Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 112 posts

Re: Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

#51

Post by sjg007 »

gassed wrote: post #14
mjfl wrote: post #6

There are probably a good number of Republican voters hired at Facebook. Most of those employees will be supporting Kavanaugh's nomination. There are obviously many Democrat voters employed at Facebook who won't be supporting Kavanaugh. Anyone who finds either of these two facts unacceptable should immediately walk away from their jobs or be terminated. The only alternative is to accept that there is effectively a ci…

I don't think anybody in the tech industry has the balls to come out as a Republican. The backlash would be awful. Thank God votes are secret, still.

I'm pretty sure there are a bunch of Randian republicans all across the tech industry.

Re: Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

#52

Post by Ascendency »

thecleaner wrote: post #36

I don't understand this. Kavanaugh hasnt been proven to be guilty. There are credible allegations which demand a further investigation as is being conducted by the FBI. Beyond that apart from his clumsiness at the testimony there isnt much going on against him. If these people are so data driven how come they choose to believe things for which we have no evidence. You may mock him for losing his cool but thats just a…

Kavanaugh didn’t just deny that he committed the assault, he denied drinking, obvious jokes, and pretended to be a church going, sober, virgin. Well, we have loads of evidence that the latter is false throughout high school, college, and law school. If instead of admitting what he did do as in the past, but choosing to lie, not once but repeatedly, baldly, and swearing to god, makes him far, far less credible in denying the assault claims.

Re: Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

#53

Post by jki275 »

malvosenior wrote: post #47
scrollaway wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as a non-american: People don't want to come out as Republican because of how corrupt Republican representation has become. Republicans used to be respectable. There's still a few respectable figures in Congress and the Senate but even they have to follow the abhorrently partisanship, otherwise they aren't getting reelected. The republican base has turned on its head and has been massively radicalized. So if…

Everything you said could also be said about the Democrats, except the safe to come out as a Democrat because they control all of the media, tech companies, and generally hold power in the West.

They generally hold power in urban areas, not just the west. The rest of the country tends right.

As you say, both parties are often corrupt, the reps tend to be the family values party so you actually hear about it when they have a problem in that area. It's expected in the democrat world and nobody cares, plus they own the media almost wholly so it's not really reported much.

Re: Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

#54

Post by jsjohnst »

alehul wrote: post #34
g8oz wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>We have to presume Kavanaugh's innocence because no witness has come forward to corroborate any claims. By the standards of criminal proceedings, yes. But this is a job interview, the standards for disqualifying someone are lower.

While that's true, and I personally am leaning towards believing Ford, there's also these premises we must accept: (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…

Or better yet, let’s consider him not getting the nomination because he lied under oath. Irregardless of where you stand on the Ford allegation (which is currently he said / she said, and nothing more, despite me believing what she said), it’s easily proveable that Kavanaugh lied under oath.

Re: Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

#55

Post by scrollaway »

malvosenior wrote: post #47
scrollaway wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as a non-american: People don't want to come out as Republican because of how corrupt Republican representation has become. Republicans used to be respectable. There's still a few respectable figures in Congress and the Senate but even they have to follow the abhorrently partisanship, otherwise they aren't getting reelected. The republican base has turned on its head and has been massively radicalized. So if…

Everything you said could also be said about the Democrats, except the safe to come out as a Democrat because they control all of the media, tech companies, and generally hold power in the West.

Even as you sit with an extreme-right president and near-state-sanctioned hard-right media, you claim that "Democrats are in control".

And why exactly do you claim that? How is it relevant? I'm answering a completely different question, about "coming out" as republican.

Re: Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

#56

Post by sjg007 »

scrollaway wrote: post #45
gassed wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anybody in the tech industry has the balls to come out as a Republican. The backlash would be awful. Thank God votes are secret, still.

Speaking as a non-american: People don't want to come out as Republican because of how corrupt Republican representation has become. Republicans used to be respectable. There's still a few respectable figures in Congress and the Senate but even they have to follow the abhorrently partisanship, otherwise they aren't getting reelected. The republican base has turned on its head and has been massively radicalized. So if…

I don't think republicans have ever been respectable except back when they were actually "democrats". In 1860 the democrats were largely racist southerns bent on states rights and the republicans were northerners who viewed the expansion of the Federal government as a good thing for social justice and the country. By 1930 the parties had effectively swapped names which the modern political reality reflects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_State...

Re: Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

#57

Post by jki275 »

jsjohnst wrote: post #50
thecleaner wrote: post #36

I don't understand this. Kavanaugh hasnt been proven to be guilty. There are credible allegations which demand a further investigation as is being conducted by the FBI. Beyond that apart from his clumsiness at the testimony there isnt much going on against him. If these people are so data driven how come they choose to believe things for which we have no evidence. You may mock him for losing his cool but thats just a…

> I don't understand this. Kavanaugh hasnt been proven to be guilty. Has he been proven guilty of Ford’s allegations? No, he will very likely never be. Has he done something that should bar him from being a judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice? Very much so and can conclusively be proven. Lying on the stand[0] is something not allowed for anyone, but most assuredly shouldn’t be allowed to slide for Supreme Court…

There are a whole lot of words in that article that don't prove the assertion in the headline.

You literally cannot in any way prove anything he said was a lie.

Re: Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

#58

Post by sjg007 »

malvosenior wrote: post #47
scrollaway wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as a non-american: People don't want to come out as Republican because of how corrupt Republican representation has become. Republicans used to be respectable. There's still a few respectable figures in Congress and the Senate but even they have to follow the abhorrently partisanship, otherwise they aren't getting reelected. The republican base has turned on its head and has been massively radicalized. So if…

Everything you said could also be said about the Democrats, except the safe to come out as a Democrat because they control all of the media, tech companies, and generally hold power in the West.

Like Fox News???

Re: Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

#59

Post by jki275 »

dickinson99 wrote: post #46
viggity wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ford's testimony appeared credible. However, there is no contemporaneous corroboration, even from her long-time friend who not only didn't corroborate it, she refuted that she had even met Kavanaugh. Ramirez, Swetnik allegations are not credible. They too have no corroboration. While I've seen plenty of people decry Rachel Mitchell's letter to the Republican Senators as "political", I have yet to see anyone refute th…

>Ford's testimony appeared credible Did you even watch it?

I did, and I think she made up the entire thing.

For a while I thought maybe she was assaulted in some way and was completely confused about when it happened and who was involved, but after the polygraph comments were refuted by her ex-boyfriend that sealed the deal for me -- it's almost axiomatic that because of her field of study she would be well informed on the subject, her denials to Ms. Mitchell seemed odd, but it appears clear now that she in fact did lie about it. That's not a minor detail, it's a very big deal.

Re: Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support

#60

Post by jsjohnst »

jki275 wrote: post #57
jsjohnst wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand this. Kavanaugh hasnt been proven to be guilty. Has he been proven guilty of Ford’s allegations? No, he will very likely never be. Has he done something that should bar him from being a judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice? Very much so and can conclusively be proven. Lying on the stand[0] is something not allowed for anyone, but most assuredly shouldn’t be allowed to slide for Supreme Court…

There are a whole lot of words in that article that don't prove the assertion in the headline. You literally cannot in any way prove anything he said was a lie.

Did you read the article? At the very minimum you can prove the “four denials” or “refutal” as being a lie. While it might seem minor to a lay person, a judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice should understand there’s a stark legal difference between “denying/refuting something happened” vs “I don’t recall that happening”. And that’s just one thing you can prove, the article goes at length with good sourcing to prove more.
Post reply on HN