"48% of White Evangelicals Would Support Kavanaugh Even If He Assaulted Dr. Ford"

[metis]

Read the reply the post was made to. Revolt lacked information about Kav's judicial record. I pointed out the Dems had nothing to attack him based on those records.

Sorry, as I didn't read his post.

BTW, supposedly his last confirmation was delayed three months because he was considered too partisan according to a news account I heard this morning, but I haven't had the time to double-check that.

 

[dianaiad]

An opportunity has presented itself, and his opponents are going for it. I've no doubt that Republicans would do the same. This does not make wrongs right, of course. I find trial by media distasteful in the extreme.

The only problem is that the Republicans have HAD opportunities like this....and didn't take them.

You can assume that someone will be as nasty as you are all you like, but if history shows that the nastiness you are about to commit doesn't have corresponding events in the practices of your opponent, you really aren't being logical.

 

[dianaiad]

The above is a "fine" example of partisan politics at its worse, and it is simply hypocritical for you to use such a stereotype on others being prejudice when you've made it abundantly clear this is what you're doing yourself with the above.

Again, let me recommend that you wait until the results come in.

That's not prejudice. That's a judgement call based upon actual actions.

As in, I'm not supposing that they WILL do this.

I am making a logical conclusion as a result of what they have already done.

It's pretty darned obvious.

.............................I will remind all here that I am not a Republican. I am a Libertarian. I may lean right on some things, but I lean left on a great many others. If this had been a bunch of Rebublicans doing PRECISELY the same things to a Democratic presidential nominee, I would be saying precisely the same things.

 

[metis]

If one was truly bothered by "nastiness", why in the world would they support the likes of Trump?

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry, as I didn't read his post.

It's hard to participate in a discussion when you don't fully participate in the discussion.

 

[metis]

That's not prejudice. That's a judgement call based upon actual actions.

With conclusive evidence not yet in, it is still prejudice because it is a judgment, and no song & dance on your part will change that.​

 

[Revoltingest]

If one was truly bothered by "nastiness", why in the world would they support the likes of Trump?

Nastiness is only one consideration in evaluating a candidate.
There are many things to consider. A few....
- Propensity or restraint regarding war.
- Expanding or curbing constitutional liberties.
- The type of justices nominated to SCOTUS.
- Raising or lowering taxes.

One should never let a single issue push aside all the others.
Consider them all in evaluating which candidate would be the
best.....or the least worst.

 

[Niblo]

The only problem is that the Republicans have HAD opportunities like this....and didn't take them.

You can assume that someone will be as nasty as you are all you like, but if history shows that the nastiness you are about to commit doesn't have corresponding events in the practices of your opponent, you really aren't being logical.

I must defer to your greater knowledge of American politics.

 

[dianaiad]

With conclusive evidence not yet in, it is still prejudice because it is a judgment, and no song & dance on your part will change that.​

prejudice is what happens when an opinion is formed BEFORE evidence shows up.

I based my opinion on the actions of Feinstein, what the dems have done to Dr. Ford, the mob reaction to what has been produced so far, and the FACT that the FBI has done SIX background checks on Kavenaugh without unearthing this.

I am NOT, you will notice. making a judgment about the honesty/veracity of Dr. Ford. In point of fact, I lean towards believing that her memories are precisely what she claims for them.

The problem is, THERE IS NO CORROBORATION for her memories.

None. Not now, and there never has been.

That's not PREjudice.

But you are prejudiced, obviously, because you are obviously condemning Judge Kavenaugh in spite of the complete and utter lack of corroborating evidence.

I'll admit that the timing of the accusation raised a HUGE red flag for me. Big. Humongous.

Because if this accusation had any 'legs,' Feinstein would have produced it when she GOT the letter, not waited until now.

 

[dianaiad]

I must defer to your greater knowledge of American politics.

Well, I'm a little biased to the right. Not as much as most people in here think I am, but still.....

What I AM aware of is the difference between the way the far left reacts and the way the far right does, in terms of public demonstrations and sheer bloodymindedness.

I will point to one example.

Do you remember the two 'big' activist groups, "Occupy Wall Street" and the "Tea Party?" Never mind the spouted agendas or beliefs of either one. Let us simply look at the way they operated.

Occupy Wall Street invariably got a bunch of demonstrators together and did great damage. They urinated, defecated, vandalilzed and set police vehicles on fire. They destroyed stores and looted them. The signs they carried were often incredibly obscene and threatening, and heaven help a conservative who walked among them.

Occupy Wall Street did an 'occupation' of a couple of parks in the Los Angeles area, and when they finally left (after many arrests) it cost the city and county, quite literally, MILLIIONS of dollars to repair the damage. Some of it has yet to BE repaired, after many years.

There has not, to my knowledge, been a single "Occupy Wall Street" demonstration that did NOT result in thousands of dollars of damage, violence and injury. Not even one.

But the Tea Party folks?

Almost every demonstration from them left the venue in better shape than they found it. No vandalism. Little violence and that was the result of defending themselves against attacks by hecklers and OWS demonstrators.

When you look at the confirmation hearings of proposed Supreme Court justices, you will not see anything FROM the Republicans that comes close to what is being done to Kavenaugh.

There is a term...called "Borking," that refers to the wholesale attack and vilification of a proposed justice, characterized by insinuation, insult, character attacks and incredibly underhanded and nasty practices.

It was named after Judge Bork, who was proposed as a supreme court justice by President Reagan, and the vilification campaign was driven by Ted Kennedy.....you know, the guy who had an accident that killed Mary Jo Kopeckne, and instead of trying to rescue her, ran away and hid...not bothering to even tell anybody about it until the next day?

This is history. This is the way the two sides have worked, more or less.

I don't agree with everything Republican. I don't agree with everything Democrat. But in terms of sheer character and willingness to be fair?

I'll go, historically, with the Republicans.

 

[Woberts]

willingness to be fair?

Tell that to a LGBT person. I bet they'll have a few words about that.

 

[metis]

But you are prejudiced, obviously, because you are obviously condemning Judge Kavenaugh in spite of the complete and utter lack of corroborating evidence.

You are lying as I've repeatedly said here on this thread and some other threads that I have not concluded things one way or the other with Kavanaugh, Therefore, I have no wont of continuing this conversation with one who "bears false witness" as you have done. You should be ashamed of yourself for making such an allegation, even if you didn't know for sure where I stood, you could have at least have asked.

 

[Revoltingest]

You are lying as I've repeatedly said here on this thread and some other threads that I have not concluded things one way or the other with Kavanaugh, Therefore, I have no wont of continuing this conversation with one who "bears false witness" as you have done. You should be ashamed of yourself for making such an allegation, even if you didn't know for sure where I stood, you could have at least have asked.

I recommend learning to disagree without calling the other a liar.
Such petulant outbursts could sink you nomination for SCOTUS justice.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Dr. Ford has all my sympathy. I believe that something did happen to her...and if it didn't, that she remembers that something happened to her is enough to do the same damage.

However, I am very familiar with 'manufactured' and 'false' memories. Intimately familiar, since that has caused immense damage to my own family. There is NO evidence that Kavenaugh did whatever it is Ford claims he did. None. She can't remember the event, the time...nothing, and her memories were solidified through therapy, later. This therapy happened at a time when it was not realized that memories CAN be manufactured and can be false. It happened a lot.

It happened in my family. My cousin remained convinced that her father abused her for decades, even though her memories of that are absolutely false and we can prove that. At the time, her father wasn't even on the same continent as my cousin. She still "remembers" him doing this, even though she now knows how impossible it was that he had done so. Shoot, she remembers one occasion quite clearly: a party where she remembers her father coming up to her bedroom, catching her alone during a 'sleepover' and molesting her.

The problem was....there were five girls sleeping in her bedroom during that sleepover, her father was in Sydney and the sleepover was in a small Utah town, and every single person at that sleepover remembers it and does NOT support her memory.

That doesn't alter her memory. She still has it, and only the piled on facts of the truth tell her that her memory is flawed.

She has sued the therapist who did this to her, by the way, but that doesn't heal the incredible breach between her and her father/family.

Does nobody consider that this is what happened to Dr. Ford?

There is no, and I repeat, NO, evidence that Kavenaugh did what Ford claimed he did. Lots of evidence and testimony that he did NOT do so, in fact. Does that help Dr. Ford? No. Her memories are what they are, and just as damaging to her if they are false as if they were true.

However, how is it justice to punish Kavenaugh, if her memories are false?

............and it looks very much as if they are. The only advantage here is to political game players who don't give a good hoot about Dr. Ford. She is being used even more cruelly than is Kavenaugh.

I blame Feinstien and crew. They don't care one whit about Ford, or women, or justice. That's obvious.

Um, just to clarify something about the therapy ... it was in 2012, not some earlier time when human beings weren't aware that we're capable of creating false memories (which we've actually known for quite some time).

The only reason Ford says it was brought up in therapy, was because she was renovating her home and had wanted to put in 2 front doors, which her husband thought was strange.
She explained what had happened to her in 1982 to elaborate upon the reason why she wanted that extra front door. That's how it came up, according to her. No memories were "manufactured." I don't know why you are so sure her memories are false, other than your feelings about your personal experiences with your cousin. Did you ever wonder if maybe your cousin just got the dates wrong before you decided to believe she was lying?

Hopefully the FBI investigation will provide more facts and more testimony. It's a shame that only Ford and Kavanaugh were at the hearing to testify, when many others could have been called in. Mark Judge being one of them. I wonder who dropped the ball on that one? Maybe it was the people who were planning on confirming the guy no matter what.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I've brought this up before, ie, memories change & can be created.
It's a major problem that this memory isn't corroborated by any written
record or witnesses. In contrast, Kavanaugh offers his calendar, which
appears to indicate that he didn't even attend any such party.
Of course, none of this tells us which if any version of the even happened.
It appears unknowable.
Of course, that won't stop people from being certain of either's veracity.

I don't know whether Kavanaugh is the best candidate for the job.
If I had any authority to vote upon it, I'd have to do some research
on his prior decisions.

July 1st.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The only problem is that the Republicans have HAD opportunities like this....and didn't take them.

You can assume that someone will be as nasty as you are all you like, but if history shows that the nastiness you are about to commit doesn't have corresponding events in the practices of your opponent, you really aren't being logical.

Hmmmm. What happened to Merrick Garland?

 

[Revoltingest]

July 1st.

You're making a point, but I've missed it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You're making a point, but I've missed it.

On his calendar on July 1st, Kavanaugh wrote "Go to Timmy's for skis w/Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi"

That would place himself and Judge at a party/get-together on that date, and also includes PJ, who was one of the people Ford named as as being present at the party/get-together at which she claims the attack happened.

The special prosecutor at the hearing started a line of questioning down that path, but shortly after that, the Republicans started questioning Kavanaugh themselves (if you can call it that) and the prosecutor seemed to disappear after that.


(You had said, " Kavanaugh offers his calendar, which
appears to indicate that he didn't even attend any such party.")

 

[Revoltingest]

On his calendar on July 1st, Kavanaugh wrote "Go to Timmy's for skis w/Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi"

That would place himself and Judge at a party/get-together on that date, and also includes PJ, who was one of the people Ford named as as being present at the party/get-together at which she claims the attack happened.

The special prosecutor at the hearing started a line of questioning down that path, but shortly after that, the Republicans started questioning Kavanaugh themselves (if you can call it that) and the prosecutor seemed to disappear after that.

OK

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK

To clarify further, I was responding to the part of your post where you had said,

"Kavanaugh offers his calendar, which appears to indicate that he didn't even attend any such party."