By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DrDoomz on 08 October 2018
Edit Thread
Machiavellian said:
DrDoomz said:

Um. I think you have it backwards. You keep saying I’m not understanding you but you’re just repeating my point as if that wasn’t the point I already made. I literally just said that this was all just basic politics and nothing new and you keep trying to explain to me what I already stated....

And I never said this wasn’t politics on both sides of the fence. Where did you even get the idea that I said that?

The Repubs would of course try to push their agenda forward as fast as possible and the Dems would try to delay it as much as they could. This would all be par for course and wouldn’t even register as a blip on my radar.

The difference, to me, is that sexual misconduct (while common in politics) or most any kind of accusation have always hinged on some form of proof. Or at least solid testimony. AFAIK I have never heard of any high profile instances where no proof and only accusations was all that was needed in order to try and bury someone and be so embraced by the politicians, the media and celebrities and the liberal half of the public. Allthewhile practically throwing an entire movement under the bus (while many supporters of said movement urged them on with great enthusiasm). If succesful, the precedence to me would have been very scary. And it should be scary to everyone here. If you know any time where this happened in the past similar to how it happened now, pls educate me so as to correct my view of how things have worked in the past.

And what do you mean by nix? You mean not entertain the accusations at all or nix Kav’s nomination?

From where I stood, the GOP did their usual song and dance while the Dems tried to see if they could succesfully pull off pushing an old political tactic to even lower lows (w/c fortunately ultimately failed).

Boiling down everything back to one simple frame, politics.  Nothing new, nothing different, just another day in American politics.  We can argue over semantics all day long.  This vote was never going to be about a claim of sexual assault but instead of character.  I would be the first to say, that denying Kavanaugh for an alleged assault over 30+ years ago was never something I would have stop his confirmation over.  Instead, I watched how he answered questions given him, dodge questions he didn't like and appeared to just lie when pushed.  For me it was never about the accusations because we will never know the truth to that event.  My position was how does a man going for the SC handle a pressure situation and Kavanaugh failed.  Human or not human, leaders show how they handle high stressful situations and what I saw in Kavanaugh is just another partisan appointed representative who under duress reverted to his true self.

I fail to see how one can see “accusation = guilt” being pushed by one side as normal (if you cannot see how frightening that is, then I don’t think anyone would be able to convince you of anything) and par for course and then see someone being upset over accusations (that is being believed by the media, the celebs and half the ppl out there that is extremely damaging to his family/career/rep/life) as some sort of disqualifying variable without some extreme form of double standard here. One is normal for a human being the other may well destroy the foundation of justice as we know it. Sorry to say, not gonna fault someone for having the same failings as I do (because I do my best to not be a hypocrite) but I will fault others who are sinking to levels that I would never ever sink to.

I also find the whole “he didn’t handle pressure well” logic completely disengenouos. I mean how does that even significantly relate to his job? Didn’t think being a SC justice was some sort of a high stress, pressure cooker type of position. Must be really bad for the heart for all them other older SC justices amirite? No offense, but I feel like Dems just like to say that since that’s what they were told to think. I mean it literally makes no sense to me. And let’s be honest here, whatever other reaction or lack thereof he would have had would have just been spun by the media and put in the same negative light in one form or another.

As for partisanship, you might have a point. I mean, if he wasn’t partisan BEFORE, he sure as hell has a damn good reason to be NOW, don’t you think? Personally, if the Dems argued this angle instead of the unprovable unsupported sexual misconduct allegations, they might have still have failed to stop the confirmation but at least the negative perceptions would have landed squarely on the Repub’s laps and they would have avoided polarizing opinions on the issue.

Last edited by DrDoomz - on 08 October 2018