Kavanaugh Drama Risks Driving Moderates, Women Away From GOP

[meltzerboy2]

It may be that Ford was deceptive in her testimony, as some body-language experts claim. Most of the psychological community, however, put more stock into what they know about memory than body language. According to extensive memory research, most people are mistakenly convinced they can recall personal events in great detail, whereas the fact of the matter is their recall is often inaccurate in this respect over time. Based on this evidence, I would say it is more likely (although not certain) that, rather than intentional deception, Ford is simply mistaken regarding Kavanaugh’s sexual misconduct. Of course it may also be the case that she is politically driven and lying about his behavior. The ironic part of all this, to me, is that she is herself a psychologist, and therefore should be aware of the pitfalls involved in memory recall. If I were on the Senate committee, I would certainly ask her about her knowledge of the memory process as it relates to detailed information. In other words, what I am suggesting is that there need not be a villain–neither Ford nor Kavanaugh–in this unfortunate, partisan-driven situation.

 

[pnewton]

Unearned respect is an empty formality, and compelled respect doesn’t rise to the level of actually being respect,

I am glad that I live in an area that does not think like this. It is nice that neighbors treat each other with common Texas courtesy, regardless of race, age or gender. Once you get used to this, you appreciate the value of that which “every child knows.”

Maybe. And maybe it could just be virtue signaling, or a facade.

That is a phrase I think nothing of. I have never heard of “virtue signaling” except where some virtue is being rejected.

An expert on body language has gone through the video of Ford’s testimony and finds her testimony to be questionable, to say the least.

This type of “expert” is not admissible in court because they have been shown to be useless. One study showed FBI experts to be correct 53% of the time, basically a coin flip. This is why real investigators rely on evidence.

 

[Victoria33]

It certainly doesn’t sound neighborly and courteous when someone makes jokes concerning a story about a poor woman being possibly discriminated against being served at a restaurant. Perhaps one might spare us the condescension.

 

[MonteRCMS]

There are many many issues.

After the unbelievably savage and despicable effort to destroy Judge Brett Kavanaugh through false and dishonest personal attacks, the burden should be on the Senate Democrats.

The New Yorker smear was an absurdity. A woman could only remember a self-described drunken event after six days of discussion with her attorney. Everyone connected with the event repudiates her attack on Judge Kavanaugh.

The Avenatti client’s claim of a series of gang rapes was beyond unbelievable. Classmates and high school friends of Kavanaugh simply repudiated her as a liar making up a fantasy assault on the nominee.

Senator Grassley’s staff received messages containing vicious threats, such as they deserve to be raped (these messages, by the way, should be tracked down by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and prosecuted).

The Kavanaugh family received death threats (which again, should be tracked down and prosecuted).

Dr. Ford and her family have received death threats after being forced into the Democrats’ scheme (these should also be tracked down and prosecuted).

One excuse Dr. Ford used was that she was afraid to fly (the interviewer pointed out during the hearing that Ford had made numerous flights for vacations).

She was put through all of this even though she could not remember in what house the alleged gathering and assault took place in or when it occurred. At the same time, no one she said was present has corroborated her story.

She was emotionally compelling, and it is clear that something happened to her – but she knows as a professional psychologist that 36 years after an event, people can vividly remember things that aren’t true.

If Judge Kavanaugh can be defeated by this kind of manufactured and manipulated process, what reasonable conservative would ever put his or her name up for Senate confirmation?

Some people have said Judge Kavanaugh should have been better vetted. How could he have been? He has undergone six separate, thorough FBI background checks for top positions throughout government.

Further, he says he never did any of the things for which he is being attacked. He could not have known in advance how to defend himself against allegations that he didn’t do. It’s impossible to plan or anticipate last-minute character assassinations that are based on falsehoods and impossible-to-verify charges.

Are there any Democrats who understand that a 36-year-old, unsupported allegation can’t possibly be the standard for blocking a U.S. Supreme Court nominee?

 

[Theo520]

In cases like this it is up to the President to order the investigation by the FBI. Not to do so was his choice

No, the FBI isn’t his private PI firm

 

[meltzerboy2]

Just to answer your last question: of course many or most of the Democrats in the Senate realize this. But partisanship rules and, in their eyes, Kavanaugh is such a threat to their own cherished goals that they have convinced themselves that the end justifies the means. I hope that more of my fellow liberal Democrats will see through this charade.

 

[dvdjs]

robertmidwest:
Here is some insight into the reactions of some women.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/28/politics/jeff-flake-protesters-kavanaugh-vote/index.html

 

[Metis1]

Notice how we have read the constant litany of how the FBI can’t do this and can’t do that and how it’s all so unfair-- blah blah blah. Well, guess what? For those who ranted and raved about that, they clearly were wrong, but I certainly don’t expect them to take a humble pill and admit it.

In many cases I think some here just parrot Fox, Limbaugh, and/or Breitbart, refusing to crosscheck their sources with others. I say this because I do watch Fox occasionally, a bit more lately because of the on-going judicial process, and I read the same nonsense by some here who clearly never bothered to actually check other sources that could easily have told them they were being told lies and distortions.

Either way, the much more sane, honest, and truth-seeking approach is now being done through the FBI, so let’s see what comes out of it instead of just some here spouting more and more “alternative facts”.

Have a very meaningful Sunday, and please pray for compassion, justice, our country, and the world-- we all need it.

 

[HarryStotle]

It may be that Ford was deceptive in her testimony, as some body-language experts claim. Most of the psychological community, however, put more stock into what they know about memory than body language. According to extensive memory research, most people are mistakenly convinced they can recall personal events in great detail, whereas the fact of the matter is their recall is often inaccurate in this respect over time. Based on this evidence, I would say it is more likely (although not certain) that, rather than intentional deception, Ford is simply mistaken regarding Kavanaugh’s sexual misconduct. Of course it may also be the case that she is politically driven and lying about his behavior. The ironic part of all this, to me, is that she is herself a psychologist, and therefore should be aware of the pitfalls involved in memory recall. If I were on the Senate committee, I would certainly ask her about her knowledge of the memory process as it relates to detailed information. In other words, what I am suggesting is that there need not be a villain–neither Ford nor Kavanaugh–in this unfortunate, partisan-driven situation.

Something to think about relative to Ford being a highly educated psychologist.

She claimed the reason she first went to a psychologist in 2012 was because of an overwhelming sense of claustrophobia culminating in her insistence that two front doors be installed in their about to be renovated home.

Given that she seemed fully aware of the traumatic event that caused her to feel claustrophobic, it seems counterintuitive that a highly trained psychologist would deal with her own claustrophobia in that way. The standard treatment for phobias and neurotic issues is exposure therapy, no?

Wouldn’t an expert in psychology have the tools and wherewithal to recognize that building two front doors into her own house just does not make any therapeutic sense relative to her own mental state? Psychologist heal thyself, no?

There is just a very weird incongruity between her supposed expertise in psychology and her apparent lack of emotional and mental development. She came across as a five or ten year old child in her testimony and yet she is a highly trained psychologist who seems completely childlike regarding her own mental and emotional states and what would have been appropriate intervention.

Her story, both in its details and presentation, just seems a highly contrived facade.

I was under the impression that certain eye movements are a consistent behavioral trait accompanying access to visual memory. So even if most of the claims of body language experts can be treated skeptically, the observation that Ford made little use of her visual memory recalling past events is significant. Any thoughts?

 

[pnewton]

The standard treatment for phobias and neurotic issues is exposure therapy, no?

It is the best treatment. But look how many doctors, drink, smoke or are overweight. And doctors aren’t the only ones that engage in do what I say, not what I do. Bu this opens up an interesting question. If she brings up her own psychological condition, is it fair to require her (the FBI) to tell what drugs she is taking or might have taken for anxiety? Do any of them affect memory?

 

[pnewton]

Here is some insight into the reactions of some women.

There statement are interesting. I wonder what percentage of women who have been victims of sexual assault will always believe accusations by other women, as opposed to men who have been accused and know they didn’t do it, automatically believe the man. I have said it before that people are getting dumber all the time, thinking the know what happened based on the news or what one or two people say. In a week or so, we will know if one person is right, the other is right, or it will remain uncertain.

Unless the allegation is substantiated, and thus proving perjury on the part of Kavanaugh, I would hope all his detractors will let it go.

 

[dvdjs]

Unless the allegation is substantiated, and thus proving perjury on the part of Kavanaugh, I would hope all his detractors will let it go.

I think that as long as this remains uncertain, it will not be let go.
I don’t see much point in sticking with a nominee about whom there is lingering uncertainty.

 

[Annie]

She claimed the reason she first went to a psychologist in 2012 was because of an overwhelming sense of claustrophobia culminating in her insistence that two front doors be installed in their about to be renovated home.

I thought it was marital counseling?

Anyway, how did she manage for 30 years living in dorm rooms and houses with only one door?

I also wonder about her sudden on-set fear of flying…

 

[pnewton]

I don’t see much point in sticking with a nominee about whom there is lingering uncertainty.

There is the matter of justice. I believe that is a rather strong point. Uncertainty is unavoidable, unless there is an admission of lying. Yet we believe that person should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

I do not blame women who cannot come forward for years (or decades) due to psychological trauma, but that decision has consequences as to how much can be proven with passing years. This cannot be changed any more than we can go back in time.

I am satisfied that this matter will be investigated (or the nomination not approved). I do not know what more could be expected, except to just treat Kavanaugh as guilty because. That would be a big injustice.

 

[HarryStotle]

Notice how we have read the constant litany of how the FBI can’t do this and can’t do that and how it’s all so unfair-- blah blah blah. Well, guess what? For those who ranted and raved about that, they clearly were wrong, but I certainly don’t expect them to take a humble pill and admit it.

Admit what, exactly? That the FBI can be corralled into any investigation by sufficient political pressure?

Okay, they can be.

Now, the open question is will it do any good?

Will you be ready to consume your own portion of humble pie when nothing comes up?

What might be demonstrated, if something significant is discovered, is that the FBI were either incompetent, lax or maybe even negligent in their past six investigations into Kavanaugh’s background which produced nothing.

Now that might be interesting since it will put more doubt into the capacity of the FBI to have properly investigated, say, Hillary Clinton.

Additionally, every claim of Ford’s has not been corroborated, and in fact disputed, under felony penalty of perjury by those she herself claimed were witnesses.

Should these witnesses be tortured or water boarded until they speak the truth you want to hear? Did they lie under oath, you think?

Personally, I never thought an FBI investigation would be unfair. It will very likely be a complete waste of time. However, given some of the facts coming forth about how politically affiliated some of the FBI’s top officials are, Fairness isn’t exactly their first or middle name.

But, of course, your political perspective precludes you from admitting that.

Let’s see what happens, shall we?

 

[dvdjs]

There is the matter of justice. I believe that is a rather strong point. Uncertainty is unavoidable, unless there is an admission of lying. Yet we believe that person should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

This is a matter of a job application. No one is entitled to an affirmative decision. I agree that uncertainty is unavoidable, but disagree tha the response to uncertainty is presumption of innocence. IMO, the response to uncertainty, particularly when other highly qualified persons are available, is the minimization of the risk to the institution and its stakeholders of a bad decision.

 

[HarryStotle]

pnewton:

Unless the allegation is substantiated, and thus proving perjury on the part of Kavanaugh, I would hope all his detractors will let it go.

I think that as long as this remains uncertain, it will not be let go.
I don’t see much point in sticking with a nominee about whom there is lingering uncertainty.

There is a great deal of “lingering uncertainty” regarding the only “credible” allegation thus far brought forward.

So “lingering uncertainty” that has only been warranted by an even far greater “lingering uncertainty” is your justification for dropping Kavanaugh as a nominee?

What about the other side: the sixty-two women who are far more certain about Kavanaugh’s character and the fact that every corroborating witness that Ford named has disputed her claims under felony penalty of perjury? What about Kavanaugh’s spotless record of over 30 years and six FBI background checks?

Those weigh far more than a small “lingering uncertainty,” no?

Would you drop your friends or your spouse so easily when any “lingering uncertainty” is brought forward from highly questionable sources?

Just asking.

 

[pnewton]

I agree that uncertainty is unavoidable, but disagree tha the response to uncertainty is presumption of innocence. IMO, the response to uncertainty, particularly when other highly qualified persons are available, is the minimization of the risk to the institution and its stakeholders of a bad decision.

So you see the accusation as sufficient to get someone else. I see a problem with that, in that it would green light any and all false accusations, as the end would justify the means pretty much every time for at least one person in the nation.

As to job applications, I pretty much take no action on all unsubstantiated he said/she said stuff at work, so in that, I am consistent.

 

[dvdjs]

There is a great deal of “lingering uncertainty” regarding the only “credible” allegation thus far brought forward.

Would you hire Dr Ford?

What about the other side:

(Wasn’t it 65?). Happy for them to be questioned by the FBI about the depth and relevance of their knowledge. That will illuminate the weight of their endorsement.

Would you drop your friends or your spouse so easily when any “lingering uncertainty” is brought forward from highly questionable sources?

We were talking about hiring into a life tenure position. I think the the same principle applies, with an extension: minimize total risk. IOW minimize the risk of a bad hire, consistent with avoiding worse collateral damage. With that said, I am skeptical about claims of serious damage to the court and nation should Kavanaugh be denied approval.

 

[HarryStotle]

Would you hire Dr Ford?

For what position?

A therapist? No.

A researcher? Not sure.

Her ability to distinguish fact from fiction is questionable.

Hiring ought to be based upon competency, not ideological possession.

Kavanaugh has proven competency as a judge. Ford’s questionable testimony doesn’t throw Kavanaugh’s competency into question. In fact, his performance under this level of stress strongly supports my impressions of competency.

I wouldn’t abandon him, if he were a close friend, because he has proven himself under extreme pressure to not give up under attack. I’d want him on my side.

Ford, I would look at with something like “lingering uncertainty” because she appears unstable, but I would still give the benefit of the doubt depending on the role or position she would fill.

As a male, I certainly wouldn’t choose her as a female friend because the entire fiasco raises huge question marks on her motivations, stability and what she might be capable of. If I were female, my position might be different, but I certainly wouldn’t find her trustworthy without a long and lingering period of “eyes wide open.”

Your “lingering uncertainty” is itself a highly questionable criterion, however, and doesn’t rise to any kind of legitimate warrant. I wouldn’t use it to make judgements on friends or a spouse, so I wouldn’t use it against someone I might employ or do business with, especially if that uncertainty is based upon something like the tenuous credibility of Ford as a witness where everyone else disputes her claims.

In real life, her witness would not be taken seriously.

I might hold the truth of her witness in the back of my mind as a remotely possible uncertainty, giving her some benefit of doubt, but definitely not to be taken seriously, without a great deal of corroboration.