Initially: I am a Democrat so I already wasn’t a fan of his policies to begin with but the man does have credentials, so it’s an “improvement” over some of the Orange One’s other nominees. Still bitter about Garland not getting a hearing, still bitter about the amount of access to writings the public doesnt have, even if the result of the hearing would be the same.
Post allegations: I get it, it’s been 3.5 decades. There’s no proof. Etc. etc. I don’t know if anything happened, but he and his team hasn’t handled this well. Trump hasn’t either recently and has gone back on the attack. I’d like to think the #metoo movement, outrage post “locker room talk”, and watching what happened when Hill testified would change things. I really do. I’d like to stay objective and say listen to the man, listen to his accuser, and go. But I think on both sides, one’s ability to believe is tainted by politics. Including mine, so at best, he’s a tainted candidate with evidence of a questionable past and no/few signs of growth or remorse.
She’s a liar period, she’s also an ignorant puppet on […] strings. Can’t wait to have him confirmed and hope he keeps that in mind when he gets his first chance to rule against [my fellow americans]. Go Kavanaugh get payback soon as possible. For those who don’t know me it’s a complete WASTE of your time to condemn my opinions because I take all attacks as Medal of Honor so bring me a lot of medals.
This isn’t accurate; she first brought this up in 2012 with her therapist. It’s only now that the public is becoming aware of it because he’s now being considered for The Supreme Court, which is exactly when anything like this should surface, if it exists.
Regardless; she didn’t wait until he was nominated to talk about this, as is being widely suggested.
I can’t say if I believe her one way or another, but what I find strange but perhaps not surprising is how fast Republicans want to confirm him. Surely, for a lifetime position, more than a little scrutiny is warranted? People are complaining about a few weeks so far, in comparison to a lifetime appointment.
My suspicion is that some people don’t actually care whether or not the allegations are true; they would want him confirmed even if they are.
Keep in mind Ford wanted to remain anonymous, and only came forward as the acuser once her name was leaked… Also, I doubt anyone would want this kind of attention. Constant death threats and she can’t even live in her own home right now…
I am not entirely surprised that these allegations are coming forward, and I expect we will hear more before the hearing on Thursday.
I am not sure whether or not the allegations are true, nobody does right now except for those directly involved, which is why I think that there should be an FBI investigation into the accusations. I find it suspicious that the women accusing Brett are calling for an investigation and all of the Brett supporters are pushing back. If you believe his side of the story, why wouldn’t you want to prove it so there isn’t this cloud of suspicion into his nomination? There is the point that Brett has lied about numerous things during this confirmation already, and maybe the Republican senators actually don’t believe him.
And when people like mitch say this isn’t what the FBI does, that just isn’t true at all, they did for Clarence Thomas less than 30 years ago. Anndddd for everyone saying Democrats just want an investigation to push the hearing back, the Thomas investigation took THREE DAYS!
Still 2012 is kinda resent no? and hight school how old are u than? and what was the accusations, he tried to rape wasnt it?, second ,exposed himself to her… and the third? ( i have only seen what CNN has said in their summary) All i know is alot of these rape cases in my country are too drunk girls might not remember or who they slept with some ugly guy and they struggle owning up to it and dont want to “loose face” so they scream rape, some of em was video taped during the act and once it became evidence all their credibitly is gone. im not saying this is the case with Kavanaugh, all im saying is there is often two sides to it and when a woman screams rape she is a victim immidiatly, its not always the case…women can be devious too!
from the media in scandinavia it seems the same shit happens every time in the US. its a power play in sick dimentions.
Absolutely. This is why I don’t believe her just on the basis of the accusation alone.
That said, even 2012 being as recent as it is, the accusation is still relevant especially for the position being considered. Should we entirely dismiss the possibility that he tried to rape her just because she brought it up in 2012?
tried is the key here i think when we are kids what i think is ok might be offensive to another one i think we all can relate to that no? . can this can be missunderstanding being blown out of proportion? we all did idiotic shit when we were kids.
the power play in you the US seems to go so far beyond, the length power players are willing to go to block a player from the wrong wing, i wouldnt be suprised if this is a part in some play.
as Ford is a high educated well respected person it seems to god to be true that this woman would come forward with this if it wastn true right? kinda makes it look more like a play imo.
do you know you americans have people that belive the world is flat still ALOT OF THEM!
I don’t understand this argument. You’re saying that although he intended to rape her, but was not successful, it is a non issue?
The standards for our most powerful court should be higher than “he tried to rape her but wasn’t able to so it’s ok”.
So she is not credible because she is credible? Surely you can see how absurd it is that an accuser is not to be believed when she is not an upstanding member of society, but when she is, it’s “too good to be true” therefore she is still not to be believed?
This argument seems to be going out of the way to find reasons that she must be lying. Again, I don’t believe her just because she made an accusation but there must be better disqualifying criteria than that.
so when she says tried, you read he intended to rape her, but was not successful?
Does that mean if i see a guy i find scary, and he comes into the same room as me he tried to scare me?
imo as a smart credible person, she had sooooooo many years to do somthing about it. but didnt, that kills alot of her credibility, specialy when knowing the lengths power elite in US goes to get their way… it all smells like media BS and play
Well, yes, that’s what “tried to rape” means. He had intended to, but was not successful. I’m not sure what other interpretation there can be.
A better analogy would be if a random stranger tried to rob you but you fought him off and got away. That would be an attempted robbery, regardless of whether or not he actually ended up with your wallet.
Hypothetically, if he did try to rape her, how much time has to pass before he is once again a morally qualified candidate for the highest court?
Her opnion of the situation is that he tried, dosent that mean he acutally tried? and if he actually tried why didnt she report it earlier… there must be reason why she didnt go to the police or parents… what does the story say about it?
Again the word tried makes ppl belive as you say “He had intended to, but was not successful” you kinda forget there is 2 sides to this and the accusing side kinda smells realy bad looks like madia spin BS 101 and if its not a play… would you admit it would be one hell of play if it was?