Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 851

Warbler said:

Jay said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

Wouldn’t a history of alcoholism be a disqualifying factor in of itself?

Not if it is passed history. People have been known to have a problem with alcohol and overcome it later on. Remember you are talking about a history of extremely drinking when he was a teenager. I have heard no one say that he still has a drinking problem. Does extreme drinking necessarily = alcoholism?

I drank heavily during the 4 years I was in college and then pretty much stopped outside occasional social gatherings. Never blacked out, but did get thoroughly wasted on many occasions and it definitely altered my behavior.

It’s entirely possible Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did if he was a heavy drinker. However, labeling him an alcoholic because of heavy college drinking only shows that the person applying the label has no idea what alcoholism is—or is simply using it as a smear to disqualify him or sully his character.

How possible do you think it is that someone could sexually assault someone and totally completely forget it due to extreme drunkenness?

Very possible. I had friends who were heavier drinkers than I was and I’d tell them stories the next day about shit they did or said and they wouldn’t remember.

It’s entirely possible Kavanaugh put his hands on Ford, got too rough and did things that were out of character for him, and had no recollection of it the next day.

The possibility isn’t evidence, though, and the reason I have difficulty with her story is that she remembers literally almost nothing else about the event. I’ve heard both “trauma makes you remember” and “trauma makes you forget”. Either (both?) can be true depending on the person. It’s just not reliable testimony, all due respect to Dr. Ford.

Warbler said:

Jay said:

Warbler said:

Jay said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

Wouldn’t a history of alcoholism be a disqualifying factor in of itself?

Not if it is passed history. People have been known to have a problem with alcohol and overcome it later on. Remember you are talking about a history of extremely drinking when he was a teenager. I have heard no one say that he still has a drinking problem. Does extreme drinking necessarily = alcoholism?

I drank heavily during the 4 years I was in college and then pretty much stopped outside occasional social gatherings. Never blacked out, but did get thoroughly wasted on many occasions and it definitely altered my behavior.

It’s entirely possible Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did if he was a heavy drinker. However, labeling him an alcoholic because of heavy college drinking only shows that the person applying the label has no idea what alcoholism is—or is simply using it as a smear to disqualify him or sully his character.

How possible do you think it is that someone could sexually assault someone and totally completely forget it due to extreme drunkenness?

Very possible. I had friends who were heavier drinkers than I was and I’d tell them stories the next day about shit they did or said and they wouldn’t remember.

But we are not just talking ordinary shit people do while drunk. We are talking about sexual assault. Any of them commit a sexual assault and not remember it the next day?

No, but my lived experiences aren’t the sum total of all possibilities. It’s also important to remember that if Kavanaugh did get wasted and assaulted Ford, it’s possible that in his mind his actions weren’t out of bounds since alcohol messes with your reasoning, so he could’ve seen it as a sloppy attempt at getting laid rather than a forceful assault and not worthy of much study/contemplation.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Jay said:
It’s entirely possible Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did if he was a heavy drinker. However, labeling him an alcoholic because of heavy college drinking only shows that the person applying the label has no idea what alcoholism is—or is simply using it as a smear to disqualify him or sully his character.

I didn’t say that Kavanaugh was an alcoholic. Rather, I said that he had a problem with alcohol. And I stand by that claim – a high school student frequently drinking until staggering drunk, becoming belligerent as a result of the alcohol, to the point of possibly assaulting people, is someone having a problem with alcohol, regardless of whether or not they are an alcoholic.

My response wasn’t directed at you specifically, sorry. I agree that someone who gets violent when they consume alcohol and continues to do so has a problem even if they’re technically not an addict.

dahmage said:

Jay said:

Warbler said:

Jay said:

Warbler said:

Jay said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

Wouldn’t a history of alcoholism be a disqualifying factor in of itself?

Not if it is passed history. People have been known to have a problem with alcohol and overcome it later on. Remember you are talking about a history of extremely drinking when he was a teenager. I have heard no one say that he still has a drinking problem. Does extreme drinking necessarily = alcoholism?

I drank heavily during the 4 years I was in college and then pretty much stopped outside occasional social gatherings. Never blacked out, but did get thoroughly wasted on many occasions and it definitely altered my behavior.

It’s entirely possible Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did if he was a heavy drinker. However, labeling him an alcoholic because of heavy college drinking only shows that the person applying the label has no idea what alcoholism is—or is simply using it as a smear to disqualify him or sully his character.

How possible do you think it is that someone could sexually assault someone and totally completely forget it due to extreme drunkenness?

Very possible. I had friends who were heavier drinkers than I was and I’d tell them stories the next day about shit they did or said and they wouldn’t remember.

But we are not just talking ordinary shit people do while drunk. We are talking about sexual assault. Any of them commit a sexual assault and not remember it the next day?

No, but my lived experiences aren’t the sum total of all possibilities. It’s also important to remember that if Kavanaugh did get wasted and assaulted Ford, it’s possible that in his mind his actions weren’t out of bounds since alcohol messes with your reasoning, so he could’ve seen it as a sloppy attempt at getting laid rather than a forceful assault and not worthy of much study/contemplation.

This I agree with

For clarification’s sake, these are all hypothetical scenarios. This is the part where you’d normally say “only two people know what happened that night”, except it’s possible neither does, which literally means no one does (unless you believe Judge does and is lying).

Is that enough to convict a person? In the court of public opinion, Kavanaugh is already a guilty drunk rapist as far as most Democrats are concerned and an innocent man being railroaded as far as most Republicans are concerned.

As far as the FBI investigation goes, I’m guessing they say what they’ve been saying: lack of evidence, too long ago, would never make it to a jury, etc. I’d be surprised if they take the whole week they’ve been given.

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jay said:

Warbler said:

Jay said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

Wouldn’t a history of alcoholism be a disqualifying factor in of itself?

Not if it is passed history. People have been known to have a problem with alcohol and overcome it later on. Remember you are talking about a history of extremely drinking when he was a teenager. I have heard no one say that he still has a drinking problem. Does extreme drinking necessarily = alcoholism?

I drank heavily during the 4 years I was in college and then pretty much stopped outside occasional social gatherings. Never blacked out, but did get thoroughly wasted on many occasions and it definitely altered my behavior.

It’s entirely possible Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did if he was a heavy drinker. However, labeling him an alcoholic because of heavy college drinking only shows that the person applying the label has no idea what alcoholism is—or is simply using it as a smear to disqualify him or sully his character.

How possible do you think it is that someone could sexually assault someone and totally completely forget it due to extreme drunkenness?

Very possible. I had friends who were heavier drinkers than I was and I’d tell them stories the next day about shit they did or said and they wouldn’t remember.

But we are not just talking ordinary shit people do while drunk. We are talking about sexual assault. Any of them commit a sexual assault and not remember it the next day?

I think Jay put it well, but I also found this article that explains how that might be the case.

https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/09/27/32994451/i-believe-her-and-him

Both, I think, could be correct.

It is entirely plausible that a drunk Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge pushed Christine Blasey into a room, tortured her, and, soon after, forgot all about it. One of the other people who were allegedly at the house that day, Ford’s friend Leland, has said that she doesn’t remember the party or the assault either. And why would she? Ford says she didn’t tell anyone about the alleged attack until years later. For Leland, it would have been just another summer day.

And this, I think, explains Kavanaugh’s insistence that the attack didn’t happen as well. He’s not lying; he really just doesn’t think this attack happened. For Ford, it was an attempted rape that would haunt her for years. For Kavanaugh, it was fucking around, being a teenager, not a violent assault. How could two people have such different reactions to the same event? As the New York Times reported this week, while trauma is frequently seared into our memories, neuroscience research suggests that “there are scenarios in which someone could have committed an assault and yet also have almost no memory of it. If an assailant attaches little significance to an assault—for instance, if he doesn’t consider it an assault—his brain may only weakly encode details of the encounter.”

That, I think, is what happened: She experienced an assault that he didn’t realize he was committing. Ignorance, of course, does not make his actions okay. In fact, it’s almost more damning that two young men could be so cavalier with a girl’s body without even realizing their actions weren’t just harmful, but criminal. It’s a dark mark on us all that something so significant to a woman could be so easily forgotten by a man, but that is the world we live in. When Kavanaugh says the attack never took place, that’s because, for him, it did not. What is traumatic for her is, for him, less than nothing. This doesn’t mean Kavanaugh shouldn’t be punished for his actions, but it could help explain why he doesn’t remember them.

Granted, this is just conjecture, we have no idea what really happened.

I saw that article and the problem I have with it is that in the author’s mind, both of them being “correct” naturally means that Kavanaugh assaulted Ford and he doesn’t remember correctly. The flip side is that Ford was assaulted, but not by Kavanaugh because Ford doesn’t remember correctly. If the author were unbiased, she would’ve accounted for both scenarios.

Lots of conjecture by political parties attempting to hold on to power and journalists trying to get viewers and clicks, all with zero meaningful evidence.

DominicCobb said:

dahmage said:

Ignoring the he-said-she-said aspect of this currently, I’m simply stunned at how ridiculously partisan Kavanaugh sounded during the hearing.

I would expect anyone being considered for the Supreme Court to be a little less partisan.

I agree. As others have noted, most justices have political leanings in terms of liberal/conservative, as most people do, but what is surprising (though I guess shouldn’t be these days) is how openly opinionated he is in terms of party politics, which the position is supposed to be divorced from.

Beyond that, what struck me most was his demeanor. Maybe I have a high bar, but I don’t think someone who can’t conduct themselves in a hearing without being overly emotional and confrontational in this way should be on the Supreme Court. I don’t buy that “if he’s innocent he’s emotional because his life is at stake” excuse either. Perhaps if this was the first time he had heard the accusations it’d be excusable. But at this point, none of the questions in the hearing should have been a surprise. If he’s not guilty as he says he is, but he can’t give a straight answer to a very simple question about whether he’d support an FBI investigation without becoming histrionic, then that’s a problem. Whether he’s just overacting or easily flustered, it’s not a good look for him or the Republicans supporting him.

Pretending we know how people should behave under stress is a bit silly. I see cops do this same thing when they question suspects; they insist someone is acting atypically when there really is no “typical”, then they hammer them until they’re exasperated and suggest maybe they’re exasperated because they’re hiding something. I’d like to see the average American throwing shade at this guy deal with this kind of scrutiny and pressure and stay cool.

The accusations have gotten steadily more severe over the last week, with Kavanaugh heading into the hearing with the most recent accusation of gang rape hanging over his head, knowing that Democrats are openly hostile to his nomination and already assume he’s guilty. I don’t find his demeanor questionable at all.

Also odd is this game of pretend we play when we say that judges shouldn’t have politics. Everybody has politics, even if they don’t discuss them openly. There’s a reason why we can often predict quite reliably how Supreme Court justices are going to vote.

Politics is one thing. Invoking Clinton revenge conspiracies as an underlying cause of one’s confirmation woes is another.

SilverWook said:

Politics is one thing. Invoking Clinton revenge conspiracies as an underlying cause of one’s confirmation woes is another.

“Revenge on behalf of the Clintons” sounds like a crazy conspiracy on the surface, but is it really that far-fetched that some in DC wouldn’t mind seeing Kavanaugh squirm after what he helped do to Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal?

Sounds like a bit of poetic justice to me, and not entirely undeserved. I’m not a fan of Bill Clinton and his womanizing is well-known, but I never thought it was the public’s business what he was doing in his private life, even if doing it in the White House exhibited extremely poor judgment. That was between him and his wife.

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

dahmage said:

Ignoring the he-said-she-said aspect of this currently, I’m simply stunned at how ridiculously partisan Kavanaugh sounded during the hearing.

I would expect anyone being considered for the Supreme Court to be a little less partisan.

I agree. As others have noted, most justices have political leanings in terms of liberal/conservative, as most people do, but what is surprising (though I guess shouldn’t be these days) is how openly opinionated he is in terms of party politics, which the position is supposed to be divorced from.

Beyond that, what struck me most was his demeanor. Maybe I have a high bar, but I don’t think someone who can’t conduct themselves in a hearing without being overly emotional and confrontational in this way should be on the Supreme Court. I don’t buy that “if he’s innocent he’s emotional because his life is at stake” excuse either. Perhaps if this was the first time he had heard the accusations it’d be excusable. But at this point, none of the questions in the hearing should have been a surprise. If he’s not guilty as he says he is, but he can’t give a straight answer to a very simple question about whether he’d support an FBI investigation without becoming histrionic, then that’s a problem. Whether he’s just overacting or easily flustered, it’s not a good look for him or the Republicans supporting him.

Pretending we know how people should behave under stress is a bit silly. I see cops do this same thing when they question suspects; they insist someone is acting atypically when there really is no “typical”, then they hammer them until they’re exasperated and suggest maybe they’re exasperated because they’re hiding something. I’d like to see the average American throwing shade at this guy deal with this kind of scrutiny and pressure and stay cool.

I didn’t say anything about him being exasperated because he’s “hiding something,” that’s irrelevant to my point (I was specifically looking at it from the perspective that he potentially isn’t lying). It’s not about how “people” behave under stress, it’s how a potential Supreme Court justice should behave. For what is ostensibly a job interview, I’d say he acted extremely unprofessional - to say the least - whether he’s hiding something or not. He’s not an average Joe suddenly under a cop’s microscope. He’s a judge, he shouldn’t have a problem in this setting, and let’s not forget this wasn’t even a trial.

Who’s to say how I’d fare in the same situation, but then again I’m not the one up for one of the most important positions in the nation.

I’m going to assume that none of your previous job interviews ever included defending yourself against rape allegations with your accuser testifying directly to your potential employer.

This wasn’t a typical Supreme Court nominee Senate hearing and calling it a job interview belies the immense pressure of the situation, even under normal circumstances without the rape allegation (most job interviews don’t happen in front of a committee and large audience with TV cameras broadcasting everything you say). Criticizing Kavanaugh’s demeanor doesn’t strike me as fair under the circumstances. I would’ve been suspicious if he’d been calm. I doubt he’d be this combative if they were simply asking him about his judicial record and thoughts on previous court cases, though he does strike me as someone who’d give whatever he got, in which case aggressive questioning would be met with aggressive responses.

Handman said:

Regardless of whether or not he did it, the fact that there is no definitive proof he didn’t do it, and his behavior during his testimony, gives a rather poor impression of his character. I do not know why the Republicans have to stick with Kavanaugh with all this controversy. It would be so much simpler to just pick someone else.

What’s ironic is that the most likely fallback (Amy Coney Barrett) is arguably more conservative than Kavanaugh, which is the only thing that makes me think at least some Democrats are pushing back on him out of genuine principles and not just payback for Garland, unless of course they’re sitting on some stuff to throw against her, too.

The entire point of all these delays is to push the hearings until after the election, at which point the Democrats can use the same play that Republicans did when they refused to hold hearings for Garland. At least then there’s a hope that Democrats will have more sway.

Handman said:

Right, but seeing as most seats up for re-election are held by Democrats… the chances are slim. I’m aware of the election, it just doesn’t make sense to push this guy through for any reason besides partisanship… it just makes me want to vote them all out now.

This post is not very articulate. It is very late and I am exhausted, but hopefully you get my meaning.

I think the longer they drag it out, the more it makes the Republicans look weak and clueless, so even if they don’t gain any seats after the election, it’s still a bit of a win. That’s if you believe the blue wave is inevitable. Possible they’re just stirring up more conservative angst (and therefore votes) with all the drama. We’ll find out soon enough.