I was waiting for this.
Don’t let that false notion cloud your thinking. Try this exercise: resolve to dismiss any thought that “minority groups” are threatened by the GOP for the time it takes to read Trump’s speech to the UN yesterday:
Exactly. What’s so damn special about Kavanaugh? Why can’t Trump just nominate the next guy on the list?
You are not seeing that for many men the line between rape and consent is very very very fuzzy. The majority of convicted rapists don’t think they are rapists and believe they in fact never raped anyone.
My guess is the women tagging #me_too are doing so because it happened to #them_also. What do you think, Jim ?
One compromise which would have much support would be to treat any allegation against a Democrat as the most brutal crime since the rape-murder of Kitty Genovese, or the time Al Franken touched his co-host during a dress rehearsal. But, for balance, dismiss any allegation against a Republican.
Wait, what? Are you talking about the laughing stock speech that Trump gave yesterday? What are you talking about? The GOP is losing support quickly among women and is clearly pandering to aggrieved white males who are threatened by other groups trying to have equal access. I don’t need to read a speech devoid of context to create a false narrative.
Because politics has become a zero-sum game. The point is not to nominate a conservative justice or to oppose one. After all, as you said, there are dozens of qualified conservative jurists and realistically, Kavanaugh is about as good as the Dems can hope for-he’s quite a bit better than many on that short-list. The point though is to win. Kavanaugh was nominated and now he must become a judge because that’s a win and if he doesn’t, then it’s a win for the other side. The actual impact on the country or the court is a secondary consideration. Winning is what’s important. Showing that you’re better than the other guy. Trump has completely tapped into the zeitgeist and gets this better than anyone else. Tariffs with China? It doesn’t matter if they are good or bad for the country. They are forcing China to panic, and that’s a win. When liberal pundits get upset over something that Trump does, their anger is a win for Trump. Doesn’t matter if it has a long-term negative impact to the country as a whole. He got their goat and thus won.
For good or for bad, we’re in an internet culture now. The goal is not reasoned discourse or finding the truth. It’s about point-scoring. Look at this message board as just one example. Frequently, it’s about grabbing on to a point of view and then doggedly arguing for it to the point of exhaustion. It’s not about introspection or understanding others’ points of view and working toward compromise. It’s a game of points that must be won. Washington is representative of the people and this is what the people want. We want to score points and we want to win. Kavanaugh must be confirmed because doing so is a win and failure to do so is a loss, regardless of the actual consequences for either party.
I find it troubling that people insist an accuser must be believed, NO MATTER WHAT! Regardless of the circumstances or length of time.
Assuming every person is telling the truth is dangerous. Sure, many people are telling the truth but some have their own agendas. Or they may be mistaken about the identity of the person they are accusing. That’s why we have an investigation first. Before just assuming every word of a story is true.
Megan Kelly’s response to Feinstein’s completely unsubstantiated & politicized claims about Christine Blasey Ford makes a lot of sense. Megan has dealt with sexual harassment in her own life.
Ford hasn’t even testified or been questioned and people are making very horrible assumptions about Kavanaugh. The right to be heard and face an accuser is fundamental to our country’s beliefs.
I don’t know what to believe and won’t until I hear both sides story and their response to questions.
Ah yes, the privileged white male: courageously taking risks and breaking boundaries :dubious:
I contend that it was not a “laughing stock speech”. You will need to watch a video of it to see the context of the laughter that occurs. You say you “don’t need to read [the] speech”. I contend that is why you seem to think the speech was bad. Go ahead and do the little exercise I proposed. Then you will have read the actual transcript of Trump’s speech I linked to above. Don’t just take other people’s word for what he said and the opinion everyone should have about it. Then think about the mainstream media spin on the speech you’ve obviously already digested, and reflect on the rhetorical techniques they used to mislead you.
No need to be a racist about it. You might notice that there is a certain celebrity in the news right now, from an urban, working class, non-White background, who also felt like he could get away with anything–who took risks personally as well as professionally. He is widely considered a success in his field in no small part because of his willingness to take risks. The fact that he is headed to the slam doesn’t change the correlation between successful people and willingness to take risks.
Well then, I’ve got some really really good news for you.
Almost nobody insists that an accuser must be believed no matter what!
I mean, I’m sure you’ll find a couple of trolls who say that we have to believe accusers no matter what to make up for all the times in the past where we didn’t believe accusers no matter what. The solution is to just ignore those few people.
Mostly people are insisting that an accusation should be taken seriously, and not disregarded out of hand. Hey, guess what, people lie about stuff. People lie about getting abused, people lie about not abusing.
The other thing to consider is what are the consequences if we believe a story of abuse compared to not believing it. Like, if somebody accuses some D List celebrity of abuse, what then? I can believe it, or not believe it, and it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference. But what if the accused abuser is, oh, I don’t know, about to be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Seems the consequence of dismissing the accusation is pretty high, right? Like, we’d have an unrepentant rapist on the Supreme Court, which strikes me as a pretty bad outcome. So maybe take some time to evaluate the accusation? And if it seems pretty likely to be true, even if that wouldn’t be enough to send someone to prison, then that should be enough to scratch that person off the nomination list. Or maybe after some investigation we decide collectively that it’s pretty likely not to be true, and then we vote like we were going to vote anyway.
Criminal cases are decided on a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil cases are decided on a standard of preponderance of the evidence. Public opinion cases are decided on whatever standards we like. And my standard is that if a whole bunch of women start accusing someone of sexual misconduct, it’s pretty likely that the person is guilty of sexual misconduct, even though if I were on a jury during a criminal trial I’d hold myself to a different standard. And I don’t hold that belief “no matter what”, because I could change my mind of new evidence came out. Crazy people who make false accusations sometimes make mistakes that lead to their lies being exposed.
Still interested in an answer to this question.
Are you just not familiar with the phrase? 11th hour simply means at the last minute and typically it connotes disruption of some kind whether positive or negative. 11th hour in this case means just prior to the vote on his confirmation. In an election it could mean in the week before the election. An 11th hour declaration of love could be made the night before she gets married to someone else. An 11th hour trade in sports could be a trade made just before the deadline and so on.
As to its origin, it likely began as many of our phrases with a Biblical reference straight out of King James. In this case Matthew 20:9. It’s part of a parable where a vineyard owner agrees to pay workers a penny to work in the fields. He finds he needs more, so goes out and gets some more and agrees to pay them a penny. He does this throughout the day and finally at the 11th hour (a reference to late evening just before sundown when the work would presumably be over, timekeeping was less precise in the 1st century.) he hired some laborers and agreed to pay them a penny as well. The end of the day comes and everyone gets a penny and the guys working all day grumbled about it and the owner basically says, “I gave you what we agreed to. It’s mine to give and if I give it to latecomers and early comers alike, that’s my business.” It’s a parable on unmerited grace, but what it came to mean was people showing up late and expecting the same treatment. Over time it morphed into its present meaning.
I saw a statement from Ford (on CNN) that her letter was sent before Kavanaugh was selected.
The selection committee could have interviewed Ford and Kavanaugh. Perhaps even dropped him from consideration without any of this going public. Preserving both parties privacy and reputations.
This may have been an 11th hour accusation but it didn’t have to be at the stroke of midnight. That was manipulated by Feinstein and her operatives.
Ford is caught in partisan politics and it is very unfair. I think she sincerely wanted to do the right thing.
Yeah, it seems clear that the timing was chosen for political reasons.
Why raise such issues early and let the opposition party make progress toward confirming a justice when you can wait, causing them to waste time and potentially get embroiled in a massive PR quagmire and further emphasize the right’s hostility toward women as we roll into the midterms.
On the other hand, the additional allegations, including the one of active participation in gang rapes that came out today also make me believe that there’s substance here. It’s only the timing that’s a partisan political play.
I honestly can’t understand what this exercise entails, it seems you want me to try to pretend to be stupid enough to think it was a good speech and that Trump isn’t a sexist white nationalist. There simply isn’t enough whiskey in the house for that and I have a very well stocked bar.
Getting back on the topic of your OP: do you think the three women all fabricated their stories?
I don’t see where they debunked his claim:
“African American, Hispanic American, and Asian American unemployment have all achieved their lowest levels ever recorded.”
How does that sit with those of you saying his political party, the GOP, is just for angry white men?
The OP was about what is going to happen right before the midterms. I’m not interested in writing up a “proof” of my prediction. But I expect to win bragging rights when it happens.