By David Futrelle
What a fucking dark day for women, for survivors, for everyone who cares about democracy.
Here’s a thread for venting, lamenting, planning for November and beyond. No trolls.
Some relevant tweets:
We are a country where two presidents who both lost the popular vote have now placed four justices on the Supreme Court. Democracy in action.
— Julia Ioffe (@juliaioffe) October 5, 2018
https://twitter.com/floozyesq/status/1048274194830675968
The logic of popular democracy, and the structural fact of minority rule are going to make for an increasingly combustible mix.
— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) October 5, 2018
https://twitter.com/WesleyLowery/status/1048303187994824706
https://twitter.com/OsitaNwanevu/status/1048229711963467776
End gerrymandering. Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico.
— David Futrelle (@DavidFutrelle) October 5, 2018
https://twitter.com/persenche/status/1048318977464623105
https://twitter.com/Ethelmonster/status/1048305764861927427
I hope @SenatorCollins is proud of doing her part to promote rape culture.
Just read these (TW for sexual violence survivors): pic.twitter.com/EnsjQsY85h
— Leah McElrath (@leahmcelrath) October 5, 2018
Also every white guy currently explaining the (extremely real) villainy of white women to me can take a seat until they’ve come to collect Joe Manchin, almost all of the Republican Party, and the vastest share of Trump’s base.
— Rebecca Traister (@rtraister) October 5, 2018
Not sure where to direct your anger? If you have the extra scratch, start here… https://t.co/x0Za0bXQl5
— shauna (@goldengateblond) October 5, 2018
There are a lot of reasons to be angry today. This thread presents a few reasons for hope.
I come bearing glad tidings. Not distractions like goats and strawberries. But actually glad—meaning the pain of our enemies—tidings.
1. Trump Foundation in scalding hot water. https://t.co/fuiNuVA91h
— Virginia Heffernan (@page88) October 5, 2018
The symbolism here seems a bit on the nose.
This video of President Trump with toilet paper on his shoe is 100% real. He was boarding Air Force One in Minneapolis earlier today. pic.twitter.com/wr0ZnXknCx
— Beatrice Peterson (@missbeae on all platforms) (@MissBeaE) October 5, 2018
@Surplus the reason you’re seeing those Conservative ads is because the Conservatives have more money than the other parties. So they can afford to start running ads that are effectively for the next elections months before the others .
@epitome those supporting bans on people wearing overt religious symbols never seem to consider that, even in Quebec, lots of people will assume a white person is a Christian of some sort unless they state otherwise.
I doubt Scheer will beat Trudeau. Beside the fact that Canadians tend not to vote out first term federal governments Scheer comes across as lacking in charisma and kind of wishy washy. I also suspect a year more of Donald Trump’s antics may be a negative for Canadian voters.
Bear in mind that Harper was notorious for his lack of charisma. The wishywashiness may (hopefully) be a problem for Scheer though. And Trudeau’s cut his hair, so the hairstyle ads from last time won’t work.
A truer headline has never been written (click link to view):
https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/10/06/33466784/brett-kavanaugh-confirmed-to-supreme-court
Well, I hope they’re happy.
Oh, not you people. I have a reasonably good fix on where you stand.
And not the Trumpistas. They’re ecstatic.
No, I’m talking about the people who were too “principled” to choose the lesser of two evils. They voted the Pollywog Party, or cast a blank ballot, or just stayed home.
And the people who rejected both parties because they’re “both alike.” Like filet mignon and liverwurst are pretty much the same because they’re made of meat.
Well, you can vote Democratic and get a bit of what you want, or you can vote Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyite and get nothing. Or you can vote Republican and get what you want (these days). Or you can vote Free Secessionist and get nothing. Please do.
But there are exactly two ways to cast a meaningful vote. If you don’t choose one, don’t let me hear you whining.
I find the thing that sends me into a frothing rage is the vicisous shit that Kavenaugh’s supports come out with. Like, “There was no evidence against him,” because a witness statement from a woman isn’t evidence to them. Or “Any woman can now ruin any man’s life with impunity,” because Dr Ford has experienced no downside at all, according to them.
And so on. And on. And on. And on. And on. Rubbing everyone nose in their utter contempt for half the world’s population. Well, more like 98% of the world’s population because they feel the same way about PoC and poor people and anyone not in their smug little club.
I’m yet another person losing hope that this can be solved by voting. I’m really, really reluctant to go there, but they seem really confident that voting can’t hurt them.
@ Sheila
That really bugs me too, as much as a legal pedant as well as morally.
But witness testimony *is* evidence. Heck, it’s the most common form. That’s what trials are!
But also, in common law countries, demeanour is evidence. So Kavanaugh’s performance (in every sense of the word) is something people can equally take into account when assessing where the truth lies. Especially when compared to Ford’s patently truthful and honest account.
If anyone wants any more info on that, here’s a handy link.
https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context=naalj
This isn’t about the question if it was proven bejond a doubt that Kavanaugh did atempt to rape a woman, this is for a court of law to decied. (And yes Alan is right about evidence here)
The question for the senators was how sure can you be that he is inocent and do you care if he is not?
The second question has been answered.
I would ask the senators, if they would have elected a person as judge that their were 60% sure wasn’t a massmurderer (to keep it clean)
The answer semes to be “Yes, if it was a republican.”
@Rabid Rabbit – About the proposed Quebec law, I’d be curious too. In Montreal there seem to be more liberal or nonreligious Jews than orthodox ones – my cousin’s family is in the first group. So, many Jewish men wouldn’t be wearing kippahs or other religious signs every day. Still, it’d probably seem weird to many people if they were targeted.
And I’m worried that this proposed law is already causing pain and stress. Two of the people I recently tutored for the English teaching exam wear hijabs. I can’t imagine how frustrating it would be to get an education degree, study for and pass this exam, and (in their cases) build up previous teaching experience only to have their jobs unfairly threatened.
…
About Kavanaugh: I already wrote that I overheard a woman dismiss the Ford incident as “just groping a girl at a high school party.” Besides the other reasons why that’d bothered me, I didn’t think Ford’s would be the ONLY accusation. With Weinstein it was a lot more than one. Bill Cosby and Jian Ghomeshi likewise. And yeah, there were at least 2 other witnesses/complainants. I think Trump limited the FBI investigation more than he admitted. Certainly it didn’t get much time.
@who?
This is not a trial. There is not the same burden of proof. This was supposed to be a hearing to determine whether an individual was worthy of the highest PRIVILEGE that the United States can bestow on a civilian. Not just a privilege of gift but a privilege of duty and decision that affects every single US citizen and beyond.
I didn’t even watch Ford’s testimony so I cannot say whether or not she was credible. (I tend to grant her some credibility given what she risked to tell her story, but that’s all I can do.)
What I did watch was Kavanaugh’s rebuttal – upon which I can say without a doubt, without considering his guilt or innocence, he is not worthy of the privilege.
@rugbyyogi:
I know that it isn’t a trial. Sorry if that was unclear.
I had no dilusion that the question of worthy or competence would play a role for the republican senators.
My point was that nominating a potential criminal is somethink else.
It would be the dam responsibility of every senator to not nominated someone for that position in that case.
I gave them some benefit of a doubt, that they may believe Kavanaugh is inocent (some of them), but I am calling them iresposible because they can’t be sure that he is inocent.
Qualification and not beeing a monster are unimportant, only the fact that the candidate is a republican does count.
@epitome
At least there’s already been a protest against it, and he hasn’t even been sworn in yet.