If you know that person A did not do X. You are certain that he didn’t do X, then it is not plausible that he did X. It’s plausible that some generic person might have done X, but not person A.
Very bad. Very, very bad.
Interrupting her to yell at her some more probably also not a great idea.
She is vulnerable. He is going for it.
I can though. I went to parties where things like that easily could have gone on and maybe did go on, in high school. I would have had to have been far less naive and more alert than I was at that time, to be like you. Unlike you, I was a sheltered, introverted, socially awkward girl. I was very vulnerable and it was only by the grace of God that worse things didn’t happen to me. I had no protection, no street smarts, and no one to warn me. I can easily, easily imagine being her.
“I HAVE PEOPLE SKILLS!” l
I thought his opening statement was pretty compelling. I thought his reaction to Feinstein’s questions was unhinged.
Yes, but this is not a case where anything is “known”. If you assume a priori that Kavanaugh is innocent, then of course the accusations are implausible. But if you’re not making that assumption…well, then I’m not sure what your point is.
In defense of the GOP, the woman they hired to question him is reasonable. It sucks that they need to hire someone because they have no women on the committee, but she isn’t a hack and she’s asking tough questions.
Edit: Oof. “I don’t know” is a bad answer to how many beers is too many.
I feel like I’m watching a “Caine Mutiny” type movie in which the main character, put under pressure, self-disintegrates. This guy is nuts, totally unstable.
ETA: Watching him carefully, I’m wondering if he’s been medicated.
“We drank beer.”
“We drank beer.”
“We drank beer.”
“We drank beer.”
“We drank beer.”
Do you think maybe they drank beer?
Brietbart, Townhall and RedState are loving what he said. Fox seemed to have written him off after and are now walking back.
If it riles up the base, then his chances of confirmation increase,.
:eek:
Most unfortunate post ever, in the circumstances.
I agree with you, and have said so…he should be put aside. I’d have done it already (of course, I would never have picked him in the first place, but that’s beside the point). However, people in this thread are accusing the man of rape (hell, gang and systemic rape), of alcoholism and probably the lash too (that would hit all of the British RN’s sodomy, rum and the lash), and then presuming his guilt AND ascribing to him fairly low motives for what he’s saying (i.e. that he’s doing this for effect knowing his guilt, etc etc).
Let’s be honest here…if we don’t automatically assume he’s guilty then it’s kind of understandable why he’s a bit pissed off by all of this. It’s the assumption of guilt that allows a lot of 'dopers to ascribe the bullshit they have been ascribing to his own testimony…just as the presumption of innocence and motive is what has conservative/Republicans defending the guy and seeing Ford’s testimony in a different light than many in this thread.
ETA: That said, the crying thingy demonstrates, to me, that he is again not a viable candidate. You’ve got to have a MUCH thicker skin to be on the USSC, IMHO (or even in the rough and tumble US political system), and have to be much more in control of yourself and your emotions.
Fox News contributor calls Dr. Ford a skank and tells her to stop opening her legs.
Win. 
Kavanaugh’s explanation of the “Renate Alumni” thing struck me as entirely bullshit. It was almost certainly juvenile misogyny and slut-shaming, IMO. Which wouldn’t be disqualifying at all – lots of teenage boys engage in juvenile misogyny and slut shaming. But why on Earth would he lie about something so mundane unless he just doesn’t have any regard for the truth?
Is Mitchell just repeating the same questions she asked him the first time around?
I think it’s pre-planned. Method in his madness. She is one other person who did not come across well in Ford testimony and they are going after her.
OK, maybe they aren’t true, maybe they are, neither of us were there. What are we supposed to do about that?
If I were convinced that the allegations are not true, then I guess that removes the allegations as a reason to vote against him. But what if I don’t know if the allegations are true or false? What should I do then?
If I were a Senator voting to put someone in a position of sacred trust like the Supreme Court, my obligation is to the country. Unless I’m convinced–pretty sure–that the allegations are false, I’m not voting for them, even if I agreed with his ideology, which I don’t in this case.
Crying aside, I think his opening statement was too long-winded to be persuasive, and the things he used in his defense looked like straw grasping. Like going on and on about Leland Keyser. All she said was she had no recollection of that party, which is hardly surprising or revelatory.