Did Kavanaugh do it?

[MsMarvelDuckie]

And it's been my experience that those who accuse others of being overly simplistic and biased in views, generally are themselves. Especially after having made broad generalizations based on an obviously biased view of a group that runs a vast range of ideals and social issues. Fearmongering and media pandering aside, there is really no more rationality on the right than there is on the left. It's just that the lack of critical thinking and mania is better hidden behind the veneer of "god and country" rhetoric. Conservativism is well and good- until it becomes a rallying cry for instilling fear of "evil socialist bullies out to get us" and the mentality of ostracism and persecution that goes with it. Pretty sure the McCarthy era is proof enough of that. We've already (in theory, at least) learned the lesson of over-zealous reactionary retaliation against "socialist conspiracy". Haven't we??

[John Pannozzi]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Multiculturalism - doesn't work. Intersectionality - doesn't work.

How so?

With that point of view in mind, one wonders which kind of liberal/"SJW" can be considered more dangerous: a populist corporate shill statist like Hilary, or a more genuine (if that's possible) socialist like Bernie Saunders?

[Prowler]

Originally Posted by John Pannozzi

How so?

With that point of view in mind, one wonders which kind of liberal/"SJW" can be considered more dangerous: a populist corporate shill statist like Hilary, or a more genuine (if that's possible) socialist like Bernie Saunders?

SJW are the more radical types, though. I wouldn't say your average socialist or your average person who falls into what we call the left-wing spectrum of politics falls into the SJW category.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by John Pannozzi

How so?

With that point of view in mind, one wonders which kind of liberal/"SJW" can be considered more dangerous: a populist corporate shill statist like Hilary, or a more genuine (if that's possible) socialist like Bernie Saunders?

Multiculturalism doesn't work because people of different cultures are not in hurry to integrate in the society they are living in. And the worst part - most of them don't respect culture of the country they are in.
Of course, in different countries situation might be slightly different, but it's obvious that people of different cultures do not want to assimilate and become proper citizens.

Intersectionality is even worse: lefties eat each other, because, different groups not only pursue their own interests, but they are directly throwing other groups into the trash, whenever there is some sort of disagreement or misunderstanding.

And as for who is more dangerous: fanatics are much more dangerous. You can deal with shallow populist. Generally they won't do crazy stuff, whereas fanatic might ignore basic logic and facts to pursue their own vision of the future. And they are not someone you can make deals with.
So populists are more preferable.

[John Pannozzi]

Originally Posted by Sumac

And as for who is more dangerous: fanatics are much more dangerous. You can deal with shallow populist. Generally they won't do crazy stuff, whereas fanatic might ignore basic logic and facts to pursue their own vision of the future. And they are not someone you can make deals with.
So populists are more preferable.

So, do you consider Bernie to be a fanatic?

[BartAllen]

The american liberal left used to be the party of the intellectual. Now it has just as much science denial and stupidity as the religious right did 30 years ago.

Originally Posted by John Pannozzi

So, do you consider Bernie to be a fanatic?

I'd consider him an idiot.
He said bread lines would be good for people.

[Voltron]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

there is really no more rationality on the right than there is on the left. It's just that the lack of critical thinking and mania is better hidden behind the veneer of "god and country" rhetoric.

I disagree. I think the "god and country" thing is a poor, poor argument for their brand of crazy. When the only answers offered to complex issues come in sound bites, there's a problem.

The United States is a country of 350-400 million people. The demographic is as diverse as it can possibly be. Saying that doing things because "god" wants it to be that way is preposterous.

Imagine every time you went to the doctor, he diagnosed you with "demons".

Runny nose? Demons.
Stomach ache? Demons.
Strange rash? Demons.
Diarrhea? Butt Demons.

Chances are, you probably wouldn't stand for it when he gave you some prayers to say and charged you out the wazoo for it.

So why would any sane person accept this as a sensible solution for anything outside of actual, full blown "Linda Blair" Exorcist ****?

There's no rationality in "god and country". It's just a fancy way to say "I hate thinking. Please don't make me do it."

And this isn't to say that Right leaning philosophies are all stupid, or worthless nonsense. But a lot of the people who try to jump into a political argument tend to fall back on these three words as though they mean something profound. They don't. It's the same thing as arguing "social justice and the environment" when liberals are backed into a corner.

The saving grace on the Left, I find, is that they're WAY more likely to divorce themselves from a political figure after some darkness comes out about them. Obama caught it for the Syrian Missile strikes. John Edward was ousted for his affair. Al Franken was ousted, too.

That, to me, shows rationality. Way more so than the Right exhibits.

[Leo656]

I'unno man. They sure love ol' Bill, in spite of... y'know... all those rapes and other sh*t. Just to put it out there. I hear what you're saying, but I feel they're awfully selective.

I mean, just for example: With Kavanaugh, the liberals are like, "Ford is obviously telling the truth, I mean who'd ever make up something like that? And why? We don't need evidence, or witnesses... MY HEART tells me that she's telling the truth." Ummm... okay.

And then, with Clinton, you can go back 40 years all the way through the late 1990s, and you have accusations, witnesses, corroborating evidence, and in one case a smoking gun (or cigar, as it may be)... And in this case, it's always either, "Well, they ALL do stuff like that, he just got caught", which is horrible, OR, "Well, ALL of that stuff really doesn't matter, because, like... we don't KNOW he did it because nobody literally walked into the room AS he was doing it, which we REALLY would need, if we're gonna make a judgment on things like this!" Which exposes their hypocrisy, when compared to the Kavanaugh situation, in which case evidence DOESN'T matter and all we need are gut feelings and empathy.

Just saying. This is why I don't pick sides. Although I do trust the conservatives a bit more, because I fully expect them to screw with me, and so am not shocked when they do.
---------------

I've actually blamed Diarrhea on Butt Demons. That's pretty funny, man.

[Voltron]

The Clinton Impeachment proceedings are comparable, yes, but there's plenty of difference between the two.

With Clinton, it was an actual trial. He was accused of, then tried for, obstruction of justice and perjury. The trial took place in the Senate and had very clear rules and regulations which had to be observed, regardless of public perception and judgment.

The sexual aspect of the trial was certainly at the forefront, but it wasn't why he was on trial. He was on trial because he lied.

It's probable that Clinton's charm and swagger played a large role in his maintaining or, at least, regaining his positive image. Whether or not he's committed any crimes remains in the court of public opinion. As you've pointed out, a lot of the public seem unconcerned with his behavior.


With Kavanaugh, it's not a trial. It's a job interview. He had to sit down and undergo examination to see if he was fit for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

The rape allegations were pertinent since his character is *extremely* important in this decision. Whether or not he actually did it is less of an issue, unfortunately, as this is all about public perception.

Imagine that you're looking for a baby sitter. You find a promising candidate, but as you're talking to them on the phone, you get a few text messages from their friends and former employers saying that the person is a rapist and has a serious problem with alcohol. While they've never been convicted or even prosecuted, it is going to give you serious pause about letting them have power over people your care about.

We're just scaling up the responsibility.

Another big problem is the legitimacy of his tenure. If people perceive Kavanaugh as a morally reprehensible figure, they're not going to respect his views and decisions on the court.

The court of public opinion has a lot more weight in this scenario, too, since it comes down to whom the country would vote for after the hearings. An example being Susan Collins having a lot of push back from constituents regarding her decision on the matter. That's to say nothing of the lousy press Grassley, Graham, and some other senators got for the thing.

Another aspect is the "charm". Clinton, whether you like him or not, had a ton of it. Kavanaugh showed next to none. He got up there and threw a tantrum over not being confirmed. He gave awkward, rambling responses and even went so far as to claim a conspiracy against him in his defense against Ford.

Whether or not he did it isn't the issue here. It's whether or not we'd want some one like that on the Supreme Court. Even if it came out that he was totally a rapist and raped dozens of people, it wasn't a trial and he wouldn't have gone to jail.

With Clinton, it totally was. However, it was never about rape. It was about whether he perjured himself and tried to obstruct justice.

__________________________________________________ ___

Those butt demons are killer man. A literal pain in the ass.

[Leo656]

Charming or not, he's most likely a rapist, though. The question is largely, "To what degree?" Yet people still love him. They want his wife to be President, despite the fact that she stayed married to a rapist so she could ride his name into the White House one day. And she, for her part, actively worked to silence and discredit his victims.

That's horrible. Those are horrible, horrible people. But they're very popular, mostly for what they say vs. what they do, and this gives me both pause and alarm.

That was my point; you said that in your view, liberals will more quickly pivot away from someone who's been "tainted", and frankly I don't think that's true. I think you can be as dirty as it gets, and they'll still support you as long as you say things they wanna hear. And, of course, if they're "charming", as you said.

I think that's pretty much the case on both sides; I just don't think liberals move any quicker to pivot, I think maybe they're more selective. But then I find everything they do to be very transparent and predictable.

[Voltron]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Charming or not, he's most likely a rapist, though. The question is largely, "To what degree?" Yet people still love him. They want his wife to be President, despite the fact that she stayed married to a rapist so she could ride his name into the White House one day. And she, for her part, actively worked to silence and discredit his victims.

That's horrible. Those are horrible, horrible people. But they're very popular, mostly for what they say vs. what they do, and this gives me both pause and alarm.

Yes. It is horrible, if it's true. This thread started with the question, "did Kavanaugh do it?" The problem here is that, since none of these things were ever brought to trial, we can't say with any finality that they're true. We can believe they are. I can rant and rave all day along about how I think Kavanaugh to be the world record holder for most rapes, but it doesn't mean anything unless we take it to court.

I know that sounds frustrating. I have a friend who's a lawyer and he always stone walls me with the same stuff. During and after the Casey Anthony trial, he would call here innocent. Everyone I know thinks she's guilty, but he (correctly (and infuriatingly)) pointed out that the courts are entrusted to make these decisions, and they decided she was innocent.

The problem, though, is the court of public opinion. That's the point I'm trying to make. Insisting that Clinton's sexual misdeeds have some bearing on Kavanaugh's examination isn't in the same discussion.

That was my point; you said that in your view, liberals will more quickly pivot away from someone who's been "tainted", and frankly I don't think that's true. I think you can be as dirty as it gets, and they'll still support you as long as you say things they wanna hear. And, of course, if they're "charming", as you said.

Charm has a lot to do with it, yes. There's a number of cases where charming assholes have gotten away with murder. Sometimes literally.

What I wanted to get at here is that Kavanaugh isn't charming. Hillary isn't either, if you want to take that road. It's a huge reason why she lost. No one likes her. Hell, even her husband noped out of bed the first chance he got.

Jokes aside, despite it not being a requisite for the position, politicians live and die by public perception. Nixon did a lot of good things for the US, but he's still viewed as a crook. JFK was a total horndog who escalated the Vietnam War and brought us to the brink of nuclear holocaust with Russia, but he's viewed as one of our greatest presidents.

I think that's pretty much the case on both sides; I just don't think liberals move any quicker to pivot, I think maybe they're more selective. But then I find everything they do to be very transparent and predictable.

It's fair to say that both sides have some things to answer for. That being said, as it stands, the GOP controls all three branches of government and are demonstrably driving the country into the ground.

As for the "pivots", I'll stand by the claim that the Left is less forgiving of its political figures. Franken was ousted for joking around about boobs. Roy Moore is an accused pedophile who almost won a senate seat. Anthony Weiner was ousted for his sexting. There's a literal Nazi running on the GOP ticket in several states. Nazis. Not guys who let the "n" word slip once. Guys who think that Hitler was an OK dude, and that we should totally create a "white nation state" and ban the "darkies."

That should raise some eyebrows from Republican voters.

[Candy Kappa]

Originally Posted by Voltron

That should raise some eyebrows from Republican voters.

But it won't, it is the Repuplican party we're talking about.

[Sumac]

I don't think anyone can seriously consider that Left can distance itself from "bad" people, after they have supported Hilarity.

Also, in case of Conservatives "god" represents traditional values, not literal deities.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Sumac

I don't think anyone can seriously consider that Left can distance itself from "bad" people, after they have supported Hilarity.

Also, in case of Conservatives "god" represents traditional values, not literal deities.

Um, buddy? Trust me, 4 out of 5 Conservatives believe in a literal deity.

Now, the actual politicians running for the offices? Debatable and laughable. But the voters... oh yeah. Oh yeah they do.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

Um, buddy? Trust me, 4 out of 5 Conservatives believe in a literal deity.

Now, the actual politicians running for the offices?

Large numbers pretend because they have to. Just like Trump pretends to be against abortion when he was publicly very supportive of it as a private citizen. You have to play the game...

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Large numbers pretend because they have to. Just like Trump pretends to be against abortion when he was publicly very supportive of it as a private citizen. You have to play the game...

Yup. They say whatever it takes to get voted by the people. And yet, so many people trust the candidates? Because they say "God bless America?"

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by Voltron

It's fair to say that both sides have some things to answer for. That being said, as it stands, the GOP controls all three branches of government and are demonstrably driving the country into the ground.

As for the "pivots", I'll stand by the claim that the Left is less forgiving of its political figures. Franken was ousted for joking around about boobs. Roy Moore is an accused pedophile who almost won a senate seat. Anthony Weiner was ousted for his sexting. There's a literal Nazi running on the GOP ticket in several states. Nazis. Not guys who let the "n" word slip once. Guys who think that Hitler was an OK dude, and that we should totally create a "white nation state" and ban the "darkies."

That should raise some eyebrows from Republican voters.

Thank you. This is ABSOLUTELY why I will not vote for ANY of those creeps!

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

Um, buddy? Trust me, 4 out of 5 Conservatives believe in a literal deity.

Now, the actual politicians running for the offices? Debatable and laughable. But the voters... oh yeah. Oh yeah they do.

Seconded. There's a REASON they call our part of the country the "Bible Belt"! And it's being held up by the Bible suspenders.....

[BartAllen]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

Thank you. This is ABSOLUTELY why I will not vote for ANY of those creeps!





Seconded. There's a REASON they call our part of the country the "Bible Belt"! And it's being held up by the Bible suspenders.....

But you're cool with voting for Hillary? A woman who has been accused of colluding with her husband to cover up his rapes. Okay!


Anyone want to talk about the fact that NBC sat on evidence that one of Kavanaugh's accusers walked back the accusation and didn't report on it until just a week ago... No? Yea, I wonder why.

One of the accusers admits to making up accusation: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo...enclosures.pdf

[The Deadman]

Kavanaugh accuser referred to DOJ for false statements, Grassley’s office announces
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kav...fice-announces

Whoops

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by BartAllen

But you're cool with voting for Hillary? A woman who has been accused of colluding with her husband to cover up his rapes. Okay!

Anyone want to talk about the fact that NBC sat on evidence that one of Kavanaugh's accusers walked back the accusation and didn't report on it until just a week ago... No? Yea, I wonder why.

One of the accusers admits to making up accusation: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo...enclosures.pdf

Hillary? Not really. I only voted for her because I considered her the lesser evil in the equation. And still do. BUT! I would have voted for one the other candidates if I had thought they stood a snowball's chance in hell of winning. But they didn't, so I voted to keep that orange idiot OUT. There IS such a thing as voting AGAINST rather than FOR particular candidate(s). I may not like either main runner, but I'm savvy enough to realize that in a two-party system, voting for the opposing side of the one you disagree with the most is usually the only practical option.