Lessons to be learned from the Kavanaugh Hearing

[Skeptic Ginger]

Lesson for the Democrats, stop worrying about overturning Roe, they are never going to admit it and you know anyone nominated off a Federalist Society list is going to be anti-abortion. Do look more closely at partisan history in a nominee's background. When there is evidence of perjury in past confirmation hearings.

And look more closely at the pro-1%, anti-99% rulings the candidate has made.

He worked for Ken Starr, that history must have been full of red flags.

Find better ways to counter the attack on the messenger one can expect from the GOP.

Don't attack the ideology, bring up very specific rulings.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Have I got that right?

Edited by zooterkin: 

Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Let's all put the Phasers back on Stun, okay?

 

[Cabbage]

Let's all put the Phasers back on Stun, okay?

Point taken, but it is objectively true based on his posts.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Point taken, but it is objectively true based on his posts.

And, to be as fair to you as you were to me, I think this obsession with ideological purity is not helping.

Being inconsistent is not a greater sin than being wrong.

All ideologies are hypocrites because an ideology cannot account for the full scale of the human condition.

If our entire discourse is based on nothing but finding inconsistencies in ideologies (i.e. hypocrisy) that's all we're ever gonna do and as good as it often feels, it doesn't accomplish much on any practical level.

 

[acbytesla]

Likely but not for certain. It's quite possible she believes what she's saying. But it is very, very unlikely that her claims are actually true.

But it's not a classic 'he said, she said' scenario. Actually, Dr. Ford would have a better case if it were.

As Rachel Mitchell's analysis points out, Dr. Ford named 4 other people who were present at the time of the alleged attack -- 2 of them were eye witnesses.

However, all 4 people have either denied the allegations, or claimed they don't remember the incident ever happening.

Worst still, Dr. Ford's high-school friend, Leland Keyser, claims she has never even met Brett Kavanaugh, and never been to a party where he was present.

1. You are using Rachel Mitchell, who was appointed by the Republicans to say what they wanted her to say.
2. Anyone who knows anything about memory would be able to tell you that while a victim may be able to remember certain things vividly, from a traumatic experience they are just as likely to misremember others.
3. They did not really deny anything, just because they didn't have a memory of it. 2 of them? You mean Judge and Kavanaugh?

 

[Upchurch]

Oh, I see now. When anyone accuses a Republican, it's a dirty Democrat attempting to smear a virtuous Republican.

However, when anyone accuses a Democrat, whether the accused is Bill Clinton or Al Franken or whoever, it's a principled search for Truth and Honesty.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to comply with previously moderated post

Edited by Agatha: 

You should have seen how Zig lost his mind over a lie Obama told that was only untrue for less than 4% of the country. Funny how his dedication to truth has faltered in the Age of Trump.

 

[Elagabalus]

...But it could be because the Dems have just become that much more toxic...

I believe you're confusing toxicity with "The Mojo".

 

[Cabbage]

And, to be as fair to you as you were to me, I think this obsession with ideological purity is not helping.

Being inconsistent is not a greater sin than being wrong.

All ideologies are hypocrites because an ideology cannot account for the full scale of the human condition.

If our entire discourse is based on nothing but finding inconsistencies in ideologies (i.e. hypocrisy) that's all we're ever gonna do and as good as it often feels, it doesn't accomplish much on any practical level.

But Lying and/or Willful Ignorance...that's something else entirely.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Lessons to be learned. Never talk **** in your year book. All politicians are ****. The process has been marred, and I hope some bipartisan regulations are made so that another fiasco like this never happens.

There has never been anything like this administration and president.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But Lying and/or Willful Ignorance...that's something else entirely.

Yeah but... cards all on the table here... for all practical purposes all of our political discourse being nothing but a long game of "You said that then, now you say this now" kind of got stale for me a long time ago.

People are gonna protect their tribes. This should not be shocking to anyone at this point.

And 99 times out of a 100 "OMG this side protected Bill but attacked Ted and the other side attacked Ted but protected Bill when they both did the same thing!" just means both Bill and Ted... are just awful.

We need to get out of this loop, bad. We are stuck in. Meaningful, influential people both in the leadership and in the trenches of both "sides" are going to have to sucking it up and doing what's best for the country even if it means not returning a childish jab the other side landed.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

1. You are using Rachel Mitchell, who was appointed by the Republicans to say what they wanted her to say.

"This memorandum contains my own independent assessment of Dr. Ford’s allegations, based upon my independent review of the evidence and my nearly 25 years of experience as a career prosecutor of sex-related and other crimes in Arizona. No senator reviewed or approved this memorandum before its release, and I was not pressured in any way to write this memorandum or to write any words in this memorandum with which I do not fully agree. The words written in this memorandum are mine, and I fully stand by all of them. While I am a registered Republican, I am not a political or partisan person."

-- Rachel Mitchell (Sept 30, 2018)

 

[smartcooky]

"This memorandum contains my own independent assessment of Dr. Ford’s allegations, based upon my independent review of the evidence and my nearly 25 years of experience as a career prosecutor of sex-related and other crimes in Arizona. No senator reviewed or approved this memorandum before its release, and I was not pressured in any way to write this memorandum or to write any words in this memorandum with which I do not fully agree. The words written in this memorandum are mine, and I fully stand by all of them. While I am a registered Republican, I am not a political or partisan person."

-- Rachel Mitchell (Sept 30, 2018)

Yeah, right, and we can take her word on that

 

[Belz...]

Likely but not for certain. It's quite possible she believes what she's saying. But it is very, very unlikely that her claims are actually true.

Based on what? What do you know that the rest of us don't?

That isn't what Belz was talking about.

No, but I wasn't talking about anything relating to what you responded, either. Responding to accusations is fine. Defending yourself is fine. Frothing at the mouth while spouting partisan conspiracy theories is not. It's the mark of a person unfit to sit on the Supreme Court.

You'd agree, if only the judge had been nominated by a Democrat; that's the sad state of affairs, here.

You can read a pretty good dissection from Rachel Mitchell, the investigative counsel for the judiciary committee, here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/389...-Nominations-Investigative-Counsel#from_embed

There's a number of serious issues with her testimony. Ford's account has been inconsistent, she has no memory of key details, nobody can corroborate even part of her account, she's been evasive, forgetful and uncooperative about recent events surrounding these allegations, and it appears that she's basically been coached by Democratic operatives.

Ok but loss of details is something common in such recollections. We know this. It does put a question mark on the testimony, and we may never know the truth, but you seem far more convinced that she's wrong or lying than the evidence suggests. I'm asking you why, and this link does not satisfy that burden.

 

[River]

There has never been anything like this administration and president.

Fixed below.

There has never been anything trolled like this administration and president.

 

[Belz...]

But it's not a classic 'he said, she said' scenario. Actually, Dr. Ford would have a better case if it were.

As Rachel Mitchell's analysis points out, Dr. Ford named 4 other people who were present at the time of the alleged attack -- 2 of them were eye witnesses.

However, all 4 people have either denied the allegations, or claimed they don't remember the incident ever happening.

Worst still, Dr. Ford's high-school friend, Leland Keyser, claims she has never even met Brett Kavanaugh, and never been to a party where he was present.

Wow, a full post with arguments and all.

You should do that more often.

 

[Planigale]

As an outsider my understanding is that in the US there is supposed to be a separation of powers between the executive the legislature and the judiciary. By politicising judicial appointments that separation of powers is being reduced. Other countries manage to have a non-political judiciary; there could be a non-political commission that could recommend potential candidates from whom the president could appoint (and the senate approve). Rather than having a list of candidates from a frankly political body which is what has happened in this case.

 

[acbytesla]

"This memorandum contains my own independent assessment of Dr. Ford’s allegations, based upon my independent review of the evidence and my nearly 25 years of experience as a career prosecutor of sex-related and other crimes in Arizona. No senator reviewed or approved this memorandum before its release, and I was not pressured in any way to write this memorandum or to write any words in this memorandum with which I do not fully agree. The words written in this memorandum are mine, and I fully stand by all of them. While I am a registered Republican, I am not a political or partisan person."

-- Rachel Mitchell (Sept 30, 2018)

Sure.

Never mind that she knows who butters her bread. That Kavanaugh would not be prosecuted is not the same as saying that Ford is lying or beyond reproach. No one should be reviewing this coming to the conclusion that there is enough here to seek charges. No, the question is, is there enough to question whether this candidate is suitable for a very important job.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah but... cards all on the table here... for all practical purposes all of our political discourse being nothing but a long game of "You said that then, now you say this now" kind of got stale for me a long time ago.

People are gonna protect their tribes. This should not be shocking to anyone at this point.

And 99 times out of a 100 "OMG this side protected Bill but attacked Ted and the other side attacked Ted but protected Bill when they both did the same thing!" just means both Bill and Ted... are just awful.

We need to get out of this loop, bad. We are stuck in. Meaningful, influential people both in the leadership and in the trenches of both "sides" are going to have to sucking it up and doing what's best for the country even if it means not returning a childish jab the other side landed.

That's all true but, sue me, I'd like people, myself included, to be more consistent in their ideologies so that, when someone on our "sides" does something wrong, we call it out. That way when we complain about those on the other "sides", we have the high ground...

...

...

 

[Matthew Best]

"This memorandum contains my own independent assessment of Dr. Ford’s allegations, based upon my independent review of the evidence and my nearly 25 years of experience as a career prosecutor of sex-related and other crimes in Arizona. No senator reviewed or approved this memorandum before its release, and I was not pressured in any way to write this memorandum or to write any words in this memorandum with which I do not fully agree. The words written in this memorandum are mine, and I fully stand by all of them. While I am a registered Republican, I am not a political or partisan person."

-- Rachel Mitchell (Sept 30, 2018)

"Well,he would say that, wouldn't he?"

-- Mandy Rice-Davies

 

[Cabbage]

Yeah but... cards all on the table here... for all practical purposes all of our political discourse being nothing but a long game of "You said that then, now you say this now" kind of got stale for me a long time ago.

People are gonna protect their tribes. This should not be shocking to anyone at this point.

And 99 times out of a 100 "OMG this side protected Bill but attacked Ted and the other side attacked Ted but protected Bill when they both did the same thing!" just means both Bill and Ted... are just awful.

We need to get out of this loop, bad. We are stuck in. Meaningful, influential people both in the leadership and in the trenches of both "sides" are going to have to sucking it up and doing what's best for the country even if it means not returning a childish jab the other side landed.

In that case, I suggest you address those same comments to the partisan hypocrite, not me.

I'll continue to call BS when I see quite obvious BS.