Why is there so much political activism inside tech companies? Shouldn't this person actually do something wrong at his job before the mob goes after him? How long before you can't be an executive if you hunt, or eat meat?
It's good that people are protesting. I hope they protest even louder. Authoritarians should not feel welcome.
In my personal worldview and culture that makes him an innocent man, and he should not be disrespected in this manner. My values are certainly not in need of the ACLU's approval. I don't put stock in the opinions of institutions, just in the facts as they relate to the allegations.
No idea what's happening in America right now. I've always assumed my worldview was shaped by English common law, and the great principles it puts forth like presumption of innocence, individual rights, etc.
Sexual assault allegations aside, Kavanaugh acted—and has acted—like a partisan hack and an entitled frat boy, and has almost certainly lied under oath. He is plainly unfit for the Supreme Court, innocent or not.
100+ women have come forward for Judge Kavanaugh's character. The sum total of everyone he has worked with during his time as a judge (which is much more relevant than what he did while at parties), have given him glowing endorsements. My opinion is based on evidence, and the presumption of innocence. Those are not feelings or emotions. Those are facts and principles.
Justice Ginsberg said she and her husband would move to New Zealand if the Republican candidate became President. That is coming from the reigning liberal champion on the court. Honestly, I think she has set the bar as far as irresponsible partisan remarks are concerned.
The Democratic party is solely to blame (factually speaking) for what has happened to Judge Kavanaugh's family over these past few months. Senator Feinstein made no effort to keep this process private and protect the personal lives of everyone involved. Dr. Ford testified that she did not share the information that she gave Senator Feinstein with anyone else. Senator Feinstein claims nobody leaked the information. One of them is lying, because it was leaked to the press, which caused a complete media trial and humiliating debacle for both parties involved.
To make matters worse, Bill Clinton's legal team, who is now representing Dr. Ford, conveniently forgot to tell her that her statements could have been taken privately to the judiciary committee. It's incredibly convenient that this too has happened in light of the broad context.
This entire travesty could have been avoided if the Democratic party handled this matter sensitively and appropriately, they are solely to blame. Zero Republicans were responsible for how this fiasco has transpired in the media. Were things the other way around, the Republicans would deserve an angry rant too.
The bottom line is, even if none of this would have happened 0 Democrats would have voted for Justice Kavanaugh. This FBI investigation has changed none of their minds, and the most pathetic thing to come of this, is that after ruining a man's reputation and life from this political charade, the gaul to suggest that he should have watched his tone when he passionately argued his innocence.
I really have no words for how horrible that is. But that's another subject. My original point stands, this man's views should not disqualify him from his job. He is perfectly capable of doing it, and having his own personal views.
Earlier today, it was reported that Trump thought that a news clip of an old missile launch was a preemptive nuclear strike by North Korea, and that Lindsey Graham had to dissuade him from taking action.
We all knew that shit like this was going to happen before the election! Trump is not any sort of typical candidate. He is an absolute train wreck of a public figure, probably has dementia, and is completely unsuited for any form of office, let alone the Presidency. There is a non-zero chance that he will lead the country to war or outright ruin during his term, and probably not intentionally. The Republican party has stood behind him, 100%.
This is not a matter of ideology, but of the barest of common sense. To say nothing, or to pretend this is business as usual, is utterly bonkers.
There is also a process for the 25th Amendment that addresses dementia and other such concerns, via the White House Physician. Even if you assume that were to happen - President Pence and perhaps Vice President Ted Cruz, would not really change the political climate in the USA, considering a Facebook Executive who attends a hearing is also treated so poorly, I can't imagine President Pence or Vice President Cruz will be treated fairly.
I would argue after watching the hearing that anyone who so blatantly ignores the obvious intent of questions asked of them, rather than attempting to pursue and convey the truth in earnest, regardless of their guilt, is unqualified to enforce justice at the highest level in America. I struggle to imagine a credible reason to look past this conduct, and would be interested in hearing a take on it.
To be clear, I don't have a take on whether he's guilty, and I don't think it particularly matters. I'm operating based solely on his bad-faith responses to interview questions. It could be argued that the questions asked of him were themselves in bad faith, but that doesn't seem like it should change anything, since it's critical for a judge to be resilient to bad faith questioning, rather than sinking to that level and rolling in the mud.
If a person has a different take that involves him being levelheaded, truthful, nonpartisan in the face of immense partisanship, and dedicated to the pursuit of justice, then no, it is not extremist to support him.
If a person can recognize him as being at all deficient in any of those categories and yet supports his nomination out of partisan dedication, despite intellectual qualities that should disqualify him, I would classify that as extreme.
Who would like to sit on trial for things you said 40 years ago? And have a mass media misinterpret everything out of context? It's fucking primitive.
Who wouldn't lose their composure? Only a cool, level headed liar like Bill Clinton could pull that off.
I was also deliberate in my pointing-out that many of the questions asked of him could be perceived as being in bad faith. Whether that's so is quite subjective. Your "inside joke" is other people's "description of a sex act". For the same reason we can't truly know Kav's innocence or guilt, we can't know whether the jokes are harmful or not.
I want to point out a distinction that I made, that I'm not sure you're making: I don't discredit Kavanaugh because he "lost his cool". I too would most certainly be crying in that situation, without a doubt. But when Leahy pressed him, repeatedly over a span of excruciatingly long minutes, to explicitly request and comply with an investigation, and Kavanaugh dodged and bent over backwards to avoid doing such a thing, I found it difficult to understand how a person interested in the truth could behave in that way. A SCOTUS judge should be wiling to be investigated, and expected to survive such a thing.
These allegations were held in the pocket as a political football instead of being handed over to a bipartisan committee and investigated by the FBI from the get go.
Feinstein's unethical manipulation of this allegation in the handling of Dr. Ford and outright lies about her alleged fear of flying in order to prevent her being forensically interviewed, like a normal case, are inexcusable.
The Democrats had two months to hatch a plan while Kavanaugh's life got turned upside down in less than a week. That's a legal ambush, complete with an angry mob. It's not just at all.
Because it was an obvious trap and he was right to avoid stepping into it.
By the standards of criminal proceedings, yes. But this is a job interview, the standards for disqualifying someone are lower.
This makes me angry every time I read it. A failed job interview usually means you can just go back to whatever it was you were doing before you applied, none the worse for wear.
A job interview shouldn't require you to defend yourself against scurrilous personal attacks which result in you becoming an unemployable social pariah if you fail.
This was not a job interview.
(1) There will be millions of people against any Supreme Court nominee
(2) The bar for dismissal of a Supreme Court nominee is accusations, even without corroboration
Premise (1) is bound to be true, and premise (2) will be fulfilled if we decide Kavanaugh should not be nominated. The logical conclusion is thus likely:
(3) Any of the millions of people against a Supreme Court nominee can come forward with accusations without corroboration and block their nomination
While I think Kavanaugh's defensive and angry response is another valid issue, we could then just add a 3rd premise to the above where the uncorroborated claims would have to be met with anger by the nominee to be disqualified. It still seems like a screwed up system, with that third premise installed.
The problem isn't supported much the accusations (though Ford gave powerful testimony) as his response. He is condemned by his own words. He was evasive, dissembling, maudlin, vengeful, conspiracy minded, hair splitting, seemingly conveniently forgetful, enraged at being questioned, sly, prevaricating, devious. In a word, dishonest. Not the qualities one wants for a judge on the highest court in the land.
The "obvious intent of the questions" is to block his nomination by any means they can come up with, as was made clear months ago by the protest signs printed with a blank where the name would be inserted just as soon as the name of the nominee was announced.
Anyone who blatantly ignores the obvious intent of these questions has an agenda other than finding the actual facts.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're right about "why they're asking:", and he's being asked questions that are intentionally constructed to lead to dark places, trip him up, and paint him in a negative light.
Nevertheless, I think any layperson can detect "what they're asking". A person interviewed for SCOTUS, in my view, must still give a straight answer to a question asked in bad faith. Ill intent on the part of (D) committee members does not justify intentionally incomplete answers that intentionally fail to address "what they're asking". Even if the questions are meant to derail him, that doesn't justify omission or disearnestness.
Every tier one tech company I ever worked for would not hire someone that caused that much ill will, from a culture perspective. The brand of the supreme court is seen as a wise, impartial, authorative, servant of the people.
An imperious, rabidly partisan, agressive, evasive, offended, entitled boy damages that brand.
A nonpartisan, considered, empathetic, distinguished man does not.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-judicial-jihad-a...
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/20/oral...
If people are uncomfortable with their CEO eating meat then they should be free to ask about it and voice their opinions. If the CEO wants to change anything because of that is entirely up to him/her, just like how people are free to resign if they feel strongly enough about it.
But really, who would be that obnoxious?
There's nothing wrong with challenging people on different topics, lots of healthy and fruitful discussions can come of that, it's just the "don't be obnoxious and entitled about it" part that seems to not resonate with some people but I think that's an entirely different issue.
Expecting a person A to change their way of life, for an inconsequential act, because other person B completely irrelevant to A or A action's feels 'uncomfortable', then B has way over stepped in feeling entitled to what they want from life and society.
You don't get to dictate what religion some one should practice, or what kind of clothes they should wear, or economic system they should believe or what kind of politics they like. Unless they force you to do as they like, they are free to hold whatever opinions they like. Just like you do.
This whole thing about people wanting to control other people's life. And then claiming to victims of 'offence' and 'discomfort', when the other person doesn't comply to their dictation is the root cause of political problems today. Nobody owes you anything, others are welcome to live their life as they like, just as you do.
I didn't say—nor did I mean to imply—that anyone should "change their way of life", "dictate what religion some one[sic] should practice" or "wanting to control other people's life". I said, and I very literally meant, "they should be free to ask about it and voice their opinions". That's how we discuss things and gain insight into how other people think and feel about stuff.
If my boss does something that goes against every moral fiber in my body (especially if he does it in his capacity as a public face of the company) I think it's fair that I voice my opinion—even more so in companies where employees are told that "we are the company"—and if he wants to listen and have a dialog about it, cool, and if not, well... If it's bad enough, maybe I'll have to start looking for another job, or I'll just have to learn to live with it.
Saying that no one is allowed to challenge someone else's opinion is both counter-productive and dangerous.
In line with what I was saying earlier - when I work, I care about what the folks I am working with are like - at work. At home or in their personal time, they can do whatever they please, it is none of my business.
Why has the culture become such that this seems to be everyone's business? Is it because there is more sharing of people's lives on social media? Not everyone is okay with that. Some people want their personal lives and opinions to be their own. Not everyone has put their life out there for likes and reactions - yet it seems to be the default assumption that people are fair game to be judged for what they do on their own time.
In India, where I live, we constantly fight against a culture that is in favor of moral policing. Just last week a Hindu girl got arrested here for spending time with a Muslim man. The cops were eventually suspended, but that is one example (for the sake of this discussion) of the kinds of problems we have in the culture I live in.
These folks you are talking about aren't simply "voicing an opinion" they are working to destroy this executive's career. They may not be detaining him against his will, but they are like those cops in my country - who are taking action against someone who doesn't share their worldviews in their personal life. Why is this ok?
Mostly because any movement, when it becomes a little bigger gets crowded by gold diggers. And from there on its just people's selfish motives at play.
Politics, and even office politics is all about this.
>>In India, where I live, we constantly fight against a culture that is in favor of moral policing.
Indian here, I entirely agree. Entitlement in the India society, especially related to social influence is just too much to bear at times.
Why should an intelligent citizenry judge a company based on the dietary preferences of someone working there? That sounds a lot like judging a religion based on one person's actions, and those kinds of principles must not be entertained in a fair and tolerant society.
Why should an intelligent citizenry not speak up against those who cry outrage for baseless reasons?