing with these situations was beeded.

There had been excesses in the other direction that needed correcting, but these nuances were hardly expressed in every writeup or discussions about #metoo.

See, I bet you feel like this is some GOTCHA argument...

I just pointed out my own disgust for him on April 1st. Originally posted on this forum.

And So. MANY. DEMOCRATS. Have called on him to resign. He just hasn't. But nobody has re-elected him. Which is a thing Republicans do in the face of sexual assault cases with their candidates.

Try again, Mets. Try harder.

For some reason you didn't quote my complete statement on Virginia Democratic politics.

If you're more concerned about a Democratic "leftward shift" than the Republican party's penchant for racism, homophobia, record deficits, lying, corruption, environmental destruction and -- at this point -- blatant imcompetence in the face of a global crisis that has lead to countless deaths due to Trump's complete lack of understanding regarding federal leadership, then that says more about you than it does the Democratic party.

It's always interesting to see you engage in conversations regarding morals and ethics while simultaneously supporting the Republican party -- just to be clear that automatically makes nearly everything you say regarding said matters seem hypocritical in nature.

If the argument is that one party is so moral and ethical that the people who disagree with it politically should still support it, that requires that party to be held to a very high standard.

We know that's not how it works -- it's not about holding Democrats responsible but trying to pretend that they aren't any better than Republicans.

Meanwhile, Al Franken is no longer a Senator and Brett Kavanaugh sits on the Supreme Court.

When your chosen party is indefensible the only thing you can do is try to act as if everyone else is just as bad, even if the facts don't back it up.

The allegation against Kavanaugh is much more analogous to the allegation against Biden, and the reaction to it from Democrats and the media is quite different.

I'm more concerned about the shackles Trump put on the investigation - it could have exonerated him, but by forbidding any interviews of the most notable people it prevents that from happening too.

I think they did call for resignations, but don't really have much power to do so beyond that.

True, but I'm comparing the two individuals. Ford was going through channels rather than the press, and did so much earlier in the appointment process (when she found out he was on the shortlist instead of waiting for him to have the nomination). By the way, she is still receiving enough credible threats against her to where she still can't return to her home.

Reade had come forward earlier as well.

As for the shackles of the investigation, it is really difficult to prove a negative, to demonstrate that something did not happen when the date and the location were unknown, so an exoneration was pretty much impossible.

Anyone who had any firsthand knowledge knew that there would be a receptive media and Democratic political apparatus if they came forward.

The people complaining about not being contacted were those who had heard some rumors, but didn't have any useful firsthand information. I still don't see what the main purpose would have been of a longer investigation than a combination of delaying tactic and fishing expedition.

Except their record is even worse - it's as if the only reason they call attention to things to so they can yell "Gotcha!" as loud as they can. Like any time an environmental advocate takes a plane, Sanders actually having a couple million dollars from a relatively recent book deal, Or McConnell insisting that the vote should matter for a Supreme Court nomination. The real effect has been that when the right calls stuff out, I tune it out since it has been hypocrisy far more often than not. One day they may actually have a real point and not enough people will take them seriously for it to matter.

If Democrats aren't consistent, why should anyone take them seriously either?

[aja_christopher]

If the argument is that one party is so moral and ethical that the people who disagree with it politically should still support it, that requires that party to be held to a very high standard.

What standard are you holding yourself to in supporting the party that nominated, elected, and now supports Trump with record approval?

It's just strange that you'd think your arguments regarding ethics and can be separated from your support of a blatantly unethical party.

Your "both sides" argument doesn't hold up under objective or factual scrutiny -- you've even admitted it's about your "fears" regarding the Democratic party rather than the facts themselves regarding their respective governance.

Renouncing the Republican party wouldn't mean you'd have to support Democrats regardless -- you actively choose to support a party you know is both immoral and unethical just because you "fear" politics that you disagree with.

That's not an accusation so much as an observation -- everyone is entitled to their own political opinion but I would expect someone as intelligent as you to hold yourself to a much higher stander than engaging in "both sides" arguments that can easily be disproven with minimal research.

I'm more concerned about the shackles Trump put on the investigation - it could have exonerated him, but by forbidding any interviews of the most notable people it prevents that from happening too.

It's not about getting to the truth with the Republican party -- it's about slandering others as cover for their own dishonesty and corruption.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

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.

That’s absurd logic. By your logic I could take any person who drank heavily in college (which is millions oh 18-22 year old men and woman) and say, “that person sexually assaulted me, I can’t tell you where it happened, I can’t tell you the general area it was in, I can’t tell you how many people were there, I can’t tell you how I got to that place, I can’t tell you how I was invited to that place, how I got home from that place, I can’t tell you the date it happened, I can’t tell you the time it happened, I have nobody who can corroborate that this assault happened, I have nobody that can corroborate that this party even happened, BUT in the absence of all this information at one point I was in a room with this person and they assaulted me”.

I can’t even entertain that. Firsts off it’s an incredibly problematic mentality to say that because someone drank a lot in college they are plausible to be sexual assaulters.

Beyond that you are basically arguing that it’s more credible despite having no information but one persons word because one of the people used to drink a lot.

They are both shitty accusations that would never hold up to any standard. You’re clearly more forgiving of one and setting up an awful metric (this person drinks) to justify holding one in higher regard. Which is kinda crappy when I could easily say that only one of them has multiple women saying he touched or kissed them when it wasn’t wanted. I could easily use that to use your logic circle to go “well it’s more plausible that the guy who has a history of invading the space of woman in a way they found inappropriate could have done it”.

No there’s really no justification to believe one over the other. They are both accusations that rely entirely on the words of the accuse and have nothing in the way of established facts to back them up. It just doesn’t hold up. Personally I just think that a lot people don’t want to admit they can be bias and be willing to drag one person through the mud for something they are willing to be more forgiving of someone else in. Biden shouldn’t be dragged for this thing that is inconsistent and even if in the off chance it happened we’d be going on blind faith to believe it, and neither should Kavanaugh back then

[Malvolio]

"Believe women" isnt "Yes you're right" its "Take this case seriously" because too many women were ignored and told "Were you drinking too much ?". We had something like this in the uk in the....90s I think ? When they showed a clip of an officer talking to a rape victim in....not a great way. It became apparent that a new way of dealing with these situations was beeded.

I never took the phrase "Believe women" to mean believe women automatically. I simply took it to mean we should stop being so dismissive whenever a woman makes a claim of sexual assault, just because the man she accuses is a man of power or a man with a good reputation, or just because the woman had a reputation for dressing in short skirts and tight sweaters. I mean even if a woman goes out to a bar and dresses sexy, and even if she is looking to get laid, that doesn't mean she has to accept whatever advances she receives from every man she encounters.

That doesn't mean we don't think women are capable of lying about these things. Just that we shouldn't let that be our first assumption, even if the accused is someone we like.

[jetengine]

That’s absurd logic. By your logic I could take any person who drank heavily in college (which is millions oh 18-22 year old men and woman) and say, “that person sexually assaulted me, I can’t tell you where it happened, I can’t tell you the general area it was in, I can’t tell you how many people were there, I can’t tell you how I got to that place, I can’t tell you how I was invited to that place, how I got home from that place, I can’t tell you the date it happened, I can’t tell you the time it happened, I have nobody who can corroborate that this assault happened, I have nobody that can corroborate that this party even happened, BUT in the absence of all this information at one point I was in a room with this person and they assaulted me”.

I can’t even entertain that. Firsts off it’s an incredibly problematic mentality to say that because someone drank a lot in college they are plausible to be sexual assaulters.

Beyond that you are basically arguing that it’s more credible despite having no information but one persons word because one of the people used to drink a lot.

They are both shitty accusations that would never hold up to any standard. You’re clearly more forgiving of one and setting up an awful metric (this person drinks) to justify holding one in higher regard. Which is kinda crappy when I could easily say that only one of them has multiple women saying he touched or kissed them when it wasn’t wanted. I could easily use that to use your logic circle to go “well it’s more plausible that the guy who has a history of invading the space of woman in a way they found inappropriate could have done it”.

No there’s really no justification to believe one over the other. They are both accusations that rely entirely on the words of the accuse and have nothing in the way of established facts to back them up. It just doesn’t hold up. Personally I just think that a lot people don’t want to admit they can be bias and be willing to drag one person through the mud for something they are willing to be more forgiving of someone else in. Biden shouldn’t be dragged for this thing that is inconsistent and even if in the off chance it happened we’d be going on blind faith to believe it, and neither should Kavanaugh back then

I mean, "statistically theres tons of college sexual assaults and sexual assaults with alcohol involved" was my point regardung the credibility compared to reades increasingly implausible story, but hey write 3+ paragraphs if you want dude.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I mean, "statistically theres tons of college sexual assaults and sexual assaults with alcohol involved" was my point regardung the credibility compared to reades increasingly implausible story, but hey write 3+ paragraphs if you want dude.

So everyone who drinks can be more plausibly be accused of sexual assault regardless of facts. Cool. You Know you have no real argument here.

[worstblogever]

For some reason you didn't quote my complete statement on Virginia Democratic politics.

Because I don't like to quote the parts of posts that are unnecessary or not relevant, particularly people to gish-gallop rather than get to the point.

Just like I'd rather not pretend someone is being taken out of context because they don't get all their misleading statements reposted ad nauseum.

[Powerboy]

So Trump just defunded W.H.O. in the middle of a pandemic for their slow response and opposing banning travel from China in spite of the fact that they changed that and warned the pandemic was coming a month before Trump was claiming it was all a hoax and way more than a month before Trump was taking any of it seriously, not that he's taking any of it seriously even now.

And the worst part is that it won't change a single vote of his moronic followers as they continue to enable this emotional grade schooler.

[TheDarman]

There were plenty of inconsistencies in Ford's story.

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

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

The issue is that a lot of those problems that the author of that post had are easily attributed to misspeaking and generalized facts that have different definitions (1982 can be considered mid-1980s to some people and 15 is at least halfway between ten and twenty). That doesn’t mean it did happen, but I’d say it is a lot less suspect than the analogous case you seem to be trying to draw to Reade, whose inconsistencies are long-documented and clear. There is also the fact that there were numerous other folks accusing Kavanaugh of this behavior, if not towards women, than at least the behavior that precipitated the event. He also did not react particularly well to this information, trying to state no investigation was necessary and acting really indignant and entitled to the position. They are not directly analogous.

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.

I do recall people asking both to step aside. That being said...I think that the allegations against Fairfax put into perspective the problems of asking Northam to step down for really bad judgment and insensitive actions, but nothing illegal or particularly heinous. I mean, Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, kept his leadership position for similar things to Northam. I think Fairfax should leave, but I think that Northam should take responsibility, apologize, and move forward.

Ford was dragged out by Democratic staffers.

Admittedly, I think that was a political move that resulted in this poor woman having to tell her story when she didn’t really want to put her safety at risk like that. That is distinguished by a Tara Reade allegation that came when she thought it would be appropriately timed against Biden, at least according to tweets directed at Ryan Grim.

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.

Again, it is about taking these things seriously. I think Kavanaugh’s situation would’ve been different if he had pled for an investigation, established credibility, and kept his cool. So far, that has been Biden’s position on an allegation that seems to be more inherently problematic anyhow. Kavanaugh didn’t do the above and that created a firestorm that still hasn’t gone away. Nor should the fact that this occurred without meaningful evaluation of the allegations be forgotten.

[Tami]

So Trump just defunded W.H.O. in the middle of a pandemic for their slow response and opposing banning travel from China in spite of the fact that they changed that and warned the pandemic was coming a month before Trump was claiming it was all a hoax and way more than a month before Trump was taking any of it seriously, not that he's taking any of it seriously even now.

And the worst part is that it won't change a single vote of his moronic followers as they continue to enable this emotional grade schooler.

Honestly, it would not surprise me if some future analysis of Trump's mental state discovers that he has convinced himself that the entire U.S. economy, budget, GNP, etc. all belong to him. So much so, that all of the defunding, budget cutting, and so on is an expression of his greed and desire not to give anyone any money. Much like he tried to cheat contractors and others who were hired to work on his projects.

This is part of a pattern for Trump. He's a cheapskate when it comes to giving money others, but he spends beyond his means when it comes to himself or when he can scam someone else to pay for it.