I am Curious

[fskimospy]

Sure they would. I don't see how any objective person could possibly come to any other conclusion. A 36 year old allegation with no corroborating evidence, marvelously vague on details, for which the accuser has given conflicting information, and of which the few witnesses available have no recollection, doesn't bring the word "credible" to mind.

I don't know that. If I were interviewing a completely qualified candidate for a position when, at the last possible second, someone burst on the scene with (1) a 36-year-old allegation with no supporting information apart from an impassioned plea and (2) a definite interest in seeing the candidate not get the job, I would be suspicious not of the candidate but the accuser and his or her motives.

You’re letting your partisanship overwhelm logical thinking. If it turned out that person had been referencing the assault for six years before the interview I would show that candidate the door immediately and so would you.

I'm sorry but we don't agree. You guys keep trying to get mileage off this line of attack but it's sheer nonsense.

What about it is nonsense, specifically? Are you claiming Kavanaugh didn’t make any false statements under oath? If so, how do you defend his ludicrous statements about not knowing the documents were stolen?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...rats-stolen-documents/?utm_term=.90011185f4b8

As for his statements about Ramirez’s accusations he claimed he didn’t know about them until the New Yorker story yet there are texts that clearly indicate he did. How do you reconcile this?

https://www.businessinsider.com/did...ny-new-yorker-article-deborah-ramirez-2018-10

We really need to get to a place where conservatives put country before party.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I have no suitable words to describe my revulsion for your absolute lack of empathy or grace. If you had the integrity and heart to see yourself you would never make a post like this. Apparently, you lack both.

Whatever guy. I think he's way off in his views, but I truly do hope he beats cancer silly. So revolting.

 

[FerrelGeek]

The point was CREDIBLE and Ford was. I previously linked an evaluation by a sexual assault prosecutor that agreed.

I doubt that we're going to come to an agreement on her credibility, generally for the reasons that Atreus posted.

On a different topic, I see from the above posts that you are battling cancer. I truly wish you all the best and hope you beat it. I definitely disagree with many on this board, but I wish no one on here any ill. My sister is a 2 time breast cancer survivor and my niece is now in the fight of her life battling inflammatory breast cancer. My heart goes out to anyone coping with the disease.

 

[fskimospy]

I doubt that we're going to come to an agreement on her credibility, generally for the reasons that Atreus posted.

On a different topic, I see from the above posts that you are battling cancer. I truly wish you all the best and hope you beat it. I definitely disagree with many on this board, but I wish no one on here any ill. My sister is a 2 time breast cancer survivor and my niece is now in the fight of her life battling inflammatory breast cancer. My heart goes out to anyone coping with the disease.

Thank you! To be clear though, I had cancer in 2008 and have been cancer free since 2009. While no one is ever entirely in the clear from what my oncologist told me a recurrence at this point is unlikely so I have ‘beaten’ cancer, at least to the extent it can be beaten.

Your sister and niece have all my best wishes because yes I agree, my heart goes out to anyone coping with cancer, it’s a motherfucker.

 

[Lanyap]

Thank you! To be clear though, I had cancer in 2008 and have been cancer free since 2009. While no one is ever entirely in the clear from what my oncologist told me a recurrence at this point is unlikely so I have ‘beaten’ cancer, at least to the extent it can be beaten.

Your sister and niece have all my best wishes because yes I agree, my heart goes out to anyone coping with cancer, it’s a motherfucker.

Keep on, keepin’ on, man. I helped take care of my dad when he had lung cancer. You’re right, it’s a MF’er.

 

[spacejamz]

He’s very mistaken and it appears you are too. The only question here is if the accusation was credible enough to deny employment and no objective person would deny that. If an identical situation came up where you or I were up for a job we would almost certainly not get it and you know it. If anything he should be held to a much higher standard than we would be, not a much lower one.

Just curious what your thoughts would be if you were at a company for 30 years and were up for a high level promotion and a co-worker who started around the same time comes out decades after the fact and made accusations against you with no specific details, only that she is 100% sure you were the one who assaulted her (assume she fits your definition of 'credible')...

 

[woolfe9998]

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

None of the four "corroborated" her statement because three of the four weren't supposed to have been in the room, and hence there was nothing for them to witness. The other was Kavanaugh's buddy and at least a passive participant. So far as the others not remembering the gathering, there is no reason for them to have remembered what appears to have been a minor social engagement from 30 years ago where nothing in particular happened except they drank beer and goofed around, while something more significant happened that they were unaware of.

Your formulation of looking for "corroboration" of rape is a recipe for practically no one ever being guilty of it. Rape tends to be done in private. In fact, it's unusual if there were two people in the room. I know that DNA or other physical evidence can sometimes be gathered, IF the rape is reported same day, certainly not after the victim instinctively takes a shower. But there are many reasons rape victims hesitate, whether for 3 days or 30 years.

I realize this makes it difficult to get convictions in these cases, and that's how it should be since we must adhere to the principle of presumed innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But this is the court of public opinion. Much can be gleaned from viewing a person's demeanor and content while testifying. I found her credible. I found him evasive and dishonest about a number of things. If this was a legal context, I would vote to acquit if a criminal case, on the basis of reasonable doubt, but I'd vote for her as plaintiff on the civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. If you wanted to liken this to a legal context, that would certainly be a better one since no one is talking about sending him to jail.

 

[Moonbeam]

None of the four "corroborated" her statement because three of the four weren't supposed to have been in the room, and hence there was nothing for them to witness. The other was Kavanaugh's buddy and at least a passive participant. So far as the others not remembering the gathering, there is no reason for them to have remembered what appears to have been a minor social engagement from 30 years ago where nothing in particular happened except they drank beer and goofed around, while something more significant happened that they were unaware of.

Your formulation of looking for "corroboration" of rape is a recipe for practically no one ever being guilty of it. Rape tends to be done in private. In fact, it's unusual if there were two people in the room. I know that DNA or other physical evidence can sometimes be gathered, IF the rape is reported same day, certainly not after the victim instinctively takes a shower. But there are many reasons rape victims hesitate, whether for 3 days or 30 years.

I realize this makes it difficult to get convictions in these cases, and that's how it should be since we must adhere to the principle of presumed innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But this is the court of public opinion. Much can be gleaned from viewing a person's demeanor and content while testifying. I found her credible. I found him evasive and dishonest about a number of things. If this was a legal context, I would vote to acquit if a criminal case, on the basis of reasonable doubt, but I'd vote for her as plaintiff on the civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. If you wanted to liken this to a legal context, that would certainly be a better one since no one is talking about sending him to jail.

During his hearing he proved to be a simpering conspiracy theory victim completely lacking in dignity and respect as well as cravenly personally ambitious. What a pile of crap to put on the court. I like beer, do you like beer woofle?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I am not saying or inferring that it's specific to today's events.

I understand it a legal doctrine but it's my opinion that people that understand the principle don't railroad others on a thought or accusation. This has been happening a lot as of late and in my opinion it is detrimental to what once was, a great nation.

We lived in different nations together it seems. Going backwards in time we have "Lock her up" with Hillary, going back further there was Tailgunner Joe, and I'll stop at a hundred years ago or so but could keep going with black men at the end of a rope dangling from a branch. That doesn't include scandal and ruin throughout history.

It's no worse now, it's always been this way and at times worse. It's easy to yearn for the good old days that never were, a vision of an imagined time which never existed.

 

[fskimospy]

Just curious what your thoughts would be if you were at a company for 30 years and were up for a high level promotion and a co-worker who started around the same time comes out decades after the fact and made accusations against you with no specific details, only that she is 100% sure you were the one who assaulted her (assume she fits your definition of 'credible')...

I would certainly be unhappy! On the other hand I certainly would understand the company taking her seriously, especially since the woman, as in this case, made the credible accusation under penalty of felony perjury.

If I were the company though I would also look at my response to the accusations to see how credible my denial was. If several other people came forward with similar accusations and then I repeatedly lied about my past conduct it wouldn’t be surprising if I not only wasn’t promoted but was fired from my current position.

Like I’ve said before it’s just weird that people want a lower standard for promoting someone to a lifetime job with huge, unreviewable power than they would accept for say, a teacher at their kids’ school.

 

[Blackjack200]

I would certainly be unhappy! On the other hand I certainly would understand the company taking her seriously, especially since the woman, as in this case, made the credible accusation under penalty of felony perjury.

If I were the company though I would also look at my response to the accusations to see how credible my denial was. If several other people came forward with similar accusations and then I repeatedly lied about my past conduct it wouldn’t be surprising if I not only wasn’t promoted but was fired from my current position.

Like I’ve said before it’s just weird that people want a lower standard for promoting someone to a lifetime job with huge, unreviewable power than they would accept for say, a teacher at their kids’ school.

The unspoken assumption in his hypothetical is that the woman's claims are bogus. I don't have any kind of fear of something like that happening because I don't treat women that way, and I don't get blackout drunk.

But let's play along anyway. If a woman made the kind of claims against me that Ford made, if she was that sure, that specific, and so obviously impacted over the course of her life, I would be absolutely distraught. Because I'm not a cold blooded reptile, I would immediately wonder if I had done it to anyone else as well. The loss of the promotion would honestly be the least of my concerns. If I truly had no memory of the incident, I would tell her that, and I would tell her that I was profoundly sorry for whatever I had done.

I'm not saying I wouldn't have any selfish concerns. I would. I'd be worried about social ostracization, I'd be worried about facing my family, things like that, yeah. But the idea that I would ever behave like he did is offensive. I wouldn't.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Regardless, Kavanaugh was disqualified by his false statements under oath.

He was disqualified by his clear partisan campaign against his opposition and his inability to control his rage when faced with pressure. Hillary has been attacked and keelhauled over things like Benghazi and by a President who would imprison her if he had his way. She endured years of this and Kavanaugh folds. The lack of judicial temperament, a clear partisan leaning which is distinct from ideological interpretation disqualified him. He eliminated himself by demonstrating unfitness and none of that had to do with sexual misconduct allegations. Ford was just a stressor that showed his inferior character.

The only logical reason to pick someone who was not recommended is his partisanship and demonstrated desire to protect Trump. That turned out to be qualities the Republicans wholeheartedly embraced.

 

[Blackjack200]

The unspoken assumption in his hypothetical is that the woman's claims are bogus. I don't have any kind of fear of something like that happening because I don't treat women that way, and I don't get blackout drunk.

Another reason this is a stupid hypothetical is because of the implicit assumption that these claims could happen to anyone. There is a reason they don't:

Remember that little yearbook line, "Renate alumnus"? Honestly, it's so important. It might be the single most important thing to me. He was not just claiming that he slept with her. He was claiming that he was one of a group of people that slept with her. He was calling her a slut... in their fucking yearbook. Can you even fucking imagine doing something that cruel? Because I can't. I went to high school with a lot of dickheads, nobody ever did something like that.

Kavanaugh treats outsiders like garbage. Absolute garbage. They're not human to him. It's why its so terrifying that he's a SCOTUS justice now.

 

[SlowSpyder]

He was disqualified by his clear partisan campaign against his opposition and his inability to control his rage when faced with pressure. Hillary has been attacked and keelhauled over things like Benghazi and by a President who would imprison her if he had his way. She endured years of this and Kavanaugh folds. The lack of judicial temperament, a clear partisan leaning which is distinct from ideological interpretation disqualified him. He eliminated himself by demonstrating unfitness and none of that had to do with sexual misconduct allegations. Ford was just a stressor that showed his inferior character.

The only logical reason to pick someone who was not recommended is his partisanship and demonstrated desire to protect Trump. That turned out to be qualities the Republicans wholeheartedly embraced.

You guys are laughable. And the Democrats have only further galvanized the Republicans with their over the top antics.

 

[soundforbjt]

You guys are laughable. And the Democrats have only further galvanized the Republicans with their over the top antics.

And that makes you proud? Hillary was right, half of you are deplorable. Would you want Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS if he were a democrat saying the same things about republicans?

 

[Blackjack200]

You guys are laughable. And the Democrats have only further galvanized the Republicans with their over the top antics.

Will you be able to get off work to vote? I hear they run a pretty tight ship over at the dick sucking factory.

 

[SlowSpyder]

And that makes you proud? Hillary was right, half of you are deplorable. Would you want Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS if he were a democrat saying the same things about republicans?

Can the person interpret and judge on law issues based on the constitution? That is what I care about. This guy was squeaky clean throughout his professional career, he gets appointed by Trump so right away the Democrats decide he's evil, he's a rapist, etc. Just like Trump, no one ever considered him a racist or anti-LGBT for all of his life, he's a Republican candidate and the identity politics fly. That's all today's left is, the party of identity politics.

 

[fskimospy]

Can the person interpret and judge on law issues based on the constitution? That is what I care about. This guy was squeaky clean throughout his professional career, he gets appointed by Trump so right away the Democrats decide he's evil, he's a rapist, etc. Just like Trump, no one ever considered him a racist or anti-LGBT for all of his life, he's a Republican candidate and the identity politics fly. That's all today's left is, the party of identity politics.

It’s funny that there is group of people who view themselves as a constantly besieged minority that everyone is biased against. They also regularly campaign under the slogan of who is a ‘true conservative’. They then accuse the opposition of being driven by identity politics.

You guys are so supremely unaware of your hypocrisy it’s hilarious. As evidenced by their recent legislative non-action the Republican Party has few concrete policy goals. Instead it exists almost entirely as an expression of white identity politics. Did you guys seriously never notice that your party is the one where nearly everyone shares the same social/cultural identity, not the Democrats? Haha.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It’s funny that there is group of people who view themselves as a constantly besieged minority that everyone is biased against. They also regularly campaign under the slogan of who is a ‘true conservative’. They then accuse the opposition of being driven by identity politics.

You guys are so supremely unaware of your hypocrisy it’s hilarious. As evidenced by their recent legislative non-action the Republican Party has few concrete policy goals. Instead it exists almost entirely as an expression of white identity politics. Did you guys seriously never notice that your party is the one where nearly everyone shares the same social/cultural identity, not the Democrats? Haha.

There you go with the white bs. It has nothing to do with skin color, but racists make things about race. Racist.

 

[Perknose]

It’s funny that there is group of people who view themselves as a constantly besieged minority that everyone is biased against. They also regularly campaign under the slogan of who is a ‘true conservative’. They then accuse the opposition of being driven by identity politics.

You guys are so supremely unaware of your hypocrisy it’s hilarious. As evidenced by their recent legislative non-action the Republican Party has few concrete policy goals. Instead it exists almost entirely as an expression of white identity politics. Did you guys seriously never notice that your party is the one where nearly everyone shares the same social/cultural identity, not the Democrats? Haha.

BINGO!

​

 

[soundforbjt]

Can the person interpret and judge on law issues based on the constitution? That is what I care about. This guy was squeaky clean throughout his professional career, he gets appointed by Trump so right away the Democrats decide he's evil, he's a rapist, etc. Just like Trump, no one ever considered him a racist or anti-LGBT for all of his life, he's a Republican candidate and the identity politics fly. That's all today's left is, the party of identity politics.

If he was so squeaky clean, why are repubs hiding his records from his time at the Bush WH?

 

[fskimospy]

There you go with the white bs. It has nothing to do with skin color, but racists make things about race. Racist.

lol, the guy from the white identity politics party wants you to know that everyone else is a racist but him.

Again, this is why the Republicans accomplished so little policy wise despite controlling the entire government. They don't HAVE policy goals outside of cutting taxes for rich people. What they have is white identity grievance.

 

[SlowSpyder]

lol, the guy from the white identity politics party wants you to know that everyone else is a racist but him.

Again, this is why the Republicans accomplished so little policy wise despite controlling the entire government. They don't HAVE policy goals outside of cutting taxes for rich people. What they have is white identity grievance.

There are white racists in both parties. The fringey far right and the mainstream left.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You guys are laughable. And the Democrats have only further galvanized the Republicans with their over the top antics.

Yet I stand by my analysis, which you note aren't based on anything but observed facts. As far as Democrats go with their antics as you describe them, the Republicans are already a solid voting bloc and unless you are suggesting they resort to illegal actions they are a constant quantity. A reasonable question is how non-republicans will view this as they are the only ones who matter, especially independents. In the meantime, the public is treated to Trump daily and the Republicans seen as his minions by those who aren't his faithful. The consensus of available data confirms that the immediate future does not bode well for them. Kavanaugh will be forgotten in large part, but the continual reminders by Trump keep on giving.

You may vote Trump, Republicans will as they would no matter what, however, there's no compelling reason for anyone to do the same.

IMO the House will go to the Dems, the Senate is likely to remain controlled by the Reps with the possibility that they may lose ground and might lose that too, but I don't expect that.

 

[fskimospy]

There are white racists in both parties. The fringey far right and the mainstream left.

Whatever you need to tell yourself. I just thought it was humorous as the guy who has totally bought into the white identity politics party apparently never realized that's what it is.

Your total lack of self awareness is definitely the funniest thing about you.