[jedrider]

I see a lot of bloviating here and I am surprised. If Ford's testimony is thoroughly refuted, then, of course, Kavanault will get the shoe-in, I have no doubt. However, I would like to see real attempts at refuting her testimony, and not phony attempts to do so. I just read an opinion piece in USATODAY that refutes her testimony. I have to admit, it reminds me of climate denying, as the conclusions are not commensurate with the evidence. COMMENSURATE. Very important. Considering the extent of the attempts at denying the validity of her testimony, I think that her testimony should be utterly destroyed OR considered valid for the purposes of Kavaault's confirmation.

For instance, I read "But the problem for Ford is not that she doesn’t remember everything: It is that everything she remembers changes at her convenience." A statement like this presupposes that she is utterly unreliable. So, now you have to prove that what she is saying is complete bullshit. That's a high bar one sets for one's argument

[evilgenius]

And, all the while, the elephant in the room is abortion. Every last bit of this he said/she said business is an attempt by each side to win over that issue. I said before that I think the Republicans are best served not pushing it. There are too many conservatives who believe in abortion rights. Unless their long term plan is to form the basis of their party from certain minorities whose populations are rising and who are predisposed by backgrounds in Roman Catholicism to be against abortion, they would be tearing themselves apart by pushing it. They rely upon people who are for abortion rights, but are with them for other more economic reasons, not least being the Republican attitude toward individualism and how that plays out economically. It would be asking a lot of a consensus of minorities to rally around that individualism. The concentration of power at the top, which guides what the Republicans do, is not best served by foisting a hard liner upon the people. But those who are the members of that concentration may not be as self-aware as all of the conspiracy theorists would have us believe. They may simply be interested in their form of business as usual. And they are used to using issues like abortion to keep their flock on their side.

The Democrats, at this time, seem willing to pull out the stops. They've insisted upon allowing the accusations of a single accuser to go forward. They are trying this case in the court of public opinion. They aren't seeing the long term either. Abortion rights are not likely to be overturned. If they are, they would probably come back again, just like how alcohol came back pretty quickly after prohibition. The people would speak, by their simply being themselves, let alone becoming self-aware in whatever groups. And that would point out the power of the individual in American Society, as we are alike in many ways, even though we tend to glorify our differences. All of us individuals are pretty powerful, when we come together and exercise that power we have in our loose collective. And that handle is how the Democrats ought to be playing this, getting ahead of that consensus. Instead, they look desperate.

I've sniped a bit on this thread because the problem with what the Democrats are doing is not that they have pushed forward a woman from a long time ago. The problem is not her, or whether she is lying. The problem is the lack of other witnesses. The accusations are, therefore, too vague. People don't remember because, well, people forget. I may not like the choice of Judge Kavanaugh, he's too much like so many malformed men I've known throughout my life who have allowed their environment to shape them rather than taking a more proactive role in their own shaping, but I can't see any valid reason why he shouldn't be approved.

What we're really seeing is how the power structure rules the people by using issues like abortion to get them to back one side or another. It points out the lack of a third party dynamic. Not even a third party, but a multi-party dynamic. A third party would also be too static. America does, however, work fairly well under the two party structure. One could say it is a relic of the more warring 20th Century than a necessity for the 21st. It doesn't seem capable of keeping up with the current pace of change we are enjoying outside of the 20th Century style of war, at the very least. I guess we are making a go at finding that out?

[Plantagenet]

I just read an opinion piece in USATODAY that refutes her testimony. I have to admit, it reminds me of climate denying, as the conclusions are not commensurate with the evidence. COMMENSURATE. Very important.

You've got it backwards. You are forgetting that it is Ford who made serious charges without having any COMMENSURATE evidence to back up her claims.

Where is even the tiniest bit of evidence that supports Ford's charges? If there is no evidence that supports her claims and there is evidence that disproves them, then Ford's charges are just lies and smears.

Cheers!

[Cog]

Newfie this ex boyfriend statement was to the senate judiciary committe. Not to fox news. Jeez guy do some research. Grassley released the emails that he sent Ford's attorney which includes the letter. If you don't trust fox news the new York times has a whole story on the ex boyfriend.

Oh I forgot an allegation must be believed from a woman. Ask the Duke lacrosse team how that attitude worked out. Or better yet asked the prosecutor who got disbarred over it.

[Cog]

I see a lot of bloviating here and I am surprised. If Ford's testimony is thoroughly refuted, then, of course, Kavanault will get the shoe-in, I have no doubt. However, I would like to see real attempts at refuting her testimony, and not phony attempts to do so. I just read an opinion piece in USATODAY that refutes her testimony. I have to admit, it reminds me of climate denying, as the conclusions are not commensurate with the evidence. COMMENSURATE. Very important. Considering the extent of the attempts at denying the validity of her testimony, I think that her testimony should be utterly destroyed OR considered valid for the purposes of Kavaault's confirmation.

For instance, I read "But the problem for Ford is not that she doesn’t remember everything: It is that everything she remembers changes at her convenience." A statement like this presupposes that she is utterly unreliable. So, now you have to prove that what she is saying is complete bullshit. That's a high bar one sets for one's argument

LOL

[jedrider]

Shame on you Cog.

[Plantagenet]

I read "But the problem for Ford is not that she doesn’t remember everything: It is that everything she remembers changes at her convenience." A statement like this presupposes that she is utterly unreliable.

Uh...jed......you've got it backwards again. There is no reason for you to be triggered by any of this. Look...this is very simple. The fact that Ford's memory is faulty doesn't presuppose that she is unreliable. The fact that Ford's memory is faulty means her memory is unreliable.

Someone with a faulty memory actually has an unreliable memory. The words faulty and unreliable are synonyms in this context... They mean the same thing here.

Get it now?

-------------------------------------------------------


Study after study shows that many people in the US don't have a clue about US history or how the US government works or how the US justice system is set up. Many (most?) Americans don't understand the bill of rights, and they know nothing about how the legal system works, such as why people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Its even worse amoung young people---A recent study found that only about 19% (1 in 5) of people under 45 could pass a simple test about the US.

1-in-3-fail-us-citizenship-test-just-19%-for-americans-45-and-younger

I'm constantly amazed at the utter ignorance of my own fellow citizens. Now studies confirm many of them are just ignorant of the most basic facts and the historical background of the USA.

Cheers!

[Newfie]

Newfie this ex boyfriend statement was to the senate judiciary committe. Not to fox news. Jeez guy do some research. Grassley released the emails that he sent Ford's attorney which includes the letter. If you don't trust fox news the new York times has a whole story on the ex boyfriend.

Oh I forgot an allegation must be believed from a woman. Ask the Duke lacrosse team how that attitude worked out. Or better yet asked the prosecutor who got disbarred over it.

I don’t care who it was sent to, the addressee does not change the validity.

Has he been interviewed by the FBI? Has his story been cooberatted?

Jez Cog, just basic freedoms here. Innocent until proven guilty works both ways. Which means you must verify any story, not just accept it at face vale.

[Plantagenet]

The ex-boyfriend said he saw Ford coaching another woman who was going to take a lie detector test.

That other woman has now issued a statement denying that Ford ever coached her on how to take a lie detector test.

So we're back to he-said-she-said again on that point.

The ex-boyfriend also claimed that Ford flew on airplanes all the time with no problems, and lived in a tiny apartment without two doors, and never mentioned any trauma or incident of any kind that happened to her decades earlier in High School during their 6 own year relationship.

But then perhaps she hadn't "recovered" the memory of the horror of the day back in high school when Brent Kavanaugh touched her boobie over her clothes, or how she escaped and ran outside to call for a ride home on her cell phone which hadn't been invented yet.

Cheers!

[Cog]

Just like the two year witch hunt into Russian collusion, all the Dems have accomplished is to get Kavanaugh confirmed and Republicans pissed off enough to vote in November. Congrats I guess.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Newfie this ex boyfriend statement was to the senate judiciary committe. Not to fox news. Jeez guy do some research. Grassley released the emails that he sent Ford's attorney which includes the letter. If you don't trust fox news the new York times has a whole story on the ex boyfriend.

Oh I forgot an allegation must be believed from a woman. Ask the Duke lacrosse team how that attitude worked out. Or better yet asked the prosecutor who got disbarred over it.

I don’t care who it was sent to, the addressee does not change the validity.

Has he been interviewed by the FBI? Has his story been cooberatted?

Jez Cog, just basic freedoms here. Innocent until proven guilty works both ways. Which means you must verify any story, not just accept it at face vale.

Why is it you're so eager to believe one side's stories which are unreliable on their face re inconsistencies, etc. but you assume other witnesses' stories are unreliable unless they say what you want to hear?

Sounds far more like politics than looking for objective truth to me. It's becoming the American Way, but let's point out what it is.

...

I myself, would prefer a thorough FBI background check, and see what the actual evidence shows. Relevant evidence - not that teenagers and college age kids have been known to drink too much beer, BTW.

[Newfie]

Outcast,

Not sure what you are getting out of my post. Basically you and I are saying the same thing. The same standard needs to applied to all parties.

[Cog]

Since we are talking about standards. What standard applies when you sit on an allegation like this for six weeks? Through the one on one meetings with Senators, open hearings, and the closed hearings and then leak it to the media when it looks like he has the votes to get confirmed. What standard is that Newfie? Its evidently the standard that your friend Senator Feinstein applies to judicial confirmations.

[Newfie]

Cog,

You can be such a jerk. You seem to have some kind of complex assuming the worse of folks, then get insulted when they respond badly. You are very accusatory and down right nasty. Geesh!

No I don’t agree with those tactics. Not one bit.

A lot of all this hoopla is not really about Kavanaugh or Ford. The meta issue is the upcoming elections. Both sides are posturing for control.

Secondary, but nearly as important to that is the SCOTUS nomination.

Its all partisan bickering, short sighed stuff. We should be talking about how to stop this zoo from reoccurring.

My suggestion, again.

1-Return to 60 votes for confirmation
2-Ditch Biden rule
3-60 day cycle from nomination, then vote up or out.
4-Senate gets 3 tries. If they can’t find a successful candidate they can agree upon it goes to the next step
5-Lottery from all sitting Federal circuit judges with over 5 years experience and under 65. The “winner” gets 10 days to accept then you select another judge from the hat.
6-Make all Senators attend 10 days of mediation training.

[mmasters]

Just like the two year witch hunt into Russian collusion, all the Dems have accomplished is to get Kavanaugh confirmed and Republicans pissed off enough to vote in November. Congrats I guess.

I too think this will backfire for the Ds for the upcoming election.

[Cog]

newfie I had high hopes for you. Thought maybe you had been red-pilled after watching the two year partisan investigation into Russian Collusion. But sadly you don't seem to understand there is a war going on here. You think we can somehow get to some sort of compromise. Compromise with the left who wants to put you in the grave? You need to wake up in a very rapid manner.

One side must destroy the other. Even Ibon knows this from his side on the left. Now you might think the left is going to let you be by taking some middle position. You could not be more wrong. If you aren't with the DSA, you are against them.

[Newfie]

Cog,
Correct I’m not at war. I’m retired and loving life. I was meant to be retired. I’m busy most every day doing things I enjoy. My goal is to do this as long as the ‘ol body allows.

War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning (ISBN 1586480499) is a 2002 non-fiction book by journalist Chris Hedges. In the book, Hedges draws on classical literature and his experiences as a war correspondent to argue that war seduces entire societies, creating fictions that the public believes and relies on to continue to support conflicts. He also describes how those who experience war may find it exhilarating and addictive. The book was a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction and a Los Angeles Times Best Book of the Year, as well as a national bestseller.

[Cog]

In due time, I'll bring you over to the right side newfie. I've grown fond of you. Sort of like a golden retriever type of fondness.

FBI report in and in 12 hours Senators can view it.

Mitch McConnell has filed cloture. 48 hours later the Senate can vote on cloture. Then begins 30 hours of Senate floor debate. Mitch must believe he has the votes.

[Plantagenet]

Ms. Ford is refusing to share either the data from her lie detector test or the notes from her therapist to the Senate Committee, even after it officially requested that she do so.

christine-blasey-ford-therapy-notes

Well....that does it. Ford's a fraud. Ford's a liar. Everything Ford said must now be discounted, since she is hiding key evidence that the committee wants to see.


Ford has gone into cover-up mode. She won't share key evidence with the Judiciary committee. Could it have something to do with her therapist actually being her tenant? Or maybe the fact "lie detector" test was bogus since they only asked her two questions. Whatever the reason, she's hiding things now.

Sheesh!

[dissident]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUUEV7jFReo

Looks like Ford's BS is predicated on some sort of recovered memory. I say blame the therapist.

It looks like she only realized recently that whatever happened in 1982 was "serious" and with some additional coaching that it must have been Kavanaugh. There is a good reason for limitation statutes. A recovered memory is utterly worthless no matter how rabidly the victim believes it. In this case it is not even clear whether Ford was a victim. Her boob touching "trauma" is being convoluted with Swetnick's ludicrous gang rape parties claims. Many people probably think that Ford is claiming to have been gang raped by Kavanaugh.