SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[Hersh]

44 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

As expected the comments below the article are delightful. I'm not saying they are all sexist or racist by a bunch of GOP men, but damn if the first dozen or so I read had one or the other in it.  

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by visionary

[tshile]

That wsj editorial is hardly bad and is a completely fair way of viewing what is going on here. 

 

Also her story now doesn’t match the story she told the therapist? Is that correct? (Not really willing to trust the wsj editorial board...)

[Hersh]

I do think this entire story means that no Dems will vote for confirmation. It gives the red state Dems an out. They can say they were leaning toward voting for him, but that this story is too much. This will make the Dem voters in those states happy. 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Hersh

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

What's the deal with Biden not wanting to answer that question? I'm not aware of him having any similar accusations against him.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by visionary

[Cooked Crack]

20 minutes ago, tshile said:

That wsj editorial is hardly bad and is a completely fair way of viewing what is going on here. 

 

Also her story now doesn’t match the story she told the therapist? Is that correct? (Not really willing to trust the wsj editorial board...)

Do you think Anita Hill was a dirty trick?

Edit: Do you believe this is a calculated political ambush?

 

Quote

Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.  

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Cooked Crack

[DogofWar1]

21 minutes ago, tshile said:

That wsj editorial is hardly bad and is a completely fair way of viewing what is going on here. 

 

Also her story now doesn’t match the story she told the therapist? Is that correct? (Not really willing to trust the wsj editorial board...)

She (and presumably her husband) contend that she told the therapist two attackers, but that the therapist incorrectly wrote four.

 

It's a good opening for questioning.  GOP could/should drag in the husband and the therapist and pick their recollection apart.  Good way to go after the key corroborating story without having to attack her directly.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by visionary

[visionary]

 

[Jumbo]

saw that point made earlier about kav saying he wasn't there and yet she didn't remember where it was---state of reporting still evolving/messy and needs more clarity

 

 

minor detail: hard for me to imagine any therapist i know would write down the name of another party mentioned by a client in a session 

 

you would make a reference--like "uncle" but not "bob bobson"---can even be unethical in some places and potential legal risks

 

 

two other things prev. mentioned but will take a long time to sink in society-wide:

 

1. we need to stop thinking timing is a thing...sure, when an actual fraud is taking place timing is indeed part of that thing...but when it is the real thing "timing" goes out the window...could be all kinds of events that flip a switch at any time in later life, and if ya don't know it's a scam for sure ya treat it real

 

2. we need to lose or at least temper the positive testimonials defense, not just the letter-signing stuff, but even more so the casual authoritative "oh i've known him for years and no way'"...but they only know the facia  that poses all fine and dandy....predators can even be respectable community leaders in many cases...you know...like clergy.......so glowing character affirmations are pretty much worthless in many real occurrences going by, as i like to call it, reality

 

another truth is genuinely "fine" people can still do some surprisingly un-fine things at some point in their life, and yes, sometimes it is only a one off deal

 

take a group of people close to you that you've known for a  time...i guarantee you among them dwell behaviors that you would not believe they'd do 

 

 

sleep well

 

 

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

Percectly stated @Jumbo

[Kilmer17]

7 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

What's the deal with Biden not wanting to answer that question? I'm not aware of him having any similar accusations against him.

He’s running for POTUS and he doesn’t want anyone on the left to remember or bring up Anita Hill 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

10 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

He’s running for POTUS and he doesn’t want anyone on the left to remember or bring up Anita Hill 

I wasn’t paying attention to politics back then (I was 11). What’s the issue? I know he oversaw the hearings and I know that some of the questions were considered out of line. Is it that or something else I’m not aware of?

Edited September 18, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[AsburySkinsFan]

7 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I wasn’t paying attention to politics back then (I was 11). What’s the issue? I know he oversaw the hearings and I know that some of the questions were considered out of line. Is it that or something else I’m not aware of?

It’s anachronism. They want to retro-actively convict Joe for doing exactly what they ALL did during the Clarence Thomas hearings. Thry want to apply the level of woke today upon him back then. It’s the same BS that they try when someone points out that someone once held anti-LGBTQ attitudes 30 years ago when EVERYONE pretty much felt the same way. Sure it wasn’t great, but we got better, unlike the Right which hasn’t changed a bit.

[AsburySkinsFan]

9 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

I said as much earlier.  But that’s not really relevant to questioning how 65 women could be gathered so quickly to say he’s a swell guy

Oh I agree, the fact that the positive character letter, from those women who all knew him at the time of the alleged incident, appeared seemingly instantaneously the moment the accusation showed up leads me to believe that they were prepared for the accusation. And now we have a new letter from people who all support the accuser saying that the alleged incident is in keeping with what they understood about Kavanaugh at that time. Ooppsidaisey....

 

In the end it’ll be a he-said-she-said with the Right trying to destroy her and digging up everything she’s ever done as a way to malign her character. Hell, one of my acquaintences already was talking about her low rating from her students, apparently a low student rating is a sign that she’s lying.

Oh and then there was the foreclosure case that didn’t happen the way the Right said it did. And that was just yesterday.

[tshile]

8 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

She (and presumably her husband) contend that she told the therapist two attackers, but that the therapist incorrectly wrote four.

 

It's a good opening for questioning.  GOP could/should drag in the husband and the therapist and pick their recollection apart.  Good way to go after the key corroborating story without having to attack her directly.

 

Reading that make me feel gross. 

8 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

Do you believe this is a calculated political ambush?

It certainly has all the hallmarks of one. 

 

It just depends on whether it’s true or not. 

 

Which she can’t prove. And he can’t refute. Such is the problem with accusations of something from multiple decades ago. Yet people just assume either way, usually depending on which team the accused plays for. 

[Kilmer17]

39 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

It’s anachronism. They want to retro-actively convict Joe for doing exactly what they ALL did during the Clarence Thomas hearings. Thry want to apply the level of woke today upon him back then. It’s the same BS that they try when someone points out that someone once held anti-LGBTQ attitudes 30 years ago when EVERYONE pretty much felt the same way. Sure it wasn’t great, but we got better, unlike the Right which hasn’t changed a bit.

The credible accusation against Biden is that he suppressed corroborating witnesses and potential additional accusers.  

[AsburySkinsFan]

4 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

The credible accusation against Biden is that he suppressed corroborating witnesses and potential additional accusers.  

That’s fine. He’s not running for POTUS, as much as I hate what they all did to Anita, it was pretty much the attitude of the entire country. There was no #MeToo movement, the country was very harsh toward sexual harassment accusers then. 

Thankfully, we’ve moved past that sad time.

[tshile]

8 hours ago, Jumbo said:

we need to stop thinking timing is a thing...sure, when an actual fraud is taking place timing is indeed part of that thing...but when it is the real thing "timing" goes out the window...could be all kinds of events that flip a switch at any time in later life, and if ya don't know it's a scam for sure ya treat it real

 

I agree with the rest of your post but I have trouble with this one (not sure what that really means other than I’m not really disagreeing with you outright)

 

How timing matters seems to depend on whether it’s true or not. When you are unsure of how true it is how do you know whether to discount it or not? 

 

if it turns out to be false then timing is everything - it’s what makes the dems haphazardly accept it and run with it, it’s what makes the GOP go on the defensive (and look bad even if they are right), it throws the entire confirmation process into a giant mess. 

 

If it winds up being true timing still matters for the same reasons, just different motive (you think/hope?)

 

in fact at this point of the two biggest parts right now one is timing. The timing has the hallmark of a political op against an opponent. That doesn’t mean it is one, it just means it looks like one. 

 

The other being that we have no one else jumping up to say he’s done this to them too. That’s not proof it didn’t happen, it’s just abnormal seeing what we’ve seen with the rest of the sexual assault stuff (I say that as someone with zero actual experience with sexual assault victims and operating based on what I’m seeing in the news)

Edited September 18, 2018 by tshile

[Fresh8686]

23 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I agree with the rest of your post but I have trouble with this one (not sure what that really means other than I’m not really disagreeing with you outright)

 

How timing matters seems to depend on whether it’s true or not. When you are unsure of how true it is how do you know whether to discount it or not? 

 

if it turns out to be false then timing is everything - it’s what makes the dems haphazardly accept it and run with it, it’s what makes the GOP go on the defensive (and look bad even if they are right), it throws the entire confirmation process into a giant mess. 

 

If it winds up being true timing still matters for the same reasons, just different motive (you think/hope?)

 

in fact at this point of the two biggest parts right now one is timing. The timing has the hallmark of a political op against an opponent. That doesn’t mean it is one, it just means it looks like one. 

 

The other being that we have no one else jumping up to say he’s done this to them too. That’s not proof it didn’t happen, it’s just abnormal seeing what we’ve seen with the rest of the sexual assault stuff (I say that as someone with zero actual experience with sexual assault victims and operating based on what I’m seeing in the news)

 

No disrespect or anything but if you haven’t had any experience, if you’ve been sheltered from those things or haven’t had to help someone recover from things like this over years and years than you’re not going to understand what jumbo is talking about. 

 

The trauma event itself can often cause fracture, repression, and other protective coping mechanisms that can often hold in place for years, only to be released after examination and introspection occur later via something like therapy or some other kind of emotional processing. 

 

Its important people understand that reality so it is a part of their mental calculus when evaluating these situations. 

 

Men especially need to take that time since those kinds of violations are often foreign to their personal experience. 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Fresh8686

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

The trauma event itself can often cause fracture, repression, and other protective coping mechanisms that can often hold in place for years, only to be released after examination and introspection occur later via something like therapy or some other kind of emotional processing. 

 

Or someone publicly interviewing for an incredibly important job, right?

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

That’s fine. He’s not running for POTUS, as much as I hate what they all did to Anita, it was pretty much the attitude of the entire country. There was no #MeToo movement, the country was very harsh toward sexual harassment accusers then. 

Thankfully, we’ve moved past that sad time.

you acting like the #MeToo movement is the attitude of the entire country today tho?

[Fresh8686]

15 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Or someone publicly interviewing for an incredibly important job, right?

Just so I'm understanding you right, you're not implying that Kavanaugh was traumatized and fractured by the attempted rape he allegedly perpetrated are you? And you're not trying to equate the physical and emotional violation of rape to the stress of a job interview are you?

 

It's more about the presence of a contextual trigger. If the person who raped you or attempted to rape you got away with it and then years later was plastered on TV across America for election to one of the most honored and authority filled positions in the country then that would be a major contextual trigger.

 

Part of the trauma of rape is how society shames the victims and sides with or often elevates the perpetrators. There are many women, my wife included, who have been raped in the past by men in positions of authority and entitlement. So when they see alleged rapists/sexual predators walking around in positions of power, like being the president, they are dealing with chronic reminders of their traumatic past.

 

Chronic reminders that society doesn't give a **** about them, that they don't matter, and no one is going to stop these people. No consequences, no resolution, only advancement and support for the entitled ones who commit these crimes. And in the case of Dr. Ford, the one who allegedly, personally committed those crimes against her.
 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Fresh8686

[Kilmer17]

I know this will all come out next week, but I'm curious today about a few things.  Can anyone offer insight or opinion

 

1- Ford claims she doesnt remember when or where the alleged assault took place.  That seems to take away BKs ability to offer proof he wasnt there.  (IE, on vacation etc).  Is that important?  And how in response can BK state he wasnt there unless he's really just claiming he didnt do it anywhere.

2- Ford claims there were 4 boys and 1 other girl at the party.  She only names BK and Judge.  Does she know who the other people were at all?  If no, why not?  And wouldnt it make sense that a small party like that ONE of the other 2 boys or 1 girl would remember them all being there?  I also think its shady as hell that her lawyer says its not her responsibility to corroborate her story.

3- What if they both think they are telling the truth?  Then what?

 

IMO, the end result of this is that the RedState dems now have the cover they needed to vote against him.  WHich is either just a perfect coincidence, or exactly what DiFi was doing.  He still gets confirmed though.