IKESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

She isn't sure what year the event happened. She can't name a witness who will corroborate that the party even occurred. She can't remember how she got to the party or how she got home. She was probably smashed too.

idk, kind of a bold proposition that if only we communicated better with the deplorables they'd become lefties cheerfully coexisting in a coalition with people of color

Who gives a ****? 90+% she's not outright lying means 50+% (probably 80+%, maybe even higher) given any kind of reasonable Bayesian update you want.

Kavanaugh probably tried to rape Ford is enough to disqualify him.

It doesn't matter how much you flail around. The second you acknowledge that Kav probably tried to rape Ford you need to admit Kavanaugh's nomination needs to be pulled, at least delayed.

Hey guys he proly would have stopped from raping her anyway.

Can someone that codes JavaScript get us a Tampermonkey plugin that blocks all of these ****ing gas huffers and the posts quoting them? Like, name your price in this thread and we'll get you the money.

bull**** arguments like this get the burden of proof backwards (and that's certainly not an accident). Yes, we can't KNOW FOR SURE what happened but it doesn't matter. This isn't a criminal trial, Kavanaugh is not a defendant. He's a nominee, and it's his job to prove that he's worthy to sit on the court.

I'm assuming the audience here isn't irredeemable deplorables but the wider audience of women willing to accept Kavanaugh did more or less what he was accused of but sincerely think Boys Will Be Boys and Sexual Assault Just Happens Gotta Deal With It, Go Along to Get Along, God's Plan type of thinking.

As I said, if we assume there really is a systemic rape culture and we think rape is critically underreported, we need a framework as to why. I can imagine a dozen or more reasons why rape is under-reported, but this is one. We have to assume this mentality or something adjacent to it is floating around out there for a lot of women, that sexual assault is bad but just something we put up with, like traffic.

And I do think the left bears some responsibility here. Underlying what is being communicated isn't QUITE utter deplorableness, like the systemic rape culture is justified, but it's just something women have to learn to deal with and accept, something to work around. Because it happens a lot. When you see people explaining away their own victimization like that, defending deeply patriarchal frameworks like that despite the fact they recognize it's both wrong and they have nothing to gain from it, it's because practical alternatives seem very unappealing, that the system of patriarchy is entrenched and can't be defeated and so it has to be dealt with rather than combated.

I think that's a failure of the collective left to offer a world where combating it seems hopeful, seems realistic, seems achievable.

Put differently: If we accept prima facie that women who grudgingly say stuff like What Boy Hasn't cannot be redeemed into seeing that as a changable thing, then I don't know what we're doing here. Who's really the defeatist, the hopeless, the cynic in that scenario? To me, it seems like the obvious, the most malleable potential converts to a better, more just world for women are to communicate with people who express that kind of sentiment ("gosh this is everywhere, but don't complain about it") in a good faith way. I'll reiterate not *these* specific Republican operatives but like the normal people in your life or in public spaces who say stuff like that.

I mean, again, dismiss for a moment we're dealing with highly motivated partisan professional Republicans. Remember what brought me here; wheatrich saying the most absurd quote is "what boy hasn't done this in high school". My point: that's not absurd, it approaches a genuinely decent reading of situation, that a ****load of men are guilty here and this is deeply systemic and common. People who say that shouldn't be treated as if they're saying something absurd but coached into believing that doesn't have to be a persistent state of the world. It's not the most absurd quote, in my mind it's sort of the most hopeful thing you could hear from someone who wants to defend Kavanaugh. It's scores better than "she's lying why'd she wait so long" or "STERLING REPUTATION BOY SCOUT JUDGE, can't have done it." That seems far more irredeemable, far more deplorable, far more absurd, and some of those women said precisely that kind of stuff. "Boys do this all the time," on the other hand, is like half-way toward getting it!

This nomination may be the biggest example of the difference in how both parties play politics.

Republicans will dig in and double down. Don't like it? **** you we're going for it. We may get punished for 1-2 elections, but we'll be back.

Democrats would have absolutely paused this nomination, started an investigation (if he would have even gotten this far), and eventually withdrew his nomination. They would have nominated a moderate next as a sign of goidwill to Republicans who would have been obstructed for 2 years.

This is a game to Republicans. They don't care how dirty they look. They came to win. Even the easy path of pulling him and putting someone cleaner up is NOT an option. They want all the dollars on the table.

With nobody corroborating her story its difficult to get to "Kav probably tried to rape Ford".

No one as bad as Kavanaugh ever has a chance of being nominated by the Democrats. Again, this guy is only where he is because he was born into money and went to the best schools and the USA props up elite families at every chance.

He couldn't even pass the background check to be a middling government employee in Canada, but he's still odds on to be a supreme court justice for life. What a world.

This is what I always find weirdest about the "arguments" they come up with.

"There's a 90% chance our SCOTUS nominee tried to rape a 15 year old girl"

"[...]"

"[...]"

"[...]"

"chessmate"

ETA: ikesss etc, but that goes without saying.

You know what is possible? Investigating the claims, making him to answer them and evaluation of his explanation based on what can be answered (was he there or not? Was the witness there or not? Did people hear about this after the fact or not?) and determining if he is credible enough to be put forward as a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. He is not on trial for rape right now. And that you think it would come up sooner is irrelevant and opinion.

Let him say under oath it didn’t happen and see if his story bears scrutiny—see if he lies about anything to do with it. I mean, if it matters to you that not only someone who would commit sexual assault is on the bench or not, but someone who would lie under oath about it. Kinda mattered to Kavanaugh in regards to Clinton lying about a consensual blow job.

This is an oft repeated myth about democrats. They don’t nominate moderate judges (like Kagan/Garland) as a sign of goodwill to republicans. They nominate who they think will be good SCOTUS judges. There is no left wing federalist society that is influential and wants to make sure dems nominate SCOTUS judges that think states can be sued for reperations or people working in finance can retroactively be found guilty of criminal acts in a banking recession.

Now go back in time and tell two therapists, pass a lie detector test, ask to report it to the FBI and commit a federal crime on the world stage with the most possible scrutiny in world history trying to prove you are lying, and move out of your house because your entire family will be in real danger for life. Ez game.

Meanwhile, he will refuse to ask for FBI to investigate this false claim because...?

hahaha, this braindead argument assumes all accusations are equal and it's impossible to examine information and make a determination of credibility.

of course, we live in the real world, not the cartoon world you're describing

nice try, brainiac.

Even though the investigative phase of the process ended with the Democrats underhandedly hiding this accusation, the republicans are indeed attempting to investigate this claim. They have invited Ford and Kavanaugh to testify. Kavanaugh snap accepted. Ford is stonewalling and obstructing.

To me it looks like they are hoping something comes to light that could possibly corroborate her accusation. So far all that has come to light are witnesses she names who go on to refute her accusations.

well republicans are refusing to question the other guy who was allegedly in the room at the time

I find this FBI stuff hilarious because what the hell are they gonna do, interview some people then shrug shoulders? It's basically who are you going to believe at this point and that's that unfortunately. You guys trying to argue against people who never posted in here before especially when they just repeat themselves annoy me almost as much as they are.

These people with "that was 30 years ago" as if that makes it okay piss me off, we get it you don't care.

Ford has agreed to testify even though they know that ball is in republican court. Details still to be worked out though so we'll see.

Just taking a moment to acknowledge that the dastardly political play that is being floated is the timing was designed to derail the fast-tracking of the appointment of an incredibly unpopular nominee before the midterms with the memory of the Garland obstruction not even fully ripe yet. There is not even an argument of a need to rush this that isn't driven by the politically motivated bastardization of the process by the right, yet that timeline is being held up as a hallowed institution under attack by the raging lefties and their politicking.

It's absurd to even entertain the idea.

it's because right wingers do that type of thing; that's why they all believe it. They're also perfectly fine with it, they just are upset the other side is doing it. They're big fans of having cake and you don't get any.

What are you talking about? Kavanaugh and the Senate republicans want to hear Ford's testimony and then allow Kavanaugh an opportunity to rebut. All under oath. The only reason this hasn't happened yet is because Ford is stonewalling.

Its like Ford won't fill out a police report because she doesn't like the form. If Ford isn't willing to participate in the Senate investigation why should the Senate give credibility to her accusation?

The republicans have questioned him. He completely denies the event ever happened. How can he shed light on a non event?