Ok, one more American coming out against the Kavenaugh nomination!
A little late for you to come to this party, but your presence is welcome.
How about you keep all names out of the press? Which will never happen, as I have heard, HERE on this very board, they are fine with them being tried in the court of public opinion.
Except, that isn’t JUST, it’s politicizing it.
I am assuming you meant this as some type of gotcha, but I am honestly confused by this viewpoint?
In the Kavanaugh hearings, the evidence/testimony wasn’t credible enough, criminally, or civilly to stop a confirmation so?
That is like saying, “yeah, so you have a big open wound on your hand, just ignore it and press on, it will be fine.” There are people saying that, well, this thing ought to be at least looked into – you seem to think that letting sit there and fester is the winning strategy. I have some serious misgivings about that.
I am responding to a post where you specifically say you are not concerned with how society treats the accused.
I am merely pointing out how stupid that statement is
Sounds like saying “ALL LIVES MATTER!!!” over and over again in a BLM thread. Irrelevant to that discussion.
It’s not like that though. It’s not getting picked up by other news outlets. ie it’s not festering. Andy wants exploratory surgery on a paper cut.
We’ll see. Hopefully this is all going on behind the scenes and we’ll know more soon.
No, hopefully we won’t know more soon. That’s what will happen when they don’t find anything bad.
Exit polls in 2016 showed that 52% of white women (who voted) voted for Trump, despite him being Trump. While exit polls are not that reliable, I don’t share your optimism that 0% of them are willing to lie or exaggerate for politics, especially since the ‘life changing way’ could lead to a lot of money down the road. Also, a lot of your conditions are incorrect - they don’t need to be credible by your standards, just credible enough to motivate already-shaky Democrats to stay home and those mythical ‘independent voters’ to say ‘they both suck’ and walk away. They don’t need to have had verifiable contact, they just need contact that can’t be disproved. And they don’t need to lack all traces of connections with ‘political fixers’, they just need to lack a pre-existing blatant connection.
Anyone who doesn’t believe that Republicans are going to unleash sexual harassment allegations against the Democratic candidate before the election is going to be in for a rude awakening later on this year, unless something exceptionally weird happens. (“Exceptionally weird” meaning something like Coronavirus kills one or multiple candidates and completely upsets plans). And the fact that Biden didn’t have a clear response to something this predictable ready and waiting is really troubling for those of us who really don’t want to see Trump win in 2020.
Unverified, non-credible allegations are just internet noise. They already exist, and always have (at least since the internet and social media existed), and there’s nothing that can be done about them. There are probably a thousand or more such things on twitter right now.
The one sparking this thread got some attention in relatively prominent outlets (Vox and the Hill, for example). That doesn’t mean it’s credible, but the vast majority of internet-noise-allegations don’t make it this far. I don’t buy that it’s easy to manufacture allegations that get on places like Vox and the Hill.
The Hill is not “relatively prominent” by any stretch. Vox has a deserved decent rep but I bet not one in a thousand Americans know what it is.
If there is nothing there, then we really do need to know that. Not knowing it leaves a hole for the Rs to throw shit into.
Cite? Since most people didnt vote for trump.
Sure they are, and they would do that same for anyone else. I am sure they had worse ready for Sanders.
Just dont listen to the lies.
Whatever. They’re real professional news outlets, even if they’re not very big. The Hill sucks in a lot of ways, but it employs real professional journalists.
Whoopy for them. You said prominent, not that they pay their employees
I’ve heard of them, and they’re not bullshit outlets like Breitbart, so they’re somewhat prominent. YMMV.
Ok, I’m not going argue about what you could just look up in the dictionary.
Okay, I’ll amend it to “prominent among those who closely follow politics”. Happy? 