Octopus Overlords

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD

Yeah, their strategy seems to be: "Ok, Ok, lets say we agree he probably did do this to you.... Why did you do X Y and Z between July 30th and September 16th?"

or "If we end up accidentally confirming this horrible man, it's going to be because you didn't give us enough time to deal with it.... Too late now, the plane has taken off!"


or "If what happened to you was so bad, why didn't you want to fly to DC and tell us, when you clearly fly all the time. Do your parents really love you?"

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:53 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:47 pm They didn't want it in the first place.

Wait. So you're saying the Dems and/or Ford requested it?

And a few of the on-the-fence Republicans.

Captain Caveman wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:54 pm
HOLY MOTHER OF GOD

Don't forget that this is the party of old white men that are dead set on controlling a woman's reproductive system. I find comments like "she's attractive" to be so tone deaf as to be from another era. Like 70+ years ago era. Eventually they'll die off and a new crop of Reps will take their place, and they'll be much more savvy about their misogyny.

Plus...Utah.

Defiant wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:55 pm And a few of the on-the-fence Republicans.

Ah. So the majority of Reps on the judiciary committee voted "no", then? Assuming it's something like a vote that decides these sorts of things? Is there a public record of their opinions/votes?

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:00 pm

Defiant wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:55 pm And a few of the on-the-fence Republicans.

Ah. So the majority of Reps on the judiciary committee voted "no", then? Assuming it's something like a vote that decides these sorts of things? Is there a public record of their opinions/votes?

Most republicans were fine not doing this and would've voted to confirm. But a handful of others said they wouldn't vote unless they heard from Ford first. Because the GOP didn't have the votes to confirm without them, they had to move forward with the hearing.

I don't believe I've ever seen a party October Surprise itself before.

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:57 pm

Captain Caveman wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:54 pm
HOLY MOTHER OF GOD

Don't forget that this is the party of old white men that are dead set on controlling a woman's reproductive system. I find comments like "she's attractive" to be so tone deaf as to be from another era. Like 70+ years ago era. Eventually they'll die off and a new crop of Reps will take their place, and they'll be much more savvy about their misogyny.

Plus...Utah.

Oh, come on. I agree with everything about the old white men of the GOP and reproductive rights, but that comment from Hatch is completely innocuous. Saying someone is an attractive witness is no different from my comment that she comes across as likeable. He's not saying "She's smoking hot!!!!!" That kind of thing is pure "gotchaism" (I think I made that up, but I'm sticking with it). But I'm sure it will be all over social media in no time.

Events like this hearing are most politically damaging when they are perceived to reinforce an existing narrative. For instance that Republicans are hostile to women...

Captain Caveman wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:01 pm Most republicans were fine not doing this and would've voted to confirm. But a handful of others said they wouldn't vote unless they heard from Ford first. Because the GOP didn't have the votes to confirm without them, they had to move forward with the hearing.

Fair enough. I thought I was following along pretty closely, but something happened between <Anonymous->Not Anonymous->Will the FBI investigate?-> No fbi -> hearing> that I must have missed. I was sure it was Reps who decided to put Ford on the hot seat, limit the hearing to only 2 people, and then schedule it unreasonably quickly.

My apologies for my misunderstanding.

Kurth wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:05 pm Oh, come on. I agree with everything about the old white men of the GOP and reproductive rights, but that comment from Hatch is completely innocuous. Saying someone is an attractive witness is no different from my comment that she comes across as likeable. He's not saying "She's smoking hot!!!!!" That kind of thing is pure "gotchaism" (I think I made that up, but I'm sticking with it). But I'm sure it will be all over social media in no time.

No you come on.

You do NOT tell a sexual assault victim they are attractive during a hearing about that assault. When asked to clarify, he says "pleasing". You think he's talking about her tone of voice?

Are you fucking kidding me, Kurth? Seriously.

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:06 pm

Captain Caveman wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:01 pm Most republicans were fine not doing this and would've voted to confirm. But a handful of others said they wouldn't vote unless they heard from Ford first. Because the GOP didn't have the votes to confirm without them, they had to move forward with the hearing.

Fair enough. I thought I was following along pretty closely, but something happened between <Anonymous->Not Anonymous->Will the FBI investigate?-> No fbi -> hearing> that I must have missed. I was sure it was Reps who decided to put Ford on the hot seat, limit the hearing to only 2 people, and then schedule it unreasonably quickly.

My apologies for my misunderstanding.

As damage control.

and the comment 'they will regret it', is to mean that it is not reducing the damage.

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:07 pm

Kurth wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:05 pm Oh, come on. I agree with everything about the old white men of the GOP and reproductive rights, but that comment from Hatch is completely innocuous. Saying someone is an attractive witness is no different from my comment that she comes across as likeable. He's not saying "She's smoking hot!!!!!" That kind of thing is pure "gotchaism" (I think I made that up, but I'm sticking with it). But I'm sure it will be all over social media in no time.

No you come on.

You do NOT tell a sexual assault victim they are attractive during a hearing about that assault. When asked to clarify, he says "pleasing". You think he's talking about her tone of voice?

Are you fucking kidding me, Kurth? Seriously.

The “she’s pleasing” comment does move it from “she’s a good well spoken witness” to, well, she’s good looking vs I guess looking like a shrew. And you know what? If she did look “unattractive” what the hell does that matter in regards to testimony regarding being sexually assaulted?

OMG what Lindsey Graham just said - - wtf. Sorry I can't get a quote this quick. Just appalling.


Never mind if the woman is telling the truth -- he is steamed that this nomination is being threatened.

$iljanus wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:14 pm The “she’s pleasing” comment does move it from “she’s a good well spoken witness” to, well, she’s good looking vs I guess looking like a shrew. And you know what? If she did look “unattractive” what the hell does that matter in regards to testimony regarding being sexually assaulted?

Even if he meant "she's a good witness", I stand by my tone deaf comments. There are nearly infinite number of ways to express that, most of which can't be confused with "I find her physically attractive".

Either he's a freaking moron, or he's an inappropriate moron. I'm going with the latter.

$iljanus wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:14 pmThe “she’s pleasing” comment does move it from “she’s a good well spoken witness” to, well, she’s good looking vs I guess looking like a shrew. And you know what? If she did look “unattractive” what the hell does that matter in regards to testimony regarding being sexually assaulted?

That was my take on this. His brain knew that he couldn't comment in any capacity on what she said or how she presented herself, so instead he decided it was best then to comment on how she looked. More proof that Trump isn't the cause, but instead the the visible tumor of the GOP.

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:07 pm

Kurth wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:05 pm Oh, come on. I agree with everything about the old white men of the GOP and reproductive rights, but that comment from Hatch is completely innocuous. Saying someone is an attractive witness is no different from my comment that she comes across as likeable. He's not saying "She's smoking hot!!!!!" That kind of thing is pure "gotchaism" (I think I made that up, but I'm sticking with it). But I'm sure it will be all over social media in no time.

No you come on.

You do NOT tell a sexual assault victim they are attractive during a hearing about that assault. When asked to clarify, he says "pleasing". You think he's talking about her tone of voice?

Are you fucking kidding me, Kurth? Seriously.

I'm with Goo on this one. If you can't see that commenting on a woman's appearance in any way is wildly inappropriate for a hearing on sexual assault, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:57 pm Plus...Utah.

I'm counting down the days until this vile, misogynistic dinosaur is out of office.

Just to be clear, and Kurth can correct me if I'm wrong, but Kurth doesn't feel the comments were about her physical appearance at all. He believes the comments were directed at her qualities as a witness, and not at her physical qualities.

I personally think that's an improbable interpretation. *Highly* improbable.

Kurth wrote:

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:57 pm

Captain Caveman wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:54 pm
HOLY MOTHER OF GOD

Don't forget that this is the party of old white men that are dead set on controlling a woman's reproductive system. I find comments like "she's attractive" to be so tone deaf as to be from another era. Like 70+ years ago era. Eventually they'll die off and a new crop of Reps will take their place, and they'll be much more savvy about their misogyny.

Plus...Utah.

Oh, come on. I agree with everything about the old white men of the GOP and reproductive rights, but that comment from Hatch is completely innocuous. Saying someone is an attractive witness is no different from my comment that she comes across as likeable. He's not saying "She's smoking hot!!!!!" That kind of thing is pure "gotchaism" (I think I made that up, but I'm sticking with it). But I'm sure it will be all over social media in no time.

Exactly!! Like that time Hatch said Kavaugh was an attractive judge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:07 pm

Kurth wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:05 pm Oh, come on. I agree with everything about the old white men of the GOP and reproductive rights, but that comment from Hatch is completely innocuous. Saying someone is an attractive witness is no different from my comment that she comes across as likeable. He's not saying "She's smoking hot!!!!!" That kind of thing is pure "gotchaism" (I think I made that up, but I'm sticking with it). But I'm sure it will be all over social media in no time.

No you come on.

You do NOT tell a sexual assault victim they are attractive during a hearing about that assault. When asked to clarify, he says "pleasing". You think he's talking about her tone of voice?

Are you fucking kidding me, Kurth? Seriously.

I am not fucking kidding you, GG. Seriously. It wasn't during the hearing, it was to reporters on a break. And, not taken wildly out of context, it clearly is NOT about her physical appearance.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) set off a firestorm Thursday during a break in Palo Alto University professor Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony, when he called Ford an “attractive, good witness.”

Hatch, who made the remarks to a gaggle of reporters outside the hearing room in Capitol Hill, was asked to clarify what he meant by “attractive.” He said it meant she was “pleasing.”

“She’s attractive, a nice person,” Hatch said. “I wish her well.”

He's clearly an old guy fumbling with a clumsy word choice and realizing he's on thin ice. There's no ill intent there, but keep on keeping on if you want to see some. Personally, I think there's enough real ill intent on display without manufacturing additional outrage.

Lindsey Graham tells Orrin Hatch to hold his beer.

A woman just told @LindseyGrahamSC she was raped. He said, as he headed into an elevator, "I'm sorry. Tell the cops."

You're off your rocker, Kurth. I wouldn't mind so much if you didn't accuse me of being a partisan hack.

It's literally right there in the quote you produced.

"She's attractive, a nice person".

Tell you what. I've give you the context reducing how heinous this is if you'll admit he's commenting on her appearance.

And wtf? No one says "she's attractive" for ill intent. Wtf does ill intent have to do with anything?

"Some of my best friends are..." and "I'm not racist, I let "them" use my washroom" have no ill intent either.

edit: He is VERY clearly commenting on her appearance. I don't know what to tell you. I fully retract my outrage at him having said it to her personally. That's on me and I'll fully cop to it. It's only slightly less outrageous that he would comment on her appearance to reporters. If he's struggling for the right word, it's because he's an archaic dinosaur who doesn't know what possible attributes a woman could have that don't relate to how physically attractive he finds her. Telling me he's stumbling around for the right wording makes it fucking worse, not better.

Holman wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:30 pm Lindsay Graham ask Orrin Hatch to hold his beer.

A woman just told @LindseyGrahamSC she was raped. He said, as he headed into an elevator, "I'm sorry. Tell the cops."

I'm at work and haven't been able to watch. What was the context of this? His response to something Ford said, or interaction with a different person?

Wasn’t this 30 minute lunch supposed to end 30 minutes ago?

Skinypupy wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:33 pm

Holman wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:30 pm Lindsay Graham ask Orrin Hatch to hold his beer.

A woman just told @LindseyGrahamSC she was raped. He said, as he headed into an elevator, "I'm sorry. Tell the cops."

I'm at work and haven't been able to watch. What was the context of this? His response to something Ford said, or interaction with a different person?

It was with a gaggle of reporters during a break, I believe.

GreenGoo wrote:You're off your rocker, Kurth. I wouldn't mind so much if you didn't accuse me of being a partisan hack.

It's literally right there in the quote you produced.

"She's attractive, a nice person".

Tell you what. I've give you the context reducing how heinous this is if you'll admit he's commenting on her appearance.

And wtf? No one says "she's attractive" for ill intent. Wtf does ill intent have to do with anything?

"Some of my best friends are..." and "I'm not racist, I let "them" use my washroom" have no ill intent either.

edit: He is VERY clearly commenting on her appearance. I don't know what to tell you. I fully retract my outrage at him having said it to her personally. That's on me and I'll fully cop to it. It's only slightly less outrageous that he would comment on her appearance to reporters. If he's struggling for the right word, it's because he's an archaic dinosaur who doesn't know what possible attributes a woman could have that don't relate to how physically attractive he finds her. Telling me he's stumbling around for the right wording makes it fucking worse, not better.

Fwiw it think attractive is commonly used to describe the general qualities of a witness. At least in pop culture.
Barack Obama is attractive (as a witness), a nice person.
Donald trump would be unattractive, clearly not a nice person.

That being said. Based on previous Hatch quotes I don't think he gets the benefit of any doubts.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

And it’s not a matter of Hatch having any ill intent but just the off handed condensation that many males have in positions of power or authority for women where they’re reduced to their looks. He could easily have followed up by saying how composed she was but instead went to familiar, old person behavior which frankly just doesn’t cut it anymore.

Skinypupy wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:33 pm

Holman wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:30 pm

A woman just told @LindseyGrahamSC she was raped. He said, as he headed into an elevator, "I'm sorry. Tell the cops."

I'm at work and haven't been able to watch. What was the context of this? His response to something Ford said, or interaction with a different person?

For the record I think this is a completely appropriate response. Even if his tone was dismissive and disparaging, or supportive and empathic. Presumably he's walking and someone rushes up and blurts this at him. Sure he could stop and engage, but chances are it would only make matters worse, plus he can't do anything about it, it doesn't have any relevance to the current hearing and she absolutely should be talking to authorities if she hasn't done so already.

Even FOX News is calling this a “disaster” for the GOP.

GG, I believe the proper response is, "I am sorry".

$iljanus wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:44 pm And it’s not a matter of Hatch having any ill intent but just the off handed condensation that many males have in positions of power or authority for women where they’re reduced to their looks.

Anything above a small business almost certainly has a "no comments on physical appearance" as part of their sexual harassment policy. That most people choose to ignore this, especially with long standing co-workers and innocuous comments, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Remember when one lawyer on linkedin commented on another lawyer's appearance on linkedin? The absolute shitstorm that resulted? Personally I found the response to be unwarranted in it's severity, but that's closer to the world we're living in now than old geezers telling us who they find attractive or not.

Outside of a social setting or a *relevant* professional setting, there is very little reason to comment on a person's physical appearance. You sure as fuck don't do it when speaking about a sexual assault victim.

That Kurth believes it was just an innocent comment about her qualities as a witness. That's fine, but I think that's a pretty minority position and extremely unlikely to be true. I think you really have to reach to come to that conclusion.

I believe that the comment is directed at her physical appearance, and I feel his surrounding comments lends credence to that assumption.

There's not much more to discuss. Talking about the appropriateness of the comments is a waste of time if you can't even agree that they occurred with the same meaning.

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:32 pm "She's attractive, a nice person".

Tell you what. I've give you the context reducing how heinous this is if you'll admit he's commenting on her appearance.

I'll take that deal.

Whether someone's an attractive witness or not is an assessment of the whole package of their presentation. That definitely includes the person's physical appearance.

So, (1) yes, his comment reflects on her physical appearance, (2) yes - to that extent - it was ham-fisted and dumb, and (3) no, it wasn't a sign of sexism or misogyny (although I don't doubt Hatch is a sexist misogynist).

Sorry to take this off on a tangent. I'm creating an argument about something pretty unimportant relative to what else is going on today.

Default wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:55 pm I believe the proper response is, "I am sorry".

He said that. He's not a counselor, he's not even engaged in the conversation. I think he's a dipshit for other reasons, but I'm not gonna hold his comments against them, even if you do think they're callous.

Kurth wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:56 pm Sorry to take this off on a tangent. I'm creating an argument about something pretty unimportant relative to what else is going on today.

Done. I fully admit I flew off the handle, assuming he was addressing her directly, whatever his intent.

Defiant wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:43 pm

Kurth wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:41 pm Maybe there were some tougher more substantive questioning earlier, but if this is the best the Republicans have, it’s not at all impressive.

Nope, they weren't substantive (at least, from the Republican side)

Exactly. I left for lunch at 11:40, but up until then the "GOP Questions" may as well have been... "Do you like the color blue?" and "Was it sunny that day?"

I think the outrage is the needless tone deafness of the comment during these hearings. There are so many better ways to express she is a good and believable witness.

Still, the left can take the outrage too far and I think that is what is under kurth’s skin. The left can be more reasonable.

Dr. Ford’s counsel is stepping in more. Mitchell kept questioning Ford about who was paying for her lawyers. Lawyers spoke up after a few moments and said we are doing it pro bono to shut that down. After a bunch of questions about who was paying for the polygraph her lawyer said he did as is typical.

Not all that surprising, but Charlie Baker says Kavanaugh allegations 'sickening,' calls on Senate to postpone vote.

I know people are going to say he had to do that if he wants to get re-elected in MA. Probably true. But he's also a decent guy, and I'm glad he came out with this statement.

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:55 pm Anything above a small business almost certainly has a "no comments on physical appearance" as part of their sexual harassment policy. That most people choose to ignore this, especially with long standing co-workers and innocuous comments, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I've never been anywhere that had one of those.

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:04 pm

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:55 pm Anything above a small business almost certainly has a "no comments on physical appearance" as part of their sexual harassment policy. That most people choose to ignore this, especially with long standing co-workers and innocuous comments, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I've never been anywhere that had one of those.

You work in the Texas oil industry.

And the phrase is: "making graphic or degrading comments about an individual or his/her appearance." which is a sight different from "no comments".