# Kavanaugh?



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Why do I feel compelled to shower after watching the news each day?

This entire thing is a complete fiasco on so many levels. 

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Clintotron (Mar 24, 2015)

I don’t watch the news. That’s how I conserve water.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

It's a fiasco all right.

This new Democratic strategy of weaponizing accusation is something which can (and will) backfire hard. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how things unfold, but however you slice it, politics has just become such an ugly arena; one shudders to imagine the kinds of people who will be attracted to it in the future.

I mulled over getting involved in politics many years ago (looking into a state senate run as a dipping-of-the-toe, as I had a few friends who were state senators, county commission chairmen, etc.)

I don't dodge many bullets, but that was one of them!

DH


----------



## ChrisRS (Sep 22, 2014)

As a matter of his profession, my son was taught the violence of action. We also now have have the violence of words. 

It is a shame that our complete lack of civil discourse will not allow us to get any closer to a better understanding of his background. I agree, nothing worth watching here.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Haven't watched the news for maybe a year, now. Don't have a TV. The few programs that I liked weren't worth the cost. Why have a TV?! The left is so greedy and narrow minded and abandoning the good of the past I got tire of watching the end of America. So many of the TV programs today are toooo immoral. Another reason to ditch the TV.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Why do I feel compelled to shower after watching the news each day?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


That's what Fox does to you.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

This BS all began back when then President Bill Clinton lied to the American people about his "not having had sex with that woman!" It's gotten to the point that any time a career politician's lips are moving, in all probability they (the career politicians) are lying. As a career military officer and as a civilian employee of the US Government, I was able to survive the background investigation(s) and seemingly unending screening process(es) required to acquire and maintain the highest levels of security clearances associated with my respective roles in government service for close to four decades.

I was a pretty good kid growing up and seemed to never get in any real trouble, but I'm here to tell you, I doubt I was as squeaky clean as Judge Kavanaugh during my years as a high school and college student. I have been twice approached and asked of my interest in running for public office and both times I declined...I would sooner face an enemy soldier's incoming fire, than to have to deal with the lies and incessant crap that might come out of a competing political candidates mouth! It would seem that Judge Kavanaugh has more guts than do I. I hope he makes it!


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> This BS all began back when then President Bill Clinton lied to the American people about his "not having had sex with that woman!" It's gotten to the point that any time a career politician's lips are moving, in all probability they (the career politicians) are lying. As a career military officer and as a civilian employee of the US Government, I was able to survive the background investigation(s) and seemingly unending screening process(es) required to acquire and maintain the highest levels of security clearances associated with my respective roles in government service for close to four decades.
> 
> I was a pretty good kid growing up and seemed to never get in any real trouble, but I'm here to tell you, I doubt I was as squeaky clean as Judge Kavanaugh during my years as a high school and college student. I have been twice approached and asked of my interest in running for public office and both times I declined...I would sooner face an enemy soldier's incoming fire, than to have to deal with the lies and incessant crap that might come out of a competing political candidates mouth! It would seem that Judge Kavanaugh has more guts than do I. I hope he makes it!


I think that the President lying to the American people began long before Clinton. Nixon was quite good at it. As were quite a few before him. And since.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

derum said:


> I think that the President lying to the American people began long before Clinton. Nixon was quite good at it. As were quite a few before him. And since.


My point in post #7 was not to establish when Presidents first lied to the American people, but rather when the basic nature if 'inter-party' interactions became consistently rabid in context.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

I regularly imagine moving to the Irish countryside. I doubt that I will but I keep wondering why not.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> My point in post #7 was not to establish when Presidents first lied to the American people, but rather when the basic nature if 'inter-party' interactions became consistently rabid in context.


I think it's been a simmering pot from the beginning. They didn't just get that way in the 21st century.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

I believe it's a 'Ruler' norm. Probably clear back to the Mesopotamians.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

If it wasn’t so maddening and stomach turning I would laugh. I’ve long though politics, for many, is where you go when you really can’t cut it doing anything else. The last two weeks have provided no evidence to disabuse me of that notion. 

It’s really hard to believe some of these people are senators, let alone graduating from law school. I have to think they don’t believe in their own crap and just putting on a show. 

“I believe her because she’s telling the truth” was one argument I heard. 

Also, when is someone in the media going to mention lying about being in Viet Nam every time Richard Blumenthal’s name is mentioned. 

I think we need to realize that, for the most part, the Senate and most of our elected officials are people who have never really worked a day in their life.


----------



## ChrisRS (Sep 22, 2014)

SG_67 said:


> If it wasn't so maddening and stomach turning I would laugh. I've long though politics, for many, is where you go when you really can't cut it doing anything else. The last two weeks have provided no evidence to disabuse me of that notion.
> 
> It's really hard to believe some of these people are senators, let alone graduating from law school. I have to think they don't believe in their own crap and just putting on a show.
> 
> ...


I could listen to an argument that they "worked". I don't believe the majority of them have ever been responsible for a profit or loss or generating a product that resulted in fieldwork, engineering, construction, manufacturing.

Kavanaugh either, for that matter. I supported his initial application, but how did he accumulate and then dispose of that baseball debt? Just another data point.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

ChrisRS said:


> I could listen to an argument that they "worked". *I don't believe the majority of them have ever been responsible for a profit or loss or generating a product that resulted in fieldwork, engineering, construction, manufacturing.*


Otherwise known as work.



> Kavanaugh either, for that matter. I supported his initial application, but how did he accumulate and then dispose of that baseball debt? Just another data point.


Except that he's a judge. That's an actual job where one has to think, reason and produce a product. This goes for all judges, regardless of political affiliation. I maintain the right to deny this same claim of judges sitting in Chicago municipal courts or Cook County circuit court judges.

https://abovethelaw.com/2012/11/legally-insane-judge-wins-re-election-in-chicago/


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

I have no doubt that this guy is a strong jurist and a smart person. If even one of the (soon to be up to) three women is being truthful, he's also a liar, which is a huge problem. Are these women being truthful? Might be worth finding out.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

jts287 said:


> I have no doubt that this guy is a strong jurist and a smart person. If even one of the (soon to be up to) three women is being truthful, he's also a liar, which is a huge problem. Are these women being truthful? Might be worth finding out.


I agree. But should we throw out the rules of evidence and due process? The presumption of innocence?

Mob justice and the arbitrary application of laws seem to be the flavor of the day for the dems.

Here's an interesting essay from 1982 by William Safire:

https://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/30/opinion/essay-presumption-of-guilt.html


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> I agree. But should we throw out the rules of evidence and due process? The presumption of innocence?
> 
> Mob justice and the arbitrary application of laws seem to be the flavor of the day for the dems.
> 
> ...


Interesting that the house called for an investigation and the FBI were brought in.
That's all that needs to happen with Kavavanaugh.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

I think the Repubs are trying to ram him through because they know what's coming in Nov, and I think the Dems are trying to drag this out for the same reasons. Obviously neither side is thinking about the people they're using as pawns in this exercise, but hurrying the process along when the term is a lifetime appointment is the greater of two evils here, in my view.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

*TERM LIMITS







*


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

SG_67 said:


> I agree. But should we throw out the rules of evidence and due process? The presumption of innocence?
> 
> Mob justice and the arbitrary application of laws seem to be the flavor of the day for the dems.
> 
> ...


I take issue with Safire's belief that the shadows are full of hatchet-faced women looking for a chance to sink the reputation of an upright public figure. Take the first of K's alleged victims; a tenured prof with a family. She claims death threats have forced her into hiding. Why thrust herself into the political crucible over lies? I certainly don't know what really happened, but my gut tells me all this smoke is leading somewhere...


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Has Kavanaugh been getting death threats, too? Why hasn't that been brought up? "...
but my gut tells me all this smoke is leading somewhere..." applies here to. It is rather suspicious, these accusations, being they should have been brought up towards the beginning, not the end. Waiting until they are almost ready to vote smells dishonest. The democrats are proud of the Kennedy family and Clinton regardless of the out right sex they had far outside of marriage and haven't thrown these out of their praise. Byrd was high in the KKK and he is still one of their hero's. How many blacks was he involved killing? He was one of the bad old days. Kavanaugh is far better than any of the famous Kennedy's and Bill Clinton and Byrd. The democrats need to come clean. Fat chance that's going to happen. If Kavanaugh sinned and walked away from his youthful immorality decades ago that is far better than the democrats top hero's, who never did quit immorality. Somehow the democrats couldn't be honest and vote for Bork.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

jts287 said:


> I think the Repubs are trying to ram him through because they know what's coming in Nov, and I think the Dems are trying to drag this out for the same reasons. Obviously neither side is thinking about the people they're using as pawns in this exercise, but hurrying the process along when the term is a lifetime appointment is the greater of two evils here, in my view.


They're not "ramming through" anything. A justice retired and then POTUS nominated a candidate.

I wonder if anyone for a moment has considered that she may just be wrong or be nuts.

Interesting how the people she claims had first hand knowledge of any of this are saying that they either weren't there or weren't aware.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> Interesting that the house called for an investigation and the FBI were brought in.
> That's all that needs to happen with Kavavanaugh.


I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the FBI in such matters.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

I am no angel, that's for certain.

I went to University and belonged to a fraternity in the 80's when the "Animal House" lifestyle was something young Southern men hoped to attain. I blame John Belushi!

We drank a lot, made a general nuisance of ourselves, and did a number of really foolish things, however, we never even remotely considered assaulting women because that isn't how my fellow DTDs rolled. It wasn't on our radar no matter how drunk we became or how stupid we acted.

The women we hung with were hard partying wild cats who would as soon sock a man in the groin and gouge his eyes out as to allow things to get out of hand. I nicknamed them "Lots Daughters". 

They scared me, so I eventually married one for self protection.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Well, if Kavanaugh didn't rape her, which one of you men did?


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

jts287 said:


> I take issue with Safire's belief that the shadows are full of hatchet-faced women looking for a chance to sink the reputation of an upright public figure. Take the first of K's alleged victims; a tenured prof with a family. She claims death threats have forced her into hiding. Why thrust herself into the political crucible over lies? I certainly don't know what really happened, but my gut tells me all this smoke is leading somewhere...


When referring to my guts to make judgments typically better left to a review based on my experience and intellect, I say I am referring to my "Stomach Jesus".

For example, "Stomach Jesus says put $500 on the Braves to win the Series!".

I tend to keep Stomach Jesus well away from questions relating to why do women do what they do.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

jts287 said:


> I take issue with Safire's belief that the shadows are full of hatchet-faced women looking for a chance to sink the reputation of an upright public figure. Take the first of K's alleged victims; a tenured prof with a family. She claims death threats have forced her into hiding. Why thrust herself into the political crucible over lies? I certainly don't know what really happened, but my gut tells me all this smoke is leading somewhere...


I don't think she's making it up. I think she really believes. But what if she does not remember it exactly as it was or it is a figment of her imagination. These revelations came to her some 30 years after the incident is said to have taken place. There is a large body of evidence that has shown repressed memory to be at the very least inaccurate.

She's made claims regarding witnesses who have come forward and said they were unaware of such things and denying that they were even there.

Does the Judge have any rights here? Is he allowed any presumption of innocence? This really is about as close to a Salem Witch Trial or a McCarthy hearing in terms of the spirit of the dialogue as one can get. At least with the McCarthy hearings, one may argue the tactics but there were real communists in government.

Chris *****, senator from Delaware said that the burden of proof lies with Kavanaugh to show that he didn't do it!

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/25/chris-*****-burden-proof-lies-brett-kavanaugh-prov/

In other words, Judge Kavanaugh must prove that he is not in league with the devil. This is positively absurd and reflective of medieval justice!

I'm all for letting the accuser have her say. That's how we do it here. That's why we're not savages. Let her put forth her testimony and let her produce whatever evidence she has. Then let him present his defense.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Put it this way, the reason the left is screaming so loudly and resorting to bullying is because it’s all they have. The facts in this case don’t align with their hopes. If they did, they’d sit back and just enjoy the show. Instead THEY are the show. And what a tired plot it is!


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

Then you have Cramer from ND arguing that even if the claims are truthful, they shouldn't necessarily be disqualifying. Stomach Jesus tells me many political officeholders/seekers have a sociopathic tendency to retain/gain power by most any means. I'm hesitant to put stock in much of what either side says.

I have to side with the Dems here, but for different reasons. Congress need to pump the brakes here and fully vet this guy; the stakes are too high not to do so. The Repubs erred by not getting out in front and addressing it long before the Dems even got wind of it. After they subverted the process to kill Garland's nomination, they had to have known the Dems were going to dig into anyone Trump nominates. I don't know who is being truthful here, but he can't be elevated until he's been thoroughly investigated. This isn't a criminal trial, there's no presumption of innocence/guilt, no elevated burden of proof, etc. We have two accusers, with Avenatti claiming he has another.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

jts287 said:


> Then you have Cramer from ND arguing that even if the claims are truthful, they shouldn't necessarily be disqualifying. Stomach Jesus tells me many political officeholders/seekers have a sociopathic tendency to retain/gain power by most any means. I'm hesitant to put stock in much of what either side says.
> 
> I have to side with the Dems here, but for different reasons. Congress need to pump the brakes here and fully vet this guy; the stakes are too high not to do so. The Repubs erred by not getting out in front and addressing it long before the Dems even got wind of it. After they subverted the process to kill Garland's nomination, they had to have known the Dems were going to dig into anyone Trump nominates. I don't know who is being truthful here, but he can't be elevated until he's been thoroughly investigated. This isn't a criminal trial, there's no presumption of innocence/guilt, no elevated burden of proof, etc. We have two accusers, with Avenatti claiming he has another.


He was vetted. Over and over again. Nothing about this process is rushed so I'm not sure where we're getting this.

Just curious; does it bother you at all that there are no corroborating witnesses and those she has claimed knew about it as a matter of first hand knowledge are denying it and denying even being aware of it? Does that in any way cast doubt for you?

Politics aside, I wonder how someone would feel if a woman came out of your past and publicly accused you of rape? Without any evidence or corroboration? While this may not be a criminal trial, there still has to be some burden of proof. Otherwise, I'm going to go to thr NYT and accuse chuck schumer of raping me. Oh, and Elizabeth warren was watching it all happen.

Diane Feinstein sat on this for nearly 2 months. Then it was leaked to the press. She was so concerned and so shocked by it that who did she tell? No one. Not even the chair of the committee; "hey chuck, I've got something here. It may be something or it may be nothing. Let's have the FBI quietly look into it." Nope! Nothing.

Let her speak tomorrow. Let her present her case and let her be questioned. Then let him present his case. That's all. What's so wrong with that?

As for the FBI investigating it, she doesn't even know the details so how are they supposed to investigate it?


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the FBI in such matters.


In the article you quoted, Congress called for an FBI investigation into allegations of a sexual nature.
Apparently, Congress has a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the FBI in such matters too.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> In the article you quoted, Congress called for an FBI investigation into allegations of a sexual nature.
> Apparently, Congress has a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the FBI in such matters too.


These were fresh allegations with witnesses. There was evidence as to place, dates and other facts off which to go.

It's not that it's a sexual question. How are they supposed to investigate something from 36 years ago when the prime witness is not even aware of any of the facts?

I once ran into Ruth Bader Ginsberg and heard her use the "N" word. I can't really remember where it was or when, but I remember. It happened about 10 years ago I think and I had suppressed it, but last week I was playing scrabble and was trying to build a word off of an N and it came back to me.

(Lest anyone lose his mind, that last paragraph is satire).


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> These were fresh allegations with witnesses. There was evidence as to place, dates and other facts off which to go.
> 
> It's not that it's a sexual question. How are they supposed to investigate something from 36 years ago when the prime witness is not even aware of any of the facts?
> 
> ...


They are investigators. That's what they do. 
If they come to a dead end, fine, they tried. But how will anyone ever know unless they actually perform an investigation?
If no investigation is carried out now, Kavanaugh is tainted, and at some point in the future this will all be brought up again, and if the Dems are in power you can bet that there will be an investigation.
Get it over with now and put it to bed once and for all.
The GOP needs to get its head out of someone's arse and the Dem's need to stop making themselves look like sharks at a feeding frenzy.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> They are investigators. That's what they do.
> If they come to a dead end, fine, they tried. But how will anyone ever know unless they actually perform an investigation?
> If no investigation is carried out now, Kavanaugh is tainted, and at some point in the future this will all be brought up again, and if the Dems are in power you can bet that there will be an investigation.
> Get it over with now and put it to bed once and for all.
> The GOP needs to get its head out of someone's arse and the Dem's need to stop making themselves look like sharks at a feeding frenzy.


Sorry, but how is it tainted? That's a straw man. Let's tie down the FBI every time someone is nominated. Someone should come forward and claim they were raped anytime someone is nominated for anything.

You mentioned Avenatti. Give me a break. They guy is a bottom feeder par excellence. He's trying to keep himself relevant.

If you had first hand knowledge of a "rape ring" consisting of Kavanaugh and his pals Michael Avenatti is the first person you'd call? This wouldn't have come up in other background investigations?


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

I am still waiting for it to come out where Ruth Bader Ginsburg inappropriately touched one of her classmates in 1903.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

SG_67 said:


> He was vetted. Over and over again. Nothing about this process is rushed so I'm not sure where we're getting this.
> 
> Just curious; does it bother you at all that there are no corroborating witnesses and those she has claimed knew about it as a matter of first hand knowledge are denying it and denying even being aware of it? Does that in any way cast doubt for you?
> 
> ...


Clearly the Republicans didn't vet very well because as of right now we have two accusers. If Feinstein kept this lady in her back pocket for months, shame on Republicans for not knowing or not being proactive in addressing. My take is that the alleged victim wasn't sure she wanted her name out there (understandable, given the death threats she's since claimed to receive). Was Feinstein's purpose self-serving? Wouldn't surprise me. The motives for both sides are largely irrelevant to where we are now: staring down a lifetime appointment to the most powerful court in the country for someone who is alleged to have attempted sexual assault.

As far as corroboration goes, you have three people alleged to have been present: the two involved and the judge's friend, who has refused to testify, has been in hiding, and has a questionable history of his own. I'm neither a candidate for judicial appointment nor a public figure, so my responses to charges like that are irrelevant, wholly.

There are Congressional Republicans who have waivered in their support of Kavanaugh (Collins and Murkowski most prominently), and still Grassley wants to hurry this along before the majority shifts. Can't blame him. Shumer wants to slow it down til after the majority shifts to sink this candidate. Can't blame him either. Political motives are (as above) irrelevant.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> Sorry, but how is it tainted? That's a straw man. Let's tie down the FBI every time someone is nominated. Someone should come forward and claim they were raped anytime someone is nominated for anything.
> 
> You mentioned Avenatti. Give me a break. They guy is a bottom feeder par excellence. He's trying to keep himself relevant.
> 
> If you had first hand knowledge of a "rape ring" consisting of Kavanaugh and his pals Michael Avenatti is the first person you'd call? This wouldn't have come up in other background investigations?


I didn't mention Avenatti.
I didn't say "it" is tainted, I said Kavanaugh. Obviously a percentage of the population thinks there is something in the accusations. 
I don't know, that's why I am for further investigation.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

derum said:


> I didn't mention Avenatti.
> I didn't say "it" is tainted, I said Kavanaugh. Obviously a percentage of the population thinks there is something in the accusations.
> I don't know, that's why I am for further investigation.


I mentioned him, and he's revealed the third alleged victim.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...ee-reviewing-avenatti-claim-against-kavanaugh


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

It has been stated prior in this exchange, but why anyone but a total nut job would run for public office in this day and age is beyond me. Work to better ones community by volunteering at church or a community center. Donate money or tithe, but why would anyone pure of motive and of decent character lie with these dogs in an attempt to hold office? Who needs the aggravation?

It should almost appear that one self disqualifies by presenting as a candidate for public office. Anyone who wants the job must be a complete loon. Running for office appears to be the equivalent of mental disorder best left to deranged geriatrics, religious fanatics, race baiters, SJWs, and conspiracy theorists.

Our country is in the midst of a national nervous breakdown.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Mr.D (Aug 2, 2015)

SG_67 said:


> She's made claims regarding witnesses who have come forward and said they were unaware of such things and denying that they were even there.


Sounds like she is totally convincing...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Mr.D said:


> Sounds like she is totally convincing...


Sadly, in the eyes of some it is!

People are so blinded by political hatred and animus that all common sense flies out the window.

The reasoning skills of a 4 year old reign supreme.

Trump is right; the dems know this is BS but it's all they have to go on so it's best to make of it what they can.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

jts287 said:


> I mentioned him, and he's revealed the third alleged victim.
> 
> https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...ee-reviewing-avenatti-claim-against-kavanaugh


The 21 year old who attended high school parties with kids she didn't go to school with?

Is this the same woman who repeatedly attended parties where she knew mass rapes were occurring and continued to go back until she was raped?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

jts287 said:


> Clearly the Republicans didn't vet very well because as of right now we have two accusers. If Feinstein kept this lady in her back pocket for months, shame on Republicans for not knowing or not being proactive in addressing.


Perhaps, or it could be that she's nuts and making it up. Hard to find evidence of something that never happened. Again, a distinct possibility. At least an error in memory. A repressed memory that comes back some 30 years later? And the only fact she is sure of is Brett Kavanaugh? Others refuting being there or having knowledge of it?

By the way, the reported witnesses did give sworn testimony, under penalty of perjury, to the committee so this business of not doing it under oath doesn't hold water.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^It would be interesting and I suspect pretty enlightening to scrutinize the backgrounds of those coming forward with such "vintage" grievances against Judge Kavanaugh as closely as they seem to be inclined to examine the Judge. I doubt any would make the cut as a viable witness. Anyone choosing to delay reporting a perceived affront for decades, does not a viable/believable witness make!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I used to think that _Deus Ex Machina _was purely a literary device.

I see now that it is also a political tactic.

One not even go into anything regarding the character of the accusers; that would shift the focus away from the absurd and, frankly, bizarre nature of their claims. These claims cannot stand on their own merit. End of story.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

SG_67 said:


> The 21 year old who attended high school parties with kids she didn't go to school with?
> 
> Is this the same woman who repeatedly attended parties where she knew mass rapes were occurring and continued to go back until she was raped?


Teens and young adults should go to parties only if everyone else there is a classmate? Sounds like a hoot. I went to an all-male high school.

I wasn't at those parties (I didn't go to school with them, after all). I'll differ from you here by not making value judgments until both sides have spoken. Back to my whole overriding thesis that there should be no Congressional vote until these claims have been investigated.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

SG_67 said:


> Perhaps, or it could be that she's nuts and making it up. Hard to find evidence of something that never happened. Again, a distinct possibility. At least an error in memory. A repressed memory that comes back some 30 years later? And the only fact she is sure of is Brett Kavanaugh? Others refuting being there or having knowledge of it?
> 
> By the way, the reported witnesses did give sworn testimony, under penalty of perjury, to the committee so this business of not doing it under oath doesn't hold water.


Mr. Kavanaugh has given sworn testimony as well. If any of these claims prove true, that would make him a 'former' sexual predator and 'current' perjurer. I'll hold off on assigning titles until all sides have been given the chance to speak.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

SG_67 said:


> I used to think that _Deus Ex Machina _was purely a literary device.
> 
> I see now that it is also a political tactic.
> 
> One not even go into anything regarding the character of the accusers; that would shift the focus away from the absurd and, frankly, bizarre nature of their claims. These claims cannot stand on their own merit. End of story.


Who is arguing that the claims stand on their own merit? I (and hopefully most others) want the vote delayed until these accusations can be investigated.

I hope you don't take this as a personal attack (even though it kind of is), but it terrifies me as an American that you (and probably scores of others) are eager to dismiss these claims whole cloth because they came 'too late' and portray your guy in a bad light. To reiterate my Stomach Jesus intuition from a million posts ago, SOMETHING is going on. It is undemocratic to hustle this candidate through without fully investigating these claims.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I don’t take it personally in the least bit. 

It has been investigated. It will be fleshed out today (hopefully). 

Please tell me how or what an investigation will look like in this case. 

The so called “witnesses” have all come forth and said they have no knowledge of such a thing. 

One investigates based on leads and evidence. Where is the evidence? Is there anything credible in these claims? 

What if this same standard were applied to everything. Should we investigate the existence of big foot before wholesale dismissing the notion of a sasquatch?


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^It would be interesting and I suspect pretty enlightening to scrutinize the backgrounds of those coming forward with such "vintage" grievances against Judge Kavanaugh as closely as they seem to be inclined to examine the Judge. I doubt any would make the cut as a viable witness. Anyone choosing to delay reporting a perceived affront for decades, does not a viable/believable witness make!


The first accuser is a tenured psychology prof in n. California. I don't know much about the second. The third (Avenatti) apparently holds/held various government clearances.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

jts287 said:


> Mr. Kavanaugh has given sworn testimony as well. If any of these claims prove true, that would make him a 'former' sexual predator and 'current' perjurer. I'll hold off on assigning titles until all sides have been given the chance to speak.


I think it's very fair to view it in that manner.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

jts287 said:


> Teens and young adults should go to parties only if everyone else there is a classmate? Sounds like a hoot. I went to an all-male high school.
> 
> I wasn't at those parties (I didn't go to school with them, after all). I'll differ from you here by not making value judgments until both sides have spoken. Back to my whole overriding thesis that there should be no Congressional vote until these claims have been investigated.


Again, what would this investigation look like?


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> Again, what would this investigation look like?


Perhaps they could start by questioning the only other person who was in the room. Under oath.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

derum said:


> Perhaps they could start by questioning the only other person who was in the room. Under oath.


He'll take the 5th, and understandably so.

I know the first accuser is testifying today. I would to see the other two do so next week. Who conducts, what is asked, how are outcomes decided? I don't know. I do know that Anita Hill has called today's hearing a disservice to the American people. To reiterate what I posted earlier, both political sides have goals here, and I'm not convinced either is interested solely in justice for the parties involved.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> Perhaps they could start by questioning the only other person who was in the room. Under oath.


According to her there was more than one.

And I do believe this will occur today as it has already.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I really doubt that Kavanaugh did anything remotely like what the accusers have accused. If so. How could the republicans have knowledge of something that didn't happen? No doubts the democrats are spreading more of their horse feathers.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Within the past year I have read articles that discussed the rise of web sites like Russia Today, (RT) and most recently, USA Really. (usareally.com)

These articles questioned how such obvious propaganda could become popular with the U.S.A.'s populace.

The confirmation hearings are yet another example of why so many Americans have such little trust in our government institutions.

Our society is hopelessly polarized and fragmented along every conceivable line. We are lost in the woods.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

The left and the right have very serious different wants today. The Conservative means stay basically the same. Progressive/Liberal means change change change. Which means that The P/L's aren't even what they used to stand for. One wants to build upon solid rock (a known foundation) and the other wants to build upon shifting sands. Over time the two parties have become extremely apart. And the left is driving the two apart even further and further and further....


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Lucido said:


> For one thing, the accusations are of sexual assault and gang-rape. It's pretty far from being merely an affront.
> 
> Many of the delayed accusations against Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, Roy Moore and every other sleazebag that has been involved in sexual harassment and assault have been found to be credible and have lead to police investigations and criminal prosecutions in some cases.
> 
> Just because the report is delayed does not in any way speak to it's credibility.


It's not that it's delayed. It's that she had no memory of it until 30 years later. It's that she had no details of the event. It's that the witnesses she claimed were either present or aware have all said they did not witness any such thing or were not aware.

Someone earlier mentioned that this is not a criminal case so the "reasonable doubt" standard had to give way to a preponderance of evidence standard. Even by that standard there's nothing.

At some point the emoting, hysterics, crying and the theatrics must bend toward the need for some evidence. Simply claiming that you're convinced is not enough. Heaven help us if that becomes our new standard.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Lucido said:


> For one thing, the accusations are of sexual assault and gang-rape. It's pretty far from being merely an affront.
> 
> Many of the delayed accusations against Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, Roy Moore and every other sleazebag that has been involved in sexual harassment and assault have been found to be credible and have lead to police investigations and criminal prosecutions in some cases.
> 
> Just because the report is delayed does not in any way speak to it's credibility.


And there's no chance that she's just nuts? None? This is not a remote possibility?

Some seem all too eager to accept her word as bond. That's she's telling the truth because, well, she's telling the truth and not lying. Or that she "sounds credible."

Under such lax standards of evidence I would think that almost anything could be brought up as being at least credible. So what if she's just nuts? Incorrect in her memory? The scientific literature on errors in memory is legion.

There's a guy on Michigan Ave on the weekends. He sits on a plantar with a sign that read "Rahm Emanuel is raping my wife". He just sits there and blows a whistle in a rhythmic manner. He's nuts, obviously. Rahm Emanuel is very likely NOT raping his wife.

I'm not suggesting the accuser is full blown whacky, but she certainly may have been traumatized and remembers inaccurately.

Is this even a remote possibility? Before we completely disintegrate this man, his family and his career?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Lucido said:


> There are three women that have come forward now. If you feel that details are lacking, try reading Julie Swetnick's statement.


Oh yes! The 21 year old who attends high school parties of kids who went to schools she didn't go to. Yes, of course.

The one who continued to go back to the same parties where gang 
rapes were de rigueur until she herself was raped. And amongst all of these gang rapes, by 15-16 year olds mind you, not a peep from anyone. Not one young girl going home crying or at least intoxcated to the point of not being aware of her surroundings, enough so that a parent would have noticed.

The same Julie Swetnick? The same Ms. Swetnick who had a restraining order against her by a former boyfriend? The same one in leaugue with a bottom feeding attorney? The same one who has refused to give testimony of such heinous actions?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Apparently Ms. Ford fibbed a bit regarding her fear of flying. She’s flown plenty of times. She was apparently seeking a delay. 

Interesting how one could so casually use the “trauma” of a most life changing and terrifying moment, A moment when she thought she would die, to gain some tactical advantage. 

Makes me wonder what else she’d be willing to lie about.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Lucido said:


> I suppose it was too much not to expect victim blaming from a diehard Republican. I mean, it was totally her fault for going to the party and allowing herself to be raped amirite?
> 
> As for bottom feeding - have you _seen _the current inhabitant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? The man you and your party backed for the highest office in the land? It doesn't get much lower than that.
> 
> I watched her testimony. She came across as an extremely credible witness. Contrast that with Kavanaugh's blustering and Trump's swivel-eyed rants about the Chinese loving him for his "very, very large a'brain" and it's not hard to see where the crazy is.


You can sink to making ad hominem attacks if you please. Let's stay with the facts.

Good liars can be very convincing. People that are delusional can also be very convincing. By your own standard, the current occupant of the White House should certainly make you appreciate that.

It's not about eloquence and passion. We are not Ancient Rome when the best orator won in court.

There is simply no evidence. What evidence she said exists in the form of witnesses has not materialized.

One can certainly be moved by passion and conviction. It's no substitute for evidence.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

From the New York Post:
Thursday's hearing of the century was filled with high drama and emotion - but failed to produce any new facts.

Christine Blasey Ford gave a powerful, heartfelt statement, standing firmly behind her memories of a horrific incident 36 years ago, when she was 15, leaving her traumatized and haunting her for decades.

Brett Kavanaugh followed with also-heartfelt testimony about his feelings of being wrongly accused, being the victim of "false, last-minute" smears and having his life, his family's life and his good name "destroyed."

Yes, Ford gave a vivid account of being abused by a drunken teenage Kavanaugh. Yet he made his own compelling point: *Her lifelong friend Leland Keyser, who Ford says was at the party that night, not only doesn't recall the party, she doesn't think she ever met Kavanaugh. That goes well beyond a "lack of corroboration."*

*Complicating the hearing was Democrats' insistence on playing politics. Sens. Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, in particular, spent their time feeding their 2020 hopes.*

Too bad: Another Democrat, Sen. Pat Leahy, prompted one of Ford's most powerful moments by asking about her most visceral memory of that night: It was her attackers' laughter, she said.

But most of the Democrats' time went for demanding an FBI investigation. This, when their own staffers have been madly investigating - and feeding tips to the media. (Indeed, it was some Democrat who forced Ford to abandon her anonymity by siccing the press on her.)

*And the senators know full well that an FBI probe would change nothing. *The bureau (as then-Sen. Joe Biden noted during the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings) doesn't make judgments about witnesses' guilt or credibility; it merely takes statements. And the Senate already has such sworn statements from the three witnesses Ford says were at the party: None has any memory of the event.

*Kavanaugh was absolutely right, and justified in his anger, over the politics Dems have played: waiting until the 11th hour to raise Ford's allegations and then calling for an FBI probe that would only serve to delay - all while he and his family suffered.*

He accused them, rightly, of "lying in wait" to pounce, after failing to "take me out" on the merits. It's a "national disgrace," he said, that could mar US politics for decades.

Senators must now weigh the testimony and *(scant) evidence* and decide for themselves. It's time to vote - and end the circus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In contemporary American politics, *emotion often trumps rationality. Democrats have long exhibited far more skill deploying sentiment as a political weapon.* And so, early on the Thursday, the prospects of Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court looked to be in trouble when Senate Judiciary Committee heard Christine Blasey Ford's moving testimony regarding the alleged sexual assault.

Ford's amiable disposition was often interrupted with the emotional cracking of her voice as she relayed the jarring specific accusation of an assault at a house party in early '80s. It was compelling testimony. *For the emotionalist, it almost surely cemented the credibility of the witness.*

*For the rationalist*, on the other hand, the same questions remained as were present going into the hearing. *Even the most rudimentary notion of due process puts the burden of proof on the accuser.* And while Ford claimed to have "100 percent" certitude that Kavanaugh had assaulted her, she also had zero-percent memory of anything that could substantiate that claim. She was still unable to offer a time or place or a single corroborating witness to her story. *Every witness Ford maintained had been at the suburban Maryland party where the alleged attack occurred has, under threat of felony, denied knowledge of the assault and stated they have no recollection of the get-together. This includes Mark Judge and Ford's longtime friend Leland Keyser.

(And YET Dr. Ford, "Was believable!!?")*

Moreover, Ford, we learned, had never mentioned sexual assault until Kavanaugh's name began appearing in the media as a prospective Supreme Court justice in 2012, and she never specifically cited the judge's name until very recently.

None of these realities prove that Ford is lying, of course. In many ways her story rang true. One can't expect a person to recall all the specifics of an event that transpired over 35 years ago. Yet the fact is that nothing substantively changed about the situation other than the perception of the viewer.

A bigger problem for Democrats, however, was that when Kavanaugh had his turn, he released his own gusher of emotion in the form of fury and exasperation. The tenor of his testimony, one that I can't recall seeing anything similar to in Washington, was demonstrative.

"You have replaced advice and consent with search and destroy," Kavanaugh accused Democrats, who had, to varying degrees, accused the judge of being "evil," of sexually assaulting a woman, of participating in gang-rapes and of being a blackout-prone alcoholic.

On his own emotional terms, Kavanaugh, who was forced to stop reading his statement several times to hold back tears, relayed the costs of those unsubstantiated accusations on his reputation, family and future. This included telling the committee how his daughter had asked the family to pray for Ford's wellbeing.

In the end, it was more defiance than anything else, as Kavanaugh promised that he would "not be intimidated out of this process."

  In the face of such forceful testimony, the Democrats' queries about Kavanaugh's teenage drinking games, jokes about flatulence and nicknames seemed trivial and unfair. Dazed liberals in the media and elsewhere were forced to coalesce around the idea that Kavanaugh's passion was "not a good look." After all, they claimed, a person must have the right temperament for the Supreme Court.

Yet, one imagines that millions of Americans found Kavanaugh's disposition perfect for man who was fighting to defend his name and family from unsubstantiated smears.

*In fact, in the end, both testimonies were probably tonally appropriate to the situation. And if a person concedes that Ford was credible witness, why wouldn't they consider Kavanaugh was just as trustworthy?

(UNLESS THIS REALLY IS JUST ABOUT POLITICS and Liberals who will do or say ANYTHING to keep a conservative majority from becoming reality on the U.S. Supreme Court.!) *

Is the determination based on gender? Partisanship? Both appeared to believe their accounts. *Both offered similarly passionate depositions. Shouldn't we now rely on the evidence - or lack of it - to make our determination?*

What we do know is that Kavanaugh's future hinges on the votes of a handful of moderate Republican senators, who are likely terrified of the electoral consequences of this choice. We're soon going to find out what happens when a sympathetic victim's account is pitted against the righteous anger of the falsely accused. Perhaps, in a rare display of rationality, these dueling passions will allow politicians to rely on presumption of innocence, process and evidence.

_David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of the forthcoming "First Freedom."

Apologies for such a long post,....._


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Lucido said:


> I suppose it was too much not to expect victim blaming from a diehard Republican.


How do you know she's a victim?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Lucido said:


> I suppose it was too much not to expect victim blaming from a diehard Republican.





vpkozel said:


> How do you know she's a victim?


Indeed. And no one is blaming her for anything. I'm simply suggesting that absent a claim by her that he did it, there is absolutely ZERO evidence of judge Kavanaugh having had anything to do with this.

Interesting how a simple claim automatically turns her into a victim and the accused becomes guilty.

The term "witch trial" is bandied about often in our culture but this truly is about as comparable an event. Trade out the suits and dresses and replace with pilgrim garb and you could have played out the Crucible.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

A couple of brief observations....

Who cottons to a Supreme Court Judge who blubbers on international tv while taking heat from a Senate committee? When facing a firing squad, a brief crack in composure when asking for a final cigarette is deemed acceptable. Shedding school boy tears at the feet of the (Very) Senior Senator from California might be considered by some as nauseating. The nominee potentially debased himself by allowing his emotions get the better of him. 

Playing the "who is a bigger victim" card will always be a losing move by a man in an XX vs. XY dispute. Humans are hard wired genetically and conditioned socially to protect one gender while demanding stoicism, sacrifice and fortitude from the other. A man playing the victim card is not viewed by society as taking his role of human sacrifice on the alter of female virtue seriously. 

Some argue that Ford came across as brittle, flaky and her vocal fry made her sound disturbingly girlish. It was virtually impossible to for anyone to call her out on her inconsistencies without appearing a terrible bully. It is generally accepted that she had no standard of proof to attain and there was no one on the committee dumb enough to directly challenge her and risk appearing like an brutal ape-man. By not coming unglued during her testimony, she might have carried the day. The early poll of conventional wisdom scores this a brilliant performance by Mrs. Ford and her legal team. 

There is no argument, one person in the hot seat is either delusional or a flat our liar. In this instance, this viewer couldn't tell who was what. Perhaps they are both recalling their memory with 100% accuracy?

The only sure outcome is that America and it's citizens can all justifiably claim the mantle of victim hood as a result of this miserable episode. The Senate did us a terrible disservice and every member of that committee should be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail. 

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I can appreciate your observations and you make some valid points, particularly about how as a society we are wired to give the benefit of the doubt to the woman and how difficult it is for men to navigate such waters. Your last point about the debasement of the process goes without saying. 

A few observations from my end:

1) BK was righteously upset. In front of the entire country, world for that matter, he has been pilloried and muddied. He has shown self restraint over the past few weeks but at some point, one needs to defend himself and his family. He did that and did it well. Yes, he became emotional but who wouldn’t and I don’t think anyone, except an extreme partisan whose mind was already made up would see it otherwise. 

He called people out directly and he was right to do so. Anyone on that panel thinking he would come out as meek and servile was disabused of that notion rather handily. 

2) Ms. Ford was sympathetic but also confused. She could not remember simple facts or memories from just a few months ago. We are to believe her about suppressed memories from 35 years ago? 

She also apparently lied about her so called fear of flying. In a most supreme moment of comedic irony, none other than Sen. Richard “killer of VC” Blumenthal cited the principle of "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus". Setting aside the sheer lack of self awareness on the part of Mr. Blumenthal, shall we subject Ms. Ford’s entire testimony and her memory recall to such scrutiny? I think it’s worth considering. 

3) our senate is made of mostly of imbeciles who would otherwise likely not amount to much in the real world.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Lucido said:


> For one thing, the accusations are of sexual assault and gang-rape. It's pretty far from being merely an affront.
> 
> Many of the delayed accusations against Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, Roy Moore and every other sleazebag that has been involved in sexual harassment and assault have been found to be credible and have lead to police investigations and criminal prosecutions in some cases.
> 
> Just because the report is delayed does not in any way speak to it's credibility.


Your words run a little fast and loose with the truth. You bring so many issues into play that have very little if anything to do with the case at hand. De Ford endured a trauma, I'll grant you that. However based on the statements of corroborating witnesses (given under the threat of penalties for perjury) that she named, her memories of the event that she reports are clearly flawed. Not faulting Dr Ford, but her words do not make Judge Kavanaugh a perpetrator! With regard to your concluding comment regarding the credibility of a delayed report, that my friend is a point on which we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

eagle2250 said:


> Your words run a little fast and loose with the truth. You bring so many issues into play that have very little if anything to do with the case at hand. De Ford endured a trauma, I'll grant you that. However based on the statements of corroborating witnesses (given under the threat of penalties for perjury) that she named, her memories of the event that she reports are clearly flawed. Not faulting Dr Ford, but her words do not make Judge Kavanaugh a perpetrator! With regard to your concluding comment regarding the credibility of a delayed report, that my friend is a point on which we will have to agree to disagree.


Again, it's not that it's delayed. It's that it was expunged from memory until 6 years ago. Facts and specifics were excluded and so called witnesses vaporized. It's one thing to delay. It's another matter to suppress and then to remember.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

Interesting to note that the ABA (American Bar Association, which was firmly behind Kavanaugh) has called for a delay in voting and an FBI investigation.

I wonder if they have a basic misunderstanding the role of the FBI too?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> Interesting to note that the ABA (American Bar Association, which was firmly behind Kavanaugh) has called for a delay in voting and an FBI investigation.
> 
> I wonder if they have a basic misunderstanding the role of the FBI too?


So what? Were you pro Kavanaugh when they endorsed him?


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> So what? Were you pro Kavanaugh when they endorsed him?


I have not taken a side in this whole fiasco. I am tired, as an observer, of both the GOP and the Dems using anything they can as a political tool. People are jumping on Dr. Fords mistakes in her testimony, but not one person has mentioned that BK refused to answer many questions, and that his story too had changed.
There was one other person in the room at the time of the alleged incident with Dr. Ford yet that person has not been called to give sworn testimony or make a sworn statement to the FBI. The statement he previously submitted was six sentences and signed by his attorney. BK performed a little character assassination on him too.
Failure to get the FBI to investigate, and from such investigation allow a more complete story to emerge and base discussions on the results of that inquiry will only assure that this matter will be dragged on for years.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Actually Mr. Judge has given sworn testimony.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

derum said:


> Interesting to note that the ABA (American Bar Association, which was firmly behind Kavanaugh) has called for a delay in voting and an FBI investigation.
> 
> I wonder if they have a basic misunderstanding the role of the FBI too?


The ABA's unanimous endorsement of BK notwithstanding (it learned its lesson from the Bork embarrassment), the organization is hardly unbiased and objective. The ABA has long been on record as supporting Roe v Wade, the lawlessly ill-reasoned decision that is the subtextual cause of this entire embarrassing fiasco. The ABA is not a reliable friend to the rule of law.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

derum said:


> Interesting to note that the ABA (American Bar Association, which was firmly behind Kavanaugh) has called for a delay in voting and an FBI investigation.
> 
> I wonder if they have a basic misunderstanding the role of the FBI too?


The Pubs made a mistake in not bringing in the FBI 2 weeks ago. But, who here really believes that if you gave the FBI a few days to investigate this mess that all of the sudden opposition to Kavanaugh would disappear (assuming they found nothing new or anything exculpatory). And in the meantime more and more allegations will be brought forth. True or not won't matter. And then they will call for those to be investigated and suddenly it's election day.

And if the Dems win the senate then they can argue that they should not vote on a justice until the new senate is seated. It would be tough for any fair minded person to argue that. It would also be rank hypocrisy if the Pubs ignored it.

Rightly or wrongly, time is crucial here and the Dems have already shown that they will do pretty much anything to delay or derail this appointment.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Here is a question for all of you calling for an FBI investigation. 

If Mrs. Ford is found to have made this up and also lies to the FBI, would you call for her to be prosecuted?


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> Actually Mr. Judge has given sworn testimony.


No he hasn't.
He has stated that he has "no memory' of the incident in a letter sent by his attorney.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> Here is a question for all of you calling for an FBI investigation.
> 
> If Mrs. Ford is found to have made this up and also lies to the FBI, would you call for her to be prosecuted?


Yes.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> The ABA's unanimous endorsement of BK notwithstanding (it learned its lesson from the Bork embarrassment), the organization is hardly unbiased and objective. The ABA has long been on record as supporting Roe v Wade, the lawlessly ill-reasoned decision that is the subtextual cause of this entire embarrassing fiasco. The ABA is not a reliable friend to the rule of law.


No argument from me, I mentioned it only because the endorsement was brought up many times yesterday by the GOP as a sign of his good standing.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

derum said:


> No he hasn't.
> He has stated that he has "no memory' of the incident in a letter sent by his attorney.


If he lied in the letter, it carries the same penalty as if he lies in person.

Do you really think that if he says no in person that people will just say, "well, that's that then"?

What is to be gained by having him asked the question in person unless you want theater or to pretend he is lying.

I might also note that I highly doubt that he would be given the deferential treatment that Dr. Ford was given.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> If he lied in the letter, it carries the same penalty as if he lies in person.
> 
> Do you really think that if he says no in person that people will just say, "well, that's that then"?
> 
> ...


What is to be gained by not asking the question in person, unless you are afraid of the answer.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> No he hasn't.
> He has stated that he has "no memory' of the incident in a letter sent by his attorney.


Yes he has. He's given a sworn statement under penalty of perjury.

There's no different standard. Live testimony is not given under penalty of double secret perjury.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> What is to be gained by not asking the question in person, unless you are afraid of the answer.


He's given his answer.

It's not up to him to prove anything.

"Why will thou not undergo trial by fire? Art thou afraid thou ist a Warlock?"


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

derum said:


> What is to be gained by not asking the question in person, unless you are afraid of the answer.


More delays. More time for new allegations that MUST BE INVESTIGATED!! It won't matter how farcical they are. Many of the Dems - and some members here - are referencing the wild claims of Swetnick as entirely credible, which beggars belief.

And BTW, a person could argue that someone being interrogated and asking for an attorney would only do so if they "had something to hide". It's a strawman. And a poor one at that.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> Yes he has. He's given a sworn statement under penalty of perjury.
> 
> There's no different standard. Live testimony is not given under penalty of double secret perjury.


He stated in his initial conditional denial, that he does not "recall" the incident, this leaves open the possibility that it took place.
If questioned under oath by the FBI there might be a real answer given.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

derum said:


> He stated in his initial conditional denial, that he does not "recall" the incident, this leaves open the possibility that it took place.
> If questioned under oath by the FBI there might be a real answer given.


If he lies to the FBI, how will that crime be different than submitting a false affidavit?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> He stated in his initial conditional denial, that he does not "recall" the incident, this leaves open the possibility that it took place.
> If questioned under oath by the FBI there might be a real answer given.


And what if he says the same thing? If he does not recall he does not recall. If the incident happened, he does not recall.

Subpoena him and the dems will still insist on more hearings, witnesses and subpoenas. Maybe a local dog walker heard something too. Best get the FBI on the case.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Too bad for the Dems that his name isn’t Judgski. Then they could sick Mueller on him


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

vpkozel said:


> Too bad for the Dems that his name isn't Judgski. Then they could sick Mueller on him


You know, I'm waiting for someone to actually suggest a special counsel to get to the bottom of this whole thing.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> More delays. More time for new allegations that MUST BE INVESTIGATED!! It won't matter how farcical they are. Many of the Dems - and some members here - are referencing the wild claims of Swetnick as entirely credible, which beggars belief.
> 
> And BTW, a person could argue that someone being interrogated and asking for an attorney would only do so if they "had something to hide". It's a strawman. And a poor one at that.


More delays if you DON'T ask the question?
And BTW no-one suggested anything like your last sentence.



vpkozel said:


> If he lies to the FBI, how will that crime be different than submitting a false affidavit?


They are two different crimes.



SG_67 said:


> And what if he says the same thing? If he does not recall he does not recall. If the incident happened, he does not recall.
> 
> Subpoena him and the dems will still insist on more hearings, witnesses and subpoenas. Maybe a local dog walker heard something too. Best get the FBI on the case.


Is the risk of him doing that too great for anyone?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> Is the risk of him doing that too great for anyone?


What purpose will it serve other than to perpetuate the circus?

All the witnesses she has claimed had first hand knowledge have all denied it. Under oath!

I don't understand the fetishization surrounding Mark Judge. What about her gal pal who similarly has sworn to the same?

The one whom Ms. Ford, ironically, called mentally ill.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

American Bar Association: delay the vote and investigate.

Lindsey Graham (R SC): The ABA is the gold standard.

John Kasich (R governor of my state): delay the vote and investigate.

Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law prof., Libertarian, Trump supporter/Fox News regular): delay the vote and investigate.

Hyper-partisanism is how we end up with a second sexual predator on the Court.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

jts287 said:


> American Bar Association: delay the vote and investigate.
> 
> Lindsey Graham (R SC): The ABA is the gold standard.
> 
> ...


All of that really doesn't matter than does it because everyone is a hyper partisan and Kavanaugh is already, by your standard, a sexual predator.

I'm wondering, failing confirmation, if you'd be in favor of allowing him to return to his appellate role? Should we just move to impeach him?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Where's Charles Dana? I've got the tune, if he can supply some droll lyrics. Simply substitute Kavanaugh for Camelot -


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

derum said:


> More delays if you DON'T ask the question?


 Generally, people try to argue in the affirmative. What is to be gained by not having an FBI investigation? An end to this sham.

But you knew what I meant.

Just curiousky, what do you think will be gained by having an investigation? And what stops the calls for them once you have the one? What is lost by not having one?



> And BTW no-one suggested anything like your last sentence


But it uses the same logic you are using here. That is the point.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

jts287 said:


> American Bar Association: delay the vote and investigate.
> 
> Lindsey Graham (R SC): The ABA is the gold standard.
> 
> ...


There is *zero chance* of "a second Sexual Predator on the court" because there is not a first.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> Generally, people try to argue in the affirmative. What is to be gained by not having an FBI investigation? An end to this sham.


Generally people argue from differing viewpoints. If everyone argued in the affirmative it would be an agreement.


vpkozel said:


> But you knew what I meant.


I didn't, hence my response.


vpkozel said:


> But it uses the same logic you are using here.


It really doesn't


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

derum said:


> Generally people argue from differing viewpoints. If everyone argued in the affirmative it would be an agreement.


That is not what arguing in the affirmative means. It means you argue your position, nit require someone to prove theirs or it fails.

I am on my phone so I can't multi quote easily.

The same logic absolutely appies to the example of the lawyer.

Also, what requires anyone to speak with the FBI about this? And what if they want a lawyer?


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> The same logic absolutely appies to the example of the lawyer.
> 
> Also, what requires anyone to speak with the FBI about this? And what if they want a lawyer?


I have no idea what you are talking about. The only time I mentioned a lawyer/attorney was in reference to signing a letter.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

derum said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about. The only time I mentioned a lawyer/attorney was in reference to signing a letter.


You advocate the FBI interviewing people - specifically Judge. What will compel these people to talk to the FBI? What if those people want a lawyer present?

There is no requirement to submit to polive questioning I don't believe.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> You advocate the FBI interviewing people - specifically Judge. What will compel these people to talk to the FBI? What if those people want a lawyer present?
> 
> There is no requirement to submit to polive questioning I don't believe.


The FBI does not have the authority to make anyone answer questions. But refusing to answer (in this scenario) would be telling, as all of the people referenced by Dr. Ford have stated that they did not recall. If they still did not recall then why not tell the FBI that? 
The only person who has flat out said it did not happen is Kavanaugh. He and Dr. Ford would be the only people in jeopardy if questioned by the FBI.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

derum said:


> The FBI does not have the authority to make anyone answer questions. But refusing to answer (in this scenario) would be telling, as all of the people referenced by Dr. Ford have stated that they did not recall. If they still did not recall then why not tell the FBI that?
> The only person who has flat out said it did not happen is Kavanaugh. He and Dr. Ford would be the only people in jeopardy if questioned by the FBI.


We don't know that they have not already been interviewed. Remember that Kavanaugh has been vetted 6 times, including one for incredibly high clearances.

I was interviewed as part of a clearance for a friend and it was pretty detailed.

At these political levels and games I would be incredibly leery if I was asked questions by law enforcement. If memory serves, the FBI said that they did not feel that Gen. Flynn lied to them, yet he was indicted for lying to the FBI.

The question is how did we get here. And for Kavanaugh specifically almost all of the bad actors have been from one side of the aisle.

To expect them to start acting reasonably now seems a bit of a stretch.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Looks like Flake has brokered a deal to have an FBI investigation. Of course, I don’t have any hope of the no votes will change because of its findings. And this thing refuses to die.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

A pox upon both their houses! :fish:

Plenty of shameful behavior to go around! I wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could throw them.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

SG_67 said:


> All of that really doesn't matter than does it because everyone is a hyper partisan and Kavanaugh is already, by your standard, a sexual predator.
> 
> I'm wondering, failing confirmation, if you'd be in favor of allowing him to return to his appellate role? Should we just move to impeach him?


After viewing both his and Dr. Ford's testimony yesterday, I have few qualms in stating that I believe her and not him. Should an investigation bear out my suspicions, he's a perjurer as well, which is certainly cause for removal from the bench.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

127.72 MHz said:


> There is *zero chance* of "a second Sexual Predator on the court" because there is not a first.


You know what? Let's just let this dog lie.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

jts287 said:


> After viewing both his and Dr. Ford's testimony yesterday, I have few qualms in stating that I believe her and not him. Should an investigation bear out my suspicions, he's a perjurer as well, which is certainly cause for removal from the bench.


What exactly was it about her testimony that was so compelling? The part about forgetting whether she gave her psych. Notes to the WaPo or the part where she lied about a fear of flying?

Just curious, as a purely academic matter, would be submit Juanita Broderick's claim of being raped by Bill Clinton to an FBI investigation?


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> What exactly was it about her testimony that was so compelling? The part about forgetting whether she gave her psych. Notes to the WaPo or the part where she lied about a fear of flying?
> 
> Just curious, as a purely academic matter, would be submit Juanita Broderick's claim of being raped by Bill Clinton to an FBI investigation?


You really shouldn't go there, considering the number of allegations against the current president.
This thread is devisive enough already!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^As a senior Federal manager if I had had sex with an intern in my office, I would have been relieved of my duties, investigated, charged and fired...all in a very timely manor. Whether Monica Lewinsky was consenting of the sexual union, or not, the then President of these United States, Bill Clinton, did indeed have sex with that woman and he did exercise unfair advantage over a 21 year old intern in "that office." Frankly, I suspect he is also guilty of what Juanita Broderick has claimed he did to her!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> You really shouldn't go there, considering the number of allegations against the current president.
> This thread is devisive enough already!


No, I actually would, and please answer the question.

And I don't believe anyone has credibly suggested that DJT is a rapist, though give Gloria Alred and Michael Avenatti enough time and I'm sure they'll find another pornstar.

This just in: the FBI will further probe the case for another week.

If it comes back clean and there is no new information, will you rest your case?


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

I have tried to stay impartial in regards to Kavanaugh. But, this is nothing but a politically motivated hail mary. The democrats are positively quivering at the prospect of a conservative majority in the Supreme Court. Am I oversimplifying a complex issue? Hardly... I listened to Ford's full testimony... twice. It's too vague. Her inability to recall specifics makes me question her accounts of the past. 
As far as an FBI background check is concerned... fine. Go for it. What will it find that the other 6 government background checks didn't?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

drlivingston said:


> I have tried to stay impartial in regards to Kavanaugh. But, this is nothing but a politically motivated hail mary. The democrats are positively quivering at the prospect of a conservative majority in the Supreme Court. Am I oversimplifying a complex issue? Hardly... I listened to Ford's full testimony... twice. It's too vague. Her inability to recall specifics makes me question her accounts of the past.
> As far as an FBI background check is concerned... fine. Go for it. What will it find that the other 6 government background checks didn't?


No, I would say you're hitting it right on the head. It's simple, but then so are the intellects of many of the dems on the committee and the senate writ large.

The FBI will come back with a big ZERO! I'm sure it will give only more time for someone else to come forward and say the judge raped her in a hotel room somewhere remote.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

SG_67 said:


> What exactly was it about her testimony that was so compelling? The part about forgetting whether she gave her psych. Notes to the WaPo or the part where she lied about a fear of flying?
> 
> Just curious, as a purely academic matter, would be submit Juanita Broderick's claim of being raped by Bill Clinton to an FBI investigation?


I have zero opinion of Ms. Broderick's plight, having not paid much attention to it. Since it has nothing to do with this, I'll demur.

She's terrified of flying, does that preclude her from ever stepping on a plane? I'd hazard a guess that at least one person on many flights is terrified of flying...

She struck me as incredibly genuine, patient (with Congressional grandstanders and a prosecutor with some really bizarre questions), and damaged by this ordeal. Kavanaugh was standoffish, evasive, and condescending. His odious temperment aside, I didn't/don't believe him.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Lucido said:


> As do I, but you've already stated that you don't think delayed allegations are credible.


My friend, I know you to be neither dim witted or ignorant.

It's not the delay. It's the manner in which her memory is recalled. Juanita Broderick has not " suppressed" anything for 30 years only to remember when in therapy.

She can recall with vivid detail and even told a friend about it immediately after the rape allegedly occurred.

It's far different from what Ms. Ford has experienced.

Here is a timeline of Ms. Broderick's claim:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/pjmedi...ton-forty-years-ago-today/amp/#ampf=undefined

Ms. Broderick has been making these claims for years so any delay in the perceived revelation is largely due to the media ignoring her for decades.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

jts287 said:


> I have zero opinion of Ms. Broderick's plight, having not paid much attention to it. Since it has nothing to do with this, I'll demur.
> 
> She's terrified of flying, does that preclude her from ever stepping on a plane? I'd hazard a guess that at least one person on many flights is terrified of flying...
> 
> She struck me as incredibly genuine, patient (with Congressional grandstanders and a prosecutor with some really bizarre questions), and damaged by this ordeal. Kavanaugh was standoffish, evasive, and condescending. His odious temperment aside, I didn't/don't believe him.


Well, there you have it. I guess all court cases should be resolved in this way.

By the way, I have a feeling if your name had been dragged through the mud for 2 weeks on national television, having been referred to as evil and called a rapist, you'd be a bit indignant and condescending as well.

At least we got to the bottom of Kavanaugh'a favorite fart jokes from high school.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> No, I actually would, and please answer the question.
> 
> And I don't believe anyone has credibly suggested that DJT is a rapist, though give Gloria Alred and Michael Avenatti enough time and I'm sure they'll find another pornstar.
> 
> ...


All I have espoused is that an investigation should take place. If the results of such show no evidence against Kavanaugh I will be happy that justice has been seen to be done, and request no further action.
What will you do if Dr. Fords claims are verified?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> All I have espoused is that an investigation should take place. If the results of such show no evidence against Kavanaugh I will be happy that justice has been seen to be done, and request no further action.
> What will you do if Dr. Fords claims are verified?


If verified, then he should not be confirmed.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> If verified, then he should not be confirmed.


Agreed. And if either is found to have been lying they should be punished.
With regards to those other two fine upstanding gentlemen being inserted into this thread, Messrs Clinton and Trump, I would hazard a guess that not many on here would cherish the thought of either of those being in a room alone with their daughters!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> Agreed. And if either is found to have been lying they should be punished.
> With regards to those other two fine upstanding gentlemen being inserted into this thread, Messrs Clinton and Trump, I would hazard a guess that not many on here would cherish the thought of either of those being in a room alone with their daughters!


Both are telling the truth.

He knows he didn't do it. She truly does believe that he did.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> Both are telling the truth.
> 
> He knows he didn't do it. She truly does believe that he did.


On balance I agree with you, SG. But another fair-minded person could very reasonably say:

"Both are telling the truth. She knows he did it. He truly believes that he didn't."

This is a mess. Accusations of high school or college drunken sexual misbehavior should be investigated and perpetrators appropriately punished. Then. Not 35 years later when memories have mutated and people have changed. In conventional wars, truth is the first casualty and fairness a low priority. In political wars, truth and fairness are MIA entirely.

Only a liar or an idiot could assert that we'd be experiencing this travesty if it had been confidently understood from the outset that BK was pro-Roe, pro-presidential impeachment, and pro-presidential prosecution. It is quite possible that CBF was a victim 35 years ago. It is absolutely certain that both she and BK are now.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

If this is factual, I doubt that she could even begin to identify a single suitor. 
https://www.shadolsonshow.com/2018/...n-promiscuity-54-sex-partners-before-college/


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I wouldn't doubt that Senator Patrick Leahy is one of the payers to this woman to slander Kavanaugh. What he said about the republicans bowing down to Trump is beyond ridiculous. He is a man who should spend his last days behind bars.

Derum, where were you born?
You sure don't understand America.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Lucido said:


> You do understand what victim blaming is, right?


Who is the victim? Your right- Kavanaugh!


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

'That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens. 

In an effort to satisfy the late Mr. Hitchens, by working to find the first single straw of hard evidence that the alleged attack might have taken place, I assume the FBI will be tasked to find out as much as possible about July 1, 1982? (Note to self: Destroy all high school yearbooks and date books from 1983 - 1990.) 

95% chance it turn up nothing unless another can rattling "Ghost from Beer Bongs Past" comes out of the closet. 

Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Lucido said:


> You do understand what victim blaming is, right?


You can call it victim blaiming assuming she's a victim.

You could also say she's a troubled woman with psychological issues.

Everyone is so scared and tip toes around this obvious possibility it's laughable.

The press and many lawmakers are all too eager to allude to other aspects of the judge's life and how that ties into the accusation. Her past is not fair game?

Again, I have no doubt she believes that she was raped, or at least assaulted. I also have no doubt that she believes it was him. The human brain and it's function are a funny thing. Things that have never happened can be imagined and become as real as if they did.

There is plenty of research on this and it goes back decades.

https://people.ok.ubc.ca/stporter/P...f Real, Implanted and Fabricated Memories.pdf


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

SG_67 said:


> Well, there you have it. I guess all court cases should be resolved in this way.
> 
> By the way, I have a feeling if your name had been dragged through the mud for 2 weeks on national television, having been referred to as evil and called a rapist, you'd be a bit indignant and condescending as well.
> 
> At least we got to the bottom of Kavanaugh'a favorite fart jokes from high school.


You keep going back to this "court case" thing, as if that is what is going on here. You get the differences, right?

I'm going to tread carefully here, because the claims of sexual misconduct are awful, but the perjury (including occasions not related to the instant situation) is far more troublesome from a judicial appointment standpoint. I'm having difficulty coming to any other conclusion than this guy is an opportunistic liar under oath.

Thankfully those with sense have intervened and now an investigation will be undertaken. Jeff Flake has been interesting to watch since he's decided to retire and thus become free to do what he believes is right, rather than that which is politically expedient. I can't see anything swaying true believers, but for those of us who demand a just and impartial court, there's still a sliver of hope. For all the talk of Kennedy being a fairly unpredictable swing voter, his record bears out that he was really about as conservative as he was expected to be when elevated. If Kavanaugh gets deep sixed, another conservative candidate will take his place, which is fine! Hopefully this next one will be less of an awful person.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

jts287 said:


> You keep going back to this "court case" thing, as if that is what is going on here. You get the differences, right?
> 
> I'm going to tread carefully here, because the claims of sexual misconduct are awful, but the perjury (including occasions not related to the instant situation) is far more troublesome from a judicial appointment standpoint. I'm having difficulty coming to any other conclusion than this guy is an opportunistic liar under oath.
> 
> Thankfully those with sense have intervened and now an investigation will be undertaken. Jeff Flake has been interesting to watch since he's decided to retire and thus become free to do what he believes is right, rather than that which is politically expedient. I can't see anything swaying true believers, but for those of us who demand a just and impartial court, there's still a sliver of hope. For all the talk of Kennedy being a fairly unpredictable swing voter, his record bears out that he was really about as conservative as he was expected to be when elevated. If Kavanaugh gets deep sixed, another conservative candidate will take his place, which is fine! Hopefully this next one will be less of an awful person.


Jeff Flake is thinking of life after politics. He can probably kiss a career as a political appointee goodbye. My guess is that this stint will land him a gig in either CNN or MSNBC as pundit. He will the the "conservative with a conscience" bemoaning what has happened to the party.

But enough about him. Besides just a gut feeling or perhaps your own bias, what is it about what you've heard so far that convinces you she is right and he is lying?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> 'That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
> 
> In an effort to satisfy the late Mr. Hitchens, by working to find the first single straw of hard evidence that the alleged attack might have taken place, I assume the FBI will be tasked to find out as much as possible about July 1, 1982? (Note to self: Destroy all high school yearbooks and date books from 1983 - 1990.)
> 
> ...


It will turn up nothing indeed except a reiteration of what has already been uncovered.

What it will do, however, is give the dems another week to come up with "plan D" to derail this.

Let's see, he's not old enough to have been a nazi prison guard. Maybe they'll think of something else.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

WA said:


> I wouldn't doubt that Senator Patrick Leahy is one of the payers to this woman to slander Kavanaugh. What he said about the republicans bowing down to Trump is beyond ridiculous. He is a man who should spend his last days behind bars.
> 
> Derum, where were you born?
> You sure don't understand America.





WA said:


> Who is the victim? Your right- Kavanaugh!


Where I was born is irrelevant.
I think I understand America as much as most people do.
I have not understood many of your posts, if that helps.



SG_67 said:


> You can call it victim blaiming assuming she's a victim.
> 
> You could also say she's a troubled woman with psychological issues.
> 
> ...


Things that did happen can be denied and treated as if they didn't.

The research could also apply to Kavanaugh.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> Things that did happen can be denied and treated as if they didn't.
> 
> The research could also apply to Kavanaugh.


Sure. Except that that the predonderence of the evidence supports him. So called witnesses deny being there or being aware of this. These are not his witnesses but that of the accuser.

We could go around and around, but there is just no evidence.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Lucido said:


> You do understand what victim blaming is, right?


Since you keep trying to go back to this tripe whenever anyone points out the obvious holes in Dr. Ford's story, perhaps you can answer this.

Which one can be clearly shown to be the victim?


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> Sure. Except that that the predonderence of the evidence supports him. So called witnesses deny being there or being aware of this. These are not his witnesses but that of the accuser.
> 
> We could go around and around, but there is just no evidence.


There is no preponderence of evidence. You state yourself that there is no evidence. There is only one person who flatly denies the event, and that persons calender confirmed that he was at a house with the people Dr Ford said were there.
No one else has confirmed or denied, simply that they are not aware.
Hopefully the people named will be more forthcoming during interview and this sorry mess can be put to bed.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

SG_67 said:


> We could go around and around, but there is just no evidence.


Victim blamer.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Yes, more forthcoming. Of course. 

You’re assuming that they are not. And what is this business of his calendar showing he was there?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

vpkozel said:


> Victim blamer.


Yeah, no kidding!

By the way, I've heard that term bandied about. It makes no sense and it being used to elicit an emotional response.

No one is blaming her. My contention is that her memory is false.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

derum said:


> No one else has confirmed or denied, simply that they are not aware.


That is not an accurate statement in the least.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

SG_67 said:


> Yeah, no kidding!
> 
> By the way, I've heard that term bandied about. It makes no sense and it being used to elicit an emotional response.
> 
> No one is blaming her. My contention is that her memory is false.


Looking for inconsistencies or exculpatory information is not victim blaming. And anyone who says it is should just agree to recuse him or her self from the conversation.

Kavanaugh was right. This is Twilight Zone stuff.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> Yes, more forthcoming. Of course.
> 
> You're assuming that they are not. And what is this business of his calendar showing he was there?


It shows he was at a house with the people Dr Ford named.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> That is not an accurate statement in the least.


How so?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> It shows he was at a house with the people Dr Ford named.
> View attachment 24726


Interesting. So he was at a party with his friends.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

derum said:


> There is no preponderence of evidence. You state yourself that there is no evidence. There is only one person who flatly denies the event, and that persons calender confirmed that he was at a house with the people Dr Ford said were there.
> No one else has confirmed or denied, simply that they are not aware.
> Hopefully the people named will be more forthcoming during interview and this sorry mess can be put to bed.


There is ONLY one person who says an assault happened at a place and date she can't recall. This is an event she has lived with every day since it happened and it has impacted her profoundly, to the point of near incompacitation in some areas of her life. Has she expended effort during the past 36 years to piece the event back together? Is she so delicate, confused and mentally broken as to be incapable of doing so? Does anyone who saw her testimony believe this to be the case?

After the assault, did she not avoid the house and neighborhood where the attack happened? Did she never think to ask her good friend who's house it was? Did she drive around the area in DC last week to see if she could positively identify any potential houses where the attack could have taken place, a search which if successful, would most likely end this entire sorry matter for the nation? Isn't she curious and angry, or is her trauma so profound she is incapable of assisting the Senate committee in this way?

As for corroborating witnesses, it is very clear what Dr. Ford's friend said about the matter in question and the nominees friends concur.

One suggestion would be subjecting these obvious liars and perpertrators of a 36 year long conspiracy of silence to extreme interrogation and public humiliation until authorities can sweat out an "alternate truth" which better fits Dr. Fords narrative.

Or maybe the FBI will tell Dr. Ford that her story has so many gaps as to be impossible to pursue with any degree of seriousness?

The onus is on her. She needs to give us something more than her less than perfect hippocampus to work with. I am strongly rooting for her to remember something, anything that can assist, simply because I think that losing a nominee is way less damaging to the nation than, if her story is true and uncorroberated, having a liar and perpetrator of sexual assault on the bench for the rest of his life.

But I doubt she will.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

derum said:


> How so?


Because it is not remotely accurate.

*---------------------------
THE FACTS: *The statements in question do not corroborate Ford's allegations, but they also do not exonerate Kavanaugh. They leave open the possibility that people at the small gathering forgot about it or were not in position to witness the assault.

Even Mark Judge, who Ford says was in the bedroom when Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, has not denied that such an episode took place. His sworn statement to the committee says, *"I have no memory of this alleged incident," "do not recall the party"* and *"never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes."*

In another statement, Patrick J. Smyth, identified by Ford as being among those downstairs at the party, says *"I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."*

And the lawyer for Ford's friend, Leland Ingham Keyser, said in a statement: *"Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, without, Dr. Ford."*

https://www.voanews.com/a/ap-fact-check-kavanaughs-claim-that-witnesses-refuted-ford/4591046.html

-------------------------------

Which brings me to 2 tangential points:

1 - These "fact check" sites often seem to contain an awful lot of opinion and commentary

2 - All of this is once again requiring the accused to disprove the accusations, which goes against 800 years of English Common Law and the US system that is based on it.

What facts do you have to support your statement?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

derum said:


> It shows he was at a house with the people Dr Ford named.
> View attachment 24726


Are you willing to place all of your eggs in that calendar basket? Have you thought rough what that would mean for your arguments?


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> Because it is not remotely accurate.
> *
> THE FACTS: *The statements in question do not corroborate Ford's allegations, but they also do not exonerate Kavanaugh. They leave open the possibility that people at the small gathering forgot about it or were not in position to witness the assault.
> 
> ...


Do you mean all of those statements you quoted which confirm my statement?


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> Are you willing to place all of your eggs in that calendar basket? Have you thought rough what that would mean for your arguments?


What on earth are you on about. It simply shows that a group of people named by Ford were at a house together around the time the alleged incident took place. As I said in my post.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> There is ONLY one person who says an assault happened at a place and date she can't recall. This is an event she has lived with every day since it happened and it has impacted her profoundly, to the point of near incompacitation in some areas of her life. Has she expended effort during the past 36 years to piece the event back together? Is she so delicate, confused and mentally broken as to be incapable of doing so? Does anyone who saw her testimony believe this to be the case?
> 
> After the assault, did she not avoid the house and neighborhood where the attack happened? Did she never think to ask her good friend who's house it was? Did she drive around the area in DC last week to see if she could positively identify any potential houses where the attack could have taken place, a search which if successful, would most likely end this entire sorry matter for the nation? Isn't she curious and angry, or is her trauma so profound she is incapable of assisting the Senate committee in this way?
> 
> ...


The mere fact that you have asked pointed questions that may cast some reasonable suspicion as to the accuracy Dr. Ford's statement shows that you are a brute of a man!

You are insensitive and likely misogynistic!

You, you,....Man you!


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

derum said:


> Do you mean all of those statements you quoted which confirm my statement?





derum said:


> Do you mean all of those statements you quoted which confirm my statement?


They do no such thing.

Judge: *"never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes."*

Smyth: *"I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."
*
Keyser:* "Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, without, Dr. Ford."*

Two of the three outright deny it. Smyth says he has no knowledge at all of party general or her claims specifically, which is a denial of knowing what she is talking about.

So to recap, all three deny being there. Judge denies that he EVER say BK act that way, which would be a little tough to square with him supposedly being in the room and all. That undercuts your claim that there have been no denials.

Curiously, short of some sort of Truman Show visual proof from 36 years ago, what would you accept as a denial? My guess is that you will be a tad more lenient on the confirmation part....


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

derum said:


> What on earth are you on about. It simply shows that a group of people named by Ford were at a house together around the time the alleged incident took place. As I said in my post.


Not going on about anything, thanks. Simply pointing out that if you want to use that as the end all, be all, there will be some follow on effects from that. Which you obviously have not considered.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> What on earth are you on about. It simply shows that a group of people named by Ford were at a house together around the time the alleged incident took place. As I said in my post.


No, it shows a group of people were at a house. She doesn't even know when her assault took place, or where for that matter.

I'm surprised no one has picked up on one fact on that calendar; the part about going to "Timmy's". Is Timmy's home near where this alleged assault took place?

And by the way, read the calendar details. Does it sound like he's going to a house party of going to his pals house with a few other friends to down some brewskis?


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> They do no such thing.
> 
> Judge: *"never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes."*
> 
> ...


Nine times during Thursday's hearing, Kavanaugh claimed that four of the teenagers, including himself, made statements affirming that Ford's version of events didn't happen.

In an exchange with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Kavanaugh argued, "But the core of why we're here is an allegation for which the four witnesses present have all said it didn't happen." Later, in an exchange with Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., the nominee claimed, "The witnesses who were there say it didn't happen."

But, apart from Kavanaugh, who denied the allegations, none of the named witnesses said the allegations didn't happen. Rather, they stated that they did not recall the house party, or have personal knowledge of the alleged sexual assault.

Having "no recollection" of the night in question, or no "knowledge" of the alleged events, is not the same as saying it didn't happen.
Kavanaugh specifically argued that Judge had "provided sworn statement saying this didn't happen." But in Judge's letter to the Judiciary Committee, sent on September 18, he wrote that he has "no memory of this alleged incident," does "not recall the party described," and "never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes." (On Thursday, after the conclusion of Kavanaugh's testimony, Judge followed up with a second letter, stating that he "never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.")

Moreover, Keyser's statement, issued by her lawyer over the weekend, says only that she "does not know Mr. Kavanaugh, and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford." Not that the event "didn't happen."


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> No, it shows a group of people were at a house. She doesn't even know when her assault took place, or where for that matter.
> 
> I'm surprised no one has picked up on one fact on that calendar; the part about going to "Timmy's". Is Timmy's home near where this alleged assault took place?
> 
> And by the way, read the calendar details. Does it sound like he's going to a house party of going to his pals house with a few other friends to down some brewskis?





vpkozel said:


> Not going on about anything, thanks. Simply pointing out that if you want to use that as the end all, be all, there will be some follow on effects from that. Which you obviously have not considered.


I am not using it as the be all and end all, I do not think it confirms anything other than the group of people named by Ford gathered at a house around the time Ford alleges the incident took place. Is that too much to understand?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> Nine times during Thursday's hearing, Kavanaugh claimed that four of the teenagers, including himself, made statements affirming that Ford's version of events didn't happen.
> 
> In an exchange with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Kavanaugh argued, "But the core of why we're here is an allegation for which the four witnesses present have all said it didn't happen." Later, in an exchange with Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., the nominee claimed, "The witnesses who were there say it didn't happen."
> 
> ...


And yet Ms. Ford states that they were present and had knowledge.

Forget what Kavanaugh said for a moment. Weigh what Ms. Ford said vs. the 4 witnesses to the alleged assault.

Let's unwind that before we move on to more exotic attempts at smearing someone.

She put herself out there. Whether she intended to or not, she set the train in motion. It is her responsibility to produce the evidence. Brett Kavanaugh did not bring up the names of these people, she did.

This will obviously never happen, but I wonder if some enterprising and fearless investigative journalist will do some research on her past to see if there are any psychological issues that may affect her ability to remember or recall such things accurately.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> I am not using it as the be all and end all, I do not think it confirms anything other than the group of people named by Ford gathered at a house around the time Ford alleges the incident took place. Is that too much to understand?


For the purposes of the argument you are making? Yes. That in July of 1982 some friends were gathered at a house and that on or around that same year Ms. Ford was allegedly assaulted?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

derum said:


> Nine times during Thursday's hearing, Kavanaugh claimed that four of the teenagers, including himself, made statements affirming that Ford's version of events didn't happen.
> 
> In an exchange with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Kavanaugh argued, "But the core of why we're here is an allegation for which the four witnesses present have all said it didn't happen." Later, in an exchange with Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., the nominee claimed, "The witnesses who were there say it didn't happen."
> 
> ...


Well, of course they can't say with any certainty that the events never happened. What they DID say however was that they did not witness or have knowledge of them happening. Judge went even further, expanding hs denial to all women that he had witnessed BK interact with.

What you said was that these folks neither confirmed nor denied the veracity of Dr. Ford's claims. In fact, they all denied being involved in them.

She claims they were there, with Judge in the room. They all either say they have no knowledge of being at a party with the others in the group. Ergo, they deny her claim.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> And yet Ms. Ford states that they were present and had knowledge.
> 
> Forget what Kavanaugh said for a moment. Weigh what Ms. Ford said vs. the 4 witnesses to the alleged assault.
> 
> ...


Of course Ford put herself out there, of course her accusation is flawed. But making false statements regarding the alleged witnesses on here is stupid. I am not trying to defend Ford, nor condemn Kavanaugh, merely to be objective.
Both sides memories of the period are vague, as would be expected, and both made errors during their testimonies.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

derum said:


> I am not using it as the be all and end all, I do not think it confirms anything other than the group of people named by Ford gathered at a house around the time Ford alleges the incident took place. Is that too much to understand?


I understand it quite well, and I am pretty sure that BK touched on this in the hearing, but I am not certain. Dr. Ford was very specific about the house's location and if I remember correctly the house where they gathered this night was not near the Chevy Chase CC. Also, if you want to rely on the calendar as the lynchpin, it brings in 2 complications. BK does not note the other attendees and that is the only instance in the summer which fits Dr. Ford's description.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> Well, of course they can't say with any certainty that the events never happened. What they DID say however was that they did not witness or have knowledge of them happening. Judge went even further, expanding hs denial to all women that he had witnessed BK interact with.
> 
> What you said was that these folks neither confirmed nor denied the veracity of Dr. Ford's claims. In fact, they all denied being involved in them.
> 
> She claims they were there, with Judge in the room. They all either say they have no knowledge of being at a party with the others in the group. Ergo, they deny her claim.


No. It simply means that they can not confirm or deny. If they could, their statements would reflect that and not be of the "i don't recall" variety.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> I understand it quite well, and I am pretty sure that BK touched on this in the hearing, but I am not certain. Dr. Ford was very specific about the house's location and if I remember correctly the house where they gathered this night was not near the Chevy Chase CC. Also, if you want to rely on the calendar as the lynchpin, it brings in 2 complications. BK does not note the other attendees and that is the only instance in the summer which fits Dr. Ford's description.


You really dont grasp the fact that i'm not using this as a lynchpin or the be all and end all, do you?


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> I understand it quite well, and I am pretty sure that BK touched on this in the hearing, but I am not certain. Dr. Ford was very specific about the house's location and if I remember correctly the house where they gathered this night was not near the Chevy Chase CC. Also, if you want to rely on the calendar as the lynchpin, it brings in 2 complications. BK does not note the other attendees and that is the only instance in the summer which fits Dr. Ford's description.


Please show where Dr Ford was very specific about the location of the house.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

derum said:


> No. It simply means that they can not confirm or deny. If they could, their statements would reflect that and not be of the "i don't recall" variety.


Let's start with the easy ones.

Keyser denies knowledge of ever being at a party with BK. Judge denies ever seeing him do what Ford said he did. Do you have any sources that corroborate her claims?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

derum said:


> Please show where Dr Ford was very specific about the location of the house.


"We calculated the distance from the closest point to your house from a mile radius of the country club and then the farthest point, you could see it is 6.2 and 8.2 miles," Mitchell said. "And you've described this as being near the country club, wherever this house was, is that right?"

"I would describe it as somewhere between my house and the country club in that vicinity that is shown in your picture," Ford said. "And the country club is about a 20-minute drive from my parents' home.

"A 20-minute drive. And of course I've marked as the crow flies," Mitchell said. "Would it be fair to say that somebody drove you somewhere, either to the party, or home from the party?"

"Correct," Ford replied.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

And there is this.

But the house where this gathering took place (according to Kavanaugh's calendar) does not appear to match the description offered by Ford in her recollection of events, and there are other reasons to be skeptical of the theory put forward by Senator Whitehouse and several left-leaning journalists.

Ford recalled that the home where the alleged attack occurred was, according to the , "not far from the country club" in Chevy Chase, Maryland, where she had likely spent the day swimming prior to the alleged attack.

Tom Kane, one of the Kavanaugh friends who was listed in attendance, told CNN's _New Day_ on Friday that Tim Gaudette's house was in Rockville, Maryland, 11 miles away from the country club.

"I saw it published today that someone's floating the notion that there was something on July 1 at Tim Gaudette's house," Kane told CNN. "Tim Gaudette lived in Rockville. It's 11 miles away from Columbia Country Club. And it wasn't a single-family home. It was a townhouse." The _Washington Post_ : "There was no answer at the brick home on Friday."


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> Let's start with the easy ones.
> 
> Keyser denies knowledge of ever being at a party with BK. Judge denies ever seeing him do what Ford said he did. Do you have any sources that corroborate her claims?


No, but i'm not claiming that anyone is definitive. You are.


vpkozel said:


> "We calculated the distance from the closest point to your house from a mile radius of the country club and then the farthest point, you could see it is 6.2 and 8.2 miles," Mitchell said. "And you've described this as being near the country club, wherever this house was, is that right?"
> 
> "I would describe it as somewhere between my house and the country club in that vicinity that is shown in your picture," Ford said. "And the country club is about a 20-minute drive from my parents' home.
> 
> ...


And you consider that as "very specific"?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> Of course Ford put herself out there, of course her accusation is flawed. But making false statements regarding the alleged witnesses on here is stupid. I am not trying to defend Ford, nor condemn Kavanaugh, merely to be objective.
> Both sides memories of the period are vague, as would be expected, and both made errors during their testimonies.


I would hope that if you ever raped someone you wouldn't forget it. You argument or rationale does not hold water.

He attempted to rape her but so much time has gone by that he can't remember? This would be a feat not even a Kennedy could pull off!

He doesn't remember any such thing because he most likely did not do it.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> I would hope that if you ever raped someone you wouldn't forget it. You argument or rationale does not hold water.
> 
> He attempted to rape her but so much time has gone by that he can't remember? This would be a feat not even a Kennedy could pull off!
> 
> He doesn't remember any such thing because he most likely did not do it.


And what was it that I said in that post which warranted the reply you gave?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

A few points:

Even if one accepts CBF's claim as 100% true and correct, it does not in and of itself prove attempted rape. It would amount to sexual assault, but attempted rape requires more. I'm not sure even CBF has ever characterized the event as attempted rape.

If some variant of the event described by CBF did occur, it is possible that BK would not remember if he was sufficiently drunk at the time.

There are holes in CBF's story, some potentially important, but that is to be expected given 35 years.

The likelihood that objective fair-minded people will ever be able to establish a confident view of what did or did not happen is remote, with or without another FBI investigation. Memories mutate and people change over 35 years to the point that neither truth nor fairness is being served by this horrible process. But regrettably the introduction of CBF's accusations for the committee's consideration was never motivated by truth or fairness.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> No, but i'm not claiming that anyone is *definitive*. You are.
> 
> And you consider that as "very specific"?


Ok, so Ms. Ford cannot definitively prove that she was either raped or that is was Brett Kavanaugh that did it.

To suggest Brett Kavanaugh cannot prove he didn't flies in the face of 2000 years of western thought and Common Law jurisprudence. Still, let's supoose this mattered.

Both must negate one another which then demands that there be evidence presented to support any such claim.

Being "100% certain" is not evidence. Otherwise, I'm 100% certain my wife didn't ask me the change one of the bulbs in her bathroom.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> Ok, so Ms. Ford cannot definitively prove that she was either raped or that is was Brett Kavanaugh that did it.
> 
> To suggest Brett Kavanaugh cannot prove he didn't flies in the face of 2000 years of western thought and Common Law jurisprudence. Still, let's supoose this mattered.
> 
> ...


You really are missing the point. This particular discussion was about the alleged witnesses, not Kavanaugh.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> You really are missing the point. This particular discussion was about the alleged witnesses, not Kavanaugh.


I'm glad you mentioned the word alleged. As the witnesses in this case have denied the allegation or suggestion that they were in fact witnesses or had knowledge of this.

I'm really not sure what part of this you find difficult to understand.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> I'm glad you mentioned the word alleged. As the witnesses in this case have denied the allegation or suggestion that they were in fact witnesses or had knowledge of this.
> 
> I'm really not sure what part of this you find difficult to understand.


I'm not the one having trouble understanding.
I'm really not sure why you think the alleged witnesses have denied anything. Please go back and read the relevant posts. Then show where any of the alleged witnesses have said definitively that the incident between Ford and kavanaugh did not happen.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

derum said:


> No, but i'm not claiming that anyone is definitive. You are.


Yes, you are.



> And you consider that as "very specific"?


Yes. What do you consider very specific?

And did you read the quotes? That guy's house on 7/1 isn't the same type.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> Yes, you are.
> 
> Yes. What do you consider very specific?


1. Show me where.
2. An address.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> Ok, so Ms. Ford cannot definitively prove that she was either raped or that is was Brett Kavanaugh that did it.
> 
> To suggest Brett Kavanaugh cannot prove he didn't flies in the face of 2000 years of western thought and Common Law jurisprudence. Still, let's supoose this mattered.
> 
> ...


Testimony is evidence. And in the face of contradicting testimonies, a fact-finder can indeed determine that one is credible and to be believed and the other not, at least theoretically. Aside from the obvious difficulty of making such an assessment with any confidence however, the problem is that testimony based on 35 year old memories is horribly unreliable and difficult to corroborate. I have many memories from my youth that are completely incorrect, and some of them involve remarkably important things such as my wedding and the birth of my children. Again, memories are not reliable.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

It’s not even that the memory is 35 years old. 

It’s that it had been suppressed and then retrieved. Memory recalls such as this should be treated skeptically. They can very well be wholly imagined.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> It's not even that the memory is 35 years old.
> 
> It's that it had been suppressed and then retrieved. Memory recalls such as this should be treated skeptically. They can very well be wholly imagined.


Yes, this makes it even less reliable. As you have noted, very few of her skeptics have accused her of lying; most simply believe she is mistaken. Given what we know, this is very possible, but we just cannot be sure. Given their histories it is possible that both are telling the Gospel truth as they best remember it, and we'll never know who is mistaken. This is almost inevitable given the nature of claims this ancient.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> I'm not the one having trouble understanding.
> I'm really not sure why you think the alleged witnesses have denied anything. Please go back and read the relevant posts. Then show where any of the alleged witnesses have said definitively that the incident between Ford and kavanaugh did not happen.


They said they have no knowledge of it.

The only evidence put forth were the witnesses. They are denying knowledge.

Of course they cannot say it didn't happen. Such statements defy logic.

Her corroborating witnesses, in other words, cannot corroborate her story.

It's interesting that the outside counsel brought in by the committee told several senators that based on the evidence, she couldn't have brought forth charges.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> They said they have no knowledge of it.
> 
> The only evidence put forth were the witnesses. They are denying knowledge.
> 
> ...


Good. We are in agreement on the alleged witnesses. Finally.
The outside counsel was very probably correct in a legal context, but this is not a trial.
It is going to boil down to he said/she said, I guess, which is really unsatisfying to both parties, unless the FBI discover something.
If it is discovered, as some on here have suggested, that Ford has been lying, then she should be prosecuted. The same applies to Kavanaugh.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> Good. We are in agreement on the alleged witnesses. Finally.
> The outside counsel was very probably correct in a legal context, but this is not a trial.
> It is going to boil down to he said/she said, I guess, which is really unsatisfying to both parties, unless the FBI discover something.
> If it is discovered, as some on here have suggested, that Ford has been lying, then she should be prosecuted. The same applies to Kavanaugh.


I'm sorry, I'm not really sure why you're hung on the witness thing.

They claim to have no knowledge of something she said they had knowledge of. Either they are all lying or she is.

Rather, and more probable, they have no knowledge of it and she is delusional.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

derum said:


> 1. Show me where.





derum said:


> No one else has confirmed or denied, simply that they are not aware.


No one has said that they confirm the claims.

2 completely deny knowledge, 1 does not remember any knowledge.

No one has said, I am not aware of these claims.

You should stop now.



> 2. An address.


I think that is a bit much and even legal jargon always allows for the phrase "on or about" or "at or about" when talking about people, places, and things. But if an address is what is required then Dr. Ford should provide one then.

And you should stop victim shaming.....


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

The depressing thing about politics is that while there is grandiose rhetoric from both the Democrats and Republican, despite this rhetoric, the main focus of each is the same -










And you probably think something to the effect of, yeah the Democrats want to waste money and the Republican want to starve the poor. But those really aren't their most pressing concerns, it's *making money*, for themselves and their friends. And it doesn't matter a hoot whether it's a Republican or a Democrat, with very few exceptions.

I can recall about a decade ago when the mayor and the town council were flinging law suits back forth in my municipality. I thought, "Must be some serious disagreement about policy!" Bull! They were suing each other over the right to patronage. In politics, patronage is money.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> No one has said that they confirm the claims.
> 
> 2 completely deny knowledge, 1 does not remember any knowledge.
> 
> ...


The discussion has always been whether any of the alleged witnesses denied the event took place. The answer is no. It's settled, there is no argument.

I think that it is a bit much for someone who stated that Dr Ford was "very specific" with regards to the location to try and dress it up as a different phrase. You need to understand the term "Very Specific"
You made it up to advance your agenda.

Victim shaming? Coming from you? Rich.



SG_67 said:


> I'm sorry, I'm not really sure why you're hung on the witness thing.
> 
> They claim to have no knowledge of something she said they had knowledge of. Either they are all lying or she is.
> 
> Rather, and more probable, they have no knowledge of it and she is delusional.


Good to see that you retain your open minded viewpoint, and that you have in no way prejudged either party.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Flanderian said:


> The depressing thing about politics is that while there is grandiose rhetoric from both the Democrats and Republican, despite this rhetoric, the main focus of each is the same -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't agree. In this horrible case, if you want to boil it all down to one motivating word/issue, I'd say "abortion" is the best choice. If BK had ever, over the course of his career, written a single paper or opinion in favor of Roe v Wade, I'm certain we wouldn't be in the situation we are in today.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

derum said:


> The discussion has always been whether any of the alleged witnesses denied the event took place. The answer is no. It's settled, there is no argument.


The argument was whether they confirmed or denied the claims or said that they have not aware of the claims. At this point, I am pretty sure that everyone in that circle is aware of the claims, so that is non starter.

No one can deny, with any certainty, that the event took place, except Dr. Ford. They can only deny that they were a witness to it. Which all 3 have.

Seriously, you should stop now.



> I think that it is a bit much for someone who stated that Dr Ford was "very specific" with regards to the location to try and dress it up as a different phrase. You need to understand the term "Very Specific"


I think that a neighborhood or street would be very specific. And I showed how specific they were in describing the location. You didn't even seem to ow that BK had touched on this in his testimony. They had maps with different locations.

Just because you have defined the term very specific to mean an address, doesn't mean that everyone else sees it that way.



> You made it up to advance your agenda.


Agenda? What agenda might that be? I mean, other than being an irreverent smartass?



> Victim shaming? Coming from you? Rich.


Well, referencing the smartass point above, mine was a smartass comment. But now that you have accused me of something, perhaps you can show where I have negatively referred to Dr. Ford (in a serious manner).



> Good to see that you retain your open minded viewpoint, and that you have in no way prejudged either party.


Ah, yes, the old you have already made up your mind since you are a blind partisan approach. The last refuge of those that have run out of facts.

I am as open minded as can be about almost unprovable 36 year old claims that were brought at in a last ditch effort to keep an obviously qualified candidate from passing his confirmation vote, which the opposition party said that they would do anything to stop.

Given all of the circumstances involved I would say some skepticism is warranted.

And no, I am not going to debate how much "some" is.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

derum said:


> The discussion has always been whether any of the alleged witnesses denied the event took place. The answer is no. It's settled, there is no argument.
> 
> I think that it is a bit much for someone who stated that Dr Ford was "very specific" with regards to the location to try and dress it up as a different phrase. You need to understand the term "Very Specific"
> You made it up to advance your agenda.
> ...


Perhaps, I'm misunderstanding you, but are you seriously stating that when A makes a claim that C and D are witnesses to her assault by B, the responsive assertions by C and D that they have no knowledge or recollection of said assault do not impeach A's claim?


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Flanderian said:


> The depressing thing about politics is that while there is grandiose rhetoric from both the Democrats and Republican, despite this rhetoric, the main focus of each is the same -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How correct you are!

The final chapter in corruption. When it has reached the level where there is very little pretence as to their true intentions. Money for them and their's.

Our so called leaders are elected by a fraction of their constituents. Niether party represents the interests of the populous at large, just the uber-wealthy who PAY THEM!

In my view our Supreme Court was a last bastion as our Executive and Legislative branches have been corrupt for years,...

A view that our republic should follow our Constitution as written has become a debatable political position,....And so called free thinkers want supreme court justices to interpret our Constitution turning a judicial body into a super-legislative body. This line of thought masquerades as an intellectual position cloaking it's treasonous nature.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

If she were raped, then anytime going near the place would give her the creeps. Meaning, if it ever happened, she knows exactly where the place is at. An address needs to be put forth by her. Obviously the democrats are waiting for more information, then make a false claim of address or whatever. It is time for a vote.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

WA said:


> If she were raped, then anytime going near the place would give her the creeps. Meaning, if it ever happened, she knows exactly where the place is at. An address needs to be put forth by her. Obviously the democrats are waiting for more information, then make a false claim of address or whatever. It is time for a vote.


What are you talking about? She never said she was raped.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)




----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

FLMike said:


> I don't agree. In this horrible case, if you want to boil it all down to one motivating word/issue, I'd say "abortion" is the best choice. If BK had ever, over the course of his career, written a single paper or opinion in favor of Roe v Wade, I'm certain we wouldn't be in the situation we are in today.


Having reduced these troublesome issues in the case of Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford to their essence, you sir are spot-on with your conclusion(s)! To my mind, yours is the seminal post of this thread!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Apparently the psych. notes also contradict some of her statements, or at least are not in keeping with some of the details of her testimony. 

Of course, she states that the notes are wrong. The same way as she claims that the reason her friend claims no knowledge of the incident is because she is troubled and wants her privacy.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Mike Petrik said:


> Perhaps, I'm misunderstanding you, but are you seriously stating that when A makes a claim that C and D are witnesses to her assault by B, the responsive assertions by C and D that they have no knowledge or recollection of said assault do not impeach A's claim?


In the court of political expediency, this all makes perfect sense.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

SG_67 said:


> Jeff Flake is thinking of life after politics. He can probably kiss a career as a political appointee goodbye. My guess is that this stint will land him a gig in either CNN or MSNBC as pundit. He will the the "conservative with a conscience" bemoaning what has happened to the party.
> 
> But enough about him. Besides just a gut feeling or perhaps your own bias, what is it about what you've heard so far that convinces you she is right and he is lying?


Let's start with him. His defense was right out of the "angry white man" playbook popularized by our president. He was at times incoherent, going to one of the right's boogeymen du jour (the Clintons).

Alternatively, while I found Dr. Ford humble and sincere, and have to again question why someone would choose to subject herself, her family, and her professional reputation to the glaring spotlight in this manner. What could she possibly gain from any of this, other than knowing she told the truth and did her part to expose a ghoul?


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

jts287 said:


> Let's start with him. His defense was right out of the "angry white man" playbook popularized by our president. He was at times incoherent, going to one of the right's boogeymen du jour (the Clintons).
> 
> Alternatively, while I found Dr. Ford humble and sincere, and have to again question why someone would choose to subject herself, her family, and her professional reputation to the glaring spotlight in this manner. What could she possibly gain from any of this, other than knowing she told the truth and did her part to expose a ghoul?


You question, while interesting on a human level and I have kicked it around myself, is no buttress to the veracity of the alleged victims claim. Her damseling display certainly would stir the heart and protective instinct of any man conditioned to the protection of the weaker sex, as all of us XY folks are from birth.

When attempting to suss out a persons motivation for any action, the best starting point is typically self interest. Beyond that, it could be any number of reasons both logical or completely disconnected from reality. I have enough life experience to know that any honest attempt to determine a woman's motivation for an action that appears illogical or self destructive is a sure off ramp to emotional hell.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Perhaps, I'm misunderstanding you, but are you seriously stating that when A makes a claim that C and D are witnesses to her assault by B, the responsive assertions by C and D that they have no knowledge or recollection of said assault do not impeach A's claim?


No, I was refuting the claims that Kavanaugh had witnesses who categorically denied the event took place. (The alleged sexual assault).
Their inability to recall the party or events does not reflect well on Dr Fords claim.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

CBF's attorney was the Justice Department's inspector general during the Clinton administration. Probably just a coincidence.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

jts287 said:


> Let's start with him. His defense was right out of the "angry white man" playbook popularized by our president. He was at times incoherent, going to one of the right's boogeymen du jour (the Clintons).
> 
> Alternatively, while I found Dr. Ford humble and sincere, and have to again question why someone would choose to subject herself, her family, and her professional reputation to the glaring spotlight in this manner. What could she possibly gain from any of this, other than knowing she told the truth and did her part to expose a ghoul?


Interesting that you bring up race. I think you've bared your hand.

Just wondering if it's possible to make an argument without resorting to racial stereotyping. Usually when one's interlocutor resorts to that it means he's run out of ideas.

Also, please at least have an original thought. CNN and MSNBC as well as several print outlets have been alluding to this since Thursday.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

derum said:


> No, I was refuting the claims that Kavanaugh had witnesses who categorically denied the event took place. (The alleged sexual assault).
> Their inability to recall the party or events does not reflect well on Dr Fords claim.


Thanks, and yes that is an important point. CBF says they witnessed something which they say they did not. This discrepancy is by no means dispositive, but it is nonetheless disquieting and probative. Of course, without a specifically designated time and place it is logically impossible for any witness to categorically deny the event, aside of course from the accused, who has.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

jts287 said:


> What could she possibly gain from any of this, other than knowing she told the truth and did her part to expose a ghoul?


Everything. That's why I find myself suspecting manipulation in all of this.

I'm "a liberal", as is most of my social sphere, so I can tell you with certainty: the importance, for the Left, of blocking Kavanaugh is not merely high, it's *total*.

Kavanaugh spells the end of RvW, but more importantly, he immunizes Trump & friends from prosecution... or at least this is the perception. So there is a sense that he must be stopped *at any cost*.

Think about that: at any cost. That's where the Democratic process ends, right there (on either side).

So I am willing to entertain otherwise implausible scenarios.

As for Ford being "believable", she's a high-level psychologist. She can present herself in any light, and it will be convincing. I know a lot of psychologists, and they can be some slippery and unreadable people (especially clinicians, which she is *not*, but still, she knows how to "present").

I'm not drawing any final conclusions, although I do know I have always prided myself on my memory, but if someone starts asking me details about a night in 1982? I'll answer based less on recollection and more on expectation of what I might have done at that age (easy for me - I'd have chosen "stay home and read" over "go to a party" any day of the week, but ask me what I read? Dunno. Tolkien? Stephen King? Something in the sci-fi, horror, or fantasy genre... that's about as specific as I can get!)

O.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

FLMike said:


> I don't agree. In this horrible case, if you want to boil it all down to one motivating word/issue, I'd say "abortion" is the best choice. If BK had ever, over the course of his career, written a single paper or opinion in favor of Roe v Wade, I'm certain we wouldn't be in the situation we are in today.


That's pretty much the scenario in a nutshell. However, I must be careful with my words lest I receive 10,000 coat hangers in the mail.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

jts287 said:


> Alternatively, while I found Dr. Ford humble and sincere, and have to again question why someone would choose to subject herself, her family, and her professional reputation to the glaring spotlight in this manner. What could she possibly gain from any of this, other than knowing she told the truth and did her part to expose a ghoul?


Well, beyond the obvious political benefits to one party, a little over $500K in her go fund me account.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Forget political motives and forget “go fund me”, though I hadn’t heard about the latter up to now. 

Let’s assume she is righteous and assume that she really believes it. The psych notes haven’t been released. 

She claims a recovered memory from 36 years ago. A memory that had been suppressed until 2012; 30 years after the alleged incident. I have no doubt she truly believes it. But the memory could also be imagined. 

Of course, no one will suggest that publicly or at least mention that possibility, certainly not a cowardly press which stands on much safer ground dragging through the mud a man than to appear to be trying to discredit a victim.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

From a purely political point, in my opinion the Dems have way over played this and have out kicked their coverage. 

I truly believe that when all of this was first raised, the thinking within their camp was that the mere allegation of attempted rape, in today's Me Too culture, would cause panic in the White House and a withdrawal of the nominee. It's why they kept it in their back pocket for so long. The shock and awe of such a revelation in the 11th hour would drive a stake through the heart of the nomination. The White House would have gone back and licked it's wounds until after the midterms. 

I say this because they seemed completely unprepared for what happened next. When the Dems had a chance to question Kavanaugh, the best they could do was ask him about fart jokes and drinking beer in high school. They hadn't prepared any probing questions and were certainly unprepared for a feisty nominee. They just were not expecting it to come to this point. Hence the delays and the "fear of flying" on the part of someone who has logged quite an impressive bank of frequent flyer miles.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> From a purely political point, in my opinion the Dems have way over played this and have out kicked their coverage.
> 
> I truly believe that when all of this was first raised, the thinking within their camp was that the mere allegation of attempted rape, in today's Me Too culture, would cause panic in the White House and a withdrawal of the nominee. It's why they kept it in their back pocket for so long. The shock and awe of such a revelation in the 11th hour would drive a stake through the heart of the nomination. The White House would have gone back and licked it's wounds until after the midterms.
> 
> I say this because they seemed completely unprepared for what happened next. When the Dems had a chance to question Kavanaugh, the best they could do was ask him about fart jokes and drinking beer in high school. They hadn't prepared any probing questions and were certainly unprepared for a feisty nominee. They just were not expecting it to come to this point. Hence the delays and the "fear of flying" on the part of someone who has logged quite an impressive bank of frequent flyer miles.


Sadly, I think there is a lot of truth to this. I did not vote for Trump and do not like him, but I give him credit for sticking to his guns -- something that establishment Republicans (my tribe) have historically not been willing to do. While I still do not admire the man in many ways, I admit that I underestimated him and he has admirable qualities that may turn out serving our nation well.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

SG_67 said:


> Interesting that you bring up race. I think you've bared your hand.
> 
> Just wondering if it's possible to make an argument without resorting to racial stereotyping. Usually when one's interlocutor resorts to that it means he's run out of ideas.
> 
> Also, please at least have an original thought. CNN and MSNBC as well as several print outlets have been alluding to this since Thursday.


Now you show your true colors. Sorry chief, arguing with a Breitbart parrot is a lesson in futility, so we'll stop. I'm more than happy to express my moderate viewpoint as well as answer so many questions that seem to puzzle you. He's a scumbag, full stop.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

jts287 said:


> Now you show your true colors. Sorry chief, arguing with a Breitbart parrot is a lesson in futility, so we'll stop. I'm more than happy to express my moderate viewpoint as well as answer so many questions that seem to puzzle you. He's a scumbag, full stop.


Like I said, it's obvious that you're out of ideas. I'm sure it makes you feels better to call people names, but it does little to advance your view point. Good day.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

SG_67 said:


> Like I said, it's obvious that you're out of ideas. I'm sure it makes you feels better to call people names, but it does little to advance your view point. Good day.


I just shake my head at the pseudo-intellectual Richard Spencer types online. Hopefully your jackets fit a little better than his.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

jts287 said:


> I just shake my head at the pseudo-intellectual Richard Spencer types online. Hopefully your jackets fit a little better than his.


Doubling down on the name calling does you no credit, sir.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> CBF's attorney was the Justice Department's inspector general during the Clinton administration. Probably just a coincidence.


Senator Feinstein's office gave her "Advice" on what attorney's to hire,......

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/27/ford_feinstein_gave_me_advice_on_attorneys.html


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jts287 said:


> moderate viewpoint


Moderate viewpoint?
Anything the left tells you is moderate, you believe them?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FLMike said:


> What are you talking about? She never said she was raped.


This is being treated as equal to rape by the democrats, as long as it's not a democrat being accused.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

127.72 MHz said:


> Senator Feinstein's office gave her "Advice" on what attorney's to hire,......
> 
> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/27/ford_feinstein_gave_me_advice_on_attorneys.html


Reminds me of personal injury attorneys who recommend a particular physician.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

derum said:


> No. It simply means that they can not confirm or deny. If they could, their statements would reflect that and not be of the "i don't recall" variety.


If she's not a fraud, then she falls into this boat, too. Which means, Kavanaugh should have been voted in by now by honest senators.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

jts287 said:


> Now you show your true colors. Sorry chief, arguing with a Breitbart parrot is a lesson in futility, so we'll stop. I'm more than happy to express my moderate viewpoint as well as answer so many questions that seem to puzzle you. He's a scumbag, full stop.


After following your posts you seem to have been objectively reasoned into a figurative corner. And, at least in your mind, it sounds as though anyone who disagrees with you may likely fall into the "Breitbart parrot" category.

The liberal left, *as a party*, simply cannot allow Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court,* no matter what*. *Any means* will justify their end. A conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court for the next twenty years is simply not an option under any circumstances.

But for *an individual *with any small measure of objectivetity, following even the most sketchy sense of fair play, let alone due process, to blindly "Parrot" the liberal party line is remarkable. (Pun intended.)

I get it, you believe that keeping Brett Kavanaugh off the Supreme court, no matter what, is paramount.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

127.72 MHz said:


> After following your posts you seem to have been objectively reasoned into a figurative corner. And, at least in your mind, it sounds as though anyone who disagrees with you may likely fall into the "Breitbart parrot" category.
> 
> The liberal left, *as a party*, simply cannot allow Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court,* no matter what*. *Any means* will justify their end. A conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court for the next twenty years is simply not an option under any circumstances.
> 
> ...


I disagree. I'm a moderate imdependent, and am certain that if Kavanaugh is kept off the court,another conservative justice will be appointed. That's fine, it's the President's prerogative. I don't want Kavanaugh kept off the Court because of his conservative viewpoints; I want him disqualified because I believe him to be a sexual predator (past) and perjurer (present). The Breitbart crack speaks to those parroting views likely found on that site- the airplane stuff, the 'she must be crazy' stuff. If you've read my posts, you'll recall that I classify Kennedy as a pretty reliable conservative vote.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

WA said:


> Moderate viewpoint?
> Anything the left tells you is moderate, you believe them?


I'm not going to engage you simply because much of your posts are tough to understand, and honestly, I've been skipping over them lately.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

Mike Petrik said:


> Doubling down on the name calling does you no credit, sir.


Duly noted. I'm sure if the recipient wants to continue to engage, he'll let me know.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Lucido said:


> I'm a liberal that falls several degrees to the left of the average Democrat. I don't want to see conservative justices on the SCOTUS but I also don't feel that the end justifies any and all means. If we go down that road we're no better than McConnell's willful obstructionism.
> 
> Even if Kavanaugh doesn't get confirmed, Trump can and will appoint another conservative justice. You could make the argument that the man is not compos mentis to be making such decisions but the reality is that he's playing Eeny, meeny, miny, moe with a shortlist provided by the adults in the room.
> 
> It's extremely unlikely the Dems will take the Senate in November and so will be unable to prevent his nominee going through. There is almost certainly going to be another conservative judge on the court. We just want him or her to not be a sexual predator.


I understand.

Furthermore, people who think like you are, with clear conscience, able to identify someone as a "Sexual Predator" without any more formal due process than 36 year old memories,....and almost no corroboration.

When someone calls you on no due process or lack of corroboration, you can reply that this is not a court of law! (Got all your bases covered, right?)

After all, many who think like you believe we already have a "Sexual Predator" on the U.S. Supreme Court. (See jts287's post #111)

Remember, as a self proclaimed ultra-fefty the left of your party is preaching that this may mean the end of Roe v Wade. That ought to bring dozens of women from the party of free thinkers out of the woodwork to claim sexual abuse at the hands of those brutal men!

You know, I've wondered why the word misogynist is so commonly used in American public discourse. Men and women being members of the human race should supercede their membership to subset male or female. Shouldn't misandry be just as commonly used as misogynist?

How do you spell hysteria?

Rhetorical questions.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

jts287 said:


> I disagree. I'm a moderate imdependent, and am certain that if Kavanaugh is kept off the court,another conservative justice will be appointed. That's fine, it's the President's prerogative. I don't want Kavanaugh kept off the Court because of his conservative viewpoints; I want him disqualified because I believe him to be a sexual predator (past) and perjurer (present). The Breitbart crack speaks to those parroting views likely found on that site- the airplane stuff, the 'she must be crazy' stuff. If you've read my posts, you'll recall that I classify Kennedy as a pretty reliable conservative vote.


You also confirmed in post #111 that you believe there is already a "Sexual predator" on the U.S. Supreme Court. This runs afoul to any semblance of due process,.....My guess is that you believe your position illustrates that you're a fair minded moderate, Right?

Once again, the question is rhetorical,...


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

WA said:


> If she's not a fraud, then she falls into this boat, too. Which means, Kavanaugh should have been voted in by now by honest senators.


"voted in by now by honest senators." The term honest senators seems a bit of an oxymoron, eh!! LOL.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

jts287 said:


> Duly noted. I'm sure if the recipient wants to continue to engage, he'll let me know.


I don't. I typically don't engage with those who make allusions to race when discussing fitness for office or matters of guilt/innocence.

But thank you for the invite.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

This entire affair is occurring in the shadow of the #MeToo movement. 

It is interesting that the majority of the higher profile offenders and targets of the movement are coming from the ranks of the liberal elite. The patron saint of the offenders, at least in its modern iteration, is Bill Clinton though though this seems to be verboten to speak of. 

The Dems are all too eager to use the energy of the moevement to advance political goals and to raise money. So far I’ve seen no substantive legislation put forth by any of the dems who are putting themselves out as champions of this. Perhaps no one wants to get in front because to do so will put the spotlight on them and certain behaviors from their past will be made public. Funny thing about revolutions, both political and cultural, they seem to eventually eat their own. 

I’ll go on a limb and say that the FBI inquiry will return little if anything. Perhaps one or two people that state they saw Brett Kavanaugh ****faced at a frat party. Upon that, the dems will cry fowl and suggest that the inquiry was not sufficiently thorough, or perhaps even find another “victim”.


----------



## The Irishman (Oct 21, 2013)

I watched the testimonies concerned and it was what I expected from both.

Kavanaugh, angry and upset, came across to me the way some men do when accused of serious offences they have not committed. There is no universal response but this is one mode. Behaving like this is far from incompatible with holding high office, particularly that of a judge, as although we expect a judge to be dispassionate we do not expect this in cases concerning themselves or their interests. We expect judges to recuse themselves in such in such situations because we recognise that there are limitations to everyone’s ability to be rational and act at a remove.

Regarding Ford I would only say that there is no need to perceive malice or intentional deception on her part in order to not accept her testimony at face value. The difficulty is not whether or not something happened to her, it is whether at this point in time and based on the avenues open to us whether her testimony can be corroborated or sufficient evidence is available to support it.

I believe in the presumption of innocence, and this appears to be a case whether there is a tension between that principle and the #metoo zeitgeist and the idea of #ibelieveher.

If the evidence available is insufficient to support a criminal prosecution, and likely would fail a less rigorous standard such as a decision on the balance of probabilities, then where does that leave Kavanaugh? Does he benefit from the presumption of innocence or does #ibelieveher take precedence? Even were a criminal investigation to formally conclude there is insufficient grounds to proceed with a prosecution, or even were he to be acquitted following a trial, it seems that today he would not be concluded to be innocent. The ‘sexual predator’ tag appears to be one which cannot be removed once applied.

However angrily partisan one or both sides may be in this matter, this cannot be a satisfactory way to proceed forward. It is not just Supreme Court judges who wield extensive powers… If accusations which cannot be bottomed out are enough to derail a nominee’s chances, then why not adopt the same approach to the plethora of other positions which could be argued to be similarly important. Undoubtedly there will be activists who wish for exactly this.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

An aging, arguably overweight, but well dressed gym rat working out his frustrations over this Judge Kavanaugh confirmation fiasco!









LOL!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

eagle2250 said:


> An aging, arguably overweight, but well dressed gym rat working out his frustrations over this Judge Kavanaugh confirmation fiasco!
> View attachment 24748
> 
> 
> LOL!


So courteous of you to drape a towel over the back rest.

But what's with the white socks?


----------



## The Irishman (Oct 21, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> This entire affair is occurring in the shadow of the #MeToo movement.
> 
> It is interesting that the majority of the higher profile offenders and targets of the movement are coming from the ranks of the liberal elite. The patron saint of the offenders, at least in its modern iteration, is Bill Clinton though though this seems to be verboten to speak of.


I actually listened to a podcast which tackled the Clinton point you make head on: The Femsplainers Episode 3: Sex, lies and presidents (Prof Christina Hoff Summers and others).

Their argument was that indeed that Clinton was effectively given a pass because of his politics.

I think there is something to this idea but I also think it just was a more permissive era irrespective of party.

(I say this as an outside observer of American politics only, but of course many Irish people are... And they're often the most partisan of all).


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^(responding to post #232) 
They are 'oh-so-sexxxy!' LOL. 
Seriously, old habits die hard.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The Irishman said:


> I actually listened to a podcast which tackled the Clinton point you make head on: The Femsplainers Episode 3: Sex, lies and presidents (Prof Christina Hoff Summers and others).
> 
> Their argument was that indeed that Clinton was effectively given a pass because of his politics.
> 
> ...


It was a different era for sure, and unfortunately so. I have no quarrel with #MeToo. My issue is with politicians who co-opt the phrase only to raise money and to advance their own political agenda.

Unfortunately, the public face of #MeToo is led primarily by Hollywood which is a natural ally of the DNC. Therefore they are all too eager to use it to piggy back the rest of their cultural agenda.

I know we're getting away from the premise of this thread, but it does strike me as interesting.

It's relevance, however, explains the facility with which judge Kavanaugh is presumed guilty and the apparent license many on the left, including elected officials, take with labeling him and portraying him as evil and a rapist. The USA Today ran an article stating that Brett Kavanaugh should not be coaching girls basketball.

There are apparently few if any limits on propriety and decency on the part of the left. Of course, when your mission is to save civilization as we know it, any means necessary literally means just that. If truth needs to be set aside for the time being, then so be it for the greater cause.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

SG_67 said:


> It was a different era for sure, and unfortunately so. I have no quarrel with #MeToo. My issue is with politicians who co-opt the phrase only to raise money and to advance their own political agenda.
> 
> It's relevance, however, explains the facility with which judge Kavanaugh is presumed guilty and the apparent license many on the left, including elected officials, take with labeling him and portraying him as evil and a rapist. The USA Today ran an article stating that Brett Kavanaugh should not be coaching girls basketball.
> 
> *There are apparently few if any limits on propriety and decency on the part of the left. Of course, when your mission is to save civilization as we know it, any means necessary literally means just that. If truth needs to be set aside for the time being, then so be it for the greater cause.*


Moreover this isn't being led by some faceless national group. Even in our local community here at AAAC there are no apologies whatsoever! No shame at all!


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> It was a different era for sure, and unfortunately so. I have no quarrel with #MeToo. My issue is with politicians who co-opt the phrase only to raise money and to advance their own political agenda.
> 
> Unfortunately, the public face of #MeToo is led primarily by Hollywood which is a natural ally of the DNC. Therefore they are all too eager to use it to piggy back the rest of their cultural agenda.
> 
> ...


The last paragraph is the only part I take issue with.
Let's be honest, propriety and decency have been left behind by all sides when it suits.
Truth has been set aside for the greater cause by the GOP regarding Trump, as it was/is by the Dems regarding Clinton.
The current division of the populace along party lines is worse than ever, the behaviour of certain members on both sides fanning the flames of discontent further.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> The last paragraph is the only part I take issue with.
> Let's be honest, propriety and decency have been left behind by all sides when it suits.
> Truth has been set aside for the greater cause by the GOP regarding Trump, as it was/is by the Dems regarding Clinton.
> The current division of the populace along party lines is worse than ever, the behaviour of certain members on both sides fanning the flames of discontent further.


It's one thing to be lined up in either the Dem or GOP phalanx. I honestly cannot recall hearing the sort of tripe I've heard over the past few weeks.

Those arguing that Trump has coarsened the public debate may have a point. He's certainly thrown out the playbook. But for the last 2 years I've heard everything from he's crazy, he's a racist, he's a misogynist and I could go on.

On the Kavanaugh issue, where do I begin. The judge had a good point in his argument on Thursday; he thought he would just be subject to a good old fashioned "Borking". This fiasco makes the Bork nomination proceedings appear tame and restrained.

It seems to usually be the Left that goes for these tactics. I remember none other than Uncle Teddy questioning Sam Alito about his membership in a Princeton "Eating Club". Turns out Uncle Teddy belonged to something similar during his time at Harvard. Incidentally it was Uncle Teddy, champion of women's rights, who was the author of the antics which gave rise to the term Borking. Within a few years of his staunch defense of women, he was caught having sex in a DC restaurant. The same establishment that he manhandled a woman when he and Chris Dodd were both apparently drunk.

Senator Spartacus is well known to be exchanging some less than appropriate text messages with a west coast stripper. I'll give him a pass I guess since he is single. Still, the life of a stripper is one which usually involves some exploitation and I would think that someone as "woke" as senator Spartacus would appreciate that and instead use such a relationship to help her. But I guess when you write of your own sexual prowess, a few texts back and forth with a stripper makes sense.

I could go on and on, but nary a peep from any media outlets about this. Instead, the left will label as sexist, racist and sexual predator anyone with whom it finds quarrel.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> "voted in by now by honest senators." The term honest senators seems a bit of an oxymoron, eh!! LOL.


Maybe there aren't any honest senators. But once in awhile some of them got to vote honest.

Anyway, the republicans need to stop the democrats from walking all over them. Put the shoe on the other foot, huh?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

derum said:


> The last paragraph is the only part I take issue with.
> Let's be honest, propriety and decency have been left behind by all sides when it suits.
> Truth has been set aside for the greater cause by the GOP regarding Trump, as it was/is by the Dems regarding Clinton.
> The current division of the populace along party lines is worse than ever, the behaviour of certain members on both sides fanning the flames of discontent further.


Disagree with your reasoning. We don't always get good choices. If the choice is two rotten people some people pick the one that is the lest worse. Hillary said she wants to open up the Gates Of Hell- *Sodom and Gomorrah and continue pushing for baby murder. *All of Trumps sins put together are not anywhere near as terrible as hers.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Lucido said:


> What do you want the left to apologise for exactly?
> 
> Trying to keep a sexual predator off the SCOTUS? Opposing the ongoing dumpster fire that is the Trump presidency?


That dumpster fire just renegotiated NAFTA and now the Chinese have to think twice about protracting a trade war.

As for sexual predators on the Supreme Court, I'm all in favor of keeping them off.

This isn't about that though. If it were, the Dems would have quietly approached the chairman and an inquiry would have begun.

I hesitate to use the term character assassination and it is already well known and yet this latest chapter in our sad politics has achieved a breakthrough of seismic proportion. Perhaps someone more eloquent than I can hope to be will coin a new phrase.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Lucido said:


> What do you want the left to apologise for exactly?
> 
> Trying to keep a sexual predator off the SCOTUS? Opposing the ongoing dumpster fire that is the Trump presidency?


You are a bit too quick with your conclusions. On your side of the pond, perhaps people are considered guilty until proven innocent, but on this side of the pond, the accused is considered innocent, until proven guilty. Slow your roll, son.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I’m always amused when folks from other countries weigh in on our politics. I recall this being the case in 2016 as well. 

Funny how we don’t make a big deal out of whether or not Angela Merkel should remain Chancellor or if Parliament should hold a vote of no confidence for Theresa May.


----------



## The Irishman (Oct 21, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> I'm always amused when folks from other countries weigh in on our politics. I recall this being the case in 2016 as well.
> 
> Funny how we don't make a big deal out of whether or not Angela Merkel should remain Chancellor or if Parliament should hold a vote of no confidence for Theresa May.


There's a notable obsession with U.S politics amongst the Irish media and chattering classes (in the UK too I would say). And it's pretty much relentlessly pro Democrat, due to the disposition of media outlets here. What's troubling about it is the lack of self awareness around our willingness to pontificate to actual U.S citizens when given half a chance. I cringe hard when I hear overseas visitors in bars here subjected to a rant about republicans or American issues with racism or whatever else. The golden era for such matters was during George W. Bush's administration, I feel.

As far as the erosion of the notion of presumption of innocence, and whether it is intact this side of the pond. I believe, by and large, it is, although we did have an interesting moment following the acquittal of three professional rugby players accused of rape in a Belfast (Northern Ireland) court.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/cri...ete-story-of-the-belfast-rape-trial-1.3443620

It was an unsavoury matter and I can see it went to trial.

Following the accused's' acquittal what was interesting to me is that the notion of #ibelieveher meant that a substantial number of commentators could not move on and accepted that the accused had been found not guilty. There was talk of shifting the probative burden in future trials of this nature, non criminal sanctions for those acquitted and so forth. A lot of the ire spilled out at men of a similar educational background and even fans and players of the sport of rugby in general.

The tension between the competing presumption of innocence a person is afforded with the notion that victims should be believed and that people do not, by and large, lie about sexual offences, is a difficulty. On the one hand, there is a need to ensure that conviction rates for sexual offences are not lower than they ought to be. On the other hand, it is a dangerous thing to place one's thumb on the scales of justice and prejudge the facts of the matter by validating all complaints in a non critical way.

Another issue in the trial I link to above was that problems arose whereby a trial was occurring in social media - parallel to the actual trial. There were concerns about the influence of social media postings - particularly by politicians - on deliberations.

It is difficult to see how a social media storm such as at the heart of these matters around Kavanaugh could not but prejudice a criminal trial down the line, were there evidence enough to support one.

I note efforts appear to have shifted now towards painting Kavanaugh as a heavy drinker. One assumes the intent is to query his recall and awareness of what he did those years ago. Hard to deny have done something if your interrogators can assert that you _could_ have done it while you were black-out drunk.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

SG_67 said:


> But what's with the white socks?


Am I missing something here? Are you saying that he should not be wearing white socks while exercising?


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ No way Eagle should be wearing white socks while exercising,....They should be knee high argyles!


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> I'm always amused when folks from other countries weigh in on our politics. I recall this being the case in 2016 as well.
> 
> Funny how we don't make a big deal out of whether or not Angela Merkel should remain Chancellor or if Parliament should hold a vote of no confidence for Theresa May.


It's always been this way. The people of England especially take a keen interest in American politics, some to admire, some to scoff, but the current fascination (for want of a better word) with Trump has yet to achieve the levels seen during the Reagan and GW Bush terms. Obama and Clinton were seen much more favourably. Of course that is a generalisation and the reality is that in England, it is often easier to say nothing than profess admiration for the American right. I have lived in the USA for over 20 years now, and have seen politics on both sides of the Atlantic become ever more polarised and unpredictable. Trump? Brexit? No seasoned political watcher expected either of those outcomes, but here we are.

And yes, @eagle, the presumption of innocence applies in Britain, and white socks are fine with trainers. 
But only with trainers.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

127.72 MHz said:


> You also confirmed in post #111 that you believe there is already a "Sexual predator" on the U.S. Supreme Court. This runs afoul to any semblance of due process,.....My guess is that you believe your position illustrates that you're a fair minded moderate, Right?
> 
> Once again, the question is rhetorical,...


Clarence Thomas is a sexual predator in my estimation, and Anita Hill was denied a fair hearing. There's my rhetorical answer.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

jts287 said:


> Clarence Thomas is a sexual predator in my estimation, and Anita Hill was denied a fair hearing. There's my rhetorical answer.







Cheers,

BSR


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

jts287 said:


> Clarence Thomas is a sexual predator in my estimation, and Anita Hill was denied a fair hearing. There's my rhetorical answer.


This is a tough lesson for people who think like you to learn.

Your opinion does not make fact, period.

Moreover, your opinion, convicting an individual lacking any objective evidence is wrong on so many levels it is just not worth trying to reason with you.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

127.72 MHz said:


> This is a tough lesson for people who think like you to learn.
> 
> Your opinion does not make fact, period.
> 
> Moreover, your opinion, convicting an individual lacking any objective evidence is wrong on so many levels it is just not worth trying to reason with you.


I went round and round with that other guy answering questions and providing reasoning, only to be accused of plagiarizing CNN, or somesuch. I'll not be so foolish with you. Like my opinions? Great. Don't? Tough.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


True, but you have to admit that my opinions really tie the room together...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

jts287 said:


> Clarence Thomas is a sexual predator in my estimation, and Anita Hill was denied a fair hearing. There's my rhetorical answer.


Even if you took 100% of the claims against Thomas at face value, it would be quite a leap to call him a sexual predator.

But yes, you seem to be quite the moderate.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

jts287 said:


> Clarence Thomas is a sexual predator in my estimation, and Anita Hill was denied a fair hearing. There's my rhetorical answer.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

vpkozel said:


> Even if you took 100% of the claims against Thomas at face value, it would be quite a leap to call him a sexual predator.
> 
> But yes, you seem to be quite the moderate.


I'm a husband, and a father to a young daughter. My opinion is that repeated, lurid, unwanted advances rises to predation, especially when the individual making the advances holds a position of power over the recipient. Are the claims against Thomas comparable to those against Kavanaugh comparable? Of course not. Well, except for the perjury part.

I will say this: I bet that the readership on this site in the most general sense skews more red than blue, that those objecting to my opinions are (on average) older than I, and that being circumspect in one's views can be tough, especially on the internet, where no one is ever wrong.

If anyone wants to really punish themselves, I welcome him to reread the entire topic. My first posts described concerns I had about something being amiss, and I urged for more time to let things unfold. While AAAC eyes rolled, the Senate agreed with me. As info came out, my opinions evolved (disgust for Kav, etc) and while AAAC eyes again rolled, it is looking more and more like my "Stomach Jesus" or whatever was right: this guy is (or was) bad news. Lying about his drinking. "Renate Alumnius", fiery and indignant hearing performance, classmate's op-ed in the Times, etc. I don't expect any of my critics here to consider any of that to be anything but "fake news", though.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

It never ceases to amaze me how people will call someone else a liar (or sexual predator) when there are no definitive facts on the table. 

As the father of two young boys, I certainly raise them to treat everyone with respect. But I also have friends who were falsely accused of rape and that scares the everliving hell out of me. Especially in today’s environment where people like you - who claim to be moderate - have abandoned all sense of propriety and responsibility when political expediency makes it convenient.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

drlivingston said:


>


Just FYI, your last couple posts in this thread just show up as "IMG" in brackets on my screen. Not sure if others can see what you posted but I cannot.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ I found the same thing on one computer but I can see the moving image on my other system.
??


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

If there was anything really credible to any of this there would be women coming out of the woodworks. There would be plenty of witnesses and he would likely have a long trail of such behavior, begging the question whether he would even be at a level of being considered. 

None of this has occurred. There are no credible witnesses. There is no credible evidence. The claims are at best fantastical. 

Meanwhile the guy has had dozens of female law clerks, all of whom have praised him for his mentor ship. 

So many opportunities to have been sexual predator should he have harbored such desires and drives, yet when he has held such power and been able to exercise it, it’s not something that he’s done. 

Most sexual predators don’t stop after high school. If some would just put their fire out and think in a reasoned manner, I believe at least some doubt would enter into your minds. 

This is pure politics, though raised to a new level of depravity that will unfortunately become the new yardstick. It took 30 years to go from Bork to Kavanaugh. I wonder what this process will look like in another 30 years.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Lucido said:


> This isn't a court of law and it's not up to the Senate to decide if Kavanaugh is innocent or guilty of a crime.
> 
> Senators take into account character, ethics and whether a nominee has dissembled, lied or misled them in the process. Kavanaugh has done all of those things.


It may not be a court of law, granted, but it is nonetheless an effort to get at some truth.

The rules of evidence still apply. A court of law is little more than a formal extension of the general rules of civility.

An allegation is made; "little Jackie, I think you stole the cookies from the cookie jar!"

Little Jackie need not, nor cannot prove, that he didn't do it. In fact, to attempt to do so flies in the fact of western reasoning and rationalism.

So please, enough with appeals to this notion that it is not a court of law. We are aware of that. In any case when an allegation is made, it is the responsibility of the party or parties making such allegations to present evidence to make their case.

The only difference is that those rules are more codified and more strict in a criminal case.

By the way, how exactly has he misled them? Where and when has he lied and what about his character is so disqualifying?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Lucido said:


> You seem to be incapable of moving beyond this statement. What exactly do you want, HD footage of Kavanaugh and his buddies slipping roofies into drinks and gang-raping women on campus?
> 
> Three women have come forward with accusations of sexual assault and sworn testimony under the penalty of perjury is most definitely evidence.
> 
> That's before we even get into the multiple reports of Kavanaugh abusing alcohol and being involved in bar-room brawls. The man is clearly not fit for office.


Bar room brawls? You mean this?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/kavanaugh-bar-fight.html

That's pretty thin gruel my friend. A claim made against him by someone? No charges filed?

And stop with the hyperbole. This is one alleged incident and not multiple. Would you want your entire life's work and effort to be judged by something you did when you were 21?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Lucido said:


> What exactly do you want, HD footage of Kavanaugh and his buddies slipping roofies into drinks and gang-raping women on campus


Zapruder level 8mm would be fine. Thanks

And, for every "proof" you have there is at least one and generally multiple people denying that happened or that it did not happen that way.

But hey, why let a little tbing like facts get in the way of a good witch hunt?

Anybody have a duck to use as a counterweight?


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

FLMike said:


> Just FYI, your last couple posts in this thread just show up as "IMG" in brackets on my screen. Not sure if others can see what you posted but I cannot.


Hmmm... Thanks for letting me know. It probably has to do with my uploading format.


----------



## The Irishman (Oct 21, 2013)

The bar room brawling and drinking Kavanaugh is alleged to have been so wild with just sounds like a lot of mens' experience of being an undergraduate student.

Actually, I just the article about the 'brawl' linked to above, sounds like his involvement was peripheral at most, if it's really the case that it amounted to him kicking the whole thing off by possibly throw some ice cubes. Any involvement beyond that? Now if he'd been the guy who threw the glass... That's a different matter entirely.

I wonder is the reason the focus is shifting to the alcohol consumption and the 'brawling' because traction is being lost elsewhere.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Actually, this one week delay has brought forth more information. 

Apparently Ms. Ford’s ex-boyfriend has given a sworn statement contradicting a few of her statements from last week. 

But let’s not trouble ourselves with facts.


----------



## The Irishman (Oct 21, 2013)

Clever piece, I thought, on what is at the crux of this.

https://nypost.com/2018/10/01/today-atticus-finch-would-be-a-villain/


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The Irishman said:


> Clever piece, I thought, on what is at the crux of this.
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/10/01/today-atticus-finch-would-be-a-villain/


I read the same article in National Review. It is interesting.

This whole thing has been and remains purely political. Any suggestion otherwise is either blatant falsehood or just pure ignorance.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Lucido said:


> You seem to be incapable of moving beyond this statement. What exactly do you want, HD footage of Kavanaugh and his buddies slipping roofies into drinks and gang-raping women on campus?
> 
> Three women have come forward with accusations of sexual assault and sworn testimony under the penalty of perjury is most definitely evidence.
> 
> That's before we even get into the multiple reports of Kavanaugh abusing alcohol and being involved in bar-room brawls. The man is clearly not fit for office.


Testimony is not evidence. If it were, the debate regarding the existence of God would have been settled long ago.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Testimony is not evidence. If it were, the debate regarding the existence of God would have been settled long ago.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


Sorry BSR but testimony is in fact evidence. One can even be found guilty of a crime based on testimony alone.
It doesn't alter the debate about the existence of God though.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Testimony is not evidence. If it were, the debate regarding the existence of God would have been settled long ago.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


Testimony, buy its very nature, is indeed evidence. The question is whether it is direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. You mentioned religion, where testimony is a key element. In religion and law, testimony has the same function. They are both attestations of a perceived truth.


----------



## The Irishman (Oct 21, 2013)

Direct evidence is the best evidence, and were this a criminal trial then the evidence of an eyewitness and an injured party would be worth a lot in terms of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, in the ordinary course of things we are aware that even eyewitnesses' evidence - and indeed injured party's evidence - is still fallible, and many is the witness who has a lorry driven through their account of events in cross examination. Malice or perjury is rarely necessary as an explanation of this when human memory and perceptions are so inherently prone to error, especially in stressful situations and particularly with the passage of time.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> Sorry BSR but testimony is in fact evidence. One can even be found guilty of a crime based on testimony alone.
> It doesn't alter the debate about the existence of God though.


Testimony still needs to be corroborated. Otherwise anyone can say anything.

And if it is evidence, then it should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other piece of evidence. It's validity needs to be investigated and challenged.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> Testimony still needs to be corroborated. Otherwise anyone can say anything.


No it doesn't. And yes they can, but most choose not to do so under oath.



SG_67 said:


> And if it is evidence, then it should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other piece of evidence. It's validity needs to be investigated and challenged.


All evidence is/can be subject to scrutiny and cross examination, Testimony is no exception.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Testimony is not evidence. If it were, the debate regarding the existence of God would have been settled long ago.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


It seems you may be confusing evidence with proof. There is plenty of evidence of the existence of God. Look around you, my friend.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

derum said:


> And yes they can, but most choose not to do so under oath.


Well, this is categorically false. People lie under oath all the time.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

FLMike said:


> Well, this is categorically false. People lie under oath all the time.


Read what was written. "Most choose not to"
Now explain categorically false.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

“Most” is admittedly an imprecise term, and literally just means more than half. However, in the context of your statement, it would seem you were asserting a number closer to 100% than 50%. If you were suggesting simply that more tell the truth than lie while under oath, I’m prepared to back off my statement. Perhaps that’s the case. Again, it didn’t seem that’s all you were suggesting.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

FLMike said:


> "Most" is admittedly an imprecise term, and literally just means more than half. However, in the context of your statement, it would seem you were asserting a number closer to 100% than 50%. If you were suggesting simply that more tell the truth than lie while under oath, I'm prepared to back off my statement. Perhaps that's the case. Again, it didn't seem that's all you were suggesting.


Really? the word "most" causes you such anguish?
I was not asserting any number. Perhaps I should have said "the majority", but that too could have caused you confusion. Perhaps I should have been specific and said something like 55%, but that would have been mendacious, as I have no way of knowing the numbers. And there's the rub, neither do you. 
Let's live in a land where we still believe that greater than 50% of people under oath tell the truth.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> All evidence is/can be subject to scrutiny and cross examination, Testimony is no exception.


By your own standards, then, the testimony and therefore the evidence has crashed and burned like a zeppelin.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> By your own standards, then, the testimony and therefore the evidence has crashed and burned like a zeppelin.


Apart from the direct testimonies by Ford and Kavanaugh there is no evidence, hence the further enquiry.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> Apart from the direct testimonies by Ford and Kavanaugh there is no evidence, hence the further enquiry.


And what has that further inquiry revealed thus far? Sounds like the FBI is getting ready to wrap it up.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

derum said:


> Apart from the direct testimonies by Ford and Kavanaugh there is no evidence, hence the further enquiry.


There is a good bit of evidence in the form of other witness' statements.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

drlivingston said:


> Testimony, buy its very nature, is indeed evidence. The question is whether it is direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. You mentioned religion, where testimony is a key element. In religion and law, testimony has the same function. They are both attestations of a perceived truth.


I learned something new today. Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Thanks!

BSR


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

derum said:


> Sorry BSR but testimony is in fact evidence. One can even be found guilty of a crime based on testimony alone.
> It doesn't alter the debate about the existence of God though.


This is why I like jury nullification.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Kudos to Chelsea Clinton (didn't think that I would ever type that) for publicly stating that Kavanaugh's daughter should be off-limits. When someone declares himself/herself a candidate for office or accepts a nomination, he or she opens their life to scrutiny. That scrutiny should NOT in any way focus on the candidate's children. To drag a child into this mudslinging arena is reprehensible.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Lucido said:


> The ACLU broke their non-partisan tradition.....


Thank you! I haven't had a good laugh for some time.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Lucido said:


> 650+ Law Professors (and counting) have publicly signed a letter urging the Senate not to confirm Kavanaugh citing serious problems including being inflammatory and intemperate.
> _"We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land."_


Yes, we all know how thoughtful and measured professors are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_88

Pro-Roe and consitutional law professor emeritus Ann Althouse exposes their dishonesty:

https://althouse.blogspot.com/

I encourage folks to visit Professor Althouse's blog. She is smart, thoughtful, and fair-minded.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Lost in much of this back and forth is the following statement by Ms. Ford’s attorney:

"An FBI supplemental background investigation that did not include an interview of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford-- nor the witnesses who corroborate her testimony-- cannot be called an investigation," the statement read. "We are profoundly disappointed that after the tremendous sacrifice she made in coming forward, those directing the FBI investigation were not interested in seeking the truth."

I’m no lawyer, but I do know something about fiduciary duty. Isn’t the job of an attorney to act in the interest of his/her client? According to Ms. Ford, she was a most reluctant witness. Why is her attorney concerning himself with a political process? What point of law or legal question is being served by her attorney interjecting himself?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Where were all these countervailing opinions of Judge Kavanaugh's potential judicial temperament when he was nominated to sever at the appellate court level. But then, at that level, Roe vs Wade was not at risk...was it? How can such justify using teenager's high school high jinks to discredit and/or destroy a lifetime of professional achievements, contributions to society, etc. :icon_scratch:

It seems that members of the electorate are becoming as soiled as their elected officials!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> Where were all these countervailing opinions of Judge Kavanaugh's potential judicial temperament when he was nominated to sever at the appellate court level. But then, at that level, Roe vs Wade was not at risk...was it? How can such justify using teenager's high school high jinks to discredit and/or destroy a lifetime of professional achievements, contributions to society, etc. :icon_scratch:
> 
> It seems that members of the electorate are becoming as soiled as their elected officials!


Americans are getting the elected officials we deserve, eagle -- good and hard.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> It seems that members of the electorate are becoming as soiled as their elected officials!


Or the elected officials are becoming as soiled as the electorate, depending on your viewpoint


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> Or the elected officials are becoming as soiled as the electorate, depending on your viewpoint


The elected officials come from the people. They are a reflection of the particular population they represent.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> The elected officials come from the people. They are a reflection of the particular population they represent.


It was meant to be humorous.
Interesting to see you espousing Obama's mantra: "Politicians and government are reflections of ourselves. If a society is healthy, politics will also be. If a society is sick, politics will be."


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

derum said:


> It was meant to be humorous.
> Interesting to see you espousing Obama's mantra: "Politicians and government are reflections of ourselves. If a society is healthy, politics will also be. If a society is sick, politics will be."


I think Obama may have gotten that from James Madison....a few years earlier.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

FLMike said:


> I think Obama may have gotten that from James Madison....a few years earlier.


Show the quote, educate me.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

derum said:


> Show the quote, educate me.


While I don't know that any our Constitution's framers ever actually asserted that our leaders will be moral reflections of our people, they certainly did know that the government will not work without a sufficiently virtuous people.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams

"To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea." -- James Madison


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> While I don't know that any our Constitution's framers ever actually asserted that our leaders will be moral reflections of our people, they certainly did know that the government will not work without a sufficiently virtuous people.
> 
> "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams
> 
> "To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea." -- James Madison


I thought, as a minimum, that he would have used this one: "What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature" James Madison.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> Show the quote, educate me.


If not that exact quote, then the sentiment certainly goes back perhaps even to antiquity.

Cicero is thought to have said something about politicians not being born, but being excreted.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> If not that exact quote, then the sentiment certainly goes back perhaps even to antiquity.
> 
> Cicero is thought to have said something about politicians not being born, but being excreted.


My favourite, along similar lines, is this: 
Politicians are like diapers: they should be changed often, and for the same reason.
(source unknown but sadly not by Mark Twain as often supposed).


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

derum said:


> Show the quote, educate me.


"What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections of human nature?" -James Madison


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

FLMike said:


> "What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections of human nature?" -James Madison


See post #301


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

derum said:


> See post #301


Not sure why you needed me to show you, then. :icon_scratch:


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

FLMike said:


> Not sure why you needed me to show you, then. :icon_scratch:


Still waiting. Thats only vaguely referencing part of the quote I posted.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Well, a vote is coming up.
Hope he gets enough votes.
Otherwise the democrats will continue to slander every conservative nominees. Democrats are full of and driven by hatred it seems to me.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I’m really looking forward to this being over if for no other reason than to not have to hear any more random women who get a camera shoved in their face go on and on about being “survivors”. 

This has become the 2018 buzz word and simply uttering it gives a woman, in the eyes of some, 100% immunity from having to use reason. It is a license to yell, scream and harass and anyone while the target of that ire dare not utter anything in defense.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

SG_67 said:


> I'm really looking forward to this being over if for no other reason than to not have to hear any more random women who get a camera shoved in their face go on and on about being "survivors".
> 
> This has become the 2018 buzz word and simply uttering it gives a woman, in the eyes of some, 100% immunity from having to use reason. It is a license to yell, scream and harass and anyone while the target of that ire dare not utter anything in defense.


It's become a religion and anyone expressing disagreement is apostate.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## challer (Sep 4, 2008)

Oldsarge said:


> I regularly imagine moving to the Irish countryside. I doubt that I will but I keep wondering why not.


Politics is no better there


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

If this whole fiasco has done anything it’s to remind me of my own high school days. 

Brett Kavanaugh and I are roughly the same age and graduated high school around the same time, though certainly removed by geography and other factors. 

I remember the house parities and the beer drinking. I remember raiding our friends dad’s liquor cabinet. I remember the silly and stupid nicknames and other dumb things we would say to one other; changing song lyrics to mean something else or something dirty. Talking about girls and how they’ve developed and what we would do with them though we hadn’t a clue as to what we would really do if given the opportunity. 

Acting and talking like grown ups yet not having any understanding of what that meant. Looking back, I yearn for those carefree days and the lack of any real responsibility. 

God forbid all of that were dredged up and out on display for the nation to see. I can only imagine sitting in front of a senate committee with Sheldon Whitehouse having a big, blown up diagram of a glass of beer and a quarter and asking me to explain the illustrated schematic and how exactly we played quarters. Perhaps how we played “drink, drank, drunk” and if there was a more sinister meaning to that game.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> If this whole fiasco has done anything it's to remind me of my own high school days.
> 
> Brett Kavanaugh and I are roughly the same age and graduated high school around the same time, though certainly removed by geography and other factors.
> 
> ...


Those were the days (Mary Hopkin) when listened to now, is much more poignant.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

Hopefully nearing the end of this divisive event. Let's hope that all sides can accept the outcome and move on.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

derum said:


> Hopefully nearing the end of this divisive event. Let's hope that all sides can accept the outcome and move on.


I can sense the sincerity of your statement so I will join with you in hoping for the same.

Unfortunately, many on one side of this haven't even accepted, let alone move on from, the events of two years ago.

The mob will never be placated. One cannot reason with a child. The mob is little more than a child. You either give it a cookie or it doesn't shut up. At some point it might get tired but eventually it will want another cookie.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ Point taken, the left will never get over this,...
(Jeeze, it feels odd saying that knowing I'm a registered Democrat with slightly left of center leanings,...I didn't leave the Democratic party, they left me.) The middle to the left wing of the Democratic party is completely round the bend in my opinion.

Susan Collins made a poignant speech on the floor of the Senate. I listened to the entire 20+ minutes of it. Well spoken.

While acknowledging that Professor Christine Blasey Ford may have come forward with the best of intentions she was also betrayed and victimized by someone in Senator_ Dianne_ _Feinsten's office_ leaking her confidential correspondence. Sadly, according to what Susan Collins said in her speech, there was no corroboration to Professor Ford's accusations.

Bottom line, there has to be some presumption of innocence.

For those who are interested in the entire transcript: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/us/politics/susan-collins-speech-brett-kavanaugh.html


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Regardless of the outcome, life will surely go on!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> It's become a religion and anyone expressing disagreement is apostate.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


Yes, though most religions treat their apostates with much greater kindness.


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> Regardless of the outcome, life will surely go on!


It will go on but I fear the Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings will serve as a accelerant to eventual disintegration of the United States. We are no longer one nation but a collection of various racial, ethnic, religious, and ideological groups which have overlaps but not much holding them together.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Cowtown said:


> It will go on but I fear the Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings will serve as a accelerant to eventual disintegration of the United States. We are no longer one nation but a collection of various racial, ethnic, religious, and ideological groups which have overlaps but not much holding them together.


We've been through a civil war where we actually shot at one another and a period of time when we were lynching our fellow citizens. We will get through it.

We are a country of >300 million. There is a very small, yet vocal faction. The media don't go to Kansas and interview the man or woman getting in his or her car at 5am to head to work. Their cameras love the hipster millennial who is yelling and screaming and repeating well rehearsed chants. This is not a representation of reality.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Cowtown said:


> It will go on but I fear the Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings will serve as a accelerant to eventual disintegration of the United States. We are no longer one nation but a collection of various racial, ethnic, religious, and ideological groups which have overlaps but not much holding them together.


^^ In my opinion you are spot on with every word.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> We've been through a civil war where we actually shot at one another and a period of time when we were lynching our fellow citizens. We will get through it.
> 
> We are a country of >300 million. There is a very small, yet vocal faction. The media don't go to Kansas and interview the man or woman getting in his or her car at 5am to head to work. Their cameras love the hipster millennial who is yelling and screaming and repeating well rehearsed chants. This is not a representation of reality.


Exactly so.

If you're a student of history, you'll know that things can get MUCH worse than America 2018. Frankly, this is a Golden Age of Man compared to most the the world, and most years in history. (Try "the Sudan" or "the 7th century" on for size, and you'll come running back home ASAP.)

It's important to consider the amplifying effect media has. I noticed one day that I have 70 "followers" on Facebook; I've never solicited them, but they just kind of organically aggregated. That's more people than in any single class I ever taught (I never taught Freshman requirements, always degree requirement, advanced elective, or seminar-style classes, granted - those can have you lecturing to 300 students - but that's triple the usual number of people I'm accustomed to "reaching". Imagine 5 or 10 thousand!)

That's not to say we shouldn't proceed with caution.

Here's a rather pessimistic - but I think very true - statement: every war, every catastrophe, every atrocity which has ever occurred will - someday - be exceeded. Hitler, Mao, Stalin - someday, someone (or some thing) is going to come along and make their "work" look like amateur hour.

But that's not here (in the USA), and it's not today. And it's not tomorrow, or the next day. Someday? Maybe. But not now.

"Spirited" is perhaps the best word; modern American political discourse has become "spirited", but even then, we have yet to have a full-on brawl in the Senate (even Japan has enjoyed a good parliament brawl as recently as 2015). So I think things are well removed from "disintegration"!

DH


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

Really, this is the older conservatives versus the younger liberals. Pretty sure I can guess who'll win in the long run, and those 'hipster millennials' chanting for victims' rights will be pictured in textbooks next to the black teens at the lunch counter.

That the average age of a Fox News viewer is close to that of our President should speak volumes of the odds of a disintegration of our Union.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

jts287 said:


> Really, this is the older conservatives versus. the younger liberals. Pretty sure I can guess who'll win in the long run, and those 'hipster millennials' chanting for victims' rights will be pictured in textbooks next to the black teens at the lunch counter.
> 
> That the average age of a Fox News viewer is close to that of our President should speak volumes of the odds of a disintegration of our Union.


My aren't we being apocalyptic!

Victims certainly have rights. So do those accused. Or are you suggesting a wholesale gutting of our constitutional system?

By the way, marching for civil rights and throwing tantrums are two separate things. I very much doubt that your premise is valid and even making the comparison is somewhat vile given that people involved in the struggle for civil rights actually died and endured actual physical violence.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

SG_67 said:


> My aren't we being apocalyptic!
> 
> Victims certainly have rights. So do those accused. Or are you suggesting a wholesale gutting of our constitutional system?
> 
> By the way, marching for civil rights and throwing tantrums are two separate things. I very much doubt that your premise is valid and even making the comparison is somewhat vile given that people involved in the struggle for civil rights actually died and endured actual physical violence.


I'm not sure that marching for victims' rights should be equated with throwing tantrums, but then again I'm not as blinded by partisanship as some. The freedom to peacibly assemble and seek redress of grievances is so ingrained in our nations' being that I'll presume you were being sarcastic when you repeatedly described 'tantrums'. Certainly even you can realize the violence visited upon sexual assault victims...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

jts287 said:


> I'm not sure that marching for victims' rights should be equated with throwing tantrums, but then again I'm not as blinded by partisanship as some. The freedom to peacibly assemble and seek redress of grievances is so ingrained in our nations' being that I'll presume you were being sarcastic when you repeatedly described 'tantrums'. Certainly even you can realize the violence visited upon sexual assault victims...


Sure, they can march. They can say whatever they want. The constitution allows for public tantrums as well.

It's not a matter of whether they have the right or should or even can. It's a matter of being taken seriously. Saying you "believe her because she's telling the truth" is not a serious argument. And this from a sitting United States senator.

I'm not sure that there is some lack of the public's awareness of sexual violence. Your suggestion otherwise and directed at me is a straw man. And hence the labeling of a tantrum.

Am I supposed to just take on face value anyone saying she is a "survivor"? Does that give them some license or some immunity from using reason and logic?

I'm not going to re-litigate the events of the past few weeks. I will simply say that yelling and screaming that you're a survivor isn't enough. If you're going to single out another human being then some measure of proof is required.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

So are you advocating that anyone who wants to be known as a survivor first provide you proof of such? Being passionate about a cause in contravention to your personal beliefs makes them devoid of logic? I'm sorry, but I find your most recent post both revealing and odious in the extreme.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

jts287 said:


> So are you advocating that anyone who wants to be known as a survivor first provide you proof of such? Being passionate about a cause in contravention to your personal beliefs makes them devoid of logic? I'm sorry, but I find your most recent post both revealing and odious in the extreme.


You'll pardon me now as I have to run. I'm having some Russian friends over so we can discuss the next Supreme Court pick and how to eliminate the EPA.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

Have a good one, comrade.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

The Civil Rights movement really can't be compared with whatever one might call the current progressive "movement" (the lack of a coherent name underscores its inefficacy).

The former had a leadership dream team (I mean, Martin Luther King? Ever hear him speak?), while the latter... not so much. Even the Counterculture movement(s) of the late 60s/early 70s was better put together - one can at east name key figures (Hoffman, Ginsberg, Kesey, etc) in that movement.

The current generation of "progressives" suffer from the twin weaknesses of (1) no coherent message and (2) a distinct lack of charisma. It's so timid - a weak cultural arsonism which left the matches in the van.

I mean, they couldn't even get a crybaby accused of sexual assault out of the picture - and they think there's going to be a magic sweep of the Senate in November? I'm not a betting man, but I know where I'd be putting *my* money.

DH


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Lucido said:


> This.
> 
> The GOP is on the wrong side of history. For all of their gerrymandering, voter suppression, obstructionism and Faux News disinformation they've only managed to get one president elected by popular vote since 1990. Angry white Boomers are a finite resource and it will be straight carnage for the Republicans once the Millennials become the largest voting block by 2020/2024.


So far it appears they are on the winning side. The first law of politics, one must win to rule.

The Democrats, with their choice of the worst Presidential candidate in history, are as much to blame for the current situation as the Party in power.

As the great Will Rodgers stated, "I don't belong to any organised political party. I'm a Democrat!"

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

The new age of scorched earth sexual politics is going to be a very dark period and one that I hope burns out hot and fast. It is so depressing. Thank God this grisly scene is over and we can get back to more important pursuits.

Roll Tide!

BSR


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> The new age of scorched earth sexual politics is going to be a very dark period and one that I hope burns out hot and fast.


What I think has been demonstrated here is that while weaponized accusation works in the "court of public opinion" and carries marketplace effects, in places where findings really matter - official hearing, trials, and so on - they lose their teeth.

Hopefully folks will think twice before pulling an 11th hour character attack out again in a hearing of this type.

DH


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jts287 said:


> So are you advocating that anyone who wants to be known as a survivor first provide you proof of such? Being passionate about a cause in contravention to your personal beliefs makes them devoid of logic? I'm sorry, but I find your most recent post both revealing and odious in the extreme.


This is sadly to easy.
I could make up a script or several and hand them to women to act out those scripts saying you did this and that with them even though they never seen nor heard of you before, and they are to be believed by everyone including you. This is what you have been saying about Kavanaugh. By default. Guilt based on horse feathers. If you have a right, so does he.


----------



## The Irishman (Oct 21, 2013)

Lucido said:


> This.
> 
> The GOP is on the wrong side of history. For all of their gerrymandering, voter suppression, obstructionism and Faux News disinformation they've only managed to get one president elected by popular vote since 1990. Angry white Boomers are a finite resource and it will be straight carnage for the Republicans once the Millennials become the largest voting block by 2020/2024.


Are you a US citizen living in Ireland, or an Irish national? Just curious.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

Dhaller said:


> The Civil Rights movement really can't be compared with whatever one might call the current progressive "movement" (the lack of a coherent name underscores its inefficacy).
> 
> The former had a leadership dream team (I mean, Martin Luther King? Ever hear him speak?), while the latter... not so much. Even the Counterculture movement(s) of the late 60s/early 70s was better put together - one can at east name key figures (Hoffman, Ginsberg, Kesey, etc) in that movement.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I don't know who today's leaders are, and I'm not predicting any type of blue wave next month, but I do believe that marching to bring the political establishment's focus to bear on victims is still worthwhile. I'm sure even the bro-iest Bernie Bro alive realizes the endgame with Kavanaugh was his disqualification, not that of conservative candidates in general. My hope is that now this SCOTUS brawl is over, the newly elevated can serve fairly and impartially.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> The new age of scorched earth sexual politics is going to be a very dark period and one that I hope burns out hot and fast. It is so depressing. Thank God this grisly scene is over and we can get back to more important pursuits.
> 
> Roll Tide!
> 
> BSR


Hear, hear. That sentiment seems quite agreeable and...

Wait, did you say 'Roll Tide'?

I shall now petition the moderation team for a dislike button.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The notion that millennials are some monolithic voting block betrays a certain naïveté amd wishful thinking. 

And by the way, all of this business of “popular vote” is meaningless. That’s not how our electoral system works and that’s not how candidates campaign.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

jts287 said:


> Really, this is the older conservatives versus the younger liberals. Pretty sure I can guess who'll win in the long run, and those 'hipster millennials' chanting for victims' rights will be pictured in textbooks next to the black teens at the lunch counter.
> 
> That the average age of a Fox News viewer is close to that of our President should speak volumes of the odds of a disintegration of our Union.


I hate to break it to you, but on the one major issue, you could not be more wrong. Science is only going to go one way on that, and that is to take the start of life further and further back towards conception.

And when it is shown that life does indeed begin in the womb, then you will be left justifying murder. Which many will continue to do, but most will not.

BTW - none of this will be politically based, but entirely based on science.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

jts287 said:


> So are you advocating that anyone who wants to be known as a survivor first provide you proof of such? Being passionate about a cause in contravention to your personal beliefs makes them devoid of logic? I'm sorry, but I find your most recent post both revealing and odious in the extreme.


Yes. In fact, HELL YES!

If you think it is odious in the extreme to require proof before accepting someone's story then you are hopefully out of touch and on the extreme fringes.

But what you really mean is that those you disagree with should be allowed to be found guilty in the court of public opinion without actual evidence. Those you agree with can do as they please. This entire way thinking was thankfully done away with when the Magna Carta was signed. The law is the law. It has certain hurdles and rules and they apply to all.

There are many, many cases where a woman has spitefully made up sexual assault stories that became public referendums and in some of these, the woman was lying. The same has happened with police shootings. Judge them NOW, facts be damned!!!! Burn him, BURN HIM!!!

I am sorry, but that is not a healthy way to govern.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Anyone has a right to walk around calling themselves a “survivor”. I’m willing to bet that at least some are doing it to cash in on “survivor chic”. It’s actually quite selfish and dangerous as it cheapens the actual crime and it’s Consequences. 

I think the fantastical story contrived by Ms. Swetnick and Mr. Avenatti should serve as such a cautionary tale. I mean, when MSNBC debunks your story, it must have been as flimsy as a layer of filo dough. 

And yes, that’s how it works here; you accuse someone of something, you need to present some evidence for it.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> Anyone has a right to walk around calling themselves a "survivor".


I'm a two-fold survivor: (1) the Seventies and (2) Catholic schools.

DH


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

vpkozel said:


> I hate to break it to you, but on the one major issue, you could not be more wrong. Science is only going to go one way on that, and that is to take the start of life further and further back towards conception.
> 
> And when it is shown that life does indeed begin in the womb, then you will be left justifying murder. Which many will continue to do, but most will not.
> 
> BTW - none of this will be politically based, but entirely based on science.


See that 10 ft pole over there? Not touching the abortion issue with that, especially among a group of older men.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

Dhaller said:


> I'm a two-fold survivor: (1) the Seventies and (2) Catholic schools.
> 
> DH


I survived Catholic schools as well! Although, since I have yet to produce transcripts, can I claim that?


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

SG_67 said:


> Anyone has a right to walk around calling themselves a "survivor". I'm willing to bet that at least some are doing it to cash in on "survivor chic". It's actually quite selfish and dangerous as it cheapens the actual crime and it's Consequences.
> 
> I think the fantastical story contrived by Ms. Swetnick and Mr. Avenatti should serve as such a cautionary tale. I mean, when MSNBC debunks your story, it must have been as flimsy as a layer of filo dough.
> 
> And yes, that's how it works here; you accuse someone of something, you need to present some evidence for it.


So just double-checking, those 'hipster millennials' protesting all should have worn their rape kits around their necks or should have stayed home, right? I don't hope to give you and your ilk any degree of self-awareness, but I definitely feel good about myself. Call me when you discover fire.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

jts287 said:


> See that 10 ft pole over there? Not touching the abortion issue with that, especially among a group of older men.


You already touched it when you had an opinion on BK. If he was absolutely pro Roe we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

You can pretend otherwise but it won't change anything.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

jts287 said:


> So just double-checking, those 'hipster millennials' protesting all should have worn their rape kits around their necks or should have stayed home, right? I don't hope to give you and your ilk any degree of self-awareness, but I definitely feel good about myself. Call me when you discover fire.


and that's what it's all about, right? Feeling good about yourself.

Mere empathy with you is what passes for activism.

You mentioned the civil right movement earlier. As absurd a comparison as that is, I don't recall civil rights activists yelling at lawmakers in restaurants or following them to their homes. They didn't scream at the sky. They had valid, constitutional arguments that they were making. It wasn't outrage for the sake of outrage.

The current environment is everything that that wasn't. The only unifying theme is being anti Trump and there's really not even a logical argument against that except that he's mean, or something like that.

So here we are, with a new Supreme Court justice whose name has been slandered and muddied. All of the sake of a few preening senators glomming onto a movement they see as politically advantageous.

I wonder when was the last time Senators Spartacus, Harris and Gillibrand volunteered at a battered women's shelter or authored some kind of legislation (the primary role
Of a senator) that help to advance the cause they are all of a sudden so passionate about?


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

jts287 said:


> I survived Catholic schools as well! Although, since I have yet to produce transcripts, can I claim that?


How dumb. You can claim whatever the hell you want, so long as your claim doesn't have the potential to negatively impact or bring harm to another individual. If it does, then you best have the evidence to back it up.


----------



## Mr.D (Aug 2, 2015)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> The new age of scorched earth sexual politics is going to be a very dark period and one that I hope burns out hot and fast. It is so depressing. Thank God this grisly scene is over and we can get back to more important pursuits.
> 
> Roll Tide!
> 
> BSR


I agree. Great post!


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

vpkozel said:


> You already touched it when you had an opinion on BK. If he was absolutely pro Roe we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
> 
> You can pretend otherwise but it won't change anything.


What in the world? You and the guy who liked your comment ought to be given dunce caps.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

SG_67 said:


> and that's what it's all about, right? Feeling good about yourself.
> 
> Mere empathy with you is what passes for activism.
> 
> ...


The fact that I'm not utterly closed-minded is what makes me feel good about myself, and that's a sad commentary on the state of our society. As a tail end of Gen X'er, I'm definitely more optimistic about the subsequent generation than I am of the preceding.

What volunteer/charitable work I've done is my business, as your work is yours. It has no bearing on this conversation.

If Kavanaugh feels he's been slandered, he ought to sue Dr. Ford. Seriously. Spoiler alert: he won't.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

FLMike said:


> How dumb. You can claim whatever the hell you want, so long as your claim doesn't have the potential to negatively impact or bring harm to another individual. If it does, then you best have the evidence to back it up.


So when it was intimated earlier that a 'hipster millennial' protester not be able to call herself a survivor unless she provided proof of such, where do your thoughts fall on that?

I also wonder if the FBI would have found 'proof of such' if they'd been permitted to speak to the alleged victims...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I’m not interested in your volunteer work. I’m speaking of the elected officials all of a sudden championing the cause. 

As for the rest of it, it’s over man. He’s on the bench and that’s that. The FBI questioned who they thought they should question. 

You can continue to try to hammer a square peg into a round hole by coming up with all sorts of scenarios or contrivances but the bottom line is that her story didn’t add up, let alone the other two. 

When the NYT resorted to “ice-gate” it was all you needed to know about where this was going. Reminds me of “wedgie-gate” and Mitt Romney in 2012.


----------



## mhj (Oct 27, 2010)

jts287 said:


> The fact that I'm not utterly closed-minded is what makes me feel good about myself, and that's a sad commentary on the state of our society. As a tail end of Gen X'er, I'm definitely more optimistic about the subsequent generation than I am of the preceding.


Millennials and Gen X er's are going to be mature adults someday paying taxes and mortgages. As someone who lived through 1968 and is now a registered Republican, I know that people change with age.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

mhj said:


> Millennials and Gen X er's are going to be mature adults someday paying taxes and mortgages. As someone who lived through 1968 and is now a registered Republican, I know that people change with age.


I'm squarely in the middle of the Gen X segment and I'm 48 years old. I do hope to be a mature adult someday, but unfortunately I've been paying taxes and making mortgage payments for well over 20 years. :icon_scratch:


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

I am 50 and solidly in the gen x camp. The only year I didn’t vote was in 92. I felt a strong affinity towards the Perot camp since he was the only candidate with a grasp of the deficit problem, yet I couldn’t pull the trigger for him and did not vote that year. This year for the mid term, I am a registered Florida Republican who may abstain out of total disgust with the process.

On a visceral level, I feel as if I am not wholly opposed to the political concept of a new division. Somehow, I think the liberals, unlike in 1861, might be happy to see us go. 

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> I am 50 and solidly in the gen x camp. The only year I didn't vote was in 92. I felt a strong affinity towards the Perot camp since he was the only candidate with a grasp of the deficit problem, yet I couldn't pull the trigger for him and did not vote that year. This year for the mid term, I am a registered Florida Republican who may abstain out of total disgust with the process.
> 
> On a visceral level, I feel as if I am not wholly opposed to the political concept of a new division. Somehow, I think the liberals, unlike in 1861, might be happy to see us go.
> 
> ...


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> I am 50 and solidly in the gen x camp. The only year I didn't vote was in 92. I felt a strong affinity towards the Perot camp since he was the only candidate with a grasp of the deficit problem, yet I couldn't pull the trigger for him and did not vote that year. This year for the mid term, I am a registered Florida Republican who may abstain out of total disgust with the process.
> 
> On a visceral level, I feel as if I am not wholly opposed to the political concept of a new division. Somehow, I think the liberals, unlike in 1861, might be happy to see us go.
> 
> ...


As the saying goes, vote for the least damaging.
There was not a whole lot to vote for when it came to Trump, he had a number of negativ's. But, stepping into the future with Hillary is without excuse. Choices are not always good, but worse is worse. So pick the best and vote.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

As a Gen X'r my self (1967) coming of age in the Reagan era impacted me profoundly. My basic instincts toward government and the role of the state have remained pretty much so.

To paraphrase Churchill who said something along the lines of being <30 and not a liberal as not having a heart and >40 and not a conservative as not having a brain, people do grow up. They take on responsibilities but more importantly they experience life.

I am willing to bet my last penny that none of the senators on the committee believed for a minute that Ms. Ford's recollection was accurate. The evidence was clear enough. They were using it as a politician gambit. Pure and simple. But the 20 year old listening to it lacks the view of the world and is not yet quite as cynical. She/he heard it and became fervently convinced, beyond any appeal to logic and reason, as to what the outcome should be. It is like that she has never known anyone falsely accused or has ever been falsely accused.

Even more pertinent for the men who were yelling and screaming. They may think they have their progressive feminist card punched, until they run into Uber SJW. One wrong look and they're on the receiving end of an on campus sexual harassment or misconduct complaint. The world looks different when you're the one getting the rotten eggs thrown at your head when you're in the stockade.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

jts287 said:


> If Kavanaugh feels he's been slandered, he ought to sue Dr. Ford. Seriously. Spoiler alert: he won't.


I'm not sure you understand how libel and slander laws work.

By the way, if Ms. Ford truly believes the Justice attempted to rape her, the state of Maryland has no statute of limitations and has said they would open an investigation. Of course she won't.

So we can go round and round with this.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

jts287 said:


> If Kavanaugh feels he's been slandered, he ought to sue Dr. Ford. Seriously. Spoiler alert: he won't.


Testimony before a Senate committee is considered privileged communication, and is not subject to civil litigation for slander/libel/etc.

DH


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

jts287 said:


> What in the world? You and the guy who liked your comment ought to be given dunce caps.


Perhaps you missed the post where it was rightfully said that this entire thing was all about abortion and BK's views on it.

You never have problems or hearings like this when a Dem is nominated. Why do you think that is?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Democrats are hard losers.
Republicans lose so often, and pounded by the media, they are used of it.
Sometimes I think the democrats should be taken out to the wood shed and given the needed lessons not to be a hard loser.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Hard loosers unite :fool:


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

The word is spelled 'loser'.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

There! Is that better?⬆
Spelling and me, nor grammar, ever got along.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Lucido said:


> Probably because the Republicans refused to even have a hearing the last time a Democratic president nominated a justice to the Supreme Court.


 Fair point. How about all the other times?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Lucido said:


> Probably because the Republicans refused to even have a hearing the last time a Democratic president nominated a justice to the Supreme Court.


It's one thing to deny a hearing. That's just good old fashioned hardball politics.

It's another thing to be so depraved as to try to utterly destroy a man.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

WA said:


> There! Is that better?⬆
> Spelling and me, nor grammar, ever got along.


Yes. You may or may not be aware that my other career was elementary school teacher? Be prepared to have your posts returned with red pencil marks, a letter grade and a nasty "See me!" across the top. irate:


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Did your students know how to play hooky really good? Less papers to grade that way, too.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

WA said:


> Did your students know how to play hooky really good? Less papers to grade that way, too.


Really well
Fewer papers


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

FLMike said:


> Really well
> Fewer papers


Darn, beat me to it.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

And if they went fishing, and bring you a fish, now and then, give them an A.


----------



## Clintotron (Mar 24, 2015)

KavaYEAH


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

My students never 'played hooky' as such but the Latino ones did have a tendency to take trips to Mexico with their parents even when it wasn't an official holiday. Coming of age celebrations for the girls were major occasions.

I did make it a policy to serve wild boar for lunch on Cro-Magnon Day celebrations. It was always a hit.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Say it ain't so! Who'd a thunk it?!

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/3/another-kavanaugh-accuser-admits-fabricating-rape-/


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Say it ain't so! Who'd a thunk it?!
> 
> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/3/another-kavanaugh-accuser-admits-fabricating-rape-/


We believe survivors, Shaver!

Even if the only thing they've survived up to now is not being locked away in an asylum.


----------



## Mr.D (Aug 2, 2015)

SG_67 said:


> We believe survivors, Shaver!
> 
> Even if the only thing they've survived up to now is not being locked away in an asylum.


Lol!


----------



## Mr.D (Aug 2, 2015)

SG_67 said:


> We believe survivors, Shaver!
> 
> Even if the only thing they've survived up to now is not being locked away in an asylum.


Lol!


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Well, well, well...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/news/off...geles-police-custody-231930734--politics.html


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

drlivingston said:


> Well, well, well...
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/news/off...geles-police-custody-231930734--politics.html


Yeah, that one had me rolling!


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> Yeah, that one had me rolling!


His arrest record might make a presidential run difficult. However, it qualifies him to play in the NFL.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

drlivingston said:


> His arrest record might make a presidential run difficult. However, it qualifies him to play in the NFL.


Or be an ex-governor of Illinois.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> Or be an ex-governor of Illinois.


LMAO! What's ol' Blagojevich up to these days?


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ Praying for a pardon as time keeps dragging on,.....


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

We exist in an epoch which has permitted my Schadenfreude to ascend from basest vice to rarest virtue. 

The Twitterati moral grandstanders will speak any words except their prayers. 

Galatians 5:15 (NKJV) is ever apt.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

@SG_67 Did you catch the interview this morning where Avenatti vehemently denied the allegations and said that he should be afforded the "presumption of innocence?" :laughing:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

drlivingston said:


> @SG_67 Did you catch the interview this morning where Avenatti vehemently denied the allegations and said that he should be afforded the "presumption of innocence?" :laughing:


Yes, mob justice all of a sudden needs to be tempered. How this ass clown was ever taken seriously I don't know. Says a lot about news outlets that gave him airtime.

Creepy Porn Lawyer indeed!


----------



## Clintotron (Mar 24, 2015)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^+1.
I caution you..."Don't ever never mess with Karma!" It WILL bite you in in your 'anterior axis' every time. LOL. :teacha:


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

SG_67 said:


> Yes, mob justice all of a sudden needs to be tempered. How this ass clown was ever taken seriously I don't know. Says a lot about news outlets that gave him airtime.
> 
> Creepy Porn Lawyer indeed!


"Ass Clown"...love it. Didn't this term originate from the film "Office Space"?

Cheers,

BSR


----------

