Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
davos

US Politics: Donnie and the Mystery of the Anonymous Op-Ed

Recommended Posts

Just now, polishgenius said:



I agree with everything else about your point, so I'm just picking this out because it's come up a lot from both sides in the US on not just this and a variety of issues... why the fuck do you lot set so much store by lie detector tests? I don't think any other country in the world takes them very seriously or considers them reliable evidence. But in the US they seem to get brought up regularly when rating the probability of this incident or trustworthiness of that figure and it utterly baffles me.

Agree with this.  Lie detector tests are utter junk science.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I mean, in fairness, I am hard pressed to remember any party at all that I every attended as a teenager (I guess there was the one before I could drive where we got caught on the beltway behind a massive accident before the days of cell phones and my dad freaked the eff out and called the sheriff, but that's all I remember - nothing about the party at all).  And, the parties I attended were pretty tame.  We didn't drink.  We didn't partake of any mind altering substances whatsoever.  But I still don't remember them.  (I was a giant nerd).  

So we're back to who is more credible ....  

Agreed. But he categorically issued a denial (if I heard right) without knowing the whens and wheres. 

So far she looks a lot more credible than he does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, polishgenius said:



I agree with everything else about your point, so I'm just picking this out because it's come up a lot from both sides in the US on not just this and a variety of issues... why the fuck do you lot set so much store by lie detector tests? I don't think any other country in the world takes them very seriously or considers them reliable evidence. But in the US they seem to get brought up regularly when rating the probability of this incident or trustworthiness of that figure and it utterly baffles me.

I don't put much stock in them, but it's one piece of evidence, vs the categorical denials from known perjurer Kavanaugh and "Bart O'Kavanaugh would never do that" testimonials from a messy drunk rape apologist.

And you can bet that if she'd failed a lie detector test, the Sweet Peas and the King Neds of this thread who claim to not pay much attention to this sort of thing would be all over that piece of data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I mean, in fairness, I am hard pressed to remember any party at all that I every attended as a teenager (I guess there was the one before I could drive where we got caught on the beltway behind a massive accident before the days of cell phones and my dad freaked the eff out and called the sheriff, but that's all I remember - nothing about the party at all).  And, the parties I attended were pretty tame.  We didn't drink.  We didn't partake of any mind altering substances whatsoever.  But I still don't remember them.  (I was a giant nerd).  

So we're back to who is more credible ....  

People do tend to remember with a lot of details terribly traumatic events even while they work hard at suppressing the memories for years and years.  I am speaking personally about this.

I also do remember a lot about a whole lot of parties, starting with the childhood birthday parties that were part of the culture where I grew up.  That I can do that makes it really hard to always successfully repress all the memories of more than one terribly traumatic experience that happened later.  Just sayin' and throwing it into the mix, which is why my entire bias is to believe Ford, not Kavanaugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, S John said:

I believe that the victim of a crime should have the space to come forward whenever they are comfortable doing so, but 38 years later at a key moment in the life of the accused that is also of monumental political importance?  How can that not beg the question - Is this about justice or is this about stalling this appointment long enough to see if the Dems can retake congress?  I don't see how it could not raise some suspicions.  Not that the R's don't deserve that after sabotaging Garland, but damn.

Why is that so hard to believe? I mean, imagine you were the one assaulted and you tried your very best to move on with your life and not makes waves (knowing the immense difficulties it would likely cause you if you made a formal complaint or went public). But then, many years later, the person who caused this psychological trauma that you just can't get rid of, no matter how hard you try, is about to get appointed to a leading position in your society, with immense influence on the future direction of same. Wouldn't you figure that maybe, just maybe, that might be the time to step forward with what happened, regardless of the likely unpleasant consequences to yourself?

Edited by Ser Reptitious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zorral said:

People do tend to remember with a lot of details terribly traumatic events even while they work hard at suppressing the memories for years and years.  I am speaking personally about this.

I also do remember a lot about a whole lot of parties, starting with the childhood birthday parties that were part of the culture where I grew up.  That I can do that makes it really hard to always successfully repress all the memories of more than one terribly traumatic experience that happened later.  Just sayin' and throwing it into the mix, which is why my entire bias is to believe Ford, not Kavanaugh.

She said she was wearing a bathing suit under her clothes. That's an odd thing to remember from so long ago, unless it really did happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Why is that so hard to believe? I mean, imagine you were the one assaulted and you tried your very best to move on with your life and not makes waves (knowing the immense difficulties it would likely cause you if you made a formal complaint or went public). But then, many years later, the person who caused this psychological trauma that you just can't get rid of, no matter how hard you try, is about to get appointed to a leading position in your society, with immense influence on the future direction of same. Wouldn't you figure that maybe, just maybe, that might be the time to step forward with what happened, regardless of the likely unpleasant consequences?

Not to mention that this horrible person who did this horrible thing to her will now forever be in her face every single day because he sits on the SCOTUS.  No matter how successfully she'd managed (and not that successfully either) to repress the memories, she no longer would be able to -- ever.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

She said she was wearing a bathing suit under her clothes. That's an odd thing to remember from so long ago, unless it really did happen.

Exactly.  That is the detail I always cite as to her credibility with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Actually, I think they were more concerned with his relationship with Judge Kozinski.  That wasn't played up as much as it should have been, and he just denied that he ever really saw the awful emails, and everyone moved on.  

My own view is that on some level, it isn't as much what he did or didn't do 35 years ago in high school.  Honestly, there is no way of knowing.  But I do agree that as a Supreme Court nominee, he should be like Caesar's wife.  Sadly, isn't always the standard (see, Thomas, Clarence).  And the better question now is whether he is being truthful.  And if she is more credible than he, then...well....

The thing working against Kavanaugh here, which I'm sure you well know, is that he has been caught multiple times fudging the truth, if not out right lying, during his confirmation process. That, combined with his general evasiveness, undercuts his credibility a great deal in my eyes. Ford may or may not being telling the truth, but we know Kavanaugh has a pattern of not doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

You're handwaving.  You're disregarding this woman knowing that proof won't be forthcoming and evidence will be in short supply. To you, absence of evidence is enough reason to put him on the highest court in the land.

No, it's the other way around. To me, accusations without evidence are not enough reason to deny someone from the highest court in land.

Quote

This is why women don't come forward. You know you'll be branded a slut and a liar. 

Is she a liar? I don't know. She could be telling the turth. But I'd rather stick to innocent until proven guilty, because the opposite leads down a dangerous path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I mean, in fairness, I am hard pressed to remember any party at all that I every attended as a teenager (I guess there was the one before I could drive where we got caught on the beltway behind a massive accident before the days of cell phones and my dad freaked the eff out and called the sheriff, but that's all I remember - nothing about the party at all).  And, the parties I attended were pretty tame.  We didn't drink.  We didn't partake of any mind altering substances whatsoever.  But I still don't remember them.  (I was a giant nerd).  

So we're back to who is more credible ....  

Wouldn't it be fair to assume you'd remember a traumatic event though? I know I would, even if I was stoned and loaded, and the parties I was going to probably make Kavanaugh's parties look tame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Wouldn't it be fair to assume you'd remember a traumatic event though? I know I would, even if I was stoned and loaded, and the parties I was going to probably make Kavanaugh's parties look tame.

Yes - I was more saying if his eventual response is that he doesn't remember anything, he probably doesn't.  

Look I'm biased towards believing her. Because I know that is my bias, I am approaching the whole situation with healthy skepticism.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Is she a liar? I don't know. She could be telling the turth. But I'd rather stick to innocent until proven guilty, because the opposite leads down a dangerous path.

That's something you stick to when attempting to put people in prison, it's not something you should stick to when trying to appoint someone to one of the most powerful positions in your country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

No, it's the other way around. To me, accusations without evidence are not enough reason to deny someone from the highest court in land.

Is she a liar? I don't know. She could be telling the turth. But I'd rather stick to innocent until proven guilty, because the opposite leads down a dangerous path.

I'll ask again. What evidence would you accept? As I said, probably none, because you're just bound and determined to give him a pass. 

Very, very few accusations of this kind are lies or made up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Yes - I was more saying if his eventual response is that he doesn't remember anything, he probably doesn't.  

But that doesn't mean he wasn't there and it didn't happen. 

It would only take one person to blow his denial right out of the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, polishgenius said:



I agree with everything else about your point, so I'm just picking this out because it's come up a lot from both sides in the US on not just this and a variety of issues... why the fuck do you lot set so much store by lie detector tests? I don't think any other country in the world takes them very seriously or considers them reliable evidence. But in the US they seem to get brought up regularly when rating the probability of this incident or trustworthiness of that figure and it utterly baffles me.

The United States adores lie detector tests for the same reason they adore using law enforcement dogs: they let you put more black people in prison. See. They are facts. Hard evidence. Easily manufactured. Who are you going to believe ? Video evidence or the testimony of a dog that freaks out every time it’s master becomes agitated? That dog freak out is clearly awesome evidence. The Supreme Court said so . Because it’s useful in sending black people to prison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

I’ve been saying this for a while. Even if Republicans don’t care that they’re being total hypocrites, you need to show the public that they are. Most people don’t have time to follow the ins and outs of daily politics, so you have to remind them, constantly, what the hell is going on.

This is also why they’re trying to rush the nominee through. If Democrats retake the Senate, Republicans would have less than a two month window to get their nominee appointed, and it would be a horrible look to do so after losing an election, not that that would stop them.

Every single Democrat should hammer McConnell (as well as every Republican who supported his stance on Garland) with the following: "Senator McConnell, when Justice Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court became available you insisted that the American people have a say on his successor by way of the upcoming election. Especially given the controversy surrounding the current nominee to replace Justice Kennedy, and with an election mere weeks away, shouldn't the American people once again get to have the same say"? 

This message should get hammered home over and over and over again. As you, @SpaceForce Tywin et al. say yourself, the Republicans (and their hardcore base) might not care about the hypocrisy, but the average voter might, and Democrats should make McConnell and the rest of those motherf*ckers squirm as much as possible. They have no credible response, and that needs to be hammered home to voters as much as possible!

It's high time that the Democrats take the gloves off, Republican-style!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, S John said:

I believe that the victim of a crime should have the space to come forward whenever they are comfortable doing so, but 38 years later at a key moment in the life of the accused that is also of monumental political importance?  How can that not beg the question - Is this about justice or is this about stalling this appointment long enough to see if the Dems can retake congress?  I don't see how it could not raise some suspicions.  Not that the R's don't deserve that after sabotaging Garland, but damn.

I have talked with and heard from a whole lot of survivors of sexual abuse who would never consider bringing it up again UNLESS them not doing so would cause massive harm to others. And they specifically brought up things like major political office. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

But that doesn't mean he wasn't there and it didn't happen. 

It would only take one person to blow his denial right out of the water.

I am not disagreeing with any of this.  But I do think it is fair to be measured in considering all of this.  Also, I have to say, if this is the straw that breaks your back on Kavanaugh you haven't been paying attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

No, it's the other way around. To me, accusations without evidence are not enough reason to deny someone from the highest court in land.

Do you work? If you don't, you might not get this.

Lets say that you have the option to hire someone. There are a LOT of viable, good candidates, far more than you could ever fill positions in, and you have your pick of the litter. One of the candidates has gone through your vetting process with some questions. Now this accusation comes up.

Why would you bother hiring them when you could hire someone else? Why would you want the drama? You're not ruining their career, you're simply choosing another way. Same thing applies here. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×