I mean, this smear literally didn’t last an hour after you linked to it.
What’s your next hilariously wrong rebuttal?
Another right wing 4chan story thoroughly debunked by snopes: Is This Anderson Cooper Standing in a Ditch While Reporting Hurricane Florence? | Snopes.com
-
The shot is from 10 years ago from Hurricane Ike. Not Hurricane Florence of 2018.
-
In the report, “…the various available clips of the program document that the waters in the immediately surrounding area were both fairly deep and quite variable.” So the original poster of this meme was likely aware of its inaccuracy: it was a bad faith attack on CNN.
-
Speaking generally, responsible readers should to evaluate their information sources when they are shown to be bad. The 4chan image meme was mislabeled and misleading.
It’s also possible (greater than zero chance) that meaningful info in terms of the veracity of the charges will come out. Further, there’s no reasonable non-political downside to conducting an investigation of a credible allegation. We’ll see.
:smack:
In that event, consider my post retracted as well.
There’s a discussion to be had here, though, about #metoo and rehabilitation.
Imagine, say, an inner-city kid caught up in drug dealing, which undeniably harms his community, causes trauma, etc. He spends some time in prison, reforms his ways, becomes a fixture of good in the community, and eventually runs for office. Should his candidacy be DOA because of his past indiscretions?
What if it was armed robbery instead, of the sort that might leave someone permanently traumatized? Felony rules notwithstanding, could someone, after spending their due time in prison, with an otherwise spotless 30 year public service career, be a good judge? I’d certainly think so.
I’d actually agree with iiandyiiii here. IF Kavanaugh had admitted to heavy drinking, either admitted to the assault or admitted that it was possible, and addressed the issue in the manner you’d expect someone of his office and stature, I’d still be fine with him being on the court (overall saltiness about Merrick Garland notwithstanding).
There are at least two who can, including the nominee.
The issue isn’t really about the rape attempt, let the justice system deal with it if it can. The issue is the character and truthfulness of the nominee, including the depth of understanding of life and, yes, adulthood with which he responds.
Nice job of poisoning the well while claiming you aren’t.
Don’t it though? :dubious:
You don’t get to have fairness. What you get is what I’ve been told is the Gold Standard of treatment. Is it prohibited by the Constitution?
Clearly, it is NOT prohibited, thus you, and your entire side of the aisle can dispense with your pathetic whining about fairness, or maltreatment of your nominee.
The whole #metoo thing is going to be a mess. We will be confused, clumsy, and ill advised, we can pretty much guarantee fuck ups.
But it has to be done. Our mothers, our sisters and our daughters demand it, and deserve it. They are ours as we are theirs, and this is long, long overdue.
Why should he admit to “heavy drinking”, or an assault if that didn’t happen?
That’s idiotic.
If your assumption is he did it, fine. I do not think many people, especially democrats, would say his nomination should go forward,* if it did, in fact, happen*. Myself included.
Of course, I do not think anything will surface that will prove or disprove this claim any more than we already know. Maybe some other women will come out, maybe they won’t. But this particular instance? No, I think it will remain a he said/he said/she said, the same as it is now.
I, personally, would be quite pleased if either of the other two runner ups took the forefront, and I doubt Amy Coney Barrett will be torpedoed by a #MeToo moment.
Would you enjoy it if your 15 minutes of fame was based on being the victim of a sexual assault? Serious question. And I’d appreciate an answer if you see a difference between your allegation being true or not true.
For example, let’s say you claim that you were raped by a political opponent. All that most people will know of you was that you were ass-fucked by a real lefty. Would you take enjoyment out of people seeing you at the grocery store and saying, “Hey! There’s the guy that was ass-fucked by that Democrat!” Or, you go to the airport, and the TSA agent says, “You set the metal detector off. I’m gonna have to get you to bend over and I’ll just come up behind you and… a-hahaha! I’m just kidding! I know who you are!” And so on and so on – from now on, you’re the guy that was ass-fucked by a politician.
Do you think that’s a thing that people generally like being known for?
There’s a non-zero chance, but not much more than that, I would think.
A political downside is a real downside. Politics represents real considerations. If this “investigation” is dragged out long enough and the Democrats retake the Senate then a lot changes (even just taking the pressure off the Red State Democrats changes things a bit). Of course, this is a big plus for Democrats (and is going to be especially compelling in light of Garland) which is one possible reason they’ve gone for this approach. But from the Republican standpoint, it’s a real reason.
This is not to say that “getting our guy in” trumps all other considerations. But if the argument is just that “there’s no non-political downside”, I don’t buy that.
#metoo is for males. If ACB were nominated there would be other lines of attack for her.
(One reason she didn’t get nominated was because she was less of a sure shot at confirmation than Kavanagh.)
Well I think Ford makes a pretty compelling witness, and the other bits I’ve read about Kavanaugh’s penchant for drinking in high school make that part of the story pretty believable, so yes, my assumption is that he did it. But I don’t think that getting drunk and traumatizing a 15 year old, as awful as that is, should be a perpetual disqualifier for everything. I’d agree that this probably puts me in a minority, especially among democrats, but I think that’s a discussion that’s worth having. And since I think he did behave as accused, I think he’d have been smart to address the accusation like an adult and I’d hope it wouldn’t have been the think that tanked his appointment.
If he didn’t do it, then sure, deny it, but that doesn’t get to the point I was agreeing with.
Whether or not “this 'investigation is dragged out long enough and the Democrats retake the Senate” is entirely in the hands of Republicans. No tears need be shed.
That’s not a fair question because the situations are not at all comparable.
Women who accuse men of sex assault are treated as heroic survivors these days. I don’t think the same is true to nearly the same extent of male survivors.
It’s a bit more complicated in political situations like this one as there’s a risk of a bit of blowback from fringe elements of the opposition. But many people live in atmospheres which are so ideologically monolithic that this doesn’t have any real impact.
In sum, the best guess as to the reaction of the population to this woman’s claims is that she’s a hero to #metoo and Democrats, mainstream Republicans are hesitant to criticize her, and a few MRA-types call her names. That’s a pretty good deal, for some people.
Anita Hill has been working that accusation for many years now, and just came up for another 15 minutes now. She’s not running from it.
Not only that, but she went out of her way not to have this get out. She quietly wrote a letter to her local rep, who passed it of to Feinstein, who gave it to the WH, who [did the right thing] and included it in the nomination package, where other senate Democrats got hold of it and leaked it. She didn’t go straight to the press with this, she clearly wanted it to go to the decision makers and the decision makers only.
It is an accusation for sure. I see no evidence that it is credible or not credible at this time.
I’m not willing to lie, but this isn’t a matter of what people would generally be okay with. All it takes is a single person, and I do believe there are people who would be willing to lie to torpedo the nomination, willing to accept whatever stigma may come, if any, if the result would be the nomination gets torpedoed.
Ooooooh, I see. It’s the women who have it easy, and men so dearly wish to be treated like women for their easy ride through life! Because if men are the victims of sexual assault, all you hear is things like, “What were you wearing? How drunk were you? Were you leading your rapist on?”
It’s sort of like how the gays have it easy in this country, while Christians have to deal with all this hostility like the war on Christmas!
I don’t know about that. “That was a perfunctory investigation. There’s no way you can investigate this matter is such a short time …”
No need to shed tears for anyone on either side. This is the political major leagues and there’s no crying in baseball. But we’re discussing how this or that side should play the game.
I don’t think this is correct.
I was addressing the comparison you made in your prior post, not the one you’re making now.
Yes besides i)being unsure as to the actual year of the event ii) tor the location iii) the number of peoples in the House iv) impeaching her own corroborating evidence, she is the best witness ever
:rolleyes:
Not as such, no. But shouldn’t denial, refusal to accept responsibility, and failure to learn and grow be disqualifying for a Supreme Court Justice?