Trump Thread

[Husar]

Trump is, I fear, far more of a symptom than a cause. The existential crisis for this republic is not Trump of himself but if the growing culture of hatred and intolerance by far too many from both sides of our traditional spectrum. We are now in an era where the major parties are not seeking to achieve power to accomplish governmental objections but to harm the other side of the spectrum by whatever means.

If neoliberalism-caused problems lead people to elect someone who promises to fix the problems with more neoliberalism, then I guess that someone can be both a symptom and a cause. And yes, Hillary would not have been too different from that angle, the mainstream democrats just go for neoliberalism light while the republicans want it stronger with much more libertarianism.

[Montmorency]

Is this the first job that he has had a chance to land in thirty years? If not, how come his other promotions (frankly, I don't know what they were, but I'm sure there were plenty of jobs and promotions) didn't provoke any row? Perhaps because NOW someone is interested in the to-do which was not the case two, five, seven years ago?



So now the alleged victims are not in the position of weakness and vulnerability because they are thirty years older? Or because they found someone who will turn their weakness into strength and vulnerability into impunity? The someone who didn't care two, five, seven years ago and now he does?



If I didn't do it back then I don't see why I should do it now. Otherwise it will look very much like concealing a crime aka complicity.



I'm the last person to take Kava's side in this story. I can readily believe that he must have done all the things he is charged with. Yet I don't buy that if something surfaces after decades of silence just at the right (or wrong, for the alleged perpetrator) moment it happens just because victims have finally plucked up their hearts and made a step.

No. They are still in a vulnerable position because they will be physically and politically attacked and threatened, will put their careers at risk, etc., for unclear results. Though obviously a professional adult woman will usually be more prepared than a 15-year-old girl.

The answer is probably pretty simple: Supreme Court justice is one of the most important positions in the land, and the culture surrounding sexual assault has only in recent years been trending toward promoting disclosure under any circumstances. Anita Hill came out in 1991 against Clarence Thomas, a Supreme Court nominee, and she was eviscerated by both sides despite the apparent merit of her claims. So why try, right?

Let's imagine (I'm not saying this ever happened) that you sexually assaulted a girl in gymnasium. Let's say, 15 years later, you are approved to the position of teacher or professor at some school somewhere. Is this woman whom you assaulted half a lifetime ago supposed to be stalking you, ready to pounce and lay down large amounts of her own time and money in trying to prevent you from getting a job? To put her reputation on the line, to be labeled as a troublemaker in her own circles? A thousand men could assault a thousand women, and this kind of scenario would play out maybe once. The circumstances change, though, if you are running for a major national political office under public scrutiny. The costs for the accuser are higher, but so are the costs of not speaking up and allowing a predator into office. These deliberations are always very difficult, and you have to see how culture plays a role. Before a few decades ago, adultery would have been seen as far worse than any number of rapes so long as the victims were "loose women", so coming out until historically recently would have been madness irrespective of the strength of the claims. Can you imagine a woman contacting the newspaper Pravda with a report that Premier Khrushchev had groped and digitally penetrated her (I'm not saying this ever happened)? They would have laughed in her face.

Your position of skepticism could not yet reasonably apply even to today's actual social climate going forward, let alone retroactively to erase the uncountable millions of sexual assaults that have been perpetrated up to the present day and within living memory.

If neoliberalism-caused problems lead people to elect someone who promises to fix the problems with more neoliberalism, then I guess that someone can be both a symptom and a cause. And yes, Hillary would not have been too different from that angle, the mainstream democrats just go for neoliberalism light while the republicans want it stronger with much more libertarianism.

I'm not sure how this reflects on what Seamus said in his post. Anyway, a Clinton administration would be better for the country and its people in almost every way, unless you take a wildcard Zizek approach and speculate that the world needs a tragic shock to awaken popular internationalism. Well, we'll get to find out over the next decade if a few years of international fascism on 5 continents can be easily overturned.

[Husar]

I'm not sure how this reflects on what Seamus said in his post.

He was wondering whether Trump was a symptom or a cause and I said he might well be both. The Clinton addition was just because I anticipated certain answers and thought about the alternatives.

The Pinochet shirt is terrible btw.

[Gilrandir]

Which other Judicial appointments hit the mainstream media? Which others are for life? In which other cases would he have been publicly lying?

If the answer to all the above is "none" then there's the difference.

If I were one of the victims I would watch the perpetrator's career closely and would raise hue and cry not when he has almost reached the top of the ladder. Otherwise an expected question would be: So when he became a D.A. in Arkansas (the exapmle is totally conjectural) you were OK with that?

No. They are still in a vulnerable position because they will be physically and politically attacked and threatened, will put their careers at risk, etc., for unclear results. Though obviously a professional adult woman will usually be more prepared than a 15-year-old girl.

How come that they decided to speak out now? They are ready to put their careers at stake NOW? Is there anyone at power to protect their careers NOW? What about two years ago when he became a D.A. in Arkansas (see above)? Was it OK for a molester to become a D.A.?

The answer is probably pretty simple: Supreme Court justice is one of the most important positions in the land, and the culture surrounding sexual assault has only in recent years been trending toward promoting disclosure under any circumstances. Anita Hill came out in 1991 against Clarence Thomas, a Supreme Court nominee, and she was eviscerated by both sides despite the apparent merit of her claims. So why try, right?

1991 =/= 2010, 2013, 2015.

The circumstances change, though, if you are running for a major national political office under public scrutiny.

Thus you admit that sexual crimes are no bar for promotion on any under the national level?

Can you imagine a woman contacting the newspaper Pravda with a report that Premier Khrushchev had groped and digitally penetrated her (I'm not saying this ever happened)? They would have laughed in her face.

You are underestimating the power of the dark side of the force. Laughing was not the thing meant for those who slander the perfect leaders of the best in the world state.

Your position of skepticism could not yet reasonably apply even to today's actual social climate going forward, let alone retroactively to erase the uncountable millions of sexual assaults that have been perpetrated up to the present day and within living memory.

So you totally deny the spinning momentum of the issue under discussion?

[rory_20_uk]

If I were one of the victims I would watch the perpetrator's career closely and would raise hue and cry not when he has almost reached the top of the ladder. Otherwise an expected question would be: So when he became a D.A. in Arkansas (the exapmle is totally conjectural) you were OK with that?

Many would not closely stalk someone. They'd get on with their life. She was training as a Doctor which does take a lot of time. That you think you'd do something different is possibly the lowest level of evidence one can get.

He would have a poor witness as a witness or as a defendant since he frequently lied under oath - even if he was innocent. For almost every job interview they'd not have got it due to the lies which there is a small army of people who all agreed with. And most of the evidence he had from the time period showed he was a heavy drinker.

If he'd said he did drink - as do many teenagers / uni students it would be a non-issue. But he lied, and kept on lying. He is, to put it very simply, unfit for the office.

[Gilrandir]

Many would not closely stalk someone. They'd get on with their life. She was training as a Doctor which does take a lot of time. That you think you'd do something different is possibly the lowest level of evidence one can get.

He would have a poor witness as a witness or as a defendant since he frequently lied under oath - even if he was innocent. For almost every job interview they'd not have got it due to the lies which there is a small army of people who all agreed with. And most of the evidence he had from the time period showed he was a heavy drinker.

If he'd said he did drink - as do many teenagers / uni students it would be a non-issue. But he lied, and kept on lying. He is, to put it very simply, unfit for the office.

I'm not interested in the fact if he is fit or unfit or whether he lied or didn't lie. I'm interested in the fact that certain charges appear just at the right moment.

[rory_20_uk]

I'm not interested in the fact if he is fit or unfit or whether he lied or didn't lie. I'm interested in the fact that certain charges appear just at the right moment.

Fair enough. I on the other hand refer judges to be not to perjure themselves in their assessment for the role.

The charges appeared right at the point it was televised he was being considered. Surely more interesting is the FBI were prevented from investigating? Ascertaining the truth and all that?

[Montmorency]

If I were one of the victims I would watch the perpetrator's career closely and would raise hue and cry not when he has almost reached the top of the ladder. Otherwise an expected question would be: So when he became a D.A. in Arkansas (the exapmle is totally conjectural) you were OK with that?



How come that they decided to speak out now? They are ready to put their careers at stake NOW? Is there anyone at power to protect their careers NOW? What about two years ago when he became a D.A. in Arkansas (see above)? Was it OK for a molester to become a D.A.?



1991 =/= 2010, 2013, 2015.



Thus you admit that sexual crimes are no bar for promotion on any under the national level?



You are underestimating the power of the dark side of the force. Laughing was not the thing meant for those who slander the perfect leaders of the best in the world state.

So you totally deny the spinning momentum of the issue under discussion?

First, are you referring to Kavanaugh? I don't think he was ever D.A. in Arkansas. Bill Clinton was an Attorney General in Arkansas though. Is that whom you mean?

Yes. The threshold - again, the threshold for an individual publicly coming out, putting themselves on the line to block the accused perpetrator - is and has always been very high. In recent years, the threshold may have been reduced with cultural change, though even this will affect younger women more intensely than older ones. And yes, the position of Supreme Court justice is almost as important as Prime Minister of most European countries.

More generally, if you haven't noticed, when sexual assault allegations come at against political figures, they often do so when these figures are attempting to elevate their office. The reasons for this should be obvious: the stakes are higher, and the allegations are more visible and more likely to be acted upon (for example, a politician is unlikely to be investigated if you as a victim go to the police to report it quietly). In the end, victims as a group usually just want to move on with their lives. They're not interested in fighting a war, in almost all cases, unless provoked or afforded a unique opportunity. So people who do receive allegations of this type will tend to be influential, rich, high-level in politics and industry - again, because the stakes are higher. And the victims are more likely to be educated professionals anyway, which potentially affords an impetus and advantage.

And in all this, I'd like you to keep the timeline in mind: The allegations were kept undisclosed for weeks because the accuser contacted her representatives with it and explicitly asked them not to publicize it. Ford only revealed herself once the material was leaked. Because Ford understood what she would have to endure if identified, what she will now have to endure for the rest of her working life. And the subsequent accusations were submitted largely because of Ford's example. The metaphors are obvious: a breaking dam, forging a trail... You can expect that there were more (there are always more) who did not come forward because they believed it to be futile (they were correct), or because their fear and discomfort of going under public scrutiny was too great.

Your questions are "Why would people wait to report?" and "Why would they report when the accused is rising in the public eye?", right? There are the answers.

Many would not closely stalk someone. They'd get on with their life. She was training as a Doctor which does take a lot of time. That you think you'd do something different is possibly the lowest level of evidence one can get.

He would have a poor witness as a witness or as a defendant since he frequently lied under oath - even if he was innocent. For almost every job interview they'd not have got it due to the lies which there is a small army of people who all agreed with. And most of the evidence he had from the time period showed he was a heavy drinker.

If he'd said he did drink - as do many teenagers / uni students it would be a non-issue. But he lied, and kept on lying. He is, to put it very simply, unfit for the office.

If you had someone interviewing for a job, and you pointed out some unsavory things you had heard about their past, and they started crying and screaming about how this is all a conspiracy to smear their perfect name, that they like beer, they LIKE beer, but so does everyone and they were always paragons of virtue and virgins until late at life, lying about basic details of their lives and exaggerating others, sneering at or evading your questions and mocking you for them, basically demanding the job as an entitlement -

a normal interviewer would tell them something like, "Get out of here or I'm calling the cops." This is what I mean when I say Kavanaugh was held to a lower standard than a security guard or fast food manager.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Gilrandir]

First, are you referring to Kavanaugh? I don't think he was ever D.A. in Arkansas. Bill Clinton was an Attorney General in Arkansas though. Is that whom you mean?

Like I said, the position for the perpetrator was a wild shot sure to go amiss. It might as well have been the sheriff of Orange County or Peace Justice in Oskaloosa, Iowa. It served to exemplify the idea of the previous job which Kavanaugh might have had before he was promoted and which hadn't provoked any resentment from the public.

Your questions are "Why would people wait to report?" and "Why would they report when the accused is rising in the public eye?", right? There are the answers.

My answers are somewhat different. I still maintain that there is some driving force behind the scandals whose expiry date is long over. I believe that the considerations you referred to are minor compared to the chance that certain people/organisations see as available and utilize to pursue their political goals. The victims are only pawns in a big political game.

[Montmorency]

Like I said, the position for the perpetrator was a wild shot sure to go amiss. It might as well have been the sheriff of Orange County or Peace Justice in Oskaloosa, Iowa. It served to exemplify the idea of the previous job which Kavanaugh might have had before he was promoted and which hadn't provoked any resentment from the public.



My answers are somewhat different. I still maintain that there is some driving force behind the scandals whose expiry date is long over. I believe that the considerations you referred to are minor compared to the chance that certain people/organisations see as available and utilize to pursue their political goals. The victims are only pawns in a big political game.

Gilrandir, I'm not sure I quite understand you. It should be obvious that in a political context sexual assault allegations will always have a political valence. This is by definition almost. It's hard to see how it could be otherwise, unless there were some robust law enforcement/investigative mechanism to automatically investigate every possible angle with non-political expertise, and all political groups have the utmost faith in these.

Are you trying to say that sexual assault allegations over long-past events are somehow politically generated by political actors? Like, there are armies canvassing on the ground looking to gin up accusers or something? That would be attributing far more power and resources to political parties than they actually have.