Donald Trump
Comments
-
KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:Robert88 wrote:nickice wrote:The World has gone positively mad. That an allegation of a crime from thirty-six years ago with no exact date or location and no corroborating evidence can destroy a man's career and reputation is absolutely scandalous. People said Ford seemed credible but there is a reason why we require corroborating evidence. Everyone knows people who are very convinving liars and, on the flip side, people who aren't convincing even if they tell the truth. I have no idea if Ford or Kavanaugh is lying but Kavanaugh behaved exactly as I'd expect a falsely accused man to behave. Especially as very high-ranking politicians had basically already declared him guilty.
The Democrats should be careful what they wish for. For one day it will be their nominee who is the victim of a kangaroo court.
He could simply ask for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to check it our - it's what they do, hence the name. He refuses to submit to a proper process which if he is innocent should clear his name.
The essential issue is whether he is a proper character to fulfil the role of supreme court judge. His temperament and dishonesty about other matters say that he is not. He is in any case 'damaged goods'.
The FBI has already performed six background checks on him and he has no authority to ask them to conduct the investigaion. The reason the Democrats want an FBI investigation is simply a delaying tactic so they can keep delaying the nomination until they take back control of the senate. That's why they sat on it before it was mysteriously leaked to the press when it looked like he would be nominated.
All the FBI does is report the allegations withoug making any recommendations. It's too late to investigate this. There is no date or location and no corroborating evidence. It would be instantly dismissed by any court.
As for his temperament, he was angry because he believes he's been falsely accused. Wouldn't you be? He's already been found guilty by members of the public and several politicians The hearing is not a court of law but if the standard of proof is simply one where an allegation is enough and no corroborating evidence is required, there will never be another successful SC appointment.
Do you think lying to the senate should be disqualifying?
If it can be proved that he lied to the senate (I'm assuming you're talking about those emails) then perhaps. But that approach has already been tried and failed. This unsubstantiated allegation alone should not disqualify him. Like I said, Democrats should be careful what they wish for.
Why do you say it's been tried and failed? There's been no vote yet.
He lied about the emails, and surely you don't believe what he said about his drinking, and a load of stuff he didn't need to lie about on his yearbook.[/quote
Because it failed to convince the two or three key Republicans (in this case) to state that they wouldn't vote to nominate Kavanaugh. That's what this is all about;There are two or three swing voters whom the Democrats are trying to convince to vote against the nomination. This is because the Republicans hold the Senate.
As for the lying, I'm not sure how much I care about him lying about drinking and I don't think his saying he hadn't become unconscious is particularly incredible (and what would be the real definition of that) . Asking about his drinking in teenage years (particularly the questions asked) was quite ridiculous.0 -
nickice wrote:rjsterry wrote:It's not most job interviews. It is a lifetime appointment to the highest court. If appointed he will arguably have more influence than his nominator. It should be a difficult and searching interview. There may not be sufficient evidence for a conviction but I don't think it is unsubstantiated. The background circumstances that Ford described are consistent with other accounts of Kavanaugh's school days.
The Democrats are only doing what McConnell did to Obama's SC nominees and with far less justification. If they don't like it they could always find a better candidate.
You can't accuse him of bad behaviour in a job interview when, like you say, it's not a regular job interview. His conduct in all the other hearings has been acceptable. I don't blame him for being angry as he will now be forever tainted.
I must admit that I laughed when you said the allegation isn't unsubstantiated. It is absolutely unsubstantiated. This would be a perfect example of unsubstantiated allegations.
And other accounts do not corroborate this allegation (the 'gang rape' one is particularly ludicorus) of sexual assault.
His school friend wrote a book about how much they drank and what they got up to. Oddly the senators didn't call him to back up Kavanaugh's account. I wonder why.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
nickice wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:Robert88 wrote:nickice wrote:The World has gone positively mad. That an allegation of a crime from thirty-six years ago with no exact date or location and no corroborating evidence can destroy a man's career and reputation is absolutely scandalous. People said Ford seemed credible but there is a reason why we require corroborating evidence. Everyone knows people who are very convinving liars and, on the flip side, people who aren't convincing even if they tell the truth. I have no idea if Ford or Kavanaugh is lying but Kavanaugh behaved exactly as I'd expect a falsely accused man to behave. Especially as very high-ranking politicians had basically already declared him guilty.
The Democrats should be careful what they wish for. For one day it will be their nominee who is the victim of a kangaroo court.
He could simply ask for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to check it our - it's what they do, hence the name. He refuses to submit to a proper process which if he is innocent should clear his name.
The essential issue is whether he is a proper character to fulfil the role of supreme court judge. His temperament and dishonesty about other matters say that he is not. He is in any case 'damaged goods'.
The FBI has already performed six background checks on him and he has no authority to ask them to conduct the investigaion. The reason the Democrats want an FBI investigation is simply a delaying tactic so they can keep delaying the nomination until they take back control of the senate. That's why they sat on it before it was mysteriously leaked to the press when it looked like he would be nominated.
All the FBI does is report the allegations withoug making any recommendations. It's too late to investigate this. There is no date or location and no corroborating evidence. It would be instantly dismissed by any court.
As for his temperament, he was angry because he believes he's been falsely accused. Wouldn't you be? He's already been found guilty by members of the public and several politicians The hearing is not a court of law but if the standard of proof is simply one where an allegation is enough and no corroborating evidence is required, there will never be another successful SC appointment.
Do you think lying to the senate should be disqualifying?
If it can be proved that he lied to the senate (I'm assuming you're talking about those emails) then perhaps. But that approach has already been tried and failed. This unsubstantiated allegation alone should not disqualify him. Like I said, Democrats should be careful what they wish for.
Why do you say it's been tried and failed? There's been no vote yet.
He lied about the emails, and surely you don't believe what he said about his drinking, and a load of stuff he didn't need to lie about on his yearbook.
Because it failed to convince the two or three key Republicans (in this case) to state that they wouldn't vote to nominate Kavanaugh. That's what this is all about;There are two or three swing voters whom the Democrats are trying to convince to vote against the nomination. This is because the Republicans hold the Senate.
As for the lying, I'm not sure how much I care about him lying about drinking and I don't think his saying he hadn't become unconscious is particularly incredible (and what would be the real definition of that) . Asking about his drinking in teenage years (particularly the questions asked) was quite ridiculous.
Those two or three key Republicans didn't state which way they would vote, so there's no way of knowing.
Maybe they think that not lying is important in a supreme court judge. The drinking would not be disqualifying, the casual lying should be, surely?0 -
It's all games ...
Does anyone really expect him to be whiter than white? I'm pretty sure we've all got up to some dodgy stuff in our youth - one way or another - legal or not - perhaps we got caught at the time - perhaps we didn't and we've lived with our "guilty secret" ever since.
Did he as a lad - jump on a girl and start to undress her? Possibly - what would matter more is that a) he didn't carry it through and b) if it was true - then a simple PERSONAL apology should suffice ... I doubt (unless totally drunk) it would be something you'd forget about - unless you made a habit of doing it I guess ...0 -
Slowbike wrote:It's all games ...
Does anyone really expect him to be whiter than white? I'm pretty sure we've all got up to some dodgy stuff in our youth - one way or another - legal or not - perhaps we got caught at the time - perhaps we didn't and we've lived with our "guilty secret" ever since.
Did he as a lad - jump on a girl and start to undress her? Possibly - what would matter more is that a) he didn't carry it through and b) if it was true - then a simple PERSONAL apology should suffice ... I doubt (unless totally drunk) it would be something you'd forget about - unless you made a habit of doing it I guess ...
Starting to undress someone against their will and covering their mouth to stop them screaming is "not carrying it through"? It could have gone further of course but that is already well into criminal behaviour.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It really does depend on circumstances doesn't it? When, where, wasn't it a party? what's the "norm" at those parties - not the norm by today's standards - by the standards at the time. Age difference of the individuals - I believe they were (about) the same age when the alleged assault took place - which is regarded in a different way to assaults between different ages - particularly an adult with a minor.rjsterry wrote:Starting to undress someone against their will and covering their mouth to stop them screaming is "not carrying it through"? It could have gone further of course but that is already well into criminal behaviour.
(I never got invited to parties like that ... or perhaps I did and just didn't go ...
)
Anyway - I didn't say his alleged actions were acceptable - although you could write them down as a folly of youth - it's the actions after that matter more - and having denied it all it could backfire on him if there are a) (credible) witnesses that will testify against him, b) more credible allegations of a similar nature or c) proven to be a liar on other key questions. Had he admitted an occurance happened between them and apologized then it may have just blown over.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:Robert88 wrote:nickice wrote:The World has gone positively mad. That an allegation of a crime from thirty-six years ago with no exact date or location and no corroborating evidence can destroy a man's career and reputation is absolutely scandalous. People said Ford seemed credible but there is a reason why we require corroborating evidence. Everyone knows people who are very convinving liars and, on the flip side, people who aren't convincing even if they tell the truth. I have no idea if Ford or Kavanaugh is lying but Kavanaugh behaved exactly as I'd expect a falsely accused man to behave. Especially as very high-ranking politicians had basically already declared him guilty.
The Democrats should be careful what they wish for. For one day it will be their nominee who is the victim of a kangaroo court.
He could simply ask for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to check it our - it's what they do, hence the name. He refuses to submit to a proper process which if he is innocent should clear his name.
The essential issue is whether he is a proper character to fulfil the role of supreme court judge. His temperament and dishonesty about other matters say that he is not. He is in any case 'damaged goods'.
The FBI has already performed six background checks on him and he has no authority to ask them to conduct the investigaion. The reason the Democrats want an FBI investigation is simply a delaying tactic so they can keep delaying the nomination until they take back control of the senate. That's why they sat on it before it was mysteriously leaked to the press when it looked like he would be nominated.
All the FBI does is report the allegations withoug making any recommendations. It's too late to investigate this. There is no date or location and no corroborating evidence. It would be instantly dismissed by any court.
As for his temperament, he was angry because he believes he's been falsely accused. Wouldn't you be? He's already been found guilty by members of the public and several politicians The hearing is not a court of law but if the standard of proof is simply one where an allegation is enough and no corroborating evidence is required, there will never be another successful SC appointment.
Do you think lying to the senate should be disqualifying?
If it can be proved that he lied to the senate (I'm assuming you're talking about those emails) then perhaps. But that approach has already been tried and failed. This unsubstantiated allegation alone should not disqualify him. Like I said, Democrats should be careful what they wish for.
Why do you say it's been tried and failed? There's been no vote yet.
He lied about the emails, and surely you don't believe what he said about his drinking, and a load of stuff he didn't need to lie about on his yearbook.
Because it failed to convince the two or three key Republicans (in this case) to state that they wouldn't vote to nominate Kavanaugh. That's what this is all about;There are two or three swing voters whom the Democrats are trying to convince to vote against the nomination. This is because the Republicans hold the Senate.
As for the lying, I'm not sure how much I care about him lying about drinking and I don't think his saying he hadn't become unconscious is particularly incredible (and what would be the real definition of that) . Asking about his drinking in teenage years (particularly the questions asked) was quite ridiculous.
Those two or three key Republicans didn't state which way they would vote, so there's no way of knowing.
Maybe they think that not lying is important in a supreme court judge. The drinking would not be disqualifying, the casual lying should be, surely?
I think we can assume that Democrats and Republicans are aware of how each senator is going to vote. Obviously they hadn't done enough to convince certain Republican senators to vote against the nomination or, more likely, they hadn't done enough so that those Republican senators could publicly justify why they were voting against his nomination.0 -
And what specific instances of lying are you talking about?0
-
Slowbike wrote:
It really does depend on circumstances doesn't it? When, where, wasn't it a party? what's the "norm" at those parties - not the norm by today's standards - by the standards at the time. Age difference of the individuals - I believe they were (about) the same age when the alleged assault took place - which is regarded in a different way to assaults between different ages - particularly an adult with a minor.rjsterry wrote:Starting to undress someone against their will and covering their mouth to stop them screaming is "not carrying it through"? It could have gone further of course but that is already well into criminal behaviour.
(I never got invited to parties like that ... or perhaps I did and just didn't go ... )
Anyway - I didn't say his alleged actions were acceptable - although you could write them down as a folly of youth - it's the actions after that matter more - and having denied it all it could backfire on him if there are a) (credible) witnesses that will testify against him, b) more credible allegations of a similar nature or c) proven to be a liar on other key questions. Had he admitted an occurance happened between them and apologized then it may have just blown over.
I think there is a tendency to judge things by today's standards. Just look at the films that were popular at the time. I'm not saying it happened but if it did, they may have thought they were just joking while she took it seriously. Like you say, an apology at the time might have made a difference. My instinct, however, is to believe it didn't happen. Brett Kavanaugh has got a good reputation and in six background checks there was never any hint of scandal. He fully deserved the benefit of the doubt here.0 -
rjsterry wrote:nickice wrote:rjsterry wrote:It's not most job interviews. It is a lifetime appointment to the highest court. If appointed he will arguably have more influence than his nominator. It should be a difficult and searching interview. There may not be sufficient evidence for a conviction but I don't think it is unsubstantiated. The background circumstances that Ford described are consistent with other accounts of Kavanaugh's school days.
The Democrats are only doing what McConnell did to Obama's SC nominees and with far less justification. If they don't like it they could always find a better candidate.
You can't accuse him of bad behaviour in a job interview when, like you say, it's not a regular job interview. His conduct in all the other hearings has been acceptable. I don't blame him for being angry as he will now be forever tainted.
I must admit that I laughed when you said the allegation isn't unsubstantiated. It is absolutely unsubstantiated. This would be a perfect example of unsubstantiated allegations.
And other accounts do not corroborate this allegation (the 'gang rape' one is particularly ludicorus) of sexual assault.
His school friend wrote a book about how much they drank and what they got up to. Oddly the senators didn't call him to back up Kavanaugh's account. I wonder why.
A heavily fictionalised account written by a recovering alcoholic. They should have subpoenaed Mark Judge. However, they did interview him in private which the Democrats refused to participate.
I don't care if Brett Kavanaugh went to drunken parties in his youth, anyway.0 -
nickice wrote:And what specific instances of lying are you talking about?
He said in 2004 that he was not involved in the nomination of Bill Pryor. He said in 2006 that he never received documents drafted by members of the judiciary committee (which were stolen documents).
And this week, lied about "Renate Alumnius", he lied about never drinking until he couldn't remember part of what he'd done the night before (or refused to answer that, I can't really tell), lied about the devil's triangle, lied about boof. If he hadn't lied about being a total goody goody at school who never would do anything wrong, he wouldn't need to lie about those things because they really don't matter. Could just say he calmed down after school, and has lived a wholesome life since. Lying about them is much stupider than having written an immature yearbook entry then.0 -
I'm 'only' 50 but I've never considered that normal behaviour even when I'd been drinking heavily at a party.nickice wrote:
I think there is a tendency to judge things by today's standards.Slowbike wrote:
It really does depend on circumstances doesn't it?rjsterry wrote:Starting to undress someone against their will and covering their mouth to stop them screaming is "not carrying it through"? It could have gone further of course but that is already well into criminal behaviour.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:And what specific instances of lying are you talking about?
He said in 2004 that he was not involved in the nomination of Bill Pryor. He said in 2006 that he never received documents drafted by members of the judiciary committee (which were stolen documents).
And this week, lied about "Renate Alumnius", he lied about never drinking until he couldn't remember part of what he'd done the night before (or refused to answer that, I can't really tell), lied about the devil's triangle, lied about boof. If he hadn't lied about being a total goody goody at school who never would do anything wrong, he wouldn't need to lie about those things because they really don't matter. Could just say he calmed down after school, and has lived a wholesome life since. Lying about them is much stupider than having written an immature yearbook entry then.
I'll need to look at the email thing more thoroughly because, as I understand it, it's not been proven. I just don't think his nomination should hinge on this allegation.
For the drinking stuff, I'd have lied too. Clearly the implication was that if he couldn't remember the night before, he may have committed the assault. In a normal trial (of course this would never get to trial) it wouldn't be so important as there is a verdict at the end.
And, to be fair to the guy, he never said he was a goody goody. He admits he drank too much beer sometimes and that he said/did things in high school he now cringes about. We all know that if he admitted to sometimes being sleazy or whatever then this would be used as evidence of sexual assault.
It's all connected to a greater problem with politics now: you have to show yourself to be whiter than white even from your younger years.0 -
nickice wrote:rjsterry wrote:His school friend wrote a book about how much they drank and what they got up to. Oddly the senators didn't call him to back up Kavanaugh's account. I wonder why.
A heavily fictionalised account written by a recovering alcoholic. They should have subpoenaed Mark Judge. However, they did interview him in private which the Democrats refused to participate.
I don't care if Brett Kavanaugh went to drunken parties in his youth, anyway.
You're really desperate enough to take the route of smearing?
I can't believe you're sufficiently naïve to think Kavanaugh is telling the truth. I can believe though that you're sufficiently desperate for Trump's administration to be a success.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
Veronese68 wrote:
I'm 'only' 50 but I've never considered that normal behaviour even when I'd been drinking heavily at a party.nickice wrote:
I think there is a tendency to judge things by today's standards.Slowbike wrote:
It really does depend on circumstances doesn't it?rjsterry wrote:Starting to undress someone against their will and covering their mouth to stop them screaming is "not carrying it through"? It could have gone further of course but that is already well into criminal behaviour.
At some parties this sort of nonsense goes on or at least went on.0 -
Jeez. You can't even sexually assault someone now if you ever want to be part of the Supreme Court ?
What has the world come to...
Oh hang on. Sounds incredibly sensible to me - but I guess Trump has different standards to normal decent humans. God bless him.0 -
Indeed - I think there is a tendancy to look on any alleged incident in new light.nickice wrote:I think there is a tendency to judge things by today's standards. Just look at the films that were popular at the time. I'm not saying it happened but if it did, they may have thought they were just joking while she took it seriously. Like you say, an apology at the time might have made a difference. My instinct, however, is to believe it didn't happen. Brett Kavanaugh has got a good reputation and in six background checks there was never any hint of scandal. He fully deserved the benefit of the doubt here.
I've not looked at the reports of the allegation beyond the headlines - nor the denial - again, beyond the headlines.
I gather the alleged assault to place at a house party - which I assume he regularly partook in - teens, house party, drink - would it be surprising if someone took it to the next level? Not really. Would I give him the benefit of the doubt? Nah - but neither would I condemn him for his actions at the time.0 -
nickice wrote:It's all connected to a greater problem with politics now: you have to show yourself to be whiter than white even from your younger years.
You have seen who is in the White House, right?0 -
Ben6899 wrote:nickice wrote:rjsterry wrote:His school friend wrote a book about how much they drank and what they got up to. Oddly the senators didn't call him to back up Kavanaugh's account. I wonder why.
A heavily fictionalised account written by a recovering alcoholic. They should have subpoenaed Mark Judge. However, they did interview him in private which the Democrats refused to participate.
I don't care if Brett Kavanaugh went to drunken parties in his youth, anyway.
You're really desperate enough to take the route of smearing?
I can't believe you're sufficiently naïve to think Kavanaugh is telling the truth. I can believe though that you're sufficiently desperate for Trump's administration to be a success.
There is no smear. Kavanaugh even referred to Judge as being an alcoholic. It's not a secret . The point was that a recovering alcoholic might not have had the same experience as his friends.
And why is it naive to think Kavanaugh is telling the truth about this allegation? There is no corroborating evidence whatsoever and no time or location. Even Ford's friend says she doesn't recall the night in question. It's funny how allegations that would be instantly dismissed by a court (civil or criminal) suddenly become credible because people don't like the Republicans and Trump. If the Democrats want an unsubstantiated allegation to be enough to derail a nomination they are setting a dangerous precedent. That's going to be the new standard of proof.
As for Trump, I want Brexit to be a success even though I didn't want it. Do you get what I'm saying?0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:It's all connected to a greater problem with politics now: you have to show yourself to be whiter than white even from your younger years.
You have seen who is in the White House, right?
The one exception. For some reason, he gets away with it. Maybe people were fed up with hearing terms like 'white privilege' or patriarchy. I think he'll get in again.0 -
Call me old fashioned but if there's any doubt about him being a sex pest - give the job to someone else who isn't.
Simple.0 -
Slowbike wrote:
Indeed - I think there is a tendancy to look on any alleged incident in new light.nickice wrote:I think there is a tendency to judge things by today's standards. Just look at the films that were popular at the time. I'm not saying it happened but if it did, they may have thought they were just joking while she took it seriously. Like you say, an apology at the time might have made a difference. My instinct, however, is to believe it didn't happen. Brett Kavanaugh has got a good reputation and in six background checks there was never any hint of scandal. He fully deserved the benefit of the doubt here.
I've not looked at the reports of the allegation beyond the headlines - nor the denial - again, beyond the headlines.
I gather the alleged assault to place at a house party - which I assume he regularly partook in - teens, house party, drink - would it be surprising if someone took it to the next level? Not really. Would I give him the benefit of the doubt? Nah - but neither would I condemn him for his actions at the time.
We'll never be 100% sure what happened though I'd probably still believe Kavanaugh. Ultimately if someone can give me a coherent answer as to what the standard of proof should be when an allegation like this has been made, I'm ready to listen.0 -
Fenix wrote:Call me old fashioned but if there's any doubt about him being a sex pest - give the job to someone else who isn't.
Simple.
Not in the least bit simple, I'm afraid. What standard of proof would you apply? This has certainly not been shown beyond reasonable doubt (criminal) nor has it been shown on the balance of probabilities (civil). The precedent will be that any such accusation will lead to lack of nomination. Guess what will happen? There will be allegations against every nominee.
Also, nominating someone new will mean a whole new set of hearings which won't be over until the mid-terms and the Democrats potentially win back the Senate. The bench will never be filled if this precedent is set.0 -
Nick - why would Professor Ford put herself into the spotlight if it were not true ?0
-
nickice wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:It's all connected to a greater problem with politics now: you have to show yourself to be whiter than white even from your younger years.
You have seen who is in the White House, right?
The one exception. For some reason, he gets away with it. Maybe people were fed up with hearing terms like 'white privilege' or patriarchy. I think he'll get in again.
You think that Trump is an exception? And why is it so hard for people to be whiter than white even from their younger years? I managed not to be appalling when I was younger so why shouldn't I expect people in public power to be similarly decent? There's enough people out there with ability to do these jobs that don't have to make excuses for their past so why not give them these jobs? (Apart from the obvious fact that such people won't be friends with Trump).nickice wrote:Also, nominating someone new will mean a whole new set of hearings which won't be over until the mid-terms and the Democrats potentially win back the Senate. The bench will never be filled if this precedent is set.
What do you mean by "if"? The Republicans already set this precedent albeit with far less justification. Maybe this would not be happening if the Republicans hadn't behaved so disgracefully over Obamas nomination.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Fenix wrote:Nick - why would Professor Ford put herself into the spotlight if it were not true ?
Do you know her? No? Neither do I. The 'why would I lie' claim is not accepted in courts because sometimes people do lie (and that includes alleged victims of sexual assault). And she could, of course, be mistaken. I remember part of my evidence course at university included a part on how unreliable memory actually was.
But, we'll wait and see. She's already being called a hero on social media. The Guardian has been gushing in its approval of her. I wouldn't be surprised if some exclusive interview and book deals are coming her way. I'm not suggesting she did it because of this but when people say she has nothing to gain, it's not entirely true.0 -
I think, given what's been happening in the UK and USA with celebrities abusing their position donkys years ago - it's down to weight of evidence from seemingly credible sources.nickice wrote:Ultimately if someone can give me a coherent answer as to what the standard of proof should be when an allegation like this has been made, I'm ready to listen.
Isn't this one "she said, he said" ? so what are the options ?
1) It happened - she's telling the truth
1a) he's lying about remembering it
1b) he can't remember it for whatever reason
1c) it wasn't him
or
2) It didn't happen and she's lying about it.
or
3) It didn't happen as she says and they're both lying about it.0 -
Rolf F wrote:nickice wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:It's all connected to a greater problem with politics now: you have to show yourself to be whiter than white even from your younger years.
You have seen who is in the White House, right?
The one exception. For some reason, he gets away with it. Maybe people were fed up with hearing terms like 'white privilege' or patriarchy. I think he'll get in again.
You think that Trump is an exception? And why is it so hard for people to be whiter than white even from their younger years? I managed not to be appalling when I was younger so why shouldn't I expect people in public power to be similarly decent? There's enough people out there with ability to do these jobs that don't have to make excuses for their past so why not give them these jobs? (Apart from the obvious fact that such people won't be friends with Trump).nickice wrote:Also, nominating someone new will mean a whole new set of hearings which won't be over until the mid-terms and the Democrats potentially win back the Senate. The bench will never be filled if this precedent is set.
What do you mean by "if"? The Republicans already set this precedent albeit with far less justification. Maybe this would not be happening if the Republicans hadn't behaved so disgracefully over Obamas nomination.
Because people are immature and do stupid things. It's the reason why juvenile records are sealed in the USA. Everyone has skeletons in their closet. Maybe not of sexual assault but, if it wasn't that, it'd be something else.
I don't care about either party playing politics with a nomination (though I wish they wouldn't) but when it comes to destroying a man's career and reputation, they've gone too far.0 -
Slowbike wrote:
I think, given what's been happening in the UK and USA with celebrities abusing their position donkys years ago - it's down to weight of evidence from seemingly credible sources.nickice wrote:Ultimately if someone can give me a coherent answer as to what the standard of proof should be when an allegation like this has been made, I'm ready to listen.
Isn't this one "she said, he said" ? so what are the options ?
1) It happened - she's telling the truth
1a) he's lying about remembering it
1b) he can't remember it for whatever reason
1c) it wasn't him
or
2) It didn't happen and she's lying about it.
or
3) It didn't happen as she says and they're both lying about it.
There are often people are quite obviously guilty who are found not guilty (OJ Simpson, for example) but the standard of proof for the Kavanaugh accusation is so low as to basically be a kangaroo court. There is no evidence except her testimony (which wasn't always credible. Everyone is forgetting the blatant lies about flying, for example).0 -
money is normally a fairly big motivator ... I'm not suggesting it is in this case, but assuming everyone would be totally honest about something like this is naive ...Fenix wrote:Nick - why would Professor Ford put herself into the spotlight if it were not true ?
People cheat and lie all the time - you don't have to go beyond cycling to see some shining examples of dishonesty - for all sorts of different reasons.0
