Zuckerberg Faces Anger Over Facebook Executive’s Kavanaugh Support • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by angry_octet » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 3:31 PM UTC

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…

I have a great counter-example for you: Gorsuch.

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.

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

#72

Post by scrollaway » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 3:36 PM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #63

scrollaway wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Even as you sit with an extreme-right president and near-state-sanctioned hard-right media, you claim that "Democrats are in control". The press and Trump are basically at war with one another. I can't see how you can claim they're both hard right. All the mainstream press (aside from Fox) endorsed Clinton.

Fox isn't just "any" media, it's state media. Your president watches it religiously and they have an immense influence over what he says.

He has chosen to go to war with the press. To shut out reporters from the press corps. To viciously and regularly attack various media.

You are slowly approaching a Russian-like regime where, if an outlet is not to the president's liking, it gets shut out entirely. It's blatant, and most republicans refuse to acknowledge it (all the while claiming they're pro free speech etc).

Will you personally also be OK with that when it happens, since "well at least the democrats won't be in control anymore"?

I'm scared for your country. Seeing the effect of propaganda after-the-fact in countries like Russia, North Korea, China, and many other dictatorships... it's one thing. Seeing it happen live, that's just out of this world for me.

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

#73

Post by krapp » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 3:39 PM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #63

scrollaway wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Even as you sit with an extreme-right president and near-state-sanctioned hard-right media, you claim that "Democrats are in control". The press and Trump are basically at war with one another. I can't see how you can claim they're both hard right. All the mainstream press (aside from Fox) endorsed Clinton.

>All the mainstream press (aside from Fox) endorsed Clinton.

It is possible to endorse Clinton without being a puppet for some DNC controlled leftist conspiracy, especially when the only other option vocally denounces you as a puppet for some DNC controlled leftist conspiracy. Why would anyone but Fox News support Trump in that case?

That being said, media "endorsing" candidates is a practice that should probably be ended anyway. But it's still worth pointing out that endorsing a candidate is not necessarily the same as agreeing to take orders from that candidate's party.

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

#74

Post by angry_octet » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 3:43 PM UTC

marsrover wrote: post #22

I don’t know much about Kaplan but after this I have respect for him. It couldn’t have been easy to support his friend knowing full well all of Facebook’s employees are going to try to crucify him after.

[flagged]

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

#75

Post by angry_octet » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 3:53 PM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #65

angry_octet wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No", it is you who are tacking additional straw man arguments and then being outraged. By your argument a content slave owner could by proud of his thriving cotton economy, and justifiably believe his political support for this system should have no consequences. If you know you're supporting people that actively try to suppress the rights of your fellow citizens, how can you complain when you are judged for it?

> By your argument a content slave owner could by proud of his thriving cotton economy, and justifiably believe his political support for this system should have no consequences. This is the strawman. I said nothing about slave owners. I'm talking about your average, middle class citizen (since that's who's being accused of taking a political stance through inaction). > If you know you're supporting people that activ…

Were those in the slave economy not regular citizens? Did they not elect slave owners to represent them? Help catch runaway slaves?

And do white people today still support the mass incarceration of black people? White people have mj prescriptions and black people serve time for selling dime bags. Generations of men are unemployable because of petty crime convictions that were ramped up to be major felonies by 'law and order' Republicans. Police policies specifically targeting black neighbourhoods with zero tolerance arrest strategies. HOW CAN YOU NOT KNOW THIS

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

#76

Post by scrollaway » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 3:54 PM UTC

jki275 wrote: post #61

jsjohnst wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I read it all. You can't prove any of that as false. The article is a biased hit piece making allegations that are not provable. In fact, it makes assertions that have been refuted already by other people who were in K's circle of friends and some who were not (devil's triangle). BTW, I'm not asserting that it is impossible that reasonable people might listen to his testimony and think he was lying. Calling something…

I'm not the person you're replying to but I find it terribly sad to see how much you folks (Americans) lowered the bar to accepting someone into the supreme court.

Partisanship is ok. Off-the-handle emotional responses are ok. Continuous strings of allegations "no big deal cause we don't have a cryptographically-signed videotape of it".

That 2400 law professors [0], groups like Human Rights Watch [1], the National Council of Churches [2], or even (republican) Justice Stevens himself[3] vehemently oppose his nominations, that raises no alarm bells.

I don't get it. I'm pretty sure nearly everyone shrugging this stuff off had even heard of Kavanaugh before, and yet HE is the one who must be appointed to this lifetime position of Supreme Court Judge. HE is the one who meets the standards to reside over the country's most important cases.

What is it about this guy you like so much? Could it be that your party is telling you "it's all a democrat ploy" and you're just... following orders?

I don't even know why republican voters care this much. There's far more capable and better-suited republican candidates available if Kavanaugh is rejected. Or do you think this sorry excuse of a judge is what "best of the best" looks like?

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavan...

[1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/05/human-rights-watch-oppos...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/10/04/national-...

[3] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/supreme-court-ju...

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

#77

Post by HBlix » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 3:57 PM UTC

scrollaway wrote: post #76

jki275 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it all. You can't prove any of that as false. The article is a biased hit piece making allegations that are not provable. In fact, it makes assertions that have been refuted already by other people who were in K's circle of friends and some who were not (devil's triangle). BTW, I'm not asserting that it is impossible that reasonable people might listen to his testimony and think he was lying. Calling something…

I'm not the person you're replying to but I find it terribly sad to see how much you folks (Americans) lowered the bar to accepting someone into the supreme court. Partisanship is ok. Off-the-handle emotional responses are ok. Continuous strings of allegations "no big deal cause we don't have a cryptographically-signed videotape of it". That 2400 law professors [0], groups like Human Rights Watch [1], the National Co…

It comes down to this: they believe that he’ll swing the court in favor of their chosen policies, be it restricting abortion or whatever else. If Bill Cosby or Ted Bundy were in a position to do that, they’d defend them too. It’s not about good faith arguments, it’s 100% about the end result, and the ends justifying the means.

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

#78

Post by scrollaway » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 4:01 PM UTC

HBlix wrote: post #77

scrollaway wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not the person you're replying to but I find it terribly sad to see how much you folks (Americans) lowered the bar to accepting someone into the supreme court. Partisanship is ok. Off-the-handle emotional responses are ok. Continuous strings of allegations "no big deal cause we don't have a cryptographically-signed videotape of it". That 2400 law professors [0], groups like Human Rights Watch [1], the National Co…

It comes down to this: they believe that he’ll swing the court in favor of their chosen policies, be it restricting abortion or whatever else. If Bill Cosby or Ted Bundy were in a position to do that, they’d defend them too. It’s not about good faith arguments, it’s 100% about the end result, and the ends justifying the means.

But again... there isn't a shortage of republican-leaning judges who are far more fit to be a Supreme Court Justice.

My reading is that the GOP is making a big deal out of this because it looks really bad for them if Kavanaugh gets voted off. And furthermore, they run the risk of not being able to confirm a republican judge after the midterms (and we're not even sort of pretending the court is nonpartisan anymore...)

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

#79

Post by sjg007 » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 4:06 PM UTC

viggity wrote: post #68

sjg007 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://rewire.news/ablc/2018/10/04/contrary-to-conservative...

contemporaneous corroboration. Again, nobody has addressed all the holes as addressed by Rachel Mitchell.

Sure, let's make stuff up, like her memo.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/10/02/rachel-mitche...

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

#80

Post by HBlix » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 4:06 PM UTC

scrollaway wrote: post #78

HBlix wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It comes down to this: they believe that he’ll swing the court in favor of their chosen policies, be it restricting abortion or whatever else. If Bill Cosby or Ted Bundy were in a position to do that, they’d defend them too. It’s not about good faith arguments, it’s 100% about the end result, and the ends justifying the means.

But again... there isn't a shortage of republican-leaning judges who are far more fit to be a Supreme Court Justice. My reading is that the GOP is making a big deal out of this because it looks really bad for them if Kavanaugh gets voted off. And furthermore, they run the risk of not being able to confirm a republican judge after the midterms (and we're not even sort of pretending the court is nonpartisan anymore...)

I see what you mean, but as you say their midterm elections are coming up, and no one knows if the Republicans will still have the necessary votes after. If Kavanaugh doesn’t get through, their chance to force someone like him onto the court may go with him. Beyond that I don’t think you can underestimate just how little a lot of senators care about what Kavanaugh did to women in his youth. Chuck Grassley, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham... they seem like people for whom conscience is just a formality.

Mostly they want to be re-elected, and they want to feed their shrinking base lots of red meat to inspire a bigger turnout. As I said, if Ted Bundy on the court could do that for them, they’d try to make it happen.