Kavanaugh Hearing

IIRC, she said she knew four people at the party, not that it was only the five of them.

 

Even well educated people can be naïve. Obviously she should have been aware that her allegations would not have been taken seriously if she chose to remain anonymous. Naiveté doesn't mean that she was in it for the money although your response shouldn't be surprising since in the world view of Trump and by extension his supporters almost all decisions are driven by financial implications.

 

The letter she sent to Feinstein is very clear, it said it The gathering included was me and four others.

 

Oh I understand that … in your opinion it would have happened. But, there is no way for you to know … and there's no way you can quantify probability. However, if you think you can ….. please post your calculation of the 99.99% value. Thanks.

 

Ah, the letter! Forgot about that, I was just going by her description in the Post. Yes, she certainly does say it was her and four others. And since she told the post there were four boys at the party, that would be everybody.
You're certainly correct on that one.

 

And be mistaken … or capable of arriving at erroneous conclusions as to long ago events …. or willing to intentionally fabricate an situation to achieve financial and/or political objectives.

 

From the letter.

If the treatment occurred contemporaneously (with a day or two) she may be able to provide documentation or possibly testimony from others corroborating that she received treatment.

 

Okay. I'll take you at your word.

 

Fabrication to achieve financial and/or political objectives. What can accurately be referred to as Trumpian ethics. Good try. A rational person would not subject herself to public ridicule or worse for the remote possibility of financial gain.

 

Here's a bit on the one Ford classmate who remembered all of this stuff happening …. and then apparently decided she didn't. This stuff is just rich ……. strange. Just throw this on top of Ford's letter.

Brett Kavanaugh Sex-Assault Allegation: Classmate of Accuser Backtracks on Viral Guilty Claim | National Review

A woman who says she attended high school with Christine Blasey Ford claimed Tuesday in a since-deleted tweet that she was certain of Kavanaugh’s guilt and remembered the alleged assault being spoken about in school in its aftermath.

“I graduated from Holton Arms, and knew both Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. Christine Blasey Ford was a year or so behind me, I remember her. I signed this letter. The incident was spoken about for days afterwords in school. Kavanaugh should stop lying, own up to it and apologize,” Cristina King Miranda wrote Tuesday morning in a tweet that received thousands of retweets and likes.

Miranda also wrote a Facebook post supporting Ford’s claim, which describes being stood up after asking Kavanaugh’s fellow Georgetown Prep student Mark Judge to the prom. She accused Judge, who has described his alcoholism in detail in a series of books, of getting “bombed a few hours before prom dinner.”

“This incident did happen. Many of us heard a buzz about it indirectly with few specific details. However Christine’s vivid recollection should be more than enough for us to truly, deeply know that the accusation is true,” the Facebook post reads. “The drinking ensconced in the puritanism and hypocrisy of that elite, privileged, mostly white, Catholic, Washington society, was completely out of control.”

 

You're assuming Ford is a "rational person". Have you read her letter to Feinstein??? A letter, it seems, she wrote without any guidance or counsel from a qualified legal professional. You do realize she's a liberal academic …. a psychologist?? Ypu do realize she went to a leftie politician with the allegation .... instead of the appropriate Maryland law enforcement agency? She may be sane …… but, there's cause to be skeptical given the manner in which this has been "brought out" by Ford, Feinstein, etal.

Regardless … she's now a hero/martyr to the vast majority, if not all, American leftists. It's reasonable to expect speaking engagements. book tours, etc. Heck for all we know ….. she's looking at a new career in California politics. Just consider the tremendous value of the free publicity she's getting in a liberal California Bay Area.

 

I suspect the "medical treatment" she is referring to is talking to her therapist in 2012.

In part because I'm not real clear what contemporaneous medical treatment you would seek for what she has described. I can certainly see where what she described would be traumatic mentally if it happened, but physically there aren't many people going to see the doctor because someone held them down.

 

I’ve since seen an interview with her lawyer where the lawyer says that there were six people at the party, and the sixth person with another woman.

 

There is slut-shaming of Dr. Ford going on right now. We've both read it on this thread. In 1982, the world skewed even more in favor of males. That alone states the probability of slut-shaming going on if she came forward in 1982 to be extremely high. But if you need even more proof, here's an article from Psychology Today. The first lines of the story is:

Virtually anyone who has survived sexual assault or experienced sexual harassment knows how painful victim-blaming can be. Survivors are often asked what they were wearing, what they did to “encourage” the perpetrator, or even why they didn’t fight back more.

Despite the recent rise of the #MeToo movement, victim-blaming remains a tenacious problem.
​

So can I say with 100% certainty that Dr. Ford would have been shamed and blamed? No. But 99.99% certainty. Yes.

 

So the first part of your post is great advice and brilliant. The second part, really starting with "so liberals on this thread," is an attempt to frame debate and somewhat undermines the value of the first part (as your framing is entirely based upon the in-group framing of conservative as the victim, which doesn't address the actual concerns of your out-group). And I say that precisely because the first part showed so much promise that it is disappointing that the second part took some of that away. However, I will address the post in general and describe some of my philosophy and why I feel comfortable with the positions that I have taken on this thread.

1. People need to be okay with short-term ambiguity, even if that ambiguity is not helpful to the in-group. The Ellison situation is not helpful to Democratic Party messaging. I stated the same position on that issue (it needs to be fully investigated) as I did on this issue. Because that is the proper response to both situations. We don't know what happened. And that is okay. Presumably, both Kavanaugh and Ford (as well as Ellison and his accusers) have some knowledge of what happened. But we don't. And that as a state is okay to admit for the time being. The punditocracy, which has now morphed into the social media world, in which everybody becomes a pundit, has forced everybody to deal in what is derisively known as "hot takes" in order to get attention. It is destructive. Sometimes, ambiguity is the correct answer and needs to be accepted as at least a temporary condition. That leads to the much bigger issue, imo:

2. People are way too concerned with responding with an issue to please themselves 5 minutes from now and not nearly concerned enough with responses that they will be proud of in 5 years. Declaring that we know what happened, that she is out for money, that she is lying, that she is mentally ill, or any of the other things posted on this thread without evidence are responses designed to make the person themselves feel better about their position 5 minutes from now. We don't know if this allegation is true or not. But if I supported Kavanaugh, it would clearly be unpleasant to think that this happened and I was supporting such a terrible person. To go back to your football analogy, this is the Aaron Hernandez effect, where it felt awful (and still does) to see old highlights from the 2008 season that contain him, as it reminds us that we were all cheering so hard for a murderer. So supporters of Kavanaugh would not like that to be true, and by declaring it not true, they get to avoid the doubt, which has a disutility, in their minds.

Now, there is also likely some counter-effect to this. I don't think that we can know for sure that this happened right now, and I have actually talked to more liberal friends about that. They are looking to prove their own suspicions and biases correct to some degree and that isn't right either.

You know the response that will feel best in 5 years? If we exhaust what we can to find out what happened here. 5 years from now, we won't remember or care the exact date on which he was confirmed or not confirmed. We won't care about legal wrangling of trying to meet on Monday or not on Monday. We will have two potential outcomes, we will either know what happened, which is the best outcome, or we will be unsure of what happened. The current path of focusing on the minutiae of all of this is almost certain to lead to the second outcome, which is only beneficial if you truly don't care about anybody involved but just want a win. Focusing on the big picture might lead to the first outcome or it might not. But we won't know unless we do it. And it is the only way that we get to that outcome.

Now to your example on Winston. I like that example a lot because I think it illustrates why I am comfortable with this position. 5 years after that happened, I think the damage done by that case outweighs the joy of a 5-year old national title. Winston continues to do awful things, embarrassing them further. Their brand is now forever associated with that case. They became a poster boy for how to not handle athlete sexual abuse correctly, prominently appearing in documentaries and national stories on the topic. In 2013, FSU fans wanted that title. In 2018, it wasn't worth it. The damage from that moment was a rot that infested FSU. The culture built by that team, by that coaching staff, and by that administration toppled, much like Meyer's Florida did.

Now to your specific point about Winston versus responding to a UF player, it is important to consider. However, I can honestly say that I supported the investigation of Callaway for his incident in its entirety. I also slammed UF hard for failing to conduct that investigation in an appropriate manner. The failure to do so may have been short-term good for UF football in 2016. However, over the long-term, I feel quite comfortable that my position on that case has and will be vindicated. UF royally screwed that up. Not to the degree of FSU, but far more than I was comfortable with as an alumnus and supporter of the athletic teams. And again, the rot struck later (Callaway helps lead a group of our players into all committing felonies- another fired coach and another program re-start).

 

Did this Doctor say that she does NOT remember where or when or this alleged assault happened? Is that true, or is that just hearsay?

 

It’s kind of hard to refute something when no information has been provided that is unprovable.

 

You haven't seen much of what I post. I despise HRC. Not as much as Trump... he's on a special level as far as that goes. But I still despise her.

There is a difference in my mind between people who voted for Trump and people who are active Trump supporters. I can see people doing the "lesser of two evils" thing voting for him. I don't agree but I understand it.

And we have those people here for sure. I am not talking about them. I am talking about active Trump supporters.

 

Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) | Twitter

Well, Ed Whelan is walking through quite a mistaken identity theory on Twitter now for what it's worth.

 

It's also hard to prove a crime ever occurred. Or, without a 'where' or 'when' there is no what... as in what happened.

If you go to a police station and you say you want to file a complaint, possible wrongdoing, and you do NOT have the where or when, what do you think the police department would say to you? This does NOT pass the smell test just on that alone.