Kavanaugh Drama Risks Driving Moderates, Women Away From GOP

[robertmidwest]

So?

The democrats USED her.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

None of which the Democrats care about, apparently.

If they were so concerned, they would have acted much sooner. You honestly think they care?

Yes, I think they care about honoring the wishes of the witness to remain anonymous, which they did, until she eventually changed her mind.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

So?

The democrats USED her.

She stated she was willing to endure this “use.” It was her choice.

 

[pnewton]

And what will you say when certain involved refuse to talk to the FBI, as is their right? What then.

If they come back and have no more information to share, what will your stance be on Kavanaugh - yay or nay?

Unknown. And what is the Catholic response (and the American response) when something is unknown? Both are given the most favorable interpretation. I have no problem, if there is insufficient evidence of perjury, with Kavanaugh being weighed on his moral integrity as he is now. Proof should not be need of innocence. Likewise, I would like to think that Dr. Ford is mistaken. The brain is a complex organ and memory is slippery at times, especially of decades.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Sure. If you believe that so be it. Again, evidence why our common faith around here is meaningless. In practice in the world we live in, half of us have nothing in common in reality. And faith without works is meaningless. How we live our faith in polar opposite ways renders the commonality meaningless.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Why unknown? Are you going to change how you feel about things if after a week of investigation you have no more information?

That’s dodging the question, and a primary reason why many believe the investigation is a waste of time and an stall tactic.

 

[HarryStotle]

It only “doesn’t make sense” if the centrist position is the correct perspective or at the very minimum, the “unbiased” view. That merely assumes the truth of the matter or the neutral position is the centrist position. That begs the question because it isn’t necessarily true, but merely assumes that it is.

The centrist position, when it comes to politics, in particular, may come with its own biases and problems.

Perhaps the entire spectrum including the two sides and the middle is a completely misconstrued perspective of the situation at hand.

Care to make the case for the centrist (aka compromising) position in politics being the true or unbiased one, necessarily, rather than just assuming it?

 

[pnewton]

Why unknown? Are you going to change how you feel about things if after a week of investigation you have no more information?

My stance, if an investigation had no more information, is neither yay or nay, the two options you gave, but that what specifically happened in the past is unknown, possibly unknowable. If there is no new information, then my position will be unchanged. In post 509 I admitted I cannot know watching testimony on TV who is telling the truth.

I have had a lot of experience it trying to weed out the truth by interviewing people. I put no faith in by ability to know anything by intuition, or looking for tells of lying. The only verbal evidence of lying I accept are improbable or impossible contradictions.

 

[pnewton]

It only “doesn’t make sense” if the centrist position is the correct perspective or at the very minimum, the “unbiased” view. That merely assumes the truth of the matter or the neutral position is the centrist position.

Truth is not a question of politics, but of facts. So when reporting on the hearings, a neutral position can simply be saying what happened, without the comments about who is telling the truth, speculation of motives, or assumptions not based on what is known. So while this has a political component, in that partisanship drives most to believe this person, or that person, it is not needed.

If by centrist bias you means sticky to just the facts, that is the kind of bias all journalists need.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

And, your credentials for taking a swipe at Kavanaugh’s integrity would be what, exactly?

I think it is not inappropriate, and in fact important as a citizen, to have an opinion of his testimony yesterday. I think that it is not inappropriate to express that opinion.

It is, however, a violation of forum rules to make personal attacks agains other posters.

But it isn’t against forum rules to savage the integrity of an individual in the public eye based upon uncorroborated allegations?

Anyone doing that kind of savaging isn’t exactly making a case for their own integrity, while hiding behind “forum rules.”

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

You have no idea what integrity looks like, apparently.

Why the personal shot? You don’t know me and tour basis for taking a swipe at my knowledge of integrity is vanishingly small.

This is not a “personal shot.” I am merely pointing out that you seem unable to recognize integrity when it stands in front of you.

I don’t need to know you to make that claim. I don’t even need to question your integrity by making it.

Perhaps you are just mistaken or having a once in a lifetime mental lapse.

Like you said, I don’t know you.

I do, however, recognize integrity when I see it. And Kavanaugh has integrity.

What? Are you now questioning my integrity merely because I disagree with you?

 

[pnewton]

But it isn’t against forum rules to savage the integrity of an individual in the public eye based upon uncorroborated allegations?

I found this:

1. Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and incendiary, divisive, crude or sexually-explicit language.

The extent to which this applies to those outside the board would be a judgement call. Do you think it would be contrary to forum rules to personally attack a child molester, or the illegal immigrant who murdered some one? I don’t see the problem in that. Should the motives of Dr. Ford be questioned?

Attacking someone on the board would be more black and white, one would think.

I do, however, recognize integrity when I see it. And Kavanaugh has integrity. Are you now questioning my integrity merely because I disagree with you?

Disagreeing with your assessment does not call into question your integrity. It might, if you personally knew him, like he was a family member, but even then, people have been mistaken about family.

 

[Sarcelle]

If I were in Kavanaugh’s shoes and being falsely accused of something I did not do and my name being dragged through the mud, I doubt I would have behaved any better. Who knows what he went through that we are not privy too.

It’s easy for us to sit in our high horse and shake our fingers and say “you blew your chance at being a model Catholic.”

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

But it isn’t against forum rules to savage the integrity of an individual in the public eye based upon uncorroborated allegations?

I found this:

1. Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and incendiary, divisive, crude or sexually-explicit language.

The extent to which this applies to those outside the board would be a judgement call. Do you think it would be contrary to forum rules to personally attack a child molester, or the illegal immigrant who murdered some one? I don’t see the problem in that. Should the motives of Dr. Ford be questioned?

Attacking someone on the board would be more black and white, one would think.

Like I said, I wasn’t attacking @dvdjs’s personal integrity, just questioning her opinion of what she thinks is a lack of integrity in Kavanaugh, in this instance.

Whether she reads that as a personal attack or an objective point about integrity as a human phenomenon is up to her. She in entitled to her opinion on Kavanaugh’s integrity just as I am entitled to my opinion of whether she is correct in that assessment or not.

That has nothing to do with her integrity, per se, although she can take it that way if she wishes.

What I said was, “You have no idea what integrity looks like, apparently.”

If @dvdjs claimed, “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and X is decidedly a duck.”

Then I retort, “You don’t seem to know what a duck is because X is a penguin,” is that questioning her integrity? Nope. Just her understanding of what makes a duck a duck.

The fact that I questioned her assessment of integrity in one person doesn’t necessarily mean I question her integrity, per se. It does mean I question her understanding of what integrity involves or means in this instance.

Call it an academic question into the meaning of integrity.

 

[dvdjs]

But it isn’t against forum rules to savage the integrity of an individual in the public eye based upon uncorroborated allegations?

That has not be done.
No savaging.
No criticism made on the basis of corroboration allegations.

sn’t exactly making a case for their own integrity, while hiding behind “forum rules.”

Hiding?
Out in the open:
There are guidelines here about the nature of conversation with fellow posters. That is just a fact. And the forum woudl be a better place is people woudl adhere to the guidelines.

 

[dvdjs]

This is not a “personal shot.” I am merely pointing out that you seem unable to recognize integrity when it stands in front of you.

It is fine to disagree. it is fine to explore the criteria and standards and the evidence that go into a finding of integrity. But a statement attacking me, rather than my criteria, standards, and evidence is simply not compatible with the guidelines.

 

[dvdjs]

Like I said, I wasn’t attacking @dvdjs’s personal integrity, just questioning her opinion of what she thinks is a lack of integrity in Kavanaugh, in this instance.

I think it interesting that you make an assumption about my gender - I have never revealed it here.
But you did not “question” my opinion. You made an unsubstantiated personal attack.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

The senate vote is not about whether or not you believe that occurred, but the whether or not you would appoint kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That’s the question I was asking. If no new information is brought to light through an investigation, would you vote to appoint Kavanagh or not?

 

[HarryStotle]

pnewton:

It think the bigger problem are the people who think they know what integrity looks like, and think they can, by virtue of watching someone talk, or reading their favorite blogs, know who is telling the truth about what.

You are right. But I was really turned off by the performance of Kavanaugh yesterday. He had an opportunity to speak to the nation in ways that could heal and unify and in ways that gave a shining example of Catholic ethos. Instead he played to partisan hardcore and conspiracy theorists for whom - whatever the goal - winning is the measure of measures. He did not show an integrated and kenotic sense of the greater good for all. That is what I think integrity is all about.

So you basically just admitted that @pnewton is “right,” but then YOU go on to do exactly what he claimed was the “bigger problem.”

To wit: think the bigger problem are the people who think they know what integrity looks like, and think they can, by virtue of watching someone talk, … know who is telling the truth about what.

Yet, YOU make the statement, “That is what I think integrity is all about.”

So YOU know what integrity “looks like” or "is all about" – i.e, showing an “integrated and kenotic sense of the greater good for all” – but you also admit that @pnewton is “right” that the “the bigger problem are the people who think they know what integrity looks like.”

Something is quite inconsistent and self-defeating here, no?

You and @pnewton ought to agree to disagree, instead of claim quite opposite things but at the same time pretend you both agree.

 

[HarryStotle]

I think it interesting that you make an assumption about my gender - I have never revealed it here.

If individuals have a presumed right to determine their own gender regardless of biology or social convention, then a fortiori, they should also have a right to decide for themselves how they wish to refer to others vis a vis their or her or his gender.

If progressive leftists wish to create a free-for-all then they ought to be prepared for the free-for-all.

Do you agree with the unencumbered right of individuals to decide their gender for themselves?

If not, then I apologize for misgendering you.

Although, in my defense, I recall you identifying as ‘female’ somewhere.

Am I wrong?