Status
Not open for further replies.
More:
And that creepy "Renate alumni" on the yearbook page of the football team (including Kavanaugh). The woman in question signed a letter of support for Kavanaugh, before she was aware of the yearbook references (there were at least 14 of them). After she found out she was obviously hurt by the comments.

Can anyone come up with an innocent explanation of this?

I can. He ****** her, probably when she was too impaired to consent, but he’s white and from the right social class. Ergo he is innocent.

Pretty sure that’s in the Constitution.
If not, well, it’s just science. Tides go in, tides go out.
 
Two issues.

She did not want to fly to the committee because she is afraid of flying. Then admits to flying a lot. Especially on holiday.

I'm not sure why you think someone with a fear of flying wouldn't fly.

ETA: Ninja'd by BobTheCoward with the stats.
 
Last edited:
Two issues.

She did not want to fly to the committee because she is afraid of flying. Then admits to flying a lot. Especially on holiday.
....


A lot of people are afraid of flying, but they fly anyway. She said she would prefer not to fly to Washington, but she did so rather than not give her testimony.
It's common, too -- a 2006 survey by Gallup and USA Today found that more than one in four people are somewhat afraid, and one in 10 considers him or herself very afraid of taking to the skies.
https://www.webmd.com/anxiety-panic/features/how-to-conquer-your-fear-of-flying

What's the problem?
 
This hearing is one of the most bizarre things I've witnessed in a while. So apparently she flew to DC to testify after claiming delays because she was afraid of flying? (when it turns out she flies often) https://www.nationalreview.com/news...after-citing-fear-of-flying-to-delay-hearing/

Well, at least shes getting to have her say. After seeing the other witnesses testimony, and listening to hers -- wow. What a stark difference.

Anyone have outcome predictions?


(eta, i see ninja'd on the flying thing -- jeez things are unwinding fast)
 
Last edited:
You're a little late to the party, but why do you think it's bizarre for someone with a fear of flying to fly?

It's bizarre that she would claim that, and request a delay so she would not have to fly there when she flies often for work and pleasure, and in fact flew to DC to testify.
 
At this point can we as a nation simply confront the reality that if Trump wants someone in a position of power that fact alone is enough to confirm beyond the shadow of a doubt that said person is a criminal scumbag?
 
Another point.

Flight or fight reaction. She was stopped from fleeing. What did she do to fight back? Scratch his face? What was she doing with her hands?
 
Lawyers are largely technicians. They learn how to apply the laws to serve their clients. The Supreme Court ultimately interprets the Constitution itself to determine whether any particular law meets the Constitution's requirements. Historians and political scientists would be well-equipped to help understand the Founders' intentions, and apply them to contemporary issues.

Hum....

Perhaps a mix of both?
 
Two issues.

She did not want to fly to the committee because she is afraid of flying. Then admits to flying a lot. Especially on holiday.

[citation needed]

She is a smart professor saying she did a risk/reward analysis in deciding to come forward. Yet she seems like a timid backwards woman in trying to get her story to the right people.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I do not know what to make of it.

Oh, please. You know exactly what to make of it, and you've been making it for a while now. Dogmatic disbelief is no better than dogmatic belief.
 
It's bizarre that she would claim that, and request a delay so she would not have to fly there when she flies often for work and pleasure, and in fact flew to DC to testify.

"Bizarre" is pretty strong word considering that your criticism comes after another poster provided a reference to a study that addresses all this.

Do often declare things that you know little or nothing about to be "bizarre" before taking the time to educate yourself?
 
As I said, there were six people in the house. She had to have gotten there with one of them. (I said "he" before, but that was meant as the generic version, i.e. someone of unknown gender.)

No, I cannot imagine that, in a group of six people, one of them vanishes and the others find the event so insignificant that it is lost to their memory. She herself finds the need to walk home because she has been assaulted so insignificant that she forgets it.

Thanks for clearing up the 'generic' he usage. However, you are assuming that "she had to have gotten there with one of them" which is not necessarily true.

You also assume that they did not see her leave the house. They may well have seen her leave and just assumed she just decided to leave because she wasn't having a good time or some other insignificant reason. Why remember that after 36 years? At least two of them would have known why she was leaving but they certainly weren't going to offer that information.
 
Another point.

Flight or fight reaction. She was stopped from fleeing. What did she do to fight back? Scratch his face? What was she doing with her hands?

Have you ever considered a career in counseling survivors of rape and sexual assault? I think your wealth of knowledge and compassionate insight could help them learn to not themselves get raped again in the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom