(September 29, 2018 at 9:26 am)alpha male Wrote: Yeah, what RR said.

Get angry: He can't control his emotions, he's not fit to be a judge.

Don't get angry: Proves he's guilty, an innocent man would get angry at those charges.

You do understand this is not a criminal case?

And FYI dippy, any good defense lawyer in a criminal court will tell you yelling in front of a jury has a very high probability of making the accused look guilty.

It still speaks to his temperament and fitness to serve.

Applying for a job does not mean you are entitled to that job.

I could imagine that fucker hearing an abortion case,

Pro, choice lawyer "Roe v says,,,,,,,,"......

Kavanaugh interupts shouting, "WHAT PART OF THE WORD LIFE DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND"?

What if I were a judge being pro choice, "WHAT PART OF NOT YOUR FUCKING BODY DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?".

Don't hand me any bullshit that if Ford had raised her voice, you'd call that more credible than what she did.

Ford, "HE GOT ON TOP OF ME AND TRIED TO MOVE MY CLOTHS AND PUT HIS HAND OVER MY MOUTH".

No matter what you think of his guilt or innocence his outbursts alone speak about his fitness.

(September 28, 2018 at 11:47 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 10:17 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Based on what?

Eyewitness testimony, Ofc. 😏

And you have the testimony from a number of others, that say they have no recollection of this party.  The testimony from Kavenaugh and Judge, that this did not occur.   And the testimony of her good friend, who was supposedly there (as well as a number of other parties with Ford), but denies having ever known Judge and Kavenaugh or remembering the party described.  There is zero corroborating evidence.  It seems that this is based on more emotion and I see people pointing to the ends, rather than the means.  I'm starting to suspect that this is the case in a number of arguments here (hence the inconsistencies I see in many)  It's less about reason and evidence, and more about emotion and the desired result.

---

(September 29, 2018 at 9:41 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(September 29, 2018 at 9:26 am)alpha male Wrote: Yeah, what RR said.

Get angry: He can't control his emotions, he's not fit to be a judge.

Don't get angry: Proves he's guilty, an innocent man would get angry at those charges.

You do understand this is not a criminal case?

And FYI dippy, any good defense lawyer in a criminal court will tell you yelling in front of a jury has a very high probability of making the accused look guilty.

It still speaks to his temperament and fitness to serve.

Applying for a job does not mean you are entitled to that job.

I could imagine that fucker hearing an abortion case,

Pro, choice lawyer "Roe v says,,,,,,,,"......

Kavanaugh interupts shouting, "WHAT PART OF THE WORD LIFE DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND"?

What if I were a judge being pro choice, "WHAT PART OF NOT YOUR FUCKING BODY DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?".

Don't hand me any bullshit that if Ford had raised her voice, you'd call that more credible than what she did.

Ford, "HE GOT ON TOP OF ME AND TRIED TO MOVE MY CLOTHS AND PUT HIS HAND OVER MY MOUTH".

No matter what you think of his guilt or innocence his outbursts alone speak about his fitness.

You imagine a lot, and often the what is in your head doesn't match up with reality.   I don't think that the question "did you cry; when old yeller died" should be a qualifier for the supreme court process.  Your just making stuff up  now.

(September 28, 2018 at 9:28 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 8:34 pm)Cathooloo Wrote: Even if he didn't do it - and I think he did - his penchant for evasive, deceptive answer and his temperament make him utterly unsuitable to fill any judgeship, much less on SCOTUS.

I'm -thrilled- there's going to be an investigation but it may matter little.

At least until the election.

On the contrary, IF he is innocent (big if), I can understand why he is angry. Could you imagine being wrongfully accused, in front of the whole world, of sexually assaulting women? Not only does that ruin your career, but your family and your name. Over something you never did. If he is innocent, I dont blame him for acting angry. I think any human would, under those circumstances.

By this logic, then she should have been angry too. Can you imagine being sexually assaulted at age 15 and not being able to tell anyone? Can you imagine bravely stepping out to the whole world and describing in graphic detail, events that have been burned in your mind? Events that will never go away. Can you imagine coming out and receiving death threats and having to relocate your family? Pulling your children out of schools because of threats on their lives? You bravely stood up and as a result your family and your career have been nearly ripped to shreds. Reporters flocked to her home, invaded her classroom under the guise of being a student, only to try and get an interview with an accuser who wanted to remain anonymous.

Yet through all of her testimony and the barrage of questions, and despite having to relive that moment, she retained her composure and behaved 1000% better than Kavanaugh. She answered every question put to her. He failed to do so. He answered questions with questions and at times, refused to answer some questions at all. His entire opening statement was riddled with attacks towards the democratic party and his behavior was not appropriate for someone deserving of a lifetime appointment in a seat of judicial power. He acted like someone guilty of the accusations against him. 

During all his time as a lawyer, he failed to do exactly what is expected of any client: He failed to keep his composure during a hearing.

(September 28, 2018 at 9:28 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 8:34 pm)Cathooloo Wrote: Even if he didn't do it - and I think he did - his penchant for evasive, deceptive answer and his temperament make him utterly unsuitable to fill any judgeship, much less on SCOTUS.

I'm -thrilled- there's going to be an investigation but it may matter little.

At least until the election.

On the contrary, IF he is innocent (big if), I can understand why he is angry. Could you imagine being wrongfully accused, in front of the whole world, of sexually assaulting women? Not only does that ruin your career, but your family and your name. Over something you never did. If he is innocent, I dont blame him for acting angry. I think any human would, under those circumstances.

I don't think his account of his memory of events is at all credible. He may justifiably be angry, but not necessarily because he's innocent.

---

(September 29, 2018 at 9:51 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: There is zero corroborating evidence. 

Sounds like the tale about a dead Jew that I'm familiar with.

(September 29, 2018 at 9:26 am)alpha male Wrote: Yeah, what RR said.

Get angry: He can't control his emotions, he's not fit to be a judge.

Don't get angry: Proves he's guilty, an innocent man would get angry at those charges.

And you republicans do the same fucking thing:

Sexual assault by priests, reported by men 35 years after it happened: It's okay, we believe you completely.

Sexual assault by a judicial nominee, reported by a woman 35 years after it happened: You're a liar and a slut! Why didn't you report it when it happened?

(September 29, 2018 at 9:56 am)Joods Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 9:28 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: On the contrary, IF he is innocent (big if), I can understand why he is angry. Could you imagine being wrongfully accused, in front of the whole world, of sexually assaulting women? Not only does that ruin your career, but your family and your name. Over something you never did. If he is innocent, I dont blame him for acting angry. I think any human would, under those circumstances.

By this logic, then she should have been angry too. Can you imagine being sexually assaulted at age 15 and not being able to tell anyone? Can you imagine bravely stepping out to the whole world and describing in graphic detail, events that have been burned in your mind? Events that will never go away. Can you imagine coming out and receiving death threats and having to relocate your family? Pulling your children out of schools because of threats on their lives? You bravely stood up and as a result your family and your career have been nearly ripped to shreds. Reporters flocked to her home, invaded her classroom under the guise of being a student, only to try and get an interview with an accuser who wanted to remain anonymous.

Yet through all of her testimony and the barrage of questions, and despite having to relive that moment, she retained her composure and behaved 1000% better than Kavanaugh. She answered every question put to her. He failed to do so. He answered questions with questions and at times, refused to answer some questions at all. His entire opening statement was riddled with attacks towards the democratic party and his behavior was not appropriate for someone deserving of a lifetime appointment in a seat of judicial power. He acted like someone guilty of the accusations against him. 

During all his time as a lawyer, he failed to do exactly what is expected of any client: He failed to keep his composure during a hearing.

This is reminiscent of the debate here regarding toxic masculinity. His aggressiveness in attacking the charges actually undermines his credibility on that issue, towards which his only defense was that, in a redacted report, his aggressiveness there was explained by the context. I think this goes to the point that as a man he is culturally conditioned to display strength in different ways than Ford as a woman is. I don't find that difference a compelling reason to doubt his credibility. If he was wrongly accused, it is culturally appropriate to respond with aggression if you are a man.

(September 29, 2018 at 10:11 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(September 29, 2018 at 9:56 am)Joods Wrote: By this logic, then she should have been angry too. Can you imagine being sexually assaulted at age 15 and not being able to tell anyone? Can you imagine bravely stepping out to the whole world and describing in graphic detail, events that have been burned in your mind? Events that will never go away. Can you imagine coming out and receiving death threats and having to relocate your family? Pulling your children out of schools because of threats on their lives? You bravely stood up and as a result your family and your career have been nearly ripped to shreds. Reporters flocked to her home, invaded her classroom under the guise of being a student, only to try and get an interview with an accuser who wanted to remain anonymous.

Yet through all of her testimony and the barrage of questions, and despite having to relive that moment, she retained her composure and behaved 1000% better than Kavanaugh. She answered every question put to her. He failed to do so. He answered questions with questions and at times, refused to answer some questions at all. His entire opening statement was riddled with attacks towards the democratic party and his behavior was not appropriate for someone deserving of a lifetime appointment in a seat of judicial power. He acted like someone guilty of the accusations against him. 

During all his time as a lawyer, he failed to do exactly what is expected of any client: He failed to keep his composure during a hearing.

This is reminiscent of the debate here regarding toxic masculinity.  His aggressiveness in attacking the charges actually undermines his credibility on that issue, towards which his only defense was that, in a redacted report, his aggressiveness there was explained by the context.  I think this goes to the point that as a man he is culturally conditioned to display strength in different ways than Ford as a woman is.  I don't find that difference a compelling reason to doubt his credibility.  If he was wrongly accused, it is culturally appropriate to respond with aggression if you are a man.

Maybe in other settings, this would be true. Given the above then, if based on masculinity, he rightfully showed aggression, then based on femininity she should have been a hot emotional mess, right? 

I just don't think that a man in his 50's showed the maturity and restraint that he should have showed. This wasn't a trial. It is a job interview for a lifetime appointment, in a position of being able to make judgment calls on the lives of others. Being angry because it's culturally acceptable simply because he has a peen is, in my opinion, a bs excuse. 

If he wanted people to think positively of him, he should have behaved better.

Quote:Yeah, what RR said.

Get angry: He can't control his emotions, he's not fit to be a judge.

Don't get angry: Proves he's guilty, an innocent man would get angry at those charges.

He clearly can't control his emotions and there is a difference between expressing emotions and flipping the fuck out and going on deranged conspiracy rant then having a mental breakdown. I know you are dense Beta but i think even you can see the difference .

---

(September 29, 2018 at 10:10 am)Joods Wrote:

(September 29, 2018 at 9:26 am)alpha male Wrote: Yeah, what RR said.

Get angry: He can't control his emotions, he's not fit to be a judge.

Don't get angry: Proves he's guilty, an innocent man would get angry at those charges.

And you republicans do the same fucking thing:

Sexual assault by priests, reported by men 35 years after it happened: It's okay, we believe you completely.

Sexual assault by a judicial nominee, reported by a woman 35 years after it happened: You're a liar and a slut! Why didn't you report it when it happened?

Yup when it comes to facing the Republican old boys club 

(September 29, 2018 at 9:58 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 9:28 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: On the contrary, IF he is innocent (big if), I can understand why he is angry. Could you imagine being wrongfully accused, in front of the whole world, of sexually assaulting women? Not only does that ruin your career, but your family and your name. Over something you never did. If he is innocent, I dont blame him for acting angry. I think any human would, under those circumstances.

I don't think his account of his memory of events is at all credible.  He may justifiably be angry, but not necessarily because he's innocent.

---

(September 29, 2018 at 9:51 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: There is zero corroborating evidence. 

Sounds like the tale about a dead Jew that I'm familiar with.

(September 29, 2018 at 10:18 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:Yeah, what RR said.

Get angry: He can't control his emotions, he's not fit to be a judge.

Don't get angry: Proves he's guilty, an innocent man would get angry at those charges.

He clearly can't control his emotions and there is a difference between expressing emotions and flipping the fuck out and going on deranged conspiracies rants then having a mental breakdown. I know you are dense Beta but i think even you can see the difference .

---

(September 29, 2018 at 10:10 am)Joods Wrote: And you republicans do the same fucking thing:

Sexual assault by priests, reported by men 35 years after it happened: It's okay, we believe you completely.

Sexual assault by a judicial nominee, reported by a woman 35 years after it happened: You're a liar and a slut! Why didn't you report it when it happened?

Yup when it comes to facing the Republican old boys club 

Sure. Alpha can see the difference. But because he's a party loyalist, he won't admit it.