Thoughts re allegations re Kavanaugh

[revsdd]

On Fox News, Brett Kavanaugh portrayed himself as virginal and teetotalling in high school. Now that's very possible. I don't accept the "boys will be boys" line of thinking. High school boys can be virginal and teetotalling. (I was.) But he told the Committee yesterday that he partied and liked beer in high school. Now, I do believe that there's something in the Bible about how if a person can't be trusted to be honest on small things (like drinking some beer in high school - why lie about that on Fox?) then they can't be trusted on big things (like, maybe, on judging US Supreme Court cases?) And having done some research I find it weird that Kavanaugh apparently uses terms like "boofing" and "Devil's Triangle" (which I'd never heard of) in ways that no one else ever seems to have used them - he says they mean farting and a drinking game, as opposed to a certain type of drug use and threesome sex involving two men and a woman which is apparently how those in the rest of the world use them. And setting aside the details of what he said - if Christine Blasey Ford had cried and shouted and been angry and interrupted senators and made sarcastic comments to them while they tried to question her she'd have been crucified. And if - say - the Republicans (who now find that filling a Supreme Court seat is so vital that it has to be rushed through) had actually allowed a hearing on Obama's pick of Merrick Garland and Garland had behaved like Kavanaugh did yesterday they'd have crucified him. But Kavanaugh? All I hear is Republicans talking about how "credible" he was.

The truth is that even before he was nominated most Republicans had already decided they would support whoever Trump nominated and most Democrats had already decided they would oppose whoever Trump nominated. The fact that it's Kavanaugh and the accusations against him and suspicions about him won't change anything. Why? Because whatever the impact on the mid-terms, Republicans have obviously decided (and Democrats understand) that they're willing to sacrifice control of Congress for 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 years (whatever) in exchange for a clear conservative majority on the Supreme Court that will probably last for more than a generation. To those who are increasingly the vocal and powerful core of the Republican Party (conservative, far-right evangelical Christians especially) the Supreme Court is far more important than Congress. Why? Abortion. Nothing else matters to them. The ends justify the means. That's why Trump was elected; that's why evangelicals remain so solidly in support of him no matter the obvious moral and ethical clouds surrounding him; that's why the Republicans are so driven to push through Kavanaugh's nomination. Questions about character and ethics and morality are totally meaningless in the face of abortion.

Abortion (on both sides of the issue) has become in some ways the idol of the times and blurs reasonable discussion of other issues, trapping everything in a hyper-partisan, winner take all battle. The far right evangelical Christian base of the GOP wants Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. Out of control testimony, and definite hints of group sex, drugs and drunkenness aside - he'll vote to overturn Roe vs Wade. That's all that counts. Most American evangelicals have completely betrayed Jesus for a couple of seats on the Supreme Court.

And so ...

A modern paraphrase of Matthew 26:15: Then the evangelicals said to Trump, "what will you give us if we throw our votes to you?" And he said to them in reply, "A couple of seats on the Supreme Court." And they betrayed Jesus and voted Republican.

 

[Pinga]

I shared the story, @Carolla , in part due to a realization of my memory of the event. Didn't actually click why I could remember parts but not all. The testimony and questioning of same, explained it.

I also shared because my story ended well.
I hurt for those women whose story did not end well and who listened to the testimony and watched the responses.

My they be held with tender care

 

[Pontifex Geronimo 13]

"A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.

Everybody named at the party said they were not there including her friend.

So her word against 4.

But he is guilty because he is a white man and getting away with it because of old white men. What is funny is that none of you understand that what you accuse him of, which is uncertain, you are certainly guilty of.

It is interesting, also how two people can witness the same event, and come up with totally different results in their minds.

He also had 150 women come out and call BS. But they don’t count either.

 

[Mendalla]

I'm hearing a lot of trumpeting of "presumption of innocence" from Kavanaugh supporters. This isn't a criminal trial, it's a hearing to determine his fitness to serve on the bench of the nation's highest court. Rejecting him isn't finding him guilty of anything, it's just finding that he's unfit to serve on that bench given the clouds over his past. He won't walk away from these hearings "guilty", just with a question mark on his reputation that could be cleared, one way or the other, if there is a proper investigation instead of the current political circus.

Frankly, if a politician running in my city was in the same position, I likely wouldn't vote for them. It wouldn't mean I think they are "guilty" per se (only a criminal trial can definitively make that judgement), only that I think the question alone is enough to not want them in a position of power.

 

[Lastpointe]

I was surprised how angry and pissed he was. And how loud and sarcastic. Quite the performance to please Trump

I don’t know the truth, no one does. Perhaps Dr Ford is wrong in the time frame she has. Perhaps it wasn’t the summer of that year, when he was soooo. Use he didn’t attend any drunken house parties

Perhaps it was spring, or fall or the year before or after

I attended lots of those types of parties as a teen. I would not be able to say when they were, most I would probably know which house, but not necessarily. Teens roamed in packs where I grew up and word passed quickly whose parents we’re out nd who had beer........ but I also couldn’t say which year it was, who was at any particular parties. It was just high school

He certainly didn’t sound very judicial yesterday.

I believed Dr Ford that he assaulted her. When and where? Who knows

Interesting that the other allegations raised have not caused the GOP to take a step back and investigate

 

[Pontifex Geronimo 13]

Right, so no man will ever be elected again, because there will always be someone willing to come forward and smear another to ensure they don’t get elected.

 

[revsdd]

Right, so no man will ever be elected again, because there will always be someone willing to come forward and smear another to ensure they don’t get elected.

Kavanaugh isn't running for election, of course. He's been nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court and the Senate has to make a determination of his fitness for that office. It's not a criminal trial, so presumption of innocence doesn't apply. It's a matter of looking at the testimony that's been offered by him and others and making that determination about his fitness. My big beef with the process is that it hasn't been a real attempt on either side to get to the truth. Democrats were going to be against whoever Trump nominated and Republicans were going to be for whoever Trump nominated no matter who it was or what came out. We're seeing that played out now. For me, based only on the testimony of the two (I didn't see it all but I saw parts of both) I found Ford far more credible.

As for elections, I will make you a wager that in the Congressional elections in November and in next year's federal election here in Canada the vast, vast, vast majority of men who run will have no allegations of sexual misconduct made against them.

 

[Luce NDs]

Kavanaugh isn't running for election, of course. He's been nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court and the Senate has to make a determination of his fitness for that office. It's not a criminal trial, so presumption of innocence doesn't apply. It's a matter of looking at the testimony that's been offered by him and others and making that determination about his fitness. My big beef with the process is that it hasn't been a real attempt on either side to get to the truth. Democrats were going to be against whoever Trump nominated and Republicans were going to be for whoever Trump nominated no matter who it was or what came out. We're seeing that played out now. For me, based only on the testimony of the two (I didn't see it all but I saw parts of both) I found Ford far more credible.

As for elections, I will make you a wager that in the Congressional elections in November and in next year's federal election here in Canada the vast, vast, vast majority of men who run will have no allegations of sexual misconduct made against them.

Truth is just to painful to the entitled !

If it weren't so sad it would be funny ... in this world sad stories are not allowed as they sound too whiny compared to powerful hostilities ...

Do powerful men use brute hostilities to overcome weaker powers that whine? Somehow the silent ones will be heard ,,, go figure on why such myths pop up ...

Myths are denied, right ... like the spear of Longinus in the side of light ...

 

[Luce NDs]

It was said the the opponents to Clarence Thomas were later proven right in their accusations of why he shouldn't be a Supreme Court Justice.

If impeachment of a judge indicated to be foul is possible ... why was justice not carried out? Let us faith that in today's truth ... truth is a foul thing ... it should be buried and forgotten ... thus such things are eliminated without thought!

I.E. are we not very much aware? I say not ... as the deficiency wears on me ...

Righting the wrongs as left behind ... are not well accepted ... proving our asses are behind us pushing ... for what's good for the majority stance ... the erect things ...

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

"A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.

Everybody named at the party said they were not there including her friend.

So her word against 4.

But he is guilty because he is a white man and getting away with it because of old white men. What is funny is that none of you understand that what you accuse him of, which is uncertain, you are certainly guilty of.

It is interesting, also how two people can witness the same event, and come up with totally different results in their minds.

He also had 150 women come out and call BS. But they don’t count either.

What if it had happened to your daughter and there were no witnesses - it’s more common to not have witnesses - and the guy was popular and had rich powerful parents and she kept it to herself...decided she was too scared to tell anyone but it still haunted her...especially seeing him again on TV as he was about to take one of the most powerful (and permanent) jobs in the country? Maybe just try to imagine how she felt? You would probably not want to see him become SCOTUS if it had been your daughter. I doubt you’d be saying your daughter was lying.

Ford has first hand experience with him abusing his power...and he is about to be in the position to be making powerful decisions that will affect women all over the country. Yeah, she had to say something.

 

[Ritafee]

Brett Kavanaugh is not on trial for a crime which would be tried to the standard of reasonable doubt.
He is being evaluated for a seat on the highest court in the land, one to last if he so wishes all of his life.
He must, among other things, be able to interpret the constitution of the US, as it has been amended to give women equality.
He has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt his incapacity to do this under scrutiny ...
“A good judge must be an umpire - a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no litigant or policy” - Kavanaugh

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I'm hearing a lot of trumpeting of "presumption of innocence" from Kavanaugh supporters. This isn't a criminal trial, it's a hearing to determine his fitness to serve on the bench of the nation's highest court. Rejecting him isn't finding him guilty of anything, it's just finding that he's unfit to serve on that bench given the clouds over his past. He won't walk away from these hearings "guilty", just with a question mark on his reputation that could be cleared, one way or the other, if there is a proper investigation instead of the current political circus.

Frankly, if a politician running in my city was in the same position, I likely wouldn't vote for them. It wouldn't mean I think they are "guilty" per se (only a criminal trial can definitively make that judgement), only that I think the question alone is enough to not want them in a position of power.

True, it is not a criminal trial. It’s about his fitness to serve as SCOTUS and he’s failing the job interview with his performance.

 

[Luce NDs]

Will election of a partial person ... acting as if impartial ... scar Christianity in the west for a very long time in its present form?

Will the temple of Christianity take a large dip? Isn't that the pits! --- Dante!

Is this God's will being corrupted ...

 

[Pinga]

Wow, @Ritafee and I agree!

 

[Ritafee]

What if it had happened to your daughter and there were no witnesses ...

It has happened to my daughter ...
It has happened to my self ...
It has happened to many women that I know ...
Not just close calls ... not just once.
Ford was courageous to come forward with her story ... how many days will we 'care' about it ?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Kavanaugh isn't running for election, of course. He's been nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court and the Senate has to make a determination of his fitness for that office. It's not a criminal trial, so presumption of innocence doesn't apply. It's a matter of looking at the testimony that's been offered by him and others and making that determination about his fitness. My big beef with the process is that it hasn't been a real attempt on either side to get to the truth. Democrats were going to be against whoever Trump nominated and Republicans were going to be for whoever Trump nominated no matter who it was or what came out. We're seeing that played out now. For me, based only on the testimony of the two (I didn't see it all but I saw parts of both) I found Ford far more credible.

As for elections, I will make you a wager that in the Congressional elections in November and in next year's federal election here in Canada the vast, vast, vast majority of men who run will have no allegations of sexual misconduct made against them.

Another thing is that Republicans are saying this is all because they don’t want Trump to appoint his guy. Well, Gorsuch was appointed and he didn’t have sexual abuse allegations come up against him.

 

[Luce NDs]

Always recall the entitlement of brute force is best ... at least compared to the weaker mythical people that really don't exist!

They lie below the horizon of the elite ... Machiavellians!

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

It has happened to my daughter ...
It has happened to my self ...
It has happened to many women that I know ...
Not just close calls ... not just once.
Ford was courageous to come forward with her story ... how many days will we 'care' about it ?

It has happened to me. I have spoken about at least one of the incidents but got a verbal pummelling at the time for suggesting it was really common, and that every woman I know has at least one similar story in their past. Everybody at the time said that my assertions were ridiculous and I was being sexist against men. The discussion was rather unpleasant. I have endured so many minor “assaults”...butt and breast grabs...can’t possibly even count them all or recall who what when. Just that they happened. I let those events go...not even worth it to me to remember them. I was drugged once and nearly raped. I was sexually assaulted numerous times by numerous guys, men exposing themselves, pushing themselves on me, rubbing up against me... with me thinking “boys will be boys” and maybe somebody like me doesn’t deserve better. i was more vulnerable than the average woman (the statistics bear that out, too). They made that point, too - that I should feel flattered, somehow. I went to the police about one of them but decided it would be too long and drawn out and emotionally taxing. The police warned me it would be, and that if I was not pure and virginal it was my character that was going to be smeared. So, I dropped it. I found out later that the business - the scene - he is in has a rampant drugging and rape problem, and that women in that city are now addressing it because of “me too”.

If I were to try to go after every one of the grabs and unwanted gropes, I would spend the rest of my life in court. However...if one of them was about to become one of the most powerful men in the country...I might feel a duty to speak out.

 

[chansen]

Right, so no man will ever be elected again, because there will always be someone willing to come forward and smear another to ensure they don’t get elected.

Didn't even happen to Gorsuch. That argument fails by simple observation. If this is a new Dem strategy, it's brand new. And the "Renate Alumnus" yearbook comments, and Renate Dolphin recognized what that was and rescinded her support, is evidence of how he viewed girls back then.

This is just entitled a**hole culture. Confirming Kavanaugh says that boys can be as awful as they want as teens - nothing will happen to them. At all.

Those of us who saw entitled a**hole culture back in high school and university aren't shocked. I took a drunk friend of mine out of a bush party and drove her home before something might happen to her. Boys were circling like vultures. This stuff happens and it seems to happen around boys who treat women like objects.

 

[Luce NDs]

The best part of the denial of virtue (truth) is how denial comes back to bite one's following ... possibly November spirits?

The vacancy of the sum'Hur past is quite poetic ... it resonates and comes back at yah ...