4 ms·

It seems like it is a problem for these people because they've assumed guilt already. Accusations are not proof in and of themselves. I've got no problem with s

It seems like it is a problem for these people because they've assumed guilt already. Accusations are not proof in and of themselves. I've got no problem with someone supporting a friend while they're defending themselves, no matter their role in a company.

spankalee 8y ago
Guilt isn't the whole problem here. Ramming through a life-long political operative who can't help but lie and show extreme partisanship during testimony, and running a sham coverup for an investigation, are the problem. I'd be pissed if a high-level executive in charge of policy of my company showed support for that.
jbob2000 8y ago
I think most people were on the fence about Kav until he gave his testimony. At that point, we saw he was a true piece of shit. I don’t care if he’s guilty or not, I just don’t want someone with that kind of attitude on the Supreme Court. He lacks discipline and self control, and can’t separate his emotions from his business. To have a Facebook exec supporting this child is really telling about that exec.
obpacheco 8y ago
That's the craziness of this whole thing, we're dividing America over an accusation that hasn't been able to be substantiated by any other parties. We're confronted with the most basic form of a "he said, she said" scenario. And you have half the country who assumes innocence, and half who assumes guilt, and these assumptions are made completely on where your political allegiances lie.
- pjc50 8y ago
  There's actually three different accusers, but I guess in America a female witness's testimony is worth 1/3 of that of a man's?
  - kbenson 8y ago
    In this specific case, given the short time frame involved and extreme vitriol and division between parties and ideologies, I believe there is a non-negligible chance that even if Ford's testimony is entirely true (and I think it is), that others might have piled on accusations to help that claim be more likely to be taken seriously and investigated, and if so they likely fully believe they are patriots in doing so. I do not want Kavenaugh confirmed, but I can't pretend that the Republicans are the only ones willing to play dirty pool. They seem willing to go further, but both sides of the aisle have fallen considerably in the last few years, and they weren't that high to begin with.
    - jf- 8y ago
      Seems like a no-win scenario, whether he’s confirmed or not, everyone loses.
      - kbenson 8y ago
        Well, they could just withdraw the nomination, even without admitting belief in guilt ("To help heal this fractured nation, we have decided to nominate someone else..."). Then Kavenaugh loses, and both sides go on to another candidate. That's a win for the nation, a loss for one man, and a push for both parties. Well, maybe a slight loss for Republicans, but they'll likely get their judge in the end, and with much less controversy, which they could use to their advantage later. It's not like they don't have plenty of judges to choose from (to be clear, they have a large list that would support their goals). That we can't immediately get past this is sickening.
        malvosenior 8y ago
        > That's a win for the nation Is it a win for the nation that someone can be successfully browbeaten into a political loss based on unsubstantiated accusations?
        kbenson 8y ago
- gnicholas 8y ago
  I've been talking with a lot of friends and family about the Kavanaugh situation. I have only had two conversations where someone's belief about what should happen here differed from their personal preference about whether Kavanaugh become a SCOTUS justice. In the vast majority of cases, people's beliefs about what happened just so happens to align with what they want the outcome to be.
  - tomp 8y ago
    Not a personal conversation, but I'd (very slightly) prefer that K wasn't a supreme court justice, although I completely support him in this "innocent until proven guilty" quest, and in fact, since the allegations came out, I even support his nomination, because I think people shouldn't suffer any consequences from unproven allegations (because otherwise it's too easy to hurt someone or make their lives miserable), and it's not like he's getting any other job, ever. But what I find really, extremely sad, is that the majority of the discussion was on this silly inconsequential topic (inconsequential because it's not like there can be any proof of what happened 35 years ago, so it's never getting resolved one way or the other), instead of on his actual leanings, policy, politics, opinions, etc - what kind of Justice he'll be. That's also why I wrote "(very slightly)" above - I'd prefer the court to be as balanced as possible, and K seems to lean right, but I've such low confidence in this belief (e.g. his actual stances could be "libertarian", like Kennedy's, which is IMO preferable while being neither left nor right) that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- paulmd 8y ago
  It's completely undeniable at this point that he committed perjury, at a minimum. Several times. His friend stated he called him up to coach him what to say about the rape accusations, at a date supposedly before he ever learned about the accusation (per his sworn testimony before congress). i.e. Kav was fully aware that an accusation was going to come out (because it is likely true). Apart from that, there's his hilariously transparent lies about his drinking and antics in the greek life. Everyone who's known him says he was the absolute model of a drunk frat party boy, hell his friend Mark Judge published a book about it. And yes, drunk college antics are not a huge deal (as long as he didn't rape anybody), but lying to congress's faces is perjury regardless. This isn't a courtroom and we don't have to reach an ironclad verdict on the rape beyond a reasonable doubt. We should not appoint a perjurer who is trying to coach his witnesses to a lifetime appointment in a powerful political seat.
- minitel 8y ago
  America's academics long theorized that abolishing all common ties between people would increase freedom, happiness, and equality. Pluralism has been touted as an obvious good for over 70 years now. And while they were right that it's sort of nice to be able to believe what you want and "let your freak flag fly" so to speak. Without a common set of values, civic life has pretty much withered and died. What's left is ... Facebook groups? Without a strong civic life or common values there is no reason for opposing groups to show mercy to one another. It's just full on war for control of society. After this works itself out we'll make a great case study for future societies (maybe even future North American societies) on what not to do.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

spankalee 8y ago

Guilt isn't the whole problem here. Ramming through a life-long political operative who can't help but lie and show extreme partisanship during testimony, and running a sham coverup for an investigation, are the problem. I'd be pissed if a high-level executive in charge of policy of my company showed support for that.

jbob2000 8y ago

I think most people were on the fence about Kav until he gave his testimony. At that point, we saw he was a true piece of shit. I don’t care if he’s guilty or not, I just don’t want someone with that kind of attitude on the Supreme Court. He lacks discipline and self control, and can’t separate his emotions from his business. To have a Facebook exec supporting this child is really telling about that exec.

obpacheco 8y ago

That's the craziness of this whole thing, we're dividing America over an accusation that hasn't been able to be substantiated by any other parties. We're confronted with the most basic form of a "he said, she said" scenario. And you have half the country who assumes innocence, and half who assumes guilt, and these assumptions are made completely on where your political allegiances lie.

pjc50 8y ago
There's actually three different accusers, but I guess in America a female witness's testimony is worth 1/3 of that of a man's?
- kbenson 8y ago
  In this specific case, given the short time frame involved and extreme vitriol and division between parties and ideologies, I believe there is a non-negligible chance that even if Ford's testimony is entirely true (and I think it is), that others might have piled on accusations to help that claim be more likely to be taken seriously and investigated, and if so they likely fully believe they are patriots in doing so. I do not want Kavenaugh confirmed, but I can't pretend that the Republicans are the only ones willing to play dirty pool. They seem willing to go further, but both sides of the aisle have fallen considerably in the last few years, and they weren't that high to begin with.
  - jf- 8y ago
    Seems like a no-win scenario, whether he’s confirmed or not, everyone loses.
    - kbenson 8y ago
      Well, they could just withdraw the nomination, even without admitting belief in guilt ("To help heal this fractured nation, we have decided to nominate someone else..."). Then Kavenaugh loses, and both sides go on to another candidate. That's a win for the nation, a loss for one man, and a push for both parties. Well, maybe a slight loss for Republicans, but they'll likely get their judge in the end, and with much less controversy, which they could use to their advantage later. It's not like they don't have plenty of judges to choose from (to be clear, they have a large list that would support their goals). That we can't immediately get past this is sickening.
      - malvosenior 8y ago
        > That's a win for the nation Is it a win for the nation that someone can be successfully browbeaten into a political loss based on unsubstantiated accusations?
        kbenson 8y ago
gnicholas 8y ago
I've been talking with a lot of friends and family about the Kavanaugh situation. I have only had two conversations where someone's belief about what should happen here differed from their personal preference about whether Kavanaugh become a SCOTUS justice. In the vast majority of cases, people's beliefs about what happened just so happens to align with what they want the outcome to be.
- tomp 8y ago
  Not a personal conversation, but I'd (very slightly) prefer that K wasn't a supreme court justice, although I completely support him in this "innocent until proven guilty" quest, and in fact, since the allegations came out, I even support his nomination, because I think people shouldn't suffer any consequences from unproven allegations (because otherwise it's too easy to hurt someone or make their lives miserable), and it's not like he's getting any other job, ever. But what I find really, extremely sad, is that the majority of the discussion was on this silly inconsequential topic (inconsequential because it's not like there can be any proof of what happened 35 years ago, so it's never getting resolved one way or the other), instead of on his actual leanings, policy, politics, opinions, etc - what kind of Justice he'll be. That's also why I wrote "(very slightly)" above - I'd prefer the court to be as balanced as possible, and K seems to lean right, but I've such low confidence in this belief (e.g. his actual stances could be "libertarian", like Kennedy's, which is IMO preferable while being neither left nor right) that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
paulmd 8y ago
It's completely undeniable at this point that he committed perjury, at a minimum. Several times. His friend stated he called him up to coach him what to say about the rape accusations, at a date supposedly before he ever learned about the accusation (per his sworn testimony before congress). i.e. Kav was fully aware that an accusation was going to come out (because it is likely true). Apart from that, there's his hilariously transparent lies about his drinking and antics in the greek life. Everyone who's known him says he was the absolute model of a drunk frat party boy, hell his friend Mark Judge published a book about it. And yes, drunk college antics are not a huge deal (as long as he didn't rape anybody), but lying to congress's faces is perjury regardless. This isn't a courtroom and we don't have to reach an ironclad verdict on the rape beyond a reasonable doubt. We should not appoint a perjurer who is trying to coach his witnesses to a lifetime appointment in a powerful political seat.
minitel 8y ago
America's academics long theorized that abolishing all common ties between people would increase freedom, happiness, and equality. Pluralism has been touted as an obvious good for over 70 years now. And while they were right that it's sort of nice to be able to believe what you want and "let your freak flag fly" so to speak. Without a common set of values, civic life has pretty much withered and died. What's left is ... Facebook groups? Without a strong civic life or common values there is no reason for opposing groups to show mercy to one another. It's just full on war for control of society. After this works itself out we'll make a great case study for future societies (maybe even future North American societies) on what not to do.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]