Kavanaugh

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
Lonestar
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:56 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Lonestar » Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:28 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:48 am
If he did what she claims, I think she has every right to come forward whenever she pleases. What this really comes down to is whether he did it or not. It totally changes the nature of both her coming forward and him acting in such a defensive, unprofessional manner. The only things that don't hing on that are that democrat senators are playing games, and that masses of "the right" are willing to openly mock a woman insofar as she came forward as a sexual assault victim.
"Unprofessional" is subjective judgement. If he DID NOT do what he was so aggressively accused of, wouldn't a "defensive" posture be expected? Assume for a moment you have spent your entire adult life practicing law and setting as a judge on several courts. Your credentials are impeccable. All of a sudden you have a partisan group of individuals acting as a lynching party, based on sketchy, uncorroborated evidence. Under the conditions, I would not trust anyone who would not stand up and offer a scathing defense.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Maddy » Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:03 am

moda0306 wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:48 am
She's not asking anyone to believe her wholeheartedly without evidence. She's just asking that her testimony be given as evidence to his character.

If he did what she claims, I think she has every right to come forward whenever she pleases.
Nobody's questioning her right to come forward. Nor has anyone denied her the opportunity to have her evidence considered. (Lordy, how much more attention could she have garnered?)

What you are actually contending, it seems to me, is that she had a right to be believed. Nobody has that right, no matter what's being alleged and no matter when the allegation is made.

Here, the timing of the revelation, the complete absence of corroboration, and the flat-out refuting of her testimony by multiple witnesses (including those she identified) bears strongly on her credibility and raises the unmistakable inference of an ulterior, political, motive. The suggestion that she is entitled, despite all that, to be believed (presumably because she is a woman and because the allegation resonates of "cultural oppression") is just nutty.
User avatar
Tyler
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2066
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Tyler » Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:35 am

No matter where you fall on the spectrum of Kavanaugh opinions, you owe it to yourself to take the time to listen to Susan Collins' full speech where she outlines all of the reasons she is voting for his confirmation. Her tone, reasoning, and genuine sense of professional responsibility are a welcome breath of fresh air in this whole debacle and she definitely earned my respect. Other senators should take note.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR3WajO-WwI
jacksonM
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by jacksonM » Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:44 am

Tyler wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:35 am
No matter where you fall on the spectrum of Kavanaugh opinions, you owe it to yourself to take the time to listen to Susan Collins' full speech where she outlines all of the reasons she is voting for his confirmation. Her tone, reasoning, and genuine sense of professional responsibility are a welcome breath of fresh air in this whole debacle and she definitely earned my respect. Other senators should take note.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR3WajO-WwI
+1

Excellent speech but I don't think any other senators took note, except maybe Manchin.
jacksonM
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by jacksonM » Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:01 am

MangoMan wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:18 am
Maddy wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:03 am
moda0306 wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:48 am
She's not asking anyone to believe her wholeheartedly without evidence. She's just asking that her testimony be given as evidence to his character.

If he did what she claims, I think she has every right to come forward whenever she pleases.
Nobody's questioning her right to come forward. Nor has anyone denied her the opportunity to have her evidence considered. (Lordy, how much more attention could she have garnered?)

What you are actually contending, it seems to me, is that she had a right to be believed. Nobody has that right, no matter what's being alleged and no matter when the allegation is made.

Here, the timing of the revelation, the complete absence of corroboration, and the flat-out refuting of her testimony by multiple witnesses (including those she identified) bears strongly on her credibility and raises the unmistakable inference of an ulterior, political, motive. The suggestion that she is entitled, despite all that, to be believed (presumably because she is a woman and because the allegation resonates of "cultural oppression") is just nutty.
Exactly. Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty' ?
Also the admissibility of hearsay evidence. As I understand it that was what all the 22 or so people the Dems had lined up for the FBI to interview were ready to provide. Not only was it a stalling tactic but they wanted the final report to be sprinkled with "I heard somebody say this or that". They didn't get what they wanted but at least they have their talking point about how the investigation was constrained, even though according to a former FBI investigator I saw on TV, that is what they always do.
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Cortopassi » Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:08 am

Please read at least parts of this article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... story.html

My question to everyone is:

Do his almost certainly untruthful descriptions of some of his calendar entries constitute:

1) Lying under oath
2) You believe his descriptions or
3) He shouldn't have ever been subjected to this hearing in the first place and gets a pass because he was trying to save face?

Or something else?
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by WiseOne » Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:20 am

Tyler wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:35 am
No matter where you fall on the spectrum of Kavanaugh opinions, you owe it to yourself to take the time to listen to Susan Collins' full speech where she outlines all of the reasons she is voting for his confirmation. Her tone, reasoning, and genuine sense of professional responsibility are a welcome breath of fresh air in this whole debacle and she definitely earned my respect. Other senators should take note.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR3WajO-WwI
Thank you Tyler!

Not only did my respect for Susan Collins just go up several notches, but it's pretty clear that her position has been badly misrepresented by the media. Did you catch the crazy stuff being printed now about how states should ignore Supreme Court decisions once Kavanaugh is seated on it?
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by moda0306 » Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:24 am

MangoMan wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:18 am
Maddy wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:03 am
moda0306 wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:48 am
She's not asking anyone to believe her wholeheartedly without evidence. She's just asking that her testimony be given as evidence to his character.

If he did what she claims, I think she has every right to come forward whenever she pleases.
Nobody's questioning her right to come forward. Nor has anyone denied her the opportunity to have her evidence considered. (Lordy, how much more attention could she have garnered?)

What you are actually contending, it seems to me, is that she had a right to be believed. Nobody has that right, no matter what's being alleged and no matter when the allegation is made.

Here, the timing of the revelation, the complete absence of corroboration, and the flat-out refuting of her testimony by multiple witnesses (including those she identified) bears strongly on her credibility and raises the unmistakable inference of an ulterior, political, motive. The suggestion that she is entitled, despite all that, to be believed (presumably because she is a woman and because the allegation resonates of "cultural oppression") is just nutty.
Exactly. Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty' ?
This isn't a jury trial to throw a man in a cage for the rest of his life.

If that were the case I could understand all the flatulating melodrama.

This is a process (that has been neutered into mostly a faux show anyway) to put a man in one of the most powerful positions in the world. For life. When another person could easily be chosen.

Let's lose the f'kin melodrama.

Those of us who are concerned more with Kavanaugh's terrible position on executive privilege and the 4th Amendment have more clout on that argument than those who decided to care about it for a couple weeks in a very unique case.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Xan » Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:38 am

Senator Collins addressed that point. Moda, the video is well worth watching. You can crank it up to 2x speed. Really most of the speech isn't about the allegations but about judicial philosophy. It's interesting.

Edit: here's the full transcript:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/us/p ... naugh.html
Some argue that because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest court, the public interest requires that doubts be resolved against the nominee. Others see the public interest as embodied in our long-established tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence. In cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee.

Mr. President, I understand both viewpoints. This debate is complicated further by the fact that the Senate confirmation process is not a trial. But certain fundamental legal principles—about due process, the presumption of innocence, and fairness—do bear on my thinking, and I cannot abandon them.

In evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be. We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy.

The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee’s otherwise exemplary record. I worry that departing from this presumption could lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward.

Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that, when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape. This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by moda0306 » Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:22 am

MangoMan wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:41 am
moda0306 wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:24 am
MangoMan wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:18 am

Exactly. Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty' ?
This isn't a jury trial to throw a man in a cage for the rest of his life.

If that were the case I could understand all the flatulating melodrama.

This is a process (that has been neutered into mostly a faux show anyway) to put a man in one of the most powerful positions in the world. For life. When another person could easily be chosen.

Let's lose the f'kin melodrama.

Those of us who are concerned more with Kavanaugh's terrible position on executive privilege and the 4th Amendment have more clout on that argument than those who decided to care about it for a couple weeks in a very unique case.
So you're saying that since this isn't an actual jury trial, innocence until proven guilty doesn't apply?! Sorry, the job or its tenure is irrelevant. And, you think your position on that is more valid because of your concerns on the 4th amendment? Sorry, irrelevant again.

edit: While typing this, Xan posted the above quote from Sen. Collins, which I had not yet heard/read, and apparently she agrees with me.
Some level of evidence is probably appropriate for a Supreme Court Nomination. I wouldn't presume to know exactly what. But a few things I do know...

- Kavanaugh is terrible on the 4th Amendment.

- How the powerful treat the masses visavis the 4th amendment and executive power is millions (well, probably more) of times of more importance than how they treat one of their own (another powerful government careerist) in a job interview.

- The knuckle-dragging pro-Trump wing of "the right" is showing again what cucks to power they are... not that this is a surprise... their "anti-establishment" bonafides were pretty much nonexistent anyway. This just serves as a reminder.

This should barely be a part of the national conversation. I agree with the somewhat corny speech by Ben Sasse... This should be about drilling into the principles at stake. Those that are pretending to care about due process as it pertains to a job interview when you hear nary a peep from them on the topic otherwise unless it's their jingo-clown-fascist president being investigated are obviously just cucks to right-leaning power, not principled civil-libertarians.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by moda0306 » Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:15 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:49 am
You do realize that phrases like 'knuckle dragging' that you have repeated in quite a few posts in this thread, and other phrases like it, is one of the reasons Trump is in the WH in the first place?
That's funny you would admit to a whole section of the country being so immature as to elect such a clown because some people called them names.

Many types of people get called names.

Only one group has chosen to earn their nickname by electing a stroked-out jingo-clown to head the most powerful killing machine in the history of the world as a backlash. Not just that, but defend him at every turn, no matter what ridiculous thing he does. When feminazis elect Rosie O'Donnel or Kathy Griffin to President I'll unleash a similar barrage of insults towards them.

BTW I give derogatory names to a lot of types of people. Some of my friends are knuckle-dragging trumpists. Some are feminazis. Some are establishment-left or establishment-right power-cucks who will defend anyone with the right letter behind their names. Some (usually the kindest/best ones) don't care for politics and don't like to aggressively defend slimeballs of any sort so I don't have nasty nicknames for them. Few are bitter quasi-anarchists like myself who distrust-dislike anyone who thinks they're important/powerful, but I'm working on them. ;)

As a side-car to good logic/arguments and sound facts, I find solid ad-hominem banter to actually contribute to a half-derailed conversation... not be a detriment to it. When moral outrage is being tossed around like a football over job interview norms for a powerful and anti-freedom judge, I'll feel free to use similar moralist language towards things that are actually important... such as the voting patterns of the 25% of this country who seem to only care about the civil liberties of massively powerful conservatives.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Mountaineer » Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:12 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:15 pm
MangoMan wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:49 am
You do realize that phrases like 'knuckle dragging' that you have repeated in quite a few posts in this thread, and other phrases like it, is one of the reasons Trump is in the WH in the first place?
That's funny you would admit to a whole section of the country being so immature as to elect such a clown because some people called them names.

Many types of people get called names.

Only one group has chosen to earn their nickname by electing a stroked-out jingo-clown to head the most powerful killing machine in the history of the world as a backlash. Not just that, but defend him at every turn, no matter what ridiculous thing he does. When feminazis elect Rosie O'Donnel or Kathy Griffin to President I'll unleash a similar barrage of insults towards them.

BTW I give derogatory names to a lot of types of people. Some of my friends are knuckle-dragging trumpists. Some are feminazis. Some are establishment-left or establishment-right power-cucks who will defend anyone with the right letter behind their names. Some (usually the kindest/best ones) don't care for politics and don't like to aggressively defend slimeballs of any sort so I don't have nasty nicknames for them. Few are bitter quasi-anarchists like myself who distrust-dislike anyone who thinks they're important/powerful, but I'm working on them. ;)

As a side-car to good logic/arguments and sound facts, I find solid ad-hominem banter to actually contribute to a half-derailed conversation... not be a detriment to it. When moral outrage is being tossed around like a football over job interview norms for a powerful and anti-freedom judge, I'll feel free to use similar moralist language towards things that are actually important... such as the voting patterns of the 25% of this country who seem to only care about the civil liberties of massively powerful conservatives.
Moda you Dorkmeister ;) , YMMV, but my experience is that labeling rarely, if ever, achieves the results intended by the labeler. Usually plain polite English works better.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Cortopassi » Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:46 pm

Voting right now....
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by moda0306 » Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:26 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:01 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:15 pm
MangoMan wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:49 am
You do realize that phrases like 'knuckle dragging' that you have repeated in quite a few posts in this thread, and other phrases like it, is one of the reasons Trump is in the WH in the first place?
That's funny you would admit to a whole section of the country being so immature as to elect such a clown because some people called them names.

Many types of people get called names.

Only one group has chosen to earn their nickname by electing a stroked-out jingo-clown to head the most powerful killing machine in the history of the world as a backlash. Not just that, but defend him at every turn, no matter what ridiculous thing he does. When feminazis elect Rosie O'Donnel or Kathy Griffin to President I'll unleash a similar barrage of insults towards them.

BTW I give derogatory names to a lot of types of people. Some of my friends are knuckle-dragging trumpists. Some are feminazis. Some are establishment-left or establishment-right power-cucks who will defend anyone with the right letter behind their names. Some (usually the kindest/best ones) don't care for politics and don't like to aggressively defend slimeballs of any sort so I don't have nasty nicknames for them. Few are bitter quasi-anarchists like myself who distrust-dislike anyone who thinks they're important/powerful, but I'm working on them. ;)

As a side-car to good logic/arguments and sound facts, I find solid ad-hominem banter to actually contribute to a half-derailed conversation... not be a detriment to it. When moral outrage is being tossed around like a football over job interview norms for a powerful and anti-freedom judge, I'll feel free to use similar moralist language towards things that are actually important... such as the voting patterns of the 25% of this country who seem to only care about the civil liberties of massively powerful conservatives.
I'm pretty sure is not being called deplorables that pissed off middle America, it that the Elite, particularly to the left of the aisle, actually thinks of them in this way, and that they were tired of no one caring about their plight. Diversity and globalization just don't rank real high on an out of work small town laborer's list of priorities.
Well usually names do carry some actual weight of how people actually think of others. My conservative friends who've used the n-word certainly don't have egalitarian views towards race. But like I said, only one group has decided to lash out by voting for a bombastic clown.

Diversity and globalization don't help these people. But neither do corporate tax cuts and the military industrial complex. And free healthcare, tax-credits, and other safety nets sure as f'k DO help them, yet they eschew those options in favor of a bombastic clown because they see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires rather than the working-class that they (and most of us) are.

But I really don't care for the culture war. I'm from a blue family in a red-as-fk county in a blue state. I shoot guns and drive a Prius. I sit in both city and rural culture a bit and I see what many others seem not to... that there IS general anxiety about the economy, because our version of capitalism is a flawed system leaving folks feel stressed as hell even when they're successful... this anxiety and alienation leads (yes) to some actual economic analysis but more-so (IMO) to them settling into their cultural resentments. It's city vs rural. Nativist vs Cosmopolitan. If we really want to get reunited around economic grounds, we'd leave that framework behind, AND align on our true battle-lines that matter of Labor Vs. Capital.

You don't even have to be for socialist or even liberal policies to see that THIS is nature of the economic dilemma we have, and when every college grad with some stock in a Roth IRA and a redneck with a towing business think they're owners of the means of production in any meaningful sense, then get in a pissing match over gun policy or religion or immigration, we're never going to get anywhere. We'll keep rearranging the deck-chairs on the titanic while the REAL owners of the world rake in more and more wealth while the world turns into ever-more a warming pile of garbage and angry cultural resentments.

Our world economy and domestic economy have both grown SO much... exponential growth into perpetuity is probably impossible on a planet with limited resources. Even if tax cuts DID work for these saps, it would be because the economy actually has to grow in size for these rural, hard-working-but-underpaid folks to have anything close to a decent life. That's unsustainable, and even if it weren't, it still says a TON more about the nature of labor interests vs capital interests than it does about the "success" of tax cuts and regulation cuts.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Kriegsspiel » Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:04 pm

No matter what happens, I think we can all come together as Americans and agree that everything is shitty and people who don't agree with my side are dumbasses.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Maddy » Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:58 am

moda0306 wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:26 pm

Diversity and globalization don't help these people. But neither do corporate tax cuts and the military industrial complex. And free healthcare, tax-credits, and other safety nets sure as f'k DO help them, yet they eschew those options in favor of a bombastic clown because they see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires rather than the working-class that they (and most of us) are.

But I really don't care for the culture war. I'm from a blue family in a red-as-fk county in a blue state. I shoot guns and drive a Prius. I sit in both city and rural culture a bit and I see what many others seem not to... that there IS general anxiety about the economy, because our version of capitalism is a flawed system leaving folks feel stressed as hell even when they're successful... this anxiety and alienation leads (yes) to some actual economic analysis but more-so (IMO) to them settling into their cultural resentments. It's city vs rural. Nativist vs Cosmopolitan. If we really want to get reunited around economic grounds, we'd leave that framework behind, AND align on our true battle-lines that matter of Labor Vs. Capital.

You don't even have to be for socialist or even liberal policies to see that THIS is nature of the economic dilemma we have, and when every college grad with some stock in a Roth IRA and a redneck with a towing business think they're owners of the means of production in any meaningful sense, then get in a pissing match over gun policy or religion or immigration, we're never going to get anywhere. We'll keep rearranging the deck-chairs on the titanic while the REAL owners of the world rake in more and more wealth while the world turns into ever-more a warming pile of garbage and angry cultural resentments.

Our world economy and domestic economy have both grown SO much... exponential growth into perpetuity is probably impossible on a planet with limited resources. Even if tax cuts DID work for these saps, it would be because the economy actually has to grow in size for these rural, hard-working-but-underpaid folks to have anything close to a decent life. That's unsustainable, and even if it weren't, it still says a TON more about the nature of labor interests vs capital interests than it does about the "success" of tax cuts and regulation cuts.
I doubt the "redneck with a towing business" gives much thought to whether or not he's a meaningful owner of the means of production. His very real accomplishments in life are not a pitiful joke, as they apparently are to you. His choice of job and lifestyle may well represent considered decisions about how best to spend his 90-some years on this planet. His rejection of free health care and social safety nets just might reflect a principled set of values, and not ignorance or stupidity. In fact, I'll give you ten-to-one odds he's a lot happier with his life than you are with yours. Just sayin' (as one of those fuzzy-headed women who are too oppressed to understand how bad they have it).
jacksonM
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by jacksonM » Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:41 am

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:04 pm
No matter what happens, I think we can all come together as Americans and agree that everything is shitty and people who don't agree with my side are dumbasses.
I don't remember where I saw it but some article I was reading talked about how Americans no longer agree on a "shared version of reality" or something like that.

Probably never saw that more clearly than listening to Schumer saying that this nomination will go down as the saddest chapter in the history of the U.S. senate. Funny thing is McConnell was saying the exact same thing but for completely opposite reasons.

I have no doubt that on the left the narrative will continue that the Republicans put an attempted rapist on the high court by covering up the evidence against him and not allowing women to speak "their truth". The right will continue to believe that the Dems used dishonest smear tactics.

I happen to agree with the right on this one but I don't see those on the left as "dumbasses". I think it's a lot more sinister than that and find it rather scary.
User avatar
Benko
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1900
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:40 am

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Benko » Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:02 am

jacksonM wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:41 am
.

I have no doubt that on the left the narrative will continue that the Republicans put an attempted rapist on the high court by covering up the evidence against him and not allowing women to speak "their truth". The right will continue to believe that the Dems used dishonest smear tactics.

I happen to agree with the right on this one but I don't see those on the left as "dumbasses". I think it's a lot more sinister than that and find it rather scary.
Everyone is entitled to their own ideas, but what methods do you use to get them implemented? Only one side has said “by any means necessary”, only one side has Congress critters advocating harassing their political adversaries eg in restaraunts, only one side has a group (antifa) routinely using violence.

Hardball politics e.g. Merick garland besides following the “Biden rule” ain’t the same as what happened to Kavanaugh.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by moda0306 » Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:57 am

Maddy wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:58 am
moda0306 wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:26 pm

Diversity and globalization don't help these people. But neither do corporate tax cuts and the military industrial complex. And free healthcare, tax-credits, and other safety nets sure as f'k DO help them, yet they eschew those options in favor of a bombastic clown because they see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires rather than the working-class that they (and most of us) are.

But I really don't care for the culture war. I'm from a blue family in a red-as-fk county in a blue state. I shoot guns and drive a Prius. I sit in both city and rural culture a bit and I see what many others seem not to... that there IS general anxiety about the economy, because our version of capitalism is a flawed system leaving folks feel stressed as hell even when they're successful... this anxiety and alienation leads (yes) to some actual economic analysis but more-so (IMO) to them settling into their cultural resentments. It's city vs rural. Nativist vs Cosmopolitan. If we really want to get reunited around economic grounds, we'd leave that framework behind, AND align on our true battle-lines that matter of Labor Vs. Capital.

You don't even have to be for socialist or even liberal policies to see that THIS is nature of the economic dilemma we have, and when every college grad with some stock in a Roth IRA and a redneck with a towing business think they're owners of the means of production in any meaningful sense, then get in a pissing match over gun policy or religion or immigration, we're never going to get anywhere. We'll keep rearranging the deck-chairs on the titanic while the REAL owners of the world rake in more and more wealth while the world turns into ever-more a warming pile of garbage and angry cultural resentments.

Our world economy and domestic economy have both grown SO much... exponential growth into perpetuity is probably impossible on a planet with limited resources. Even if tax cuts DID work for these saps, it would be because the economy actually has to grow in size for these rural, hard-working-but-underpaid folks to have anything close to a decent life. That's unsustainable, and even if it weren't, it still says a TON more about the nature of labor interests vs capital interests than it does about the "success" of tax cuts and regulation cuts.
I doubt the "redneck with a towing business" gives much thought to whether or not he's a meaningful owner of the means of production. His very real accomplishments in life are not a pitiful joke, as they apparently are to you. His choice of job and lifestyle may well represent considered decisions about how best to spend his 90-some years on this planet. His rejection of free health care and social safety nets just might reflect a principled set of values, and not ignorance or stupidity. In fact, I'll give you ten-to-one odds he's a lot happier with his life than you are with yours. Just sayin' (as one of those fuzzy-headed women who are too oppressed to understand how bad they have it).
I used the term redneck here as a somewhat snarky placeholder to illustrate the culture war. I should have come up with something similarly snarky for the city-living college grad or just not used those terms at all. I didn't really mean it as a pejorative to owners of towing companies or country folks. And I suppose I should probably clarify that I absolutely do not think that those people are a "pitiful joke." Their political opinions may be, but so are many shrill liberals on the left, and most of the source of this is the disguised culture war we are fighting, where we pretend to defend laws or institutions or people but what folks are really trying to do is "own" someone of a different culture.

I don't know if he's that likely that much happier... I thought that the rural middle class was bitter about being screwed over by globalization? What happened to that narrative? But I didn't say he couldn't be happy... he's just a LOT closer to working class than he is "Capital Class." He's going to have a hard time just living off the dividends if he sold his business tomorrow (obviously this is a hypothetical middle-class business owner... not a hypothetical much-more-wealthy business owner).

I'm a pretty happy guy.. I just use aggressive language from time to time to shake the bullsh!t narrative foundations in peoples' heads (built not by logic but by culture and emotion). So if I have to use the term "knuckle-dragging" when pointing out that red states and red counties are far-more "on the government dole" than blue counties and states, I will. That-said, I say these things because I want to end the culture war, not perpetuate it. I want people to align themselves less on what they drive and whether they shoot guns than on how their economic foundations are rested. Sometimes to build a new identity you have to crush the one that's already there. And the identity that the rural poor have build around themselves and their well-being (similar to the SJW-left) is one that is utterly inconsistent, toxic and easily debunked for one that includes the urban poor/middle-class. And even the middle-and-upper/middle class that has to sell their labor for income rather than just living off of dividends.

I see little "principled" in what most folks (left and right) do as it pertains to the state and government benefits. Many folks on the right happily dive into the treasure troves of Social Security and Medicare, Both (especially the latter) of which they probably contributed far-far less than they might take, while simultaneously abhorring the use of food stamps by an urban single-mom. Folks in the country proudly look at their predecessors who took free/cheap land appropriated by the government as a massive welfare payment and criticize the urban poor who collect the Earned-Income-Tax Credit as they work 20-40 hours a week while raising children.

On the flip side, liberals want their subjective values taught in schools while criticizing traditional conservative values as almost illegal to teach in school. They say "my body my choice" on one topic but then ignore it on almost every other. They criticize gun ownership and hunting as backwards and immoral then eat meat from animals who were tortured their whole lives.

I see little consistency, nor (more troubling to me) the acknowledgement that it's downright difficult to be truly principled on big issues because they have limiting principles that we don't want to acknowledge.
User avatar
ochotona
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:54 am

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by ochotona » Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:31 pm

The worst example of socialism is that all the losses of the Great Financial Crisis were socialized, while all the gains since have been privatized. Great work if you can get it! And they can get It, because they own the Government at all levels, then rich people have the audacity and gall to complain about food stamps and Medicaid / Medicare. If they were in front of me, it's beat them with my Aiki-bokken.
jacksonM
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by jacksonM » Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:41 pm

Now that it's all over I'm thinking of the ending of the movie "The Truman Show". In the final scene a couple of guys in a bar said it was time to turn the channel to see what else they could find to watch.

I think that movie was a great metaphor for modern times. Sometimes you just have to stop and think just exactly what does what you are watching on TV have to do with your REAL life any way?

A nice pipe on the back porch can help put it all in perspective.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Xan » Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:04 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:57 am
I used the term redneck here as a somewhat snarky placeholder to illustrate the culture war. I should have come up with something similarly snarky for the city-living college grad or just not used those terms at all. I didn't really mean it as a pejorative to owners of towing companies or country folks. And I suppose I should probably clarify that I absolutely do not think that those people are a "pitiful joke." Their political opinions may be, but so are many shrill liberals on the left, and most of the source of this is the disguised culture war we are fighting, where we pretend to defend laws or institutions or people but what folks are really trying to do is "own" someone of a different culture.

I don't know if he's that likely that much happier... I thought that the rural middle class was bitter about being screwed over by globalization? What happened to that narrative? But I didn't say he couldn't be happy... he's just a LOT closer to working class than he is "Capital Class." He's going to have a hard time just living off the dividends if he sold his business tomorrow (obviously this is a hypothetical middle-class business owner... not a hypothetical much-more-wealthy business owner).

I'm a pretty happy guy.. I just use aggressive language from time to time to shake the bullsh!t narrative foundations in peoples' heads (built not by logic but by culture and emotion). So if I have to use the term "knuckle-dragging" when pointing out that red states and red counties are far-more "on the government dole" than blue counties and states, I will. That-said, I say these things because I want to end the culture war, not perpetuate it. I want people to align themselves less on what they drive and whether they shoot guns than on how their economic foundations are rested. Sometimes to build a new identity you have to crush the one that's already there. And the identity that the rural poor have build around themselves and their well-being (similar to the SJW-left) is one that is utterly inconsistent, toxic and easily debunked for one that includes the urban poor/middle-class. And even the middle-and-upper/middle class that has to sell their labor for income rather than just living off of dividends.

I see little "principled" in what most folks (left and right) do as it pertains to the state and government benefits. Many folks on the right happily dive into the treasure troves of Social Security and Medicare, Both (especially the latter) of which they probably contributed far-far less than they might take, while simultaneously abhorring the use of food stamps by an urban single-mom. Folks in the country proudly look at their predecessors who took free/cheap land appropriated by the government as a massive welfare payment and criticize the urban poor who collect the Earned-Income-Tax Credit as they work 20-40 hours a week while raising children.

On the flip side, liberals want their subjective values taught in schools while criticizing traditional conservative values as almost illegal to teach in school. They say "my body my choice" on one topic but then ignore it on almost every other. They criticize gun ownership and hunting as backwards and immoral then eat meat from animals who were tortured their whole lives.

I see little consistency, nor (more troubling to me) the acknowledgement that it's downright difficult to be truly principled on big issues because they have limiting principles that we don't want to acknowledge.

Moda,

In broad strokes I could agree with your point about people on the right merely being on different doles from people on the left. But who exactly is it who gets more out of Social Security than they paid in, and how? I'm assuming we're talking about retirement and not disability. Also, just because they play the game that exists doesn't necessarily mean they think the game is right or fair.

It sounds like you're wanting everyone to jump into the "we are the 99%" bandwagon and take down the rich. Surely if there were a "Labor" party and a "Capital" party, the Labor party would always win everything based on sheer numbers, right? How would you not fall into Venezuelan-style socialism and thus flush everything down the commode? Would you say it's right for a majority of whatever size to just take what they like from whatever minority they've excluded?

Your takedown of the left's silliness was most enjoyable, and reinforces that you are certainly not any kind of unthinking, kneejerk leftist (or anything-ist). At least one other person on the board here seems to believe that you are, and that's sad, because both of you have such interesting perspectives. If there could be a "reset" I'm sure we would all learn a lot from a positive interaction between you.
D1984
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by D1984 » Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:49 pm

Xan wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:04 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:57 am
I used the term redneck here as a somewhat snarky placeholder to illustrate the culture war. I should have come up with something similarly snarky for the city-living college grad or just not used those terms at all. I didn't really mean it as a pejorative to owners of towing companies or country folks. And I suppose I should probably clarify that I absolutely do not think that those people are a "pitiful joke." Their political opinions may be, but so are many shrill liberals on the left, and most of the source of this is the disguised culture war we are fighting, where we pretend to defend laws or institutions or people but what folks are really trying to do is "own" someone of a different culture.

I don't know if he's that likely that much happier... I thought that the rural middle class was bitter about being screwed over by globalization? What happened to that narrative? But I didn't say he couldn't be happy... he's just a LOT closer to working class than he is "Capital Class." He's going to have a hard time just living off the dividends if he sold his business tomorrow (obviously this is a hypothetical middle-class business owner... not a hypothetical much-more-wealthy business owner).

I'm a pretty happy guy.. I just use aggressive language from time to time to shake the bullsh!t narrative foundations in peoples' heads (built not by logic but by culture and emotion). So if I have to use the term "knuckle-dragging" when pointing out that red states and red counties are far-more "on the government dole" than blue counties and states, I will. That-said, I say these things because I want to end the culture war, not perpetuate it. I want people to align themselves less on what they drive and whether they shoot guns than on how their economic foundations are rested. Sometimes to build a new identity you have to crush the one that's already there. And the identity that the rural poor have build around themselves and their well-being (similar to the SJW-left) is one that is utterly inconsistent, toxic and easily debunked for one that includes the urban poor/middle-class. And even the middle-and-upper/middle class that has to sell their labor for income rather than just living off of dividends.

I see little "principled" in what most folks (left and right) do as it pertains to the state and government benefits. Many folks on the right happily dive into the treasure troves of Social Security and Medicare, Both (especially the latter) of which they probably contributed far-far less than they might take, while simultaneously abhorring the use of food stamps by an urban single-mom. Folks in the country proudly look at their predecessors who took free/cheap land appropriated by the government as a massive welfare payment and criticize the urban poor who collect the Earned-Income-Tax Credit as they work 20-40 hours a week while raising children.

On the flip side, liberals want their subjective values taught in schools while criticizing traditional conservative values as almost illegal to teach in school. They say "my body my choice" on one topic but then ignore it on almost every other. They criticize gun ownership and hunting as backwards and immoral then eat meat from animals who were tortured their whole lives.

I see little consistency, nor (more troubling to me) the acknowledgement that it's downright difficult to be truly principled on big issues because they have limiting principles that we don't want to acknowledge.

Moda,

In broad strokes I could agree with your point about people on the right merely being on different doles from people on the left. But who exactly is it who gets more out of Social Security than they paid in, and how? I'm assuming we're talking about retirement and not disability. Also, just because they play the game that exists doesn't necessarily mean they think the game is right or fair.

It sounds like you're wanting everyone to jump into the "we are the 99%" bandwagon and take down the rich. Surely if there were a "Labor" party and a "Capital" party, the Labor party would always win everything based on sheer numbers, right? How would you not fall into Venezuelan-style socialism and thus flush everything down the commode? Would you say it's right for a majority of whatever size to just take what they like from whatever minority they've excluded?

Your takedown of the left's silliness was most enjoyable, and reinforces that you are certainly not any kind of unthinking, kneejerk leftist (or anything-ist). At least one other person on the board here seems to believe that you are, and that's sad, because both of you have such interesting perspectives. If there could be a "reset" I'm sure we would all learn a lot from a positive interaction between you.
I'll let moda respond to the rest of this but as far as Venezuela goes:

Not to apologize for Chavez (he was more or less an authoritarian populist thug--imagine a left-wing South American version of Trump but actually somewhat competent at following through on things....although in fairness most of his opposition were no saints either) but Venezuela seems to have done OK--not great, but OK, until Chavez died and Maduro took over; see https://www.worldeconomics.com/GrossDom ... ezuela.gdp which is in PPP dollars so it isn't rendered laughably incorrect by Venezuela's controlled exchange rate which is so far off the real free-market black market rate of USD to VEB it isn't even funny.

Chavez became leader just a bit before the bottom of the trough in 1999 (I can only assume some sort of economic crisis led to him getting elected; the graph shows a fairly sharp downturn right before the year he came to power) and then things did alright (with a brief blip for the Great Recession in 2008-09) until he died in 2013 and Maduro stepped in.

Maduro and his cronies indirectly and directly looted the country of around $300 billion USD equivalent (and counting) of its productive capacity and oil revenues and more or less printed money to replace what they stole; see https://www.opendemocracy.net/democraci ... s-for-left for more on this. When you loot what would be the equivalent of $13 or $14 trillion from an economy the size of the US, rather bad things tend to happen to your economy and to the population who depend on that economy being at least somewhat functional; see the graph at the above-mentioned World Economics site for what happened after Maduro and his wrecking crew got into power.

Just FWIW Norway is one of the most equal nations in the world has more state ownership of the means of production/of capital (in terms of state owned domestic assets as a percent of GDP) than Venezuela has or had and Norway seems to be doing alright for itself.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by Kriegsspiel » Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:19 pm

D1984 wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:49 pm
Just FWIW Norway is one of the most equal nations in the world has more state ownership of the means of production/of capital than Venezuela has or had and Norway seems to be doing alright for itself.
How absolutely dare you try to make a point that a country with such an unhealthy amount of white males is better than a diverse one???
D1984
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

Post by D1984 » Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:31 pm

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:19 pm
D1984 wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:49 pm
Just FWIW Norway is one of the most equal nations in the world has more state ownership of the means of production/of capital than Venezuela has or had and Norway seems to be doing alright for itself.
How absolutely dare you try to make a point that a country with such an unhealthy amount of white males is better than a diverse one???
:-\ ????

I wasn't trying to make any point that had anything to do with the amount of white males Norway has vs Venezuela (or vs anywhere else). Did something in my post seem i was saying something about the racial makeup of either Norway or Venezuela vis-a-vis the states of their respective economies?

I am now confused.
Post Reply