I am Curious

[fskimospy]

How credible is it if the witnesses named by the accuser can't corroborate the accusation?

Certainly credible enough to deny employment. The one other person she mentioned being in the room says he doesn’t remember as do the two other people detailed as being there. One of those two days she believes the accuser.

This would be a no brained for any private industry hiring manager anywhere. It’s not even close, you would have to be a moron to hire such a person.

 

[Jaskalas]

If someone comes to an employer with an allegation of sexual assault against a prospective employee there is no law anywhere that prevents that employer from denying them employment based on that.

This is not complicated stuff, how dumb are you?

And if that was done to a person, the slander and libel involved should land the accuser in prison.

You grab a person's arm, you are punished for assault.
But you can ruin their life, for free?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Bill Maher had a great episode on this on Friday with some sane competent guests (and one stupid one) that understands the concept that simply stating "Something happened 36 years ago AND THAT PERSON DID IT!" does not equate to believable.

There is literally nothing to go by other than her words and someone else's words.

For anyone that thinks Kav shouldn't be given the SCOTUS position based on a tale from 36 years ago where there is no evidence (other than words - which isn't evidence) - congrats you're insanely stupid and hypocritical. I sincerely hope the equivalent happens to you where you burned someone in the past and when you start to advance in life they fuck it up for you out of resentment... all on the basis of their words vs. yours with no actual evidence.

For anyone that thinks Kav shouldn't be given the position based on his piss poor retarded words and emotional bullshit - you're a part of the sane group. If you think he shouldn't be appointed because you believe the republicans withheld information, emails, evidence, etc.... you're also a part of the sane group (presuming there is truth to that after investigating, obviously).

 

[fskimospy]

And if that was done to a person, the slander and libel involved should land the accuser in prison.

You grab a person's arm, you are punished for assault.
But you can ruin their life, for free?

In this particular case someone is accused by a credible person with no other interest in the matter and the accused has clearly lied repeatedly under oath.

The idea that Kavanaugh is some knave, terribly slandered by political operatives is absurd.

 

[fskimospy]

Bill Maher had a great episode on this on Friday with some sane competent guests (and one stupid one) that understands the concept that simply stating "Something happened 36 years ago AND THAT PERSON DID IT!" does not equate to believable.

There is literally nothing to go by other than her words and someone else's words.

For anyone that thinks Kav shouldn't be given the SCOTUS position based on a tale from 36 years ago where there is no evidence (other than words - which isn't evidence) - congrats you're insanely stupid and hypocritical. I sincerely hope the equivalent happens to you where you burned someone in the past and when you start to advance in life they fuck it up for you out of resentment... all on the basis of their words vs. yours with no actual evidence.

For anyone that thinks Kav shouldn't be given the position based on his piss poor retarded words and emotional bullshit - you're a part of the sane group. If you think he shouldn't be appointed because you believe the republicans withheld information, emails, evidence, etc.... you're also a part of the sane group.

I broadly agree except for one thing, those uncorroborated things? Kavanaugh repeatedly and obviously lied about numerous things related to them.

Someone says you got drunk and sexually assaulted them? Not enough information to say they are right. Someone says you got drunk and sexually assaulted them and then I found out you lied about half a dozen things when defending yourself against the accusation? Yeah, I believe them.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I broadly agree except for one thing, those uncorroborated things? Kavanaugh repeatedly and obviously lied about numerous things related to them.

Someone says you got drunk and sexually assaulted them? Not enough information to say they are right. Someone says you got drunk and sexually assaulted them and then I found out you lied about half a dozen things when defending yourself against the accusation? Yeah, I believe them.

I'll scoop that up and say that falls into my first bucket of sane individuals. That definitely played a part of it, no doubt. Emotional rambling, really. I can't (however) state that someone lied when I have no real proof.

 

[IJTSSG]

Certainly credible enough to deny employment. The one other person she mentioned being in the room says he doesn’t remember as do the two other people detailed as being there. One of those two days she believes the accuser.

This would be a no brained for any private industry hiring manager anywhere. It’s not even close, you would have to be a moron to hire such a person.

Not suprisingly, your letting ignorance and emotion overwhelm you. In well run companies, hiring managers are not given access to BI/Credit/Drug testing information especially if they contain potentially adverse information. They are simply told if the candidate can start or to keep looking. The review of potentially adverse information is made by security, legal and HR. No HR lawyer I've worked with in the last 15 years would want to take the scenario I described to the EEOC or the NLRB. It contradicts their written guidance on how to use agency reports.

 

[fskimospy]

I'll scoop that up and say that falls into my first bucket of sane individuals. That definitely played a part of it, no doubt. Emotional rambling, really. I can't (however) state that someone lied when I have no real proof.

Numerous individuals that have known him throughout his life have come forward and said he’s lying. How many do you need? It’s not like it’s one person. A whole bunch of people have come out and said he’s a liar.

 

[Moonbeam]

100 years ago, when I was in high school, Civics was a required class. Part of what we learned about was the Constitution and our civic responsibility. Is a Civics class still required to graduate?

I am curious because it seems to me, "innocent until proven guilty" is no longer a factor in the United States. My question is, when did that change and why would a free society accept that change?

100 years ago when I was in high school I had not only to study civics but also critical thinking where I learned I could not simply regurgitate some lofty ideal I had me,prized but had to be able to apply it logically in any case I wanted to use it. In this way I learned that my gut instinct to vomit some cow I had elevated to god hood sourced somewhere that digestion occurs, would not cut it with my teachers for a passing grade. Had I tried your argument here to a job interview the margins of my paper would have need filled up with comments in read and a big circled F in the upper right corner.

Take a look at the so-called democracy you are surrounded by precisely because we are inundated by people who never learned to think critically. These are my F words to you.

 

[fskimospy]

Not suprisingly, your letting ignorance and emotion overwhelm you. In well run companies, hiring managers are not given access to BI/Credit/Drug testing information especially if they contain potentially adverse information. They are simply told if the candidate can start or to keep looking. The review of potentially adverse information is made by security, legal and HR. No HR lawyer I've worked with in the last 15 years would want to take the scenario I described to the EEOC or the NLRB. It contradicts their written guidance on how to use agency reports.

Nope, I’m letting personal experience as a hiring manager guide me. We would never hire an individual in such a situation.

As I said there is absolutely no legal prohibition against not hiring someone based on accusations of sex crimes.

 

[IJTSSG]

I see we need to put new tires on the goal posts.

Was Manny Miranda investigated by the USA for the Southern District of New York? Was he convicted of anything? Did Manny Miranda specifically state that Brett Kavanaugh did not know the documents were stolen?

 

[IJTSSG]

Nope, I’m letting personal experience as a hiring manager guide me. We would never hire an individual in such a situation.

As I said there is absolutely no legal prohibition against not hiring someone based on accusations of sex crimes.

If I thought I'd get an honest answer back I'd ask you to run my scenario by your companies HR lawyer but this has become boring.

 

[fskimospy]

If I thought I'd get an honest answer back I'd ask you to run my scenario by your companies HR lawyer but this has become boring.

I currently work in HR, lol.

 

[madoka]

I currently work in HR, lol.

Steve was right!

“I’ve never met one of you who didn’t suck. I’ve never known an HR person who had anything but a mediocre mentality.” - Steve Jobs

 

[IronWing]

Steve was right!

“I’ve never met one of you who didn’t suck. I’ve never known an HR person who had anything but a mediocre mentality.” - Steve Jobs

Look what happened to Steve.

 

[dank69]

One thing I do know, the person that resorts to insults instead of intellect has already lost the argument. That's because there is no reason to place any credence on what they have to say. You may have had a point, but you just gave away any credibility you may have had.

If the ad hominem is included along with reasonable arguments, then you ignore the reasonable arguments at your own peril. It is nice to have a handy excuse to help maintain your bubble though, isn't it?

 

[dank69]

Steve was right!

“I’ve never met one of you who didn’t suck. I’ve never known an HR person who had anything but a mediocre mentality.” - Steve Jobs

I'm going to eat nothing but fruit for the rest of my life. - Also Steve Jobs

If I say she isn't my child enough it becomes truth. - Also Steve Jobs

I'd prefer homeopathic treatment for my cancer instead. - Also Steve Jobs

 

[fskimospy]

Steve was right!

“I’ve never met one of you who didn’t suck. I’ve never known an HR person who had anything but a mediocre mentality.” - Steve Jobs

I suspect he was referring to the people who make and enforce policies while I’m an analyst. I just happen to currently analyze human capital data.

Regardless, as long as we are evaluating mental processes both Steve and I had cancer. My mentality was to get chemotherapy while his superior mentality told him to eat fruits and nuts. I guess us mediocre intellects could have taught him a thing or two, haha.

 

[brycejones]

100 years ago, when I was in high school, Civics was a required class. Part of what we learned about was the Constitution and our civic responsibility. Is a Civics class still required to graduate?

I am curious because it seems to me, "innocent until proven guilty" is no longer a factor in the United States. My question is, when did that change and why would a free society accept that change?

Nothing has changed.

 

[Greenman]

Certainly credible enough to deny employment. The one other person she mentioned being in the room says he doesn’t remember as do the two other people detailed as being there. One of those two days she believes the accuser.

This would be a no brained for any private industry hiring manager anywhere. It’s not even close, you would have to be a moron to hire such a person.

The comparison is completely invalid. In the private sector how many people would know you were applying for a particular job? How many would care at all? How many private sector jobs have tens of thousands of people actively looking for a reason to prevent you from getting it? Of those tens of thousands that don't want you to get the job, how many would lie to stop you? Are dishonest enough to say "not one"? Are we going to pretend that liberals are such paragons of fair play that not one of them would lie to stop a "Nazi" from sitting on the Supreme Court?

Your entire premise is dishonest. This wasn't in any way a job interview, and the idea that an unsubstantiated accusation from decades in the past should derail it is insane. If that becomes the standard there will never be another presidential appointment. It gives every single person in the country the power to veto an appointment.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Never had civics, but had social studies and a good portion was dedicated to understanding how our government functioned.

Also, fskimospy is really cementing himself as a real piece of shit in this forum.

 

[fskimospy]

The comparison is completely invalid. In the private sector how many people would know you were applying for a particular job? How many would care at all? How many private sector jobs have tens of thousands of people actively looking for a reason to prevent you from getting it? Of those tens of thousands that don't want you to get the job, how many would lie to stop you? Are dishonest enough to say "not one"? Are we going to pretend that liberals are such paragons of fair play that not one of them would lie to stop a "Nazi" from sitting on the Supreme Court?

So in other words Ford hatched a plot at least six years ago in order to derail this appointment? This is tinfoil hat conspiracy insanity. This isn’t a case where Democrats conspired to make a fake accusation, this is someone who has been speaking to people about this for more than half a decade and went to Feinstein before he was even selected. That’s a credible accusation by any reasonable standard.

You are literally arguing for a lower standard for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court than you would for a job as an office drone. Partisanship and this hearing have driven conservatives bananas. You guys have just lost all touch with reality and have gone into some paranoid persecution delusion.

Your entire premise is dishonest. This wasn't in any way a job interview, and the idea that an unsubstantiated accusation from decades in the past should derail it is insane. If that becomes the standard there will never be another presidential appointment. It gives every single person in the country the power to veto an appointment.

This was a job interview by any imaginable definition of the term. What else do you call it when people deciding if someone should get a paid position have that person come in and ask them questions?

It’s amazing how conservatives have whipped themselves up into a frenzy about this issue. Never be another presidential appointment? This is hysterical nonsense and you know it. You guys need to take a step back, take some deep breaths, and look at this rationally. All you need to know is this:

1) his accuser is credible. The idea that she invented this accusation six years ago to use against him is Ancient Aliens level conspiracy theorizing.

2) he repeatedly lied in his defense against the accusation.

That’s someone you reject from any job and certainly this one. Unfortunately people care more about tribe than country.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I suspect he was referring to the people who make and enforce policies while I’m an analyst. I just happen to currently analyze human capital data.

Regardless, as long as we are evaluating mental processes both Steve and I had cancer. My mentality was to get chemotherapy while his superior mentality told him to eat fruits and nuts. I guess us mediocre intellects could have taught him a thing or two, haha.

You had cancer? As much as I'd like you to stop voting, I hope you were able to reap the benefits of our healthcare system and I truly do hope you make or have made a full recovery. May the added years and life experience bring you a wisdom that you do not currently possess...

 

[fskimospy]

Never had civics, but had social studies and a good portion was dedicated to understanding how our government functioned.

Also, fskimospy is really cementing himself as a real piece of shit in this forum.

Someday I hope to meet your high personal standards. Maybe I should start pretending climate change isn’t real because of Jesus. You seem to like that.

I could make you like me in an instant - all I would need to do is tell you things you want to hear, haha.

 

[fskimospy]

You had cancer? As much as I'd like you to stop voting, I hope you were able to reap the benefits of our healthcare system and I truly do hope you make or have made a full recovery. May the added years and life experience bring you a wisdom that you do not currently possess...

You can’t even wish someone a recovery from cancer right. What is wrong with you.