rangerx

Been wondering that myself. Nicely put. Thank you. +1

No, you do not get to pick a topic then not talk about it. The word Kavanagh is in the title, but we can't talk about him? You want to talk about pervasive false accusations, but we can't talk about the pervasive false accuser in chief? I don't make rules for your thoughts, I comment on them. DON"T make rules about my comments.... no less about abstracts. If the mods feel I am off topic, I trust they'll intervene, otherwise my thoughts stand.

Well, I don't support getting in faces in public places or shouting down people when they speak. That said, protest is a right, but to Trump it's a crime. "Violent mobs paid for by George Soros" rolls off his tongue after every event. Being rude is one thing, but maliciously accusing someone of a crime is slander. I dunno, but it seems like nitpicking to me, especially in light of who we're talking about... leaders, judges and victims of assault. You seem reasonable to me, so surely you don't mean to suggest an elevator incident nullifies the underlying issue, do you? The OP appears to suggest that fallacy over various other threads, which is why I don't buy into that narrative being peddling here now. Protest is a right, so long as it's civil and often disruptive, but not a crime as Trump would have us believe. Talking a knee at a football game is probably the single most non-disruptive protest of all. No one is prevented from doing anything, the game starts on time and everyone goes home when it's over. Yet Trump and an entire bevy of conservatives falsely accuse them of hating the country, flag and troops. To me, if a person is rude, they should STFU, but when someone (especially a leader) knowingly falsely accuses a crime or wrongly disrespects a person's patriotism for rightfully protesting an issue that deeply affects their lives, they can burn in hell for all I care.

Far be it Donald Trump would ever falsely accuse a black person of anything, right? https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/07/politics/trump-larry-king-central-park-five/index.html No less overtly calling for their deaths. Crowing about victims have no rights while criminals have all the power. What's different between then and now? Trump falsely accuses people of things EVERY day. Today's BS was the stale old accusation of paid mobs, in the same breath while staged supporters stand behind him and cheer or get booted by the secret service. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/08/plaid-shirt-guy-trump-rally-sot-ctn-vpx.cnn

He certainly told lots of little white lies, but let's be blunt... little white lies are not the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The real sticker though is this one: When he learned of Deborah Ramirez’s allegations Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) asked Kavanaugh on Sept. 27 when he first learned that Deborah Ramirez, a classmate from Yale, had alleged Kavanaugh once shoved his penis into her face as part of a joke. “In the last — in the period since then, The New Yorker story,” Kavanaugh replied, referencing the Sept. 23 story about Ramirez’s allegations written by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer. NBC News reported on Oct. 1 that Kavanaugh’s team had reached out to former classmates via text message to get them to rebut Ramirez’s allegations prior to the publication of The New Yorker article. Two former classmates of Kavanaugh and Ramirez ― Kerry Berchem and Karen Yarasavage ― discussed efforts by Kavanaugh and his lawyers to get Yale classmates to tell the press that the allegations were false. “In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense,” NBC reported. “Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh’s team and former classmates in advance of the story.” Oddly, in a private interview with committee members held on Sept. 25, Kavanaugh indicated that he did know about the allegations before The New Yorker article was published In the printed transcript of this interview that occurred two days before his public testimony, Kavanaugh complained that Ramirez was calling former classmates to see if they remembered the alleged incident. “And I, at least ― and I, myself, heard about that, that she was doing that,” he said, admitting that he knew about it ahead of time.

It's the same for the president. It takes a 2/3 majority. If he were to be convicted, he could be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. One is not automatic of the other though. If convicted, he will go to jail. I would think that is disqualifying in itself. He'd likely resign. The criminal justice system doesn't investigate if no one is mandated to do so. Aside from the claim of a sex issue, it's evolved into a perjury case. The same thing that happened to Clinton. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander IMHO. Elections have consequences and rest assured if the Dems take enough seats, Kavanaugh will face a few hearings and investigations. He will be Benghazi'd in the meanwhile. Meanwhile, the Meuller stuff isn't released yet and one would have to live under a rock to think nothing will come of it. Not that it matters, especially since they stacked the court with activist judges (to use a conservative talking point) to exonerate corruption by Trump and his cronies. Kavanuagh's first judgement will be hamstringing referral to the states, so they can't prosecute Trump. Blowing up the nuclear option was a democrat thing, and this confirmation is a consequence of that. Other than a few Killary pizzagters out there, the Republican assault on her has pretty much fizzled out as a nothing burger if not a vicious character assassination. If democrats take the house and senate, hang on, it's going to be a rough ride. It's glaringly obvious Kavanaugh is a perjurer, if not a sexual predator. Again, reaping what they sow.

Anything that happened after the fact is beside the point. What matters is the assault and the indifference to it. As far as the OP goes, this one falls flat. It's glaringly obvious, that #metoo is not weaponized. If anything #sowhat seems to be the end result. And that, is for shame.

No. They admit she's telling the truth. They just don't care. They are voting to advance an agenda, victims be damned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Stop making sense. It's lost on conservatives. They are scorched earth all in on this issue. Trump deferred to the Federalist Society, which tends to favor judges who take conservative stances on abortion rights and other social issues. Members of the Federalist Society have presented oral arguments in every single abortion case that has been before the Supreme Court since 1992. The society shares strong ties with political advocacy groups within the Christian family values movement.

The Supreme Court, silly. Oh wait, that's been stacked. Have fun with your new constitutional crisis. After this vote, the next vote will be to relegate all women to incubators for the state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade Lucky girls to have such a compassionate conservative government controlling their personal lives, especially in the light they're not to be believed.

Does anyone in their right mind actually believe republicans would have beeen forthright and thorough ordering the investigatation in confidence. I don't. It would have been thrown back in their faces with a resounding no. Even after the fact when an investigation was ordered, it was a sham.

I'm not buying it. The OP suggests malicious prosecution is something new to be exploited by women for being sexually attacked, politically driven or not at all. It's nothing new. It's been the law of the land for centuries and must be repudiated at every turn. The whole premise of hearings are to bring issues to the forefront. Issues with Kavanaugh came to the forefront. The same goes for financial disclosure, as to not give the appearance of impropriety. that went out the window with Trump, who's in your face with corruption. Trump mocking Dr. Ford was reprehensible. Blaming the accuser is worse today than it was yesterday and It will be worse when they vote to admit Kavanaugh. That's the reality of the issue.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html None of which has anything to do with the alleged assault or #metoo, but for Kavanaugh's demeanor in the hearings itself. Women don't need to weaponize the movement and make shit up whatsoever while conservative judges knowingly lie under oath. Gee... no accusations of a perjury trap like Trump and Juliani would have everyone believe? Because there's no such thing, that's why. One can only perjure one's self and Kavanaugh did that on multiple counts. And besides that even if the OP were true (which it isn't), dishonest judges are far more insidious than dishonest citizens any day of the week. That's why we appoint honest judges, under the highest scrutiny to try and incarcerate dishonest citizens, not persecute political opponents. In the rare, but not unlikely event anyone wrongly accuses anyone, they deserve to go before an honest judge for sentencing. Nothing new there, hence the OP is a false narrative.

Yet here you are telling me that "half the country thinks she's a lying bitch". This is a science forum, so in that light.... citation please. TRUTH is you can't.

Wrong. Half the country thinks he's an intemperate liar while the other half does too but doesn't care and pretty much entire country believe she's telling the truth.

This whole "without a single shred of evidence" nonsense is just a talking point to preclude what may or may not an outcome to pretend it didn't happen. When it comes to pervasive sexual behavior, past or present and a great portion of fact issues exist in bubbles not out in public. The word taboo comes to mind, even. Either side, either reason. I don't buy into the narrative that #metoo is open season to be demonized as liberal political weaponry. in the case of Argento, both being assailants doesn't preclude anything. It distracts from the core issue while blowing a fringe issue out of proportion.

Ford is calling for an FBI investigation. Kavanaugh is not. That pretty much tells you everything anyone needs to know. Sexual assaults are things not easily mistaken or forgotten. They are vivid, haunting events that ruin lives. For shame, MigL. If you're going set pre-conditions about discussing the OP, it might behoove you to refrain from contradicting yourself in the next breath.

It would be laughable, if it wasn't so insidious. :/

He's convicted of serious crimes against the country and serving a prison term. If there was nothing there, he could just rot in jail and no one would care. He knows where bodies are buried and Mueller will undoubtedly dig them up.

If anyone was overstating things, it was Trump. "This is going to be a very large one ... It's tremendously big and tremendously wet. Tremendous amounts of water." But that's the media's fault right?

I wear a warm coat to the top of the mountain, not because I hate the cold, but because I fear freezing to death. In that vain, fearlessness is foolishness. On the other hand, some may not swim in the ocean, not because they hate water, but because they fear being eaten by sharks. In that vain, prudence is a loss of opportunity. Fear is relative to the likelihood of occurrence.

Do you use the term Mother Nature? Many theists, atheists and agnostics use the term, knowing nature to be true. However, like hot or cold, nature is not a thing unto itself... it's a property of other things. The planet and the universe. Free will does not make water hot or cold and despite all of the available variables we can impose, it can only be in one state at any given time. Therefore neither can be wrong. Each have a time and a place for us at different times. It's when we put a face on it, or deny it's existence entirely, is were we go wrong. Hence my position as an agnostic. Jonah being swallowed by a whale is a bunch of crap, as is the great flood, but Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 is wise. There is good and evil in everything and that is where free will allows for us to find or lose ourselves as individuals. Most who grasp the concept of nature understand grandeur, beauty, retribution and destruction (to name a few). These are the identical things theists advocate when they speak of god. The difference being, nature does not play favorites, pass judgements nor listen to individual prayers. We understand that when we intervene with nature by actions, there are consequences. Nature does not show retribution for our thoughts, but sometimes for our actions, yet moreover for reasons we may never understand. This we know to be true, as well. An eight year old girl told me once "Big fish eat little fish and that's just the way it is" It's true, wisdom often comes from the mouths of babes. Thank goodness humans developed morals, because we'd otherwise be cannibals or ruthless cold blooded killers. When we apply these morals to nature, we understand there's no need to do certain things, even though we can. In that vain, there's liitle to be conquered or dominated. We accept that some things should just be and it has absolutely nothing to do with any of us, other than being a part of the big picture. I'm a follower of Ed Ricketts, as was John Steinbeck, Joseph Campbell and Salvadore Dali, to name a few. His philosophy was wrapped in the science of the ecology... the economy of nature and like Ecclesiastes, a time and purpose for everything, how necessary voids are filled, that things may be reborn and how species may co-exist.

I read it the first time. Posting it over and over again won;t make it so, it will only get you banned, irrespective of what it's supposed to mean.

Now you're basically back where you were locked. Apparently you haven't grasped the concept of don't bring this up again.