In The News Today...

Quote: Mission146

Why are you worried about what Hillary Clinton thinks? If I had to make a list of the most relevant Democratic political personalities in 2021, she probably wouldn't crack my Top 100. Does she even speak publicly that often anymore?

At this point, Hillary pretty much only exists in the minds of righties who are looking for a convenient scapegoat.

Like, why is Duffman bringing up Hillary in regards to the #metoo movement. Pretty sure the #metoo movement wanted nothing to do with the Clintons!

Quote: ams288

At this point, Hillary pretty much only exists in the minds of righties who are looking for a convenient scapegoat.

Like, why is Duffman bringing up Hillary in regards to the #metoo movement. Pretty sure the #metoo movement wanted nothing to do with the Clintons!

Haha! One would think not.

More than that, didn't they beat Hillary Clinton in 2016? Like, Trump beat her, right? Even if I were a Trumper, why should H. Clinton occupy any real estate in my mind?

Quote: Mission146

The Ramirez claim basically amounts to him whipping out his cock-a-doodle-doo at a college party over thirty years ago. I mean, come on. Even if you accept that claim as 100% true, which it could very well be, does one drunken moment at a college party really have any bearing on his ability to adjudicate?

Same people that say it mattered do not mind Obama shoving cocaine up his nose in college and bragging about it. Same ones do not mind Bill Clinton saying how he loathed the military.

Really, who cares about college party behavior.

Quote: Mission146

Haha! One would think not.

More than that, didn't they beat Hillary Clinton in 2016? Like, Trump beat her, right? Even if I were a Trumper, why should H. Clinton occupy any real estate in my mind?

Well, Hillary did all she could to destroy the reputation of #metoo women who were a threat to her via Bill so she comes to mind.

Quote: Mission146

It's okay if you have something that's even remotely provable. Maybe something with even the tiniest shred of evidence aside from the claim itself. Even if I lean towards believing that something happened to Blasey Ford, she's lacking for so many details that you'd almost have to have blind faith. It certainly doesn't disprove her story, but it doesn't help that the account lacks a specific place or date---therefore making an alibi impossible.

The Ramirez claim basically amounts to him whipping out his cock-a-doodle-doo at a college party over thirty years ago. I mean, come on. Even if you accept that claim as 100% true, which it could very well be, does one drunken moment at a college party really have any bearing on his ability to adjudicate?

Although, I guess SCOTUS might be where the line is drawn. None of the accusers seemed overly concerned with him being a Federal Judge.

I'm not even getting into the Swetnick stuff because not only is it ridiculous, but not saying anything (at the time) about what she claimed was going on would essentially make her an accessory to it.

I'm not saying anyone has to be convinced, it's that I'm just not concerned that we need to treat anyone with kid gloves for these powerful, important positions. If anything, the opposite. If you can't stand the heat... etc., don't be a judge.

In some cases a weak claim might encourage someone with a stronger one to come forward.

Quote: rxwine

I'm not saying anyone has to be convinced, it's that I'm just not concerned that we need to treat anyone with kid gloves for these powerful, important positions. If anything, the opposite. If you can't stand the heat... etc., don't be a judge.

In some cases a weak claim might encourage someone with a stronger one to come forward.

Fair point as to the second paragraph.

To the first paragraph, in criminal and civil law, for most things, there exists a statute of limitations for precisely this reason. I understand we're not dealing with criminal or civil law here, but I don't think you want to set a standard by which anyone can make any accusation (that has no evidence aside from the bare assertion) with relative impunity.

It basically creates the exact opposite of a, "Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," standard of proof. At least, it almost did. The question almost became something more like, "Do you think there is any reasonable possibility that this event happened as described? If so, then we must not put this guy on the SCOTUS bench."

Another thing that I want to point out is that I don't blame Blasey Ford for lacking certain details...I don't know that I'd necessarily expect her to remember the exact date. I'd think she would be able to specify where it happened, but forgetting is understandable or even, 'Blocking the memory," after that much time.

The question for me comes down to allegations of that nature having at least some shred of evidence to back them up. Anything. For instance, I could understand why she wouldn't go to the police out of humiliation, but if she had, and there were a police report to back up her claims...fair enough, we should probably go ahead and not have this guy on the SCOTUS.

The Ramirez thing, in my opinion, could be 100% true and I wouldn't consider it disqualifying. "Oh my God, I'm a good little Catholic girl who didn't know this kind of stuff went on at these college parties, even though I went there and got totally trashed all the same. I wasn't going to even see a penis until I got married." I mean, come on. I could puke in my mouth. If someone is REALLY that innocent and naive, what the hell are they even doing at a drinking party? I'm not, "Blaming the victim," because I don't really consider her a victim of anything...it reads like normal college party shenanigans to me...other than that he perhaps stuck his penis directly in her face, but that's not provable and some of her witnesses deny that aspect.

Reparations for Slavery is now Fact ... technically, reparations for past discrimination in farm programs

Snuck into the covid bill that just passed was a 4 billion dollars for Black farmers ... that's billion with a B. You can just google 'black farmers' in google news to see the story. It's hard to find one critical of it, amazing.

that non-Black farmers need not apply [that's at least implied] is utterly amazing to me, never thought I'd see this

Quote: odiousgambit

Reparations for Slavery is now Fact

Snuck into the covid bill that just passed was a 4 billion dollars for Black farmers ... that's billion with a B. You can just google 'black farmers' in google news to see the story

that non-Black farmers need not apply [that's at least implied] is utterly amazing to me, never thought I'd see this

Okay, so this is actually targeted relief and is not reparations for slavery.

Essentially, what happened is that the USDA made loans to small(ish) farmers in the 80's and 90's, possibly even prior to that, but it was discrimination in the 80's and 90's that was the subject matter of the Pigford Settlement. Anyway, the USDA made loans to financially stabilize the farmers, but these loans were largely based on the credit scores and history of the applicants which, at this point, generally favored white applicants due to some of the laws in the South (not to mention active discrimination by the banks themselves) being such that many of the black farmers didn't have a credit history and were therefore denied. Many were directly TOLD they were being denied due to being black...which wasn't always the word used.

It's important to note that the USDA admitted that black farmers were specifically discriminated against, not just in these loans, but even in policies that were created as part of the New Deal going all the way back to the Great Depression. What you're talking about then is discrimination by an Executive arm of the Federal Government...not about the actual act of slavery.

The result of this nearly century of various policies that were detrimental to African-owned farms was that they dropped by something like 98% from the beginning of the 20th century to sometime in the early nineties.

Anyway, the Pigford Settlement has been decided to be insufficient, and more than that, was underfunded. Additionally, it is claimed that the process of giving notice to impacted parties (who had a fixed amount of time to make their claim for their portion of the settlement) was inadequate. More than that, in order to receive a portion of the settlement, the impacted party had to demonstrate that they experienced discrimination AND complained about it.

Right or wrong, (I have no opinion as I barely know anything about it) the reparations are definitely NOT for slavery, but for discriminatory actions taken against black farmers by the Federal Government for nearly a century (well after slavery had ended) that has caused these farmers to be so situated.

Again, right or wrong, the USDA stepping in to help farmers with loans or other forms of relief is not an uncommon thing as the continued ability to operate serves the general public good (we all eat) and the fact that the USDA unequivocally admitted to engaging in discriminatory practices. Even when they did approve loans for black farmers, they admitted to often pushing their disbursements to the end of the line after growing season had already finished.

Quote: odiousgambit

that non-Black farmers need not apply [that's at least implied] is utterly amazing to me, never thought I'd see this

Why? The feds have set aside project bids for non-whites for almost two generations now. What I do not believe is how so few people see how blatant it is.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: odiousgambit

that non-Black farmers need not apply [that's at least implied] is utterly amazing to me, never thought I'd see this

Why? The feds have set aside project bids for non-whites for almost two generations now. What I do not believe is how so few people see how blatant it is.

I'd say to see my above post. The USDA took actions, though not strictly codified, to deliberately benefit white farmers over black ones for nearly a century.

As far as other stuff along those lines, I have no opinion on it as I don't know what you mean and would have to research each matter specifically to even begin to form an opinion.