America - The Official Thread

[McLaren]

I dont remember kavanaugh agreeing.?

He wanted a hearing the day after the allegation came out. He did say he will do whatever the committee wants including an FBI investigation.

 

[TexRex]

The way people have been reacting even within that room, it might as well been. Let him be investigated and see if it clears his name. If it doesn’t, again, move forward to a proper trial to convict him if he is shown to have committed the act.

Ship's sailed on the latter--D.C. statute of limitations is set at 15 years for first- and second-degree offenses and 10 for third and fourth.

 

[PocketZeven]

He wanted a hearing the day after the allegation came out. He did say he will do whatever the committee wants including an FBI investigation.

I saw the part that he wanted a hearing the next day. But not that he wanted or agreed to another FBI investigation.

Edit: I rewatched the part. He refused to give a direct answer to the question of agreeing with a FBI investigation and stubbornly answered only that he would "do anything what the comittee wants".

 

[McLaren]

I saw the part that he wanted a hearing the next day. But not that he wanted or agreed to another FBI investigation.

He literally said it in the next sentence....

Feinstein asked: “If you are very confident of your position, why aren’t you also asking the FBI a to investigate?”

“Senator, I’ll do whatever the committee wants,” Kavanaugh replied. “I wanted the hearing a day after the allegation came up.”

He added: “Whatever the committee decides, I’m all in, immediately.”

The committee wants a week delay for the FBI and Kavanaugh said he’d do whatever the committee wants. Sounds like therefore, he’s going to be undergoing an investigation.

 

[TexRex]

It's unfortunate that the only real course of action is that of hearings and investigations to determine fitness in light of prior actions if such events are found to have occurred. If they are, I'd want for him to be punished properly and that's just no longer possible.

I don't know whether he did it or not, nor have I formed any opinions on the matter other than if he did, he isn't fit to serve in any legal capacity, and if he didn't, she* should be held accountable for any harm done as a result of false accusations.

*Edit: She and anyone else.

 

[PocketZeven]

He literally said it in the next sentence....

The committee wants a week delay for the FBI and Kavanaugh said he’d do whatever the committee wants. Sounds like therefore, he’s going to be undergoing an investigation.

I guess there is pressure now on the FBI investigation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/politics/judge-kavanaugh-american-bar-association-fbi.html

I think I have to believe Kavanaugh now. If he was guilty, he would certainly not cooporate with a FBI investigation. That is digging your own grave. There is a big difference between being just accused or a being a confirmed sexual assaulter. I just hope Trump wont start coming up with conspiracy theories again about the FBI being biased again.

It was so long ago it could have been a case of mistaken identity.

In my opinion though its irrelevant if he is guilty or not. He already showed too much emotion and partisanship, where a supreme judge should be impartial and collected. Lady Justice should always be blind.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It was so long ago it could have been a case of mistaken identity.

I can remember things that happened at parties in my teens but not the layout of the house, the dates or the entire list of attendees. I'm not sure the "so long ago" argument is a great excuse when memory isn't a linear phenomenon.

 

[PocketZeven]

I can remember things that happened at parties in my teens but not the layout of the house, the dates or the entire list of attendees. I'm not sure the "so long ago" argument is a great excuse when memory isn't a linear phenomenon.

I agree, especially such a traumatic experience. That Face is something you wont forget easily, but the human psyche can work in mysterious ways. I just cant believe Kavanaugh is dumb enough to risk being publically outed to being a sexual assaulter by an FBI investigation.

That is the only explanation I can come up with where dr. Ford and kavanaugh werent lying.

 

[TexRex]

I think I have to believe Kavanaugh now. If he was guilty, he would certainly not cooporate with a FBI investigation.

It's probably a good thing those responsible for investigating criminal activity aren't so easily swayed.

 

[McLaren]

In my opinion though its irrelevant if he is guilty or not. He already showed too much emotion and partisanship, where a supreme judge should be impartial and collected. Lady Justice should always be blind.

I would chalk up the attitude to his frustration over the charge; he seems deeply agitated that it would come out now after all these years of him being a judge or having 6 previous FBI investigations to vet him. Not that any of this automatically clears him.

But, being impartial is long gone. Parties are going to side with themselves and will chalk up any reasoning against the other. Has happened in all offices of our govt. If you truly want to see how impartial he is at his actual job, we’d have to see how he’s conducted himself as a judge previously. That should give a better scope of whether or not he can actually work fairly, not because he accused Senate members of far-fetched claims; Graham threw himself into that ring as well and he’s voting for Kavanaugh. How’s that for impartial.

 

[huskeR32]

The only thing I absolutely hate about this is public and Twitter peeps hanging him without due process

What has due process got to do with anything? Nobody is calling for him to face criminal charges (he can't fact charges, in fact, as the statute of limitations ran out quite some time ago).

I’m sorry but that’s how Emmett Till was killed

When exactly did Carolyn Bryant appear before Congress and give sworn testimony to Till's actions? And in what way is Kavanaugh's life endangered by any of this? What a garbage comparison.

As I said though, if he is found guilty, then follow the route to sentence him for it.

Well, again, he can't be found guilty of anything, because charges cannot be brought against him. Does that mean his victim just has to keep her mouth shut? By what reasoning?

I’m not saying she’s lying, but based on her own witnesses not backing the story and Brett having a calendar of his locations at the alledged time, I do lean towards him being truthful in regards to the claim.

Man, it is beyond hilarious to me that people are taking the calendar thing seriously. Do you really think somebody would write "raped a girl tonight" on their daily planner?

Let him be investigated and see if it clears his name.

That's actually exactly what his accuser and the Democrats are asking for.

If it doesn’t, again, move forward to a proper trial to convict him if he is shown to have committed the act.

Again, he cannot be charged with anything, he cannot be convicted of anything. This alternate scenario that you're calling on people to accept is not possible.

 

[TexRex]

Again, he cannot be charged with anything, he cannot be convicted of anything. This alternate scenario that you're calling on people to accept is not possible.

I mean...I'm not aware that the efficacy of a criminal trial had been addressed prior to any of the quoted proposals being tendered, and such a proposal hasn't been brought up again since I clarified that the statute of limitations has expired.

In the absence of a disregarded counter to the proposal prior to my own, I don't think it's appropriate to address the proposals each as though counters were disregarded.

 

[ryzno]

and avoid the trend of trial by media that seems to be so common recently.

I love how the show The Orville, I think the first(or one of the first)episode, mocked how we are becoming a trial by media culture. It was a good episode IMO.

Oh yeah I also think he likes beer a little too much.

There's no such thing as too much beer!

I just hope Trump wont start coming up with conspiracy theories again about the FBI being biased again.

Trump said he was going to let the Senate JC do it's thing.

Man, it is beyond hilarious to me that people are taking the calendar thing seriously. Do you really think somebody would write "raped a girl tonight" on their daily planner?

No, but he has records of a lot of other parties he attended. He probably kept note so he could remember. He said he's never been "blacked out" drunk. As an alcoholic I call BS on that, especially considering it was around high school/ college age.

It's probably a good thing those responsible for investigating criminal activity aren't so easily swayed.

The same FBI that exonerated Hillary with out an investigation? Thanks for the laugh!

Sorry the quotes are out of order...

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I bet Brett Kavanaugh shops at Vineyard Vines....that alone should be disqualifying. God damn salmon-colored shorts with a tucked in polo and loafers.

 

[Dotini]

Interest on the debt will soon eexceed expenditures on the military.

US Will Soon Spend More on Debt Interest Than on the Military
Rising interest rates mean debt will overtake massive military budget
Jason Ditz Posted on September 27, 2018Categories NewsTags Pentagon


The US spends far more on its military than any other nation on Earth, but very soon, it will not be the top expenditure of the US government. Rather, rising interest rates and years of mounting debts mean that soon, interest on the debt will overtake that.

Interest costs will be $390 billion next year, and more than $900 billion within a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. At present, US military budgets are in the $700 billion range, and themselves constantly growing.

Somewhere, these two growing lines will intersect, and the runaway military spending is a big reason why. There simply is no way for US to keep pouring substantial portions of a trillion dollars down the well annually for the military without borrowing, and that debt is just growing.

The US debt is huge, and that is in no small part because of decades of runaway military spending, and trillions dumped into nuclear weapons. Lawmakers largely are not interested in this matter right now, likely reflecting their unwillingness to cut military spending to try to get the debt back in line.
https://news.antiwar.com/2018/09/27/us-will-soon-spend-more-on-debt-interest-than-on-the-military/

 

[TexRex]

Trump said he was going to let the Senate JC do it's thing.

When? Was it before or after...



...?

Not that it really matters, as he's demonstrated a willingness to renege on prior commitments.

No, but he has records of a lot of other parties he attended. He probably kept note so he could remember.

But...why? How does such a notion not strike you as peculiar? Why would someone still have a calendar that supposedly verifies* his whereabouts THIRTY YEARS LATER??? Why would anyone keep such a thing for such a period of time?

*You know what it makes me think? It looks to me like he was engaging in this alleged behavior consistently during that period of time and he composed such a record in the likely event that one of his many, many, many, many, many victims--probably one of precious few that wasn't so cognitively compromised by excessive consumption of alcohol that they couldn't recall any portion of the event that transpired--came forward to accuse him of such behavior at that time.

But as luck would have it, the nature of what his victims were subjected to by him and his pervy posse left those unfortunate souls who had some recollection of the events feeling deeply ashamed that they were in such a predicament, probably even blaming themselves in no insignificant way, and consequently rendered them unwilling to come forward and subject themselves to further embarassment and retaliatory accusations of promiscuity only to have the perpetrator(s) of such heinous acts be permitted to walk free.

Hey, maybe other victims came forward at that time and what they were subjected to was swept under the rug and chalked up to "boys will be boys", and the low state that followed left them unable to muster the will to not take their own lives. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.

...

Of course I don't actually believe this to be the case, but the rank disregard for reason demonstrated by those jumping to ol' Brett's defense gives me cause to let my imagination run rampant.

The same FBI that exonerated Hillary with out an investigation?

To what allegations are you referring and what's your source that confirms no investigation was conducted?

 

[ryzno]

When? Was it before or after...

After. The press asked him this morning after his meeting with the President of Chile.

Not that it really matters, as he's demonstrated a willingness to renege on prior commitments.

Like every other President.

But...why? How does such a notion not strike you as peculiar?

Why do I still have my grandmas stuff older than me, including old calenders(older than me) in storage?
I know it's a little different but I'm sure you get my point.

 

[TexRex]

Well...I suppose that's my own danged fault...

I got carried away with my posting, questioning everything that jumped out at me instead of only addressing what interested me most (appropriate given it was a response to something I said), and that which I was interested in most was disregarded.



Humorous, though, the appeal to hypocrisy present in the response to one of my comments that itself was a response to an appeal to hyprocrisy.

 

[ryzno]

But as luck would have it, the nature of what his victims were subjected to by him and his pervy posse left those unfortunate souls who had some recollection of the events feeling deeply ashamed that they were in such a predicament, probably even blaming themselves in no insignificant way, and consequently rendered them unwilling to come forward and subject themselves to further embarassment and retaliatory accusations of promiscuity only to have the perpetrator(s) of such heinous acts be permitted to walk free.

You called him a perv. With no proof of if it even happened. Seems you have a bias yourself from your hypothesis. You seem to have also concluded he is guilty from your comment. I said I'm leaning in his direction. I acknowledge she had a therapist record of it, with NO names.
I just said my opinion on what I heard on my trucks radio. I also had the privilege of listening to the entire thing thanks to being a driver.
I didn't want to bring this up but since you did...

PS I'm not going to waste my time on your Hillary question...

 

[TexRex]

You called him a perv. With no proof of if it even happened.

I called his posse pervy. You quoted me as calling his posse pervy and yet you still manage to get it wrong.

As for a lack of proof, I refer to the portion you neglected to quote, thereby altering the context of the comment, in which I acknowledge the comments being hypothetical and not what I actually believe.

Seems you have a bias yourself from your hypothesis.

You bet your sweet bippy I have a bias, and my bias is against the aforementioned "rank disregard for reason demonstrated by those jumping to ol' Brett's defense".

You seem to have also concluded he is guilty from your comment.

I've done no such thing. I merely offered a hypothetical that demonstrates the same sort of disregard for reason referred to in my response to the previous citation.

I said I'm leaning in his direction. I acknowledge she had a therapist record of it, with NO names.

I saw both of these comments and I accepted them insofar as I wasn't compelled to address them.

What I addressed was the comments regarding the calendar, and while your response wasn't particularly substantive (you even acknowledged this fact by stating it wasn't the same thing), I'm not compelled to press on with regards to that particular fragment as I have the nagging suspicion that it'll end up being like pulling teeth. Hey, you can count that as a point in your column.

I didn't want to bring this up but since you did...

Bring what up? The following?

PS I'm not going to waste my time on your Hillary question...

Wow...I mean...just...holy crap on a cracker...

"I brought up Hillary but I'm not going to elaborate on my claim because you had the audacity to respond to it."

Reminds me of that 60 Minutes interview in the oval office between Trump and CBS' John Dickerson wherein Trump brought up supposed Obama-ordered wiretaps and then in response to the interviewer's polite request for elaboration, Trump offered a rather poignant "I stand by nothing."

 

[Imari]

I very much agree. His reactions to the allegations were far more important.

I wasn't saying that his reactions were important, just that of the whole thing that seemed to be all that was in any way relevant to his job application.

Oh yeah I also think he likes beer a little too much.

I think some of the questions were insane. "Have you ever gotten blackout drunk at college?" "Well, yeah? Duh. It's college."

I think I have to believe Kavanaugh now. If he was guilty, he would certainly not cooporate with a FBI investigation. That is digging your own grave.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that he's guilty. What will an investigation turn up to confirm that after all this time? If you asked me of details of parties at university 15 years ago, I couldn't tell you with any certainty who was and wasn't there. There's not going to be any physical evidence. Short of them tracking down the other guy in the room and him giving a supporting statement, it seems highly unlikely that an investigation could turn up anything.

Nobody has accused Kavanaugh of being stupid. He's a legal professional. He knows how this works. If he did it and he knows it, he'd be uncomfortable but know that his chances are a lot better going along with an investigation and hoping it doesn't go anywhere than him trying to fight against is. Purely because of the sort of reasoning which you just showed above, which really only works when the participants are 10 years old and unable to process the concept of influencing other's thoughts by your actions.

I can remember things that happened at parties in my teens but not the layout of the house, the dates or the entire list of attendees. I'm not sure the "so long ago" argument is a great excuse when memory isn't a linear phenomenon.

That's sort of it though, right? She could remember one incident perfectly clearly, but it's going to be near impossible for her to establish to a third party whether that's a true memory, or a corruption of something that really happened, or just some falsehood that her brain has taken for reality after 30 years. The brain does weird things, which is why the word of a single person is generally not regarded as particularly strong evidence.

When exactly did Carolyn Bryant appear before Congress and give sworn testimony to Till's actions? And in what way is Kavanaugh's life endangered by any of this? What a garbage comparison.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...t-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford/1371995002/

I don't think you quite realise how emotional people get over this stuff. Of course pretty much everyone involved has been receiving death threats, and it only takes one unhinged moron to take a shot. I imagine that the authorities have them fairly well protected, but let's not pretend that being involved in something like this doesn't increase your risk of being violently attacked.

 

[huskeR32]

I mean...I'm not aware that the efficacy of a criminal trial had been addressed prior to any of the quoted proposals being tendered, and such a proposal hasn't been brought up again since I clarified that the statute of limitations has expired.

In the absence of a disregarded counter to the proposal prior to my own, I don't think it's appropriate to address the proposals each as though counters were disregarded.

Fair enough. Apologies to @McLaren for beating a dead horse.

- -

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...t-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford/1371995002/

I don't think you quite realise how emotional people get over this stuff. Of course pretty much everyone involved has been receiving death threats, and it only takes one unhinged moron to take a shot. I imagine that the authorities have them fairly well protected, but let's not pretend that being involved in something like this doesn't increase your risk of being violently attacked.

Yikes, hadn’t read about any of that yet. Appalling behavior to threaten his family. Pretty predictable, though, meaning I should’ve looked into it more before my post. Thanks for the link.

Looks like I let the long week make me a little trigger happy...

 

[PocketZeven]

I would chalk up the attitude to his frustration over the charge; he seems deeply agitated that it would come out now after all these years of him being a judge or having 6 previous FBI investigations to vet him. Not that any of this automatically clears him.

But, being impartial is long gone. Parties are going to side with themselves and will chalk up any reasoning against the other. Has happened in all offices of our govt. If you truly want to see how impartial he is at his actual job, we’d have to see how he’s conducted himself as a judge previously. That should give a better scope of whether or not he can actually work fairly, not because he accused Senate members of far-fetched claims; Graham threw himself into that ring as well and he’s voting for Kavanaugh. How’s that for impartial.

I wasn't saying that his reactions were important, just that of the whole thing that seemed to be all that was in any way relevant to his job application.



I think some of the questions were insane. "Have you ever gotten blackout drunk at college?" "Well, yeah? Duh. It's college."



Let's assume for the sake of argument that he's guilty. What will an investigation turn up to confirm that after all this time? If you asked me of details of parties at university 15 years ago, I couldn't tell you with any certainty who was and wasn't there. There's not going to be any physical evidence. Short of them tracking down the other guy in the room and him giving a supporting statement, it seems highly unlikely that an investigation could turn up anything.

Nobody has accused Kavanaugh of being stupid. He's a legal professional. He knows how this works. If he did it and he knows it, he'd be uncomfortable but know that his chances are a lot better going along with an investigation and hoping it doesn't go anywhere than him trying to fight against is. Purely because of the sort of reasoning which you just showed above, which really only works when the participants are 10 years old and unable to process the concept of influencing other's thoughts by your actions.



That's sort of it though, right? She could remember one incident perfectly clearly, but it's going to be near impossible for her to establish to a third party whether that's a true memory, or a corruption of something that really happened, or just some falsehood that her brain has taken for reality after 30 years. The brain does weird things, which is why the word of a single person is generally not regarded as particularly strong evidence.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...t-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford/1371995002/

I don't think you quite realise how emotional people get over this stuff. Of course pretty much everyone involved has been receiving death threats, and it only takes one unhinged moron to take a shot. I imagine that the authorities have them fairly well protected, but let's not pretend that being involved in something like this doesn't increase your risk of being violently attacked.

His reaction is extremely important for his job application. A supreme judge needs to be impartial, not partisan. This is the SCOTUS. My point was his reaction showed extreme disdain and even used conspiracy theories to defend himself. That already does not make him a good candidate.
I understand there is an midterm election coming, but for such an extremely important lifetime appointment they really need to pick someone the majority can vote on with clear concious. Even the bar association want an investigation.

An interesting video about memory concerning the accusers:

 

[Johnnypenso]

His reaction is extremely important for his job application. A supreme judge needs to be impartial, not partisan. This is the SCOTUS. My point was his reaction showed extreme disdain and even used conspiracy theories to defend himself. That already does not make him a good candidate.
I understand there is an midterm election coming, but for such an extremely important lifetime appointment they really need to pick someone the majority can vote on with clear concious. Even the bar association want an investigation.

An interesting video about memory concerning the accusers:

Assuming it's you up there for a moment, and you're telling the truth. You've lived a life of integrity and are now facing the entire nation and that integrity is being attacked by a false allegation and your wife and children are subject to death threats as a result. How would you react?

 

[PocketZeven]

Assuming it's you up there for a moment, and you're telling the truth. You've lived a life of integrity and are now facing the entire nation and that integrity is being attacked by a false allegation and your wife and children are subject to death threats as a result. How would you react?

Honestly I cant tell you with 100% certainty, but if it were me I would have forfited the nomination when the first allegations where made. As I never assualted a woman in my life I would put out a statement that the allegations were 100% not true and I am not prepared to let my family be exposed to such a high profile accusation, because an accusation in such a public way never has a winner.

But if it was my dreamjob and my family were behind me going through with it, I would ask the comittee to postpone the vote and start a FBI investigation to prove my innocense and speak to the comittee that I am deeply hurt by the allegations, but am certain of my innocence and that any investigation, polygraph will prove it. And also would like to stress that as a judge the most important things are the truth and justice.

But if I hypothetically was guilty? I would try anything to spin the narrative. That the accuser is a pawn from the opposition and that my record will speak for himself. If asked if I want an investigation, I would try to deflect and say that is not my choice to make.

Answering your question has made me question's kavanaugh's innocence though.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Honestly I cant tell you with 100% certainty, but if it were me I would have forfited the nomination when the first allegations where made. As I never assualted a woman in my life I would put out a statement that the allegations were 100% not true and I am not prepared to let my family be exposed to such a high profile accusation, because an accusation in such a public way never has a winner.

But if it was my dreamjob and my family were behind me going through with it, I would ask the comittee to postpone the vote and start a FBI investigation to prove my innocense and speak to the comittee that I am deeply hurt by the allegations, but am certain of my innocence and that any investigation, polygraph will prove it. And also would like to stress that as a judge the most important things are the truth and justice.

But if I hypothetically was guilty? I would try anything to spin the narrative. That the accuser is a pawn from the opposition and that my record will speak for himself. If asked if I want an investigation, I would try to deflect and say that is not my choice to make.

Answering your question has made me question's kavanaugh's innocence though.

FBI investigations on judicial nominees do not establish guilt or innocence. They are evidence gathering only and the evidence is presented to the committee to decide. He has already been vetted by the FBI multiple times. Polygraphs are not 100% reliable.

But if I hypothetically was guilty? I would try anything to spin the narrative. That the accuser is a pawn from the opposition and that my record will speak for himself. If asked if I want an investigation, I would try to deflect and say that is not my choice to make.

You already said his reaction showed extreme disdain and that he even used conspiracy theories to defend himself. My question was, assuming you were him and you knew you were completely innocent, then what would your reaction be? Because if he is telling the truth it is a partisan political plot against him isn't it? The accusation was withheld until the last minute which on it's face looks like a political stunt, and the corroborating witnesses she put forward have all denied any knowledge of the events involved. Any man worth his salt, that was having his entire life's work questioned and his family threatened, is going to come out swinging. You're using his, something I think many people would consider perfectly normal, as a mark against him. This does not seem credible to me.

 

[PocketZeven]

FBI investigations on judicial nominees do not establish guilt or innocence. They are evidence gathering only and the evidence is presented to the committee to decide. He has already been vetted by the FBI multiple times. Polygraphs are not 100% reliable.



You already said his reaction showed extreme disdain and that he even used conspiracy theories to defend himself. My question was, assuming you were him and you knew you were completely innocent, then what would your reaction be? Because if he is telling the truth it is a partisan political plot against him isn't it? The accusation was withheld until the last minute which on it's face looks like a political stunt, and the corroborating witnesses she put forward have all denied any knowledge of the events involved. Any man worth his salt, that was having his entire life's work questioned and his family threatened, is going to come out swinging. You're using his, something I think many people would consider perfectly normal, as a mark against him. This does not seem credible to me.

I didnt claim that the FBI or comittee would provide judgment. I know how these background checks work, dont try to correct me on things I am not claiming. Of course polygraphs are not 100% reliable, but I would do one nonetheless. Just to prove my point.

Nope. I would stay as calm and reserved as possible. You seem to forget that Ford equally had death threats and was forced out of anonimity at the last hour. Called "whore" and probably even worse and she even had to relocate her family and even need for security. Yet she stayed calm and composed. It is a job interview.

I dont know anyone who would show that kind of reaction at a job interview. Would you hire him?

edit: added additional comment

 

[Northstar]

An interesting video about memory concerning the accusers:

I get what they're saying, but on the flip side there is a reason The Innocence Project exists and never seems to have a lack of cases. When it comes to serious crimes it's important to take a second and look at it from both sides so you don't wind up sending an innocent person to jail while the actual perp is still on the streets.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I can remember things that happened at parties in my teens but not the layout of the house, the dates or the entire list of attendees. I'm not sure the "so long ago" argument is a great excuse when memory isn't a linear phenomenon.

I mean I remember a lot of stuff around here and other places that people said and on what thread, but other people don't. I remember life events that my wife can't remember but I remember vividly. Some people honestly have a better memory of things, but it has been scientifically proven that over time the memory and recollected events may not have actually unfolded the way those people think, and they may remember something similar to the event but fill the gaps with things that didn't happen to complete the memory.

Does that mean that this didn't happen to Ford and she wasn't assaulted or worse? Nope. Does it mean that she may have been wrong about who it was considering it's been 35 years, perhaps. The fact that people don't want to analyze lately and just take the "victim's" word from the gates rather than have a leveled measure is quite scary to me. I also think the dismissive behavior of the past where these situation went without investigation and women told to just pick up the pieces, is equally as wrong.

My issues with the situation is as @BobK said, in one regard where this seems to be a political use of a woman's suffering to achieve an agenda. At the other side of it, I also have an issue that there is a potential he could be innocent and a trial by media in play claims guilt forever. If he is guilty then he should face whatever possible, and I hope those who brought this forward help Ford achieve that and not use it as a political stance only.

I didnt claim that the FBI or comittee would provide judgment. I know how these background checks work, dont try to correct me on things I am not claiming. Of course polygraphs are not 100% reliable, but I would do one nonetheless. Just to prove my point.

Nope. I would stay as calm and reserved as possible. You seem to forget that Ford equally had death threats and was forced out of anonimity at the last hour. Called "whore" and probably even worse and she even had to relocate her family and even need for security. Yet she stayed calm and composed. It is a job interview.

I dont know anyone who would show that kind of reaction at a job interview. Would you hire him?

edit: added additional comment

So you seem to be leveling a thought that if she is for the most part calm, then why shouldn't he be? That seems silly to ask considering they're different people and will handle things different. He's being accused of sexual assault, at risk of losing his means of living because of it, and now potentially may see an investigation by federal authorities.

Seems quite daunting especially when you label it as a job interview, it's more than that at this point but then I remind myself how you tend to frame stuff to make a point.

 

[TenEightyOne]

My issues with the situation is as @BobK said, in one regard where this seems to be a political use of a woman's suffering to achieve an agenda.

I agree. I believed her testimony over Kavanaugh's (for what that's worth) but I feel that the Democrats have "handled" the timing of the crisis for political ends. As much as the Republicans are getting a public drubbing for their attitude to the accusations (rightly, imo) the Democrats have acted little, if any, better. We're now hearing that there are further accusers who've come out in public after Dr. Ford made her allegations. They should be listened too just as Dr. Ford was but I fear they've become victims of the same calculated Democrat strategy that's damaging her chance at being heard in a sympathetic, timely fashion.

I still feel that proper investigations/hearings should be held for all the accusations. For fairness Kavanaugh's selection process should continue but he shouldn't be allowed to take his seat until the outcome of those investigations is known, or at least until there's enough information for a sensible, non-partisan decision to be made. My feeling is that none of that will happen - he'll take his seat and this will be a subject those spoken of with regret when the next patriarchal crisis occurs in twenty years' time.