Kavanaugh endorsement rescinded

[PetraG]

This appears to be assuming that Kavanaugh hasn’t regretted everything he did in high school and hasn’t sought forgiveness and conversion. Are we throwing drunk driving in here when we do not know with any degree of certainty whether that was even committed by Kavanaugh?

As I said, I don’t personally know when he started his drinking career. He doesn’t deny having too much to drink at various points in his life; I’m a bit skeptical of the “I’ve gone to sleep” self-defense, though, I have to admit. I don’t know the independent evidence or his testimony about the time well enough to know if he was already a binge drinker at 17 years old. I was talking about a general case, not about him particularly.

As I’ve said many times, my concern would be if he has a history of binge drinking as an adult about which he is still in denial. That would be very problematic in a justice of the Supreme Court. They don’t have “off” hours when they can lose their self-control and ability to be discrete.

As far as I know, there is no evidence of binge drinking in the last two decades or so, however. As for what he did when he was 17, if he was caught doing what was alleged at the time I think at the time he would have gotten probation, a sealed record and after some time had passed an expunged record. Yes, this is the kind of thing that would have been in his past by now. I don’t know that even a contemporary 17 year old (at least one with better than a public defender) would be given life-long repercussions for the kind of incident cited, not if it was isolated, because he was underage, someone had provided him with alcohol, it seemed to have been an act of impulse (as opposed to a case where someone and his friend were sober and lured a 15 year old, drugged her and said outright that he intended to commit the offense that this victim thought was intended).

 

[Augustinian]

As for what he did when he was 17,

President Obama admitted to drinking and drugging during his misspent youth. I didn’t like his policies as President, but I don’t think these activities were a negative at all by the time he got elected president.

 

[Quis_UtDeus]

Here is what I have learned

Any woman who comes forward to accuse a powerful man of sexual abuse will be mocked, ridiculed, and called a liar or a psycho. This should shut up those uppity women for another 50 years or so.

Unless you can point out an exact quote from this thread that anyone here called this or any particular woman one of the names you just mentioned,
I want you to read what you wrote and then tell me you aren’t being intellectually dishonest without lying.

 

[PetraG]

President Obama admitted to drinking and drugging during his misspent youth. I didn’t like his policies as President, but I don’t think these activities were a negative at all by the time he got elected president.

Again, he was also of an age that I’d blame whoever furnished for his use.
He was not accused by anyone of binge-using under conditions that he was committing assaults, though, as far as I know, and his admissions concerned his teen years. My concern about Judge Kavanaugh was how late in life the binge drinking went and that he did seem to get into altercations. Well, you have that in your past and you come before a Senate committee not apologizing but self-defensively spitting bullets about how you’re not any different than the Senators on the committee, it doesn’t serve well. Mr. Kavanaugh acknowledged that.

 

[1cthlctrth]

The Left consistently attacks Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Laura Ingraham, Candace Owens, Sara Palin, Kirstjen Nielson, Teresa Tomeo, and Dana Loesch (and also the victims of Bill Clinton). Notice what these women have in common? They’re all strong and intelligent CONSERVATIVE WOMEN.

 

[1cthlctrth]

I agree, Augustinian. If accusations of attempted rape, and the dragging of someone’s family name through the mud doesn’t upset somebody, then there must be something wrong with them.

 

[Godfollower]

Unless you can point out an exact quote from this thread that anyone here called this or any particular woman one of the names you just mentioned,
I want you to read what you wrote and then tell me you aren’t being intellectually dishonest without lying.

Like these?

As for perjury I feel like Dr Ford actually proveably lied (fear of flying, claustrophobia, prepping someone for lie detector) as opposed to Kavanaugh.

Regarding Dr. Ford’s testimony, Lifesitenews points out most of the following:

• Ford is an active Far-Leftist
• she lied about her fear to fly

And that’s without considering all the posts claiming that she’s been planning this attack since 2012 (actually setting up with her psychologist back then to be ready for today), lying in wait for an opportune moment to spring the trap — an obvious accusation of falsehood.

 

[Quis_UtDeus]

1. I’m talking about in reference to our conversation. Literally between who that person talked to and that person.
2. Also talking about regarding the sexual allegation and deliberately being called those names based on having accused someone for sexual assault alone.

The fact she seemingly lied about having a fear to fly is likely and based on her testimony compared to her flying record and a possible witness that contradicts her claim, NOT based on the fact she has accused someone of sexual assault alone.

1. And these past 2 points are assuming the quote you mentioned is true, I cannot even confirm that this quote is from here or who said it.

 

[Augustinian]

The fact that Ms. Ford decided to come to Washington DC and participate in media circus- that BTW drew millions of viewers and millions of dollars to the media networks- when she was given other alternatives like testifying privately at or near her California home, really tells me that she was dishonest in her claims of reluctancy.

And if you lie about one thing, there is a good chance you are lying about others.

A lot of money was made here, just saying.

 

[pnewton]

It is a fair representation of the intense feelings surrounding this subject.

I know. The post could be seen in that light. I do not doubt some women view “men” as a monolithic group of chauvinist pigs, with reasons that are quite understandable. The balance between understanding the feelings and being patronizing is not easy for me.

In any case, while I would never judge a woman for not coming forward for decades, the effects of the decision must not be ignored. Facts cannot give way for feelings. Women really need to strive and be equally understanding with men. We have gotten ourselves in quite a corner from our decades of degrading and objectifying women and male privilege. This last presidential election didn’t help this particular situation, coming after sixteen years without this sort of attitude toward women in the White House.

 

[Godfollower]

1. I’m talking about in reference to our conversation. Literally between who that person talked to and that person.
2. Also talking about regarding the sexual allegation and deliberately being called those names based on having accused someone for sexual assault alone.

The fact she seemingly lied about having a fear to fly is likely and based on her testimony compared to her flying record and a possible witness that contradicts her claim, NOT based on the fact she has accused someone of sexual assault alone.

1. And these past 2 points are assuming the quote you mentioned is true, I cannot even confirm that this quote is from here or who said it.

Erika said that people on this thread called Dr. Ford a liar. You said that was “intellectually dishonest” unless you saw exact quotes calling Dr. Ford a liar. I gave you two. Now you’re backtracking with a retroactive explanation that you only meant Erika was lying because people calling Dr. Ford a liar weren’t doing so about the main charge (which is, you know, quite a stretch); but the point remains that Erika was not wrong.

As for your implication that I’m lying, they were posts 555 and 609 (approximately; I can’t see actual post numbers on my screen).

And, leaving all that aside, you’re missing Erika’s main point, which is that victims of sexual assault are uniformly attacked in this country. Even on Catholic message boards.

 

[PetraG]

I know. The post could be seen in that light. I do not doubt some women view “men” as a monolithic group of chauvinist pigs, with reasons that are quite understandable. The balance between understanding the feelings and being patronizing is not easy for me.

In any case, while I would never judge a woman for not coming forward for decades, the effects of the decision must not be ignored. Facts cannot give way for feelings. Women really need to strive and be equally understanding with men. We have gotten ourselves in quite a corner from our decades of degrading and objectifying women and male privilege. This last presidential election didn’t help this particular situation, coming after sixteen years without this sort of attitude toward women in the White House.

True! We are forbidden by the need to avoid rash judgment from viewing anyone as an actor who is predictable because of their membership in a group. It is fair to recognize the pressures to act one way or another–training, peer pressure, and so on–but to experience pressure is not the same as unfailing cooperation. (I knew, for instance, that some people in high school when I was would go to parties and pretend to drink but didn’t actually drink because they wanted to be a part of the parties but not part of the drinking. Yeah, they’d have a lot of trouble getting anybody to believe that now, no matter how many of their friends in on their secret said so! Kids don’t understand about creating an impression where reasonable people would believe the truth about them!!)

Fairness requires we all recognize that (a) some people are very accomplished liars, and the people with no conscience who become sexual predators very often have exactly the right psychological machinery to pretend uprightness they do not have (or they couldn’t become bishops who commit sexual abuse) and that (b) real victims can be mistaken about what happened to them, who did it and what the circumstances were, and (c ) the matter of consent is not actually straight-forward to the uneducated, let alone the uneducated who have given over their better judgment to drugs or alcohol.

 

[PetraG]

The fact that Ms. Ford decided to come to Washington DC and participate in media circus- that BTW drew millions of viewers and millions of dollars to the media networks- when she was given other alternatives like testifying privately at or near her California home, really tells me that she was dishonest in her claims of reluctancy.

And if you lie about one thing, there is a good chance you are lying about others.

A lot of money was made here, just saying.

Her actions could be interpreted as evidence she thought the matter important enough to come in spite of those things. For instance, I can understand why she might not want to testify privately. If the interview was a farce, she’d have no evidence of it. Remember: she has a reputation to protect, not just fame to gain.

As for “if you lie about one thing,” that is a vastly rash standard. Most people, if they examine what they say and do, either say things that are not strictly true or else commit deception of omission by not telling things to people who have a right to know it, and they do it as many as several times a day. This is particularly true when people are relating their motives.

I don’t think there is evidence that Dr. Ford cooked this up as a way to make money or gain “fame.” That doesn’t seem like the most reasonable conclusion to me. Having said that, I feel her situation is one in which the risk of honest mistake or a memory that evolved without her appreciation of that is quite high. It is by no means certain, but it is by no means a remote possibility, either.

Honestly, this is one reason people should not make handshake business deals. Even very honest people forget things they say and do. Get it in writing.

 

[HarryStotle]

As I’ve said many times, my concern would be if he has a history of binge drinking as an adult about which he is still in denial. That would be very problematic in a justice of the Supreme Court. They don’t have “off” hours when they can lose their self-control and ability to be discrete.

I listened to an ex-FBI agent who detailed what the background checks involve and a history of problematic behaviours or addictions is something that is carefully checked. People who would know, such as family and friends, are interviewed on penalty of perjury as to issues with alcohol, etc., so, I think we can safely rule out anything of the sort from at least a number of years before Kavanaugh’s first background check, because if he suffered from that kind of issue, it would have been a disqualifier years ago.

As far as I know, there is no evidence of binge drinking in the last two decades or so, however. As for what he did when he was 17, if he was caught doing what was alleged at the time I think at the time he would have gotten probation, a sealed record and after some time had passed an expunged record. Yes, this is the kind of thing that would have been in his past by now. I don’t know that even a contemporary 17 year old (at least one with better than a public defender) would be given life-long repercussions for the kind of incident cited, not if it was isolated, because he was underage, someone had provided him with alcohol, it seemed to have been an act of impulse (as opposed to a case where someone and his friend were sober and lured a 15 year old, drugged her and said outright that he intended to commit the offense that this victim thought was intended).

This assumes that sealed records are out of bounds for FBI background checks. I am not sure that they are, but it would be a good question to pursue.

In any case, I don’t think an expunged record is the case here because Ford would have made a case that she had reported it at the time, but the record had been expunged. She didn’t go there, however. The only reason to even suspect an expunged testimony is Ford’s allegation, which doesn’t pass any serious plausibility test, as Victor Davis Hanson lays out in this article…

One Ford Narrative Too Many › American Greatness

In the end, the Christine Blasey Ford accusations collapsed. With them went the last effort to destroy Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court. After thousands of hours of…

amgreatness.com

 

[HarryStotle]

Remember: she has a reputation to protect, not just fame to gain.

Yes, and testifying before the whole world with the flimsy evidence she presented was sure to protect her reputation.

I have a hard time thinking you didn’t have tongue firmly planted in cheek when you wrote that.

 

[HarryStotle]

Fairness requires we all recognize that (a) some people are very accomplished liars, and the people with no conscience who become sexual predators very often have exactly the right psychological machinery to pretend uprightness they do not have (or they couldn’t become bishops who commit sexual abuse) and that (b) real victims can be mistaken about what happened to them, who did it and what the circumstances were, and (c ) the matter of consent is not actually straight-forward to the uneducated, let alone the uneducated who have given over their better judgment to drugs or alcohol.

Or the educated who have given over their better judgment to political ideology.

We only have to look at the wide array of the ‘politically compromised’ who cannot seem to think themselves out of a paper bag, they have so convinced themselves that they must be right left.

The news and Twitter is filled with the chirpings of these supposedly articulate individuals – Michael Moore, Alyssa Milano, Amy Shumer, Barbara Streisand, every late night comedian, pretty much all of the entertainment industry, a great proportion of journalists, etc., etc.

Since when would better judgement promote the idea that five and six year old children can choose their own gender? Yet these supposed visionaries on the left, virtually to a man (or woman or non-gendered, non-binary) have gone there.

This is why common ground with these people is so difficult to achieve.

They are willing to believe anything for the sake of staking out political territory that might get them power.

Given there are so many of these types inhabiting our modern world, there is no reason to believe Ford cannot be one of them. One of a great many quite willing to say and do whatever it takes for the sake of the progressive cause.

Perhaps Ford’s possible past involvement with BAMN (By Any Means Necessary) or similar groups should be investigated.

 

[HarryStotle]

Quis_UtDeus:

1. I’m talking about in reference to our conversation. Literally between who that person talked to and that person.
2. Also talking about regarding the sexual allegation and deliberately being called those names based on having accused someone for sexual assault alone.

The fact she seemingly lied about having a fear to fly is likely and based on her testimony compared to her flying record and a possible witness that contradicts her claim, NOT based on the fact she has accused someone of sexual assault alone.

1. And these past 2 points are assuming the quote you mentioned is true, I cannot even confirm that this quote is from here or who said it.

Erika said that people on this thread called Dr. Ford a liar. You said that was “intellectually dishonest” unless you saw exact quotes calling Dr. Ford a liar. I gave you two. Now you’re backtracking with a retroactive explanation that you only meant Erika was lying because people calling Dr. Ford a liar weren’t doing so about the main charge (which is, you know, quite a stretch); but the point remains that Erika was not wrong.

As for your implication that I’m lying, they were posts 555 and 609 (approximately; I can’t see actual post numbers on my screen).

And, leaving all that aside, you’re missing Erika’s main point, which is that victims of sexual assault are uniformly attacked in this country. Even on Catholic message boards.

I will send you back to one of my previous posts.

Kavanaugh endorsement rescinded Popular Media

This is a live example of why social media, political correctness and virtue signaling have had such a pernicious effect on society. People seem very ready to read the worst into what others say or write. On that basis, they jump on any comment or observation and the original author feels they have to clarify or they will be caustically shamed or denounced. Rather than staying strong and expressing their own views consistently, there is an impulse to go overboard and kowtow to the pressure or …

If, as you say, “victims of sexual assault are uniformly attacked in this country,” why don’t we go back to the conservative position and reinstate capital punishment for rapists?

And here we are not saying those merely to have had allegations made against them, but those proved to have raped. That way we will know who is serious about dealing with the supposed ‘rape crisis’ and who is merely using it as a political cudgel.

Why don’t you take up Thomas Woods’ challenge and explain why it was the toughest defenders of “the patriarchy” who wanted to keep rape a capital crime, and it was the left who wanted to soften the punishment?

As it turns out, it was people on the left — the very people who would complain about “rape culture” today — who abolished capital punishment for rapists of adult women in 1977, and for rapists of children in 2008.

So in other words, it was the toughest defenders of “the patriarchy” who wanted to keep rape a capital crime, and it was the left who wanted to soften the punishment.

Go make sense of that.

 

[Quis_UtDeus]

Erika said that people on this thread called Dr. Ford a liar.

Any woman who comes forward to accuse a powerful man of sexual abuse will be mocked, ridiculed, and called a liar or a psycho

Your claim simply isn’t true. She made it clear that what she gained from this conversation is that any woman (Not only Dr. Ford) with a sexual assault accusation will be called a lair or psycho (implication is not just saying that she lied about something but rather hysterically) and ridiculed and mocked and whatnot because she made a sexual assault allegation.
If she really extrapolates this from the conversation we had or even from your quotes then yes it is indeed intellectually dishonest.

You said that was “intellectually dishonest” unless you saw exact quotes calling Dr. Ford a liar

Perhaps then I should’ve been more clear and said quotes in reference to what she said from the conversation which is “what she learned from.” That I apologize for.

Now you’re backtracking with a retroactive explanation that you only meant Erika was lying because people calling Dr. Ford a liar weren’t doing so about the main charge (which is, you know, quite a stretch

Not a stretch and I can understand a misinterpretation based on your first claim but I already addressed your first claim.

As for your implication that I’m lying, they were posts 555 and 609 (approximately; I can’t see actual post numbers on my screen).

I’m not implying that you are lying I was saying that I cannot validate wether or not they were true or part of the conversation we had with Erika

And, leaving all that aside, you’re missing Erika’s main point, which is that victims of sexual assault are uniformly attacked in this country. Even on Catholic message boards.

Not what she said or implied. She might believe that but not at all the case that this was the message she conveyed here. She was talking about this conversation and about us.

 

[PetraG]

Yes, and testifying before the whole world with the flimsy evidence she presented was sure to protect her reputation.

I have a hard time thinking you didn’t have tongue firmly planted in cheek when you wrote that.

No, actually, I’m putting myself in the place of someone who remembers a traumatic situation that happened a long time ago. For 30 years, there would have been a mixture of shame at what happened, self-blaming and so on. When there is a general societal encouragement to believe that you do remember what you remember, there is still a mixture of a fear of being disbelieved and a desire to unload the whole matter. She does have a professional reputation to think about, yet we have to recognize that we’re in a time when there is, all of a sudden, a reversal of the consequences of disclosing something like this.

If you want to know why it angers so many women that she is disbelieved, it is because we have our own stories to tell, stories about guys everyone admires who we know very well did something totally out of bounds. If we spent any time at all blaming ourselves and then realize, “hey, I didn’t do anything wrong,” then the next emotion is usually anger. If you put yourself in her shoes and hear people calling her names and shaming her, you feel angry.

 

[Augustinian]

For instance, I can understand why she might not want to testify privately. If the interview was a farce, she’d have no evidence of it. Remember: she has a reputation to protect, not just fame to gain.

What do you mean by “farce”? They asked her what happened and she asked the questions.

Why would she need “evidence”?

She would be confidentially delivering the information she had about the alleged event and that was that. Get the info to the Senators on the committee. I don’t see how that would be compromised at all by doing it behind closed doors with legal counsel there.