Reply to Maine

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Maine"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous]I am genuinely trying to understand how Democrats that wholeheartedly supported Ford can continue to support Platner and even worse, attack the woman who came forward so viciously. It seems completely hypocritical. [/quote]

I just wrote a blog post about this. Lyndsey Fifield herself started an organization aimed at discrediting Christine Blasey Ford. This was just a couple of years after Fifield says that she had been in an abusive relationship. If her relationship with Platner was as abusive as she says, she doesn't appear to have gained much empathy from it. Regardless, as I wrote in my blog, it is reasonable to have the same doubts about Fifield as Fifield clearly had about Blasey Ford.

[/quote]

I read your blog post.

I do not have a problem with having the same doubts. I actually think a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted in a lot of stories like these. In other words, it’s reasonable to doubt both Fifield and Ford. Alternatively, it’s reasonable to believe both. For what it’s worth, I believe both, on balance. I think given the other information about Platner, particularly his disturbing misogynist posts on Reddit, it’s more likely than not that Fifield’s story is true. I thought the same about Kavanaugh: that while there was some questionable parts of Ford’s testimony and some of the other circumstantial evidence provided, on balance she was credible. I can also see people reasonably going the other direction.

But what I am saying is that people do not have the same doubts. They are picking who they believe solely based on their partisan preferences. And that is both disappointing and inconsistent. If someone’s decision to believe a story of assault, abuse, etc. is predicated on the political party of the accused, that’s really unfortunate. And I think it’s sad to watch Democrats who loudly supported Ford twist themselves into knots to justify support for Platner.

The objective body of evidence in both cases is approximately the same. If anything, there is more circumstantial evidence against Platner (the misogynist Reddit posting history, the contemporaneous texts, the Nazi tattoo that at very best shows an impulsive idealization of violence, his age at the time). But, on balance, it’s about the same body of evidence, with about the same level of corroborating evidence.

You seem to be saying that because Fifield raised doubts about Kavanaugh years ago and lobbied against Ford, she should be provided with less credence now. But that logic means that Ford should have been disbelieved because she raised her allegations through Eshoo and Feinstein. In other words, both allegations are tainted by overtly political overtones. You can pick how you interpret that political background, but it’s inconsistent to discredit one but not the other.

Finally, I’ll leave you with this. More is going to come out about Platner. He simply has too much of a history of low impulse control. The presence on Kik alone as an adult man should be a warning. Democrats in Maine may decide that they want to act like MAGA did when the Access Hollywood tape came out. But to be clear, that is exactly what they are doing. [/quote]

There is a critical component that you seem to be ignoring. When it comes to Kavanaugh and Platner, there are moral considerations and there are political considerations. Kavanaugh was being considered for a lifetime appointment. If those making the decision (members of the Senate) got it wrong, they were stuck with their mistake. With Platner, voters will be able to revisit their decision in six years. Therefore, even if we agree that both Kavanaugh and Platner are equally morally compromised (and I don't necessarily agree with that), there are pragmatic reasons for supporting Platner but not Kavanaugh.

Consider that in the wider picture there are others involved who we also have to consider, namely Trump and Collins. Collins apparently did not find Blasey Ford convincing. But I suspect that she will find Fifield to be believable. If so, she is equally guilty of the same inconsistency about which you are complaining. Why would you support any action to enable her in such circumstances? About Trump, I don't think anything has to be said. Whatever moral failings Platner may have, they are dwarfed by Trump's. I think that it is easily argued that electing a morally-compromised Platner is, on balance, morally better than electing a Trump-enabler and further empowering Trump.

Plenty of morally-compromised Democrats have been elected and done great things for the world. John F. Kennedy had his faults and Ted Kennedy had considerably more. Lyndon B. Johnson would probably be cancelled these days, but he made important contributions to civil rights. Even Bill Clinton had considerably more baggage than Platner.

In a perfect world, Platner might not be the guy for whom to vote for. But we don't live in a perfect world. We live a world where the choices are Platner and Collins. 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics