Zarathud wrote: Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:56 pmwhy did they have this letter ready but not all the documents from Kavanaugh's time in the Bush administration?
Srsly? I thought that was self-evident. One helps him get confirmed, the other does not.
Are we just to assume that everything the GOP does is dishonest from now on?
I can't do that, despite all the evidence piling up. Individuals, sure. LOTS of individuals, sure. The entire party across the board? No thanks. The GOP sucks and their policies mostly suck, but I can't paint them all as mustache twirling villains. Only a LOT of them.
Captain Caveman wrote: Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:24 pm
It's such a stupid defense though. I have no idea about how credible the allegation is, but saying "look at all the ladies he didn't try to rape" is idiotic. It's only convincing to people who think that men who have committed rape are transparently evil in all of their interactions.
That's what I see. I have no idea what his personality or what he did or did not do but I see that letter as a prepared defense and I hear
"Who are three people who have never been in my living room"
and
"Everyone thought he was such a nice boy."
So that claim is that concerned, non-government friends of Kavanaugh (who went to an all-boys school) tracked down and collected signatures from 65 girls who knew him in high school 30+ years ago, all within the less-than-24-hours since news broke that the allegations related to that period of his life?
Archinerd wrote:There's a good lesson here.
Everybody should prepare a list of women who have no complaint against you. You know, just in case someone decides to accuse you of doing something you didn't do.
There should be a company that offers a discreet only for certain clientele #metoo insurance policy where the agency provides alibis and character references for " unforseen circumstances".
"Who's going to tell him that the job he's currently seeking might just be one of those Black jobs?"
-Michelle Obama 2024 Democratic Convention
Wise words of warning from Smoove B: Oh, how you all laughed when I warned you about the semen. Well, who's laughing now?
Captain Caveman wrote: Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:24 pm
It's such a stupid defense though. I have no idea about how credible the allegation is, but saying "look at all the ladies he didn't try to rape" is idiotic. It's only convincing to people who think that men who have committed rape are transparently evil in all of their interactions.
"But he was nice to me" is a really shitty defense.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
GreenGoo wrote: Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:03 pm
What pisses me off is that I probably couldn't get 65 women to remember me, let alone claim I was an honorable man in high school, and I never assaulted anyone, ever.
I'm not even sure I had classes with 65 different women, let alone any sort of significant social interaction where they could form an opinion of me, one way or another.
Unagi wrote: Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:28 pm
Perhaps the counter argument protests too much?
Perhaps, but it's such an easy thing to check. Just go ask those 65 women.
In any case, I can think of some legit reasons for building that list before the story broke, such as the woman tried to blackmail Kavanaugh previously with/without success and he knew this shit storm was coming even though he did nothing wrong.
If the story doesn't break, great. Best case scenario. If it does, here's everyone who's ever been in his presence during high school.
Shrug, we'll almost certainly never know the truth on this one. Whichever way the wind blows will determine if it matters politically. I'm guessing little will come of it, but that's pure guesswork.
The prosecution understands that the defense plans to call 65 character witnesses on behalf of the defendant. The prosecution will stipulate that all 65 witnesses will offer substantially similar testimony that the defendant is a wonderful human being if the defense will stipulate that none of these people were in the room with the defendant and the accuser on the night of August 25.
How do you figure that? The only people who have a say in Kavanaugh's confirmation are the 51 Republican members of the US Senate, and possibly one or two Democrats from red states.
*And it case it wasn't obvious, I was riffing on a Tom Cruise line from A Few Good Men. Kevin Bacon responds laconically with, "The Government will stipulate."
milo wrote: Sat Sep 15, 2018 3:54 pm
"the jury is 300+ million Americans"
How do you figure that? The only people who have a say in Kavanaugh's confirmation are the 51 Republican members of the US Senate, and possibly one or two Democrats from red states.
*And it case it wasn't obvious, I was riffing on a Tom Cruise line from A Few Good Men. Kevin Bacon responds laconically with, "The Government will stipulate."
It wasn't obvious to me, but that doesn't mean it wasn't obvious to others.
Well first off their aren't 300 million voters, so if we're gonna get technical, we can start there. The jury is made up of the constituents of those senators you mentioned.
Better?
If my tone was abrupt, it wasn't directed at you personally or even your comment, specifically. This thing isn't going to get anywhere near a courtroom. Hell, it won't leave the FBI HQ. If it has any impact at all, it will be through the media, and even then I don't think it's likely to make a dent in anyone's vote.
Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.
On the advice of Katz, who believed Ford would be attacked as a liar if she came forward, Ford took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent in early August. The results, which Katz provided to The Post, concluded that Ford was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate.
So now the debate is "Who among us didn't do stupid things in high school?"
Leaving aside that sexual assault is beyond the usual line of stupid thinginess, isn't it disqualifying that he lied to Congress about it just this month? And also perhaps to the FBI during his background check?
That the GOP had the 65 character witnesses locked and loaded tells us that they already knew this (or perhaps a similar something else) might happen. The real question is why they were prepared to go to the mat for Kavanaugh specifically when there are dozens of potential justices just as willing to overturn Roe and all the rest...
em2nought wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:01 pm
So it's possible that a Republican put his hand over a Democrat's yapper forty years ago? What Republican hasn't wanted to do that?
em2nought wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:01 pm
So it's possible that a Republican put his hand over a Democrat's yapper forty years ago? What Republican hasn't wanted to do that?
Asking seriously about our rape jokes policy.
I don’t think we have a formal policy on that kind of comment. But there’s no stopping someone from mentioning that only a total unthinking trolling asshat would make such a comment which may be at home on Facebook, Twitter, etc but really has no place here.
"Who's going to tell him that the job he's currently seeking might just be one of those Black jobs?"
-Michelle Obama 2024 Democratic Convention
Wise words of warning from Smoove B: Oh, how you all laughed when I warned you about the semen. Well, who's laughing now?
em2nought wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:01 pm
So it's possible that a Republican put his hand over a Democrat's yapper forty years ago? What Republican hasn't wanted to do that?
Asking seriously about our rape jokes policy.
I'm ok with jokes about anything on general principles. I'm not telling dead baby jokes at the funeral of a dead baby or to parents of a recently deceased baby, but in general, dead baby jokes are ok.
Family Guy is like 50% rape jokes and it's on during prime time.
What's being alleged, fairly credibly too, is sexual assault. If you're honestly trying to suggest that there's some acceptable degree of sexual assault for a Supreme Court Justice, then we're in a very bad place.
I can't imagine, even at my most inebriated, hearing a bouncer offering me an hour with a stripper for only $1,400 and thinking That sounds like a reasonable idea.-Two Sheds
We've banned other provocateurs in the past. That's a completely different question.
Personally I have no use for someone who's 95% of their posting history is designed to upset people. I don't know what happened to guys like Em2, Rip and MSD, but I'm guessing Obama literally broke their minds.
I'm generally opposed to banning. I also haven't plonked anyone yet, which is kind of its own miracle.
Constantly taking a giant shit on people is definitely one of those things I'll make an exception for. Honestly I have no idea why someone who shits on the community would want to be a part of it, outside of some perverse pleasure derived from other people's negative emotions. That's outside my comfort zone as far as kinks go.
I'm not saying this particular offense is the straw, but there have been other straws that had me thinking these same thoughts. The community is small and can ill afford losing more members. That said, are we just keeping Em2 around because of his alternative viewpoint? Because as far as I can tell it's not a viewpoint at all, just complete crap leaking from the corners of his shitmouth.
I don't mind (clearly) conflict. Heated exchanges over differing opinions? No problem. That's not what Em2 brings to the table. His posts would not be noteworthy in a CNN/Fox News article comment section. Those people suck too, including many who are Dems.
I've tried to push him in a more constructive use of his disagreement before, but he's not really willing (who is?) or able to take on a whole forum, so all we get are these shitmouth posts.
Let me ask you this. What is the community gaining from keeping Em2 around and is it worth what it is losing in the exchange?
What is alleged is attempted rape. Attempted murder might be a lesser crime than murder, but not by much. Ditto rape.
The criminal system has been busy the last 30 years making changes to the laws that cover sexual assault. I'm not even sure what the criminal offense would be. I don't really care, because we're not lawyers or a jury trying a criminal case.
We're just run of the mill people talking about a terrible supreme court nominee.
Apparently she passed a polygraph. As I understand it that’s good enough for Rand Paul and Mike Pence, so we should be about done on this nomination. Right?
GreenGoo wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:25 pm
We're just run of the mill people talking about a terrible supreme court nominee.
Or, we're just run of the mill people talking about the smearing of a really good supreme court nominee.
No, we are discussing allegations of sexual assault brought against a SCOTUS nominee.
You are using your usual misogynistic, victim blaming bullshit to immediately discredit any allegations because the guy happens to be on "your side". Which makes you a shitty human being.
(And yes, I fully realize you just got your daily jollies because people happen to be paying attention to you. Shame on me for feeding the troll, but it is sometimes helpful to call attention to the steaming shit pile in the middle of the room when it makes the whole house stink.)
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
geezer wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Apparently she passed a polygraph. As I understand it that’s good enough for Rand Paul and Mike Pence, so we should be about done on this nomination. Right?
GreenGoo wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:25 pm
What is alleged is attempted rape. Attempted murder might be a lesser crime than murder, but not by much. Ditto rape.
The criminal system has been busy the last 30 years making changes to the laws that cover sexual assault. I'm not even sure what the criminal offense would be. I don't really care, because we're not lawyers or a jury trying a criminal case.
We're just run of the mill people talking about a terrible supreme court nominee.
And we're not just talking about sexual assault 35+ years ago. We're also talking about lying to congress (and possibly the FBI) about it just days ago. That's in addition to the several other likely instances of perjury in current testimony.
FBI background checks routinely go back to high school and investigate allegations less serious than this.
No one merits a lifetime law-shaping appointment unless they are beyond reproach.
GreenGoo wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:24 pm
Only when it's convenient, I guess?
Like budget deficits, court nominees, and rule of law. Politics is all theater regardless of who is in office. That's what makes our current reality show President so timely.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
geezer wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Apparently she passed a polygraph. As I understand it that’s good enough for Rand Paul and Mike Pence, so we should be about done on this nomination. Right?
I thought those were voodoo?
Only when it's convenient, I guess?
Honestly, I can’t wait to hear how the polygraph proponents referenced discount THIS result. Of course, the likeliest outcome is that they’re totally impervious to any inconsistency no matter how gross and ridiculous.
Last edited by geezer on Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
geezer wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Apparently she passed a polygraph. As I understand it that’s good enough for Rand Paul and Mike Pence, so we should be about done on this nomination. Right?
I thought those were voodoo?
Only when it's convenient, I guess?
I don’t know why polygraphs are pointed to as evidence. It’s like using a horoscope as evidence.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
geezer wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:19 pm
Apparently she passed a polygraph. As I understand it that’s good enough for Rand Paul and Mike Pence, so we should be about done on this nomination. Right?
I thought those were voodoo?
Only when it's convenient, I guess?
I don’t know why polygraphs are pointed to as evidence. It’s kind using a horoscope as evidence.
Right. But a few days ago these two gents were advocating a polygraph as the arbiter of truth WRT the NYT op ed. So I wonder what they’ll say now. (Pro tip - I don’t actually wonder. I’m pretty sure HER result will be dismissed as not credible)
Couple of things that make this different than a typical money grab.
1) Professor. Everything to lose. Can someone check her actual employment status? The word professor has started to be used so much it has started to mean anyone who ever taught anything at a college, ever.
2) 6 year old therapy notes. Sure, they don't mention Kavanaugh by name, but...6 year old therapy notes.
Having been in a few therapy sessions myself, I don't even blink at the discrepancy of 4 boys in the notes vs 2 boys in the letter. Presumably the therapy was couples therapy anyway, and in my experience if you're not talking about what the doctor wants to focus on, the doctor isn't that interested in what you have to say.
Kavanaugh will happily perjure himself if it means getting what he wants, so no help there, and expecting someone who's guilty of assault to simply tell you is asking a bit much in any case. Which means protestations of innocence whether he is or isn't.
I still don't see this amounting to anything at all, which if it happened is a travesty of justice, but in the meantime, let's watch...
GreenGoo wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 9:06 pm
Couple of things that make this different than a typical money grab.
1) Professor. Everything to lose. Can someone check her actual employment status? The word professor has started to be used so much it has started to mean anyone who ever taught anything at a college, ever.
2) 6 year old therapy notes. Sure, they don't mention Kavanaugh by name, but...6 year old therapy notes.
Having been in a few therapy sessions myself, I don't even blink at the discrepancy of 4 boys in the notes vs 2 boys in the letter. Presumably the therapy was couples therapy anyway, and in my experience if you're not talking about what the doctor wants to focus on, the doctor isn't that interested in what you have to say.
Kavanaugh will happily perjure himself if it means getting what he wants, so no help there, and expecting someone who's guilty of assault to simply tell you is asking a bit much in any case. Which means protestations of innocence whether he is or isn't.
I still don't see this amounting to anything at all, which if it happened is a travesty of justice, but in the meantime, let's watch...
Yeahbut... She lives in *California*. So, you know.
I don't even think rape is being alleged, I think what's being alleged is groping? 
