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

[clwnuke]

9 minutes ago, carlimac said:

True but she's not the Supreme Court Justice nominee. 😒

But she is an accuser trying to stop a very political Supreme Court appointment ..,  Is her memory just as crystal clear during all of her other drunken times? Of course in this instance everything around the event is fuzzy, except for remembering Mr. Kavanaugh and his friend. Very selective.

What distinguishes her other trysts with boys from this one? Does she remember all of them? Did she consent to all the others but not this one? All of this unfortunately becomes relevant because politics is a nasty game that motivates people to bend the truth. Of course, this time was different because she only had one beer - right? 

I've run for office and I'm a first hand witness to how many lies get told to advance political agendas. This is higher up with far greater stakes, and political machines will stop at nothing to reach their objectives. Unfortunately the American people are stuck in the middle. 

[clwnuke]

4 minutes ago, Natural Man said:

It's my view that a teenage boy who attempts a sexual assault (even while drunk) may well have a deep flaw likely to continue through the rest of his life, and it is very relevant to future job performance.  

If you expand the definition of sexual assault far enough, you might as well fire 98% of all men from their current jobs. But to be consistent, you'll also need to fire the girls who grabbed my rear in high school and smiled as well. Where do you  draw the line and let people move on?

[Guest]

I've heard (and read) remarks that stupid or foolish decisions which lead to consequential bad results are themselves indicators of lying; or that the consequences are the fault of the victim. I think that line of reasoning is not valid. Analogously, I've heard detractors of Joseph Smith reason that he was a liar on the basis of his foolish decision to let Martin Harris take the manuscript to satisfy his wife; and that he was at fault for Martin Harris losing them. I think that line of reasoning is not valid, too. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, clwnuke said:

If you expand the definition of sexual assault far enough, you might as well fire 98% of all men from their current jobs. But to be consistent, you'll also need to fire the girls who grabbed my rear in high school and smiled as well. Where do you  draw the line and let people move on?

It's a fair question. Tell me about the girls who grabbed your rear in high school. Then I'll address where to draw the line. That's a fair request, don't you think?

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, carlimac said:

Is Mike Lee a possibility? Why or why not?

His name has been floated in the past, but he’s kind of a dark-horse—solid in his constitutional discourse, but not currently practicing law.  (Ted Cruz is in a similar boat, though I think he was AG of Texas at one point, which might give him a little more street-cred.  But neither has ever been a judge, AFAIK.  ). Mike’s brother Tom Lee is currently on Utah’s state supreme court, and I believe is on Trump’s short-ish list along with 20-30 other people.  But there’s kind of some snobbery about federal versus state judges, so I think even Tom Lee would be pretty unlikely—except that, as an active Mormon, it would be hard for Dems to run the same kind of offense against him that they’ve been doing to Kavanaugh.

Edited September 27, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

10 hours ago, NightSG said:

OK, that settles it; what kind of demented freak still has a calendar laying around from 36 years ago?

Hold up!  My mother is not a demented freak!  If we didn't have that house fire back before I was born, she'd have calendars from the 60's!

[clwnuke]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Hold up!  My mother is not a demented freak!  If we didn't have that house fire back before I was born, she'd have calendars from the 60's!

I still have Day Planners from the 90's. I would trust the information in those before I would trust anything in my memory or Ms. Ford's memory. 

[anatess2]

16 hours ago, carlimac said:

Not to try to disappoint you but I haven't heard even a whisper about his religion having anything to do with this. I've only seen the accusations connected to  spoiled brat prep school kids, drinking, drugs and bad boys.  Maybe I'm not reading the right opinion pieces. Too bad the left seems to be missing it's opportunity to tie him to the Catholic priest fiasco.   I can hardly wait till someone claims he has a son from one of these "rapes". But naw...that would be too easy to prove false. 

"Not to try to disappoint you" is a weird phrasing.  The more appropriate one is, "You'll be relieved to know that..." or something like that.

Where we have a different take on the matter is that you're expecting a pitbull while I'm noticing the snake.  So you're expecting somebody like Diane Feinstein or something to say, "Kavanaugh worked with this priest whose cousin was another priest charged with pedophilia and Kavanaugh did nothing about it!".  Whereas I'm seeing... Day 1 hearings with a bunch of women standing on the mezzanine of the hearing room wearing Handmaid's Tale costumes. 

Political strategy is all about public perceptions.  That's how you get away with crap - you just need to get enough people to think it's apple pie.

Okay, I'm going to ask you a question as a regular person-on-the-street.  What do you know of Kavanaugh's character?  Where did you get that information?

It could be that I have too many Catholic friends but the character endorsements I have of Kavanaugh is connected to the Catholic Church.  When the news got inundated by Catholic scandals, it puts an association into people's minds - Catholic = bad.  So, a full-press negative propaganda against Kavanaugh becomes one-sided because the established character references Kavanaugh has becomes tainted in people's perceptions.  So they would rather believe the negative press than the Catholic endorsement.  So that, this glowing news story from when Kavanaugh was nominated: 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/brett-kavanaughs-religious-upbringing-shaped-thinking-131552610.html

can't get much room in people's consciousness when the sexual allegations (timed strategically) comes into play.  The public perception would go, "but those character endorsements were from the Catholic Church and they're a bunch of pedos"...  Now, with the piling allegations, it can easily morph in the public perception as, "Sex parties?  What did you expect!  They're in an all-boys Catholic school!"

BUT... this Avenatti one, I think, is a bad play.  I'm betting Avenatti is doing this on his own - for his own fame and glory (the 4chan claim is still holding).  Because, if my suspicions above are correct, his play is so egregious that it jumps the shark set up by the 2nd accuser, blowing up the entire public perception strategy.

Edited September 27, 2018 by anatess2

[carlimac]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

"Not to try to disappoint you" is a weird phrasing.  The more appropriate one is, "You'll be relieved to know that..." or something like that.

Where we have a different take on the matter is that you're expecting a pitbull while I'm noticing the snake.  So you're expecting somebody like Diane Feinstein or something to say, "Kavanaugh worked with this priest whose cousin was another priest charged with pedophilia and Kavanaugh did nothing about it!".  Whereas I'm seeing... Day 1 hearings with a bunch of women standing on the mezzanine of the hearing room wearing Handmaid's Tale costumes. 

Political strategy is all about public perceptions.  That's how you get away with crap - you just need to get enough people to think it's apple pie.

Okay, I'm going to ask you a question as a regular person-on-the-street.  What do you know of Kavanaugh's character?  Where did you get that information?

It could be that I have too many Catholic friends but the character endorsements I have of Kavanaugh is connected to the Catholic Church.  When the news got inundated by Catholic scandals, it puts an association into people's minds - Catholic = bad.  So, a full-press negative propaganda against Kavanaugh becomes one-sided because the established character references Kavanaugh has becomes tainted in people's perceptions.  So they would rather believe the negative press than the Catholic endorsement.  So that, this glowing news story from when Kavanaugh was nominated: 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/brett-kavanaughs-religious-upbringing-shaped-thinking-131552610.html

can't get much room in people's consciousness when the sexual allegations (timed strategically) comes into play.  The public perception would go, "but those character endorsements were from the Catholic Church and they're a bunch of pedos"...  Now, with the piling allegations, it can easily morph in the public perception as, "Sex parties?  What did you expect!  They're in an all-boys Catholic school!"

BUT... this Avenatti one, I think, is a bad play.  I'm betting Avenatti is doing this on his own - for his own fame and glory (the 4chan claim is still holding).  Because, if my suspicions above are correct, his play is so egregious that it jumps the shark set up by the 2nd accuser, blowing up the entire public perception strategy.

Ya, that first phrase came out weird. I was trying to convey that in the past you have been so completely sure that the focus on the abuse was about Kavanaugh being Catholic and to tie his religion to this abuse in a negative way- making him look bad. I don't want you to be disappointed that that hasn't happened in an obvious way. Anyway...written communication is not perfect. 

As I've listened to these latest hearings- it's all been high school drinking=bad and doesn't highlight his religion in any way. It might have in the previous hearings as they asked him questions about his feelings on Roe vs Wade.  But it feels like what the priests have done in the past has no connection to Kavanaugh and I think most of the so-called "adults in the room" recognize that.  

 

[carlimac]

Yikes! Is anyone watching? Train wreck!! I can't look away. 

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Ya, that first phrase came out weird. I was trying to convey that in the past you have been so completely sure that the focus on the abuse was about Kavanaugh being Catholic and to tie his religion to this abuse in a negative way- making him look bad. I don't want you to be disappointed that that hasn't happened in an obvious way. Anyway...written communication is not perfect. 

As I've listened to these latest hearings- it's all been high school drinking=bad and doesn't highlight his religion in any way. It might have in the previous hearings as they asked him questions about his feelings on Roe vs Wade.  But it feels like what the priests have done in the past has no connection to Kavanaugh and I think most of the so-called "adults in the room" recognize that.  

 

The "adults in the room" already know how they're going to vote.  It is simply being able to vote with impunity that they're after.

So, the hearing today did not add anything to Ford's claims.  It remains uncorroborated.  It remains he said/she said.  With that cloud still hanging over the Catholic Church, where "he said/she said" falls in public opinion when your claim to moral character is the Catholic Church would be against the Catholic Church.  That strategy is textbook in politics.

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Yikes! Is anyone watching? Train wreck!! I can't look away. 

I can't watch.  I keep on seeing my sons in Kavanaugh's chair.  I'm following through excerpts.

[Traveler]

There is a lot in this thread and I must admit that I have not read  - but from what I have read I do not believe many realize what is going on.  It is my opinion that we are seeing what happens to a society and it government when a secret combination have such control that they become brazen with no fear of any consequences.  In short I believe we are seeing advanced activity of secret combinations in our government.  Their goal at this point is to discourage anyone outside of their circle from serving in responsible positions of our government.

This is not new - what is happening has happened many times before and is that end someone daring to serve other than what the secret combination wishes - else they are made an example so no honest person will take the risk.  No one that loves their family and cares about their friends will dare to serve - this leaves only those conscripted to the secret combination.  The Book of Mormon warned us that to rid our government and society of secret combinations will require "much blood shed".  I am not sure if we as a society are willing to accept the consequences that are coming soon.  

It is prophesied that all those unwilling to lift sword against their neighbor must flee to Zion.  I have a permission that Zion will not be protected by conventional means but rather only by divine providence.  And I wonder who will trust G-d to protect them when the sword and the arm of the flesh has failed and the blood of our loved ones flow through the streets.  

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

I haven't been paying much attention to the hearing.  Has Kavanaugh come within a thousand miles of looking like this at any point?

(This is the look you supposedly give when you get called out publicly for sexual abuse, and you see your accusers in the room with you, and the cameras are rolling.  Kavanaugh is pretty much in the same situation here, but I doubt he has looked like this.)

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I haven't been paying much attention to the hearing.  Has Kavanaugh come within a thousand miles of looking like this at any point?

One thing I got from the entire train wreck.  Kavanaugh knows his Constitution inside outside upside down sideways diagonal and all around.

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't think Senator Hatch and Senator Lee listened to that Mormon women group.

[anatess2]

22 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

(This is the look you supposedly give when you get called out publicly for sexual abuse, and you see your accusers in the room with you, and the cameras are rolling.  Kavanaugh is pretty much in the same situation here, but I doubt he has looked like this.)

I looked and looked for Kavanaugh's angry face picture.  Couldn't find a good one.  He was seething angry in that hearing.  The anger can be felt through the screen.  I guess a video is better than a picture.

 

[carlimac]

I don't always like Lindsay Graham but wow he was on fire today!! 

 

[Guest Godless]

9 minutes ago, carlimac said:

I don't always like Lindsay Graham but wow he was on fire today!! 

 

I especially liked the part where he gave a blanket warning that future Dem SCOTUS picks will be put through the same thing Kavanaugh has. 

[Just_A_Guy]

5 minutes ago, Godless said:

I especially liked the part where he gave a blanket warning that future Dem SCOTUS picks will be put through the same thing Kavanaugh has. 

Can’t have mutually assured destruction without the destruction.   

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Godless said:

I especially liked the part where he gave a blanket warning that future Dem SCOTUS picks will be put through the same thing Kavanaugh has. 

And in my view therein lies one of the hallmarks of our country's elected leadership, that is the continuing downward spiral not unlike the Joker and Batman arguing about who made whom and the predictable escalations. Sadly, too many of us follow our leaders' example. 😞

[Vort]

47 minutes ago, Godless said:

I especially liked the part where he gave a blanket warning that future Dem SCOTUS picks will be put through the same thing Kavanaugh has. 

And this is bad because...?

If Democrats are going to Bork or even forcibly destroy any candidate that actually cares about the Constitution and not just the Left's agenda, why would anyone not of the Left be eager to show decorum in the Leftists placing their anti-Constitutional candidates on the SC?

[Guest Godless]

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

And this is bad because...?

If Democrats are going to Bork or even forcibly destroy any candidate that actually cares about the Constitution and not just the Left's agenda, why would anyone not of the Left be eager to show decorum in the Leftists placing their anti-Constitutional candidates on the SC?

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. Accusing someone of making allegations for purely political reasons is one thing (a pretty despicable thing imo), but launching a preemptive offensive against future political appointees is a new and deplorable low. And by doing so, he (probably unwittingly) destroyed the credibility of anyone who tries to accuse political figures of either party of sexual misconduct in the future. He outright declared that accusations like these are purely political plays and that it's a "game" that the GOP is fully prepared to play once the shoe is on the other foot. 

You asked if I would stand by an alleged victim if the accused is a Democrat and I said yes. I stand by that, just to be clear. You can save the link to this post and hold me to it if the time ever comes. But Graham, by dismissing Ford's accusations as dirty politics, just gave Dems a free pass to do the same. He'll end up eating his words, all while another possible victim of unspeakable trauma goes unheard. 

[Just_A_Guy]

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.  

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, Godless said:

And by doing so, he (probably unwittingly) destroyed the credibility of anyone who tries to accuse political figures of either party of sexual misconduct without proof in the future

Fixed it.