LOL..... That sham of a hearing was because the Dem's politics don't align with Kavanaugh's. Where's your outrage with Feinstein sandbagging and waiting until the late stages to bring this to light? It's a political stunt. Republicans that voted to move forward think he's guilty. Do you bother to read what you write?
Are you saying she can't be believed because she doesn't remember when it happen? That's not how memory work. Here is an article that directly cover aspects of events that are encoded into memory. How Trauma Affects Memory: Scientists Weigh In On The Kavanaugh Hearing If an event elicits an emotional reaction in us, then it's more likely to make it into our memory. "Things that have more emotional significance tend to get more encoded," he says. And when something elicits an intense negative emotion, like a trauma, it's even more likely to be encoded in the brain. "The stress hormones, cortisol, norepinephrine, that are released during a terrifying trauma tend to render the experience vivid and memorable, especially the central aspect, the most meaningful aspects of the experience for the victim," says Richard McNally, a psychologist at Harvard University and the author of the book Remembering Trauma. That's because a high-stress state "alters the function of the hippocampus and puts it into a super-encoding mode," says Hopper, especially early on during an event. And "the central details [of the event] get burned into their memory and they may never forget them." Whether it's sexual assault victims or soldiers in combat or survivors of an earthquake, people who have experienced traumatic events tend to remember the most essential and frightening elements of the events in vivid detail for life, says McNally. However, this doesn't mean that these memories include every detail of the event. The brain holds on to the most important stuff at the expense of the peripheral details. Take, for example, a clerk at convenience store who gets robbed at gunpoint, says McNally. "The person may often encode the features of the weapon, the gun pointed at him, but not recall whether or not the person was wearing glasses, because their attention is focused on the most central features of the experience." McNally says this would explain why Ford says she remembers what happened during the alleged assault but she can't remember the date of the party or its location. "They were forgotten because they were never encoded," says McNally. "When somebody has an experience such as this, they're not necessarily saying, 'I better get down the address.' They're preoccupied with trying to escape this terrifying experience." Also, "people in general are not good about dating events, whether they're traumatic events or nontraumatic events," he adds. Unless there are other clues to the date, most people tend to forget when something happened.
You can believe that she believes her story, but without any evidence or corroboration to support her story there's no reason to believe that her story is accurate......I mean, unless you just REALLY want to believe for partisan reasons.
Here's the next round of Dem evidence..... His yearbook said..... Have you boofed yet? Boof was the good girl in Teen Wolf. Kavanaugh is an alleged flasher. Does anyone know where he was when Teen Wold was filmed. That's the real question here.
I'm saying you can't prove anything without being able to pinpoint a date. Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty.
That's not necessary true. A date is very helpful but is not necessary to prove something. What's clear to me is there are different criteria by different people. As a SCJ nominee, what the criteria that should be used? You and others think it must be proven that he did attack her. While other think that's not necessary, but is it believable? There might even be a group that think as soon as you are accused of a crime, you shouldn't be considered. In everyday job, if during the process of hiring someone, you come across information of a potential crime, you are very likely not going make your decision on "criminal case" guilty level but on whether or not you believe it. That's for everyday job, so I think it's quite reasonable that you apply that criteria to a job where only 9 position are available, a job for life and a job making critical judgement for the nation. For me, I think the criteria is simply is it believable for any accusation of crimes toward any SCJ nominee. It might not be fair, but it's such a critical and rare position that I rather be safe to the point of being unfair to the nominee than being wrong. I understand this open up a big can of possible abuse, but I think something can be done to reduce that chance...
Good article however there are some fundamental flaws. Expecting her to remember the date and time is absurd. Most of us have trouble remember a day ago, much less 30 years ago. However the location is significant. Essentially you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say date, time and location are 'peripheral' but then turn around and name 4 witnesses, all who have denied the incident. The location is significant as it would be a place of a traumatic experience and she would have certainly recalled it the next day....over remembering 4 specific people. There are a handful of explanations; The first being she was really drunk and had more than the 1 beer (again, who is going to remember only have 1 beer over the other 'peripherals'). If this is the case, she is blatantly building a false picture of the narrative. Another explanation is BK did jump on top of her, and he very well may have been groping her and he very well could have put his hand over her mouth to stop the screaming. However the narrative changes after that. He got off of her at the unwelcomed distress. She was never truly terrified and feared for her life and she simply recalls him jumping on top of her. 25 years later, BK comes up and she starts building this narrative that he is some kind of rapist. Of course the close minded people will immediately come up and say "or he really did try to rape her and she really did fear for her life, rightfully so". You can't come out 25 years later with absolutely no documented history of the event, claim you can't remember certain details all while remember little details that typically a person would not have remembered in the first place. She can't remember how she got there. She can't remember where it happened. She can't remember how she left. What she can remember is: One summer evening, after a day of diving at a club She remember 4 boys, one named 'pj' She remembers people drinking beer in a small living room on the first floor of the house She remembers drinking just 1 beer Early in the evening, she remembers going up a narrow set of stairs to use the restroom. She remembers being pushed into a bedroom and the door being locked by BK and MJ She remembers music being played She remembers the music being turned up louder She remembers the details of the assault She remembers looking at MJ in the eyes, thinking he was going to help She remember them laughing during the assault She remembers him falling off She remembers running to the bathroom, locking the door and hearing them 'ping pong' across the walls until they went silent. That is a lot of damn specific details for 30 years ago. Until it comes to anyone collaboration her story. Then she can't remember a thing. She can't remember who took her to the party (how convenient. no witnesses) She can't remember who's house (again convenient, because we can't question the occupants of the house at the time or the details of the story) She can't remember who or how she got home. Again, witnesses The people she has named has denied the story. Her friend, who she claims knew something about the incident, denied ever knowing about BK. Its just amazing how she can remember all of these specific details but the one that matter the most; Witnesses and collaboration/proof to her story. This is not to say this didnt happened in some form or fashion. However its highly probably she has over embellished the story and has built a narrative that is different from what really happened ... probably because she has forgotten most of what really happened, including who the alleged perpetrator was.
I voted waiting for testimony, I've learned a couple of things from that hearing: 1. never do I want to hear that women are to0 fragile or emotional to govern, as Brett gave a telenovela of a performance. You thought it was the way around. 2: I'll never look at Ronald Miller the same way. Remember when he became popular? He took several girls to the school dance and before blessing us with ant eater ritual, He spiked the entire punch with everclear. If Mcdreamy ever runs for anything, we're watching you! now if you excuse me I have to go see which girl from the yellow pages will give me the real girlfriend experience(it's a coffee drinking game)
Looking at the poll results, they are pretty consistent with this being a far left leaning forum....so pretty much as expected.
Wow, you're really going to bring Emmett Till into this as if him being black in the 1950s had nothing to do with this? Holyyy crap. How paranoid do you have to be to think a bunch of women are out there waiting to prey on innocent males with false sexual assault allegations? Yes, I believe women because people are who don't are sexist, misogynists, and generally speaking, terrible.
So what you are saying is that if the people who murdered Emmett Till didn't "believe women" (despite the fact that the woman ended up being a liar) that they would be sexist, misogynists, and generally speaking, terrible? Gotcha. You can believe whatever crazy nonsense you like, but I don't "believe" anyone without some kind of evidence to support doing so. In fact, I argue that anyone who would decide to believe or not believe someone based on their sex is not just sexist, but a pretty awful person on top of that.
They have no choice to vote to move forward as it will cost their party tremendously if they do not. They are making a political decision and setting aside morality. That's the Republican party. Kavanaugh has shown he does not possess the temperament to be a judge and it appears he committed Perjury during the confirmation hearing. he should be voted out. Republicans are acting shamelessly here - they are falling to a new low and I didn't think the party could be more disgusting but it is. It keeps moving further and further to being a white nationalist party that sees minorities and women as subhuman to white men.
Yes Kavanaugh has won - an attempted rapist and probably gang rapist will now be on the court - someone of poor moral character who is so partisan he has no problem showing it. He will vote the Republican way on every case no matter what, and will likely be Trump's stooge - perhaps making for a kangaroo court. Of course you['d be happy with that - but most of you Republicans would be happy just making Trump Fuhrer.
Nothing Democrats have done on that committee has had an impact on Mr. Kavanaugh. He's no different today than he was two years ago or ten years ago. The bizarre, screwed up guy we've seen during this hearing, the fellow testifying and committing perjury, in my opinion, has always been the way he is today. An ******* who believes the world, including the United States Congress, owes him that job because he views himself as the epitome of White self-entitlement, the perfect man to hold a seat on the United States Supreme Court. He thinks he's better than everyone else, and the very idea that a lot of people, regardless of the positions they hold, could disagree enrages him. We saw that when he treated the Senators questioning him with contempt, largely ignoring their questions while spouting his obvious political bias. This process isn't changing Kavanaugh. What the hearing did do was make it clear to even the most ignorant minds in the country that Mr. Kavanaugh doesn't deserve a seat on the Supreme Court. In fact, he doesn't deserve to be a Federal District judge. The man doesn't possess the temperament and judgement needed on our highest courts, Supreme or otherwise. During Kavanaugh's testimony, he had the appearance of a man unhinged. A man screaming silently and incoherently inside as he held on to his sanity by his fingernails. The Republicans on that panel know this. Why they stay silent is a mystery to me. One would think that the welfare of the country would make them speak out. Senator Flake deserves praise for finally making an effort, at least, to examine this person more thoroughly, assuming the FBI is given enough of a leash, and the time, to do decent job. I don't doubt that they will try.
You must be a real piece of work with the irritating crap you keep posting. Its bad enough that Till's life was unjustly cut short, but a racist like you is lowly enough to try and use his death to further the kind of agenda that got him killed. 1. Till was killed by racist guys like you for the treasonable offence of daring to whistle at a white girl 2. Said white girl lied to cover up the crime by claiming he grabbed her waist, which justifies the death penalty to racists like you 3. and racist guys like you acquitted his killers, claiming the body was not 'proven' to be Till's and thus he could not have been murdered Similarity to Ford/Kavanaugh - The lie was by the defendants to cover up the crime = how Kavanaugh is lying to cover whatever he is trying to hide - The killers got away cos the racists jury wanted more 'prove' = how some are demanding for more prove now.
He definitely has a good ole boy vibe to him. We all know where this is headed though. My favorite was Graham calling himself out as a single white man like he’s some sort of oppressed figure. Times they’re a changing though.
If you don't want to support the type of mentality that led to Till's life being cut short, you shouldn't do so. If you prefer to support it, I'll call you out on it. Let's face it, you'd be right there with those racists murdering Till because you "believe women" without need for evidence of wrongdoing. Don't complain to me when I call you out for your backwards beliefs.
Keep spouting lies - Till was not killed cos the woman lied, the woman lied to help justify the killing of Till. But we have since found out that she did not need to lie cos racists like you said Till had not died. I have never supported the kind of racist mentality that led to Till's life being cut short - that kind of mentality is only championed by the likes of you and the other racists you harbor in the GOP. The rest of the GOP are willing to accept such racism in exchange for political gain. Its weird how often you cowardly try to misrepresent history, in a bid to hide your racism, when all can see that the right wing is so full of it. The other day it was 'conservatives giving LGBT rights' and now its Kavanaugh=Till. Its simply hilarious and saddening at the same time to see how low you will stoop. All these attempts are just raw BS - it irritates the eyes
If the woman hadn't lied, he wouldn't have been killed by people who "believe women". Also, it's funny that the only problem you have with what happened to Till was the racist aspect, you'd have been perfectly fine with it if that aspect wasn't present. Anyway, you've embarrassed yourself enough on this issue, so it's time to move on. I know that you'll continue to support lynchings so long as it's the "right" people being lynched, but I don't expect any different from a person such as yourself.
