Kavanaugh Can Join Thomas.

[Divinity]

If Kavanaugh didn't come out with his WACKY conspiracy theories, (It's a CLINTON CONSPIRACY!"), wanted a full FBI Investigation, and didn't get weirdly emotional over his calenders--I might have considered "Case of mistaken identity"

But Kavanaugh did NOT act like an innocent man. He acted like a guilty one. Maybe not enough to put him in prison, unfortunately (which is where he belongs). But enough to keep him off the fucking Supreme Court.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I see pretty much everyone states (some with reservations) that they think Ford is being honest. No one thinks she is outright lying,..., right?

Personally, I don't know anything about the accuser. I don't have to because I do not believe people; I believe evidence. Neither tears nor anger are sufficient to determine innocence or guilt. No evidence has been presented to support the accusation.

I'm sure they can easily find another conservative judge who isn't an accused sexual assaulter...

If people can be disqualified based solely on accusations then, no, they cannot. Divorced from evidence and collaboration, anyone can accuse anyone else of anything or whatever reason. And they will.

[Angrboda]

Jor posted the demographics on how conservatives tend to be more invested in authority and liberals tend to be more invested in fairness.  I think that's what we are seeing here.

Or that's what researchers want to believe:

How Social Science Might Be Misunderstanding Conservatives

---

Imagine you and I are out for drinks at a bar. A couple beers in, apropos of nothing, I announce to you, “You know, liberals are way more authoritarian than conservatives.” “No way,” you respond. “Way,” I say, confidently. I pull a sheet of paper from my shirt pocket and slide it to you. “This is my Jesse Singal Authoritarianism Scale, or JSAS for short,” I tell you. “I had 500 people take this short scale and liberals scored way higher than conservatives.”

You look down at the scale and it reads:

For each of the following items, please indicate your level of agreement, from 1 (disagree completely) to 7 (agree completely), with a score of 4 indicating neither agreement nor disagreement.

1. In certain cases, it might be acceptable to curtail people’s constitutional rights in order to stop them from spreading climate-change denialism.

2. The government needs to do a much more comprehensive job monitoring Christian-oriented far-right terrorism.

3. Some people want to act like the causes of racism are complicated, but they aren’t: Racists are moral failures, and that’s that.

If you’re a thoughtful reader, you will, of course, find my claim ludicrous. By dint of the subject matter of my questions the test is basically built to “discover” that liberals are more authoritarian than conservatives. All my questions are rigged in a manner that will, in almost all likelihood, cause political liberals to score more highly than political conservatives on the scale, thus spitting out the “finding” that liberals are more authoritarian.

The above, fictional questionnaire is an extreme example, but a growing insurgency within social and political psychology has begun to argue, credibly, that a version of this has been going on for decades — only the other way around. Liberal psych researchers, centering their work on liberal values and political opinions, have built up a body of knowledge that is fundamentally flawed and biased. As a result, certain false ideas about conservatives and how they differ from liberals may have taken hold.

---

“Debunked is definitely too much,” said Yoel Inbar, the University of Toronto researcher who has studied bias in social and personality psychology, “but doubt/reassessment sounds about right.” But the idea that political ideology is a bit more complicated than the field of social and political psychology has led us to believe does seem to be gaining some purchase among experts, and it feels like the conversation on these subjects is getting broader and more nuanced.

[ibid.]

---

If people can be disqualified based solely on accusations then, no, they cannot. Divorced from evidence and collaboration, anyone can accuse anyone else of anything or whatever reason. And they will.

(emphasis mine)

The evidence does not support you on that point. And people keep reducing this to Ford's testimony alone. There are three accusers, not one. If there were only one, I might be more inclined to agree with you. But as long as people keep misrepresenting it as he-said/she-said, I have to wonder why.

[GUBU]

For the last time, I'm not judging the veracity of the allegation by the length of time it took for her to speak out. In fact, I'm not judging anything by the length of time it took for her to speak out. I'm simply speculating on her intention/driving force behind speaking out now. I believe Ford.

So you retract your original post then, and accept that the main Kavanaugh defence is bullshit?

Because to me, you are still trying to push that weaselly defence, and push the other repugnant linethat the Democrats have no morals bringing this to public scrutiny. Because to me there is no comparison between a party who would hold a senator accused ofsexual harassment to proper account and the party so mad to elevate a likely attempted child rapist to the highest judicial office that they'd flatout refuse to hold any inquiry but a kangaroo court desighed to destroy his victim.

[Neo-Scholastic]

There are three accusers, not one.

IMHO the other two don't even rise to the level of credible. YMMV.

Moderator Notice
Warning: image contains the body of a man that’s been hanged

---

---

[Mister Agenda]

The third of Americans who are expecting a civil war? Almost entirely Republicans. They're the only ones who want it. Because that's how far beyond the pale of civil norms they've gone.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...ikely_soon

Democrats (37%) are more fearful than Republicans (32%) and voters not affiliated with either major party (26%) that a second civil war is at hand.

I sit corrected, I jumped to conclusions and conclusions bit me on the ass. Thanks for being more diligent than I was.

---

@Aroura  I just think it’s mostly a matter of  evidence.

So you agree that there should be a thorough investigation to gather more evidence?

---

I see pretty much everyone states (some with reservations) that they think Ford is being honest. No one thinks she is outright lying,..., right?

Personally, I don't know anything about the accuser. I don't have to because I do not believe people; I believe evidence. Neither tears nor anger are sufficient to determine innocence or guilt. No evidence has been presented to support the accusation.

I'm sure they can easily find another conservative judge who isn't an accused sexual assaulter...

If people can be disqualified based solely on accusations then, no, they cannot. Divorced from evidence and collaboration, anyone can accuse anyone else of anything or whatever reason. And they will.

So you agree that the accusation should be thoroughly investigated so that people can draw conclusions based on the evidence, right?

[RoadRunner79]

@Aroura  I just think it’s mostly a matter of  evidence.

So you agree that there should be a thorough investigation to gather more evidence?

I don't have an inherent problem with an investigation.... I think it is a waste of time and resources however; and nothing more than another delay tactic and fishing expedition.   I think that they have covered all the evidence that they have.   Where do you think that the investigation so far is lacking?   It seems that they have talked to the supposed witnesses who can corroborate.  No one remembers the night in question, including her friend, who says that she doesn't even know the two being accused.  There doesn't appear to be enough information in the claims to produce any more leads.

Edit: If anything, the only thing lacking is a more thorough questioning of the claimant; which I think will only produce more holes, and is bad optics for everyone involved.

[John V]

Maybe they'll grill her on how she got home, and obtain her therapist's notes which she says support her but didn't actually produce for the committee.

[downbeatplumb]

Maybe they'll grill her on how she got home, and obtain her therapist's notes which she says support her but didn't actually produce for the committee.

Lets wait for the investigation shall we.

Gee I wonder why women are not keen to come forward after assaults.

[Divinity]

Lets wait for the investigation shall we.

Gee I wonder why women are not keen to come forward after assaults.

That's their plan.  I'm sure they hope their sons can one day get away with sexually assaulting women.  Because they don't value women at all.  It's why they don't want an investigation.  They'll tell baldfaced lies and say "DELAY TACTIC!" when Merrick Garland was delayed 400 days. 

They're truly disgusting.  And I don't think they really believe in God, because if they did they might worry what he would do to them for their disgusting behavior.