Politics

Blue&White
Posts: 2430
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:54 am

So, I'm sure everyone has been enjoying the news around the Bob Woodward book and then the anonymous New York Times editorial from a "senior member of the Trump administration".

The National Review, which is not, by any definition, a liberal leaning publication, is calling out the author to identify himself.

This is worth the read, I thought. You can quibble with some of their points, but I think the fundamental position - that if things are that bad then the author has an obligation to come forward and present his evidence before Congress - is exactly right. Hiding behind anonymity on the Times Op Ed page is bullshit. If you think Trump is unfit to be President and you have evidence that he is an actual danger to the country, then you have a duty to stand up and face the slings and arrows and tell the American public what you know. And, if you are not willing to do that, what exactly was the point of that OpEd? To sow further discord and division? People who are still supporting Trump or only going to further circle the wagons. And, there is a percentage of people who do that no matter what evidence is presented. But, people who are on the fence are not likely to respond to a shot from someone in the shadows who refused to come forward. That did very litlte good and a lot of harm.

Whomever wrote that really needs to come forward.
Alex Cora sucks. Mickey Callaway sucks. Baseball sucks. Everything and everyone just sucks. Is it football season yet?

PittGradPSUMad
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:47 pm

Re: Politics

Postby PittGradPSUMad » Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:17 pm

I agree. The chances are good that he/she will be discovered and immediately fired with heaps of scorn thrown in for good measure. You could argue that the resisters should remain in place to thwart the orange menace but if he is that far off the rails, they have an obligation to go public. That, of course, assumes that a republican congress would actually take action against trump, but that would also be a wildly false assumption.
Yeah, well, that's like your opinion, man.

Blue&White
Posts: 2430
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:35 pm

If someone from within his administration comes up with some specific accusations and evidence, the Republicans in Congress may have no choice but to hold hearings and see what's what. They can't just pretend that away if someone comes forward and is asking to provide evidence under oath. But, an anonymous shot they pretty much have to ignore.

It's one thing to speak to Bob Woodward on the condition you get to remain anonymous. But, to go out of your way to write an OpEd to the New York Times is ridiculous. If you believe there is a problem, then you have a duty to come forward. And, if you're not willing to do that, then don't do it at all.
Alex Cora sucks. Mickey Callaway sucks. Baseball sucks. Everything and everyone just sucks. Is it football season yet?

Blue&White
Posts: 2430
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:23 pm

So, I just realized this morning that PA governor is up for reelection this November. I had completely lost track of that. And, I can't believe it's been 4 years. Here's the best part - I can't name a single thing he's done since he took office. I'm sure he's done stuff, but it has had zero impact on me. My property taxes have been pretty stable (they go up a little each year but not much), my state income taxes have been fine and I'm not wanting for services. But, I can't name a single tangible or intangible impact from Wolf taking office 3.5 years ago.

For that reason alone I think I'll vote for him come November. The last thing I need is someone who wants to come in and actually do stuff. "Stuff" always costs me money. Every single time. So, I'm all for no impact.

That should be his slogan - "Tom Wolf: You won't even know I'm here". That is a winner in my book.
Alex Cora sucks. Mickey Callaway sucks. Baseball sucks. Everything and everyone just sucks. Is it football season yet?

pennstate92
Posts: 287
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:33 am

Re: Politics

Postby pennstate92 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:09 pm

Love it. That's how all politicians should act. Less is More...
If at first you don't succeed, give up. There is no hope for you.

Crowbar
Posts: 601
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Politics

Postby Crowbar » Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:35 am

I voted for Wolf 4 years ago just because his opponent was Corbett.

I agree. Wolf hasn't done anything to disrupt my life or wallet.

4 more years.
41-33.

PittGradPSUMad
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:47 pm

Re: Politics

Postby PittGradPSUMad » Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:11 pm

We've been remarkably silent on the shenanigans erupting out of DC in recent weeks. Allow me to break the silence. President pussy grabber is now on record, attacking the credibility of the woman accusing scotus nominee Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Obviously, he doesn't have a clue how that plays politically, nor does he have a sense of irony. Or shame. Interesting that the only time he came to the defense of a victim of sexual assault occurred in the central park jogger case.....a white woman whose alleged attackers were young black men. They were tried and later acquitted after serving time in jail. Trump, as I recall, took out a newspaper ad calling for their execution. I don't believe in hell, but if there is such a place, he deserves to spend eternity there listening to his speeches. He is a despicable asshole.
Yeah, well, that's like your opinion, man.

Blue&White
Posts: 2430
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:26 pm

I'm amazed it took him this long to go after her. I read yesterday that he was very pleased with the positive press he was receiving by acting like an actual adult. But, ultimately, a leopard can't change his spots and a douchebag can't help but be a douchebag. He was better served with his original position of "we should hear what she has to say".

It looks like she's now willing to come and testify, although I'm not sure I see the point. She is going to say, under oath, that it happened. Kavanaugh is going to say, under oath, that it did not. They aren't going to call anyone else and they have basically refused to have the FBI go and investigate this as part of the background check (and you have to sort of wonder about that). So, at the end of the day it comes down to a "he said/she said" and who do you believe?

And, it is possible neither of them is lying. It is entirely possible that it happened more or less the way she describes and he has zero memory of any of it. It was 35 years ago, he was drinking, and he may just not have any recollection of it at this point. When he says it never happened - even if it did - he may beleive every single word of that. I have no idea.

I feel bad for this woman. It seems she didn't want any of this. She wrote the note asking for confidentiality. From what I can gather, she didn't want her name out and only identified herself once it leaked. Her life is being threatened and she's being attacked by politicians who don't give a shit if her story is true or not. And, ultimately, it's not going to matter. I can't believe he's going to be kept of the Court for an incident that allegegly happened when he was 17. An incident that will be unadjudicated, unsubtantiated, and - thanks to the refusal to conduct any kind of investigation and see if anyone else has a memory of this - uncorroborated. It would be one thing if there were now other women coming forwawrd with a "me too" story about Kavanaugh. But, there are not. So, is it fair to keep him off the court for something that happened 35 years ago and can't be proven and he denies? I don't know. I really have no idea. But, I do know how the Republicans in the Senate are likely to view it. They are going to view it as if they don't do this, there is a chance they can lose the Senate in the midterms and they are not going to screw around. You need 3 of them to vote "no". I think you are going to get 2 at most - Collins and Murkowski. Maybe - maybe - if this woman is very convincing you get Flake. Maybe, but I am not holding my breath.
Alex Cora sucks. Mickey Callaway sucks. Baseball sucks. Everything and everyone just sucks. Is it football season yet?

LioninVa
Posts: 590
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:49 am

Re: Politics

Postby LioninVa » Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:32 pm

I believe this is a no win for her. Obviously, I have no way to know if the claim is true or not. I doubt it was fabricated recently as there are claims that she brought it out to a therapist and maybe her husband a few years ago. I know that doesn’t make it true or false, but it seems to negate a political agenda to me.

Some are upset that this is coming out now. I wonder what those folks think about the men coming out agains Catholic priests so many years later. Others question her memory, and that confuses me. I am able to remember damn near every moderate to significant event back to elementary school. At least, I think I can. Maybe some are not a true to reality as I recall but I will never know. However, I understand that our brains don’t all work the same and some have much more vivid recollections than others. Not to mention the theory that some traumatic events get blocked out. I am not saying this is the case as much as it is simply a possibility.

To answer your question, B-Dub, I believe it should be disqualifying in this case if it is true regardless of how long ago this happened. I mean, we are talking about a lifetime appointment to the highest court, not a gig at Ben and Jerry’s.

Blue&White
Posts: 2430
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Sat Sep 22, 2018 11:54 am

Some are upset that this is coming out now. I wonder what those folks think about the men coming out agains Catholic priests so many years later. Others question her memory, and that confuses me. I am able to remember damn near every moderate to significant event back to elementary school. At least, I think I can. Maybe some are not a true to reality as I recall but I will never know. However, I understand that our brains don’t all work the same and some have much more vivid recollections than others. Not to mention the theory that some traumatic events get blocked out. I am not saying this is the case as much as it is simply a possibility.

You think you remember and you think you remember accurately but most likely you do not. Memories change over time. We think we remember something accurately but we do not. There are a couple of blogs I read from time to time that focus on skepticism and the concept of science-based reality. One of them is called The Skeptics Guide to the Universe and the primary contributor is a Dr. Steven Novella, who is a neurologist and an associate professor at Yale Medical School. During the whole fiasco a few years ago with Brian Williams - where he claimed he was in a helicopter that was hit with a rocket while reporting in Iraq when he wasn't there - Novella wrote a few pieces about how memories shift over time and we come to believe stories that we hear actually happened to us. His point is that while he has no idea if Williams deliberately lied or not, the charge that people don't forget what did and did not happen to them was demonstrably not true. It happens fairly regularly.

I have no idea what happened between Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Ford. I suspect that something happened and I don't think she's lying. But, that doesn't mean her story is accurate. There is no way of knowing. It would be one thing if there were other woman bringing up past assaults, but there are not. Or, if there were people coming forward saying "yes, she told me this story back in 1984 when it happened", there is at least some corroboration. But, we are talking about passing judgment on something that happened over 35 years ago, that he completely denies, and she can't substantiate. What I find galling is the refusal to allow the FBI try to even corroborate this. The idea that the Senate is better poised to get to the truth than the FBI, or checking out people's backgrounds is outside the FBI's purview and expertise, is beyond ridiculous. The refusal to do that certainly makes it seem like there is something to hide. But, if there are witnesses who knew something then why have they not come forward? If it's because they don't want to get sucked into this morass (and who can blame them?), how likely are they to step up and talk to the FBI at all? Maybe they would if the FBI came asking, but it's hard to know. I wish we had the opportunity to find out, though.

Anyway, with what we have, I don't think you can keep him off the court for this. I think there are other reasons to keep him off (like the contradictions between his sworn testimony when he was up to be a federal judge and emails from his days in the Bush administration - which implies he perjured himself) but I can't see this stopping him.

If, however, someone can come up with something to corroborate her story, I think he should not only not be confirmed but off the federal bench. We tied criminal convictions to people like anchors that follow them for life. Do something as a 20 year old, it can impact you when you are 50. Why should rich, white people be treated any differently?
Alex Cora sucks. Mickey Callaway sucks. Baseball sucks. Everything and everyone just sucks. Is it football season yet?