|
Willa Rogers posted:Which goes to show you that morality is elastic, and subject to political expediency. Not just political expediency. Emotional expediency too.
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2021 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:42 |
|
|
Aruan posted:to contribute: someone asked the question, "where do we go from here", and i don't think there's an easy answer - my hope is that once we eventually start moving towards the next generation of politicians they are less terrible people who care more about human dignity and rights Part of answering "where do we go?" is figuring out "how do we go?" There's stuff people can do, right now, today, that will make the "how" easier. I think we should acknowledge that a significant portion of the population views these matters not as issues of individual violations but as an aggregate attempt to grab power. Strip away all the arguments about dehumanizing language, all the traumatic personal experiences, the details of every individual's struggle, and what's left is what many people with power (or aspirations of power, as the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" class) see: the use of accusations by "the woke left" as an attack instrument, an attempt by those opposed to their interests to use the powerless to shame and ostracize them for transgressions real or imagined. In the eyes of many politicians and their ilk the legitimacy of the transgressions are at best tertiary to the attempt to wrest power away from the powerful. The fallacy is that they think it's just an attempt to usurp power for the sake of gaining power. It's not about that, of course. It's about the power to resist being raped, resist being abused, and resist living in fear. But as long as one side is framing the very act of talking about abuses as an abuse of power (which is what many powerful abusers do) then it bears restating, constantly and gently, that it's actually just about not being raped. If you believe a victim's claim, call their abuser a rapist outright. You will not find it to be a very comfortable position to be in, people hate that word being thrown around, but it is what re-frames the argument from being about trying to sabotage a powerful person and puts it back to being about stopping abuse. It's as simple as saying, "Joe Biden, rapist," whenever you talk about him. When they say, "we are tired of hearing about that poo poo," you can say, "I am tired of the powerful raping people." When they say, "They should have gone to court with it, if they had a case they should have gone to court," you can tell them the truth: "The courts are the tools of the powerful, and the fact that #MeToo was necessary is evidence enough that the court system as it is does not ensure people are treated fairly." It sucks doing this. But it's the only useful way I know of to keep the focus on the facts. As for the "where" of where we go? Legal system reform is clearly needed as part of the solution, and while it's certainly not the whole solution, not even the majority of the actual solution, it's a necessary component. What would be effective there? What barriers to justice are in place right now? I'm not sure, since I'm not a lawyer or judge or legislator. The best I can manage is saying that it looks like it's not working. Other parts of the destination include teaching people with aspirations of power ethical behavior. Discouraging, or discarding entirely, components of social behavior that encourage the casual sexual dehumanization of other people is probably another useful avenue to think about. I'm not a psychologist, but even I can see it's a bad thing to normalize stuff like "casting couch" pornography: it normalizes the idea that an abuser has a right to be abusive by virtue of having the power to make hiring decisions, and that a victim wouldn't be a victim unless they placed themselves in that situation to begin with. There's other stuff, this is by no means exhaustive, but I feel it behooves us to tread carefully. John_A_Tallon fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Feb 21, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2021 01:50
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:It's definitely frustrating when every election is "What are you gonna do, vote for the other guy?" but that's the reality of it. We do what we can when we can do it. I voted for La Riva. So yes, you can vote for other people.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 01:11
|
|
|
generic one posted:I’m not sure that really lines up with, what I interpret as being, the argument being made for harm reduction. A vote for La Riva wouldn’t have had any impact on who was elected president, at least in the 2020 election. Advocating for harm reduction is a way for people justify their repugnant and morally bankrupt approach to voting. Or maybe it is just another way people were tricked into voting for a rapist, if we're being charitable. My opinion is that if you're seriously deciding to vote for people who have done outright evil things just because you think there might be a slightly less awful outcome overall, you've lost sight of the fact that as long as people like you are stuck on voting strategically instead of shaming people for even considering to vote for rapists, warmongers, thieves, and murderers we will not peacefully remove objectionable politicians ever. It is easy for a politician to appear slightly less harmful than the other popular candidate. GreyjoyBastard posted:This is neither a general electoralism thread nor a general Biden administration thread. I can think of rather a lot of other avenues for this thread to go down (there have been a couple good "where do we go from here" or "what does this all tell us about rape culture" posts, for example), but neither of the first two things are really topical here. I agree, but people will inevitably touch on the idea that in this specific case, for this specific victim, the extenuating circumstances around the election in general mean they deserve a dispensation for having held their nose and voted for a shitbag. They do not. They're bad people because they knew what they did. Part of "where do we go" includes calling out people for being bad. John_A_Tallon fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Feb 24, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 02:30
|
|
|
Actual change is never easy. Changing the course of a culture of millions of people is a task that will take a long time; if it's measurable in a handful of generations we got off cheap. A lot of people are going to end up feeling bad that they did bad things. That's a good thing, it means they recognize they need to adjust their own value system so that it matches what they actually claim they are. It's not an enjoyable process, especially since it starts with someone saying, "You suck!"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 03:24
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:Also, somebody brought up how casting cast porn should be frowned upon and again, that just looks and feels like Christian morality bullshit disguised with a different coat of paint Have you ever watched any of it? The structure of these fantasies explicitly place a female actress in distress, and imply that she's putting herself in the way of sexual assault deliberately in a "wink wink nudge nudge" way. Suggesting that this is a bad thing has nothing to do with religious morality and everything to do with a desire to not normalize the idea that because a woman needs something (a job, a ride somewhere, whatever the goal might be) then it's normal and acceptable for a person in power to demand she suck and gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2021 00:38
|
|
|
How are u posted:Would you prefer this to happen? Until we are brave enough as a people to tell the gross fucks on both sides of the aisle to go away, and until we're brave enough to decide that forging a path forward without them is possible, we will always be under threat of a slightly less or slightly more repugnant group of people taking control. Let's be open about what the stakes are: the balkanization of the United States due to armed rebellion. That's the catastrophic end state. Everything else can be undone by subsequent congresses of people behaving ethically. If you're saying that you have to choose harm reduction now because you're frightened, you're also saying you believe that there will never be an honest legislature, ever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2021 20:24
|
|
|
How are u posted:Yeah I'm not as compelled by some idea of "being brave" because, as far as I can tell from the reality that I exist in right now today, if we end up with a Republican House and Senate in 2022 they will give the Presidential election in 2024 away to the Republican no matter what. They would have done so in 2020 if they had had the power and ability. It is crystal clear. That's an existential threat to democracy itself. Democracies require maintenance. We've deferred and deferred and we are at the point where if we put it off any further we will not have a democracy anyway. The system as it stands is a practical oligarchy and that will not be addressed by either the immoral people you're voting for out of fear, or the immoral people you're effectively casting your vote against. What you are actually arguing for is the idea that there are some masters you find less intolerable than others, because they allow you to continue to believe in the fiction that once they're in office they have any accountability to the people. The facts are that you are scared of the consequences of having to perform maintenance. There will be an uncomfortable period where one party "wins big" with a non-plurality of votes because of "defectors" who recognize that neither side will move in a desirable direction until they are forced to by being punished for choosing to run awful people. Every vote for a person like La Riva is a vote that scares the poo poo out of people like Pelosi and Biden because it's a vote that says, "Your time is done." I understand you're a coward. You can choose not to be.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2021 21:29
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:Either pretend it isn’t happening or circle the wagons. I think it wouldn't have made the news if they didn't intend to sacrifice him as a distraction and convenient scapegoat.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2021 03:48
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Do you think the Dems have complete control over all news agencies? I think there's enough collusion between the owners of the major agencies and their bought politicians that this would have been spiked until it was convenient. If you check out the original tweet by Lindsey Boylan, it was made December 13th, 2020.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2021 04:25
|
|
|
Cabbages and Kings posted:I grew up in upstate NY, I know a lot of people from NYC, I know truckers and rockers and hackers and trumper crackers, artisans of alabaster... and they ALL break down in cackling laughter, when asked "hey, is Cuomo okay?" It could be the approval pollsters are being lied to. Or they're incompetent. Or they're lying. A number doesn't really matter without independent verification of the data and review of the methodology. They don't provide any of that do they?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2021 22:25
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:I have been sexually harassed at work. I know it happened, and I have considerably less evidence than Tara Reade has publicly produced. I have at least as much reason to believe her as I have reason to believe myself. I'd prefer auguries to pollsters at this point. Augurs at least made an honest effort with their advice. I remember reading an account of an ancient taking the auspices and desperately doing his best to not spot any birds that would give him an answer he felt would lead the Roman senate to ruin. Insanite posted:The litany of excuses never ends, nor does it change. Is there any point at which they'll be too ashamed to use the 'grandpa' poo poo? The point where they, personally, are called out on it, where their children are bullied by other children for their parents' actions, where their mail is frequently lost, where their dentist tells them to find another provider because he feels morally conflicted whenever he has to work on their teeth, where their churches kick them out, where their HOA association endeavors to make their lives miserable, and where in general they are harassed and belittled by people physically in their lives. People like that don't have shame, per se, so much as a fear of consequences. Shaming from strangers isn't what it takes; it takes the people around them flipping the script and saying, "hey, you're being a piece of poo poo." John_A_Tallon fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Mar 2, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
Harvey Mantaco posted:I deleted it and rewrote it twice. I wasn't sure I wanted to post it. I'm fairly embarrassed. The conversations regarding systemic enabling of rapists through "greater good" rationalization and the nuances attached to that were important. I also feel like... and this is the embarrassing part, I fell for a lot of silencing propaganda. Nothing about denying this women made any sense, but when you have "reasonable people" speaking with confidence, and your family saying the same, it's so easy to come to this comfortable, passive, conclusion that doesn't challenge you. And that conclusion sucked. And I have to apologize to a couple people. The silencing propaganda was designed by experts, refined over a couple of generations (because they've been using it ever since there was any real expectation of treating women like human beings instead of rear end and titties in the workplace) and has always had aggressive push-back implicitly threatened for questioning it. Embarrassment is a tool for use against normal people. The abusers are totally shameless, but they know how to make people feel embarrassed. They know how to use power to abuse people, which is more than just an unwanted touch or an outright rape: it's an entire library of manipulative behaviors, down to how they talk to silence others, what outfits they wear to project power, how they carry themselves, the facial expressions they ape, and the narrative they craft. They're evil people. Congratulations on not falling for it any more. It's going to suck now that you can see them doing it and you've decided you're not going to let them manipulate you. It's rather depressing seeing how they act and how other people react to their lies. Harvey Mantaco posted:...Where should the burden be? If I don't vote for the rapist am I responsible for deaths caused by the alternate administration? I didn't put the rapist up as a choice! But the choice is there. It disgusts me. I think a lot of people are confused, and don't have the logical rigor to work it through. I don't feel like I do sometimes, and feel foolish. My perspective on individual political responsibility is that in theory we are each responsible for what we let our representatives get away with. There's no such thing as "not my president" because that executive was elected by the people in a system of interlocked processes designed to provide a peaceful path for a transition of power. Even if I didn't vote for someone, once they're in office, they're my representative who I have delegated my authority and power to. If they gently caress that up, I have a responsibility to set it right. Somehow. John_A_Tallon fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Mar 5, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
I think that the two-thirds of voters who felt like their choices were a rapist or a rapist are mostly suckers who don't examine much very critically and would be utterly unwilling to do anything to rectify their ignorance whenever they get a choice. The point is to not give them a choice; we can collectively keep rubbing their noses in the evidence until they feel like they're being gangstalked. Be completely reasonable, calm, collected, and unyielding on the truth and they'll hate us, but they'll also eventually start to believe us. It's a slow process.
John_A_Tallon fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Mar 12, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:So your plan is to harass everyone until what 51% of the country writes in a third party? Because there were 2 choices for President on election day last year, yes the primary should of gone differently but election day it was either Trump or Biden. Harassing people into going along to get along, telling them the version of reality you want them to believe, and crafting the narrative that fits the hyperreality we are all forced to live in in the age of always-connected 24 hour news cycles and social media, is exactly what the rapist apologists and powerful have done. The only antidote is the relentless truth.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2021 16:07
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I'm glad you're here to spread the mind blowing statistic that nearly 2/3rd of the eligible voting population in the US are incapable of critically thinking because they had cast a vote for the Democratic or Republican nomination in the 2020 election Good, good, you're right on track here. Keep telling yourself whatever makes you feel better. You'll keep thinking about this and in a few weeks or months or however long it takes for the truth to percolate in, your opinion will change and you won't really be able to pinpoint how or why. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2021 16:24
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Sorry to blow your mind, but I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 or 2012 in the general election. I already know that the 2 party system is bullshit. But nice try. It's not really about you though? Or rather, it's not about you personally, but the entire population of American voters that are willing to let fear guide them. At least that's what I assumed you were talking about when you brought up your barricaded abstainer. If you're talking about voter suppression, well, that's not really the topic of this thread. Neither is restoring civic liberties to convicted felons, which would be the other possible interpretation. What can we do? We can tell the truth. Who needs to hear the truth? Anyone who fell for the lie. Who fell for the lie? Apparently most of the voting population of the USA.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I'm glad you're here to spread the mind blowing statistic that nearly 2/3rd of the eligible voting population in the US are incapable of critically thinking because they had cast a vote for the Democratic or Republican nomination in the 2020 election Kalit posted:That wasn't the point of my post. The point of my post was to mock your post of inferring that everyone who votes for a major party candidate in 2020 is incapable of being able to think critically: I think you're 100% an rear end in a top hat. Is that a statistic? It's possible to speak in general terms about a general problem. Generally speaking, most voters don't put a great deal of effort into actually looking up information on their choices in an election. That's why propaganda works well, and why there's a correlation between the amount of money spent on a campaign and the amount of votes a candidate wins. That pattern generally holds true unless there's a strong narrative from activists who actively spread their version of events (be it the truth, a well designed lie, or their interpretation of if a candidate will actually support issues important to them or discard said issues as soon as possible). John_A_Tallon fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Mar 12, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2021 16:53
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:Ugh not that I ever doubted her or cared about the stupid transcript story, but the fact that the media will never face consequences for their dishonest reporting and the fact that liberals including many here discredited her because of this transcript nonsense is extremely depressing. The media, while controlled from the top down by its corporate owners, is still composed of individuals. Individuals can be held accountable, even if the accountability is simply saying, "This person lied in an article they wrote about Tara Reade, they're no longer credible," in every context they write any news. The authors of that article you linked are Jim Rutenberg, Stephanie Saul, and Lisa Lerer. If we had a quick way to note they're known liars it'd help; the equivalent of a mark in their permanent record that anyone could reference. Reporters aren't a monolithic group. They will respond to the threat of public accountability tarring their chances at being taken seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2021 01:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Maybe he isn't being expelled from the party because its values aren't what you thought they were This bears emphasis. Don't look at what they claim they believe in, nor in what they say they will do. Look at what they actually get done and you'll understand what they actually value. Jarmak posted:You can't just hand-waive away the majority of the congressional delegation, including both senators, calling for his resignation. Or the formal opening of an impeachment inquiry. Or the Democratic AGs office opening a criminal investigation and issuing subpoenas. On the other hand in the pro-Cuomo evidence camp one poll that has terrible but not catastrophic numbers, and your hot takes. You're just moving the goalposts in circles. Sure you can. If they actually wanted to force the issue, they could halt the government until it was finished. Literally, everyone saying "I'm calling for his resignation in the most strenuous terms possible" should be saying "and I will vote NO on everything that comes before me until then." They're not doing that second part, which makes the first part a smokescreen. John_A_Tallon fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Apr 9, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:And we could technically stop emitting fossil fuels tomorrow and only hit 1.3C of Global Warming but it's not going to happen. There is not a legal mechanism for NY State to simply remove Cuomo because they feel like and simply shutting down government would also be catastrophic. It's not like he or others wouldn't be able to spin it as cancel culture just as conservative do. That's right, because those goals are not things that the democrats actually value. Climate change isn't important to them, nor are working environments that are safe from sex pests like Cuomo. They're not willing to actually advance those goals in tangible ways, so it's manifest that those goals are not only not a priority, but given how they speak about them are actually used to distract their constituents from what the real DNC agenda is.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:It's literally not possible to hit those targets unless your comfortable without things like mobility, electricity, buildings, modern medicine, etc. You are being completely unrealistic in your expectations and are asking for something that hasn't ever occurred in politics. I do like how you've gone out of your way to conflate the issue. Surely we can have a party free of rapists, molesters, abusers, sexual predators, and creeps without giving up on electricity, modern medicine, or buildings. As for climate change, that's an issue that you literally introduced to muddy the waters. Stop doing that. It's rude.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 22:04
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:No, I've made an apt analogy. There's difference what could happen as opposed to what's realistic and you don't like it. It was a tenuous analogy right up until you started directly conflating the (doom and gloom Republican talking point) outcomes of achieving climate change goals with the goal of not having an intern-fondling molester creep like Cuomo as governor of a major population. Then it was muddying the waters. I hope this helps you in your life journey. Crosby B. Alfred posted:And doing so in the middle of a pandemic. And who's say Cuomo would even leave? Unless a politician is prepared to use their power, they're simply playing it up for the mob. A politician's primary power is negotiating with their voting power, and that includes withholding votes on all issues until the resolution of an issue which is a key indicator of what they actually hold to be valuable. If they are not using that power, they're paying an ideal lip service at best. Every single politician that demanded Cuomo resign and then failed to make a point of not cooperating with the party that embraced Cuomo has actively done damage to the idea of the Democrats being a party that doesn't tolerate bad behavior within their ranks. Not that it was a very established idea to begin with, but they seem to like talking up the idea. If someone says, "this is intolerable!" and then goes on to tolerate it, what's that say about them? And if someone says, "the circumstances merit it being tolerated!" that's even worse. That game will always result in the circumstances always meriting doing whatever is politically convenient.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2021 00:53
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:There is a difference between what is possible and what is actually within the realm of being feasible. It is literally impossible to hit 1.3C unless you can someone persuade or force everyone on the planet to stop using fossil fuels right with in the next few years nor is this a Republican Talking Point but a matter of fact. If there's some climate change D&D thread your concerns would be best shared there. I will not further address your continued digressions into a topic totally unrelated to this thread's topic. I will say that you are comparing problems with an order of magnitude of difference in difficulty in the first place. That is why the analogy is "tenuous" instead of "apt." Climate change is a problem a century in the making, with millions of different stakeholders, and cross-polity enforcement of whatever solution is chosen. Cuomo is a single man, and the Democrats as a whole are a political party of thousands of politicians spread out over the 50 states. Demanding action from a few hundred people to force a single man to do something is very much different from tackling the climate change issue, and it is fundamentally disingenuous to imply otherwise as you have done. Crosby B. Alfred posted:Well, if they go through the procedures to begin a formal investigation I think it says a lot. If they demanded a resignation and settled for a formal investigation, it says they were demanding the resignation for show.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2021 01:39
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:It's the same thing. NY State parliamentary procedure is insanely complicated and they haven't impeached a governor in over a hundred years because that's how the system was designed. Out of State Democrats aren't going to get involved with something that is purely NY State Politics nor do they have any authority in the first place. Legal mechanisms become academic if an effective method of wielding power is chosen. The point of withholding votes and shutting the system down would be to force Cuomo to leave "of his own accord." If they had not called for his resignation but simply said, "there should be an investigation," then there'd be no inconsistency in their actions. But they didn't; they went for the dramatic action of demanding a resignation and then took the lamest option of sitting on their hands instead of exercising their actual power.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2021 01:49
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Maybe. Maybe not but based of off the outcome of Northam's actions I would say that it looks like forgiveness worked out and I wasn't born in 1960 either. We have so many people who could be politicians that we do not need to tolerate disgusting people in office. Any public office should be a position that is filled by men and women who are not going to abuse other people. Forgiveness is well and good, but that's a matter between the victim and the abuser; the public cannot afford to tolerate bad behavior by public officials at all. A politician acting badly should be removed and replaced with someone who is not an abuser, a molester, a rapist, a corrupt person, a patronage advocate/beneficiary, or anything else questionable. Likewise, a party found to be tolerating bad behaviors, to running interference for bad actors, or outright indulging collectively in bad behavior should be replaced en toto. John_A_Tallon fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Apr 10, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2021 21:07
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:I don't think you understand my position nor am I alone in this line of thinking. I prefer justice that is orderly, not mob rule. Justice which lines up with your sensibilities has been shown, through the simple emergence of the MeToo movement itself, to be no justice at all. The slow moving process is often used to buy time for hatchet men to dig up anything they can find as a bludgeon to discredit the victim; one need only study Tara Reade's case to see how that played out. Further, political bodies can eject members without a full and lengthy process modeled on the adversarial legal system we have had inflicted on us as a people. They do not need to even meet the standards that a civil jury need meet to come to a decision. They largely make their own rules, and it is right to demand that they hold themselves to the highest of standards in conduct because the stakes for the government are high, and the stakes for the individual politician being ejected from the government are low.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2021 21:15
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Agreed and the voters in Virginia decided to forgive Northam. Case closed. Voters weren't the victims there though. A subset of voters, specifically persons of color, were the victims. And the crux of my point was that Virginia could do much, much, better. Individuals hurt by Northam could forgive him being an old racist or not, but the questionable background should have been immediately disqualifying because there are thousands of people in Virginia who could do just as good a job as governor without the baggage of being a disgusting person in medical school.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:Christ I missed the fact that he's an MD. Sure hope his black patients got the same quality of care as his white patients! He was an Army officer too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Disagree, I think the #metoo movement is great and commendable. It means that we should listen to women no longer dismiss claims of sexual harassment as "boys will be boys" or whatever lovely excuses no matter how common they are even in the the present day. The standard I am asking for is "no lovely people in office." When there's photographic evidence of someone being abusive toward other people, be it specific people or groups of people, that should be enough. When there's multiple people coming forward with stories about bad behavior, at risk to themselves and their career prospects, that should also be enough. There shouldn't be time for any sort of defense or attack to be mounted by the abusers. They should simply be fired, and replaced with someone who isn't controversial. Ideally we'd have a government of politicians of the same moral caliber as Fred Rogers displayed throughout his life.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2021 21:44
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Because removing a sitting politician is a big deal because they are operating an entire government. Removing a sitting politician isn't a big deal. It's just some guy getting fired. People get fired all the time. That's why so many states are Right To Work. I also guarantee you that if removing sitting politicians were more common the parties would take measures to ensure continuity of government above and beyond the measures they already have (probably shadow government procedures where a successor is pre-selected and shadows the current office holder all the time, much like how a lieutenant governor can step in for a fired governor). Crosby B. Alfred posted:You contradicted yourself here. The voters of Virginia decided there wasn't a need to do better than Northam because they believed his apology, he made amends and there wasn't a need to remove him from office. Him admitting a mistake and showing people that he can grow out of it is kind of awesome in my opinion and the kind of politicians we need in office. The voters of Virginia are predominantly white people. 68.6% white people in 2010, in fact. If a majority of black voters in Virginia voted to keep a man that mocked their skin color, their struggles against a group of domestic terrorists, and who openly embraced being a racist himself while he was training to be a doctor, then you'd have a point. But you don't. You're muddying the waters again, because you insist on being rude for the sake of being "right." Stop that. Crosby B. Alfred posted:It's not about lying per say it's about getting all the details down so they once the investigation is over there's zero chance he'll be able to bullshit his way out of it along with potential criminal charges. Those who've been carry his water for years will be finally forced to reckon with their terrible past decisions and potentially get primaried out of office. Criminal charges almost never result from "he said she said" situations. Criminal charges require a much higher standard of evidence. Criminal charges should not be considered by the political body at all in how it maintains the moral standards of its members. In practice the people associated with disgusting politicians almost never get removed until they do something more than running interference and delaying. There's no benefit to the public, nor the body politic, in delaying. Crosby B. Alfred posted:And what happens when people don't believe or dispute the evidence? If we don't demand it, we have no chance of getting it. I'm demanding it. Crosby B. Alfred posted:The mere instance of a controversy shouldn't be the end of anyone's career. Why? John_A_Tallon fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Apr 10, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:A politician isn't just some guy. It's someone who operating a literal government. I am not speaking in the context of labor rights and "Right-To-Work" is bullshit and violates labor rights. If we were a dictatorship I'd agree with you, but we're not. We're a representative democracy. Literally everyone in the government can be replaced. And should be, if they're as despicable as people like Biden, Cuomo, and Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2021 02:47
|
|
|
It's clear he isn't arguing in good faith at this point. The belabored arguments for continued normalization of the vile status quo make it clear he has some other stake in play. Given his avatar I cannot help but wonder what his gambling position on if/when/how Cuomo is removed from office is.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2021 20:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah maybe, the New York Times printed that article attacking her character and smearing her with reports from her landlords and what the gently caress ever, but that was back during the primary, so maybe the character assassination was just business for them. Just to be clear, the ones that knowingly held their nose and voted for a rapist anyway after they decided they believed Tara Reade are even worse than the annoying shits that have a pathological need to lie to themselves and gaslight everyone else about things. John_A_Tallon fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Apr 12, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:Hilbert's paradox of the Democrat rapist We may be placing similar value on how malignant and awful the latter are. I weigh the former more harshly than most people would because I believe that cowardice allows malignancy to fester.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2021 17:28
|
|
|
Nckdictator posted:This report just came out today Here's a link to the actual article instead of a twitter feed: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/05/17/peter-yarrow-carter-pardon-assault/
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2021 23:50
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:IMO reasoning like "better to let 10 guilty men free than one innocent to jail" shouldn't apply to people with significant wealth and/or power. It's a reasoning (correctly) meant to protect those without power from powerful people/institutions, so it doesn't really make sense to apply it to the wealthy/powerful. And then what? What's your remedy beyond "the rules should be bent the other way now"? If you explicitly impose less favorable standards to the people most able to dismantle the system, you will not get to keep that system for very long. So what's your solution to that problem?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2021 00:11
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:While I'm curious about the proposed remedy, fear of retaliation by the wealthy is not high on my list of reasons to preserve the notional underlying assumptions of the justice system. I am not even talking retaliation. The privileged have rammed through changes to the law for less.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2021 03:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:42 |
|
|
Sedisp posted:Unless you are proposing nationalizing lawyers (all of them) this is not possible. Even assuming public defenders were able to defend a client to the equivalent of a rich man's team of lawyers on retainer Cosby's conviction was overturned years later. Not sure how a poor defendant is going to be getting lawyers to go to bat years later looking for loopholes. What would you even call a nationalized counsel system, Legiscade?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2021 06:32
|
|