Supreme Court of the United States

[Judge Jude]

one thing I'm realizing is that younger posters on the board probably don't remember or when not yet adults during the Clinton philandering (and worse) era. it might be worth a little research into the organized, vicious campaign against those women - and explain why I am loathe to be lectured at by a party so complicit in that sleaze.

the other one - as noted, awful. Merrick Garland should be on the Supreme Court, btw

[baldgriff]

one thing I'm realizing is that younger posters on the board probably don't remember or when not yet adults during the Clinton philandering (and worse) era. it might be worth a little research into the organized, vicious campaign against those women - and explain why I am loathe to be lectured at by a party so complicit in that sleaze.

the other one - as noted, awful. Merrick Garland should be on the Supreme Court, btw

If you really want to go back in time -- Chappaquiddick. Shit - a woman dies in a single car "accident". The senator driving the car who left her in the car while submerged underwater - pleads to leaving the scene of an accident and not only keeps his seat - He keeps getting re-elected and serves as a Senator for over 40 years.

Now that is a history lesson.

Edit to add: The Senator in question was known to be a stumbling blackout drunk. He couldnt remember anything either.

[Mithrandir]

If you really want to go back in time -- Chappaquiddick. Shit - a woman dies in a single car "accident". The senator driving the car who left her in the car while submerged underwater - pleads to leaving the scene of an accident and not only keeps his seat - He keeps getting re-elected and serves as a Senator for over 40 years.

Now that is a history lesson.

Edit to add: The Senator in question was known to be a stumbling blackout drunk. He couldnt remember anything either.

These aren't just Party issues. These are rich white guys issues. And the stupid middle and lower classes keep supporting these criminals.

[OaklandA's]

and explain why I am loathe to be lectured at by a party so complicit in that sleaze.

I think a better decision-making process is "What is the right thing to do now?", rather than basing your decision on grudges or vindictiveness towards Democrats from 30 years ago.

[baldgriff]

These aren't just Party issues. These are rich white guys issues. And the stupid middle and lower classes keep supporting these criminals.

Yep - lets make it about race and classism. If the Dems dont allow this guy to keep running (and living on his families teat) - the middle and lower classes dont get the chance to support these criminals.

Chicken or Egg --- you choose.

[Sour Masher]

one thing I'm realizing is that younger posters on the board probably don't remember or when not yet adults during the Clinton philandering (and worse) era. it might be worth a little research into the organized, vicious campaign against those women - and explain why I am loathe to be lectured at by a party so complicit in that sleaze.

the other one - as noted, awful. Merrick Garland should be on the Supreme Court, btw

As I've indicated, it seems nothing will change. We are going in circles. One last try, though....

I am too young to remember what you are talking about (well, not too young really, but I was too young to care much about politics back then), but given the time period, and the partisan nature of people who believe in their guys and attack the other guys, I take your word for it--I believe 1000% that what you say happened just as you say. I publicly and loudly denounce it as appalling.

And then I ask, why doesn't it matter right now in talking about Kavanaugh, or any other current cases? Is it your position that we cannot ever address current cases unless we go back and right the past wrong of Clinton getting away with what he got away with? Or Ted Kennedy. Or whoever you can name however far back you want to go? No liberal or progressive or Democrat or independent who leans left can put forth an opinion that a current right-wing public figure should be held accountable for such actions until they pay some sort of reparations for the sins of unrelated Clinton defenders 20 years ago? I've never been a Bill Clinton defender, so why am I being held accountable for them? Why am I not allowed to put forth an opinion on Kavanaugh or Trump without being told that such opinions contradict the positions of other people in another time that have nothing to do with me, and thus my opinion is hypocritical and invalid?

Put simply, you are not being lectured by a party here, and I'm not aware of any individual lecturing you either. You are responding to opinions put forth by individuals, but you are treating them as party representatives, as if any of us represent the Democratic party, or anyone beside ourselves. No one here, that I am aware of, is a paid Bill Clinton surrogate. I'm not even aware of any current posters here who have defended Bill Clinton on this issue. Some people just happen to disagree with you about the Kavanaugh situation. You could argue that position without labeling people who disagree with you as hypocrites, because of how different people, long ago, responded to Bill Clinton. Hell, I might even be swayed by such an argument if I wasn't so busy defending myself from accusations that are inaccurate representations of my feelings and positions.

But perhaps your position that because I've voted for Democrats, I must answer for their sins is consistent with your belief that Hillary Clinton is accountable for her husband's sins. We disagree on that point too. But your case against HRC is certainly stronger than your case against me, or most on here that do not align themselves neatly with a party, just as you don't. All you have to go on in labeling any of us Democrats is the same sort of inferences I used to assume you leaned Republican--the posts you make and the sides you seem to be on in debates in these threads. And even for those who self-identify as Democrats should not be held accountable for the opinions of all democrats everywhere and every time in history.

[Mithrandir]

Yep - lets make it about race and classism. If the Dems dont allow this guy to keep running (and living on his families teat) - the middle and lower classes dont get the chance to support these criminals.

Chicken or Egg --- you choose.

But the issues in this country are about race and classism. Both parties play the game. If you're rich and white the rules are different. You know that.

Voters could have voted Ol Ted out at anytime. But they were too fucking stupid. Stop blaming the Party and blame the actual people who elect guys like him.

[Mithrandir]

I think a better decision-making process is "What is the right thing to do now?", rather than basing your decision on grudges or vindictiveness towards Democrats from 30 years ago.

Exactly. But then Judge doesnt get to play the blame game.

[Mithrandir]

As I've indicated, it seems nothing will change. We are going in circles. One last try, though....

I am too young to remember what you are talking about, but given the time period, and the partisan nature of people who believe in their guys and attack the other guys, I take your word for it--I believe 1000% that what you say happened just as you say. I publicly and loudly denounce it as appalling.

And then I ask, why doesn't it matter right now in talking about Kavanaugh, or any other current cases? Is it your position that we cannot ever address current cases unless we go back and right the past wrong of Clinton getting away with what he got away with? Or Ted Kennedy. Or whoever you can name however far back you want to go? No liberal or progressive or Democrat or independent who leans left can put forth an opinion that a current right-wing public figure should be held accountable for such actions until they pay some sort of reparations for the sins of unrelated Clinton defenders 20 years ago? I've never been a Bill Clinton defender, so why am I being held accountable for them? Why am I not allowed to put forth an opinion on Kavanaugh or Trump without being told that such opinions contradict the positions of other people in another time that have nothing to do with me, and thus my opinion is hypocritical and invalid?

Put simply, you are not being lectured by a party here. You are responding to opinions put forth by individuals, but you are treating them as party representatives, as if any of us represent the Democratic party, or anyone beside ourselves. No one hear, that I am aware of, is a paid Bill Clinton surrogate. I'm not even aware of any current posters here who have defended Bill Clinton on this issue.

Great post

[Judge Jude]

I am watching a parade of elected-official hypocrites on TV, and reacting to that here.
but an assumption is being made that I am am talking about posters here. so there are different manners of posting. that's why we are taking past each other.

Bill Clinton just got a coveted prime time Democratic Convention speaking slot way back in 2016. wow, that's two whole years ago!

I fully expect him to get the same in 2020, while getting standing ovations from a bunch of shallow, two-faced politicians who pretend to care about victims of sexual assault. their phoniness cannot be more blatant.

you want to know "what's the right thing to do now?" I'd suggest demanding that Bill not get to give such a speech in 2020. heck, maybe Juanita Broaddick is free that night. THAT would say something.

my "grudges or vindictiveness" is not against 'Democrats' - it's against people who insulted, bullied, and harassed those women who came forward against Clinton. They happened to be Democrats, but it doesn't matter what their affiliation was. bullies come in all flavors.

the right thing to do now is to start with focusing on how survivors come forward are treated. finally, it's just starting to get a little better. but lionizing monsters from the past completely undercuts the effort from the get-go.

[Sour Masher]

I think a better decision-making process is "What is the right thing to do now?", rather than basing your decision on grudges or vindictiveness towards Democrats from 30 years ago.

I should have read your post first, as you said succinctly what took me several paragraphs.

I just came up with a solution, maybe. If I put in my sig "Bill Clinton should be held accountable for his actions and I would not vote for him for public office; it is appalling that the Democratic Party continues to give him a pass and allows him to speak for them" am I allowed to post opinions about current sexual assault issues?

[Sour Masher]

I am watching a parade of elected-official hypocrites on TV, and reacting to that here.
but an assumption is being made that I am am talking about posters here. so there are different manners of posting. that's why we are taking past each other.

Bill Clinton just got a coveted prime time Democratic Convention speaking slot way back in 2016. wow, that's two whole years ago!

I fully expect him to get the same in 2020, while getting standing ovations from a bunch of shallow, two-faced politicians who pretend to care about victims of sexual assault. their phoniness cannot be more blatant.

you want to know "what's the right thing to do now?" I'd suggest demanding that Bill not get to give such a speech in 2020. heck, maybe Juanita Broaddick is free that night. THAT would say something.

my "grudges or vindictiveness" is not against 'Democrats' - it's against people who insulted, bullied, and harassed those women who came forward against Clinton. They happened to be Democrats, but it doesn't matter what their affiliation was. bullies come in all flavors.

the right thing to do now is to start with focusing on how survivors come forward are treated. finally, it's just starting to get a little better. but lionizing monsters from the past completely undercuts the effort from the get-go.

See, the funny thing is, I agree with everything you say here. But I also got the impression you feel differently about Kavanaugh, and that is ok, because it is a different case, with different evidence. I'm not calling you a hypocrite for attacking Bill Clinton and defending Kavanaugh. But I don't know why my critique of Kavanaugh has to be answered with claims about Clinton.

I think there is a good discussion being glossed over here about burden of proof and level of doubt in relation to these cases. I've brought up in the sexual allegations thread my uneasiness with every case being handled the same way in the court of public opinion--off with all their heads, trials be damned! I get that feeling. I think the specifics of individual cases are worthy of debate. But I don't want to have to answer for Bill Clinton defenders every time I try to make a point.

[nots]

Part of my problem with the issue is with the way it was handled by Diane Feinstein. She either didn’t think the accuser’s story was credible enough to investigate in July or to ask Kavanaugh about in August, or she was playing politics with someone she believes was th victim of sexual assault. Either way, it’s not a good look.

[Sour Masher]

Part of my problem with the issue is with the way it was handled by Diane Feinstein. She either didn’t think the accuser’s story was credible enough to investigate in July or to ask Kavanaugh about in August, or she was playing politics with someone she believes was th victim of sexual assault. Either way, it’s not a good look.

Yeah, hard to see a third option here.

[Judge Jude]

"I also got the impression you feel differently about Kavanaugh, and that is ok, because it is a different case, with different evidence."

but that seems to have been made up out of thin air. I don't think I have commented about him. you've been doing some of the very things you have complained about. (it's true that there is far less evidence, at least so far, than the pile of evidence surrounding a guy I won't mention.)

I want this woman to get a fair hearing. I believe something that terrified her happened three decades ago. I don't know if it was Kavanaugh, but I don't know that it wasn't (if it wasn't, I wouldn't assume she is lying, but more likely traumatized). making broad assumptions is popular because I think most people in general want this guy on the bench or they don't. if this exact same issue was raised, with this set of facts, it's staggering to think of how many people would be switching sides - which is ridiculous.