Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There is so much to dislike about your answer, but let's start with this: You haven't established that it was "character assassination", rather than a rather honest assessment of character, in any of these cases... and I think the evidence strongly leans against you.

The second issue is that people deserve a hearing after nomination -- failing to give Garland one was intensely disrespectful. If you don't want to face the possible heat of a hearing, you don't accept the nomination.

There was nothing mild about it. It was Mitch McConnell playing politics and overturning established precedent for the sake of a political result. It has not been forgotten, and it will get paid back, with interest.



> and I think the evidence strongly leans against you.

What evidence, exactly? In the case of Kavanaugh there was literally none beyond mere accusations (including some that were entertained on mainstream news that ended up being exposed as fraudulent).

> If you don't want to face the possible heat of a hearing, you don't accept the nomination.

You are right that politics is always going to require a thick skin. But platforming baseless, sensationalized accusations of criminal conduct (the kind that would never turn into actual charges) is the kind of thing that is going to prevent anyone with any kind of reputation worth protecting from seeking office. This seems like a bad equilibrium state.

> It has not been forgotten, and it will get paid back, with interest.

I'm sure Democratic politicians will use any excuse they can to capture more power, just as most all politicians do. But you are in no position to make such threats, and I am in no position to respond to them. We are just two people with different beliefs arguing on the internet. Let's focus on the arguments.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: