General Lets talk about the Kavanaugh allegations and confirmation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 1
  • Start date Start date

Kav will be confirmed as Supreme Court Justice???

  • Yes, he's voted into the Supreme Court

  • No, the vote fails or his nomination is withdrawn

Results are only viewable after voting.
The timing is certainly suspicious, & I can't imagine a scenario where Dem's will concede Kavanaugh's innocence, or even concede that we won't know what happened. Strikes me as hail mary from a political party that assumes they have a god given right to power & still haven't gotten over the last election
 
Last edited:
Hauler said:
Lie detectors aren't infallable.
Click to expand...
I have already acknowledged they have their flaws.

But the issue that doesn't add up for the 'lying' narrative is, why would she mention this assault 6 years previously to her therapist and husband? Why would she attempt to remain anonymous and not purse the claims until the media outed her?

Does this information not corroborate her claims in some sense?

It's not like she knew 6 years down the line Kavanaugh would be nominated and she was just setting her trap.
 
Last edited:
Shinkicker said:
So she was attacked by more than one?

I can't help but wonder if this would have been brought up in her therapy session if he hadn't been "a highly respected member of society in Washington."

And do people normally see psychiatrists for marriage counseling?


I believe something happened to this woman. I'm not into victim blaming, but I do wonder about motives for bringing things up sometimes.
Click to expand...
I am saying this in the most respectful way... if you want to participate in a discussion, it might help to actually read the claims she made against him..

It was 2 boys, only Kavanaugh groped her and attempted to 'quiet' her while attempting to pull her clothes off.

I would assume she mentioned to her therapist it was a "a highly respected member of society in Washington." as a reason she didnt feel comfortable at the time to come public with her claims... Just an assumption.

Marriage counseling, sure, its common.

So what do you think her motives are? Do you think she is a 'ride or die' Democrat who will plunge her life into chaos and scrutiny just to prevent a political appointment she doesnt agree with? Martyr much?
 
willthiswork said:
But what it says to me is that someone should take a look at rulings that he's made in regards to women and women's rights to see if he was fair and in accordance with the law. If so, then vote away.
Click to expand...

That's not what this is about.

They are looking to discredit him and everything he's done for a mistake that may or may not have happened back when he was 17.

He isn't who they want in there, so they are looking for any way possible to keep him out.

It's purely political. It has nothing to do with his integrity. This is all smoke and mirrors.
 
Hauler said:
That's not what this is about.

They are looking to discredit him and everything he's done for a mistake that may or may not have happened back when he was 17.

He isn't who they want in there, so they are looking for any way possible to keep him out.

It's purely political. It has nothing to do with his integrity. This is all smoke and mirrors.
Click to expand...

The presupposition is that any allegation is disqualifying, & even if the accuser can't remember when & where the attack took place she should be believed uncritically. Purely political may be an understatement
 
Last edited:
Galt said:
I have swung the reach of the pendulum. I am a lot less likely to hurt anyone over words nowadays, a lot more likely to go 100%. If you'd like we can take this to PM, don't want to bother these fine folks.
Click to expand...
Go on, speak up @mcguwt
 
Hauler said:
That's not what this is about.

They are looking to discredit him and everything he's done for a mistake that may or may not have happened back when he was 17.

He isn't who they want in there, so they are looking for any way possible to keep him out.

It's purely political. It has nothing to do with his integrity. This is all smoke and mirrors.
Click to expand...
I haven't argued with any of that. Even agreed actually.

The timing was definitely because Feinstein wants to obstruct, justified or not.

My point that you quoted is that things like this should be pursued and investigated due to the nature of the appointment, regardless of party, to make sure that they've truly acted in ways that don't show signs of bias based on any weird impulses from the past.
 
willthiswork said:
I haven't argued with any of that. Even agreed actually.

The timing was definitely because Feinstein wants to obstruct, justified or not.

My point that you quoted is that things like this should be pursued and investigated due to the nature of the appointment, regardless of party, to make sure that they've truly acted in ways that don't show signs of bias based on any weird impulses from the past.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
But they should probably be doing that anyway.
 
MC Gusto said:
I am saying this in the most respectful way... if you want to participate in a discussion, it might help to actually read the claims she made against him..

It was 2 boys, only Kavanaugh groped her and attempted to 'quiet' her while attempting to pull her clothes off.

I would assume she mentioned to her therapist it was a "a highly respected member of society in Washington." as a reason she didnt feel comfortable at the time to come public with her claims... Just an assumption.

Marriage counseling, sure, its common.

So what do you think her motives are? Do you think she is a 'ride or die' Democrat who will plunge her life into chaos and scrutiny just to prevent a political appointment she doesnt agree with? Martyr much?
Click to expand...

I did read it. That is why I had questions. The notes from her therapist stated "students", (plural) and "highly respected members" (plural) Which I agree doesn't match the more specific story coming out now.

So was the other boy involved in attacking her or not? Or Did the therapist just get her notes wrong?

I thought psychiatrists certainly often refer people to marriage counseling. I wasn't aware they did the counseling themselves. Maybe they do. Or maybe someone mistakenly called the therapist a psychiatrist. I was genuinely curious. Lol

I think her motive should be the most important question right now.

What do you think her motive is if it isn't to prevent this appointment?
 
Last edited:
MC Gusto said:
I would assume she mentioned to her therapist it was a "a highly respected member of society in Washington." as a reason she didnt feel comfortable at the time to come public with her claims... Just an assumption.
Click to expand...

I'm asking this in a most respectful manner....are you high? Lol
 
MC Gusto said:
I agree his public service record should be taken into account.

I agree it could appear questionable it took 36 years for this to come to light.

But from what I have read in the media, the accused didnt seek out the spotlight and took steps to remain anonymous. Unless this lady is a total political nut job, I dont see what she has to gain from making these claims.

Lets also acknowledge, it is not out of the norm for someone to wait decades before disclosing sexual abuse or assaults.

And again, she passed a lie detector test and can corroborate her story via notes from counseling sessions provided by her therapist.
Click to expand...

the lie detector is meaningless, unless it's administered by Kavanaugh's legal team, in which case it's only slightly less meaningless. I can't over-state that enough. Lie Detectors do not work, by any empirical standard of measurement. They're basically the same as drug dogs.

The therapists notes are completely ambiguous, the only tie-in between that session and Kavanaugh is the accuser's husband. He claims to remember his wife naming Kavanaugh. He also claims to remember her expressing concern that Kavanaugh, who at the time was one of 39 US Circuit judges, might someday ascend to the SCOTUS. That seems pretty far-fetched to me, and in my mind lowers my confidence in the preceding statement. Also, why wouldn't the therapist write down the name of the attacker? It seems like names/dates/locations would be things a therapist would naturally write down when discussing a trauma so impactful that the patient was experiencing repercussions decades later.

She didn't "seek out the spotlight", but she did grab the first opportunity to jump in to it. A reporter from Buzzfeed shows up and asks questions, do you step outside and say "Got me! Guess there's no hiding now" or do you deny and disappear? assuming you want anonymity.

I think that the person who looks the worst in this is Feinstein. She's proving again how completely out of touch she is with the modern world, and how unimportant it is to act with integrity in the US Senate. Worst yet, the Democratic party is coming off as partisan hacks, and I think Kamala Harris (the future of the Dem power structure) is going to come out of this much worse for the wear.
 
Splinty said:
Abstain from the vote then and tell me what you think of it all.
The conversation is already occurring though.

It's just a forum opinion poll. It has all options. You (general, not you personal) think he did or didn't do it. You have an opinion on that. You then have an opinion on whether that should or should not impact the supreme court nomination.

This is the conversation occurring across America right now and will increasingly happen next week as she and he make their case publicly and both the Senate and the American public form an opinion on...did he do it or not? Should he be stopped from becoming Supreme Court Justice or not as a result?

The poll isn't loaded. It represents a way to tally forum opinion regarding the current and upcoming result of their public cases being made.
Click to expand...

I'd like an option for "There's no way to know. And the Clarence Thomas confirmation set the precedent that He Said/She Said isn't a SCOTUS disqualification"
 
I'm shocked

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, the woman accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh of high-school-era sexual assault, has so far ignored repeated inquiries from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley told Hugh Hewitt Tuesday.

Grassley announced Monday that the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on the woman’s accusations, which surfaced Sunday after Blasey Ford granted an interview to The Washington Post. The senator noted to Hewitt, however, that he had reached out to Ford and her attorney "three or four times" in the last 36 hours but has yet to receive any communication.

"It kinda raises the question: Do they want to come to the public hearing or not?" he inquired.
 
I wonder if Dr Ford realized that Brett's mom was the judge who once resided over the home foreclosure case against her parents?

It doesn't mean anything but I found it interesting.

The bank eventually dismissed the case.
 
Shinkicker said:
I wonder if Dr Ford realized that Brett's mom was the judge who once resided over the home foreclosure case against her parents?

It doesn't mean anything but I found it interesting.

The bank eventually dismissed the case.
Click to expand...


Thought that was a myth?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top