Christine Blasey-Ford

Anyone can post and discuss breaking news that interest them (please respect posting guidelines and be sure to reference properly).
Forum rules
Please be sure to check our forum's Rules & Guidelines

Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby hyksos on September 28th, 2018, 1:26 am 

Christine Blasey-Ford is a victim of sexual assault. She is the most credible witness I have ever seen recall a distant event in my entire life.

Blasey-Ford-Yearbook-772x346.jpg

.
markjudge_crop.png



Let's do the logic. Let's do "the math".

  • Blasey-Ford placed a third man in the room during the attack. She named that third man by name.
  • The third man in the room was Mark Judge.
  • If I'm a woman telling a lie about a sexual attack because I'm "paid off by the Clintons and coached by conspirators" I'm sure as hell not going to put a 3rd man in the room. And clear as sky, I would not name him by name Adding more people makes the lie harder to pull off because more people can falsify you. However, Blasey-Ford did all this.
  • If the Republicans are convinced that this is a Clinton Revenge Conspiracy, then bring Mark Judge in front of the committee and let him falsify the crazy lady's story. Right?
  • But the Republicans pulled every trick to reduce the amount of witnesses, and pulled every trick to stop an investigation by the FBI.
  • If there is a 3rd man in a room during an attack, common sense, logic, reason and rationality demand that he speak in front the committee.
  • But it gets worse. Mark Judge is not at his home. He has been placed in a tourist cabin in a remote coastal area, far away from cameras, far away from media, and far away from the long arm of the FBI. This is where Mark Judge has been "hiding out" during the course of Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings. This stinks to high heaven. It is as if the Republicans are hiding Mark Judge from the world.
  • Blasey-Ford went public with the Kavanaugh attack before he was selected as nominee for Supreme Court Justice. By raw syllogistic logic, the timeline of a Vast Leftwing Conspiracy makes no sense.
  • A vast leftwing conspiracy orchestrated by vengeful Clintons would have proceeded in this order in time: (1) Kavanaugh is picked as SCOTUS nominee. (2) He is not yet confirmed. (3) Clinton conspirators go dig up Blasey-Ford and "coach her" on what to say to whom. (4) This is done so as to block Kavanugh's vote and appointment as supreme court justice. The problem is that this order of events did not manifest in reality. Blasey-Ford went public with the attack prior to his selection as nominee.
  • The Republicans have done everything in their power to avoid any delay in the confirmation vote of Kavanaugh. They have done this even when a delay is perfectly logical. What is the reason for ramming Kavanaugh into the SCOTUS as fast as humanly possible?

The only logical, rational conclusion is that Blasey-Ford is not a Clinton-paid conspirator making up a story.

Christine Blasey-Ford was attacked by Brett Kavanaugh in 1982.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1453
Joined: 28 Nov 2014




Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby Braininvat on September 28th, 2018, 9:37 am 

I watched parts of the hearing. She seemed credible, and properly terrified. And Kavanaugh acted like an entitled child, by turns sniveling and rude (his treatment of Sen. Amy Klobuchar was so far from what one would expect from a federal judge that I had to wonder if he was inebriated). He completely abandoned the calm and dignity one would expect from a SCOTUS judge to be. I see why Trump likes him... must be like looking in a mirror.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6777
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby Mattering on October 7th, 2018, 3:47 pm 

Besides everything you wrote, there is also the general manner in which he's conducted himself during the entire proceeding. His general manner was Machiavellian: listen to the question, and process an answer as quickly as possible that will be "strategically" good for you. This way of relating to others around you is fundamentally dishonest; nevermind the nature of the job he is seeking entails that he be honest with the people he represents. If we lived in a smarter society, people would have an interpretive system in place to notice these behaviors and name - and then tame their noxious significance. But we don't; things like this are minimized and treated as 'unreal' only because its a subtle dynamic that has to do with what a human being has to do to regulate their intrinsic brain dynamics when they're trying to lie while being interrogated.

Evidently, he isn't that smart a man as he answered questions he would have been better off being silent to. He lied about simple things and even complicated his own situation by offering his own calendar - with plenty more stuff to scrutinize. His interests, for example, are an animal-house cliché. Sex, drinking, and fun is all he seems to care about; and power.

The crazy thing is that his emotional response to describing his own history - and historical attachments, is probably very sincere, which goes to show how brazenly out of touch he is with reality. His sheer meanness and viciousness to all other human beings in the democracy he lives within (and is interested in dismantling) exists side-by-side with his feelings of warmth and connection to the friends he's had. Such dissociation, or contradictory meaning, can exist within the same mindbrain; but the consequences of such a rickety internal structure is a personality disorder that psychologists call "borderline". Such people dissociate their own bullshit towards other people, while maintaining the delusional notion that they are above critique. This is what Trump is like, and also what Kavanaugh is like.

People with these sorts of personality disorders are so depressingly common nowadays - and always in history; the strongman is always a person with borderline personality disorder; they are always hyper-sensitive to being challenged, to the non-conceptual meaning of non-verbal communicative actions - facial responses, vocal tones, and the social-power significance of a statement. They are hyper-obsessed with control and experiencing themselves as in control - which is also coincident with dominating others.

The other day Trump was praising himself for not being a drinker - claiming it was his only good attribute. When I heard that I thought "that's because your drug of choice is dominating other people"; which, in my opinion, is an even worse disease than a substance abuse, because the object you need to exploit to get pleasure is another human being.
Mattering
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 06 Oct 2018


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby Braininvat on October 7th, 2018, 4:38 pm 

Interesting analysis, though I am generally reluctant to draw too many conclusions about someone's psychological makeup on the basis of their behavior in front of a Senate committee and TV cameras. I think it is possible to say what Kavanaugh is not (SCOTUS material) while remaining uncertain what he is. IOW, there are situations - e. g. job interviews - where the externals are sufficient to make a sound decision. The confirmation yesterday underscores the reality that the legislative branch of the government has epically failed in its Constitutional mandate to be independent of the executive branch. Votes seemed more driven by allegiance to the President and by senatorial reelection calculus, than by true "advise and consent. "
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6777
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby Serpent on October 7th, 2018, 5:23 pm 

Here's a thing about the state of USian rationality:
On two other forums, there are threads (multiple; I lost track) in the vein of: "Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?", in defense of the poor, maligned Kavanaugh, persecuted by Democrats with a political agenda.*
The arguments routinely
1. conflate a confirmation hearing with a criminal trial; an accusation with a conviction; a constrained, rushed review with a police cold-case investigation, and
2. condemn the complainant as a liar, a self-promoter, an opportunist, a political tool, simply for complaining.

* You can always tell what the right wingnuts have done, are doing and/or planning to do by what they accuse liberals of doing.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby Mattering on October 7th, 2018, 5:37 pm 

Braininvat » October 7th, 2018, 4:38 pm wrote:Interesting analysis, though I am generally reluctant to draw too many conclusions about someone's psychological makeup on the basis of their behavior in front of a Senate committee and TV cameras.


I'm a big reader into the neurosciences and philosophical takes on the semiotics of biology, so I feel there is a fairly good ground to speak about what's going on in his head on the basis of how the brain is organized. There is a profound increase in knowledge here, which is leading to a profound paradigm shift in how we think about the human mind.

Since we have bodies, and our feeling states are 'wired' into our consciousness through the insular cortex, the developmental process of cognition (since the brain is always hardwired developmentally) is the development of the cingulate cortex, then the orbital frontal cortex, and as the child ages, more external cortical regions 'grow' as the cognitive developmental system becomes increasingly 'refined' around the same sort of semiotic problems, adding new semiotic structure as 'older' structure falls into the implicit - unconscious - zone.

Any person competent in the requisite sciences knows it is fully legitimate to assume that during this proceeding, Kavanaugh was attempting to 'manage' the information he was being bombarded with in the sketchy sort of way that people like him tend to do things. The 'pauses' he always made before speaking were obvious "think of something plausible" moments. He pauses as he does, also, because being in front of a group of strangers, and having cameras focused on you, is moderately stressful. Under such conditions, the body is too 'tense' for the cortex to receive the blood-flow required for a more effective and sellable lie.

The confirmation yesterday underscores the reality that the legislative branch of the government has epically failed in its Constitutional mandate to be independent of the executive branch.


This is where I derive my whole prior argument from. What makes you think that the executive branch is truly separate from the legislative, or judicial branch? I understand that this is the purpose, and when society is working right, this desired result can occur. But we also have to be clear headed about how humans work: the enlightenment was the cultural background for the intellectuals who built America. What is the cultural background today? Postmodernism? An exaggerated contempt-worthy scientism? Evangelicalism? The enlightenment value of reason is quieted amidst this uproar of popular mainstream hedonism. Sports, music, etc, has created a stupid culture, and there are plenty of stupid people available to help scaffold a stupid government.

On another note, since the emergence of an asymmetrical society 6,000 or 7,000 years ago, it makes sense to posit that two narratives would emerge that would 'fit the needs' of the two classes that existed: those who controlled material resources and those who didn't. There is plenty of meaning in the archeological record which demonstrates the different forms that these narratives took; its only the "elitist" narratives left for archeologists to work with, for obvious reasons.

More or less, an "intramundane" Gnosticism is the logical spirituality to be adopted by guilt-ridden brainminds (we are not in control of ourselves, as is typically imagined). Since feeling states are fundamentally reducible to actions in a self-other intersubjective context, actions that are asymmetrical, which produce an asymmetrical effect in an other (shame, humiliation) always leave a 'residue' in the formative structure in the mind which acted that way. The logic of the mind is dyadic: it grows through 'dyadic expansions of consciousness' - interactions between two people in which a feeling of 'being known' expands consciousness by stimulating emotion.

Mainstream religions have typically been protests against the excesses of the elite. Zoroaster and the Avesta criticizes the Vedic Indo-Aryan culture which despoiled Iran-Western India between 3000 and 1500 BCE. The Hebrew Bible emerged out of Egyptian slavery; then it was reformed again after Babylonian captivity, etc.

We need to get real about this difference between these two classes, and how these two classes preserve fundamental differences between how emotions are processes in the brainmind, and so, since you have a greedy class that wants to keep what it has, you get a moral-system that is diametrically opposite to the moral system created by natural processes. You could say the elite 'skim' the matter, or the "surplus" (in marx's language) of the work of others to live the way they do without hitting existential rock-bottom.

Substance Dualism has its origins here. It is the belief of elites and vagabonds. Both suffer from unresolved relational traumas that keep them dissociated from their bodies, but equipped with a narrative that allows them to manage their anxieties with "power". The narrative is everything, psychologically, to human beings. Challenging another's narrative is an invitation to belligerence.

So naturally I assume that Kavanaugh has been raised in a myth-laden WASP culture which in his time period included pagan rituals with all sorts of pretentious beliefs about the nature of reality. Hermeticism, Kabbalah, Gnosticism, etc, are examples of unsubstantiated metaphysical speculation.

I assume that people who behave the way he behaves need a metaphysical 'story' to ground their feeling of security. I therefore consider it quite likely that he is, as they would probably describe themselves, an "illuminati", because people like him subscribe to sadomasochistic ideas about reality - and who knows what other occult theories fit their needs? People like this are obsessed with the occult, probably because they think their movements through power are happening because of secret occult powers.
Mattering
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 06 Oct 2018


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby wolfhnd on October 7th, 2018, 5:43 pm 

I remember when news was about facts not opinion but then I'm really old :-). The historical norm on the other hand was yellow journalism. BIV is right, plenty of reason to object to Kavanaugh based on his judicial RECORD. Evidence and reason my friends.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4689
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby Serpent on October 7th, 2018, 6:59 pm 

The news I watched - not all of the coverage, just a fraction - was video footage of the actual proceedings.
Everything regarding legal, political and constitutional matters the candidate did before his nomination for the post of supreme judge ought to be taken into consideration at a hearing about his fitness for the post. That should include criminal activity* and partisan associations and bias, as well as his record on the bench.
From what I saw, none of those activities were adequately investigated.

Of course, the craziest part is the process itself.
Who thought it was a good idea to make the judiciary political?

*And of course, this particular criminal activity is more than normally significant in a judge whose first obligation to his backers will be to curtail women's reproductive rights. Many supporters are representing the situation as "he said/ she said", when it's in fact, they said quite a lot, while all he can say is, "No I didn't" and the FBI isn't allowed to find out which is true.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby Braininvat on October 7th, 2018, 8:11 pm 

Matter, news forum posts tend to be fairly topical. I am not inclined to meander through your wide-ranging thoughts on neuroscience, ancient religion, dualism, Marxism, Gnosticism, or Kavanaugh's possible interests in the occult. Each paragraph of your post may well be the kernel of its own thread in a science forum or philosophy forum, but I would hope this thread and other News threads can stay within the parameters of news discussion. I'm sorry I don't have time to explain this better.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6777
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby hyksos on October 8th, 2018, 2:41 am 

wolfhnd » October 8th, 2018, 1:43 am wrote:I remember when news was about facts not opinion but then I'm really old :-). The historical norm on the other hand was yellow journalism. BIV is right, plenty of reason to object to Kavanaugh based on his judicial RECORD. Evidence and reason my friends.

I absolutely prefer fact-based TV journalism and fact-based news. These days you only get glimmers of it on TV.

(disclaimer : I am no shape or form a fan of Sean Hannity) however, I do appreciate Hannity's pretense to hem very close to factual reporting. So he says things like "the primary witnesses refuted Blasey-Ford's testimony". The pretense to factualness I like. Unfortunately this is a factual lie (which is water-under-bridge for Fox News "reporting"). Let me show you what a refutation looks like

I was at the party and Christine (Blasey-Ford) was there. I remember that night. She drank a beer on the back porch and left around midnight. She never went into the house.

THAT is a refutation.

This is not a refutation :
I don't remember.

See the difference, Mr. Hannity?

On the other side of the TV dial is CNN and MSNBC, who have lost track of all reporting and gone into full agit-prop mode. (homework assignment. Google "agitprop") . My reaction to this swift turn away from journalism into agitprop is this :

Well if we are going to do agitprop, then let the facts be known. If your goal is to sway the midterm elections, then getting people really angry in dark blue counties will do nothing. The real strategy is to make people angry in purple counties. That's where the dems gain seats.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1453
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby hyksos on October 8th, 2018, 2:49 am 

Serpent » October 8th, 2018, 2:59 am wrote:The news I watched - not all of the coverage, just a fraction - was video footage of the actual proceedings.
Everything regarding legal, political and constitutional matters the candidate did before his nomination for the post of supreme judge ought to be taken into consideration at a hearing about his fitness for the post. That should include criminal activity* and partisan associations and bias, as well as his record on the bench.
From what I saw, none of those activities were adequately investigated.

You have opened up the topical can of what was adequately investigated. After a few days of 20/20 hindsight, I have noticed the strangest weirdest thing about this whole Kavanaugh debacle.

Brett Kavanaugh sat in front of the nation on TV, and the senate, and described the allegations as a (quote) "calculated political hit orchestrated by the Clintons".

Not a single Democrat asked Kavanaugh to follow up with this statement. He was never asked for facts that support this claim. Not a single REPUBLICAN during he confirmation hearings brought this subject back up in questioning. Then perhaps most perplexing, even Fox News pundits did not pick it up and run with it.

So a man came in front of the nation, and spewed a bipartisanly-charged tinfoil hat conspiracy theory -- and our American system is going to stick this person on the Supreme Court ... for life.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1453
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby Serpent on October 8th, 2018, 8:40 am 

Legal query:
Are supreme court judges immune to arrest and criminal charges?
Follow-up:
If so, under what jurisdiction? Which justice has authority to issue a warrant?
Redirect:
Can he and the president pardon each other?
Follow-up:
What happens to the rule of law in the United States now?
Irrelevant?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby SciameriKen on October 8th, 2018, 1:50 pm 

hyksos » Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:49 am wrote:
Serpent » October 8th, 2018, 2:59 am wrote:The news I watched - not all of the coverage, just a fraction - was video footage of the actual proceedings.
Everything regarding legal, political and constitutional matters the candidate did before his nomination for the post of supreme judge ought to be taken into consideration at a hearing about his fitness for the post. That should include criminal activity* and partisan associations and bias, as well as his record on the bench.
From what I saw, none of those activities were adequately investigated.

You have opened up the topical can of what was adequately investigated. After a few days of 20/20 hindsight, I have noticed the strangest weirdest thing about this whole Kavanaugh debacle.

Brett Kavanaugh sat in front of the nation on TV, and the senate, and described the allegations as a (quote) "calculated political hit orchestrated by the Clintons".

Not a single Democrat asked Kavanaugh to follow up with this statement. He was never asked for facts that support this claim. Not a single REPUBLICAN during he confirmation hearings brought this subject back up in questioning. Then perhaps most perplexing, even Fox News pundits did not pick it up and run with it.

So a man came in front of the nation, and spewed a bipartisanly-charged tinfoil hat conspiracy theory -- and our American system is going to stick this person on the Supreme Court ... for life.


The whole situation is infuriating. There were closed door senate meetings so perhaps some of these issues discussed there? But for the most part Serpent is right, especially from our perspective -- this whole issue allowed Kav to avoid taking questions on contentious issues.

Overall this just highlights the truth that the democrats are a bunch of toothless wimps versus the republicans, who are in win at all cost mode. This also extends to the media giving equal time to individuals that don't merit it and not asking hard questions when they need to.
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1410
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby Serpent on October 8th, 2018, 2:36 pm 

Seems like the broadcast media have given up asking questions at all.
When they don't know what's going to happen and need to fill air-time until something does happen, they pass the mic back and forth, speculating baselessly on who might do what, repeat remarks made by participants, rather than fact-checking or comparing those remarks, or finding sources of information outside their closed circle.
Maybe they stopped asking questions, because the reporters who insisted on doing so were fired or had their script torn up and replaced by something that echoed every other commentator around and around the closed circle.

I only wonder whether the FBI is similarly bound and gagged.

Actually, the appointment of this one toady isn't going to make any difference to the style of governance: politics, world-wide, have been moving in this same direction for 5+ years, and the appointment of an ethically pure and unbiased jurist wouldn't have altered their course by more than a hair - but this farce of a confirmation hearing might. Just barely might. I'm not betting on it.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby hyksos on October 8th, 2018, 4:07 pm 

I agree with everyone's pet peeves. All good points. Let me double down on the strangeness and weirdness of this situation by means of contrast.

(1) Woman appears and says she was sexually assaulted.

Everyone's reaction:
"Where is the evidence?"
"Can we believe her?"
"What is her credibility?"
"We need FBI investigations!"
"Witness statements!"



(2) Kavanaugh appears and claims a calculated political hit orchestrated by a shadowy Clinton cabal.

Everyone, democrat and republican alike, sit silently with their arms folded.


If you are not finding this to be weird , or a bit strange, I can't help you.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1453
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby Serpent on October 8th, 2018, 4:54 pm 

Thought experiment:
Hispanic garage handyman applies for the job of bus driver; his CDL license is in order, no insurance claims, though in their spare time, both he and his wife are sales reps for Goodyear tires.
Five women from come forward with accusations of sexual assault when they were teenagers.
He says: "They're liars! All liars!! They're paid off by Michelin!!"
Are the bus line's security officers asked to take a brief, cursory look into the allegations?
Does he get the job?
(Probably not: bus driver is a position of trust.)

Okay, what if he's a rich WASP president and had consensual sex with a 21-year-old assistant?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby BadgerJelly on October 9th, 2018, 2:17 pm 

Serpent » October 9th, 2018, 4:54 am wrote:Thought experiment:
Hispanic garage handyman applies for the job of bus driver; his CDL license is in order, no insurance claims, though in their spare time, both he and his wife are sales reps for Goodyear tires.
Five women from come forward with accusations of sexual assault when they were teenagers.
He says: "They're liars! All liars!! They're paid off by Michelin!!"
Are the bus line's security officers asked to take a brief, cursory look into the allegations?
Does he get the job?
(Probably not: bus driver is a position of trust.)

Okay, what if he's a rich WASP president and had consensual sex with a 21-year-old assistant?


This is quite simple. If found innocent by the court and was refused the job due to this circumstance then he should be compensated in some way - given tha he likley doesn’t possess much money I doubt he’d be in much of a position to sue.

Then there is the difference of circmustances outlined above. One shows women with no obvious motive to lie, or for anyone to push them to lie (unless there are other factors), and the second shows someone in the biggest political spot-light there likely is during a time of poltical turmoil being accused of a crime - with apparently no serious evidence - and it doesn’t take much imagination to see how others could benefit from him either being appointed or not appointed.

The concluding point is that regardless of right or wrong and what is deemed morally “correct” the idea of refusing someone a job simply because they’ve been convicted of a crime is not ideal.

News flash! If I kill several people and steal their money, and I am accused of doing so, it doesn’t mean I go to prison or suffer any consequences of my actions in the eyes of the law. Sometimes bad people get away with things and if they didn’t then the innocent would have to live with little to no personal freedom.

Life’s tough.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby SciameriKen on October 9th, 2018, 3:21 pm 

hyksos » Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:07 pm wrote:I agree with everyone's pet peeves. All good points. Let me double down on the strangeness and weirdness of this situation by means of contrast.

(1) Woman appears and says she was sexually assaulted.

Everyone's reaction:
"Where is the evidence?"
"Can we believe her?"
"What is her credibility?"
"We need FBI investigations!"
"Witness statements!"



(2) Kavanaugh appears and claims a calculated political hit orchestrated by a shadowy Clinton cabal.

Everyone, democrat and republican alike, sit silently with their arms folded.


If you are not finding this to be weird , or a bit strange, I can't help you.



I think one thing to consider in this though is that the allegations are 30 years old -- Kav has seemingly led an upstanding life since perhaps college. Is there legitimacy to the Republican's argument I loosely describe as "kids will be kids"? If the republican's take this stance, is it fair for them to also justify giving similar aged individuals as Kav lengthy jail sentences for crimes?
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1410
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby Serpent on October 9th, 2018, 3:42 pm 

BadgerJelly » October 9th, 2018, 1:17 pm wrote:This is quite simple. If found innocent by the court and was refused the job due to this circumstance then he should be compensated in some way

What court?? There is no police investigation, no indictment, no discovery, trial, no legal or court proceedings of any kind. Just him and the interviewer.

it doesn’t take much imagination to see how others could benefit from him either being appointed or not appointed.

So... the complainants are presumed guilty of lying, because you can imagine some reason they might? And you can imagine that whatever they might gain is worth the death threats, harassment, public character-assassination and ruin?
Again: no police investigation, no charges, no grand jury, no indictment, no hearing. Just brush it aside and give him free reign over the constitution.
OTH, even if one can imagine what Kavanaugh has to gain by alleging a conspiracy, he's presumed to be telling the truth, on the basis of zero evidence.

News flash! If I kill several people and steal their money, and I am accused of doing so, it doesn’t mean I go to prison or suffer any consequences of my actions in the eyes of the law.

If accused, the police would investigate. The DA would prosecute. If there were insufficient evidence, you might not be found guilty. Key words: police, investigate.
The law would punish you. The president could pardon you.
Sometimes bad people get away with things and if they didn’t then the innocent would have to live with little to no personal freedom.

because bad people get away with things ....the innocent have to live with little to no personal freedom
Life's tough.

But it's not in the Supreme Court's job description to make life tougher for Americans.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby Braininvat on October 9th, 2018, 6:17 pm 

Useful to bear in mind that a job interview is not a court trial. A job applicant can be legitimately rejected for any cause of doubt in their suitability for said job. You don't have to be proven a felon in order to be denied a specific job position. I think those opposed to Kavanaugh would have done better to focus on his obvious lack of qualification for an important judgeship, i.e. lying about his past, his yearbook entry, and spouting partisan conspiracy theories, all while under oath before the US Senate. Also his departure from a civil and calm demeanor - in how many job interviews for a judgeship would that be acceptable. It's pathetic that the circus distracted from these obvious considerations.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6777
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby Serpent on October 9th, 2018, 6:35 pm 

Braininvat » October 9th, 2018, 5:17 pm wrote: - in how many job interviews for a judgeship would that be acceptable?

All the ones with a wholly partisan backing and wholly partisan approval.
It's pathetic that the circus distracted from these obvious considerations.

None of those things would have been considered for a single minute. The circus was a desperation move -- possibly, just possibly, a couple of republican senators would cavil at such egregious behaviour. (And of course, it was the sex assault accusation that broke his cool facade and brought his character into the light.)
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby BadgerJelly on October 9th, 2018, 10:06 pm 

Biv -

It's pathetic that the circus distracted from these obvious considerations.


I think someone said elsewhere ... “you get what you deserve.” The same crap happens with Trump. People complain about literally everything he says, exaggerate and vilify, and this simply allows his more intelligent comments to be seen in the same light as his purposefully provocative comments.

Note: You can sue people for tarnishing your character (defamation.)

Serpent -

I can almost see the foam on your lips. No court, no police investigation and no evidence. What is the problem here? Is it the case that all public allegations are to be taken as true if there is no evidence available to protect the “innocent.”

Sounds more like emotional reaction to a single case (aka US “politics”)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby Serpent on October 9th, 2018, 11:04 pm 

BadgerJelly » October 9th, 2018, 9:06 pm wrote: No court, no police investigation and no evidence. What is the problem here?

The problem here is: no police investigation and no court
Is it the case that all public allegations are to be taken as true if there is no evidence available to protect the “innocent.”

It is the case that allegations, public or private, of criminal activity should be investigated before any decision is made as to their validity. Evidence is not available to the senators making the decision, only because the investigation was curtailed. Whoever is being protected by this sham is not
the “innocent.”


Sounds more like emotional reaction to a single case (aka US “politics”)

And your response to the bus driver applicant example was the assumption that the complaint against him had been investigated and that he was tried in a court of law. This is a reasonable assumption. This is what normally happens when such cases involve ordinary citizens with no special immunity.
What happened in this case was no investigation, no court of law;
the accused rewarded and the accuser vilified - without evidence.
That, of course, is not an emotional reaction. That is US current politics.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby BadgerJelly on October 10th, 2018, 12:00 am 

No, my response was to show that it doesn’t matter who says what if there is no evidence and the accused is merely accused (ie. not prosecuted.)

Do you imagine that there is a reason for no legal action?

Lately Christiano Ronaldo was accused of rape. Should we view him as guilty because he has been accused? Should we view anyone accused as being guilty? This is the main issue here and it has been conflated by a “feminist” agenda and a very poor understanding of basic statistics to exploit public opinion. The situation in the US is just that - it is a problem in the US because the US is a very unique social landscape.

the accused rewarded and the accuser vilified - without evidence


This is so far from what has actually happened that it’s almost funny that you say this. You really believe that people “vilify” the accuser more than the accused in this situation? Have a look around social media and you’ll see two sides (both OTT in many cases.)

No evidence ... so why the kangaroo court? If there is no evidential grounds for criminal prosecution the why is this even brought up? Who benefits? What is the motive?

The law isn’t “fair”, the justice system doesn’t dish out “justice”. It is an imperfect system in an imperfect world. The pay off of such injustices (whatever they may be) is that the law aims to protect society and the people within society - the law is amended and over time people suffer in order to have laws amended to better serve citizens.

I don’t quite understand why this is hard to grasp. I do understand rage though and the motivation to unjustly punish people you feel have wronged society. I’d rather the law be held up to account than silly back and forth nonsense based on heresay and accusations that lack solid evidence.

Of course this case is highly politically charged to say the least. That should be taken into account not ignored to suit any personal views about the accused/accuser.

Many people behave abhorrently and lie about it. I don’t find this to be much of a surprise. The whole “rape culture” narrative being thrown around in the US seems a little over the top fro my perspective. This case, whoever is to blame, is being used to convey the perception of this “rape culture” - a term I find both disturbingly ambiguous and pruposefully conflated in order to create unease between both men and women. It is a worrying problem don’t you think? I’d rather not get overly distracted by sensationalised individual cases no matter how tempting it may be to get dragged into viewing one case as a representation of a whole society (easily done if you’ve got a dog in the fight - wish to push home your opinion based on anecdotal evidence.)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby Serpent on October 10th, 2018, 9:59 am 

BadgerJelly » October 9th, 2018, 11:00 pm wrote:No, my response was to show that it doesn’t matter who says what if there is no evidence and the accused is merely accused (ie. not prosecuted.)

Ah, but in this case, there is evidence which was not admitted or followed; ie not made available.

Do you imagine that there is a reason for no legal action?

I'm not sure what this means. I know there is no legal action, and there is always a reason. I have some idea what that reason is and you have a probably different idea of what that reason is, but all we know for sure is what we heard on the news; the rest is left to our quite different imaginations.

Lately Christiano Ronaldo was accused of rape. Should we view him as guilty because he has been accused? Should we view anyone accused as being guilty?

No, we should view them as suspects and not put them in charge of making and breaking the law of the land, until a thorough investigation had been conducted. Such an investigation, in the normal course of events, would entail protracted interrogation of the accused, extensive questioning of alleged victim(s) (very possibly both under polygraph) and witnesses, close examination of all forensics, documents and circumstances of the case, comparison and fact-checking. Only then would there be an indictment, a voir dire hearing and a trial.

I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand.


[the accused rewarded and the accuser vilified - without evidence]

This is so far from what has actually happened that it’s almost funny that you say this.

What actually happened? The accuser had to move, received death threats, was publicly jeered by the president, no less, and is in continued danger. The accused is sitting on the highest court in the land, with the power of life and death over a great many of his fellow citizens.

No evidence

So you keep saying. But that is not the case. Are you truly unaware that evidence is usually the product of an investigation, of which there wasn't one?
... so why the kangaroo court?

What kangaroo? What court? Whether the man is guilty of that particular crime or not, he's clearly unfit for the office he's just been given. He demonstrated that to the entire world.

If there is no evidential grounds for criminal prosecution the why is this even brought up? Who benefits? What is the motive?

An obvious and overt misogynist is about to rule on the matter of women's reproductive rights.

The law isn’t “fair”, the justice system doesn’t dish out “justice”. It is an imperfect system in an imperfect world. The pay off of such injustices (whatever they may be) is that the law aims to protect society and the people within society - the law is amended and over time people suffer in order to have laws amended to better serve citizens.

And that's why it's a good idea to put a wolf in charge of the sheep-pens?

I don’t quite understand

Evidently.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby SciameriKen on October 10th, 2018, 10:41 am 

Serpent » Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:59 pm wrote:
I don’t quite understand

Evidently.



No need for that...
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1410
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby BadgerJelly on October 10th, 2018, 10:44 am 

Serpent -

Vacuous drivel. Bye
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby Braininvat on October 10th, 2018, 11:53 am 

Just an FYI - there could not be legal action on the alleged events of 36 years ago, because that would call for an investigation by Maryland police, and the statute of limitations at that time, for that class of sexual offense, was one year. MD later changed that SoL, but prior incidents are "grandfathered" and have to be handled on what was the law at that time.

I think Serpent was expanding on a point several others here did make already, which is that Kavanaugh should have been dismissed on more straightforward and determinable grounds of giving false testimony and in other respects not upholding the professional standards of the federal judiciary. For those living outside the U.S. it's important to understand the Supreme Court is specifically mandated to be nonpartisan and entirely independent of the legislative and executive branches of government. Appointing someone who obsessively pursued a Clinton conspiracy theory for years, in the 90s, and openly - without evidence - claimed a new Clinton conspiracy to keep him from his destined greatness on the SCOTUS, would seem prima facie to not be qualified for the position.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6777
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Christine Blasey-Ford

Postby SciameriKen on October 10th, 2018, 12:27 pm 

Braininvat » Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:53 pm wrote:Just an FYI - there could not be legal action on the alleged events of 36 years ago, because that would call for an investigation by Maryland police, and the statute of limitations at that time, for that class of sexual offense, was one year. MD later changed that SoL, but prior incidents are "grandfathered" and have to be handled on what was the law at that time.

I think Serpent was expanding on a point several others here did make already, which is that Kavanaugh should have been dismissed on more straightforward and determinable grounds of giving false testimony and in other respects not upholding the professional standards of the federal judiciary. For those living outside the U.S. it's important to understand the Supreme Court is specifically mandated to be nonpartisan and entirely independent of the legislative and executive branches of government. Appointing someone who obsessively pursued a Clinton conspiracy theory for years, in the 90s, and openly - without evidence - claimed a new Clinton conspiracy to keep him from his destined greatness on the SCOTUS, would seem prima facie to not be qualified for the position.


All of that would be true in a sane world - but the senate as it is, Kav probably could have sexually assaulted Ford during the confirmation hearing and only would have lost a vote or two.
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1410
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


Next

Return to News Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests