The interpretation I believe is that in this day and age a report of sexual harrassment/misconduct/assault is as good as a conviction and that instead we shouldn’t convict people just on someone’s unsubstantiated word. While that is correct in theory and one can use confirmation bias (e.g. Duke lacrosse case) to back up their argument the fact remains that much of it is unreported because of power-asymmetry, cannot be proved (what you didn’t have a recorder going when the manager grabbed your ass and called it firm?) or is purposely misinterpreted by the men in power (“You should be complemented that he thinks you have nice tits.” or “He didn’t really rape you. You were drunk and didn’t say no.”) that I am of the mind that reports of many women, predatory roaming of the hallways and lack of denial (“I’m not saying I didn’t date teenage girls 20 years younger than me.”) is about as close to being proven as we are going to get.
You know what the “If true” line reminds me of in this case? A pathological liar (I know a couple) that will tell you that despite all evidence that you are wrong, they didn’t do it. And in fact they will continue to deny even if you DID see them. In fact if your have evidence they will deny it is evidence. And that everyone else is wrong, they are the ONLY one telling the truth.
[hijack]Speaking as a Republican, please Dems don’t fuck this up and please win the seat.[/hijack]
The latest accuser, who was 16 when he was 30, has his signature in her high school yearbook. Cite. That doesn’t prove her story, but does prove he knew her.
And I sure as hell don’t know any 16 year old girls in my classes who got their yearbooks signed by old men.
So he can’t claim he didn’t know her.
That’s not proof their relationship was improper. Maybe she had him sign the yearbook to trap him 40 years later. He was reaching out to a potential voter for when he ran for DA two years later. He’s not that type of guy. They can’t prove he signed it. Maybe it was forged. Maybe it was a different Roy Moore. You can’t trust fake news. She might have said it was a giant Christmas card for their teacher - why do you hate Jesus who died for YOUR sins.
I agree more than not, but I think the part about ‘McConnell agenda’ sounds a little Breitbartish (I hope that’s not a grave insult ). There’s a cottage industry on the right now overstating or making up supposed policy differences which don’t really exist, or at least can’t be coherently explained. A lot of the GOP populist base hates people like McConnell, sometimes seemingly more than they hate Democrats. That’s real. However the idea there’s really a separate policy agenda of McConnell v the ‘anti establishment’ types, more doubtful, IMO. Strange was supported by McConnell, and Trump, and hard to see the practical ideological distinction between him and Moore (maybe Moore is a more militant religious conservative for example…but a lot of the ‘anti-establishment’ populist types are pretty secular, that’s not really it).
McConnell doesn’t want to be voted out as leader, also true. However one guy Moore would not make a difference if the elected GOP were not afraid he’d taint them (further). But OTOH at the get go of course they’re not going to say ‘the WaPo has a bad story about this guy, so it must be true, so he needs to quit’.
And this thread is partly overtaken by more recent statements (based on further revelations) were eg. McConnell simply said he believed the accusers and Moore should quit.
But sure, initial ‘if trues’ mean ‘I want to dodge taking a potentially controversial stand on this, from which I can’t easily back down, for now, and see how things shake out’. That tactic is hardly limited to Republicans. One of its cousins is ‘I can’t comment on an ongoing investigation’.
LOL, I’m not insulted, although I didn’t draw my conclusions about a “McConnell agenda” from anything proffered by Breitbart.
I simply meant that McConnell is on a mission to carry out his instructions as given by his big money donors, coloring mostly within institutional lines. I say mostly, because he’s willing to go outside the lines when the end justifies the means (in his judgment, not mine!), such as his heavy lift to put Gorsuch on the SCOTUS. That was far outside the institutional norms. But it explains why he is unwilling to abandon the filibuster, for example.
The Breitbart crowd, on the other hand, has as their sole goal to just blow up everything. Ironically, they are also controlled by their big money donors. Trump is much more controlled by the Breitbart crowd than the McConnell crowd – with self-interest as his overlay to everything.
I doubt I’m telling you anything you don’t already know.
Both wings are dangerous as hell, and both must be fully expelled if we are to emerge as a functioning democracy. We’re already much further down the wrong track than I think most of us would have ever imagined.
I agree that McConnell is committed now to an all-out war with the Moore/Bannonite wing. It can only benefit Dems and progressives, so I’m all for that. I doubt we’ve heard the last Moore accusation. Drip, drip, drip… I’ve got the popcorn ready.
Generally-speaking, the “if true” addendum means that the writer is unsure if the rumor/story that they are commenting on is, in fact, true. There have been far too many false claims circulated by the internet, the news media outlets, and political party, Russian, and Chinese operatives.
The rumor/story/provocative statement may be worthy of discussion, but the writer doesn’t know if it’s true, and doesn’t wish to be held responsible for spreading rumors. It’s then up to the reader/re-poster/news reader to investigate further. Or wait for someone else to actually verify the facts for them. Some people may simply chose to get their daily exercise by jumping to conclusions that fit their agenda.
Nothing about this is baby steps. It’s not like Republicans were all on record as supporting child rape and are now finally taking steps away from it. Not supporting it is the default.
I would argue we are taking them at their word. They are choosing to add a phrase that would otherwise have no meaning. Obviously any statement they make would only be valid if the allegations are true. But they are choosing to add it.
And these aren’t people just talking off the cuff. These are politicians making political statements. And they just all happen to use this same phrase, which means it has some specific meaning.
And, anyways, if they were making any baby steps, those steps wouldn’t help. If they add these weasel words, then they’ve basically said nothing. It’s all, well, political correctness. You get to condemn without action.
It’s just avoidance. They want to be seen as seriously acknowledging the problem but they hope it goes away by itself. Use of the phrase keeps them uncornered.
). There’s a cottage industry on the right now overstating or making up supposed policy differences which don’t really exist, or at least can’t be coherently explained. A lot of the GOP populist base hates people like McConnell, sometimes seemingly more than they hate Democrats. That’s real. However the idea there’s really a separate policy agenda of McConnell v the ‘anti establishment’ types, more doubtful, IMO. Strange was supported by McConnell, and Trump, and hard to see the practical ideological distinction between him and Moore (maybe Moore is a more militant religious conservative for example…but a lot of the ‘anti-establishment’ populist types are pretty secular, that’s not really it).