The timing is bull**** even if the character references are genuine

They're not genuine. No one knows 65 girls they didn't go to school with well enough that the girls could provide an informed character reference.

I think the threshold is that they spoke to him at least once.

ya but it doesnt really matter. even if its exposed as bs, repubs dont care.

Honestly at this point it's worth it to do it to show people it doesn't matter. That's the goal, not to stop the nomination, but to show centrist Dems that nothing matters but power

It's simply about running out the clock. With that letter, the bad news qwells down a bit. After next week we'll have all moved on to the next story and have forgotten about it.

Or at least anyone who still remembers will either a) not vote R anyway or b) not give a ****.

There was a bit talk on the twitters about how stupid they were to seemingly have that list planned in advance but I think they are smarter than the people who think that's dumb--they got out in front rather than let it linger. Get out in front it's he said she said what to believe etc, people tune out or move on to the next story. Especially in THIS administration and especially with a hurricane.

I think a savvy handler would just assume that a large percentage of high level nominess or candidates have a #metoo skeleton in their closets. Therefore, I'd think having such letters prepped ahead of time for literally everyone should be standard.

I don't think that's what happened here but I think that we will get to that point. It's going to be something that all of them have in the chamber, ready to go.

What about the part where reference letters are pretty meaningless in a sexual harassment/assault context?

You know that and I know that, but there are always some morons who will be swayed by such things. If there is an allegation, having the letter is not going to make things worse. So there is minor upside with zero downside*.


*The assumption here is that they find people who actually know/knew the person in question and are comfortable vouching for him. If done in advance they should have enough time to find a good number of people who meet these criteria. If the list can be discredited, then that does introduce downside risk.

they roll 'til late

Considering Clovis' been getting dogpiled recently I feel I should say that he's literally never defended trump even once, fwiw.

he had a full meltdown and rage quit the forum after spending days defending sarah palin, which is arguably worse

Thanks but the dogpile doesn’t bother me one bit. I’ve decided I get enough from this sites good posters to make it worth hanging around.

I have been mocked recently for calling people like Fly, rep and vaya trumpkins but I 100% stand by that claim. They use the exact same tactics of lying, gaslighting, assuming the worst of every opponent, and just ignoring any nunance or subtly on any issue. They are incapable of good-faith debate which is why I no longer engage them.

They are so tribalist that they honestly see me as a mortal enemy even though we would surely score 95%+ the same on any political ideology test. In thier world you are just not allowed to deviate in any way from their worldview even 1%. Deviating 1% the same as deviating 100%.

/clovising

Those are hallmarks but not the chief hallmarks of trumpkins. You are wrongly trying to redefine the word incorrectly, which is why people pile on you when you do it.

It's not about tribalism, it's about you being clearly wrong while insisting that you're right.

When you're right, people don't pile on you. When you're wrong and won't back down, people do. It's that simple.

I agree with a lot of the above but you've got to come up with a different term. "Trumpkin" already has a accepted meaning around here: it's someone who supports Trump. And since those guys ****ing hate trump, describing them as Trumpkins is confusing and makes you sound weird.

So, when you want to convey this idea, just use the long form , "they use techniques commonly used by Trump-supporters". Or come up with a different shorthand.

^ That's fair.

Accuser goes on the record

Fair point. I am probably unnecessarily confusing my argument.

I can’t even imagine the guts it takes to go public knowing what happened to Lewinski and Hill. Women are ****ing amazing in thier power.

Thoughts: Assuming the Washington Post story is accurate:

- Her story is extremely credible. Hard to believe she's been running a six year hustle and it reads very true.

- In addition to running a deep six year scam we'd need to believe Ford had the incredible foresight or luck to describe Kavanaugh and Judge as being raging alcoholics at the same time as there being a 30+yr trail of evidence that Kavanaugh and Judge were indeed raging alcoholics.

- I don't trust the denials of 53 year old men on what they did as horny drunken 17 year olds. I'm way younger than 53 and was never a big drinker and am 99% certain I've never done anything like Ford accuses Kavanaugh and Judge of but there's always that 1%.

- I don't think the accusations by themselves should derail his confirmation, unless it turns out this was a pattern. Maybe he was just being a drunken idiot and thought this was A+ trolling. It was a long time ago. BUT, he really needs to come out, admit he was often a drunken ******* and can't dispute her accusation, and apologise.

- This probably gives Red State Dems & Collins/Murkowski enough to reject him.

- He's gone from 80% --> 45% for confirmation in September.

Gee I wonder why Mitch told Trump he would be harder to confirm and wasn't on the original Federalist Jerkoff list.

well the red state dems should be able to vote no now, don't think it means anything else (other than all the harassment and smearing that woman is gonna get). Collins will be deeply concerned then some bull**** like he said he didn't do it or whatever else and vote for him.

****, he could've gone up there and confessed to being a serial killer and he'd have gotten easily confirmed but nope, had to deny.

What is the 5% you deviate from us on, Clovis?

Man, people yell at you because you constantly kneejerk contradict the libs on the dumbest ****ing hills(always the same hill!) and then go down into screaming gibberish.

Good faith debate includes disagreement, and you melt down at the slightest ****ing hint of people calling you wrong.

And yeah, Clovis hasn't supported Trump, but this dude is lurching towards the right. He might not be there yet but nobody whose pet issue appears to be melting down at insufficiently documented allegations of racism is long for the good side.

What is it with entitled rich white kids, fancy prep schools, and dumbass "clubs?"

Just nuke it all. Why rich white people seem to think getting hammered and abusing women is a required part of growing up I have no idea.

It’s the logical extension of getting everything you want without struggle and being told your whole life that is the natural order.

White privilege is bad. Rich privilege is bad. Rich white privilege is toxic.

So will this actually work or is the GOP just gonna be like "Who cares silly goose?" and push him through anyway?