How can liberals believe that...

[jwoodie]

You statement is either disingenuously self-serving or incredibly naive about political machinations. Which is it?

I covered the objection from naivety in the sentences following the one you quoted, fwiw.

Here are the sentences you are referring to:

I would vote against a nominee facing reasonably credible allegations of sexual misconduct even if I were not very certain they were guilty. That reflects the importance of the position, and the wide availability of qualified candidates without such allegations. I don't feel that this is prejudicial; no one is entitled to a supreme court seat, and the integrity of the court is very important to me. There are caveats here, of course. I would dismiss allegations that were clearly demonstrated to be false, but I don't believe that has happened here.

You clearly demonstrate that you believe the burden of proof in these proceedings is completely on the accused.

OK, I accuse you of being a child molester. Prove you are not.

 

[Clementine]

... [insert your question here]?

I'm new, and I've noticed that conservatives seem to outnumber liberals by quite a bit in this forum. For me, it's sort of like visiting foreign country where you don't quite understand the local culture.

But, it seems to me that beneath the contempt that many of you feel for folks on the political left there's also a large disconnect between what I think of as typical liberal views and your perception of those views. So much so that in many threads it's hard to figure out where to begin to respond.

So! I thought this idea for a thread might be entertaining. The gist is this: say you're baffled by some view that liberals/leftists generally hold. Ask me about it, and I'll try to explain it a little bit.

A few notes:

1) this probably works better if you ask questions about policy preferences, values, or general beliefs about the world (e.g. on the environment, or civil rights, or the criminal justice system, or gender equality, ...) and worse if you ask about obscure current events, which I may or may not know anything about, and on which I won't necessarily know what most liberals think.

2) I may disagree with the premises of your question. I will probably just ignore purely rhetorical/trollish questions unless I think there's some hope of an interesting conversation in it.

3) I don't actually speak for everyone, or even anyone, on the left. I'm not suggesting that only I am allowed to answer or that only my answers count. It's just a goofy idea for a thread.

4) After I try to explain something you are free to insult me and/or liberals in general as suits your mood. Or, really, you don't technically need to wait that long, but it's more interesting if you do, IMO.

Let's start with a current event, namely the accusations against Kavanaugh. The Dems in Washington want to destroy him over unsubstantiated allegations that supposedly occurred when he was a minor. When many women came forth to accuse Bill Clinton of much worse, they were slut-shamed. And Bill was governor of Arkansas when these assaults were claimed to take place. Hillary said they just wanted 15 minutes of fame and a book deals. James Carville said Paula Jones is what you get when you drag a dollar bill through a trailer park. Liberal comedians made fun of Monica for being fat. They all forgave Ted Kennedy for killing a woman and not even telling anyone till the next day. He called his lawyer to handle things. For all other victims of assault by Dems, they were all relentless in their criticism of them.

Here was the typical leftist attitude toward anyone accusing Clinton of sexual assault-



So, why is Kavanaugh being treated the exact opposite?

Ford's story fell apart when witnesses she named could not back up her story and two other witnesses came forth to say Kavanaugh was not there that night. Ford, as it turns out, was quite the party girl back then and it is hard to believe she remembers anything at all.

While none of the allegations could be proven, one side is treated far worse by the left and the liberal media.

 

[rightwinger]

... [insert your question here]?

I'm new, and I've noticed that conservatives seem to outnumber liberals by quite a bit in this forum. For me, it's sort of like visiting foreign country where you don't quite understand the local culture.

But, it seems to me that beneath the contempt that many of you feel for folks on the political left there's also a large disconnect between what I think of as typical liberal views and your perception of those views. So much so that in many threads it's hard to figure out where to begin to respond.

So! I thought this idea for a thread might be entertaining. The gist is this: say you're baffled by some view that liberals/leftists generally hold. Ask me about it, and I'll try to explain it a little bit.

A few notes:

1) this probably works better if you ask questions about policy preferences, values, or general beliefs about the world (e.g. on the environment, or civil rights, or the criminal justice system, or gender equality, ...) and worse if you ask about obscure current events, which I may or may not know anything about, and on which I won't necessarily know what most liberals think.

2) I may disagree with the premises of your question. I will probably just ignore purely rhetorical/trollish questions unless I think there's some hope of an interesting conversation in it.

3) I don't actually speak for everyone, or even anyone, on the left. I'm not suggesting that only I am allowed to answer or that only my answers count. It's just a goofy idea for a thread.

4) After I try to explain something you are free to insult me and/or liberals in general as suits your mood. Or, really, you don't technically need to wait that long, but it's more interesting if you do, IMO.

Let's start with a current event, namely the accusations against Kavanaugh. The Dems in Washington want to destroy him over unsubstantiated allegations that supposedly occurred when he was a minor. When many women came forth to accuse Bill Clinton of much worse, they were slut-shamed. And Bill was governor of Arkansas when these assaults were claimed to take place. Hillary said they just wanted 15 minutes of fame and a book deals. James Carville said Paula Jones is what you get when you drag a dollar bill through a trailer park. Liberal comedians made fun of Monica for being fat. They all forgave Ted Kennedy for killing a woman and not even telling anyone till the next day. He called his lawyer to handle things. For all other victims of assault by Dems, they were all relentless in their criticism of them.

Here was the typical leftist attitude toward anyone accusing Clinton of sexual assault-



So, why is Kavanaugh being treated the exact opposite?

Ford's story fell apart when witnesses she named could not back up her story and two other witnesses came forth to say Kavanaugh was not there that night. Ford, as it turns out, was quite the party girl back then and it is hard to believe she remembers anything at all.

While none of the allegations could be proven, one side is treated far worse by the left and the liberal media.

If your memory fails you...

Bill Clinton was impeached and underwent a two year investigation of his affairs and a certain blowjob

Kavenaugh was subjected to a day of questioning

 

[well named]

You clearly demonstrate that you believe the burden of proof in these proceedings is completely on the accused.

OK, I accuse you of being a child molester. Prove you are not.

I believe I already addressed this type of argument in the post you were originally responding to, when I talked about differing standards of evidence being appropriate to different contexts. That same principle explains why I am not in fact worried about your accusation that I am a child molester. In the context of a public forum conversation, your accusation does not carry with it any actual threat of punishment, or really any consequence to me at all. I feel no burden of proof to rebut your accusation because your accusation is of no relevance to me, and I consider you to have no legal burden of proof for the same reason. In a criminal trial, on the other hand, where the accused is facing prison time, burden of proof and standards of evidence are far more consequential. The nomination and confirmation process is somewhere in between these two extremes, which is why I suggested a standard of evidence that seems appropriate to me in that context. The standard I suggested is not that there should be no standard at all. I said that it was reasonable to dismiss allegations which could be shown to be baseless.

 

[well named]

When many women came forth to accuse Bill Clinton of much worse, they were slut-shamed. And Bill was governor of Arkansas when these assaults were claimed to take place. Hillary said they just wanted 15 minutes of fame and a book deals. James Carville said Paula Jones is what you get when you drag a dollar bill through a trailer park. Liberal comedians made fun of Monica for being fat. They all forgave Ted Kennedy for killing a woman and not even telling anyone till the next day. He called his lawyer to handle things. For all other victims of assault by Dems, they were all relentless in their criticism of them.

When the Lewinsky scandal happened I was 14 years old, and I think that's the main reason why it strikes me as being a little dubious to make some kind of blanket assertion of hypocrisy about how Democrats have reacted. I think a lot has changed since 1996, and I expect that were the same events to happen now the reaction would probably be different, which I think is a good thing in general. I will grant that I expect you can find examples of specific Democrats behaving hypocritically, although I think you should also take into account the possibility that people's views and expectations have changed in the last 20 years. Beyond that, I'm not terribly interested in re-litigating the failures of Bill Clinton. My opinion is that issues involving gender inequality, sexual violence, and toxic masculinity have been a thoroughly bipartisan issue throughout American history, and if that is changing it's only very, very recently, and certainly imperfectly. I'm happy to agree that Clinton's behavior is an example of some of those issues.

 

[well named]

Ran into this on Jonathan Haidt's twitter, seemed relevant to the thread

 

[jwoodie]

You clearly demonstrate that you believe the burden of proof in these proceedings is completely on the accused.

OK, I accuse you of being a child molester. Prove you are not.

I believe I already addressed this type of argument in the post you were originally responding to, when I talked about differing standards of evidence being appropriate to different contexts. That same principle explains why I am not in fact worried about your accusation that I am a child molester. In the context of a public forum conversation, your accusation does not carry with it any actual threat of punishment, or really any consequence to me at all. I feel no burden of proof to rebut your accusation because your accusation is of no relevance to me, and I consider you to have no legal burden of proof for the same reason. In a criminal trial, on the other hand, where the accused is facing prison time, burden of proof and standards of evidence are far more consequential. The nomination and confirmation process is somewhere in between these two extremes, which is why I suggested a standard of evidence that seems appropriate to me in that context. The standard I suggested is not that there should be no standard at all. I said that it was reasonable to dismiss allegations which could be shown to be baseless.

As an accused child molester, you should be disqualified for any position you might seek. How's that for context?

 

[well named]

As an accused child molester, you should be disqualified for any position you might seek. How's that for context?

I imagine that if I were in the hiring process and you contacted the prospective employer and accused me of being a child molester there's a very good chance I wouldn't get that job, if your accusation appeared at all credible to them, or even just because they felt it was in their interest to avoid getting involved in our dispute. The main recourse I would have in that situation would be to sue you for defamation, and if your accusation was entirely baseless than I'd be very likely to win that case. That system is typically sufficient, because false allegations like that happen relatively infrequently, much like false allegations of sexual assault occur relatively infrequently.

 

[rightwinger]

As an accused child molester, you should be disqualified for any position you might seek. How's that for context?

I imagine that if I were in the hiring process and you contacted the prospective employer and accused me of being a child molester there's a very good chance I wouldn't get that job, if your accusation appeared at all credible to them, or even just because they felt it was in their interest to avoid getting involved in our dispute. The main recourse I would have in that situation would be to sue you for defamation, and if your accusation was entirely baseless than I'd be very likely to win that case. That system is typically sufficient, because false allegations like that happen relatively infrequently, much like false allegations of sexual assault occur relatively infrequently.

Most of us would not get a job offer if we had an accusation of sexual assault .......Kavanaugh was appointed to the Supreme Court

 

[jwoodie]

if your accusation was entirely baseless than I'd be very likely to win that case.

Do you consider an accusation with absolutely no corroboration or other supporting evidence to be baseless? (That is a yes or no question.)

 

[miketx]

How can liberals believe that...not having any proof yet someone should still be punished?

Eyewitness testimony is proof. Many people are in prison based on eyewitness restimony

Where's all the eyewitnesses in the judges case?

Dr Ford provided eyewitness testimony to a sexual assault and identified Brett Kavanaugh as the perpetrator
Most sexual assaults don’t take place in front of an audience.

Many people have gone to prison based on testimony of the victim

Are you kidding or trolling with that statement?

Prove me wrong

You don't think you are a liar? Ask this guy!

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[well named]

Do you consider an accusation with absolutely no corroboration or other supporting evidence to be baseless?

Yes, of course.

To cut to the chase, where we disagree is that I do not consider the Ford allegations against Kavanaugh to be absolutely lacking in supporting evidence, although (as I said previously) I agree that the available evidence does not reach the standard which would be required for a criminal conviction. To be clear, I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not Kavanaugh should have been disqualified solely on the basis of that accusation. I think a more in depth investigation would have been helpful on that, although it's of course also true that my opposition to his nomination was overdetermined.

But, as I've also previously said, I think supreme court nominations are rather sui generis, given the importance of the position and the fact that it's a lifetime appointment. Given the very specific nature of that appointment, I'm less concerned about problems that would arise from trying to generalize some approach to the allegations to the general case, i.e. to you accusing me of being a child molester to a potential employer. I'm more concerned about preserving the integrity and role of the judicial process, where the perception of impartiality is also highly important in a way that doesn't apply to me getting a new job.

The thing is, most of the conversation about due process for Kavanaugh here and elsewhere in this forum just involves assuming the conclusion one way or another. Obviously no reasonable person will dispute that it would be unjust to disqualify a person (in any context) without some minimal justification for that decision. Pro-Kavanaugh posters tend to just assume that the minimal burden of proof appropriate to a criminal case is the correct standard for evaluating a nomination, and I think that presumption is evident in the way the question was put to me in this thread. So the main point of my response is that I think the premise is wrong, for reasons that I've repeated a few times now.

 

[MACAULAY]

I would like to welcome the Original Poster---though a Liberal---for he is trying to address issues in a mature manner.

This simply does not occur with Liberals on this board. Its like everyone of them were educated in schools controlled by Teachers Unions in rotting Northern cities run by Democrats for more than 4 decades.

Take for example the turd "Rightwinger"----who seems to have about half the posts in this thread alone---all inane, just like those few of his other 160,000 previous posts which I have read.

When a poster has over 100,000 posts, a presumption arises that he is living in his mother's basement, drawing a welfare check, watching porn and masturbating---and of course posting nonsense---as Rightwinger does constantly. I will read what this new Liberal has to say---and send Rightwinger off to "Ignore" as I should have done long ago.

 

[rightwinger]

I would like to welcome the Original Poster---though a Liberal---for he is trying to address issues in a mature manner.

This simply does not occur with Liberals on this board. Its like everyone of them were educated in schools controlled by Teachers Unions in rotting Northern cities run by Democrats for more than 4 decades.

Take for example the turd "Rightwinger"----who seems to have about half the posts in this thread alone---all inane, just like those few of his other 160,000 previous posts which I have read.

When a poster has over 100,000 posts, a presumption arises that he is living in his mother's basement, drawing a welfare check, watching porn and masturbating---and of course posting nonsense---as Rightwinger does constantly. I will read what this new Liberal has to say---and send Rightwinger of to "Ignore" as I should have done long ago.

Snowflake

Refute any post on this thread

 

[miketx]

I would like to welcome the Original Poster---though a Liberal---for he is trying to address issues in a mature manner.

This simply does not occur with Liberals on this board. Its like everyone of them were educated in schools controlled by Teachers Unions in rotting Northern cities run by Democrats for more than 4 decades.

Take for example the turd "Rightwinger"----who seems to have about half the posts in this thread alone---all inane, just like those few of his other 160,000 previous posts which I have read.

When a poster has over 100,000 posts, a presumption arises that he is living in his mother's basement, drawing a welfare check, watching porn and masturbating---and of course posting nonsense---as Rightwinger does constantly. I will read what this new Liberal has to say---and send Rightwinger of to "Ignore" as I should have done long ago.

Snowflake

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[ph3iron]

... [insert your question here]?

I'm new, and I've noticed that conservatives seem to outnumber liberals by quite a bit in this forum. For me, it's sort of like visiting foreign country where you don't quite understand the local culture.

But, it seems to me that beneath the contempt that many of you feel for folks on the political left there's also a large disconnect between what I think of as typical liberal views and your perception of those views. So much so that in many threads it's hard to figure out where to begin to respond.

So! I thought this idea for a thread might be entertaining. The gist is this: say you're baffled by some view that liberals/leftists generally hold. Ask me about it, and I'll try to explain it a little bit.

A few notes:

1) this probably works better if you ask questions about policy preferences, values, or general beliefs about the world (e.g. on the environment, or civil rights, or the criminal justice system, or gender equality, ...) and worse if you ask about obscure current events, which I may or may not know anything about, and on which I won't necessarily know what most liberals think.

2) I may disagree with the premises of your question. I will probably just ignore purely rhetorical/trollish questions unless I think there's some hope of an interesting conversation in it.

3) I don't actually speak for everyone, or even anyone, on the left. I'm not suggesting that only I am allowed to answer or that only my answers count. It's just a goofy idea for a thread.

4) After I try to explain something you are free to insult me and/or liberals in general as suits your mood. Or, really, you don't technically need to wait that long, but it's more interesting if you do, IMO.

Problem is our old White farts here don't even know the def of liberal.
Zero college and zero Latin

 

[miketx]

... [insert your question here]?

I'm new, and I've noticed that conservatives seem to outnumber liberals by quite a bit in this forum. For me, it's sort of like visiting foreign country where you don't quite understand the local culture.

But, it seems to me that beneath the contempt that many of you feel for folks on the political left there's also a large disconnect between what I think of as typical liberal views and your perception of those views. So much so that in many threads it's hard to figure out where to begin to respond.

So! I thought this idea for a thread might be entertaining. The gist is this: say you're baffled by some view that liberals/leftists generally hold. Ask me about it, and I'll try to explain it a little bit.

A few notes:

1) this probably works better if you ask questions about policy preferences, values, or general beliefs about the world (e.g. on the environment, or civil rights, or the criminal justice system, or gender equality, ...) and worse if you ask about obscure current events, which I may or may not know anything about, and on which I won't necessarily know what most liberals think.

2) I may disagree with the premises of your question. I will probably just ignore purely rhetorical/trollish questions unless I think there's some hope of an interesting conversation in it.

3) I don't actually speak for everyone, or even anyone, on the left. I'm not suggesting that only I am allowed to answer or that only my answers count. It's just a goofy idea for a thread.

4) After I try to explain something you are free to insult me and/or liberals in general as suits your mood. Or, really, you don't technically need to wait that long, but it's more interesting if you do, IMO.

Problem is our old White farts here don't even know the def of liberal.
Zero college and zero Latin

Sure we do. It's just that liars like you continually lie smoke and spin about what your sorry asses are.

 

[ph3iron]

I would like to welcome the Original Poster---though a Liberal---for he is trying to address issues in a mature manner.

This simply does not occur with Liberals on this board. Its like everyone of them were educated in schools controlled by Teachers Unions in rotting Northern cities run by Democrats for more than 4 decades.

Take for example the turd "Rightwinger"----who seems to have about half the posts in this thread alone---all inane, just like those few of his other 160,000 previous posts which I have read.

When a poster has over 100,000 posts, a presumption arises that he is living in his mother's basement, drawing a welfare check, watching porn and masturbating---and of course posting nonsense---as Rightwinger does constantly. I will read what this new Liberal has to say---and send Rightwinger of to "Ignore" as I should have done long ago.

Snowflake

Refute any post on this thread

Just adding.
Snowflake? The original pro
SlAvery boys?.
Snowflake posters have zero idea of this

 

[miketx]

I would like to welcome the Original Poster---though a Liberal---for he is trying to address issues in a mature manner.

This simply does not occur with Liberals on this board. Its like everyone of them were educated in schools controlled by Teachers Unions in rotting Northern cities run by Democrats for more than 4 decades.

Take for example the turd "Rightwinger"----who seems to have about half the posts in this thread alone---all inane, just like those few of his other 160,000 previous posts which I have read.

When a poster has over 100,000 posts, a presumption arises that he is living in his mother's basement, drawing a welfare check, watching porn and masturbating---and of course posting nonsense---as Rightwinger does constantly. I will read what this new Liberal has to say---and send Rightwinger of to "Ignore" as I should have done long ago.

Snowflake

Refute any post on this thread

Just adding.
Snowflake? The original pro
SlAvery boys?.
Snowflake posters have zero idea of this

 

[ph3iron]

... [insert your question here]?

I'm new, and I've noticed that conservatives seem to outnumber liberals by quite a bit in this forum. For me, it's sort of like visiting foreign country where you don't quite understand the local culture.

But, it seems to me that beneath the contempt that many of you feel for folks on the political left there's also a large disconnect between what I think of as typical liberal views and your perception of those views. So much so that in many threads it's hard to figure out where to begin to respond.

So! I thought this idea for a thread might be entertaining. The gist is this: say you're baffled by some view that liberals/leftists generally hold. Ask me about it, and I'll try to explain it a little bit.

A few notes:

1) this probably works better if you ask questions about policy preferences, values, or general beliefs about the world (e.g. on the environment, or civil rights, or the criminal justice system, or gender equality, ...) and worse if you ask about obscure current events, which I may or may not know anything about, and on which I won't necessarily know what most liberals think.

2) I may disagree with the premises of your question. I will probably just ignore purely rhetorical/trollish questions unless I think there's some hope of an interesting conversation in it.

3) I don't actually speak for everyone, or even anyone, on the left. I'm not suggesting that only I am allowed to answer or that only my answers count. It's just a goofy idea for a thread.

4) After I try to explain something you are free to insult me and/or liberals in general as suits your mood. Or, really, you don't technically need to wait that long, but it's more interesting if you do, IMO.

Problem is our old White farts here don't even know the def of liberal.
Zero college and zero Latin

Sure we do. It's just that liars like you continually lie smoke and spin about what your sorry asses are.

Thanks for adding knowledge.
So you know liberal, for the individual and small gov?
Liars, sorry asses, dead giveaway for zero Ed