Politics.
they are afraid they will lose the Senate majority in Nov. Not likely to happen but there is a chance .
He does parse, but he’s also been a judge and lawyer for a very long time. I don’t know him, so not sure if it’s out of habit or calculated. Honestly though, what will matter to him is how it comes off whether intentional or not.
I’ve yet to hear her (that’s not a negative, just reality). It’s pretty important to actually listen to her before I believe her. I feel for her, because so much seems to be riding on her ability to convince strangers via TV.
The rest, virginity, etc., is just the PR machine in effect. We haven’t seen them smear Ford yet (nothing specific, have we?), but I expect we will. At the hearing, or after. As a teacher she’s crossed paths with many people.
Gamble v. United States
I don’t see any way all of his statements could be true and Ford’s statement could be true–I think you’re trying too hard to play both sides.
They’re not “beliefs” in the sense you’re using the word, they’re logical deductions. I have applied intelligence, logic, and my experience of people’s behavior to come to a conclusion which I believe is the right one.
I spelled out my thought process for you, and you’re insisting instead on this “belief” garbage. Not sure why, but you do you.
Yeah, my bad. I’m terrible with names. If I met Kavenaugh in 1982 his name would probably be O’Connor by now. (Who am I kidding, I don’t remember the names of anybody back then).
Even if they lost in November, they have until January to vote in another nominee.
Part of the point in pushing for a vote is to force red-state Dems to take a tough (although, probably less tough than it looked to be two weeks ago) vote ahead of the midterms.
yes but after the election there could be more delays so they don’t want to risk that.
The vote would be tougher if the candidate was better. They should have dumped him already.
Now it’s going to be Republicans who are going to have to defend their votes. Now and in 2020. Won’t lie–I’m kinda enjoying that. “Senator X voted for an attempted rapist to sit on the Supreme Court…”
Yeah, this shit will blow back.
Perhaps XT should have said that maybe neither one is lying. There is his side of the story and her side of the story and “the truth”. I suspect neither one is telling “the truth” and although I want an investigation to be done, even that is not going to tell us what “the truth” is-- that is, a factual account of what actually happened. The best we can hope for is it can tell us which story is more likely to be closest to the the truth. But even that is a long, long shot.
He is all in. But IMHO, not the way you think.
McConnell is no dummy. Loathsome, but not stupid. He can see the writing on the wall. The longer this goes on, the more the public sees pig and not lipstick.
The fastest way to jettison Kavanaugh is to call for a vote. Vote fails; boom. Kavanaugh gone. On to the next nominee.
Who will be a woman.
It definitely feels like they’re betting against the country.
You don’t see how circumstantial this all is, I’m sure, but look at what you are saying. You believe her because her story is believable (duh!), many people say this happened all the time (which seems to have no bearing on the validity but informs WHY you believe this), her story is consistent, supposedly, with what sex abuse prosecutors say are true stories (first I’ve heard this one…I’ll look back up thread for a cite as I’m sure you’ve provided one already), she is 51 and gains nothing from this story, plus he’s a known drunk and liar (supposedly) who is an angry drunk, etc etc. Of these, the only one that points to any sort of evidence to inform your belief is the one about the sexual prosecutors dissecting her story and saying it’s consistent…and even that one is thin, but it is something. The rest say more about you and your belief than any sort of facts.
You claim Kavanaugh didn’t know Ford or didn’t know she was at the party, and thus it’s an either or…one has to be lying. But I actually went to parties when I was 17, and I couldn’t tell you who was at a specific party 37 years ago or whether I was even there or not if my life depended on it…and that’s even if I wasn’t drinking heavily. If you asked me if someone, even someone I knew later on was there or if I knew them I couldn’t tell you for sure. And I seriously doubt most people in this thread could do it either. Something that, to Ford might have been a scary and formative event could, plausibly to Kavanaugh not have left enough impression to even have a memory of it. To a 15 year old girl, out drinking and at a party with a bunch of drunk, potentially scary older kids might have left a HUGE impression on her. And her memories could be cloudy about what happened from the drink, the noise, the confusion, etc, and she could have expanded on those memories over time, blowing them out of proportion. Or she could have a razor sharp memory of exactly what happened, and Kavanaugh was simply too drunk to recall. Or one of them could be lying for myriad reasons. Or, both could be lying or exaggerating.
Like I said, I believe she is telling the truth. The thing I find most plausible about her telling the truth is that she asked that none of this circus happen. But I don’t think that means her story is correct, or that if she is telling the truth that means that Kavanaugh has to be lying (or vice versa). I get why you are rock solid in your belief, and appreciate you laying it out. But to me it just underscores all of the things you are assuming about this narrative that informs your belief.
Yeah, I’m sure Dean Heller is thinking maybe it won’t be so bad if there’s an investigation. What’s the rush?
But Kavanaugh has made statements under oath that means even a misunderstanding makes him a liar.
Maybe the misunderstanding was that he wasn’t trying to rape her, he was just trying to swat a bee out of her hair—except he’s said that he was never at the party.
Or maybe he got blackout drunk and doesn’t remember–but he said he’s never been blackout drunk.
I don’t see a way that even a “misunderstanding” doesn’t disqualify him. He’s closed every door except the “she’s a liar” one.
I thought I had, but as always my posts are often confused and confusing.
Or the “she’s mistaken him for someone else” one.
Pretty sure everyone’s abandoned that particular defense.
Yeah, maybe we should get the FBI or someone to dig into both women’s stories and find out what they can.
And while they’re at it, figure out where Kavanaugh got his money, and where his debt went.
At this point, it’s pretty hard not to believe. When one side wants to find the truth, and one side wants to keep it buried and rush to a vote, I’d be predisposed to believe the first side before I had any idea what it was about.
Back in the spring of 1973, it was pretty obvious that Nixon was guilty because he was acting guilty. I was 19, but I could look back at my own childhood and say, “this is how I acted when I had something to hide that could get me into trouble.” Same thing here.