How important is what we did in high school? Kavanaugh accusation

[Guest Godless]

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Kavanaugh and Graham are reportedly pretty cool customers.  If they’ve both got their dander up, I think it’s a good chance they have reason to believe that they’ve lost Collins/Murkowski/Flake and that the confirmation won’t happen.  

That seems to be a popular theory at the moment. 

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Kavanaugh and Graham are reportedly pretty cool customers.  If they’ve both got their dander up, I think it’s a good chance they have reason to believe that they’ve lost Collins/Murkowski/Flake and that the confirmation won’t happen.  

Disagree on Kavanaugh considering what he's going through and the report that he called trump and was given advice to be assertive. 

[Just_A_Guy]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Disagree on Kavanaugh considering what he's going through and the report that he called trump and was given advice to be assertive. 

If that was the advice, I’m inclined to think it was . . . not optimal advice.  

Being at the center of a sexual assault hearing, is no time for an academic/intellectual to suddenly get in touch with his inner alpha male.  

Flake will do whatever he’ll do, and Murkowski’s constituents will probably keep her in line at the end of the day.  But Collins needs something to give her political cover for a “yes” vote with her left-leaning constituency; and it sounds like she didn’t get that today.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Being at the center of a sexual assault hearing, is no time for an academic/intellectual to suddenly get in touch with his inner alpha male.

So a man accused of attempted forcible rape is supposed to defend his good name by...going beta?

[Just_A_Guy]

Just now, Vort said:

So a man accused of attempted forcible rape is supposed to defend his good name by...going beta?

I’ll settle for “nonaggressive” and “dispassionate”.  Whether those terms are synonymous with “beta”, is an exercise left for the reader.  

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’ll settle for “nonaggressive” and “dispassionate”.  Whether those terms are synonymous with “beta”, is an exercise left for the reader.  

"You stand accused of attempted forcible rape, sir."

"Well, golly gee, I'm so sorry for that poor lady who's all worked up. But it wasn't me. I don't know where the poor darling got that idea, but I sure didn't do anything like that."

Yep. That'll win 'em right over.

[Guest Godless]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

So a man accused of attempted forcible rape is supposed to defend his good name by...going beta?

When there's a lifetime appointment to the highest judicial position in the country at stake, yes, I'd say that's a perfect time to remain composed and professional. Also, taking a page from Trump's book is probably ill-advised. For better or worse, Trump's methodology works, somehow and very inexplicably, for Trump. Expecting it to work for anyone not named Trump is a dangerous gamble.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Godless said:

Also, taking a page from Trump's book is probably ill-advised. For better or worse, Trump's methodology works, somehow and very inexplicably, for Trump. Expecting it to work for anyone not named Trump is a dangerous gamble.

This I agree with, at least in general. In this case, I don't see how a man accused of a despicable act with not the least shred of evidence can be expected to respond to such an outrageous claim with anything other than, well, you know, outrage.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

This I agree with, at least in general. In this case, I don't see how a man accused of a despicable act with not the least shred of evidence can be expected to respond to such an outrageous claim with anything other than, well, you know, outrage.

Agreed. The response was appropriate.

[The Folk Prophet]

Frankly, Graham was on target too. This has been a sham. 

[Vort]

40 minutes ago, Godless said:

Without knowing who or when the next Dem SCOTUS pick (or other appointment requiring congressional confirmation) will be, Graham implied not-very-subtly that there will be sexual assault allegations raised against that person.

Which is precisely what is happening here. The Dems have poisoned the well, and now the Repubs are at fault?

I honestly do not know what the appropriate response from the Rs should be. Probably not this, but what? The Ds are despicable. They are hijacking the process for purely political gain.

Perhaps it's time to divide the country down the middle and let the Left destroy only their half.

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Which is precisely what is happening here. The Dems have poisoned the well, and now the Repubs are at fault?

I honestly do not know what the appropriate response from the Rs should be. Probably not this, but what? The Ds are despicable. They are hijacking the process for purely political gain.

Perhaps it's time to divide the country down the middle and let the Left destroy only their half.

CIVIL WAR!!! 

[Just_A_Guy]

20 minutes ago, Vort said:

"You stand accused of attempted forcible rape, sir."

"Well, golly gee, I'm so sorry for that poor lady who's all worked up. But it wasn't me. I don't know where the poor darling got that idea, but I sure didn't do anything like that."

Yep. That'll win 'em right over.

It’s not really about winning over the irrevocably prejudiced.  It’s about not alienating those who are still open-minded about the case. 

And, FWIW—speaking only for myself, and in a very different professional context—bending over backwards to express sympathy for the person whose case I am trying to completely eviscerate, has typically been a highly effective trial technique.  It doesn’t give me many Matlock/Perry Mason-esque “gotcha!” moments; but it lets me lay a thorough factual groundwork that I can build on when it’s time to logically tie everything together.  And this when when the court really starts engaging with my argument, it does so with an open mind.  The really sweet part—which has happened to me repeatedly—is when the person you cross-examine comes out of it gloating and thinking they’ve made a buffoon out of you; and then the court rules completely in your favor.  The only thing better than winning, is winning against an opponent who clearly thinks you’re an idiot.   

Senate hearings are of course primarily done for PR value, and in that context sound bytes are everything.  But it will be interesting when the transcripts of this hearing come out, to see what factual groundwork actually got laid when no one was paying attention.  That prosecutor from Arizona seems to have been a bit of a washout; but I suspect there was a method to her madness.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest Godless]

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

Which is precisely what is happening here. The Dems have poisoned the well, and now the Repubs are at fault?

The response to "poisoning the well" isn't to dump in more poison. 

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

I honestly do not know what the appropriate response from the Rs should be. Probably not this, but what? The Ds are despicable. They are hijacking the process for purely political gain.

And what exactly would you call what Rs did when Merrick Garland was supposed to go through the confirmation process? This partisanship is getting ugly and there's plenty of blame to be placed on both sides. But I still refuse to dismiss an alleged sexual assault victim as a purely political ploy. Was the timing politically motivated? Sure. But to dismiss allegations like this based on timing is to set a dangerous precedent that will hurt many more victims in the future.

 

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, Godless said:

The response to "poisoning the well" isn't to dump in more poison. 

True. So what's the solution? To capitulate to your side?

5 minutes ago, Godless said:

And what exactly would you call what Rs did when Merrick Garland was supposed to go through the confirmation process?

Waaaaaait a minute. I thought the response to well-poisoning wasn't to dump in more poison. What happened to that principle?

And the comparison is bogus. The Rs didn't go find someone to make an unprovable personal allegation. Surely even you can see that this is far out of any bounds of decency.

[Vort]

24 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And, FWIW—speaking only for myself, and in a very different professional context—bending over backwards to express sympathy for the person whose case I am trying to completely eviscerate, has typically been a highly effective trial technique.

When you were being personally attacked and called an attempted rapist?

Let's pretend Kavanaugh had done exactly what you say: Remain cool and rational, only pointing out facts and calmly denying any wrongdoing. How do you suppose the Democrats and their fawning press would have reacted? "Look at that cold-blooded reptilian lawyer! How he can sit there so smug and calm just INFURIATES any compassionate person! He doesn't even express any EMOTION! Is THAT the man we want on our Supreme Court?"

I think we're all perfectly aware that Kavanaugh cannot win, and that that fact is purely by design. Let's stop pretending that this has anything to do with actual concerns over sexual assault. This is purely, 100% political.

[lostinwater]

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

 Which is precisely what is happening here. The Dems have poisoned the well, and now the Repubs are at fault?

 I honestly do not know what the appropriate response from the Rs should be. Probably not this, but what? The Ds are despicable. They are hijacking the process for purely political gain.

Perhaps it's time to divide the country down the middle and let the Left destroy only their half.

@Vort

Do you really believe this? 

Does anyone here really believe that one side shows any more hypocritical bias than the other?  

That this country would be better if only republicans or only democrats held positions of power?  

i mean, have we not read any of the history books?  It's happened a thousand times before.  France, Russia, Germany.  Polarization and a lack of communication creating an "evil other".  Let that perception fester for a decade or two, something horrible happens.  Rinse and repeat. 

[Vort]

1 minute ago, lostinwater said:

@Vort

Do you really believe this? 

Believe what? That the country would be better off divided in two? I don't know. I never used to believe any such thing. Now, I wonder what the realistic (and better) alternative is.

2 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Does anyone here really believe that one side shows any more hypocritical bias than the other?

Absolutely. The "progressive Left" is absolutely unashamed. I hold no illusions that the majority of Republican politicians are squeaky clean. I freely admit and deplore their corruption. But they do not hold a candle to the political Left.

3 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

That this country would be better if only republicans or only democrats held positions of power?

Where are you getting these allegations? I certainly never said anything like that. Republican-only rule would be disastrous, though not nearly to the extent that Democrat-only rule would be.

4 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

i mean, have we not read any of the history books?  It's happened a thousand times before.  France, Russia, Germany.  Polarization and a lack of communication creating an "evil other".  Let that perception fester for a decade or two, something horrible happens.  Rinse and repeat.

So which of the two factions in American society has consistently and harshly demeaned, degraded, and dehumanized the other for the past thirty years? And don't give me any of that "both" bull crap. We all know the honest answer. Look at any major college campus in the nation not called BYU. Look to the policies of major corporations, especially in the tech sector. Look at the vast majority of what Hollywood has put out for three decades.

If you're worried about people creating an "evil other", don't look at the Republicans. The Democrats are operating in that sphere on a doctorate level while the Republicans are stuck in junior high school.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Does anyone here really believe that one side shows any more hypocritical bias than the other?  

Absolutely.  

Is there hypocrisy on both sides?  Of course.  Politicians are mostly ambitious opportunists.  But when you're asking who is MORE, there is no question.  Democrats have no shame in being the hypocrites.  They just throw out the racist, sexist, Islamophobic, homophobic card and dodge around their hypocrisy and dwell in it.

Republicans show hypocrisy, they are called out on it, and they slink away.

If you don't see this pattern, you're either very naive or blind.

[The Folk Prophet]

44 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And, FWIW—speaking only for myself, and in a very different professional context—bending over backwards to express sympathy for the person whose case I am trying to completely eviscerate, has typically been a highly effective trial technique.  It doesn’t give me many Matlock/Perry Mason-esque “gotcha!” moments; but it lets me lay a thorough factual groundwork that I can build on when it’s time to logically tie everything together.  And this when when the court really starts engaging with my argument, it does so with an open mind.  The really sweet part—which has happened to me repeatedly—is when the person you cross-examine comes out of it gloating and thinking they’ve made a buffoon out of you; and then the court rules completely in your favor.  The only thing better than winning, is winning against an opponent who clearly thinks you’re an idiot.   

So you pull a Columbo on 'em?

[The Folk Prophet]

32 minutes ago, Godless said:

The response to "poisoning the well" isn't to dump in more poison. 

And what exactly would you call what Rs did when Merrick Garland was supposed to go through the confirmation process? This partisanship is getting ugly and there's plenty of blame to be placed on both sides. But I still refuse to dismiss an alleged sexual assault victim as a purely political ploy. Was the timing politically motivated? Sure. But to dismiss allegations like this based on timing is to set a dangerous precedent that will hurt many more victims in the future.

 

I'm pretty sure that those dismissing the allegations are doing so on the fact that it has been investigated, and there is simply no good corroboration. The allegations have nothing concrete to stand on but "feelings" which is why the dems questions were all, "how did this make you feel?" As if that had any relevancy. Typical leftist facts-don't-matter-because-FEELINGS approach to things.

[Guest MormonGator]

What I like most about the Kavanaugh hearings is that it shows how united we are as a country. They are really bringing people together.  

[Just_A_Guy]

30 minutes ago, Vort said:

When you were being personally attacked and called an attempted rapist?

Let's pretend Kavanaugh had done exactly what you say: Remain cool and rational, only pointing out facts and calmly denying any wrongdoing. How do you suppose the Democrats and their fawning press would have reacted? "Look at that cold-blooded reptilian lawyer! How he can sit there so smug and calm just INFURIATES any compassionate person! He doesn't even express any EMOTION! Is THAT the man we want on our Supreme Court?"

I think we're all perfectly aware that Kavanaugh cannot win, and that that fact is purely by design. Let's stop pretending that this has anything to do with actual concerns over sexual assault. This is purely, 100% political.

Personally?  Never.  I have represented numerous clients in that situation, however—attempted rape, rape, rape of a child, beating a child, domestic violence . . . 

Lest I come off as being overly glib, I’m not saying that it’s an easy situation to be in.  I am merely suggesting a) that I (and, I think, many other Americans) expect judicial temperament in a SCOTUS nominee even in very trying circumstances; and b) that there are, quite bluntly, tactics  that usually work—and tactics that usually don’t.  Righteous indignation usually doesn’t work.  Now that I’m working for The Man, I don’t fear the defense attorneys who are righteously indignant and make railing counter-accusations.  I fear the ones who ask carefully-crafted probing questions, wait for a reply, write something on their notepads, inadvertently show the barest hint of a benign smile—and then move on.

As for what would have happened if Kavanaugh took my advice—the Dems would have Demed, of course.  But as I hinted above, it’s the center-lefties in Maine (Senator Collins’ constituency) that Kavanaugh needed to reach; and I don’t know that he did himself any favors there.

And as for me and my house—this is still very much about sexual assault.  I don’t *think* Kavanaugh is guilty—particularly in Ford’s case—but I’m not *sure*.  I will be reading the hearing transcripts with interest.  

One thing I will back you up on, though:  since the 1980s the Repubs have treated SCOTUS nominations like a gentleman’s boxing match; whereas the Dems have been treating it like a Roman gladiatorial death-fight.  GOP nominees have repeatedly failed to make it through the process; Dem nominees (pre-Garland) never did.  Dem nominees were confirmed with broad bipartisan support; GOP nominees since Thomas have been confirmed nearly along party lines (except for Roberts).  Generally speaking it isn’t that the GOP nominees have been intellectually or morally inferior; it’s just that they have been—well—not Democrats.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

21 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Does anyone here really believe that one side shows any more hypocritical bias than the other?  

Are you freaking kidding me?

I don't think very many people would claim it's all golden in R land by a long, long, long, long shot.

But are you freaking kidding me?

22 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

i mean, have we not read any of the history books?  It's happened a thousand times before.  France, Russia, Germany.  Polarization and a lack of communication creating an "evil other".  Let that perception fester for a decade or two, something horrible happens.  Rinse and repeat. 

When the "other" is legit evil...you know killing babies by the millions and stuff...I think the calling of the other "evil" isn't just the result...it is the duty.

[Vort]

I hope (and assume) you realize that I'm not aiming any bile at you, JAG (or at Godless, or at lostinwater, or at anyone else here). I'm disgusted by the proceedings, and even more disgusted at the reactions -- not just from the left, but from the hoi polloi. I am fast losing hope for our country, and I am not kidding. When people are happy to be lied to and even rally around the liars, all is soon to be lost.