Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Gavagai]

On the other hand, I suspect that Kavanaugh is genuinely uncertain that this assault has never happened. The reports of his heavy drinking seem to be correct and it is a very usual thing to totally forget events which have happened while you have been drunk. This is part of the reason why he is so emotionally unbalanced.

If he is an alcoholic to the point that he gets so delirious he could forget raping someone (a likely story) why the fuck are we even making appointing him about this rape case anyway? Clearly he just shouldn't even be in office anymore, let alone promoted, and his only place is a rehab facility!

1) Even Ford does not claim that he raped her. If we take her story to be accurate, he most likely did not even intend to rape her as she was able to get away relatively easily.
2) You do not need to be an "alcoholic" to forget what you have done while intoxicated. Quite the opposite, it can be a consequence of little experience with heavy drinking.
3) Even if he was an alcoholic 35 years ago, it says nothing about his current persona. He had a successful career in civil service and then he was a successful judge. It is hardly compatible with being an alcoholic.

[Japper007]

On the other hand, I suspect that Kavanaugh is genuinely uncertain that this assault has never happened. The reports of his heavy drinking seem to be correct and it is a very usual thing to totally forget events which have happened while you have been drunk. This is part of the reason why he is so emotionally unbalanced.

If he is an alcoholic to the point that he gets so delirious he could forget raping someone (a likely story) why the fuck are we even making appointing him about this rape case anyway? Clearly he just shouldn't even be in office anymore, let alone promoted, and his only place is a rehab facility!

1) Even Ford does not claim that he raped her. If we take her story to be accurate, he most likely did not even intend to rape her as she was able to get away relatively easily.
2) You do not need to be an "alcoholic" to forget what you have done while intoxicated. Quite the opposite, it can be a consequence of little experience with heavy drinking.
3) Even if he was an alcoholic 35 years ago, it says nothing about his current persona. He had a successful career in civil service and then he was a successful judge. It is hardly compatible with being an alcoholic.

1) that's fair, I've heard a lot of different accounts, but this is the sort of story that can get "Chinese-telephoned" to hell and back
2)Your words were: "heavy drinking" and "emotionally unbalanced", though that might have just been translation error on your part. How you said it made it seem like you implied more than a single or a few nights of heavy drinking, which is what I believe you meant to say then. If it is indeed limited to a few nights then I'm willing to let it slide (I'd be a hypocrite otherwise ) , though I'd say it still shows unprofessionalism and irresponsability.

[AdrienIer]

I think it is very possible that he lied. I also think that no one could be ever held accountable for failing to testify against himself.

I rather agree with you, but the US law says otherwise.

If you think that giving a prosecutor 1h at the hearing was not enough, blame the republicans. They have the majority, they set the terms

[Gavagai]

I think it is very possible that he lied. I also think that no one could be ever held accountable for failing to testify against himself.

I rather agree with you, but the US law says otherwise.

If you think that giving a prosecutor 1h at the hearing was not enough, blame the republicans. They have the majority, they set the terms

My opinion is that interrogation was unnecessary at all because whatever Kavanaugh did when he was 17 is totally irrelevant to the question of whether he is now qualified to become a Supreme Court justice. I blame Republicans for not ignoring her altogether.

[AdrienIer]

The question isn't just "does he know legal stuff". There are plenty of people, even plenty of super conservative people, who would be just as qualified. Why take the rapist then ? (or the attempted rapist if you prefer)

Would you think the same if he had murdered and tortured people when he was 17 ? Or is it just the loathsome culture that "rape isn't that big of a deal" that makes you say it's totally irrelevant ?

[Gavagai]

1) Torture and murder are different. Not because they are that much worse than rape but because personality traits which make people commit them are much less amenable to change. Boys mostly just do not understand how traumatic unwanted sexual advances are for girls because for them pretty much anything connected with sex is a fun adventure. When boys become adults, however, they are usually able to comprehend that different genders view sex differently. There is no evidence that Kavanaugh ever assaulted a woman during his adulthood, so it looks like he was able to internalize this difference at some point.

2) What Kavanaugh did, according to Ford, was not rape or even attempted rape. She was able to get away and pretty much the only explanation for this is that the attacker was never willing to push things to the logical conclusion.

[Nicolae Carpathia]

Pushing someone onto a bed and trying to pull her clothes off isn't legitimate rape. You heard it first here folks.

Gavagai you stupid motherfucker, Ford's testimony is that the other direct witness in the case (Mark Judge) intervened in the rape attempt. Mark Judge who is not testifying because he knows how unsavory he would be were he to act as a character witness on behalf of Kavanaugh.

[Bacchus]

I actually do wonder, if it turned out that Kavanaugh just straight up beat someone up at the same age, would it be considered similarly disqualifying? Or if it turned out he was a member of a satanic cult and sacrificed some chickens? If he was an avid gambler and lost some significant for his family amount of money? Or won it, for that matter. If he was a member of a radical leftist organsiation and pelted a minister with rotten eggs?

To me, a whole bunch of stupid, reckless, hurtful and even criminal activities during teen years show rather a richness of spirit, provided that the adult looking back acknowledges them as stupid, reckless, hurtful and wrong. Participation in these activities also gives quite a valuable breadth of experience and vantage point. I know a whole bunch of people who, during their younger years, fell into some of the categories above, and they are all excellent people. The biggest assholes I've met, conversely, have generally avoided doing much out of the ordinary.

Edit: to be clear, Kavanaugh's own testimony made me think very little of him, even if Ford's account is false. If it's true, the man is a gutless slimeball, and certainly not fit for any serious office.

[darrelljs]

I actually do wonder, if it turned out that Kavanaugh just straight up beat someone up at the same age, would it be considered similarly disqualifying?

No

Or if it turned out he was a member of a satanic cult and sacrificed some chickens?

Yes (for the chickens part, not the satan part)

If he was an avid gambler and lost some significant for his family amount of money?

No

Or won it, for that matter. If he was a member of a radical leftist organsiation and pelted a minister with rotten eggs?

No

To me, a whole bunch of stupid, reckless, hurtful and even criminal activities during teen years show rather a richness of spirit, provided that the adult looking back acknowledges them as stupid, reckless, hurtful and wrong.

Disagree if its attempted rape, agree if its stealing a Ticketmaster printer and going to free concerts for two years .

Darrell

P.S. To me this is still in the allegations category, and the evidence provided doesn't come close to overcoming presumption of innocence. If I had to bet my kids college fund on it, I'd say he's guilty, but then I would have said the same thing about the Duke lacrosse players.

[Zed-F]

I would say this is not a trial, it's a job interview, and making bald-faced lies to your employer should not be rewarded with employment.