Kavanaugh
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
I try never to make my self part of the argument, and I'd be astonished if I've ever made my kids part of any argument. Yet here you are spouting baseless opinions about people you don't know, because of what you say happened to your daughter. What is anyone to do with that? Should I say I'm glad your daughter wouldn't come forward to talk about abuse that occurred years ago? Is that what you'd say about your daughter? Why are we talking about your daughter?
This is the aggressive credulity Rockfish is talking about. Your daughter's situation sheds ZERO light on this situation.
She gave it to the FBI because they are the agency charged with conducting background checks on Federal appointees. I doubt there is any criminal investigation involved, just the idea the FBI needs to investigate in their role as background checkers...
DF should have come forward publicly with this sooner, but she was hamstrung by the "victims" wish to remain anonymous. Obviously the woman knew Kavanaugh in high school- maybe she was a scorned lover or someone with a grudge. Or maybe she was afraid and felt she had no recourse at the time....
And even if Kavanaugh is guilty (and gets confirmed) he won't be the only sexual predator to sit on the court. Unless you think ultra- Conservative Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas as part of some liberal plot...
What the hell are you talking about...baseless opinions about people I don't know. Isn't that what everyone in this thread is doing? Not one person here knows anything more than is in that article, and my only point is there is nothing in that article as written here that should serve to ruin this guy. You got more? Show it. I'll hop on the train. I'm not the one making assumptions here.
Aggressive credulity on the right over the ages:
the "murder" of Vince Foster; Obama birth certificate; the claim that climate change is a fraud...the litany of utter crap the right willfully believes in the service of its policy goals is epic. Heck, we should go back to Clarence Thomas and his history of abusive behavior towards women including Anita Hill.
You seem very invested in this. I'm just waiting to see what the facts are -- notwithstanding my daughter's life experiences.
And what have I said (obviously wrong headed story aside) other than the current facts don't support taking a guy down over? You have as many posts in this thread as I do. Why are you so invested?
It seems like the only thing you guys are invested in is bitch-slapping each other.
Seems to me that the argument here is about or should be about whether allegations of sexual misconduct in the past should impact people in the present. I would say that the parties disagree. The Democrats and the metoo# movement say previous misconduct may be disqualifying. even if the conduct is not demonstrated to be illegal in court. Republicans say no. Only those who have been or plausibly may be convicted of a criminal offense should be held accountable.
Is there only one good candidate available for the only one SC seat open? Are there any candidates with impeccable qualifications? What exactly do we want for our Supreme Court justices? How high or low should we set the bar? Should we fast-track the nomination of an imbecile?
That's a good and fair question. Truthfully, when asked to assess my own motives, I can never be entirely sure. But I think what I'm on about is fact-free posting, which I've seen in multiple threads. And I wish we would wait to form our narratives before the facts are in, because we're likely to get it wrong otherwise. And in a world where 63 million Americans (not including you, I think) decided it was a good idea to elect a corrupt unfit imbecile President of the United States, I've concluded that it's important to highlight the dos and don'ts of rational decision-making.
Isn't that why web forums exist?
Is that really all you got from that story? And I’m on record that if she stays anonymous probably nothing can be done. But I know why she would remain that way, because her entire life would be wrecked. But I’d sure hope that most people see an attempted rape as a little more than a kid out his hand over her mouth.
I guess I'm wrong. I thought we were talking about something. Actually I still think so.
Wonder what you’d think if he’d tried to rape her? Seriously, there’s a huge difference between the two.
Interesting how people love to question the motives of truth tellers, as if every one is dying to ruin their lives for 15 minutes of fame.
Oh my. We’ve hit a new low. Posting James Woods twitter feed. I didn’t know you were that far gone.
I believe I'd have to agree with all of this. Boring as that might be. I'm off to the pub in any event.
people seem to disagree about what constitutes assault. I have been reading mysteries and one author I like is Margaret Maron. Her main character is a female judge in North Carolina. In https://www.margaretmaron.com/deborah/sand-sharks/
Maron's character is essentially sexually assaulted by a fellow judge in a way that is somewhat analogous to what the woman alleges about Kavenaugh. Another fellow slugs the offending judge and that is all the character does about it. All this to illustrate that it seems Maron doesn't think that such assault amounts to anything big that should cause her to report the offender.
I’m talking about right now when you post about aggressive credulity immediately after posting in a way that demonstrates you’ve decided to believe every word of an anonymous allegation. What do you call that?
why do you say I have decided to believe it? For what it is worth there is nothing in the allegation that strikes me as particularly unbelievable. Is there for you? Young men have been behaving as sexual aggressors towards women since...well...since before there were men at all.
Did I misunderstand this:
Are you often moved by unproven unsubstantiated allegations about a real person?
To be fair to iu@att, being "moved" by something doesn't necessarily imply that one accepts it as truth. Have you ever said something to the effect of, "Oh, that's awful, I hope that's not true?" That would be an example of something moving you, even if you haven't yet determined it's a fact.
I Received Some of Kozinski’s Infamous Gag List Emails. I’m Baffled by Kavanaugh’s Responses to Questions About Them.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ls-senate-hearings.html?via=homepage_taps_top
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ls-senate-hearings.html?via=homepage_taps_top
In his hearings, Kavanaugh was asked by Sens. Orrin Hatch and Mazie Hirono if he was aware of the email list, and if he had received emails from Kozinski with sexually explicit content. In response to these questions, he said he couldn’t recall anything like that. And, in response to a written question for the record—“Has Judge Kozinski ever made comments about sexual matters to you, either in jest or otherwise?”—Kavanaugh responded, “I do not remember any such comments.”
Well, I wouldn't advocate going to war over unproven and unsubstantiated allegations like some people around here. But the fact is that a real woman is making those allegations about K. Her name will inevitably emerge and, like Anita Hill, the GOP will inevitably crucify her for daring to make those allegations. Hell, look what their "aggressive credulity" has done to Mueller. Yeah, I would say that is moving for me.
So you believe this anonymous woman’s allegation because you hate all Republicans. You could have saved us some time on this.
I guess the question I have is whether our standards are such that even actions by teenagers - long before their brains are fully developed - are going to be judged in accordance with the actions we'd expect of someone in their 40s, or even their late 20s.
I'm hesitant to give this standard the same credence as that which we'd use for actions during one's full adulthood. Otherwise, we'll either disqualify the entire population or get left with someone like Mike Pence as the sole qualified candidate. I'd much rather have someone with a small skeleton in their closet, and a regret or two, with which to understand with more depth the vagaries of life.
I'm hesitant to give this standard the same credence as that which we'd use for actions during one's full adulthood. Otherwise, we'll either disqualify the entire population or get left with someone like Mike Pence as the sole qualified candidate. I'd much rather have someone with a small skeleton in their closet, and a regret or two, with which to understand with more depth the vagaries of life.
What in the world?! I could only say that the allegations are entirely believable. I don't have any special knowledge beyond what Rock has posted in the New Yorker article. Mr. Bing tells a valuable story of his own personal experience with such an allegation in which he was falsely accused. I guess the question for you is whether the truth of the allegations matters to you in one way or another. It seems clear that the truth of the allegations doesn't matter to the current GOP. It is convenient for them to put K on the court and so that is what they will do. What are these allegations compared to the much better sourced allegations against Trump? The truth of the allegations, at least with respect to the appointment to the SC doesn't matter to me. I am opposed to K's appointment.
A question for you is just how small a "skeleton" this is? Let's suppose we assume the allegations are true as stated. You seem to suggest they don't qualify as significant. Is that right? Why shouldn't they be disqualifying for a position given the great number of qualified candidates without such baggage?
Yeah, but that doesn't count. All those guys look alike. Easy mistake to make.
Now what? STOP BEING SO CRYPTIC!My OP is seeming more prescient literally by the hour.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
How do transgender women (biological men) live with themselves . . .
- Latest: BadWakeboarder
-
-
