Guest MattP Posted 27 September 2018 Share Posted 27 September 2018 4 hours ago, Smudge said: I am watching testimony, she is very believable. Both have been, that's the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPinCarolina Posted 27 September 2018 Share Posted 27 September 2018 2 hours ago, MattP said: Both have been, that's the problem. I didn't find him very believable. Angry, rich, privileged male doesn't resonate with me as a white male. Those were the most fake tears imaginable, and if she had put on anything like the performance he's putting on she would have been eviscerated and said to be unhinged and unreliable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudge Posted 27 September 2018 Share Posted 27 September 2018 3 hours ago, MattP said: Both have been, that's the problem. I know which one I believe Matt. One is evasive the other isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 27 September 2018 Share Posted 27 September 2018 1 hour ago, UPinCarolina said: I didn't find him very believable. Angry, rich, privileged male doesn't resonate with me as a white male. Those were the most fake tears imaginable, and if she had put on anything like the performance he's putting on she would have been eviscerated and said to be unhinged and unreliable. I think if in your mind you are being critical already of his wealth and status you will find it difficult to be impartial. 8 minutes ago, Smudge said: I know which one I believe Matt. One is evasive the other isn't. They were both evasive, the amount if times she consulted her lawyer for basic questions was ridiculous, the amount if times he tried not to answer the question was also ridiculous. I hate the way the US is now, it seems you've got Trump supporters automatically disbelieving her and anti-Trump supporters automatically disbelieving him. I find the division quite terrible. One thing I would though say though, given how much he struggled to keep his cool, I'm sure not he's the right person for a supreme court even if innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudge Posted 27 September 2018 Share Posted 27 September 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, MattP said: I think if in your mind you are being critical already of his wealth and status you will find it difficult to be impartial. They were both evasive, the amount if times she consulted her lawyer for basic questions was ridiculous, the amount if times he tried not to answer the question was also ridiculous. I hate the way the US is now, it seems you've got Trump supporters automatically disbelieving her and anti-Trump supporters automatically disbelieving him. I find the division quite terrible. One thing I would though say though, given how much he struggled to keep his cool, I'm sure not he's the right person for a supreme court even if innocent. Matt I have watched this since 10 am this morning, I haven't missed a minute. My natural proclivity is right of center. She only hesitated in the latter stages because her attorneys kept stepping in on Rachel Mitchell's questions concerning the attorney client privilege. Regardless of his innocence or guilt, he should not be on the Supreme Court, he lost it and is far from unbiased Edited 27 September 2018 by Smudge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 27 September 2018 Share Posted 27 September 2018 Just now, Smudge said: Matt I have watched this since 10 am this morning, I haven't missed a minute. My natural proclivity is right of center. She only hesitated in the latter stages because her attorneys kept stepping in on Rachel Mitchell's questions concerning the attorney client privilege. I've watched every minute of it as well. This is actually a pretty decent column from Piers Morgan, he believed both as well but the shame of the whole episode is awful. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6216409/PIERS-day-DC-died-shame-Tears-rage-two-broken-souls-publicly-tortured.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPinCarolina Posted 27 September 2018 Share Posted 27 September 2018 (edited) 28 minutes ago, MattP said: I think if in your mind you are being critical already of his wealth and status you will find it difficult to be impartial. They were both evasive, the amount if times she consulted her lawyer for basic questions was ridiculous, the amount if times he tried not to answer the question was also ridiculous. I hate the way the US is now, it seems you've got Trump supporters automatically disbelieving her and anti-Trump supporters automatically disbelieving him. I find the division quite terrible. One thing I would though say though, given how much he struggled to keep his cool, I'm sure not he's the right person for a supreme court even if innocent. I have to say that my critical view of his testimony based on his socioeconomic status is informed by my career as a teacher in the same type and status of schools that he attended. I have known many parents and students whose behaviors and mannerisms, even when presented with undeniable proof of guilt or wrongdoing (not saying that is the case here), have matched his. They can’t fathom being held accountable and turn the whole episode into proof of jealousy or conspiracy against them by the teacher, administration, or accuser. Edited 27 September 2018 by UPinCarolina 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 28 September 2018 Share Posted 28 September 2018 I've been asleep so not able to watch it, sounds like it was an interesting day. I wonder whether the Repubs are brave enough to try to force a vote through before the midterms? I guess they feel that they don't have much choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPinCarolina Posted 28 September 2018 Share Posted 28 September 2018 49 minutes ago, leicsmac said: I've been asleep so not able to watch it, sounds like it was an interesting day. I wonder whether the Repubs are brave enough to try to force a vote through before the midterms? I guess they feel that they don't have much choice. There’s no doubt a vote is imminent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Prussian Posted 28 September 2018 Share Posted 28 September 2018 10 hours ago, Smudge said: I am watching testimony, she is very believable. Her testimony is based on "recovered memory" - I just wonder how accurate that memory can be, and that 36 years later. No time. No date. No place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 28 September 2018 Share Posted 28 September 2018 8 hours ago, UPinCarolina said: I have to say that my critical view of his testimony based on his socioeconomic status is informed by my career as a teacher in the same type and status of schools that he attended. I have known many parents and students whose behaviors and mannerisms, even when presented with undeniable proof of guilt or wrongdoing (not saying that is the case here), have matched his. They can’t fathom being held accountable and turn the whole episode into proof of jealousy or conspiracy against them by the teacher, administration, or accuser. Come on, you can't compare the reaction of a man being watched by millions of people who is being accused of serious sexual assault to people at a parents evening. You might be right, but when you immediately refer to someone as rich and privledged it has to call into question whether you can look from a equitable viewpoint. I do fear whatever the case that Rep. senator is right in stating he's in the wrong place at the wrong time if he wants a fair trial. 46 minutes ago, MC Prussian said: Her testimony is based on "recovered memory" - I just wonder how accurate that memory can be, and that 36 years later. No time. No date. No place. This is the problem I have with it, I certainly believe something has happened to her but the lack of detail has to leave pretty serious doubt that she has got the right person at least. Not really sure a man should lose his career on evidence that wouldn't get close to a conviction in court. Well I am sure, they shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 28 September 2018 Share Posted 28 September 2018 I think this has been covered on here before but I don't really remember the responses and it factors in here; why does rape seem to have an additional stigma attached to it's victims in terms of being believed that almost no other violent crime has? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 28 September 2018 Share Posted 28 September 2018 4 minutes ago, leicsmac said: I think this has been covered on here before but I don't really remember the responses and it factors in here; why does rape seem to have an additional stigma attached to it's victims in terms of being believed that almost no other violent crime has? I think evidence is probably the key thing, if someone says they have been beaten up you'll look at their face and see it, if someone says they have been burgled you'll find a house that has been broken into, if a woman says she was raped 25 years ago you won't have an immediate proof except word, the police should take every alledged crime seriously and investigate it to whatever extent they can - but that doesn't mean you always automatically believe someone. No idea what it's like in the US in general but in England recently we've had a series of cases where men have been dragged to court by a CPS appearing to be desperate for a conviction and many were released after the police actually withheld evidence that proved it was being made up in many cases, incredible in a society like ours - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44366997 The CPS did apologise, but many lives had already been ruined on what were clearly false allegations - https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jun/05/scores-of-uk-sexual-offence-cases-stopped-over-evidence-failings Although in this case it's clearly obvious many people will see it as politically motivated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Prussian Posted 28 September 2018 Share Posted 28 September 2018 The Democratic Senators speaking out for Ford make me laugh with their justifications: "Women like Dr. Ford... need to be believed" "I just want to say to the men in this country: Just shut up and step up! Do the right thing." "To be prepared to stand up against somebody who's nominated for one of the most powerful positions in the United States, that takes an extraordinary amount of courage." "I believe Dr. Ford. I believe the survivor here." "I believe her, I stand by her. I don't believe she should be bullied into this scenario "He said, she said."" Who exactly is bullied here and what happened to due process? Hapless. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 28 September 2018 Share Posted 28 September 2018 1 hour ago, MC Prussian said: The Democratic Senators speaking out for Ford make me laugh with their justifications: "Women like Dr. Ford... need to be believed" "I just want to say to the men in this country: Just shut up and step up! Do the right thing." "To be prepared to stand up against somebody who's nominated for one of the most powerful positions in the United States, that takes an extraordinary amount of courage." "I believe Dr. Ford. I believe the survivor here." "I believe her, I stand by her. I don't believe she should be bullied into this scenario "He said, she said."" Who exactly is bullied here and what happened to due process? Hapless. In a very different way to the GOP, the Democrats themselves are becoming a very dangerous political party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sm1 Posted 28 September 2018 Share Posted 28 September 2018 It looks like he's got the vote and is going to be on the supreme court. On a side note Lindsey Graham was on fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPinCarolina Posted 28 September 2018 Share Posted 28 September 2018 3 hours ago, MattP said: Come on, you can't compare the reaction of a man being watched by millions of people who is being accused of serious sexual assault to people at a parents evening. You might be right, but when you immediately refer to someone as rich and privledged it has to call into question whether you can look from a equitable viewpoint. I do fear whatever the case that Rep. senator is right in stating he's in the wrong place at the wrong time if he wants a fair trial. This is the problem I have with it, I certainly believe something has happened to her but the lack of detail has to leave pretty serious doubt that she has got the right person at least. Not really sure a man should lose his career on evidence that wouldn't get close to a conviction in court. Well I am sure, they shouldn't. He’ll still be a federal judge. Career will be fine; he just won’t be on the Supreme Court. After yesterday’s display - should he really be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudge Posted 28 September 2018 Share Posted 28 September 2018 7 hours ago, MC Prussian said: Her testimony is based on "recovered memory" - I just wonder how accurate that memory can be, and that 36 years later. No time. No date. No place. There is no Statute of Limitations on sex crimes in Maryland apparently, so an investigation could clear this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderbyFox Posted 28 September 2018 Share Posted 28 September 2018 Great watch this, like something out of House of Cards. Petulant Politicians on both sides who have no interest or empathy towards Dr Ford and would rather play Party Politics and point score. And I thought the Left vs Right tribalism was bad over here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 28 September 2018 Share Posted 28 September 2018 5 hours ago, MattP said: I think evidence is probably the key thing, if someone says they have been beaten up you'll look at their face and see it, if someone says they have been burgled you'll find a house that has been broken into, if a woman says she was raped 25 years ago you won't have an immediate proof except word, the police should take every alledged crime seriously and investigate it to whatever extent they can - but that doesn't mean you always automatically believe someone. No idea what it's like in the US in general but in England recently we've had a series of cases where men have been dragged to court by a CPS appearing to be desperate for a conviction and many were released after the police actually withheld evidence that proved it was being made up in many cases, incredible in a society like ours - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44366997 The CPS did apologise, but many lives had already been ruined on what were clearly false allegations - https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jun/05/scores-of-uk-sexual-offence-cases-stopped-over-evidence-failings Although in this case it's clearly obvious many people will see it as politically motivated. There's something in that. It's just really sad and generally frustrating that such means rape has such a low cleanup rate and powermongers can use the ambiguity as an excuse to continue trying to assert power over women. 3 minutes ago, EnderbyFox said: Great watch this, like something out of House of Cards. Petulant Politicians on both sides who have no interest or empathy towards Dr Ford and would rather play Party Politics and point score. And I thought the Left vs Right tribalism was bad over here I've said before, things in the UK might be a bit polarised but compared to over the pond.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 28 September 2018 Share Posted 28 September 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, leicsmac said: There's something in that. It's just really sad and generally frustrating that such means rape has such a low cleanup rate. Maybe, but I don't really see how this changes - so many of these situations will always be one word against the other and that should never be enough to imprison someone for a lengthy period of time. Edited 28 September 2018 by MattP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detroit Blues Posted 28 September 2018 Share Posted 28 September 2018 2 hours ago, MattP said: Maybe, but I don't really see how this changes - so many of these situations will always be one word against the other and that should never be enough to imprison someone for a lengthy period of time. There's a New Yorker article with email evidence showing the Republicans obstructing a second accuser from testifying before the committee. Use common sense. What is more likely? A rich kid and his buddies routinely drank too excess, partied, and took advantage of women. Multiple separate accusers are lying under penalty of perjury as part of a liberal conspiracy to delay his appointment? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudge Posted 28 September 2018 Share Posted 28 September 2018 2 hours ago, MattP said: Maybe, but I don't really see how this changes - so many of these situations will always be one word against the other and that should never be enough to imprison someone for a lengthy period of time. I hope this is not what you meant but it reads like we should never investigate sexual abuse on the grounds that it can't be proven on first blush. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudge Posted 28 September 2018 Share Posted 28 September 2018 32 minutes ago, Detroit Blues said: There's a New Yorker article with email evidence showing the Republicans obstructing a second accuser from testifying before the committee. Use common sense. What is more likely? A rich kid and his buddies routinely drank too excess, partied, and took advantage of women. Multiple separate accusers are lying under penalty of perjury as part of a liberal conspiracy to delay his appointment? There's no doubt that political shenanigans are represented by both sides of the aisle but the abject disinterest by the Republicans in getting to the truth, is a travesty to Dr Ford and anyone else who comes forward. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudge Posted 28 September 2018 Share Posted 28 September 2018 Jeff Flake (R Arizona) has agreed to vote with the majority on the committee on the condition that the FBI hold a one week investigation into the allegations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts