I think President Trump is alright. Nothing more, nothing less. When he says things like the Democrats exaggerated the death toll in Puerto Rico it makes me do a double take. That's just unlike any other president. And before you say that's the reason why we elected him let me say no, we did not elect him to criticize government agencies that provide statistics on dead people and then let him act like a victim because of that. I'm sorry, it just makes him look and sound weak. He let Putin off for hacking into our computers here in the United States, that's just inexcusable. If rogue hackers did it Putin would be putting them in prison, but you haven't heard anything about that have you?

I just can't get behind the guy 100%.

I will Maw. What is your position on him?

I mean he sucks for multiple reasons including openly lying to the senate in 2006, opposing allowing a minor immigrant an abortion, etc. but regarding the sexual assault allegation, I do think there is enough credibility to the claim to justify stalling the vote and holding an investigation.

A large portion of conservatives have expressed...interesting positions on it, but I'll hold my tongue on that until I hear your response.

I mean he sucks for multiple reasons including openly lying to the senate in 2006, opposing allowing a minor immigrant an abortion, — Maw

I am not familiar with that charge but if you have a link I would be interested in reading it.

regarding the sexual assault allegation, I do think there is enough credibility to the claim to justify stalling the vote and holding an investigation. — Maw

Looking at you quizickly... how many decades ago, were they both underage or consenting of age? Have you ever personally been involved with or a friend who was with a partner who is making allegations like these?

A large portion of conservatives have expressed...interesting positions on it, but I'll hold my tongue on that until I hear your response. — Maw

I am at a disadvantage as I don't have much more than my phone for news outside the ranch I am caring for so I am not sure what the conservative views are. I only know what experiences I have to draw on. That and the knowledge that a man or woman should be judged on a totality of their actions not on one alone.

I am not familiar with that charge but if you have a link I would be interested in reading it. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I've been fairly busy with work, so it's not a digression I really have bandwidth to get into, but it's easy to google and read up on for yourself

Looking at you quizickly... how many decades ago, were they both underage or consenting of age? Have you ever personally been involved with or a friend who was with a partner who is making allegations like these? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I don't see why how long ago it occurred matters. It's grotesque regardless of when it occurred, or whether they were of age, or underage. Her account is clear: he attempted to rape her. And to my knowledge I don't know anyone who was raped or almost raped, although I've no doubt that it has happened to someone I know.

That and the knowledge that a man or woman should be judged on a totality of their actions not on one alone. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Generally this is true, but someone who attempted to rape someone else should not sit on the highest court in America.

Some people do corrupt things. Lie, cheat, steal, murder. To the extent they experience guilt or remorse, they recover the lost portion of their humanity.

And some people are corrupt in themselves. They are corruption. As such, everything they say or do is corrupt. To be sure, a corrupt person can say or do a thing that comes out good, but that is an accident and in any case reflects nothing of the inner person. Such people attract other corrupt people, and they corrupt other people they live or work with.

The corrupt person enjoys a kind of immunity. He, or she, is already in hell; some know it, some don't. People who work with corrupt people long enough to recognize the corruption, if they continue to work with that person, have no immunity at all. To do evil, to be corrupt or aid corruption, which becomes the same thing, is a special kind of crime. The corrupt person betrays others; the other betrays others and themselves and become themselves corrupt.

Trump is such a corrupt person - what part of him is not rotten? And his staff is made up of people corrupted to varying degrees by him. To be sure, there were corrupt people in Washington before Trump, but he seems among the most corrupt.

Maybe he'll face justice. Whatever he faces and whatever penalty he pays will not be enough. His is a life of hurting and betraying people. But I think it's pretty clear he lacks any capacity to recognize his own evil, and consequently punishment is wasted on him (however restorative for the rest of us). But his cabinet and staff and secret confederates. Even Saunders and Conway, slight as they are in the weight of things. Oh, how I would like to see them redeemed by their own comprehension of how awful they are.

Generally this is true, but someone who attempted to rape someone else should not sit on the highest court in America. — Maw

I buy the idea that children do stupid things, and he at the least did something stupid. As one of the commentators observed, his will not be a judicial trial so much as a political trial. But where Kavanaugh stuck a nail into the thing is in his categorical denial of the event. That marks him as liar, plain and simple; a man of neither integrity nor character. Had he acknowledged the thing and made clear he repented in sackcloth and ashes, then maybe. But as a liar? The only benefit of such a man is that one may judge the company that keeps him!

Kavanaugh would have been a minor at the time, that is true, but calling him a "child" incorrectly assumes he was merely morally clueless, or inept, despite having been 17 years old at the time, and was a year away from attending one of the most most prestigious universities in the world (Yale).

There have been a lot of comments from conservative media essentially saying, well he didn't do it, but if he did do it, he was only 17! Imagine telling a teenage girl today that one of her peers could rape or attempt to rape her, and could still potentially sit on the highest court in America.

He was drunk and jumped a girl - that's according to the girl. It's not very nice, and these days it's a serious crime, though not so much then. But it's nothing to wreck a life over, and that seems to have been the judgment of the girl and the woman she grew to be. More power and credit to her. Now she's made a different decision, and again more power and credit to her.

My point is that Kavanaugh is revealed as the scum he is, not because as a boy he did something stupid, but because as a man he's a liar, and the lies matter.

According to the news, the jurisdiction where the alleged assault took place has no time limitation on filing that kind of complaint. If the republicans try to complete the rape, as they apparently are on course to do, she has the option of filing a criminal complaint. If I'm Kavanaugh, I think I prefer the FBI to the Maryland State Police.

Hey, I am a new member here. The sign up process was blissfully short, cheers.


The issue of Kavanaugh seems to be an attempt by the dems to get reps to trip up, come out strong in favor of a supposed rapist and to be able to play this card in elections now and in two years time.

Regardless of whether there is substance in those accusations, it is a minefield for the reps to express anything and it is also difficult not to say something. So considering the counterfactuals, this is some very neat political media-play by the dems.

The fact that the accusations play so neatly for team democratic makes me think the accusations are most likely unfounded.

I doubt this will actually stop Kavanaugh's confirmation, but if it does it's a sky-fall moment for the reps. That in itself makes this even more important to handle properly, and something that a typically impulsive move might ruin. It's an almost perfect play, and as such almost certainly the accusations aren't substantive.

I'm from northern europe. I watch American politics out of.. I don't know why I do it exactly. There is a kind of experience of Meaning in it, which I don't think is illusory.

Where northern Europe? (near Boston, Massachusetts, USA here.)

The fact that the accusations play so neatly for team democratic makes me think the accusations are most likely unfounded...
It's an almost perfect play, and as such almost certainly the accusations aren't substantive. — Existoic

So, in 2013 when Barack Obama was President and Blasey Ford described the rape attempt to her therapist, do you think she knew this would play neatly for the Dems five years later? And when she told Dianne Feinstein not to release the information because she thought she wouldn't be believed and knew she would be attacked by the right (which is happening now) she secretly wanted someone to release it and knew they would? ...Do you think she believes that all the death threats and verbal abuse she's getting now are worth it as long as it "plays so neatly" for the Dems? Also, does the fact that multiple woman accused Roy Moore of sexual assault played so neatly for the Dems mean all of them were liars too?

What you're espousing, given the facts of this case, is, in essence, a conspiracy angle that's insulting to victims of sexual assault and essentially gives immunity to any sexually abusing politician (or powerful figure) on either side when it "plays" well for the other (as it generally does given the nature of politics). In other words, your conspiracy position "plays neatly" for politicians who are sexual abusers. What conclusion, using your own "cui bono" logic, should we draw from that?

Finland. Helsinki area.

We've a Trump-esque controversy right now with a wacky populist foreign minister who attended anti-abortion rallies in Argentina, on an official business trip, and claims that he is allowed to do so as a matter of freedom of religion. In violation of the nation's international political stand. Elections next spring will see this particular asshole out of power permanently. The populist wave that brought him to power broke into pieces a while ago.



Thanks for the criticism. I wasn't particularly precise about what I meant. The famous political line "I misspoke" comes to mind. To be more precise I would say that it's an extremely transparent accusation. No original report or investigation, a supposed crime from 35 years ago when the accused and the accuser were 17 years of age? How is that meant to reflect anything at all with respect to judge Kavanaugh?

The extraordinary thing about it is the tie in to adolescent sexual behavior. Everyone knows kids do extremely stupid things at that age, but to come out and say that in the current media-environment would be akin to an outright endorsement of rape-culture among adolescents. That is the trap. I admit it sounds a bit conspiratorial, but politics in these meaningless tidbits of media soundbites often is that way.

The other cases of sexual misconduct you lay out are far more serious, and as far as I can tell (I'm not that well informed of the individual cases), they seem to concern politicians, not judges. Politicians who hold pieces of sovereign power often engage in dubious sexual behaviour as they have so much opportunity for it. Recall Kissinger's famous words on the subject? They do need to be watched carefully, and even under the lens they get away with shit like you wouldn't believe.

This is not a criminal trial, so "innocent until proven guilty" needn't apply. Would you want him approved if she's telling the truth? Would you want him approved if we can't know what the truth is, but we know he might have done it and lied about it? — Relativist

Per the news, it could be. In the jurisdiction it happened in there is no statute of limitations. But as yet, there's been no complaint either.

I agree with you. The substance of the charge is one of stupidity. Lying about it is - should be - fatal to both his ambitions and his current achievements. And again, per the news, he lied in response to questions during his qualifying for his judgeship.

He's already been busted lying to the Senate during his first confirmation hearing, which means he should be facing impeachment proceedings. He lied about not knowing about stolen emails from the Democratic party, and we now know from recently available documents that he knew about the stolen communications and actively used them.

It is a current GOP strategy to claim the event happened, but that Ford is confused on the identity of the person who attacked her. That's not likely to be true. That's a political move, not a rational assessment of the evidence.

Why would Ford make up a story that places a witness who is likely to be against her at the scene? To me, that one fact alone brings a lot of credibility to her complaint.

Why would Ford make up a story that places a witness who is likely to be against her at the scene? To me, that one fact alone brings a lot of credibility to her complaint. "

This is good evidence she's not lying, but couldn't she still be mistaken? Not that I think she's mistaken, but this is why I'd like to see some investigation done.

Which is what the FBI should be doing, not the Senate... :angry:

He was drunk and jumped a girl - that's according to the girl. It's not very nice, and these days it's a serious crime, though not so much then. — tim wood

A bunch of 17 years old guys tackling down a 14 year old girl and feeling her up against her will would have been either assault or aggravated assault even in the 80s.

I'm against Kavanaugh just because Trump submitted his name for SCOTUS. He could walk on water and I would still disapprove of his nomination. That he may have attempted rape while he was in a private prep school (another strike against him) is obviously not to his credit, but are we going to judge an at least somewhat inebriated teenagers the same way Harvey Weinstein is being judged?

What matters more than what he did in high school is what he has done since about 1982, 36 years ago (Kavanaugh was born in '65).

would have been either assault or aggravated assault even in the 80s. — Akanthinos

Might have been, maybe should have been, but wasn't. And, interesting, although not exculpatory, is that to date there seem to be no "me-too" posts. Really, for me, it's the categorical denial that matters. Women of my acquaintance have been telling me how it works to be assaulted; forgetting or being mistaken about who did it is not part of the common experience.

A Catholic highschool party attended by a total of 5 individuals.

Who could crack this sphere of complete opacity? Not the FBI, no no! :sweat:

Should we believe Ford? Should we give Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt? — Relativist

So far there doesn't appear any way of determining who is telling the truth. That may change, we'll see.

This is not a criminal trial, so "innocent until proven guilty" needn't apply. — Relativist

Agreed. The Senate is free to reject Kavanaugh for any reason.

Would you want him approved if she's telling the truth? — Relativist

No way. But then we just elected a President with far more such accusations, so perhaps molesting women is no longer a disqualifying factor.

Would you want him approved if we can't know what the truth is, but we know he might have done it and lied about it? — Relativist

It would be better if we had a candidate no one is accusing of rape. But that won't solve a whole lot as Trump will just select some other conservative to fill the empty seat. Sooner or later the Senate will have to confirm one of his choices.

I admit I do have some concern that the "me too" movement is designing it's own demise. I've repeatedly heard Ford described as "the victim" based on nothing other than her claim, which appears not to be backed up by any substantial evidence. That kind of sloppiness will undermine the movement if it continues, which would be a real shame.

In the good news department, Bill Cosby has a sentencing hearing tomorrow.

I think this whole thing has a very easy answer if we look at it with perspective. Kavanaugh was accused of sexually harassing Ford at an unknown time, at an unknown house, at an unknown party, 36 years ago. On top of that, she didn't report the crime 36 years ago. If she is able to ruin a man's career and life who otherwise seems like a great role model for everyone, then we are all in danger of having our lives ruined. I could accuse any one of you of having done something to me one time in a place somewhere around 40 years ago. If I have no evidence except for my emotions and you still end up in jail, then any of you has the possibility to end up in jail for rape, murder, theft, etc. After all I remember seeing you in my house 35 years ago trying to kill my pet. I didn't tell anyone at the time and I don't even remember the date, but it definitely did happen. If you don't believe me you are a sexist, racist, terrible human who just has something against innocent people. This is likely the most ridiculous political event I have seen in my whole life.

Per the news, it could be. In the jurisdiction it happened in there is no statute of limitations. But as yet, there's been no complaint either. — tim wood

At best, he's guilty of sexual assault, a misdemeanor. He supposedly got on top of her and put his hand on her mouth, a serious violation if true, but not attempted rape, attempted murder, or attempted kidnapping or whatever else you need to justify a lynching.

Prosecuting someone 35 years after a crime not only makes it a practical impossibilty (many witnesses are now unknown, evidence is lost, and memories have faded), but it seems a complete disregard for the rights of the accused. Do we all suddenly have such great trust in our criminal justice system that we raise no objections to politically fueled prosecutions of ancient charges?

But let us say we decide to charge him, how exactly does that work? If the juvenile court finds him guilty (as he was a child), how long does he stay housed in juvi?

she didn't report the crime 36 years ago — Questionall

Why does that surprise you? Sexual assault is one of the most underreported crimes. Are you unaware of that? Does the idea that a sexually abused fifteen-your-old was too scared or ashamed to go to the authorities seem strange to you?

who otherwise seems like a great role model for everyone — Questionall

Absolutely not. He's already been demonstrated to have likely been dishonest in his Senate testimony, and his positions as a judge are highly objectionable to many. In any case, the operative word in your sentence is "seemed".

then we are all in danger of having our lives ruined. — Questionall

There's a small chance anyone could be falsely accused of a serious crime from a long time ago. You can't conclude from that that any particular accusation or even a significant number of such accusations are false. Instead, you need to look at all the circumstances you can that surround the case and make a considered judgement. Even better, have a proper investigation.

If I have no evidence except for my emotions and you still end up in jail, then any of you has the possibility to end up in jail for rape, murder, theft, etc. — Questionall

No. Evidence is required for anyone to end up in jail.

This is likely the most ridiculous political event I have seen in my whole life. — Questionall

Your whole post is based on misunderstandings and obvious falsities, so it's unsurprising you come to a conclusion like this.

Your lack of empathy for the alleged victim is also notable. The fact is you can't know that she is lying or is even mistaken. But you give zero weight to that. It doesn't seem to matter to you that she could very well be a genuine victim of a sexual crime. A victim who is a now being threatened and harassed further. So your post says precisely nothing except "I don't care about the victims of sexual assault". If that's all you wanted to impart, you've successfully done so. If you wanted to add anything of substance to the conversation, on the other hand, you've failed utterly.

I admit I do have some concern that the "me too" movement is designing it's own demise. I've repeatedly heard Ford described as "the victim" based on nothing other than her claim, — Jake

Strictly speaking, she should be called the "alleged victim". But her claim, conspiracy theories aside, is credible, and people will choose their language based on that. Note that the other side insists on referring to Kavanaugh in positive terms despite the fact that there is a significant chance that he did this and is lying about it. It's nothing to be surprised about.

What matters more than what he did in high school is what he has done since about 1982, 36 years ago (Kavanaugh was born in '65). — Bitter Crank

If he had come out and admitted it and apologized in an appropriate manner, I might agree that it might not be disqualifying. But what he is doing now by, if it is true, is lying about it and putting his victim through further punishment, which absolutely is disqualifying.

Anyway, why is it so hard for people to admit the obvious: We don't know yet (and we may never know) but we have to weigh up the credibility of both sides and consider what they have to gain and lose. So far, what Blasey Ford has to gain (if she is lying) is nothing and what he has to lose is a lot. There's much more motivation for him to be lying than her.

At best, he's guilty of sexual assault, a misdemeanor. He supposedly got on top of her and put his hand on her mouth, a serious violation if true, but not attempted rape, attempted murder, or attempted kidnapping or whatever else you need to justify a lynching. — Hanover

And allegedly tried to rip her clothes off. I suppose that was because he was just helping her to get changed, right? Why are you trying to minimize her negative experience and maximize his by hysterically referring to it as a "lynching". I don't know if you've noticed but the President and a significant portion of the Republican party are aiming their nooses at her not him. Plus, the idea that some privileged elite who has an accusation leveled at him is being treated worse than a 15-year-old who thought she was being raped is severely wrongheaded.

Prosecuting someone 35 years after a crime not only makes it a practical impossibilty (many witnesses are now unknown, evidence is lost, and memories have faded), but it seems a complete disregard for the rights of the accused. — Hanover

Does the accused suddenly have the right not to be prosecuted much later? Nazi war criminals were prosecuted long after the war. The only people that objected to that were Nazis.

Do we all suddenly have such great trust in our criminal justice system that we raise no objections to politically fueled prosecutions of ancient charges? — Hanover

See above. There is no right to get away with crimes just because you weren't caught quickly enough except in cases where statutes of limitations apply.

Do we all suddenly have such great trust in our criminal justice system that we raise no objections to politically fueled prosecutions of ancient charges? — Hanover

It's odd that it takes a potential prosecution of an elite conservative to bring out your concerns about a justice system that is highly weighed against the poor and unprivileged.

I'm coming to the unfortunate conclusion that conservatives are just more OK with sexual assault than those on the other end of the political spectrum. Al Franken was quickly dumped by the Dems for much less serious allegations and rightly so. And I remember no sick jokes about his victims coming from progressives.

Ford claims that both Kavanaugh and Judge were stumbling drunk at the time. Judge has written a book, "Wasted", in which he claims to have been a drunk during his high school years. Kavanaugh was Judge's high school friend. Was Kavanaugh a black-out drunk in high school? If he was, he can't credibly deny the charges - he can't know that he didn't do it. If I were a senator on the Judiciary Committee, I would definitely ask Kavanaugh about his high school drinking.

So, the major possibilities appear to be:

1. She's lying (He didn't do it)
2. She's mistaken (He didn't do it)
3. She's not mistaken and telling the truth a) But he believes he didn't do it and isn't lying.
4. She's not mistaken and telling the truth b) He knows he did it and is lying.

1. Conspiracy theory angle. The fact is that she brought it up years ago with her therapist and she didn't want the information released. It was leaked against her wishes. For her to be lying you would need to concoct a fairly fantastical story involving a cadre of malicious actors.

2. Theoretically possible. But she says she's absolutely sure. The fact that she's a high functioning professional seems to mitigate against her being absolutely sure and still being delusional enough to be wrong about it. A psychological assessment might help with that. And one should be done in my view.

3. Mark Judge was allegedly there. So, if Kavanaugh did it and doesn't remember (blacked out), it's extremely unlikely his friend would have hid it from him.

4. There are no problems with this theory. It's very possible that a drunk young man would do this to a young woman (although I doubt it's as common as some Republicans seem to think). It's also highly likely that given the potential consequences of an admission, Kavanaugh would deny it.

Conclusion: Possibility 4, that he did it and he's lying, is the most likely scenario. Given that, further investigation should obviously be undertaken and he should not yet be confirmed until at least more is known in his favour.

To be more precise I would say that it's an extremely transparent accusation. No original report or investigation, a supposed crime from 35 years ago when the accused and the accuser were 17 years of age? How is that meant to reflect anything at all with respect to judge Kavanaugh?

The extraordinary thing about it is the tie in to adolescent sexual behavior. Everyone knows kids do extremely stupid things at that age, but to come out and say that in the current media-environment would be akin to an outright endorsement of rape-culture among adolescents. That is the trap. I admit it sounds a bit conspiratorial, but politics in these meaningless tidbits of media soundbites often is that way. — Existoic

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If he did, of course it says something about him. Not every adolescent is capable of jumping a girl, putting their hands over her mouth, and trying to rip their clothes off, drunk or not. It goes far beyond "stupid". At the same time, as I've already said, what absolutely disqualifies him, if it's true, is lying about it and being willing to lie under oath about it, which is a crime in itself.