Because most of the scandals have been bullshit. The Nazi tattoo theory didn’t make sense and the other sexual abuse story came from someone whose literal job is promoting Republicans. And it’s been clear he’s getting an avalanche of opposition funding from the rich. This is the first one that smells legit, but the timing is kind of suspicious.
But more importantly, the “party” didn’t select him. They want moderate insiders with 30 years of vetting and personal relationships with donors. The voters want outsiders who are willing to try to change things.
Maybe what I need to understand the desire for respectability has been replaced with the desire to “stick it to the man”.
I can’t wait for people to accuse those who withdraw support as being duped or being traitors. Believe women except when we don’t 🤷♀️
But more importantly, the “party” didn’t select him. They want moderate insiders with 30 years of vetting and personal relationships with donors. The voters want outsiders who are willing to try to change things.
What am I missing? I see senators are mostly D or R. Do the parties not put forth candidates? Do people just get to declare themselves candidates aligned with the party?
People run in a primary election within each party to decide who the nominee will be. Anyone can run in these elections (subject to some state by state requirements). They aren’t selected by party functionaries or elected officials.
I think so. The actual rules may vary state to state. But even if it were possible in some state for a party to override a vote it would be an incredibly destructive act. They’d probably lose that election and invite a wholesale fracturing.
This isn’t a multi party democracy where if your usual party presents an option you don’t like you can just swap to another one with similar policies who might join with them in a parliament for majority building. If the Democrats outright ignore their voters there’s likely no other viable option.
Even in parliamentary systems I’m really surprised people tolerate party insiders choosing the candidates. Seems like a good system for political insiders to just define what the range of tolerable politics is with little input from voters. But then again, our system has gotten us to this hellhole, so direct voter participation isn’t a reliable protection from political insiders and stagnancy.
Organizing a first past the post democracy. If you don’t organize with a primary then you risk having multiple originally similar candidates in a general election and losing to the more unified bloc. The control on who can run under the party’s banner is done by the primary voters. Someone who doesn’t act like a Democrat could try to run, but they’d just lose.
But how does blue no matter who work? Like most of the time you hear that it’s when the candidate is too right wing and people are asked to look past that because they can win. But what if someone wins the primary but then is like sike actually I am going to eat a puppy every day for lunch. Who decides they went to far for “blue no matter who”?
VBNMW is just a social campaign to try to keep the party cohesive. The voters individually decide if they follow it. Even in the case of something egregious, it’s probably still better than the alternative though. Senate terms are 6 years and every member is valuable, even if they’re unreliable on some things. We know how Susan Collins will vote and that’s worse than Platner being a bad person.
In the House of Representatives the terms are only 2 years and each vote is less important, so giving up a seat to the opposition might be worth it to not get saddled with a particularly bad Democrat as an incumbent (incumbents tend to have a big advantage on reelection). My very blue house seat has been stuck with a very conservative Democrat for like 6-8 years now and we’d have been better off if he just lost his first election.
If it turned out that this is verifiably a false accusation, I wouldn’t call you a traitor, but I would point out that this is why we have a system in place that provides the presumption of innocence. Further, Platner has been falsely accused previously, so there’s precedent for not believing every accusation. Unfortunately, it appears this one may have legit supporting evidence.
What makes this so hard for me to conceive isn’t about the credibility of the accusations. This might be my boomer moment but I remember when even a whiff of scandal meant you were gone. How was the social media stuff unknown? Aren’t these things looked at before people are endorsed? If a candidate failed to disclose social media accounts and then something came out, how are they not dropped for lying?
I mean, this guy isn’t an incumbent. A sitting MPP got kicked out of her racist ass party after having a meeting with Tommy Robinson. It was a secure seat (and the party kept it with a new MPP in the next election).
It feels like the bar has shifted so far from “be squeaky clean” to “as long as you can introduce reasonable doubt”.
I don’t know who that is but Trump hadn’t been found guilty in criminal court right? Except for falsifying records?
How do people say Trump is a sex criminal but that other accused people deserve the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? It implies that only victims of the opponent are to be believed. Which implies that only some people deserve to be believed, as a function of how useful that accusation is.
If the response to this is “it’s obvious Trump is guilty”, yeah no shit but if a fair trial is required before we hold the accused accountable, why is Trump’s criminality constantly being referenced by politicians as proof of his untrustworthiness?
He’s kind of been found to be a rapist in a court of law. Trump sued a woman for defamation over a rape claim and the jury listened to testimony and evidence and found that he had forcibly penetrated her. So not criminal trial, but there was a trial and a determination by a jury.
After a nine-day trial, the jury deliberated for under three hours before returning a verdict on May 9, 2023. They found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll and for defaming her. The jury did not find that Carroll had proven “rape” as defined under the New York Penal Law, which requires penile penetration. The total award was $5 million: $2 million in compensatory damages for the sexual abuse, $2.7 million in compensatory damages for defamation, and $280,000 in punitive damages for defamation.
Judge Kaplan later clarified what the “not rape” finding actually meant. In denying Trump’s motion for a new trial, Kaplan wrote that the jury had “implicitly found that Mr. Trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll’s vagina with his fingers” — conduct that most people would understand as rape, even though it fell outside the narrow New York criminal statute requiring penile penetration.
You seem to be taken in by the idea that all unproven claims should be treated equally until tried in a court of law. But it’s totally ok to judge people on your own based on their personality, history, and the circumstances of the accusation. We’re not deciding whether they’ll spend their lives in prison, we’re judging their character for an elected position. Trump isn’t just one accusation from Carroll, he’s his whole life of womanizing and misogyny and proudly violating boundaries of young women. He’s outright bragged about grabbing women by the pussy. Sometimes you just have to make an educated guess and be willing to be wrong.
So not criminal trial, but there was a trial and a determination by a jury.
I know about the law suit but I thought the burden of proof was pretty different?
You seem to be taken in by the idea that all unproven claims should be treated equally until tried in a court of law.
No, that’s not my thinking. I’m trying to understand why accusations are treated differently for different people and, if done by people in support of a political party, does this cause fractions within the party?
I know if there was an election happening where I live and the leadership and members of a political party called women coming forward with accusations a liar, I would wonder how safe I would be to report problematic behavior if it happens to me?
Do you just not believe someone would ever lie? Or that some accusations could be more credible than others?
Platner’s first accuser was an actual Republican operative. A party that has happily embraced lying for political benefit. No one should trust a word she says about anything. Don’t join the liars party as an active operative and then expect people to trust your word.
Accusations are treated differently for different people because they’re different. That’s just life. You make decisions based on available information without being certain.
I understand why this case was civil and not criminal so you don’t need to explain that to me but I feel like in most situations civil liability is treated with way less seriousness than criminal guilt, because of the burden of proof being different.
So in this case Trump being liable is proof of his crimes but for others people might say that we can’t say they are guilty, only that they are liable because the higher burden of proof could not be met (or else there would be a criminal conviction).
My point isn’t that either man is innocent of the accusations but that people are treated differently depending on how people feel about them.
What you feel like isn’t relevant. The judge said based on the preponderance of evidence that Donald Trump was in no uncertain terms a rapist. There’s plenty of publicly available proof despite his lack of sex crime convictions.
What theory? He had an explicit totenkopf which is an exclusively capital N Nazi symbol tattood on his chest for eighteen years. There’s no theory, it was a totenkopf and he didn’t cover it up till he entered politics.
Because most of the scandals have been bullshit. The Nazi tattoo theory didn’t make sense and the other sexual abuse story came from someone whose literal job is promoting Republicans. And it’s been clear he’s getting an avalanche of opposition funding from the rich. This is the first one that smells legit, but the timing is kind of suspicious.
But more importantly, the “party” didn’t select him. They want moderate insiders with 30 years of vetting and personal relationships with donors. The voters want outsiders who are willing to try to change things.
I’m sorry, “theory”?
And what exactly didn’t make sense about it?
Maybe what I need to understand the desire for respectability has been replaced with the desire to “stick it to the man”.
I can’t wait for people to accuse those who withdraw support as being duped or being traitors. Believe women except when we don’t 🤷♀️
What am I missing? I see senators are mostly D or R. Do the parties not put forth candidates? Do people just get to declare themselves candidates aligned with the party?
People run in a primary election within each party to decide who the nominee will be. Anyone can run in these elections (subject to some state by state requirements). They aren’t selected by party functionaries or elected officials.
So like once they win the primary they can’t be kicked out for that election (and if successful, term)?
That’s wild.
I think so. The actual rules may vary state to state. But even if it were possible in some state for a party to override a vote it would be an incredibly destructive act. They’d probably lose that election and invite a wholesale fracturing.
This isn’t a multi party democracy where if your usual party presents an option you don’t like you can just swap to another one with similar policies who might join with them in a parliament for majority building. If the Democrats outright ignore their voters there’s likely no other viable option.
Even in parliamentary systems I’m really surprised people tolerate party insiders choosing the candidates. Seems like a good system for political insiders to just define what the range of tolerable politics is with little input from voters. But then again, our system has gotten us to this hellhole, so direct voter participation isn’t a reliable protection from political insiders and stagnancy.
Why have parties if you can’t control who can say they belong to it?
Organizing a first past the post democracy. If you don’t organize with a primary then you risk having multiple originally similar candidates in a general election and losing to the more unified bloc. The control on who can run under the party’s banner is done by the primary voters. Someone who doesn’t act like a Democrat could try to run, but they’d just lose.
But how does blue no matter who work? Like most of the time you hear that it’s when the candidate is too right wing and people are asked to look past that because they can win. But what if someone wins the primary but then is like sike actually I am going to eat a puppy every day for lunch. Who decides they went to far for “blue no matter who”?
VBNMW is just a social campaign to try to keep the party cohesive. The voters individually decide if they follow it. Even in the case of something egregious, it’s probably still better than the alternative though. Senate terms are 6 years and every member is valuable, even if they’re unreliable on some things. We know how Susan Collins will vote and that’s worse than Platner being a bad person.
In the House of Representatives the terms are only 2 years and each vote is less important, so giving up a seat to the opposition might be worth it to not get saddled with a particularly bad Democrat as an incumbent (incumbents tend to have a big advantage on reelection). My very blue house seat has been stuck with a very conservative Democrat for like 6-8 years now and we’d have been better off if he just lost his first election.
If it turned out that this is verifiably a false accusation, I wouldn’t call you a traitor, but I would point out that this is why we have a system in place that provides the presumption of innocence. Further, Platner has been falsely accused previously, so there’s precedent for not believing every accusation. Unfortunately, it appears this one may have legit supporting evidence.
What makes this so hard for me to conceive isn’t about the credibility of the accusations. This might be my boomer moment but I remember when even a whiff of scandal meant you were gone. How was the social media stuff unknown? Aren’t these things looked at before people are endorsed? If a candidate failed to disclose social media accounts and then something came out, how are they not dropped for lying?
I mean, this guy isn’t an incumbent. A sitting MPP got kicked out of her racist ass party after having a meeting with Tommy Robinson. It was a secure seat (and the party kept it with a new MPP in the next election).
It feels like the bar has shifted so far from “be squeaky clean” to “as long as you can introduce reasonable doubt”.
Al Franken is a prime reason why you don’t ostracize someone on allegations alone.
I don’t know who that is but Trump hadn’t been found guilty in criminal court right? Except for falsifying records?
How do people say Trump is a sex criminal but that other accused people deserve the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? It implies that only victims of the opponent are to be believed. Which implies that only some people deserve to be believed, as a function of how useful that accusation is.
If the response to this is “it’s obvious Trump is guilty”, yeah no shit but if a fair trial is required before we hold the accused accountable, why is Trump’s criminality constantly being referenced by politicians as proof of his untrustworthiness?
He’s kind of been found to be a rapist in a court of law. Trump sued a woman for defamation over a rape claim and the jury listened to testimony and evidence and found that he had forcibly penetrated her. So not criminal trial, but there was a trial and a determination by a jury.
https://legalclarity.org/trump-rape-lawsuit-e-jean-carrolls-trials-and-verdicts/
You seem to be taken in by the idea that all unproven claims should be treated equally until tried in a court of law. But it’s totally ok to judge people on your own based on their personality, history, and the circumstances of the accusation. We’re not deciding whether they’ll spend their lives in prison, we’re judging their character for an elected position. Trump isn’t just one accusation from Carroll, he’s his whole life of womanizing and misogyny and proudly violating boundaries of young women. He’s outright bragged about grabbing women by the pussy. Sometimes you just have to make an educated guess and be willing to be wrong.
I know about the law suit but I thought the burden of proof was pretty different?
No, that’s not my thinking. I’m trying to understand why accusations are treated differently for different people and, if done by people in support of a political party, does this cause fractions within the party?
I know if there was an election happening where I live and the leadership and members of a political party called women coming forward with accusations a liar, I would wonder how safe I would be to report problematic behavior if it happens to me?
Do you just not believe someone would ever lie? Or that some accusations could be more credible than others?
Platner’s first accuser was an actual Republican operative. A party that has happily embraced lying for political benefit. No one should trust a word she says about anything. Don’t join the liars party as an active operative and then expect people to trust your word.
Accusations are treated differently for different people because they’re different. That’s just life. You make decisions based on available information without being certain.
Trump has been found by a court to have raped women. Not criminal court but he is an adjudicated rapist.
I understand why this case was civil and not criminal so you don’t need to explain that to me but I feel like in most situations civil liability is treated with way less seriousness than criminal guilt, because of the burden of proof being different.
So in this case Trump being liable is proof of his crimes but for others people might say that we can’t say they are guilty, only that they are liable because the higher burden of proof could not be met (or else there would be a criminal conviction).
My point isn’t that either man is innocent of the accusations but that people are treated differently depending on how people feel about them.
What you feel like isn’t relevant. The judge said based on the preponderance of evidence that Donald Trump was in no uncertain terms a rapist. There’s plenty of publicly available proof despite his lack of sex crime convictions.
What theory? He had an explicit totenkopf which is an exclusively capital N Nazi symbol tattood on his chest for eighteen years. There’s no theory, it was a totenkopf and he didn’t cover it up till he entered politics.