smltwnrckr

No, I get the point. You think abortion is baby murder. Thus, you think it's hypocritical that it's OK for a woman to murder her own baby but not OK for a dude to give her a pill to murder that baby without her knowing it. The fact that you find it necessary to stand up for baby murderers against the accusations of street hookers is interesting. You sure don't seem very interested in punishing baby murder in this case.

Ugh, I'm dreading the day this comes for mine. How old is your daughter?

This post is dumb, even for you.

https://politics.theonion.com/gop-officials-kavanaugh-shouldn-t-be-held-accountable-1829178729 WASHINGTON—Vehemently defending the Supreme Court nominee against recent allegations of sexual assault, GOP officials declared Wednesday that Brett Kavanaugh shouldn’t be held accountable for something he did as a white teenager. “We’re talking about something that occurred when Mr. Kavanaugh was a mere 17-year-old Caucasian,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), adding that it was ridiculous to allow a single incident that happened when Kavanaugh was in an elite and mostly white high school ruin the career of such an accomplished white person. “I expect most of my colleagues here in the Senate remember what it’s like to be a young white man and make mistakes. The important thing is that we learn from those mistakes and grow up to be responsible white adults. It’s shameful that my Democratic colleagues feel the need to sully Judge Kavanaugh’s reputation when they, too, surely understand that boys of European descent will be boys of European descent.” McConnell went on to state that the assault would hardly even be noteworthy had the victim not been a 15-year-old white girl.

Assuming she did know... why did the women who were harassed by Roy Moore wait until he was about to become a Senator before they came forward? There's a threshold. I had a landlord when I lived in NY who was a scumbag and a dick. He was also a well-known local mucky-muck. I didn't call the local newspaper to tell them about how he was a scumbag and a dick. If he ran for city council or congress, I just might. It's not unreasonable to suggest she made similar calculations assuming she knew he was an attorney or even a federal judge, vs one of nine spots on what is often the most powerful branch of the federal government in terms of dictating future policy.

She probably didn't see his name in the news every day when he was going about those other things.

I've been around enough DA elections to dispute this claim.

You seem to be making a case for something, and yet have said over and over that you haven't taken a stance. (edit: or at least that your mind is open as to what happened) So what do you think happened?

Well, that's a dumb f*cking question.

The girl was her best friend from college, and the incident was in high school, no? So it seems she didn't share with her college best friend an incident that had happened in the past. A lot of people go to college and try to leave things that happened in high school behind and don't share with their new college friends. If she really only explored this stuff in more recent therapy sessions, I wouldn't be surprised at all that she hadn't talked about it since high school. All that being said, the more I think about it, the more this all makes a sh*t ton of sense to me in terms of how this has played out. 1. An incident happens involving a guy and a girl partying in high school. Most certainly involved the guy being at least inappropriate, but also didn't escalate to forced sex. 2. While a traumatic experience for her to some extent (possibly magnified by other traumatic experiences in which she was victimized in the past), it was also an experience that wasn't particularly remarkable or novel, and thus she opted to move on as best she can on as best terms as she can. 3. The dude goes on to be a lawyer and judge, political bigwig, etc. She goes on to have some success in academia, and in the midst of it all probably has some personal/marital problems perhaps fueled by not dealing with this and potentially other past traumas. While now trying to deal with this in therapy, she pieces these things together and starts to face and deal with these past traumas. 4. The dude in the middle of one of these past events is nominated for a highly contentious Supreme Court seat with high stakes. While believing that this incident may be relavent (especially if it may be one of a number of similar incidents that may have happened since), and while she knows this thing happened with this guy, she also personally struggles with many of the clear questions of whether her memories of the event are reliable. She writes a letter to her Senator. The goal of this letter is not as much to be made public immediately, but to basically inform someone who is part of the process that this happened mainly in case there are other quiet/unspoken murmmers of other similar events. The senator hasn't heard anything and doesn't immediately move on it because she knows that this, when made public, would play out exactly like it has... as a public trial of a woman's credibility over her character and how well she remembers an event three decades ago, a trial that the woman probably was not interested in going at alone but who, was this a pattern, was interested in being part of a larger group. This makes the most sense to me, and while people like toolsrulez will not accept it because it assumes good faith on the part of a Democrat, it's pretty clear to me anyways this is what happened. In instances like this, the only real way to build credibility is through numbers. This one incident may be hard to pin down. You get 4 or 5 incidents like this, and it's easier to paint a picture. Think Roy Moore. And like Roy Moore, these things have a tendency to stay buried when they involve powerful people and thus the individual stories from a long time ago that can be pulled apart by individual scrutiny become part of a larger pattern with recurring themes.

There is nothing anyone can do, really, to impact the credibility on either side, save proof of someone clearly lying.

Maybe I read it wrong, but why does it hurt her credibility?

LOL

I'm fine with moving on, and your earlier comment about not being as far off from NVGiant shows how sometimes we argue about nuance while not being that far off. But I do want to clarify - I'm not all-in on either side here, and really I'm not leaning either way. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that something probably happened between the two of them at some point at some place when they were teenagers, that she remembers the event as a traumatic experience and that he either doesn't remember it or he does remember it as either a consensual thing or basically a swing and a miss on his part that he didn't further pursue, but because of the nature of its being made public at this time and the gap between what is being accused and what he remembers, there is particular interest for him to deny even the scenario. Even with the scenario above, I am not suggesting that he should be arrested or is unfit to serve as a supreme court justice. It is impossible to know what happened for sure, and there is a lot of evidence to support that Kavenaugh is not a rapist maniac. But the interesting question to me remains what are we to do, as a society, if we dig through all of this and are still left with the question that I've asked twice now? And what are we to do if/when we find ourselves with the same issue as we look at other sexual harassment or assault accusations in places like, say, college campuses? That is a question that no one seems to be interested in talking about, or at least no one has any interest in talking about when it involves confirming a supreme court justice.

Ludes! There's a blast from the past.