But you're just putting it out there, repeatedly. Such as in this section of your post which I just quoted. Where you make comments and statements questioning her memory 3 times. In what is essentially what? 35 or so words? You alluded to her memory being false, while trying to claim that is not what you are doing. It never ceases to amaze me just how people do not realise they really are that transparent. You should work as a spokesman for the Catholic Church. They try to pull this bullshit all the time when defending priests that rape children. To suggest that a person cannot remember if they were sexually assaulted or not, even 35 years ago, is ridiculous. I'll be blunt. When you have been sexually assaulted, that memory stays with you forever. It doesn't disappear. It doesn't change. The perpetrator does not change or suddenly become someone else. And it is astonishing how you are casting doubt on her memory, but not casting doubt on his memory... Why is that? And yet, here you are, repeatedly casting doubt on the accuracy of her memory. To the one, that example does not even apply. Are you suggesting that she did not see Kavanaugh when he tried to rape her? To the other, why is it when people discuss sexual assault and violations against women's bodies, someone always has to make a comparison to a car? Then please explain why you have been posting like a partisan hack this whole time? Except if the perpetrator is a Trump lackey that he is trying to put on the Supreme Court bench. Then that shit will fly, right? And you still cannot answer the actual question. Yes or no? Do you think having committed sexual assault should exclude someone from the Supreme Court bench?
Not true Putting that aside I would contend the same standard with a twist (When you have been sexually assaulted, that memory stays with you forever) I can remember every sexual assault I have done. None I accept I am biased but I don't think my memory is faulty Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think most people outside right-wing echo chambers would want to back to the good old days where both sides of the aisle worked with each other in good faith but that era died with the rise of the right-wing misinformation/propaganda industry, e.g. Fox News, Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, et al.
That would make corroboration difficulties a minor point, not a major criticism. The first corroboration was some years ago. And we have this thing called "benefit of the doubt". People who need a whole lot of it, and haven't earned any at all, don't belong on the Federal bench in any capacity - much less the frigging Supreme Court. But claiming that one is more likely than another, based on much evidence and one's knowledge of this world, is not folly - it's adult judgment. Meanwhile, the appearance of probity and integrity and impartiality is a formal job requirement for the Federal bench, highlighted for the Supreme Court. Or if Kavanaugh has a history of ass-covering, rather than owning his behavior, we have something. He does. The question is: Do you want that weaselly ass-kissing guy, partisan branded and unvetted and unexamined and red-flagged all over as he currently is, on the Supreme Court? How much of what - the Republican Senate's willful refusal to do their job, and vet Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court? Who cares? How much of Kavanaugh's dubious behavior and dishonest accounting for it is a consequence of his Catholic upbringing? Irrelevant, at the moment. Question for another time. It's like Santa Claus's never-empty bag, this Republican wingnut bs. There's no bottom - as long as you let those guys take a dump in your skull every 72 hours, you will have shit for brains.
you may have the very heart of the matter here. on one side is less regulation and less laws = generic republican(only works with less taxation and less laws) on the other side is more regulation along side more public funding to equal the balance = generic democrat(only works with more taxation & more public spending with more protections by the law) it appears the laws have not keptup with the way things are being run which 'appears' to contradict the "less regulation" idea of the generic right wing. how is that shifting the laws ? extremist reactionary law changes ? was the nature of litigious legal social culture in place of regulation a sign of things now developing ? is the very nature of the semi-independant republican under threat from their own lack of regulating their non legal expectations ? you cant have both sides delivering a no result, which appears to be a large part of where the legal ability now sits to ensure continuity. the government shut downs should have been warning enough(in theory)
The central difference now is not less vs more - it's who gets the less, and who gets the more. The Rs have been strongly in favor of more regulation and more law imposed on individual people, less on corporations and large economic entities. They have also been favoring more public funding directed to large corporations and rich people, along with less taxation imposed on them - the difference to be either borrowed from rich people and paid interest, or taxed from less wealthy individuals. This has been true for an entire generation now. There hasn't been a Republican Party in favor of less law and less regulation imposed on ordinary people since before Reagan. Kavanaugh, for example, favors tighter regulation of individuals in many aspects of their lives - especially their medical care and sex lives, but including drug use and dealings with employers and the like.
Based on the recommended attire for his female clerks, it sounds like there wasn't much ass-covering on his watch.
Agreed. Even if he actually did assault her he will be legally innocent of it because the statute of limitations has expired. Of course, it would be smart to consider past behavior before giving him (or anyone) a job. Then it looks like we have something. ================ . . .Deborah Ramirez, 53, attended Yale with Kavanaugh and said she remembers Kavanaugh exposing himself to her at a dormitory party. ================
So what? She doesn't have an authentic 'Murrican name, and if you've read about the Sistine Chapel you'd know that everyone exposes themselves in God's kingdom. Sounds like a perfect candidate to me.
We also have this thing that when parties are accused of wrong doing, their activities are investigated to establish the condition of their guilt. Bring on the magnifying glasses.
At this point with his involvement in greasing the legal skids for US torture programs under White House control, and subsequent support of John Yoo for the lifetime Federal bench in the Ninth Circuit, https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.10134e205a97 with his involvement with Kenneth Starr as point man in the persecution of the Clinton presidency via slander and media manipulation, with his disingenuous and deceptive responses to queries into his many dubious writings and documented partisan activities, with his disingenuous and deceptive responses to queries into his unexplained and redflag financial history, with his apparent lifelong proclivity to involve himself with dodgy and compromised and disreputable people, and now with these perfectly credible and not at all surprising accusations of sexual misconduct during his youth, we can look back at the sycophantic Kavanaugh's ass-kissing acceptance of his nomination by Trump, https://www.washingtonpost.com/vide...db52ac42e05_video.html?utm_term=.bcbb9e9865ef and recall this - this sentence, which Kavanaugh emitted voluntarily from his very own mouth and as expressing his very own well-considered opinion: "No President has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination" And we can go on from there and quote Kavanaugh quoting his mom: "Use your common sense: what rings true, and what rings false"
This link contains a possible explanation for Kavanaugh's finances less incriminating or questionable than most: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/the-many-mysteries-of-brett-kavanaughs-finances/ He may have been getting a lot of help from his family. He's an only child, after all.
Well we all know that the primary condition for becoming a Republican official is that you had to have been born in a poor family, grown up in a poor neighbourhood with minimal social services and dysfunctional public schools, and had the experience of working your way up from the bottom on your own merits, talent and hard work. DIIIIISSSSSQUALIFIED!
Yeah, it is kinda fascinating how Republicans almost invariably select from the most privileged, born-rich among us--those who have never wanted for anything, and therefore, have never had need to resort to... questionable? illicit? actions to obtain something. And yet... they always come up with these despicable, loathesome idiots, with long histories of monstrous behaviours--and this is the best they've got to offer?!
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a23397742/brett-kavanaugh-new-yorker-allegations/ A blog entry with some links. The gist (of the blogger's opinion) is that if they are going to pull Kavanaugh's nomination they have until tomorrow evening to do so plausibly - there's a cascade of bad news coming, complete with Avanetti and Farrow and Mayer and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all.
Nice. Haven't seen that one in a while. Where the hell does Michael Avanetti/Scoop Brady hang out? He struck me as a bit of a slime-ball at first, but his sleuthing skills are impressive.
Sculptor knows a bit about psychology, maybe he can tell us what happens to children when they're not taught the word "no" before adolescence?
Indeed. Sculptor's insights from the psychology-by-analogy school are illuminating--who knew you could learn so much about the human psyche by consideration of the phrase, "a watched pot never boils?"
Another from the blogs (a recommended blog, it says here): https://mikethemadbiologist.com/2018/09/24/the-republican-puke-funnel-is-a-little-bent/ - - - They are coming to him. He only needs to screen and evaluate carefully. If you were one of these women, where would you go?
Meanwhile, from the blogs, a reminder of what lawyer Brett Kavanaugh was doing in the 90s as "point man" in Kenneth Starr's vendetta, his role being the legal coordinator (and alleged sometimes originator) of what slanders could be published without consequence, and as named liaison between Starr and the cooperative media: Starr's "investigation" of Clinton from around 47:40, including reference to the role of the Federalist Society (Brett Kavanaugh, member). Narrator: "By the mid '90s, politics in Washington was dominated by one issue: the moral character of the President of the United States." - - - David Brock, then cooperative "journalist", now in his wiser adulthood, on camera from minute 49 on: Interviewer: "Was Whitewater true" Brock: "No. There was no criminal wrongdoing in Whitewater, absolutely not - - " I: "Was Vince Foster killed?" B: "No. He killed himself" I: "Did the Clintons smuggle drugs?" B: "Absolutely not." I: "Did those promoting these stories know that this was not true, that none of these stories were true?" B: "They did not care." I: "Why not?" B: "Because they were having a devastating effect, so why stop? It was terrorism - political terrorism." Trump got his list of potential Supreme Court nominees (and many of his other Federal judicial appointments, especially the lifetime ones) from the Federalist Society's membership by way of the Heritage Foundation. He did little or no vetting of his own. (The long documentary has bigger fish to fry, of course. And it's interesting - British guy's perspective on TWAT. But not relevant to thread.)
