If you’ll review my posts, you’ll note that I never made a claim about which hurricane it happened in, or that Cooper was “kneeling”. So … what’s your point?
Sorry I should have been specific: The picture was 10 years old and taken at another hurricane. What delusional festering media bubble do you rely on for your arguments?
1280?
I responded to your post #1297 (“The first round of hearings demonstrated quite vividly that Spartacus I mean the Dems, prefer [cherry-picking and theatrics]”) in post #1300 (“Who knew that in a hearing such as this, the questioners might want to thoroughly check out parts of his record which might be reasons he shouldn’t be elevated to the Supreme Court? Man, knock me over with a feather!”), which you replied to in #1303 (“Is that why Feinstein kept it secret? So that they could thoroughly check it out?”) at which point you seemed to be simultaneously accusing the Dems of cherry-picking, and keeping stuff secret that they could have cherry-picked. Hence my posts 1309 and 1319.
Well, that or she could decline to testify before the committee.
Which hurricane it was taken in was not germane to my point. Do you understand this?
So you’re complaining, not that she broke a rule or did something unconstitutional, but that she did something unfair?
Again, who the fuck cares? Next time Feinstein runs for the Senate in Washington State, I won’t vote for her.
Now let’s get back to discussing whether Kavanaugh tried to rape someone or not.
Um, (cough…) the reason you brought it into this discussion, this week… was because it was a conspiracy theory about “bad coverage for trunp.” No other reason or excuse or alibi will work here.
You got to get used to this stuff if you rely on DTJR for your insights. And it’s going to get much harder in the future, (to be a republican) no visible letup at all. I understand, and empathize, but why tie yourself in knots about it?
Yes, “about.” Your first sentence captures that side of it very well.
Your second sentence should read more along the lines of, “Democrats are participating in the character assassination of a man when I know for a fact he’s innocent of the accusation of attempted rape.”
But your inability to see it that way is exactly my point.
Not “unfair” either, but something that betrays her top priority was something other than seeing that Christine Ford’s accusations were thoroughly investigated.
Fine. We don’t know. What more is there to discuss? It’s a 36-year-old (maybe, or it could have been 35, or 37, we’re not really sure) allegation where the accused and the only other alleged witness both deny it.
Absent a confession from Kavanaugh that he did it, or a confession from Ford that she lied, I don’t think we’re ever going to know the truth of the matter.
But by assuming each side knows the story that hurts their side is the true one, you can assemble a telling model of their respective behavior.
Or so it seems to me.
The whole point is that no Senator knows whether the accusation is true or not. Therefore, the side that wants to do an investigation commensurate with the severity and credibility of the accusation is correct and the other side is not.
Further, the people who think this isn’t credible enough to even *investigate *are, technically speaking, off their fucking rockers.
False.
So since we can’t know for a fact, we should just let the matter drop. No point in any further investigation or testimony? Is that about it?
Which Democrats? Congressional Democrats? I’m not seeing it, mostly they’re just calling for an investigation. I’m open to examples of character assassination from high ranking Democrats, though, I’ll change my mind.
Do you mean liberal/Democratic voters? Then sure, lots of randos out there are participating in character assassination of all stripes. If I can include them, then my first sentence would be very different.
Does anyone believe that was Feinsteins top priority? I’m a pathetic hippie and I don’t believe that.
Sorry, that doesn’t even make sense.
You can argue that she wrongly tried to keep these allegations out of the hearing altogether. That would be fair, but that’s not what you’re arguing.
But once you get into timing, the fact is that there’s practically unlimited time at the Senate’s disposal. The majority can choose to spend the entire rest of the year on this, and nobody’s gonna stop them. Investigate away, majority! Like some artificial deadline that the majority imposed on itself must be honored by the majority, and if something comes up that requires more time, McConnell and Grassley say “we’re helpless, we’ve tied our own hands!”
No, all your timing issues are bullshit issues.
But that’s ridiculous. I know that Orrin Hatch wasn’t at that party. I know that Diane Feinstein wasn’t at that party. Orrin Hatch isn’t supporting someone he knows for sure is a rapist. Feinstein isn’t deliberately assassinating Kavanaugh’s character by promoting a false accuser. I know both these things for a fact, because I know for a fact that neither knows what happened at that party for a fact.
If you can’t make a statement against her “politicking” that is stronger than a statement about Mcconnells “Ignoration” of merrick Garland then why bother making it?
You have been arguing against the norms of democracy for reams of pages here, in favor of doing anything that is not constitutionally prohibited, that republicans want to do.
You are choosing to be seen as a complete hypocrite here. I don’t think you would do that IRL. Just an observation.
This line of discussion in general is only tangentially relevant. The 2-10% figure is per the Justice Dept NCVS stats piece on the topic about allegations determined by the authorities to be false. A potentially much larger % are false but can’t be positively determined to be false. Although going the other way there are probably at least some ‘determined’ by the authorities to be false which are true. However the first caveat is huge. It makes this stat range pretty much irrelevant to ‘me too’ debates though some post or another will quote it every time. If you say ‘there’s a 90-98% chance…’ the only valid phrase to follow would be something like ‘that this accusation cannot be proved false’. That’s basically useless in questions of people’s reputations or whether they should be named to or continue in positions which are not a right. Unless you adopt an explicit ‘guilty unless otherwise proved’ standard for those cases. And it’s circular logic to use the 2-10% figure to argue for that standard.
Likewise the claim about victimization of the falsely accused deals with people later proved to be wrongly convicted of crimes. That’s apples and oranges with the issue of people’s reputations being soiled by accusations that are false, or can’t be proven.
There are no stats about the actual truth of sexual allegations. And there is IMO no valid way to study, even by the lax standards of social ‘science’, how much a false accusation harms a given person. Of course there is also no way to quantify the harm (to accusers) of true allegations which aren’t believed, or in any case aren’t pursued for lack of evidence. Common sense says both can be seriously harmful, without any attempt to pull some bogus comparative %'s out of the air.
Not responsive. You are free to say why you picked up this false, fake, and fraudulent, conspiracy of dtjrs, ginned up just this week, to make a point in this thread, in this decade. Choosing not to has a meaning too.