Well, this politcal cartoon sure is spot on.

[Ziggurat]

No we don't. The point is, this is not a criminal court, it is a job interview.

You think that fundamentally changes things? It doesn't. What kind of world do you think will result if we decide that accusations without evidence are enough to keep someone from getting a job? Hell, even if this is limited to only the Supreme Court, do you think anyone will ever get confirmed again if this is the standard?

But of course, you don't actually believe it will become the standard. You think you can use the standard against Trump nominees and then abandon it when Democrats retake power. Who knows, maybe you'll even be right about that.

If you own a jewelry store do you hire the guy whose references say they were never able to prove he stole from them, but they really noticed a lot of loss while he was there? No, you don't.

That's a laughable comparison. Ford isn't a reference for Kavanaugh. Do you not get that?

And especially if they act like a jerk when you have the temerity to ask them about it.

Kafkatrapping and moved goalposts rolled into one.

 

[Upchurch]

Otherwise, seriously, why the hell does anyone care about his drinking in highschool?

Because the whole accusation is that Kavanaugh tried to rape Ford while he was drunk at a party. If Kavanaugh has a history of getting drunk at parties in high school, that lends credence to her claim. That's why anyone cares about his drinking in high school.

 

[Ziggurat]

Don't you see how callous this sounds? This is la-la land, Zig.

Your delicate Victorian sensibilities are of no concern to me. If Ford is actually a victim, then why would anyone have a problem with her making money from donations? I don't. Do you? Are you naive enough to think that money doesn't make a difference to someone's quality of life? Or is it just that you can't say these things even though they're true.

There has to be a way to preserve the principles of Western justice without throwing victims reluctant to come forward under the bus.

And do you propose to do that by throwing the accused under the bus without evidence? Because it sure looks like you're ready to do that.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because the whole accusation is that Kavanaugh tried to rape Ford while he was drunk at a party. If Kavanaugh has a history of getting drunk at parties in high school, that lends credence to her claim. That's why anyone cares about his drinking in high school.

If that's the concern, it doesn't actually matter if he was drinking legally or not, so that whole tangent about age limits remains irrelevant.

 

[Stacyhs]

Do you believe Ford has no motive to lie?

You haven't presented a plausible one yet, just a silly "gonna make me some money" if, hopefully, someone sets up a Go Fund Me.

 

[Steve]

Ford didn't allege rape. If she made it up, she's not a victim at all. If she's telling the truth, then she's been living the life of a victim without getting a payout for it, why wouldn't she like a payout? I wouldn't begrudge her that.

But in either case, you aren't presenting any reason for why money couldn't be a motivating factor.

Don't you see how callous this sounds? This is la-la land, Zig.

Pathetic isn't it? But it's standard thinking for Trump and his supporters - the only reason for doing something is for financial profit. They do not understand anything else.

 

[carlitos]

If that's the concern, it doesn't actually matter if he was drinking legally or not, so that whole tangent about age limits remains irrelevant.

It wasn't a tangent about age limits; it was a tangent about Kavanaugh being evasive and less than fully truthful in his testimony. No one asked him about "seniors" drinking.

 

[johnny karate]

Do you believe Ford has no motive to lie?

After a fair-minded cost-benefit analysis? No, not really.

 

[Ziggurat]

It wasn't a tangent about age limits; it was a tangent about Kavanaugh being evasive and less than fully truthful in his testimony. No one asked him about "seniors" drinking.

He was asked if he drank in highschool. He answered yes. How is that evasive? You're really stretching here.

 

[Ziggurat]

You haven't presented a plausible one yet, just a silly "gonna make me some money" if, hopefully, someone sets up a Go Fund Me.

And Jackie had no plausible reason to lie about Haven either.

People lie. Even when it doesn't make sense to you why they do.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Yet you think it possible that she has gone through all this on the off chance she would make money from some Go Fund Me campaign?

Sorry, but your scenario reeks of desperation besides being completely illogical.

This was pointed out in the other thread. How many folks with two good paying professional careers and kids in school would be willing to blow up their lives for the possibility of even a million dollar payout? I know I wouldn't.

 

[HarryHenderson]

I'm surprised other rocket scientists senators like Booker haven't suggested talking to Kavanaugh's nursery school buddies to see who really left that huge deuce in the snack room of Citadel Nursery in downtown Bethesda in 1968. Since "nobody saw anything", it had always been rumored that 3 year old Co-Cookie Counsel Brett Kavanaugh had done it, and there's several sworn affidavits from other "unnamned" 3 year olds who were also there swearing that his diaper was definitely fully loaded and ready to bust way before the surprise turds were discovered over by the graham cracker safe. He was never convicted in court though and it was mostly forgotten about. Until, he's nominated for the SCOTUS and then it might become just one too many allegations¹ to ignore.

...Oh no, that is disheartening! TBD bringing the facts like a damn sledgehammer!

The slathered irony of how utterly unskeptical this forum is in regards to anything leaning left politically cannot be overcooked. It's not even the James Randi Educational Forum anymore, it became literally The International SKEPTICS Forum, and yet in any of the Politics threads not a ******* SKEPTIC amongst them. Which is almost like, meaning exactly like a brain damaged double standard. You know, that same one that says only Republicans lie.


BTW, the OP's cartoon reference is asinine. How EXACTLY are the Republicans 'assaulting' (the concept of) Lady Justice? In deliberately abiding by the centuries long principle of "justice" in a presumption of innocence for the accused? And where's her sword. Seems it could be used to 'defend' (another fundamental concept of justice) herself against such an imaginary assault, no? She only swings the sword around symbolically, she doesn't really know what it's for? Maybe I'm missing the deeper symbolism. Is the "justice" in all this the Justice Department?



¹ allegation = absolute cosmic truth silly, or there wouldn't be an umm allegation.

 

[Cabbage]

Those look rhetorical to me. But okay, sure:

1) I recognize a lot of biases in myself. I'm sure there are others I don't. What exactly is the bias you perceive in me, that I should recognize here?

2) I generally try to remain somewhere around the general ridiculousness level of the conversation overall. If you try a more serious or reasonable approach, you'll find that I habitually provide a more serious or reasonable response.

Anyway, there's your "answer my question!" cookie. Enjoy it; I don't hand them out very often.

Well, whaddayaknow, after dissembling at first for a bit you failed to answer the question, just as I expected!

When you're brave enough to have an honest debate, be sure to let me know. LOL

 

[Dr. Keith]

And Jackie had no plausible reason to lie about Haven either.

People lie. Even when it doesn't make sense to you why they do.

But did Jackie have a spouse and kids, or anything substantial to lose? Dr. Ford has little to gain and a lot to lose.

 

[Belz...]

You think that fundamentally changes things?

Yes, yes it does. If you interview someone for a job and you think they're lying to you, or are being evasive, or you have some reason to believe that they can't be trusted with said job, you're not going to convene a jury and hire lawyers to make sure their rights are protected. You'll go with your guts or experience and not hire them.

 

[Belz...]

Your delicate Victorian sensibilities are of no concern to me.

Why do you do that, Zig? Why do you reach into a bag of nonsensical lies and use them as some sort of preamble? You know I've no love for delicate feelings, so why lie?

You have just characterised Ford as a money-grabbing liar because... she hasn't gotten a payment yet. It really sounds like you'll do absolutely everything, no matter how low, to paint her in a bad light. By your own standard of innocence you have no reason to think this of her.

Are you naive enough (snip)

You can dish it out, but you can't take it, it seems.

And do you propose to do that by throwing the accused under the bus without evidence?

Oh, wait. We're not in a courtroom.

 

[Ziggurat]

But did Jackie have a spouse and kids, or anything substantial to lose? Dr. Ford has little to gain and a lot to lose.

She's got potentially a lot to gain. For some reason this upsets people to say it, but it remains true.

 

[Cabbage]

Do you believe Ford has no motive to lie?

Do you actually think you have a point???

Do you believe Kavanaugh has no motive to lie?

.....crickets......

LOL

 

[Dr. Keith]

You think that fundamentally changes things? It doesn't. What kind of world do you think will result if we decide that accusations without evidence are enough to keep someone from getting a job? Hell, even if this is limited to only the Supreme Court, do you think anyone will ever get confirmed again if this is the standard?

But of course, you don't actually believe it will become the standard. You think you can use the standard against Trump nominees and then abandon it when Democrats retake power. Who knows, maybe you'll even be right about that.

No, I don't think it will impact very many nominations in the future.

It is not like this accusation comes from nowhere. The number of people who could even make a barely credible accusation in this man's life is relatively small. That one of them did and seemed credible while testifying about it has to have some weight.

That's a laughable comparison. Ford isn't a reference for Kavanaugh. Do you not get that?

OK, so as the interviewee leaves a customer sees him leave and mentions that he knows that guy and that he has reputation for theft. Do you ignore it or do you ask the interviewee? And if the interviewee starts yelling at you for asking do you apologize for asking and hire him?

Ignoring these accusations doesn't get you any closer to knowing anything about the guy.

Kafkatrapping and moved goalposts rolled into one.

We expect the best legal minds in the country to serve on the Supreme Court. Up until he testified the second time I thought he probably still met that criteria, even I wouldn't have picked him for the spot. He revealed that he may not be one of the best legal minds in the country when he started spouting off Clinton conspiracies and asking the senators about their drinking habits.

Holding him responsible for those actions seems very reasonable.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why do you do that, Zig? Why do you reach into a bag of nonsensical lies and use them as some sort of preamble? You know I've no love for delicate feelings, so why lie?

Hmmm... what could possibly have led to hostility between us?

You have just characterised Ford as a money-grabbing liar because... she hasn't gotten a payment yet. It really sounds like you'll do absolutely everything, no matter how low, to paint her in a bad light. By your own standard of innocence you have no reason to think this of her.

You have this completely wrong. I think she's lying because her story simply doesn't add up. It has the markings of a fabricated accusation, with nothing real to support it. That assessment is completely independent of motive. As for the money grabbing part, Ford's defenders have tried to push the argument about her motives, and that's a very possible one. It's certainly not the only reason she might lie, but it could suffice. I'm perfectly willing to leave her motives out of the equation completely, but that's all her defenders have to go on, so they keep bringing the issue up.

Oh, wait. We're not in a courtroom.

Which justifies using a more relaxed standard such as preponderance of evidence. It doesn't justify simply accepting accusations without any evidence, as is being done here.