USA Politics

Well I watched a good chunk of the hearing. Caught most of the first half of Ford's testimony and then came back in the middle of Kavanaugh's opening statement. There was a pretty big contrast between the two. Ford was composed, cooperative, and (at least from what I saw) didn't avoid questions. There also seemed to be a focus on the facts and getting the complete story. The Kavanaugh bit, on the other hand, was a total partisan shitshow. Kavanaugh was combative, defiant, and skirted a lot of questions. Republicans only seemed interested in complaining about the process and Democrats stumbled a bit with the line of questioning. I think the emphasis on an FBI investigation is good, trying to paint a picture of his true character is good, some of it came off sloppily. There was a lot of campaigning going on there.

As for the actual content of the testimony. Ford seemed very credible. Her memory of what happened was pretty much what you would expect for an incident that happened almost 36 years ago. Her statements have been consistent and it's pretty obvious that she has nothing to gain from coming forward. Kavanaugh has a lot going for him though. There's presumption of innocence, for one. He also has character witnesses and the calendar as evidence. Right now you've got two people who are adamant that they are telling the truth. The right is trying to push the idea that this is a case of mistaken identity, but it now seems just as likely that Kavanaugh was so drunk that he genuinely doesn't remember this happening. If anything new came out of the testimony, I'm much more convinced now that he had (or maybe still has) serious alcohol problems. He went to great lengths to downplay the drinking and seemed most defensive when that was brought up.

The next steps are obvious: there needs to be an investigation and Kavanaugh's friend, Judge, needs to testify under oath. If this doesn't happen and he is confirmed, SCOTUS has a severe legitimacy problem. I've seen a minority of liberals suggesting that Democrats either pack the court or impeach justices when they are back in power. Initially, I thought both were awful ideas, but Republicans are really opening themselves up to, at the very least, an investigation against Kavanaugh while he is on the bench. I can't even imagine the shitshow that will come with a sitting justice under investigation. Kavanaugh said it himself. Regardless of what happens, this will be hanging over him for the rest of his career. I don't know why he would even want the job still at this point, other than to give a finger to the senators who are standing in the way of his confirmation.

To that end, even if we assume he is 100% without a doubt innocent, this hearing made it more obvious than ever that the guy shouldn't be on the court. His temperament was really inappropriate for someone who is expected to act impartially. How can anyone believe that this guy will be capable of judging without his emotions getting in the way? Not to mention that if he wasn't a hyperpartisan before this all went down, he certainly is now. The court is already partisan, but neither Kavanaugh or his supporters are attempting to even pretend that isn't the case anymore. He is no doubt going to enter the SCOTUS with a vendetta against liberals. Again, even if he is completely innocent, as unfair as the process may have been, the whole thing is so tainted that there is no salvaging him as a valid justice.

Of course the vote could still fail. I'm thinking Kavanaugh has a 60% chance right now. Ben Sasse was thought to be a swing vote (I'm not sure how he was ever in the conversation) but is definitely a yes after this hearing. Flake gave no indication to how he would vote, but I'm thinking a no is still in the realm of possibility. I'm not going to even try and dissect his non-statement. I have a really hard time imagining Murkowski and Collins voting yes without hearing from the other accusers or without testimony from Judge. But who knows how the next three days will play out. It's certainly a nailbiter.
 
To be fair, this happens on both sides of the political spectrum.
Yes, but more in a "there was violence on both sides in Charlottesville" kind of way.

Yes, the Democrats defended Bill Clinton when he was totally guilty of perjury and obstruction and should have been convicted in the Senate and thrown out of office. But the "who cares about personal indiscretions" attitude isn't totally inconsistent with the liberal mainstream, so you can see an angle for them to excuse it.

Today's Republican party has so thoroughly abandoned their ostensible values to throw in with Trump and hope their policy initiatives get advanced as a result. Republicans have always had a hypocrisy problem ever since Reagan forged an unholy alliance between fiscal and social conservatives (who generally don't care about each other's issues, but work together to have an electable coalition), but it is inconceivable to me how anyone who supposedly touts Christian principles and so-called "family values" could ever stand by Trump. How can supposed patriots be wearing "I'd rather be Russian than a Democrat" T-shirts and overlooking Trump's obvious kowtowing to Putin regardless of whether there was formal collusion or not? How can they support Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination after he has clearly lied repeatedly under oath to the Senate?

When Al Franken was accused of sexual misconduct he was instantly toast. When Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh were accused of worse, the Republicans stood by them. So no, it's not quite the same on both sides.
 
Sadly true. (To clarify, I wasn’t saying it isn’t prevalent on the republican side, I’m just here as a reminder that neither are perfect.)
 
Yes, the Democrats defended Bill Clinton when he was totally guilty of perjury and obstruction and should have been convicted in the Senate and thrown out of office.
Looking back on it, the Republicans set a trap and he fell into it. The real crime was how he was almost certainly abusing his position of power to get sexual acts from people in his employ.

Today's Republican party has so thoroughly abandoned their ostensible values to throw in with Trump and hope their policy initiatives get advanced as a result.
Yep. Budget hawks freaking out about spending under Obama no longer care about the deficit, even though it's gonna hit a trillion dollars this year, and possibly as much as 2 trillion next year.
 
I mostly agree with Jer. There are a few problems with the both sides mindset. The first and most important is that it brushes off the problem. But it can also be an inaccurate characterization of the problem too. Yes it’s broadly true that both sides have partisanship issues, but they have manifested themselves in different ways. There are unique problems within both parties and they need to be dealt with in different ways. The Republican Party is currently enabling a corrupt president who has no idea what he’s doing because they can at least use him as a rubber stamp. They have spent decades dog whistling to fringe groups who once had no power and have now taken over the party. There is a nugget of reason in the party right now that is being drowned out by this noise. I think there are some Republican politicians who dislike Trump and what he stands for, but because of tribalism and electoral realities they will continue to go along with it. This is a problem unique to Republicans. Yea it is rooted in partisanship, but there is more to it and you can’t dismiss it with blanket statements.

To that end, the solution to Trump is to vote. Forostar isn’t American and Diesel isn’t old enough yet, but it’s a message that can’t be overstated. The presidential election was decided by a few thousand votes that could’ve been outnumbered if people turned out. This is another problem with the “both sides” mentality. People decided they disliked both candidates and stayed home. To paraphrase an old proverb, these people who chose not to decide still made a choice and are just as responsible for the current government (if not more, since the majority of the population doesn’t vote). Furthermore, the president wasn’t the only thing on the ballot. Fascism is a grass roots movement, so there needs to be attention to local elections. In some ways these are even more important. The Republican Party has a strong grip on the country because of its strong presence in local governments.

To answer Foro’s question in a way that is related to everything up there: Trump will be impeached when he becomes an electoral liability to Republicans. Some may say that he already is, but it’s hard to say right now. He managed to win in 2016, Republican favorability is not that bad comparatively, and they are on track to keep the Senate. They will probably lose the house, which means their legislative agenda is pretty much dead, but they can still reshape the courts by confirming judges. That is more important in the long term. The increased intensity of investigations against Trump after Dems take the house will also be a nice scapegoat for the base. On the other hand, if they manage to lose the Senate you might see some attitudes shift (especially considering that for this result to happen they probably lost in reliable states like Tennesee and even Texas). I think at this point the party has tied itself to Trump so tightly that they won't go so far as to remove him from office, but may be less willing to go along with his agenda or vocally support him in 2020. Or they'll dig in and stay aboard the sinking ship, I wouldn't be surprised to see that with this Republican party either. I think we need to wait and see how November plays out first though.
 
The problem with me is that if I was able to vote in 2016, I would've given it to Trump. At the time, I had not yet begun looking critically at my values and beliefs and was therefore going in the the flow of my family and the people I knew, who were much more for Trump. With my current mindset, there is no way in hell that I would've voted for him. But that being said, I genuinely still don't like Hillary and her politics. My thoughts on them right now are simply that it isn't a choice over a lesser of two evils - neither of them were fit to run the country and I think I'd honestly have just sent in a write-in for, I dunno, Kermit the Frog or something. The two parties controlling the political scene is pretty bullshit. I think we should either have the lesser parties see more light or just have people run independently.

The bigger issue, though, is that many of the people who run for president are never good to begin with, and those that are are eliminated fairly early on. Going through the last few elections we've had, neither of the candidates would have been ideal for me. That being said, I do think Obama was a fairly decent president, not necessarily for his policies but more his charisma. He seemed like a strong leader who was also a human being, friendly and with a certain appeal that kinda helped our image in other countries. Having a strong wife also helped him out. I don't know how republicans could favor Trump over him, but there it is.

At any rate, I don't like where the country's headed at all, and unless someone can step in and meld the liberals and conservatives together soon, it ain't gonna be a pretty sight.
 
There are two different solutions to the two party system that I can see. They are not mutually exclusive so I suggest looking into both. The first is to look into what keeps the two party system in place. It's largely due to the electoral system, namely first past the post voting, but even extends to everyday discourse and us vs them mentality that is perpetuated by the media. Both parties are also huge money making institutions so it would be good to get money out of politics. Of course these are big changes that can't be achieved by just one person, but it's important to make your voice heard if these things are important to you.

The other solution is to accept that this is the current system for the foreseeable future and to learn how your views align with the national platforms of each party and individual politicians. You can write in candidates or vote third party, but more often than not there are only two realistic options. One of these options is likely going to suit your views or be more fit for the position. Stop worrying and love the two party system (not really, but you get my point).
 
There are two different solutions to the two party system that I can see. They are not mutually exclusive so I suggest looking into both. The first is to look into what keeps the two party system in place. It's largely due to the electoral system, namely first past the post voting, but even extends to everyday discourse and us vs them mentality that is perpetuated by the media. Both parties are also huge money making institutions so it would be good to get money out of politics. Of course these are big changes that can't be achieved by just one person, but it's important to make your voice heard if these things are important to you.

The other solution is to accept that this is the current system for the foreseeable future and to learn how your views align with the national platforms of each party and individual politicians. You can write in candidates or vote third party, but more often than not there are only two realistic options. One of these options is likely going to suit your views or be more fit for the position. Stop worrying and love the two party system (not really, but you get my point).


I think that is well put. One issue to me are the massive echo chambers people are getting into. Much easier now with social media so you end up with 2 bases that are really more partisan than ever and it is to the point where it is like 2 rival football teams fan bases going after one another all the time.

There are 3rd parties, but realistically their best hope is to have some of their ideas incorporated by either of the 2 parties.

But, keep in mind that parties do tend to move over time at least they have in the past and a lot of that comes from electing (and to a lesser degree nominating) a President that will shift a party one way or another or emphasize some issues over others.

The best chance in the near term to influence that is to become involved in the primaries and pick a wing of one of the parties and promote that.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if she's getting a run at the big chair ready, especially if Trump falters/quits/is impeached in 2019.
 
I'd have expected Paul Ryan to be making a run for the Oval Office. He seems to be generally well respected and speaks well (but everyone does compared to DJT!). He is also one of the few prominent American politicians I am aware of. :lol:
 
I think there's a lot of them getting quietly ready to pounce if Trump goes down. Ryan is definitely one of those possible people. Ted Cruz is another, Marco Rubio seems to be ready as well.
 
Lyin' Ted and Little Marco were considered to be worse than Donald Trump by Republican voters. How can they come back from that?
 
Ryan gave up any hope for the presidency when he ran for speaker. He will also be hurt by his inability to rein in the freedom caucus and likely failure to maintain the House majority. His only achievement will be a tax cut that so far seems to be getting a resounding “meh”. Maybe he will become a soft Trump critic when he retires or even back a primary opponent.

I could see Cruz and Rubio taking another shot if Trump is not on the ticket. Rubio has an actual shot at being president someday, I doubt he’ll waste it when the guy who beat him the first time has an incumbency advantage and the weight of the party behind him.

If Trump is on the ticket then he will only have one serious primary opponent, probably either Flake or Kasich.

Expect Nikki Haley to be the face of a GOP rebranding post Trump.
 
Back
Top