Lessons to be learned from the Kavanaugh Hearing

Belz... said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're making assumptions about me that you have nothing to back up with.

Ok but loss of details is something common in such recollections.
Click to expand...

She has lost all details that could possibly serve to corroborate her story, yet kept a bunch of other ones which cannot. That's oddly convenient. And it also doesn't explain her inconsistencies.

And I think it didn't happen because that far better fits the available evidence, such as it is. Sexual predators don't stop preying. But if Kavanaugh ever was one, he's long since stopped. What are the odds of that? They're vanishingly small, honestly. Much smaller than that this woman, who said nary a peep about this whole thing for decades, is lying or mistaken. That does happen, much more often than predators stopping on their own.
 
acbytesla said:
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.
Click to expand...

And the clear answer is no, there is not enough here. There's nothing here other than completely unsubstantiated accusations.

And ponder for a moment what that means for future nominations if unsubstantiated allegations are enough to disqualify a candidate. What incentives do you think that puts in place? How do you think people will respond to such an incentive structure?
 
Ziggurat said:
You're making assumptions about me that you have nothing to back up with.
Click to expand...

To which part of my post are you refering? The last part? That's speculation. Informed speculation.

She has lost all details that could possibly serve to corroborate her story, yet kept a bunch of other ones which cannot. That's oddly convenient.
Click to expand...

Might be selection bias on your part, though. You interpret what's useful and not, just like the rest of us. But you seem very confident, nonetheless.

And it also doesn't explain her inconsistencies.
Click to expand...

Well if you don't remember some details very well you might end up contradicting yourself. I don't find that surprising. And some people have better memories than others.

And I think it didn't happen because that far better fits the available evidence, such as it is. Sexual predators don't stop preying.
Click to expand...

Citation?

But if Kavanaugh ever was one, he's long since stopped. What are the odds of that?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Do you? You seem awfully confident that you've got this one figured out.

They're vanishingly small, honestly. Much smaller than that this woman, who said nary a peep about this whole thing for decades, is lying or mistaken.
Click to expand...

What is it about women, man, that gets conservatives in a bunch like that? I have gots to know.
 
- I learned that Scalia was approved 98-0 by the U.S. Senate. (I already knew about Kennedy, approved unanimously in a presidential election year.)

- I learned there are 2 opposite, rationally defensible conclusions that can be drawn by comparing the treatment of Garland vs. Kavanaugh.

- I learned that a GOP senator asked Anita Hill, "Are you a scorned woman?"

- I learned that to the best of my understanding the hyper-partisan BS we are now enduring started with the GOP 10 years ago, just after Obama's election. If someone has a different theory I'd be willing to listen.

But I just re-read the title of the thread. I didn't learn these things from the Kavanaugh hearing, per se. I learned them because I got curious and looked stuff up. "He said, she said" has driven me nuts for virtually my whole life and one thing I like about this forum is people look stuff up.
 
Ziggurat said:
And the clear answer is no, there is not enough here. There's nothing here other than completely unsubstantiated accusations.
Click to expand...

How about the rest of him? Do you think overturning abortion laws is desirable? Do you believe lying under oath is something acceptable from a SCOTUS justice? Do you think his conspiracy theories about Democrats mean he can be objective when sitting in judgment over Americans? Those are the things that disqualify him.
 
Ziggurat said:
And the clear answer is no, there is not enough here. There's nothing here other than completely unsubstantiated accusations.

And ponder for a moment what that means for future nominations if unsubstantiated allegations are enough to disqualify a candidate. What incentives do you think that puts in place? How do you think people will respond to such an incentive structure?
Click to expand...

When it comes to simply this one incident I agree with you.

However, Kavanaugh's testimony eliminates him from consideration because he perjured himself and demonstrated questionable impartiality and a temperament not suited for a justice.

'Boofing' is not farting,' 'Devil's Triangle' is not a drinking game And it is clear that Kavanaugh not only perjured himself during this process, he also did when he was nominated for his present judgeship.

Now, I know that the GOP doesn't care about lying and perjury given that Trump is President, but I personally think people who lie under oath should not be rewarded for it.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
What is it about women, man, that gets conservatives in a bunch like that? I have gots to know.
Click to expand...

That's just pathetic. It's got nothing to do with any attitude towards women. It's HUMANS. Humans lie. They lie when they are incentivised to do so. Women are incentivised to lie about sexual assault. Men are incentivised to lie about other things. There isn't any fundamental difference. The sexism comes from thinking that women are intrinsically honest and men are not.
 
acbytesla said:
When it comes to simply this one incident I agree with you.

However, Kavanaugh's testimony eliminates him from consideration because he perjured himself and demonstrated questionable impartiality and a temperament not suited for a justice.

'Boofing' is not farting,' 'Devil's Triangle' is not a drinking game And it is clear that Kavanaugh not only perjured himself during this process, he also did when he was nominated for his present judgeship.

Now, I know that the GOP doesn't care about lying and perjury given that Trump is President, but I personally think people who lie under oath should not be rewarded for it.
Click to expand...

Great. Now we've got Boofers, the lamest conspiracy theory ever.:rolleyes:
 
Belz... said:
How about the rest of him? Do you think overturning abortion laws is desirable? Do you believe lying under oath is something acceptable from a SCOTUS justice? Do you think his conspiracy theories about Democrats mean he can be objective when sitting in judgment over Americans? Those are the things that disqualify him.
Click to expand...

You are confused. Overturning Roe v Wade would not overturn any abortion laws, rather it would permit laws that were previously overturned. Whether or not that is desirable is a subject for a different thread, and has little to do with what has been happening. The claims of perjury are very weak, and the characterisation of his response to mistreatment as a conspiracy theory is Kafkaesque.
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...
Prosecution summary without the Defense reply.

And, that's not the biggest problem with Kav. It's his lying and partisanship.

I don't see her assessment of Kav's testimony.
 
Minoosh said:
I learned that to the best of my understanding the hyper-partisan BS we are now enduring started with the GOP 10 years ago, just after Obama's election. If someone has a different theory I'd be willing to listen.
Click to expand...

I think it was more gradual. Some Republicans still refer to rejecting an SC nomination as "getting Borked", a reference to Robert Bork's failed nomination in 1987.

It has elements of a feud, with each side blaming the other for each previous thing as justification for the next thing. A lot of Democrats cite the nastyness as starting with the Whitewater investigation, which they saw as Republicans trying to get revenge for Watergate and Iran-Contra.

Now some see this as the Dems trying to get revenge for Whitewater.

It just kind of goes on.

That said, both sides do not behave equally. Kavanaugh really did lie under oath about a number of things, the Dems are on solid footing with this right now. The GOP really has used gerrymandering in a way that far outstrips any previous Democratic efforts. GOP state legislatures really are doing what they can to limit Democracy in their states.

Things are very bad right now; both sides bear blame, but one side bears much more blame than the other.
 
Ziggurat said:
Great. Now we've got Boofers, the lamest conspiracy theory ever.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's not the point. It's called perjury. Lying under oath to the United States Senate is a felony punishable by time in prison. Kavanaugh has a responsibility to tell the truth. Why is that so ******* hard? Isn't that what Kavanaugh would demand from a witness in a courtroom? Why should it be any different before the US Senate?

He failed. Simple as that.
 
acbytesla said:
That's not the point. It's called perjury. Lying under oath to the United States Senate is a felony punishable by time in prison. Kavanaugh has a responsibility to tell the truth. Why is that so ******* hard? Isn't that what Kavanaugh would demand from a witness in a courtroom? Why should it be any different before the US Senate?

He failed. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

You say that like you know he committed perjury. But you don’t actually know that.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Prosecution summary without the Defense reply.

And, that's not the biggest problem with Kav. It's his lying and partisanship.

I don't see her assessment of Kav's testimony.
Click to expand...

What’s to assess? There are no details to examine about his denial. And given the vague and completely unsubstantiated nature of the accusations, how could there be?
 
Ziggurat said:
Women are incentivised to lie about sexual assault. Men are incentivised to lie about other things. There isn't any fundamental difference. The sexism comes from thinking that women are intrinsically honest and men are not.
Click to expand...

Utter BS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom