“What about” is not an answer, except that, you know, it really is, namely: Party affiliation is indeed everything.
Sad.
Given the current state of its leadership, that’s a Duh. That “leadership” also mean that an investigation that risks producing results unfavorable to it must be biased by definition. But the majority of us still don’t fall into that trap.
If you really don’t have even a glimmer of a clue about that yet, you probably never will.
Indeed.
In my opinion, nothing.
You’ll have to ask the writers of the article why they chose to make that implication.
Agreed.
Also agreed.
Now that I’ve essentially agreed with most of your post, perhaps you’ll be able to discern that I was mocking the writers of the article, not Ford. It was they who chose to imply she was no longer virginal by making an issue of the fact that she still wore the “required” white dress on graduation day (some years later, btw) and “told no one” her secret.
This entire brouhaha is 100% politically driven. Under no other circumstance would one be forevermore labeled a criminal because of a single drunken act committed at an age when they aren’t considered judgmentally competent to join the military without parental permission, to sign contracts, or even to make certain decisions in regard to sex.
And of course the event itself is being exaggerated out of all proportion as well, with what allegedly happened to Ms. Ford being heatedly portrayed both virtually and literally as rape.
It’s political theater of the most absurd kind, perpetrated by those with a heated left-wing agenda. It should come as no surprise when those outside the exaggeratedly passionate left-wing bubble decline to climb aboard the crazy train.
That is, as already discussed in depth throughout this thread, a highly limited view of how he’d rule and act once actually on the Court, whose rulings are effectively final outside of social cataclysm. Does the system really work all that much differently where you are?
Moi? 
You might try presenting different views of your own, instead of simple sarcasm. You used to pretty consistently; that’s why I asked what’s happened.
I never said any such thing. I said your request that it be fair is laughable.
If that’s how they want to play it, I’m not going to try to dissuade them, we’ve got elections coming up!
If “death throes” means controlling every branch of government and majority governorships, what does that mean for the Democratic party? “No where to go but up” is not terribly impressive.
To add to that: If you voted for him, then this is something you can accept:
And maybe you’d better just shut up.
Riiiight. Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
In other words, the sky is still blue?
This is the part I don’t understand. Even if a girl was from a devoutly religious family and decided to stay a virgin until marriage, why would she hesitate to wear a white dress at her wedding because some guy groped her several years prior? It makes no sense.
Even if her allegations against Kavanaugh are true, why the embarrassment over wearing white?
Of course she wasn’t asking to be raped. But she was certainly knowledgeable enough to know how the boys her group associated with behaved toward the girls when alcohol was involved, and therefore should not have been so shocked and traumatized upon having personally encountered this predictable and apparently commonplace behavior on their part. I said as much myself in the post you quote from.
How you get from that to she “was asking to be raped” is anyone’s guess. Mine is that you weren’t reading for comprehension but just skimming for things to be outraged about.
What makes even less sense is that SA was referring to her high school graduation, not her wedding.
She wasn’t asking to be raped, but she shouldn’t have been shocked if it was attempted? I’d strongly suggest you stop digging, because that hole is just getting deeper.
If it would make you happy to do so, I would not stop you, but do you think it would change what you just said about you wanting your party to toe the line? Whataboutism is a descending spiral, one that does no one any good. If your only bar is to make sure that you are not as bad as you perceive the worst of your opponents to be, then you have set a very, very, very low bar for yourself.
And maybe that is the point, with that low of self expectations, it is hard to disappoint.
I think that bipartisan support of nominees and legislation is a good thing as well, which is why I would work with the other party to try to make sure that what I am proposing has their support, not propose something that is an anathema to everyone that is not in your party, and demanding that it be supported by the opponents.
For instance, Obama nominated someone that was specifically said by the senate republicans to be a good nominee that they could support, because he was looking for bipartisan support. Did that person who was considered to be a good candidate by republican senators received bipartisan support?
It is this exact mentality, that your political opposition is an enemy that is to be crushed, rather than a political opponent with whom compromise is an ideal, that is causing you problems in understanding.
I would expect and hope that each and every senator votes in the way that they feel represents their constituents the best. Even the constituents that didn’t vote for them.
Hoping that they vote the way that you want them to vote is just hoping that your tribe wins.
No, I just don’t think that you realize that by allowing others to be raped with impunity, that you are also allowing your wives, daughters, mothers, aunts and other female relatives to be raped with impunity. You somehow think that because your wives, daughters, mothers, aunts or other female relatives are your wives, daughter, mothers, aunts or other female relatives they won’t be.
I can cite this very thread, where several posters have said that if things had gone down exactly as she had said, then the would still support the confirmation. Does advocating legal attempted rape not mean anything to you? Are you really saying that they would change their minds if she hadn’t been able to escape, and he carried through with raping her?
You know what? I guarantee you that if you asked enough, that you would find out that your wives, daughters, mothers, aunts and other female relatives have endured far more secual harrasment, abuse, and assualt than you would expect, what with them being proper ladies to whom such things would not happen.
For instance if Ford were your wife, daughter, mother, aunt, or other female relative, would you feel differently about her accusations?
I should think that claims of trauma, whether portrayed in an immediate sense by agenda-driven writers working for the Washington Post, or merely realized by the alleged victim many years after the fact at a convenient time politically, may quite properly be called into question.
Apparently you failed to notice that I was quoting the article itself. To wit:
Emphasis mine.
With, ah, certain exceptions, shall we say?
You meant “job interview”, right?
See first comment.
In my opinion she shouldn’t have been shocked that at parties involving liquor, teenage boys, and no adult supervision, the boys would try to see what they could get. According to the article in the Washington Post such behavior was common knowledge among her peer group. I would think a more realistic reaction would have been anger, disgust, exasperation, and even fear. But shock? No.
When the claims occur six years prior to the nomination?
I think this is the first time I’ve seen you criticize Republicans for their behavior. Bravo.