Kavanaugh Hearings

[HerrDrFunk]

4 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

You don't need to know the specificity of what was discussed or not outside of knowing that this WAS discussed. Knowing how mental health professionals work (I know quite a few personally, not through direct care), something as traumatic as it's being portrayed would most definitely be pursued, and done so vigorously in order to combat any continuing effects it may have on the person's psyche or mental well being. I can tell you absolutely that any reputable couples therapist has at minimum a cursory understanding of clinical psychology and if unable to facilitate that discussion would refer the patient to a colleague who could.

Now maybe that did happen, and Ford just decided to say screw it and suppress the memories. Well that's highly convenient, and then to have done so for 6 years, only to have a crisis of conscience and "have to make sure that people know what happened". That is why the timing is suspect.

Want to know the kicker in all of this? SHE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. She is a PROFESSOR of Psychology. She is also a RESEARCH PSYCHOLOGIST at Stanford. She knows precisely what she is doing, she understands the current climate is conducive to having victims come forward with little to no scrutiny as we are in the midst of the #metoo movement.

 

 

I was generally under the impression that most mental health professionals disagree on there being a one size fits all solution for dealing with trauma. 

 

Little to no scrutiny? Since coming forward Ford has had to move, hire private security and testify in front of the nation. How the hell is that little to no scrutiny?

Edited October 2, 2018 by HerrDrFunk

[nuckin_futz]

6 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

Want to know the kicker in all of this? SHE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. She is a PROFESSOR of Psychology. She is also a RESEARCH PSYCHOLOGIST at Stanford. She knows precisely what she is doing, she understands the current climate is conducive to having victims come forward with little to no scrutiny as we are in the midst of the #metoo movement.

She also has children to consider and knows full well what happens when you accuse people in positions of power of misdeeds. It ain't pretty and quite often it isn't worth it because you're unlikely to get the remedy you seek.

[VanGnome]

11 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

She also has children to consider and knows full well what happens when you accuse people in positions of power of misdeeds. It ain't pretty and quite often it isn't worth it because you're unlikely to get the remedy you seek.

I'm not saying it's an outright lie. What I'm pointing out is that the truth always lies somewhere between two extremes. Her statement was very carefully crafted, on the one hand she said "one or the other turned up the music" and in the same breath "brett was on top of me". So which was it? Could brett have been turning up the music, and could his friend have been on top of her? Were they all inebriated and she only remembers brett being in the room?

I mean that in and of itself would be enough to warrant a dismissal from nomination imo, but after 35 years, the peripheral details of such an act as alluded to by others in this thread (Canada vs Russia for example) tend to get a little gray around the edges. The only thing is there's no wikipedia page for her to refer to in order to confirm if it happened on a wednesday or a friday.

The point I'm making is that too many things don't line up. All we have are thinly constructed accusations and not a lot of verifiable witness testimony (on both sides of the issue) for this to warrant public hearings and all of the rest. This should have been done quietly with the help of the FBI. Both sides of the Senate Judiciary Committee pushed for the public hearing for their own reasons before an FBI investigation took place, but it was she (Ford) who precipitated all of this by sending the letter to the Democratic standing member kicking this whole dog and pony show into motion.

Edited October 2, 2018 by VanGnome

[Warhippy]

12 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

I have. He is not on trial for consumption or volume of consumption. Also, whatever weight people think it may hold is ultimately unprovable. As are the claims of sexual assault. 

Ya except.  He's there for a job interview

 

So it's kind of important and holds a ton of weight.

 

but you do you man

[nuckin_futz]

8 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

I'm not saying it's an outright lie. What I'm pointing out is that the truth always lies somewhere between two extremes. Her statement was very carefully crafted, on the one hand she said "one or the other turned up the music" and in the same breath "brett was on top of me". So which was it? Could brett have been turning up the music, and could his friend have been on top of her? Were they all inebriated and she only remembers brett being in the room?
 

Why couldn't Brett be on top of her and turning up the music? Where was the music player?

 

I have an old ghetto blaster on the nightstand beside my bed. I can lie prone on the bed and reach over with my right hand and turn the music up or down just fine.

[Warhippy]

11 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Comparing a fist fight to sexual assault?  Are you saying that because you have got drunk before you are also capable of sexual assault because that's the exact assumption you're making. Two very very different situations..  Just because a guy appears to have had some fun and partied a bit in uni doesn't have any impact on determining if he's ever attempted raping someone, that's a very far jump people are trying to make.  What's next, should we scrape his internet history and see what sites he's ever visited.  

 

The fact is, this case is about sexual assault, not about how many girlfriends he's had, or if he ever got sent to the principles office, this is a very serious case and should be taken serious.  If he's proven guilty, throw the book at him, I have no sympathy of rapist....but we can't throw the book at someone unless there is undeniable evidence that they are guilty.  What happens if he is truly innocent, do people really care about the truth? sure doesn't seem like it with the way people have ran his name through the mud.   There's a reason we have the innocent until proven guilty, because if we didn't and times reverted back to hearsay, we'd really have witch hunts, but instead of people screaming "she's a witch burn her" it becomes "rape, destroy him".  Is that the world we want to live in?

 

I find it very ironic that here in Canada a story comes out about our own PM sexual assaulting a women and it's written off as nothing because we don't have enough info.  That's despite having an exact location, date and a published record of it within the timeline it occurred.  In this case we don't have an exact date, location, it wasn't mention of until 30ish years later and the accuser doesn't even remember how she got home.  For all we know she was on a bad acid trip having some very vivid hallucinations, i'm sure some of you here can relate.   

 

Hey it's FTG with another it aint so bad moment

 

He's there for a job interview.  He is lying.  He has lied.  This is not a criminal proceeding this is a job interview so ya.  it's kind of important to determine how much of a POS this guy really is.

 

I find it ironic that you chime in regarding anything from the left regarding these incidents yet still manage to find time to draw parallels and try to diminish the alleged actions of a person based on said parallels

 

Alleged facts or not he is not worthy by his own actions to take that position

 

For all we know, he is a drunkard who boozed and groped his way through college.  I'm sure some of you can relate

Edited October 2, 2018 by Warhippy

[Warhippy]

55 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Sure that's what this thread is about, but the only thing he could do that would make him unfit is this sexual assault allegation (unless something worse comes up), and since we don't have the ability to prove that, it's become a witch hunt on his character over things that aren't so serious. Do i care that he potentially lied about his drinking not really.  Like i said, to what extent do we dig into, should we did up his internet history, his elementary detention slips or what his baby sitter thought of him?  As far as i'm concerned people are just mad that we can't prove this, made up there opinion that he's this bad guy and are looking for any excuse they can to hate him. It may not always be perfect but i fully support innocent until proven guilty.  

 

But without evidence, and with only he said she said...Trudeau is guilty.

 

Huh...

 

Even though he said he didn't remember the incident and if there was an incident apologized for it.

 

Huh...

 

Also, I dare say sexual assault and potential rape allegations are in fact VERY serious.  But I guess we see things differently

[VanGnome]

7 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

Why couldn't Brett be on top of her and turning up the music? Where was the music player?

 

I have an old ghetto blaster on the nightstand beside my bed. I can lie prone on the bed and reach over with my right hand and turn the music up or down just fine.

The way she describes the event, there was enough of a need for one to do one, and one to do the other. The fact that even she's not entirely sure of who was on top of her is enough to warrant that these details shouldn't be made public. That's my whole contention, its yet another prime example of making a complete and utter mockery of due process.

[nuckin_futz]

4 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

The way she describes the event, there was enough of a need for one to do one, and one to do the other. The fact that even she's not entirely sure of who was on top of her is enough to warrant that these details shouldn't be made public. That's my whole contention, its yet another prime example of making a complete and utter mockery of due process.

She said before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she was 100% certain it was Brett on top of her. Groping her and trying to remove her clothing and Brett who covered her mouth.

 

She said she was uncertain who pushed her from behind.

Edited October 2, 2018 by nuckin_futz

[Gnarcore]

31 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

Why couldn't Brett be on top of her and turning up the music? Where was the music player?

 

I have an old ghetto blaster on the nightstand beside my bed. I can lie prone on the bed and reach over with my right hand and turn the music up or down just fine.

But doing so while attempting to rape is some solid multitasking. Could you do that? 

[nuckin_futz]

1 minute ago, Gnarcore said:

But doing so while attempting to rape is some solid multitasking. Could you do that? 

If you're straddling the victim, pinning them down with your weight. You then have one hand free to control them and one hand to reach over and twist a big round knob to crank the tunes. That would take no more than 1 or 2 seconds. Plus where is your victim going when there's two of you there?

[Warhippy]

[thedestroyerofworlds]

 

https://thinkprogress.org/kavanaugh-1997-wedding-photo-ramirez-nbc-50f89119756e/

 

Text messages suggest Kavanaugh didn’t tell the truth about 1997 photo with accuser

Kavanaugh said he “doesn’t have a specific recollection." Text messages indicate his team had a photograph.

[thedestroyerofworlds]

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/kavanaugh-s-testimony-starting-look-more-more-problematic-n915771

 

Kavanaugh's testimony is starting to look more and more problematic

First Read is your briefing from "Meet the Press" and the NBC Political Unit on the day's most important political stories and why they matter.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

10 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

But without evidence, and with only he said she said...Trudeau is guilty.

 

Huh...

 

Man you are only getting worse at reading, might be time to get some bifocals.  When the did i say that I personally feel Trudeau was guilty and should be punished, you might want to re-read that.  I only compared the two situations with the very different reactions from people.  Funnily enough when it's a person on the left getting the accusation, you are pathetically trying to defend.  See that's the difference between you and I.  You say sexual assault and potential rape allegations are in fact VERY serious...but you only apply that opinion when it's on people you don't like.... Where, I don't care who they are or what they stand for, rape is bad...I just remain consistent on the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty....Where you...you pick and  choose....

 

I'm sorry hip but i've given up on you.  You and herd are the last two people i want any conversation with any, I don't have time for your unrealistic world views, that you feel everyone needs to conform to.  You're not interesting in discussion or conversations, all you ever want to do is state you opinions as if they are fact and try to belittle people with differing idea's.  You're opinions and ideas are just that, your own, i don't agree with that majority of them. and that good for you, you are free to have your own opinions and enjoy your life in your own way, who am i to tell you differently, i just not going to waste any effort into it.   I can respect a guy like Toews even though we might not agree on all things, but at least he's willing to have adult conversations.  

[HerrDrFunk]

15 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Man you are only getting worse at reading, might be time to get some bifocals.  When the did i say that I personally feel Trudeau was guilty and should be punished, you might want to re-read that.  I only compared the two situations with the very different reactions from people.  Funnily enough when it's a person on the left getting the accusation, you are pathetically trying to defend.  See that's the difference between you and I.  You say sexual assault and potential rape allegations are in fact VERY serious...but you only apply that opinion when it's on people you don't like.... Where, I don't care who they are or what they stand for, rape is bad...I just remain consistent on the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty....Where you...you pick and  choose....

 

I'm sorry hip but i've given up on you.  You and herd are the last two people i want any conversation with any, I don't have time for your unrealistic world views, that you feel everyone needs to conform to.  You're not interesting in discussion or conversations, all you ever want to do is state you opinions as if they are fact and try to belittle people with differing idea's.  You're opinions and ideas are just that, your own, i don't agree with that majority of them. and that good for you, you are free to have your own opinions and enjoy your life in your own way, who am i to tell you differently, i just not going to waste any effort into it.   I can respect a guy like Toews even though we might not agree on all things, but at least he's willing to have adult conversations.  

It's spelled "Herr" and stop responding to my posts then.

Edited October 2, 2018 by HerrDrFunk

[Gnarcore]

4 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

If you're straddling the victim, pinning them down with your weight. You then have one hand free to control them and one hand to reach over and twist a big round knob to crank the tunes. That would take no more than 1 or 2 seconds. Plus where is your victim going when there's two of you there?

I see you have thought this through......creep.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RUPERTKBD]

47 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

I'm not saying it's an outright lie. What I'm pointing out is that the truth always lies somewhere between two extremes. Her statement was very carefully crafted, on the one hand she said "one or the other turned up the music" and in the same breath "brett was on top of me". So which was it? Could brett have been turning up the music, and could his friend have been on top of her? Were they all inebriated and she only remembers brett being in the room?

I mean that in and of itself would be enough to warrant a dismissal from nomination imo, but after 35 years, the peripheral details of such an act as alluded to by others in this thread (Canada vs Russia for example) tend to get a little gray around the edges. The only thing is there's no wikipedia page for her to refer to in order to confirm if it happened on a wednesday or a friday.

The point I'm making is that too many things don't line up. All we have are thinly constructed accusations and not a lot of verifiable witness testimony (on both sides of the issue) for this to warrant public hearings and all of the rest. This should have been done quietly with the help of the FBI. Both sides of the Senate Judiciary Committee pushed for the public hearing for their own reasons before an FBI investigation took place, but it was she (Ford) who precipitated all of this by sending the letter to the Democratic standing member kicking this whole dog and pony show into motion.

This is the problem with amateur sleuthing....taking statements and trying to frame them in a manner that supports one's argument. All the while ignoring the simple fact that at no point did Dr. Ford assert that these actions happened simultaneously...

 

BTW: "The truth always lies somewhere in the middle" is a convenient banality. The fact is, it's often the case that one side is being completely truthful, when the other is being less than so. Case in point: Kavanagh's assertion that witnesses had refuted Ford's allegation, when in fact, they had merely said they had no knowledge of the incident.

[VanGnome]

13 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

This is the problem with amateur sleuthing....taking statements and trying to frame them in a manner that supports one's argument. All the while ignoring the simple fact that at no point did Dr. Ford assert that these actions happened simultaneously...

 

BTW: "The truth always lies somewhere in the middle" is a convenient banality. The fact is, it's often the case that one side is being completely truthful, when the other is being less than so. Case in point: Kavanagh's assertion that witnesses had refuted Ford's allegation, when in fact, they had merely said they had no knowledge of the incident.

Not really sure how you can take that out of context. She didnt know who turned up the music, she didnt know who pushed her into the room. She doesnt mention who pushed her onto the bed, but she knows it was Brett who was on top of her.

A lot of I don't knows for such an indelibly marked situation to so egregiously affect her psyche over 30 years later. If she really doesn't remember, then maybe she too was highly intoxicated and is completely misremember the facts of the situation, and only remembers the impression it left mentally having gone through the ordeal. Maybe brett was there at the party and they had some interaction (possibly negative interaction). Maybe she doesn't know who it was that did what they did but she assumes it must have been him.

There's literally any number of scenarios that could cause this kind of shaky story, especially after 30 years or more have passed since it happened. Which is why I've been saying this should never have been made into the spectacle that it is by grand standing by the senate committee in a public hearing.

[Warhippy]

23 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I'm sorry hip but i've given up on you.  You and herd are the last two people i want any conversation with any, I don't have time for your unrealistic world views, that you feel everyone needs to conform to.  You're not interesting in discussion or conversations, all you ever want to do is state you opinions as if they are fact and try to belittle people with differing idea's.  You're opinions and ideas are just that, your own, i don't agree with that majority of them. and that good for you, you are free to have your own opinions and enjoy your life in your own way, who am i to tell you differently, i just not going to waste any effort into it.   I can respect a guy like Toews even though we might not agree on all things, but at least he's willing to have adult conversations.  

Good.

 

Yet I don't doubt in the future you'll miss me.  You can't avoid trying to be right.  Off Topics answer to Oldnews that you are.

 

But then again, you don't think sexual assault is serious by your own admission and as a husband and father of two daughters I can say we finally agree one something.

 

I don't have time for someone who thinks like that.  So let's just never cross paths again.