Damaging legitimacy is very small. They said that with Thomas too. Risk he’s subject to bribes is insignificant. The risks associated w/ dropping him based on a clear political hit job are greater than the above, too many to list.
-
-
I think you're underestimating how much has changed since Thomas. Not least because of Garland. You also seem to be assuming that Kavanaugh is definitely innocent, when the only honest answer is don't know. If he did it, it's not a hit job, but a genuine accusation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Haha you underestimated my move ;). I made the point about the risk of dems using dirty tricks like this to derail any nom. You said “I heard that about Thomas.” Right, so I put my concern back on the table. On Kav, I’m not sure you understand how weak “I don’t know” is.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It's the only honest answer. How can you or I or any other outside observers know with anything approaching certainty?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
We know very little “approaching certainty.” So that’s uninteresting. In terms of probabilities, I put it very low. But if “knowing approaching certainty” is your standard, then guess what, you don’t know if Pizzagate is false. lol
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
In terms of probabilities that Blasey Ford is telling the truth, you think it's very low? Do I understand that correctly?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Then I think we've reached agree-to-disagree territory. But I'm curious, why do you think that? Do you think she made it up, or just that she's mistaken? Based on what?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, we may be. But it’s interesting because I think your post isn’t *really* about risk, but value weighting or prioritizing. So I don’t think your standard works as s way forward. Maybe someplace I can lay out my reasons but would take more than one tweet
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
That's fair. I meant the NatSec comparison as an analogy, not an identical comparison.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
And, just in case you don't know, we're happy to publish stuff in Arc that disagrees with one of the editors (provided it meets the usual standards of reason, evidence, and quality, of course).
-
-
Yes, I saw that with the recent relativism piece :)
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.