Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)

[LinekersLegs]

If Republicans had nominated Luther Strange rather than Roy Moore in Alabama (who then faced multiple allegations of sexual abuse of teenage girls) then Strange would likely be a yes vote on Kavanaugh rather than the Dem who won the seat Doug Jones’ no.

 

[ilikecheese]

What i find ridiculous is that this idea of voting against women by electing him.

In its purest form, as this is basically an allegation against the man, by supporting it without proving guilt/innocence then the argument 'for or' against' women is invalid

What argument is supports is that if a woman says she is raped then we must believe that account and not question it because the woman must be right.

That is very dangerous territory, and all these famous feminists getting behind this is basically supporting this notion that a women will never be wrong in making an allegation.

Hmm...maybe if a full investigation was to happen his good name could be cleared. That hasn't happened.

 

[verreauxi]

Aye aye, what’s going on here?

No more. Sorry. I made my point.

 

[neil999]

if theres a no vote to reps have to suggest someone else ? and the whole process starts again?

 

[dublinbluenose]

What i find ridiculous is that this idea of voting against women by electing him.

In its purest form, as this is basically an allegation against the man, by supporting it without proving guilt/innocence then the argument 'for or' against' women is invalid

What argument is supports is that if a woman says she is raped then we must believe that account and not question it because the woman must be right.

That is very dangerous territory, and all these famous feminists getting behind this is basically supporting this notion that a women will never be wrong in making an allegation.

That's only one aspect of it, the wider view of it is that he is unfit to serve on the SC, notwithstanding an accusation of sexual assault.

 

[Ruairi77]

if theres a no vote to reps have to suggest someone else ? and the whole process starts again?

Trump nominates someone else, the process starts again. The republicans do everything they can to ram it through before the mid terms next month while the democrats do everything they can to delay it in the hope that by some miracle they win the senate.

 

[neil999]

Trump nominates someone else, the process starts again. The republicans do everything they can to ram it through before the mid terms next month while the democrats do everything they can to delay it in the hope that by some miracle they win the senate.

no chance of this then?

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

no chance of this then?

It's unlikely the GOP loses the Senate. It's a numbers game - Only 1/3 of the Senate turns over every 2 years.

The House is another thing altogether. I'd be surprised if the House doesn't flip

 

[neil999]

It's unlikely the GOP loses the Senate. It's a numbers game - Only 1/3 of the Senate turns over every 2 years.

The House is another thing altogether. I'd be surprised if the House doesn't flip

i thing i need to do some reading to understand this more, see you next year...

 

[Ghoat]

What is really turning my crank far beyond the end result. This isn't a court of law, so yes, innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply the same way, it's not a criminal trial.
The accusation was made, and three witness were named. No one disputes that.
The accused denied the accusation. All three of the witness unequivocally denied they witnessed the accusation or had any knowledge of it. No disputes there.

That's it. What really happened at that point is simply a matter of who you believe, choose to believe, or think is likely, based on unrelated circumstantial information. We can all point to whatever pieces of information we wish that we feel makes our opinion has merit. But understand, there are zero facts toward innocence or guilt and we're not debating that. What we're debating is the validity of the reason we are using to make our assumption of innocent or guilt. Subtle but very different.

Activism is fine, protesting is fine, arguing your point is fine. And if your opinion, based on whatever criteria you used, is that he is guilty as accused, that's fine, it's your OPINION. But if someone honestly says "I don't know what or who to believe" that's probably what they mean.
If you then say ok if you don't agree with me, you're wrong.
Ergo you don't believe her, and think she's lying.
How can you be ok with a letting a woman be sexually assaulted?
Why do you silence women of abuse?
And then you proceed to become absolutely unhinged and embark on a scorched-Earth policy of protest, angry confrontation, and tell me that I'm a despicable human being, and you won't accept it anymore.

If you take "Man I don't know" the same as Blah blah blah Dr. Ford is lying, she should just shut up. Women just need to get over it, this stuff is no big deal, shut up and get back in the kitchen and proceed to rake me over the coals for that...

That's an agenda. And I have a REAL problem with that.

 

[LinekersLegs]

i thing i need to do some reading to understand this more, see you next year...

FiveThirtyEight do a decent job of covering the chances and swings if you want to be a fellow nerd
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/senate/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

 

[Kenshin]

Hmm...maybe if a full investigation was to happen his good name could be cleared. That hasn't happened.

Nor has anything proven him guilty either. Can't have it both ways unless america are judging him (ironically) without Trial which would go against the system.

Until he is proven guilty then all you have realistically is a account from 40 years ago that has all actual details removed but just because a woman has accused a man (AGAIN might i add) that automatically that case is believed to be true and a whole movement of feminists are backing that up without actual trial or proving of facts.

From an outsider perspective it is ridiculous and the best example of feminists essentially backing the men are guilty no matter what as long as a woman says so idea that they are so blind to see for themselves.

That's only one aspect of it, the wider view of it is that he is unfit to serve on the SC, notwithstanding an accusation of sexual assault.

How so? If he is unfit without an accusation then he will not win the nomination and no-one would bat an eyelid.

Hundreds of feminists outside protesting and all of a sudden he makes front page news, funny that?

Fact is the man is innocent until proven guilty no matter how many women say otherwise, as said above.

but arguing against the whole #metoo movement or anything like this is just labelled offensive to women and sexist if a male says it so there we go. I can see the potential end result here and it isn't good.

 

[ilikecheese]

What is really turning my crank far beyond the end result. This isn't a court of law, so yes, innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply the same way, it's not a criminal trial.
The accusation was made, and three witness were named. No one disputes that.
The accused denied the accusation. All three of the witness unequivocally denied they witnessed the accusation or had any knowledge of it. No disputes there.

That's it. What really happened at that point is simply a matter of who you believe, choose to believe, or think is likely, based on unrelated circumstantial information. We can all point to whatever pieces of information we wish that we feel makes our opinion has merit. But understand, there are zero facts toward innocence or guilt and we're not debating that. What we're debating is the validity of the reason we are using to make our assumption of innocent or guilt. Subtle but very different.

Activism is fine, protesting is fine, arguing your point is fine. And if your opinion, based on whatever criteria you used, is that he is guilty as accused, that's fine, it's your OPINION. But if someone honestly says "I don't know what or who to believe" that's probably what they mean.
If you then say ok if you don't agree with me, you're wrong.
Ergo you don't believe her, and think she's lying.
How can you be ok with a letting a woman be sexually assaulted?
Why do you silence women of abuse?
And then you proceed to become absolutely unhinged and embark on a scorched-Earth policy of protest, angry confrontation, and tell me that I'm a despicable human being, and you won't accept it anymore.

If you take "Man I don't know" the same as Blah blah blah Dr. Ford is lying, she should just shut up. Women just need to get over it, this stuff is no big deal, shut up and get back in the kitchen and proceed to rake me over the coals for that...

That's an agenda. And I have a REAL problem with that.

You are choosing to look past his PREPARED statement that showed his true colors as a deeply partisan operative. Invoking a Clinton conspiracy and scolding the Democatic Senators with 'what comes around, goes around'.

 

[Ghoat]

i thing i need to do some reading to understand this more, see you next year...

In short, the house has 2 year terms, and all 435 come up every 2 years
The senate has 6 year terms, but they are staggered, so that no more than 35 are up for election at any time.
This election happens to be a year where most of the elections are seats that democrats won 6 years ago. 26 Democrats and 9 Republican. So because of they way the fall in this cycle, it's going to be difficult for the Democrats to gain seats, because they have only 9 to try to "take" but have to "defend" 26.

 

[ilikecheese]

Nor has anything proven him guilty either. Can't have it both ways unless america are judging him (ironically) without Trial which would go against the system.

Until he is proven guilty then all you have realistically is a account from 40 years ago that has all actual details removed but just because a woman has accused a man (AGAIN might i add) that automatically that case is believed to be true and a whole movement of feminists are backing that up without actual trial or proving of facts.

From an outsider perspective it is ridiculous and the best example of feminists essentially backing the men are guilty no matter what as long as a woman says so idea that they are so blind to see for themselves.



How so? If he is unfit without an accusation then he will not win the nomination and no-one would bat an eyelid.

Hundreds of feminists outside protesting and all of a sudden he makes front page news, funny that?

Fact is the man is innocent until proven guilty no matter how many women say otherwise, as said above.

but arguing against the whole #metoo movement or anything like this is just labelled offensive to women and sexist if a male says it so there we go. I can see the potential end result here and it isn't good.

See my post above regarding 'how so'.