U.S. Democratic Primary

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Don't you Americans have any politicians with a clean conscience ?
( just kidding, neither do we  Canadians )

J Biden seems like the type who would commit an infraction unwittingly, and if told the action wasn't welcome, would stop.
I really can't see him doing what he's been accused of.
Then again, I have been wrong about things many times, nd Joe is getting old; maybe he forgets when he's told to stop.

D Trump has paid people ( S Daniels ) to keep quiet, so as not to ruin his chances for election.
What would stop him from paying people to lie ( and ruin his opponent's chance for election ), to secure his own re-election ?

Probably nothing.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Probably nothing.

...and that...along with everything else...is why you follow the evidence and not base it on what you would like to believe.

Like Blasy Ford in her accusation of Kavanaugh, the onus of proof is on Reade...not whether to believe or disbelieve her description of what happened or not...but as to whether you act on it.

So if you plan on voting for Biden, or not, there is absolutely no reason to change that...subject to hearing Reade out...and deciding whether she has proven it to you beyond reasonable doubt. If she does that's fair. If she doesn't it's not. The hypocrisy, where there is any, starts when you base it on something else, some other motivation. There was plenty of that with Kavanaugh, and I expect there will be some with Biden, but if you go down that road you are simply inviting more of this for political purposes rather than honest ones.

Having said that, if you do find Reade's accusation not just credible but beyond reasonable doubt, you still have to compare him to Trump...afterward.

 

 

[iNow]

If my fellow citizens had simply taken the smart path and stood up in support of Elizabeth Warren like I did in the first of the nation caucus, then we’d have none of these moral quandaries. 

[StringJunky]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

...and that...along with everything else...is why you follow the evidence and not base it on what you would like to believe.

Like Blasy Ford in her accusation of Kavanaugh, the onus of proof is on Reade...not whether to believe or disbelieve her description of what happened or not...but as to whether you act on it.

So if you plan on voting for Biden, or not, there is absolutely no reason to change that...subject to hearing Reade out...and deciding whether she has proven it to you beyond reasonable doubt. If she does that's fair. If she doesn't it's not. The hypocrisy, where there is any, starts when you base it on something else, some other motivation. There was plenty of that with Kavanaugh, and I expect there will be some with Biden, but if you go down that road you are simply inviting more of this for political purposes rather than honest ones.

Having said that, if you do find Reade's accusation not just credible but beyond reasonable doubt, you still have to compare him to Trump...afterward.

 

 

No. I I was referring to what would stop Trump from paying people to lie. My fault.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

No. I I was referring to what would stop Trump from paying people to lie. My fault.

I understood that. That, along with many, many other possibilities, is why you (when I said "you" I didn't mean you in particular, I meant all of us, everyone) don't simply believe an accuser or rush to judgement, or in fact necessarily come to one.

5 hours ago, iNow said:

If my fellow citizens had simply taken the smart path and stood up in support of Elizabeth Warren like I did in the first of the nation caucus, then we’d have none of these moral quandaries. 

Why would Warren be exempt from a standard that insists an accuser should be believed? It's an impossible standard to defend against if the onus of proof is on the accused.

Edited May 2, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I understood that. That, along with many, many other possibilities, is why you (when I said "you" I didn't mean you in particular, I meant all of us, everyone) don't simply believe an accuser or rush to judgement, or in fact necessarily come to one.

Why would Warren be exempt from a standard that insists an accuser should be believed? It's an impossible standard to defend against if the onus of proof is on the accused.

From what I've been reading, the main, relatively unbiased, US papers have not found compelling evidence and basically it's down to the electorate in November to decide for themselves.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, StringJunky said:

From what I've been reading, the main, relatively unbiased, US papers have not found compelling evidence and basically it's down to the electorate in November to decide for themselves.

Have any papers claimed compelling evidence? The worst I've heard (other than the accusation itself) is that there is some possible evidence that Reade had made some claims to some people about the alleged incident back in 1993. 

That could potentially prove Reade did not make something up recently and add some credibility. It can't prove that it happened.

[StringJunky]

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Have any papers claimed compelling evidence? The worst I've heard (other than the accusation itself) is that there is some possible evidence that Reade had made some claims to some people about the alleged incident back in 1993. 

That could potentially prove Reade did not make something up recently and add some credibility. It can't prove that it happened.

I wasn't implying other papers had evidence, I was merely referencing the sources. It doesn't matter, as the electorate will be the jury.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why would Warren be exempt from a standard that insists an accuser should be believed?

I never suggested she would

[J.C.MacSwell]

53 minutes ago, iNow said:

I never suggested she would

 

9 hours ago, iNow said:

If my fellow citizens had simply taken the smart path and stood up in support of Elizabeth Warren like I did in the first of the nation caucus, then we’d have none of these moral quandaries. 

 

What makes her immune to a false accusation. (not suggesting Reade's is false or not)

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What makes her immune to a false accusation.

Nothing, though I’d be rather more skeptical if a staffer claimed that 30 years ago Elizabeth Warren slammed them into a wall and inserted her fingers forcibly into her vagina. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nothing, though I’d be rather more skeptical if a staffer claimed that 30 years ago Elizabeth Warren slammed them into a wall and inserted her fingers forcibly into her vagina. 

Any hit job on Warren would likely take a different form. (again not suggesting Reade's accusation is false or not)

On 4/14/2020 at 12:48 AM, MigL said:

So I guess now we start discussing/obsessing about his VP pick.
I believe he has already stated he'd prefer a woman.
Warren, Klobuchar, Abrams, Harris ( bad blood from debates ? ), Whitmer ( petition to remove her from office ), or long shots like Gabbard or even Michelle Obama. Who have I missed, INow ?

So would I ( prefer women, but politically Warren, although she may be too 'left'  to fit), but 'uncle Joe' had better watch what he says about women. This election could turn out to be about who is less abusive towards women.
( yes, Republicans are obviously hypocrites )

I wonder how much the Reade accusation affects the VP choice. Some of the front runners have been demonstrably inconsistent (to put it mildly) compared to their outspokenness against Kavanaugh. (Biden, though he had a similar stance, was more reserved)

He could choose a running mate less open to criticism on this matter?

[MigL]

Part of the problem ( or advantage ) is that J Biden is much more likeable, people are more apt to forgive his 'indiscretions', and attribute it to, J Biden being 'good old Joe', and not really being intentional.

B Kavanaugh, on the other hand, exudes 'grown-up rich boy' arrogance, and a certain level of 'sliminess'.
Not very likeable; at least compared to his accuser.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

 

What makes her immune to a false accusation. (not suggesting Reade's is false or not)

Nothing. They just wouldn't be moral issues. (Though one must recall that Jacob Wohl did try this)

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Nothing. They just wouldn't be moral issues. (Though one must recall that Jacob Wohl did try this)

Why not?

[swansont]

17 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Prior to his responding to claims, many Democrats were insisting Kavanaugh should not be nominated, simply due to the allegations.

The fact that many Democrats are finally taking Reade's accusations seriously doesn't change that.

Which allegations? Ford came forward publicly after he was nominated.

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why not?

Was something wrong with iNow's response that you need to ask this again?

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Which allegations? Ford came forward publicly after he was nominated.

Sorry. I wrote nominated. I meant appointed.

[swansont]

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

Sorry. I wrote nominated. I meant appointed.

I remember many were insisting on an investigation, and there was testimony given. Who was saying he should not be appointed merely because of the accusation?

[J.C.MacSwell]

41 minutes ago, swansont said:

I remember many were insisting on an investigation, and there was testimony given. Who was saying he should not be appointed merely because of the accusation?

There were a number of Democrat Senators making the argument that his nomination should be withdrawn due to the doubt about Kavanaugh from the accusation (if not outright claiming he was lying without being able to prove it)

Your words from the Kavanaugh and Me Too thread:

"That this is not a  trial is an important point, and one that some folks don't appreciate — this is a job interview. The threshold for saying "Next candidate" is much lower here. Nobody is entitled to a seat on SCOTUS."

Not that I entirely disagree with what you stated, but Hirono, Booker, Harris et al were making some pretty bold statements as to why Kavanaugh should be excluded.

 

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

There were a number of Democrat Senators making the argument that his nomination should be withdrawn due to the doubt about Kavanaugh from the accusation (if not outright claiming he was lying without being able to prove it)

Your words from the Kavanaugh and Me Too thread:

"That this is not a  trial is an important point, and one that some folks don't appreciate — this is a job interview. The threshold for saying "Next candidate" is much lower here. Nobody is entitled to a seat on SCOTUS."

Not that I entirely disagree with what you stated, but Hirono, Booker, Harris et al were making some pretty bold statements as to why Kavanaugh should be excluded.

 IIRC it was based on there being some credible evidence against Kavanaugh, and that other claims were not being investigated. That raises doubt about whether he Kavanaugh should be serving in his current capacity. It was not, AFAICT, based on the mere fact that an accusation existed.

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

 IIRC it was based on there being some credible evidence against Kavanaugh, and that other claims were not being investigated. That raises doubt about whether he Kavanaugh should be serving in his current capacity. It was not, AFAICT, based on the mere fact that an accusation existed.

That would have been their argument. The reality was that they didn't want him appointed and nothing was substantiated, yet with many ranting like they knew it as truth. The primary motivation was political. Some other accusations claimed to be credible at the time were essentially proven false.

A statistical argument was also used, based on the unlikelihood of an accuser coming forward (while failing to note any possible political motivation unique to the SCOTUS appointment process, or the effect of the MeToo movement on the interpretation of the data)

Fortunately Biden hasn't gotten the same treatment, at least so far. It's not a fair standard to hold someone to. You can be entirely innocent yet have no defence. 

What will be fair is questioning the responses to Reade's accusation, especially by potential VP candidates, compared to their stances of the accusation against Kavanaugh.

Biden's response will be interesting also, but this time it's different as he knows the truth in this case. (barring some bizarre memory deficit)

[CharonY]

On 5/2/2020 at 2:05 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

That would have been their argument. The reality was that they didn't want him appointed and nothing was substantiated, yet with many ranting like they knew it as truth. The primary motivation was political. Some other accusations claimed to be credible at the time were essentially proven false.

More importantly, it was not the sole argument used against Kavanaugh although it took quite a bit of the limelight. There were other aspects that have been scrutinized, including his rulings on abortion and gay rights, for example. Another issue was his conduct (including display of partisanship unbefitting of SCOTUS, which has changed some of his supporters in the legal world to stop endorsing him). The whole package was toxic which makes it an easy case to engage in full partisanship.

But even before that things have changed, and I think the most obvious point was when the Republican-led Senate blocked Garland. It was a relatively clear signal that SCOTUS nominations will now be partisan fights.

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 hours ago, CharonY said:

More importantly, it was not the sole argument used against Kavanaugh although it took quite a bit of the limelight. There were other aspects that have been scrutinized, including his rulings on abortion and gay rights, for example. Another issue was his conduct (including display of partisanship unbefitting of SCOTUS, which has changed some of his supporters in the legal world to stop endorsing him). The whole package was toxic which makes it an easy case to engage in full partisanship.

But even before that things have changed, and I think the most obvious point was when the Republican-led Senate blocked Garland. It was a relatively clear signal that SCOTUS nominations will now be partisan fights.

For how it will affect the election, Trump and GOP political ads, Bidens choice of running mate etc, I think those other political aspects will be secondary with regard to how the Democrats handled Kavanaugh.

Any use of those political aspects by Democrats to justify the attacks on Kavanaugh will just make the hypocrisy more obvious, which is why I expect it should affect Biden's choice of VP candidate.

On 5/2/2020 at 1:54 PM, swansont said:

Was something wrong with iNow's response that you need to ask this again?

It wasn't sufficient for your remark. (Unless you believe "moral" is limited to regarding sexual assaults). If someone claimed they had overheard Warren planning her attack on Sanders with regard to whether he believed a women could be POTUS, that would have become a moral issue. To some degree it was without any such allegation. The point being that no one is immune to a dishonest attack.(in that case Sanders' supporters claimed Bernie was attacked dishonestly...but who knows?)

7 hours ago, CharonY said:

More importantly, it was not the sole argument used against Kavanaugh although it took quite a bit of the limelight. There were other aspects that have been scrutinized, including his rulings on abortion and gay rights, for example. Another issue was his conduct (including display of partisanship unbefitting of SCOTUS, which has changed some of his supporters in the legal world to stop endorsing him). The whole package was toxic which makes it an easy case to engage in full partisanship.

But even before that things have changed, and I think the most obvious point was when the Republican-led Senate blocked Garland. It was a relatively clear signal that SCOTUS nominations will now be partisan fights.

It's certainly gone down a toxic road, and unfortunately that plays into Trump's hands. He was elected with a toxic albatross draping from his neck, so for him that's already factored in...

...as are most of his sexual transgressions; one might have thought this is an area Trump wouldn't want focused on...but clearly it's gone so far that he's almost immune. (one could argue he's been vaccinated for a lot...)

Edited May 4, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell

[CharonY]

On 5/1/2020 at 11:11 PM, iNow said:

If my fellow citizens had simply taken the smart path and stood up in support of Elizabeth Warren like I did in the first of the nation caucus, then we’d have none of these moral quandaries. 

Well, she was probably the most qualified candidate. As you know that basically means low electability.

[J.C.MacSwell]

53 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Well, she was probably the most qualified candidate. As you know that basically means low electability.

If she hadn't pounded identity politics she would have won, IMO. She had an awful lot going for her without pressing (pounding is more accurate) the fact that she deserved it as she was a woman. Ironically of course, those that were impressed by that line of thought would have no doubt leaned that way anyway (also note how she struggled, and Bernie thrived, after her attack on Sanders on that front, though of course at that point she was desperate)

She also moved further left early in an attempt cut off Sanders, despite the fact that her politics have historically served her better closer to the center.

Another factor was her temporary refusal to accept big donor donations (even though she had already used a war chest, based significantly though in part on them, for her campaign). 

I don't buy the low electability from the start. She misread her strengths and where to emphasize them. And not so much due to principle IMO, but by misplaced strategy.

55 minutes ago, CharonY said:

As you know that basically means low electability.

All that said...I'm sure that was stated tongue in cheek.

(Trumps' election notwithstanding)

Edited May 9, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell