Can Democrats actually stop the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh?

[Sage_Rat]

A point that I think needs to be made is to ask why Kavanaugh needed to make it clear that he never had sex in college, despite no one (at that point in time) having made any accusation where that would serve as any form of defense?

[drad_dog]

@HurricaneDitka

“ISTM” isn’t much of a factual basis for asserting something.

But that is the whole basis for the kavanaugh proponents arguments to ignore compelling testimony, and other claims, in order to seat him as quickly as possible: ISTM.

[drad_dog]

@Sage_Rat

A point that I think needs to be made is to ask why Kavanaugh needed to make it clear that he never had sex in college, despite no one (at that point in time) having made any accusation where that would serve as any form of defense?

Prophylactic testimony?

[you_with_the_face]

@Sage_Rat

A point that I think needs to be made is to ask why Kavanaugh needed to make it clear that he never had sex in college, despite no one (at that point in time) having made any accusation where that would serve as any form of defense?

Same reason he kept harping on being an athlete and getting good grades when asked about his drinking.

He either thinks there is association between these things or he believes the public does. Or both.

[Sage_Rat]

@you_with_the_face

Same reason he kept harping on being an athlete and getting good grades when asked about his drinking.

He either thinks there is association between these things or he believes the public does. Or both.

Or because he knew what accusation was coming next, and he knew because he knows what he did.

[Folly]

@Sage_Rat

A point that I think needs to be made is to ask why Kavanaugh needed to make it clear that he never had sex in college, despite no one (at that point in time) having made any accusation where that would serve as any form of defense?

Future generations will refer to the Principal Skinnerdefense…

[CoolHandCox]

@KidCharlemagne

I think you could be mistaken here. It’s open to “current, credible accusations.” This article seems to imply the other two are open for investigation -

Under pressure, Trump orders FBI to investigate Kavanaugh amid sex misconduct allegations

Thanks. I knew about the “current credible allegations”, but I saw differently earlier.

The article isn’t really clear either. If the FBI decides which of the “current” allegations are credible, then that’s fine. If it’s the Republicans or White House decide which allegation is credible, that’s less heartening.

We’ll see.

[Sunny_Daze]

@wolfpup

I don’t know how embittered Thomas is, but if Kavanaugh gets confirmed there will definitely be five right-wing ideologues, one of whom will have all the calm impartial demeanor that we saw on display at yesterday’s hearing. Honestly, Kavanaugh seemed unstable and scary as all hell. I would have thought yesterday’s performance alone would have disqualified him. Surely I’m not the only one who caught solid vibes of crazy emanating from the man like waves from a radio tower.

I looked at his face and my thought was he’d been drinking. Red cheeks and nose, belligerent, sweaty, wild eyed. He looked like he had had a few for courage and gone too far.

[Sicks_Ate]

@Sunny_Daze

I looked at his face and my thought was he’d been drinking. Red cheeks and nose, belligerent, sweaty, wild eyed. He looked like he had had a few for courage and gone too far.

Yuuup. Diction a little iffy at times, weird modulation. I’m with you.

[squidfood]

@wolfpup

Seems like an odd mistake to make, but it was a relatively casual incident in the large scheme of things. I’m no expert, but ISTM that if one experiences something extremely traumatic at the close-range hands of a specific individual, the identity of that individual would be the last thing you would ever forget.

I don’t for one minute claim that the incident itself was traumatic, although it was “in your face” yelling. I only remember it now because of the article and follow-up trouble and embarrassment with the principal. And yes - quite an odd mistake. HOWEVER, it was very fresh in my mind when I made the initial mistake, I was pretty darn angry at being yelled at (again, nothing to compare with real trauma, but I was definitely strongly emotional) and I tried hard to reconstruct it correctly when I was writing, and the mistake pretty much re-wrote in my mind how I pictured it, even when it was immediate.

[not_what_you_d_expect]

That might explain the dry mouth too.

In reply to Sunny Daze.

[John_Mace]

@squidfood

I don’t for one minute claim that the incident itself was traumatic, although it was “in your face” yelling. I only remember it now because of the article and follow-up trouble and embarrassment with the principal. And yes - quite an odd mistake. HOWEVER, it was very fresh in my mind when I made the initial mistake, I was pretty darn angry at being yelled at (again, nothing to compare with real trauma, but I was definitely strongly emotional) and I tried hard to reconstruct it correctly when I was writing, and the mistake pretty much re-wrote in my mind how I pictured it, even when it was immediate.

“Squi”? Is that you???

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@AK84

Oh boy. Lots.
The Donald Thompson case.
More examples.

Human memory on its own is worth jack shit.

Truthful does not mean accurate.

Wow. I went back after reading your links to make sure I’d asked for cases that were similar, not just random cases of misidentification. Turns out I used the word “similar” twice in my one-line post.

Do you really think that, for example, a woman who thinks the face of a dude she saw on television once is the face of the dude who raped her is at all similar to the hypothetical case of a teenager who claims she’s raped by a guy she knew by common social association, along with his friend whom she also knew by common social association?

If so, I suppose I’ll have to delineate what “similar” means in the future.

[HurricaneDitka]

@drad_dog

But that is the whole basis for the kavanaugh proponents arguments to ignore compelling testimony, and other claims, in order to seat him as quickly as possible: ISTM.

I think it’s safe to say that you and I differ on what we consider “compelling”

[Beckdawrek]

@Sicks_Ate

Yuuup. Diction a little iffy at times, weird modulation. I’m with you.

I thought the same thing. I posted somewhere upthread he was pursing his lips and his tongue was weird. Drinking a lot of water. I have seen lots of alcoholics needing a drink do the same. A darty eyed craze comes on the face like a tattoo on the forehead saying ‘I am tipsy’ or withdrawing a bit. That person cannot be trusted. IMO.

[squidfood]

@John_Mace

“Squi”? Is that you???

I have no idea what this means so probably not?

[wolfpup]

@HurricaneDitka

I think it’s safe to say that you and I differ on what we consider “compelling”

I think it’s safe to say that not only Democrats but virtually all Republicans, including Trump, differ with you on the question of whether Ford’s testimony was compelling.

[drad_dog]

@HurricaneDitka

I think it’s safe to say that you and I differ on what we consider “compelling”

Most Republican members of the committee, and Donald Trump disagree with you and agree with me. What do you do about that?

ETA: Ninjad by some other canine.

[HurricaneDitka]

@drad_dog

… What do you do about that? …

Absolutely nothing. They, and you, are free to have your own opinions on the matter, as am I.

[Fear_Itself]

@CoolHandCox

To be clear, the FBI is only going to investigate the Ford assault. Not drinking (if not related), nor anything else Kavanaugh may have lied about in his yearbook, etc. I don’t think it will investigate the other accusers.

That was not my impression. Do you have a cite for that?