LP.org: All Libertarians say no to sexual assault

Posted at LP.org:

Make freedom your single issue.

Whenever somebody joins the Libertarian Party, they first thing they are asked to do is to check the box next to these words: “I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.” This is often called the non-aggression principle. Libertarians are unalterably opposed to using force or fraud in personal relationships, or to prevail in disputes. Sexual assault is near the top of anyone’s list of prohibited initiations of force. Unlike Republicans and Democrats, Libertarians take it a step further. We oppose electing or appointing politicians, bureaucrats, or judges whose policies and decisions will hurt people or take from them through war, government-run welfare, crony capitalism, and consensual crime laws.

On Sept. 27, the contentious Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh took an ugly turn when Dr. Christine Blasey Ford credibly testified that she had been sexually assaulted by the nominee. Ford was a reluctant witness. She had originally described her experience, allegedly at the hands of Kavanaugh, in a letter to Rep. Anna Eshoo and Sen. Dianne Feinstein. She requested the letter be kept confidential. Feinstein sat on the letter until after the hearings had ended, then announced she had it. The letter was leaked. When Ford found herself hounded by reporters at her home and at work, she finally agreed to testify. Kavanaugh strenuously denied all charges. Predictably, belief in each side split along party lines.

Well before these serious charges, Libertarians have condemned the nomination of Kavanaugh from day one.

“Unfortunately, Brett Kavanaugh has a troubling track record of giving a pass to excesses in the war on terrorism,” said Libertarian National Committee Chair Nicholas Sarwark on the day of the announcement. “It’s good that he’s a Second Amendment supporter, but it’s unacceptable that he’s also willing to suspend the Fourth and Fifth Amendments when he deems it necessary.”

For instance, when Amir Mohamed Meshal, a natural-born citizen of the United States, fled from Somalia’s civil war into Kenya in 2007, he was captured by the U.S. Combined Joint Task Force. The American Civil Liberties Union complaint filed on his behalf claimed that Meshal was “interrogated more than thirty times by U.S. officials who failed to adhere to the most elementary requirements of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991,” and that “U.S. officials repeatedly threatened Mr. Meshal with torture, forced disappearance, and other serious harm.”

Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion in Meshal v. Higginbotham, which said that although Meshal’s allegations were “quite troubling,” he had no standing to pursue claims that his constitutional rights were violated because he was overseas when it happened, and part of a terrorism investigation.

“Matters touching on national security and foreign policy fall within an area of executive action where courts hesitate to intrude absent congressional authorization,” wrote Judge Janice Rogers Brown in her decision, with which Kavanaugh concurred.

“If the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 does not constitute ‘congressional authorization,’ I don’t know what would,” Sarwark said.

Also troubling is Kavanaugh’s professed deference to judicial precedence. It’s unlikely he would vote to overturn the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873, which created a privately owned butcher monopoly in New Orleans and have been used to justify crony capitalism ever since. He certainly won’t vote to overturn the Gold Clause Cases from the 1930s, which effectively changed the constitutional definition of money from gold and silver to paper and have enabled inflationary monetary policy ever since. Unlimited quantities of newly minted Federal Reserve money have made it easy for the federal government to wage undeclared wars from the Korean War era until today’s endless Middle East wars. It’s doubtful that Kavanaugh will vote to shift war-making powers from the executive branch back to Congress. He claims to be an originalist in his interpretation of the Constitution, but he’s not.

Libertarians applaud the success of the #MeToo movement in emboldening the victims of sexual assault and abuse to name their assailants. Comedian Bill Cosby has been sentenced to prison for one of many rape accusations. Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein is now confined to New York and Connecticut, and faces life in prison. Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly have been fired from Fox News. Al Franken resigned from the Senate. Les Moonves and Charlie Rose were fired from CBS. Matt Lauer was fired from NBC. Even Garrison Keillor was dropped by Minnesota Public Radio. There are only a few high-profile examples out of many.

Approximately 800 Libertarians are running for local, state, and national office this year. All of them can be counted upon to be vigilant in safeguarding Americans from force — including sexual assault — and from fraud at the hands of criminals both in the private sector and in government.

270 thoughts on “LP.org: All Libertarians say no to sexual assault

  1. Massimo

    The sexual assault is alleged, not proven, contrary to all the other very solid reasons to oppose Kavanaugh mentioned in the article. Libertarians should be the first to oppose this Terroir-like justicialism of the mob.

    Personally, I find dystopian how these me-too character assasinations are spreading.

  2. Anthony Dlugos

    The press release didn’t suggest the assault was proven. Further, the sexual assault allegations don’t need to be proven in order to make Kavanaugh unpalatable as a supreme court justice. Not a criminal trial, as you know.

    I’ll bet there are a lot of male sexual aggressors out there who see a dystopian future for themselves.

    I guess Silver Spoon Kavanaugh’s future is partially in the hands of a woman. Tough luck.

  3. Shane

    Ugh. The LP should stay away the hate-filled #metoo movement and also stand against those who make false accusations for personal or political gain.

    This is mob rule by radical feminists who want the term “sexual assault” to have no varying degrees and place all accusations on the level of rape.

    In the case of Kavanaugh, they should fully investigate all claims and prosecute any of these women whose claims can be disproved.

    And for the accuser claiming she was sexually assaulted because she supposedly got a dick in the face. Sorry, that’s not assault, she’s not a “survivor” and the allegation, even if true in her teenage years, has no bearing on a SCOTUS pick.

    The cries of sexual assault have turned into a tool by the Left for women to gain power through fraud. While there are absolutely true cases out there, many of these accusations are designed to bring down men and grab settlement checks.

    Anita Hill is a prime example. At worst she admits that she was asked out and lewd conversations took place. Again, that’s not assault or harassment. It’s women using accusations as political tools and men are forced to play sympathetic and “do the right thing.”

    It’s a “for the children” political ploy but with teeth.

    The LP should be an honest broker rather than playing along to get the support of crazed feminists.

  4. Anthony Dlugos

    A) Not that its (yet) relevant, but an unwanted dick in the face is, in fact, sexual assault.

    B) Anything Senators think is relevant under their Advise and Consent role will have a bearing on a SCOTUS pick.

    Your lame warmed-over Trump diatribe would fit better in the retrograde GOP.

    Too much Faux News on your brain, apparently.

  5. Shane

    Anthony, no. At best it’s a slogan, “I survived a dick in the face and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.”

    If that’s assault then I’m claiming assault every time I go to Walmart and see fat women in yoga pants.

  6. Anthony Dlugos

    if this is part of your stand-up shtick for the next CPAC conference, you’re gonna have to get new material.

  7. dL

    And for the accuser claiming she was sexually assaulted because she supposedly got a dick in the face. Sorry, that’s not assault, she’s not a “survivor” and the allegation, even if true in her teenage years, has no bearing on a SCOTUS pick.

    well, that’s why we ascribe to self-defense. If one labors under the delusion that one has free reign to stick one’s dick in women’s faces, there is the consequence of two bullets to the groin to persuade otherwise. And it would have bearing on SCOTUS b/c no one would nominate much less confirm a eunuch who had his balls blown blown off…

  8. Paul

    I don’t disagree, and I think this is good lip service, but isn’t there an LNC member with multiple domestic violence accusations against him?

  9. DJ

    LOL- so, while Libertarians oppose aggression they condone the end justifies the means- typical R and D bullshit.

    I have an idea for everyone, including Libertarians, Democrats, Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, leftist and rightist-

    Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

    I’d like to see SC records that show how the leftist have enhanced liberty or pared back gov’t over reach.

  10. Anastasia Beaverhausen

    It’s easy for the LP to come out against sexual assault. Most Libertarians have never even HAD sex.

  11. Tony From Long Island

    Massimo:

    The allegation is CREDIBLE. It doesn’t need to be proven. It isn’t a court of law. There shouldn’t be anyone (of any ideology) who has a credible allegation of sexual assault against them on the SCOTUS.

    Wanting to inform the Senate (and the public) about the character of a nominee for a lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land is not “character assassination.”

    BTW, Kavanaugh assassinated his character enough himself with his undignified bloviating.

    p.s. Yes, I haven’t posted in a while. I’ll start posting again regularly in January

  12. Tony From Long Island

    Shane: ” . . . . . And for the accuser claiming she was sexually assaulted because she supposedly got a dick in the face. Sorry, that’s not assault, she’s not a “survivor” and the allegation, even if true in her teenage years, has no bearing on a SCOTUS pick. . . . . ”

    Sigh . . . You really need to step into the world of reality. Go stick your’s in someone’s face and see how quickly you get convicted. It seems that some people don’t like to have a random schlong a few inches from their face. Some people do. More power to them.

    And YES, the moral character of a SCOTUS nominee is asbolutely relevant, regardless of their ideology.

  13. William t. Forrest

    It’s 100 percent credible and they only said they do not remember it, not that it did not happen. Multiple allegations against Cavanaugh and he came across as a dishonest mean angry entitled drunk who hates women .

  14. Tony From Long Island

    cred·i·ble — kred?b(?)l/ — adjective — able to be believed; convincing.

    I guess you didn’t actually watch the testimony.

    Something doesn’t require corroboration to be credible. It might to gain a conviction in a court of law (though sex cases are often won with nothing more than victim testimony).

    There wasn’t a single word in her testimony that wasn’t credible, as opposed to his.

  15. William Saturn

    Repeating yourself multiple times does not make it so. There were multiple inconsistencies in her story. It was not credible.

    The way this played out seems to be from the same playbook used against Donald Trump and Roy Moore.

  16. William Saturn

    She doesn’t know what year it was, where it happened, and has provided conflicting reports on the number of people at the party.

    In a court of law there would be no case at all.

  17. William t. Forrest

    1982, likely July 1 and she clarified number of people. You may get your wish about court. She passed polygraph and asked for fbi investigation, kavanaugh ducked.

  18. DJ

    LOL- feigned outrage is a tactic. Why hasn’t the left focused on constitutional questions? Why hasn’t the right focused on constitutional questions? Because its more fun to rag on someone from the other side- where was this outrage when Clinton was POTUS? LOL- bunch of phony fucks. The group think mentality of tribal politics is funny- though sad that so many can’t think for themselves.

  19. paulie Post author

    Welcome back Tony from LI. I look forward to your return to more regular commenting next year. And you are of course correct.

  20. paulie Post author

    The way this played out seems to be from the same playbook used against Donald Trump and Roy Moore.

    The Cheeto Benito admitted to his pussy grabbing behavior in the Access Hollywood tape and I can’t confirm or deny whether I have ever seen him grab women by the vagina in real life. As for Roy Moore, I personally know people who tell me they know people who have lived in Gadsden for many years and confirm that he was an infamous creepy old man chasing teenage girls around Gadsden for many years. This wasn’t something that was just cooked up for his latest political campaign, it’s been an open secret in the Gadsden area for decades. So I will agree with you that the allegations against Kavanaugh are equally credible to those against Drumpf and Moore.

  21. paulie Post author

    Kavanaugh is a disgrace and unfit for the Supreme Court, or to keep the judgeship he already has. Dr. Ford is 100% credible and the matter should be referred to the FBI and Montgomery County sheriffs and prosecutors. Even if all the women testifying about Kavanaugh’s behavior in high school, college and into his 30s were lying, which I don’t think is the case, he is not qualified due to his positions on privacy, 4th amendment, torture, executive immunity, and the volatile and extremely unjudicial, extreme partisan hack, angry abusive temperament he revealed amply in his testimony Thursday. Furthermore the women are all asking for an FBI investigation, while he is ducking, and Dr. Ford took a polygraph while he is ducking. That alone indicate he is the liar here. Honestly, he seemed dishonest to me during his initial testimony at many points long before the sexual predator allegations were made public.

  22. paulie Post author

    Perjury and membership in the Ralph Club (weak stomach – lol) are two other traits to look for in a Supreme Court justice.

  23. William T. Forrest

    “It was not credible.”

    -William Saturn

    Well, the Oompa Loompa Fuehrer doesn’t agree.

    http://fortune.com/2018/09/28/trump-ford-credible-witness/

    “I thought her testimony was very compelling and she looks like a very fine woman to me, very fine woman,” Trump said of Ford while speaking to reporters on Friday. “It was an incredible moment I think in the history of our country,” he continued. “But certainly [Ford] was a very credible witness. She was very good in many respects.”

  24. Shane

    Wait, is that THE Tony from Long Island? You’re the guy who tried to rape Marie Delvechio during our Junior year??

    See, now you’re disqualified from ever serving on SCOTUS.

    If you guys paid attention to how real world politics works you would be able to see right through this. Brian Fallon is laughing all the way to 2020.

    This isn’t about Kavanaugh’s qualifications (those have been thrown out of the window). This is about using false allegations to ruin a man simply because he was selected by Trump.

    It’s sick and the LP is ignorantly playing along.

  25. Anthony Dlugos

    lol. alt-right getting upset!

    Dr. Ford’s accusations about Kavanaugh were forwarded to Congress when Kavanaugh was put on the short list but BEFORE Trump selected him.

    Doesn’t mean its true, but it removes the possibility that the accusations were made ONLY because Trump selected Kavanaugh. If it was just trying to get back at Trump, she would have waited until after Trump made the pick and leveled accusations at that guy.

    On a side note: the hard-right Bro-tarian attitude with a sole focus on “pwning the Libs” and “fighting the commies?” Very hackneyed. Try harder.

  26. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Key point about CBF”s timing. She”s probably mostly a willing pawn. Feinstein et al are using this charge for partisan reasons, it seems.

    So are the Rs.

    Entering into this fray with NAPist restatements accomplishes nothing productive that I can discern.

  27. William t. Forrest

    False allegations? Who took polygraph and who refused? Who kept asking for fib investigation under penalty of perjury and to have multiple people interviewed and who was reluctant? Who acted like an angry drunk in the hearings? Come on. Are you serious? This nomination is ridiculous. Cavanaugh is unfit on multiple levels due to temperament, perjury, and many authoritarian positions he has expressed as a judge and writer, as well as in his prior white house jobs and with the Starr chamber. Being appointed by the oompa loompa fuehrer specifically to help him get away with crimes in office and become a dictator as well as to take away women’s rights over their own bodies is not the only set of reasons to oppose him.

  28. Anthony Dlugos

    1) She”s probably mostly a willing pawn.

    -Willing? Not so sure. Pawn? Very likely true.

    2) Feinstein et al are using this charge for partisan reasons, it seems.

    -No doubt about that.

    3) So are the Rs.

    -Clearly.

  29. Anthony Dlugos

    “Entering into this fray with NAPist restatements accomplishes nothing productive that I can discern.”

    Obviously true.

  30. William t. Forrest

    I don’t see her as a pawn. She’s very brave to over come fears that proved to be completely justified. We should all thank her, especially if the president of the Ralph club is kept from 7fing and devil’s triangling the whole country from the supreme kort along with trump and the congressional republicans, but even if he ascends. She’s doing the right thing when it is far from easy.

  31. Seebeck

    …Dr. Christine Blasey Ford credibly testified…

    Credibly?

    Not even close to accurate, with the crocodile tears, method acting, memory lapses, zero corroborating evidence, political timing, and no details.

    That being said, the whole thing was a hot steaming mess, because the Committee simply played politics and did not do its vetting job properly on Kavanaugh in regards to his complete incorrectness regarding the 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments.

  32. Seebeck

    I have an idea for everyone, including Libertarians, Democrats, Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, leftist and rightist-

    Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

    I have an idea for DJ:

    Get out of your religion box and grow up some. “Sin” is nothing more than a religious statist construct to control and induce fear of some imaginary flying spaghetti monster in some unproven afterlife.

    I am without sin because I as a libertarian I reject that silly theo-statist construct in the first place, and thus it does not apply to me.

    You better answer: he who has not violated anyone else’s right, cast the first stone. (And even that’s stupid, because it implies not violating the NAP is an excuse to violate the NAP!)

  33. Seebeck

    Oh, yeah, one other thing from a guy who has had a polygraph: they’re garbage, so passing them it irrelevant.

    The simple fact is that the allegations have no credibility because they have no details, are loaded with bad political timing and backgrounds, and are made by people who are easily recognizable as disreputable party whores.

    I’m not defending Kavanaugh. What I am saying is that the entire mess was politically biased and tainted and would never make it into a court of law for either criminal or civil proceedings, and it simply is improper in the worst way to engage in character assassination like this, no matter the political party or views of the accused.

  34. paulie Post author

    Oh, yeah, one other thing from a guy who has had a polygraph: they’re garbage, so passing them it irrelevant.

    It’s possible to train to evade them and they are not always accurate, but I still think it’s relevant that one side took one and one has refused; one side wants additional people under oath and one does not.

    The simple fact is that the allegations have no credibility because they have no details, are loaded with bad political timing and backgrounds, and are made by people who are easily recognizable as disreputable party whores.

    They have plenty of detail and the people making them are not “easily recognizable as disreputable party whores.” Dr. Ford has said she is not a political activist and is an independent. At least one of the women corroborating Deborah Ramirez’s account of what Kavanaugh was like at Yale said on CNN that she is a Republican, and yet she says Kavanaugh purjured himself when he denied being a blackout drunk in college.

  35. paulie Post author

    Credibly?

    Not even close to accurate, with the crocodile tears, method acting, memory lapses, zero corroborating evidence, political timing, and no details.

    You must have watched a different testimony than I did. I’ll tell you who I did not find to be credible, either in Thursday’s testimony or the original testimony prior to the sexual conduct allegations:

  36. paulie Post author

    Matt Damon has Kavanaugh’s performance Thursday nailed down cold.

    That being said, the whole thing was a hot steaming mess, because the Committee simply played politics and did not do its vetting job properly on Kavanaugh in regards to his complete incorrectness regarding the 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments.

    There, we agree.

  37. robert capozzi

    WTF: I don’t see her as a pawn. She’s very brave to over come fears that proved to be completely justified.

    Me: Can’t she be a brave pawn? Seems likely, since that’s what pawns do. Most of them are “killed” on the “chess board.”

    fwiw, I opposed BK’s nomination on 4A, presidential immunity, and his political hack background. If he did what she alleges and he’s not confirmed, I’m pleased with the outcome. IF, OTOH, he’s innocent and he’s denied the seat, I’ll be somewhat pleased for the country and very displeased with the process.

    Ls USED TO recognize that the ends don’t justify the means. It was a common mantra in the LM. Since when are Ls this craven and unthinking?

    Further, I’m very disturbed by Ls and others who seem certain that they know the truth, when it should be PROFOUNDLY obvious that no one (with the possible exceptions of BK, CFB, and maybe Mark Judge) DO know the truth.

  38. Anthony Dlugos

    there was actually a very fair and reasoned article by Dershowitz in the WSJ, if you can get past the paywall:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/this-is-no-mere-job-interview-1538313919

    I agree with you, RC, on the reasons to oppose BK’s nomination.

    I find this process utterly distasteful, I have some amount of sympathy for DK and especially his family and Dr. Ford too. But this whole thing was inevitable, given the fact that reproductive rights potentially hang in the balance, which is of course primarily what this is about.

  39. William t. Forrest

    It’s sad that the conservatarians here find Dr Ford less credible than trump himself says he does, particularly since the wannabe putin acolyte is himself an admitted habitual sexual harasser who is very credibly accused of much worse including multiple rapes and generally holds 1950s attitudes about gender issues mixed with a caveman view of sex.

  40. robert capozzi

    WTF,

    Perjury is a tough label to pin on a lawyer. I suspect if we REALLY dissected BK’s testimony around drinking and Mark Ford, we’d find that he was being evasive, but didn’t lie. He admitted to drinking in excess; “belligerence” is highly subjective. I might have said that AJ was a “belligerent” poster at times, but I’m pretty sure he didn’t view himself that way, for ex.

  41. paulie Post author

    I don’t know if he technically committed perjury, although I strongly suspect that he did repeatedly. I have no doubt whatsoever that he was intentionally deceptive during much of his testimony.

  42. robert capozzi

    AD,

    IF CFB’s letter is being used by Feinstein et al to ambush BK and the Rs, I sense that the PRIMARY reason is simply the upcoming election. Their motives are numerous: Trump bashing, maintaining abortion rights, inflaming women, riding the #metoo movement, etc.

    It’s also possible that it’s not an ambush, that perhaps some rogue staffer in Eschoo’s office leaked the letter to THE INTERCEPT without any authorization. That seems less likely, but possible.

    There’s a report that two other men have confessed that it was they who assaulted CBF 36 years ago. (https://nypost.com/2018/09/27/two-men-tell-senate-that-they-not-kavanaugh-assaulted-ford/) I just heard about this (sketchy) report, so at the moment, I give it little credence. But this could easily backfire on the Ds.

    I will say that I’m more enthusiastic about GJ’s Senate run. On many levels, we need a more independent voice in the Senate. Throw the bums out resonates in these hyper-partisan times.

  43. Anthony Dlugos

    “IF CFB’s letter is being used by Feinstein et al to ambush BK and the Rs, I sense that the PRIMARY reason is simply the upcoming election. Their motives are numerous: Trump bashing, maintaining abortion rights, inflaming women, riding the #metoo movement, etc.”

    True, but what animates the nomination as leverage for the upcoming elections is the reproductive rights issue. I used to think Rush Limbaugh was crazy back in the early nineties when he said that abortion could cause another civil war in this country. Maybe a lot of hyperbole there, but I don’t think this circus is going on if BK made a guarantee to not overturn R v. W.

    “I will say that I’m more enthusiastic about GJ’s Senate run. On many levels, we need a more independent voice in the Senate. Throw the bums out resonates in these hyper-partisan times.”

    I agree. I keep thinking how much hay could have been made by a Libertarian like Johnson in the Senate in such circumstances, by merely stating opposition to the nomination on principled grounds, then staying out of the fight, except to point out how sick of the bickering the people of this country are.

  44. William T. Forrest

    GJ isn’t going to beat Heinrich, but he may beat the Joe Miller cap at 29% for past LP nominees for US Senate. Let’s not forget that a Republican, although weak, still is in the race, and NM is a Democratic leaning state with Heinrich being an incumbent – and incumbents don’t lose all that often. None of that points to a GJ win, sorry.

    “I just heard about this (sketchy) report, …”

    Yeah, sketchy is the operative word here. So’s operative.

    As for whether Dr. Ford was credible, not only do *Trump* and *many of the Senate Republicans* say she was very credible, but even Kavanaugh himself says he has no doubt that she was likely assaulted, he just denies that it was him. Leave it to Shane Cory, Michael Seebeck and William Saturn to be more aggressive in attacking her than the Republican leadership itself is, to Robert Capozzi to hem and haw and generally play Hamlet, and to DJ to say that everyone does it or something like that.

    I guess if Andy was here he might say that she has known ties to George Soros, the Learned Elders of Zion, the Illuminati and possibly the space lizards, although the last one is a maybe.

    Sad.

  45. William T. Forrest

    “True, but what animates the nomination as leverage for the upcoming elections is the reproductive rights issue”

    There are also the intertwined issues of executive power, executive immunity, domestic espionage, torture, privacy rights…

    “I agree. I keep thinking how much hay could have been made by a Libertarian like Johnson in the Senate in such circumstances, by merely stating opposition to the nomination on principled grounds, then staying out of the fight, except to point out how sick of the bickering the people of this country are….”

    I don’t remember where, but I seem to recall Johnson saying he would probably vote to confirm Kavanaugh if he was in the Senate already. I don’t remember whether that was before or after the various women’s accusations of Kavanaugh committing sexual assaults became public.

  46. Anthony Dlugos

    “I guess if Andy was here he might say that she has known ties to George Soros, the Learned Elders of Zion, the Illuminati and possibly the space lizards, although the last one is a maybe.”

    haha. That’s a good one.

  47. Anthony Dlugos

    Let’s keep in mind that this article was about the LP press release, which was very fair and balance, merely calling Dr. Ford’s allegations credible (which many/most republicans agree with), and brought up several principled reasons explaining why BK’s nomination would be problematic, including Slaughter House, which was a nice touch.

    That was apparently just too much for the Macho Flash Caucus, which doesn’t consider a dick in the face to be a NAP violation. Really sticks in their craw when someone points out that being a Libertarian doesn’t mean you have explicit permission to be an ass.

  48. robert capozzi

    wtf: …Robert Capozzi to hem and haw and generally play Hamlet…

    me: I’d rather “hem and haw” than jump to conclusions with little information. AJ is an extreme example of why jumping to conclusions is a bad practice. Pat answers based on tortured NAPist logic misses the forest for the trees.

    As for CBF’s credibility, I don’t recall opining on the situation here on IPR. I thought that, when the information came out, that the process should have been paused for additional FBI background checking. IOW, seemed credible enough of an allegation, despite the number of years involved.

    My sense is the predominant narratives both are flawed.

    I think I recall GJ’s indication on BK were consistent with the tradition of deferring to the prez for nominations. The idea was to screen out the unqualified knuckleheads only. The point of a GJ in the Senate is that he’d potentially be a free agent.

    Winning is, I agree, a long shot. A dude can dream….

  49. paulie Post author

    Let’s keep in mind that this article was about the LP press release, which was very fair and balance, merely calling Dr. Ford’s allegations credible (which many/most republicans agree with), and brought up several principled reasons explaining why BK’s nomination would be problematic, including Slaughter House, which was a nice touch.

    Exactly.

  50. Seebeck

    It’s possible to train to evade them and they are not always accurate, but I still think it’s relevant that one side took one and one has refused; one side wants additional people under oath and one does not.

    And that is why you are wrong, Paulie. It isn’t relevant except for political theater in this case. In the case of other uses, it means really nothing.

    Been there, done that.

  51. Seebeck

    They have plenty of detail and the people making them are not “easily recognizable as disreputable party whores.” Dr. Ford has said she is not a political activist and is an independent. At least one of the women corroborating Deborah Ramirez’s account of what Kavanaugh was like at Yale said on CNN that she is a Republican, and yet she says Kavanaugh purjured himself when he denied being a blackout drunk in college.

    Mitchell’s report says otherwise, and she is a very experienced sex crimes prosecutor. Go read it and learn something.

    The Yale accounts are not only not corroborated, but at this time, are like every other allegation–unproven, unfounded, and political bullshit.

  52. Seebeck

    You must have watched a different testimony than I did. I’ll tell you who I did not find to be credible, either in Thursday’s testimony or the original testimony prior to the sexual conduct allegations:

    I watched the whole thing. Unlike you, I understand how this works. Posting a SNL video is not how this works.

    As for Kavanaugh’s constant sniffling, real tears cause histamines and runny noses. Crocodile tears do not.

    You can’t fake the biology.

    This left-bias is absurd, and you should know better.

  53. Seebeck

    It’s sad that the conservatarians here find Dr Ford less credible than trump himself says he does, particularly since the wannabe putin acolyte is himself an admitted habitual sexual harasser who is very credibly accused of much worse including multiple rapes and generally holds 1950s attitudes about gender issues mixed with a caveman view of sex.

    Let’s see there, we have guilt-by-association, presumption of guilt over innocence, namecalling, and stereotyping.

    Nothing useful here…

  54. Seebeck

    Leave it to Shane Cory, Michael Seebeck and William Saturn to be more aggressive in attacking her than the Republican leadership itself is, to Robert Capozzi to hem and haw and generally play Hamlet, and to DJ to say that everyone does it or something like that.

    Leave it to Forrest to get things wrong.

    In simplest terms, she had nothing more than vague allegations. The Mitchell report even says it, very objectively and even-handedly. Her testimony was a large joke, devoid of facts, zero corroboration, and zero evidence, but full of contradictions, fake tears, bad acting despite rehearsals, and above all, a lot of nothing.

    Now I know that you have problems with reality since you live on the left, but the facts, or in this case, lack thereof, speak for themselves: no case, just she-said-he-said. Tie goes to the accused and the accuser hasn’t proven her case in the slightest.

    It’s also telling that you’re willing to destroy someone by the politics of personal destruction instead of objecting based on actual policy.

    As someone else posted above, the ends does NOT justify the means. The means here were positively atrocious and disgusting, and I wouldn’t wish them on Kavanaugh, Forrest, me, or anyone else.

    And THAT’S the real issue.

  55. Seebeck

    That was apparently just too much for the Macho Flash Caucus, which doesn’t consider a dick in the face to be a NAP violation. Really sticks in their craw when someone points out that being a Libertarian doesn’t mean you have explicit permission to be an ass.

    Macho Flash Caucus? Don;t even know what that is, but I’m not a part of it.

    BTW, that claim hasn’t been corroborated, either.

    The objection is the subjective nature of the term “credible.” It wasn’t even close to any rational stretch of the definition.

  56. Seebeck

    And to repeat myself to make it clear to the comprehension-impaired here:

    1. The ends do not justify the means. Oppose Kavanaugh on policy? Perfectly fine. Attack him personally? Not fine. When in doubt, ask yourself if you want to be in his situation on the receiving end of THAT.
    2. Ford did not prove her claims and she was not anywhere close to credible. Doesn’t mean Kavanaugh is innocent. It does mean that Ford did not (and likely cannot) prove her case.
    3. Kavanaugh should not be confirmed based on his issues with the 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments. Not because of allegations about parties 36 years ago.
    4. We should oppose the politics of personal destruction (a NAP violation of fraud), regardless of party affiliation of the person targeted. As libertarians, we’re supposed to have better principles than that.

    FINIS.

  57. Chuck Moulton

    I agree with Shane. This is character assassination without corroboration. It is political grandstanding.

    It also irks me when people keep trying to change the meanings of words. Rape, sexual assault, and assault should convey different things.

    Sounds to me like Kavenaugh was a dirtbag in his high school and college years. But even if everything alleged about those years is true, it has no bearing on his competence to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

  58. paulie Post author

    Sounds to me like Kavenaugh was a dirtbag in his high school and college years. But even if everything alleged about those years is true, it has no bearing on his competence to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

    True, but only because he should have already been deemed incompetent for other reasons before these charges even surfaced. And if it can be shown that he lied about his behavior in those years under oath as I suspect he did it does have relevance as well, or would if he wasn’t already disqualified for other reasons.

  59. Chuck Moulton

    Of course I think Kavenaugh is far less than ideal from a libertarian point of view on his constitutional views. But that doesn’t mean I would throw him under the bus for this circus. The ends do not justify the means.

  60. paulie Post author

    The latest being reported is that Kavanaugh has also possibly been involved in witness tampering with his college friends.

  61. paulie Post author

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/opinion/james-comey-fbi-kavanaugh-investigation.html

    Yes, the alleged incident occurred 36 years ago. But F.B.I. agents know time has very little to do with memory. They know every married person remembers the weather on their wedding day, no matter how long ago. Significance drives memory. They also know that little lies point to bigger lies. They know that obvious lies by the nominee about the meaning of words in a yearbook are a flashing signal to dig deeper.

    Once they start interviewing, every witness knows the consequences. It is one thing to have your lawyer submit a statement on your behalf. It is a very different thing to sit across from two F.B.I. special agents and answer their relentless questions. Of course, the bureau won’t have subpoena power, only the ability to knock on doors and ask questions. But most people will speak to them. Refusal to do so is its own kind of statement.

  62. DJ

    Once they start interviewing, every witness knows the consequences. It is one thing to have your lawyer submit a statement on your behalf. It is a very different thing to sit across from two F.B.I. special agents and answer their relentless questions.

    Will they interview Ford?

  63. DJ

    WTF: and to DJ to say that everyone does it or something like that.

    Me: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

  64. DJ

    Kavanaugh Gang-Rapes Collie in Satanic Ritual: College Boys in KKK Robes Chant “Hitler! Hitler! Hitler!”

    Oh God. Oh God. Is there no surcease? I know, silly question. Squalling protesters: Half of the country seems fifteen years younger than its chronological age. Staged ire. Sordid passion of the herd. Hysteria. Irrationality. Werid accusations. Savage feminists. As per custom, it is all about how horrible men are.

    One of the sillier sillinesses of feminists regarding us men, of whom they seem to know little, is that we hate women, scorn them, want to abuse and hurt them and, most especiall, gang-rape them. See, men view rape casually. It’s just something to do in a moment of boredom. Like scratching, or wondering where we left our keys. It’s because of our misogyny. The Sisterhood seems to love misogyny, pray for misogyny, invent misogyny because without it life would be bleak and devoid of meaning.

    https://fredoneverything.org/kavanaugh-gang-rapes-collie-in-satanic-ritual-college-boys-in-kkk-robes-chant-hitler-hitler-hitler/

  65. dL

    That was apparently just too much for the Macho Flash Caucus

    The Macho Flash Caucus isn’t the one defending Kavanaugh, brah.

  66. William T. Forrest

    “Will they interview Ford?”

    She offered to talk to them from the time her name became public.

  67. dL

    I agree with Shane. This is character assassination without corroboration. It is political grandstanding.

    It also irks me when people keep trying to change the meanings of words. Rape, sexual assault, and assault should convey different things.

    Chuck, out of curiosity, when was this:

    And for the accuser claiming she was sexually assaulted because she supposedly got a dick in the face.

    not considered a form of sexual assault? Who is actually changing the definition of sexual assault based on political context?

  68. William T. Forrest

    “Me: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

    There you go again with the nonsense. I am not without sin, but I’ve never put my dick in someone’s face without being asked to do so very nicely first and I’ve never covered a girl’s mouth up to stop her from screaming while I held her down and tried to strip her naked.

    Without sin? I did do some of the things he did too. I’ll admit to having spiked the punch at parties before and I’ve puked, passed out and blacked out a number of times during my high school and college days which were not too far removed in decade or region of the country from Kavanaugh’s.

    I’ve never been in a devil’s triangle, never lined up to run a train on any girls, and as for the 7 fs I’ve found them, frenched them, felt them, fingered them and fucked them but it never led to forgetting them forever.

    I’ve probably fallen short of Kavanaugh’s stated goal of 100 keggers and am decades past ever trying to catch up. I’ve joined the Ralph Club, but was never an officer or had a room at the clubhouse named after me a la Kavanaugh. More importantly, I’ve never lied under oath or engaged in witness tampering. Not all sins are created equal.

    So, not without sin as I may be, there are some stones I’ll throw, or at least place in the way of an exceptionally rage filled entitled lying drunk being rammed down the throat of lady liberty and lady justice, running the 7fs and the devil’s triangle on them with Trump and the Senate GOP, thrusting their dicks in the ladies’ faces and covering their mouths in a nonstop quest to strip rights away from women, restore the social order of the 1950s, and stop criminal investigations into Trump so he can gain the power of the foreign dictators he looks up to.

  69. paulie Post author

    And to repeat myself to make it clear to the comprehension-impaired here:

    Disagreement with you isn’t the same thing as comprehension-impairment, and repeating yourself doesn’t make you correct.

  70. paulie Post author

    The Mitchell report even says it

    She drew the conclusion that the Senate NSGOP hired her to draw? What a surprise. Other people in her field I’ve seen interviewed find her conclusions to be ridiculous.

  71. paulie Post author

    I watched the whole thing. Unlike you, I understand how this works. Posting a SNL video is not how this works.

    They nailed the essence of it though. Scarily accurate.

  72. Jill Pyeatt

    I’m happy to have the LP speak out about sexual assault, but, for the record, I didn’t believe a word she said. Her whining about a dumb episode that probably has happened to every female belittles those of who endured genuine penetration-type or violent sexual assault. Either she was lying, or she’s the most screwed up person in this country.

    The whole debacle last week was disgusting.

    I read that one can retire to Ireland for less than $100,000 a year. Maybe it’s time to consider that.

  73. dL

    1. The ends do not justify the means. Oppose Kavanaugh on policy? Perfectly fine. Attack him personally? Not fine. When in doubt, ask yourself if you want to be in his situation on the receiving end of THAT.

    This isn’t an ad hominem attack. Like it or not, Kavanaugh has a paper trial that could plausible merit a withdrawal. It is not unprecedented; it certainly has happened before. Douglas Ginsburg withdrew b/c he admitted to smoking a joint in college. Harriet Miers withdrew b/c she once let her law license lapse. Zoe Baird withdrew b/c she hired an illegal[sic] alien as a nanny. If the guy will not withdraw, and the opposition has to rely on turning members of the other party to block the nomination, it is going to be about character. I’m not sure what alternative universe you live in to think character doesn’t play a part of political adjudication.

    RE: when in doubt. I dunno, I’ve never put the locker room talk on the written record. Who does that? The guy’s an entitled douchebag…

  74. paulie Post author

    Probably the biggest thing that changed was Warren’s decision last week to kick Andy Jacobs out. Some people were happier with that decision than others but either way the decision was made and implemented.

  75. Jill Pyeatt

    There might be a silver lining to this dark cloud, though. We may finally get rid of Feinstein. Apparently an investigation has been opened into who leaked Christine’s letter, and it’s believe she lied about the timeline of some important details.

    We really have some awful legislators in CA. She’s embarrassed and enraged her constituents for a long time.

  76. dL

    There you go again with the nonsense. I am not without sin, but I’ve never put my dick in someone’s face without being asked to do so very nicely first and I’ve never covered a girl’s mouth up to stop her from screaming while I held her down and tried to strip her naked.

    yeah, I’m in the sigma-3 category when to comes to number of sexual partners, and, anecdotally at least, I can attest women by and large don’t go for the dick in the face sexual maneuver. lol

  77. paulie Post author

    There might be a silver lining to this dark cloud, though. We may finally get rid of Feinstein.

    Well, maybe you will. Who do you think would succeed her? Garcetti? Villaraigosa?

  78. paulie Post author

    I didn’t believe a word she said.

    I guess you also think she faked the polygraph results, has offered to testify under oath to the FBI – and in fact has now either done so or will be doing so shortly – and testified under oath to the Senate. Unlike Kavanaugh, who has a Supreme Court position to gain, she has nothing at all to gain and a lot to lose if she can be shown to have lied under oath (and a lot of people who are very motivated to prove that very thing). Why would she volunteer to subject herself to that on top of the death threats and everything else? What’s the upside? Then add in the fact that she and Ramirez and others are the ones calling for additional investigations and for additional people to be put under oath, unlike Kavanaugh.

    By contrast, Kavanaugh is apparently a pathological liar who lies habitually even about small, provable things like the drinking age in Maryland and DC when he was in high school. He lied under oath about when he found out about the Ramirez allegations and it’s now coming out that he was engaged in trying to tamper with the witnesses from Yale. He’s the one who has been single minded in his pursuit of power and revenge, and stands on the cusp of gaining more after he has already gained a lot – the same single mindedness he showed in his pursuit of boozing and sports and sexual aggression in high school and college.

  79. Jill Pyeatt

    I’m told the polygraph test only involved 2 questions, neither of which were directly tied to Kavanaugh. Maybe we’ll learn what they were when the FBI report comes out at the end of the week.

    I do think it’s possible something happened to her, but I really doubt it was this incident alone. Perhaps there were several. She may believe what she’s saying, but I don’t happen to. Curiously, my observation is that most of her doubters are female, at least as far as my FB and Twitter accounts go. I hope she gets the help she needs.

    I guess you missed the part where her assorted Gofundme accounts are near $1,000,000 dollars by now.

    I don’t like Kavanaugh as the Supreme Court justice choice, like most of us here. I would prefer we had all been able to discuss the reasons why without all of the drama..

  80. paulie Post author

    I’m told the polygraph test only involved 2 questions, neither of which were directly tied to Kavanaugh.

    Dunno. I do know she was the one who wanted her polygraph examiner to be questioned by the Senators, and Kavanaugh and the Republicans were against.

    I do think it’s possible something happened to her, but I really doubt it was this incident alone.

    She sounded very believable to me, unlike Kavanaugh, and it fits into the patterns of behavior by him that a lot of other people have been testifying to and offering to testify under oath about.

    Curiously, my observation is that most of her doubters are female, at least as far as my FB and Twitter accounts go.

    Public opinion polls show a very different gender breakdown of who is more believed by whom.

    I guess you missed the part where her assorted Gofundme accounts are near $1,000,000 dollars by now.

    Moving around, keeping a security detail, and legal bills are likely to cost more than that. Is she going to be able to continue in her career as a professor? Then there are death threats and legal jeopardy, which could potentially involve prison time. It sounds like she was pretty comfortable financially before this. I just don’t see what she stands to gain. I don’t get the sense she wants to be famous.

    She told her husband and her therapist years ago, and her initial letter was before Kavanaugh was the nominee, while he was just on a list of possible candidates for the nomination. All of this makes her very credible to me and to most people, and Kavanaugh…not so much.

    I don’t like Kavanaugh as the Supreme Court justice choice, like most of us here. I would prefer we had all been able to discuss the reasons why without all of the drama..

    We still can, since they are talked about in the press release we are commenting on. The sexual allegations are just what most people have focused on, here just like in the establishment media, but other issues were mentioned earlier in the thread and can still be discussed if you want to get back to them.

  81. paulie Post author

    Sorry about my abbreviated comment above. Our kitty jumped on my keyboard! Apparently I haven’t been paying enough attention to her.

    They are good about reminding you what’s important and keeping things in perspective.

  82. Tony From Long Island

    Nice to see I was missed . . . .by some . . .

    Yes, Jill. It seems not much has changed.

    BTW, that post by Shane with my name it was really over the line. Anyway . . .

    Where’s Good Ol’ conspiracy Andy?

  83. paulie Post author

    Where’s Good Ol’ conspiracy Andy?

    After some comments last week that many people considered over the top antisemitic and racist, site owner Warren Redlich decided to ban Andy from IPR comments, following some discussion on IPR’s editors email list. Andy continues to be signed up to contribute articles which can be posted after review by IPR editors, and took advantage of that in the first few days after he was banned from comments, but not yet since then. He’s also signed up as an article author at American Third Party Report and has his own youtube channel which is called either Libertarian Revolution or Liberty Revolution iirc.

    As for where he is physically, I haven’t talked to Andy in months but my guess would be either Pennsylvania or California or driving from one to the other, but it could be somewhere else entirely. My top guess would be the Harrisburg PA area. From July to September Andy experienced some frustration with IPR because I was taking a break from the site myself and in my absence none of the other editors bothered to approve any of his articles, which piled up and languished in the approval queue for that whole entire time, reaching into the double digits of articles.

  84. paulie Post author

    Michael Hewitt Wilson

    This mess with the Kavanaugh hearing may open an opportunity for the LP to recruit more women as members. To do so we might give some thought to having a shirt that reads “Libertarians Support Midwives”, or some such wording to show that Libertarians have some distinct ideas on health care and also support the right of mother’s to make their own birth decisions. This is a simple message that speaks to women on health care and addresses the issue of licensing laws.

  85. DJ

    paulie: Disagreement with you isn’t the same thing as comprehension-impairment, and repeating yourself doesn’t make you correct.

    Me: Pot, meet kettle- LOL

  86. DJ

    paulie: After some comments last week that many people considered over the top antisemitic and racist,

    Me: What I saw here, it was due to Andy’s personality- abrasive IIRC.

    It seems to me he wasn’t far enough left for the way left here, which is so obvious it’a almost repulsive.
    And BTW, I get into it with those on the right as well- meaning: I don’t subscribe to the left/right paradigm as both are evil and constitute group think which is the antithesis of liberty. However, the US Left is the face of more gov’t in spite of what leftist here swear is wrong. The “right” I antagonize don’t seem to recognize how far Left the political Right has headed- I tell them, as I’ll tell y’all; Same destination, different rate of descent.

    Y’all want to recruit “the young”- seems to me, based on the news, the young wanted Bernie- = more gov’t. So, you now have to have a two-fold operation- convince them they should be Libertarians and convince them the gov’t controlled by evil is evil. LOL- good luck.

  87. paulie Post author

    So, I considered whether I should post this or not. I decided why not. Not because I’m proud of how I was back then (I’m most definitely not) but because it happened and shouldn’t be swept under the rug. I guess what irks me so much about Kavanaugh is that he is so obviously and brazenly lying about it and showing so much the opposite of a judicial temperament. I did a lot of the same things he is accused of and maybe worse (I don’t know, because I spent a lot of time blacked out back then). Difference being no one is going to nominate me for the Supreme Court or any judgeship; if they somehow did I would not accept, or if in a moment of hubris I did, I would withdraw. And if that somehow all failed, I would at least answer honestly when asked under oath, unlike Kavanaugh.

    I am not without sin, but I’ve never put my dick in someone’s face without being asked to do so very nicely first and I’ve never covered a girl’s mouth up to stop her from screaming while I held her down and tried to strip her naked.

    It’s easy to do stupid shit like that when you are ridiculously drunk much of the time, full of arrogance and aggression and youthful testosterone, coked up just about all the time and smoking angel dust and whatnot. So yeah, I did those kinds of things. I think. It’s hard to say which of my memories are accurate. But I did some shit that I would never even think of doing today back in that timeframe. The 1980s were not like now. Things were a lot different. And I was a very different kind of person then than now. My sense of Kavanaugh is that he is still that kind of person now, but different from me because he grew up with a silver spoon and has a lifetime of being two faced, sweeping that side of himself under the rug, and getting away with it as he has climbed the ladder.

    Without sin? I did do some of the things he did too. I’ll admit to having spiked the punch at parties before and I’ve puked, passed out and blacked out a number of times during my high school and college days which were not too far removed in decade or region of the country from Kavanaugh’s.

    I’m about 7 years younger than Kavanaugh, but I had a growth spurt at a young age and looked and acted older than I was by several years. I partied to excess on a regular basis in the 1980s mostly in the NYC area in my case. Since I did not come from a privileged background and didn’t aspire to climbing the establishment ladder I did not have to worry about being two-faced so much, I was just a young, violent, frequently inebriated, ultra-arrogant, oversexed bully and asshole. Spiking the punch, puking, blacking out and passing out was so minor and commonplace on the scale of things I did then that it’s barely even worth mentioning.

    I’ve never been in a devil’s triangle, never lined up to run a train on any girls, and as for the 7 fs I’ve found them, frenched them, felt them, fingered them and fucked them but it never led to forgetting them forever.

    I did all of the above. As far as the devil’s triangle and gang bang stuff, I did try it, but it was not my thing. I just was not sexually stimulated by sharing a female with other guys in the same time and place. Serially hooking up with the same girls that my friends or associates had hooked up with one after the other was not a problem for me but if I was literally in the same room at the same time I was more of an observer than a participant. However, I did see it done frequently, to the point where it was not even remarkable, and unfortunately to the extent that some of those girls had not consented or were in no condition to give informed consent my presence there did absolutely nothing to help them or to lead to any justice afterwards and instead only added to the dynamics of them being outnumbered and powerless.

    I’ve probably fallen short of Kavanaugh’s stated goal of 100 keggers and am decades past ever trying to catch up. I’ve joined the Ralph Club, but was never an officer or had a room at the clubhouse named after me a la Kavanaugh. More importantly, I’ve never lied under oath or engaged in witness tampering. Not all sins are created equal.

    I’m sure I’ve been at a lot more keg or open bar types of parties, probably more than that every single year back then. As for the Ralph Club the motion to rename it the Paulie club was only voted down by a very slim margin. But no, as far as I can remember I never lied under oath. I’m not sure about witness tampering. I know for a fact I haven’t done that in this decade or this millenium for that matter, and the more important point being – yeah, I was a fuckup and a terrible person, but I’m not lying about it, and I’m not being considered for the freaking Supreme Court…nor should I be. Neither should Kavanaugh.

  88. paulie Post author

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/kavanaugh-s-testimony-starting-look-more-more-problematic-n915771

    Lying under oath matters. Witness tampering matters. Judicial temperament matters. Those are current things, not high school and college partying decades ago, not “he said she said” but major issues with who he is now, today. The personal and the political connect here. He is someone who is more than willing to lie and cheat to achieve his goals, who can’t even conceal his seething rage and sense of entitlement, someone with little or no empathy for the powerless. Someone who can and does abuse power, and has all throughout his life, and got away with it. Those early lessons stick with you.

    It reflects itself in his judicial opinions and his executive branch record. Defending torture and domestic espionage. Going after Clinton like a rabid pit bull on the Starr team, then saying presidents shouldn’t even be allowed to be investigated when Republicans have the presidency. Saying that the movement against him was orchestrated by Clintons seeking revenge in sworn testimony last week.

    Lying about his abortion views and other things in his prior testimony before the sex abuse charges were made public. Delivering a rambling, overly long and rage filled opening statement in his testimony that he was so proud of writing with no help. Sniping at senators and asking what they drank and how much. Lack of respect for women’s rights in his personal conduct as a teenager, lack of respect for women’s rights in his judicial opinions as a grown man with power. It’s all tied together, the personal and the political.

    All of it points to one thing: he is the absolute last person we should ever want to see holding a key deciding vote on the Supreme Court. He is someone who has a long record of abusing power, being dishonest, and defending the institutional abuse of power. Instead of being a check and balance he will be an enabler and amplifier of excess in the other branches and levels of government, which is exactly the opposite of what we need, especially with Trump in office but at any other time as well.

  89. paulie Post author

    Roger Pilon at Cato making sense of the situation:

    https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/vote-brett-kavanaugh-wont-solve-americas-deeper-supreme-court-problems

    Pilon ignores a fourth judicial school, the one Roberts and Kavanaugh belong to. Let’s call it the authoritarian school. It holds that the court should defer a great deal to the popularly elected legislative and executive branches as a matter of principle. Thus, not originalism, not liberal judicial activism, not check and balances, not plain text, not even prior judicial decisions are what’s the guiding principle – being a rubber stamp on the unchecked power of the other branches is the guiding principle in and of itself. Republican judges with a lot of executive branch experience tend to belong to this school, and IMO it is the most dangerous one of them all.

  90. dL

    It’s easy to do stupid shit like that when you are ridiculously drunk much of the time, full of arrogance and aggression and youthful testosterone, coked up

    No, it’s not. Drugs, alcohol, testosterone didn’t move the needle one iota for me to commit nonconsensual sex crimes. Bullshit excuse

  91. paulie Post author

    No, it’s not. Drugs, alcohol, testosterone didn’t move the needle one iota for me to commit nonconsensual sex crimes. Bullshit excuse

    Anger plus lack of inhibitions plus getting away with it all the time. It was self-reinforcing. And normalized in that culture, not stigmatized at all, if anything leading to higher status in the boys club. That plus no consequences. I don’t defend it now, it was very wrong.

  92. Seebeck

    And to repeat myself to make it clear to the comprehension-impaired here:

    Disagreement with you isn’t the same thing as comprehension-impairment, and repeating yourself doesn’t make you correct.

    Well, paulie, considering that you are comprehension-impaired AND wrong, and I am correct, because I use logic and look and cold hard facts and not emotive nonsense…it deserves repeating.

    Hell, you don’t even have any of your facts straight and are busy repeating leftwing media spin and lies.

    Do you even know the name of the boys prep school that twins Holton? It sure isn’t Georgetown Boys Prep.

    Are you even aware that those schools had far different social circles that rarely if ever intersected outside of sporting events?

    Oh, yeah, and to claim Ford is non-political is also been cleanly disproven with photos of here protesting Trump in full pu***hat regalia.

    Her front door story has been debunked, too, as it has been shown that the door was for other purposes and installed years after the couples therapy sessions where her memories were magically “found.”

    How many sex partners did Ford have between high school and college?

    That’s just several examples. Swetnick and Ramirez are even worse in the credibility department, and the ice bar incident is simply laughable.

    The lack of facts are not in the accuser’s favor. None of the accusers, and none of the facts.

    I wouldn’t want you on any jury trial I was involved with, in any capacity.

  93. dL

    Are you even aware that those schools had far different social circles that rarely if ever intersected outside of sporting events?

    ok, Cliff….

  94. Paul

    Is pseudoscience anti-medicine troofer Seebeck accusing others of not using facts? That’s just precious.

  95. paulie Post author

    Well, paulie, considering that you are comprehension-impaired

    And yet you are still talking to me? That’s not very rational on your part if I actually am. I’m tempted to stop reading right there but I’ll give it one more round.

    Hell, you don’t even have any of your facts straight

    We’ll have to disagree there.

    busy repeating leftwing media spin and lies.

    Looks to me like you are repeating rightwing media spin and lies. We shall see.

    Are you even aware that those schools had far different social circles that rarely if ever intersected outside of sporting events?

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/09/holton-arms-alumnae-ford-accusations-kavanaugh

    “To many Holton students, Ford’s description of the party she attended in 1982 felt familiar. Beginning in middle school, there were parties with young men from surrounding schools like Georgetown Prep, Landon, and St. Albans every Friday and Saturday night, at big houses set back from winding, dimly lit streets.”

    https://apnews.com/35764b3a29c64dba84fed568ed5c5c93

    “Multiple accounts from 1980s-era classmates depict an alcohol-soaked party culture among the close-knit network of single-sex, mostly Roman Catholic private schools in the country’s wealthiest state. At raucous house parties and drunken beach vacations, boys from Georgetown Prep and other all-male academies would meet up with students from nearby all-girl private schools like Stone Ridge, Holy Cross, Georgetown Visitation and the non-sectarian Holton-Arms School. Binge drinking was a routine part of the social scene, with minimal adult supervision.”

    Oh, yeah, and to claim Ford is non-political is also been cleanly disproven with photos of here protesting Trump in full pu***hat regalia.

    What’s your source for that one? I’ll treat it with skepticism since the last time I read a claim like that it was about the Vegas shooter and turned out to be a guy who was not him and didn’t even look all that much like him.

    Her front door story has been debunked, too, as it has been shown that the door was for other purposes and installed years after the couples therapy sessions where her memories were magically “found.”

    Shown by whom and how?

    How many sex partners did Ford have between high school and college?

    No idea. Why is this relevant? My ex (open relationship) from middle school was extremely promiscuous, I always suspected as a result of early childhood sexual abuse but she never admitted that to me. And she did get raped later on. Promiscuous women still have the right to say no, if that is what you are implying about her. If she said yes to a lot of other guys it doesn’t make her testimony about Kavanaugh any less believable.

    That’s just several examples. Swetnick and Ramirez are even worse in the credibility department, and the ice bar incident is simply laughable.

    The lack of facts are not in the accuser’s favor. None of the accusers, and none of the facts.

    Well, you’ve certainly made an airtight case. I guess flat assertions and scraping crap out of Trump News, Breitbart and the like is supposed to be overwhelmingly convincing.

    I wouldn’t want you on any jury trial I was involved with, in any capacity.

    Backatcha.

  96. paulie Post author

    getting away with what, exactly?

    If you want specific answers ask specific questions. And even then, there’s a lot I don’t remember or can’t be sure whether I remember correctly.

  97. paulie Post author

    Oh, yeah, and to claim Ford is non-political is also been cleanly disproven with photos of here protesting Trump in full pu***hat regalia.

    Let me see if I can even understand what you are trying to claim here. You are alleging that she is making up lies about Kavanaugh because she is politically motivated? So she sent a letter about Kavanaugh to her congresswoman when she read that he was on the list of possible nominees, before he was selected. In doing so she upended her career and her life, has been on the run with all kinds of death threats and has had to move out of her home and hire a security detail.

    In your conspiracy theory this successful, upper middle class professor has put her safety and life at risk, and at the same time subjected herself to legal jeopardy up to and including prison, all so she could stop one of then several potential nominees. She kept asking to be put under oath by both the Senate and the FBI, lying to each of which is a federal crime. Why would she do that? She has a husband and two minor children, why would she jeopardize all of them for a lie? Did the conspiracy you seem to think she is a part of have other operatives ready to go with similar allegations against all the other judges on Trump’s list for consideration all ready to have their lives and their families’ lives destroyed in case their assigned judge became the nominee?

    And if so, why did none of this happen when Trump nominated Gorsuch?

    For that matter what are they going to gain? Say they are wildly successful and stop Kavanaugh, Trump still gets to put forward another nominee. Even if Republicans lose the Senate, which odds are against, the new Congress will not be seated until January 3, which is enough time to confirm a nominee in the lame duck session.

    I see very little upside and a lot of downside for her to make a false allegation, and to be the one asking for additional people to be put under oath while Kavanaugh has been trying to do the opposite.

  98. paulie Post author

    By contrast, the most easily provable lie by Kavanaugh is regarding the drinking age. It went up before he turned 18. He never lived anywhere where he drank legally until he was 21. When you lie about such small, trivial things that are easily proven, under oath and in front of everyone, chances are very high that you are a habitual, pathological liar. Kavanaugh also lied about the definitions of various terms employed in his yearbook, the actual meaning of which is easy to find from multiple sources. There are more and more people coming forward who knew him in high school and college who all say he mischaracterized how much he drank back then. A letter from himself in 1983 has come out characterizing him and his associates at the time as obnoxious drunks.

    So who should I believe? Seems like an easy one here. It’s not even close.

  99. robert capozzi

    pf,

    I don’t find the Gorsuch angle relevant. Gorsuch was not replacing a swing vote. The stakes with BK are MUCH higher.

    For me, to delve into CBF’s motives are not the issue. There are a number of possibilities with her:

    * It happened as she’s recounting
    * It happened, but she’s exaggerating or misremembering the event
    * It happened, but with someone else
    * It’s a fabrication

    There could be others. CBF’s motives for me are irrelevant. What IS relevant is that Feinstein sat on the allegation. I simply don’t find it credible that she didn’t share the allegation while maintaining the anonymity of CBF with the committee or the FBI. It feels like a setup BECAUSE of DF’s omission.

    The Rs are not without blame. They should have “pumped the brakes” and reopened the background check process. And they took on a LOT of bad karma with the Garland fiasco.

    Pox on both.

  100. paulie Post author

    Agreed about both Feinstein and the Republicans. They are both playing political chicken and both to blame for a broken nomination process. I did a small amount of digging and Seebeck does appear to be correct that Ford is a Democrat and has attended a couple of anti-Trump protests, as have literally millions of other people. I can’t remember where I read that she was allegedly an independent and never involved politically, but whoever my source on that was appears to have been in error. But even with that stipulated, I don’t see a politically motivated fabrication as likely.

    She’s going to have to be on the run and looking over her shoulder for the rest of her life. It has disrupted her life and those of her husband and children, and despite having to move out of their house and move repeatedly and hire a security team, it’s entirely possible that the people threatening her may one day find her and kill or hurt her or someone close to her. Even if they never do she’ll have to worry about that possibility for the rest of her life. If it is proven that she lied she could face fines, prison time, and of course massive amounts of ridicule and hate, which she is already getting from many of those who don’t believe her.

    And all for what? Did she knowingly take all that on before Kavanaugh was even selected as the nominee, knowing that the chances are that it’s still more likely than not that he will be confirmed despite her testimony? If the only real motivation was to stop Trump from placing a nominee on the court, she’s smart enough to know that even if she succeeds at that Trump and the Republicans still have at least 3 more months to confirm a replacement nominee, and that even if they somehow manage to screw that up as well, chances are still better than even that the Republicans will keep control of the Senate and place some Trump nominee in that seat before too long.

    The slim chance that she can stop the nomination *and* that the Democrats will take the Senate *and* keep the Republicans from confirming a replacement nominee during the lame duck session adds up to the odds being very heavily stacked against her to take on all those actual and potential consequences. And to make this conspiracy theory plausible, the Democrats or “Deep State” or whoever would have had to had other puppets willing to do the same thing for anyone else on the nomination short list who would have been chosen. That strikes me as implausible.

    That doesn’t rule out the possibility she could be lying, but then why would she keep asking for additional people to be interviewed under oath by both the Senate and the FBI? Why did Kavanaugh and the Republicans oppose that, given that Anita Hill got several days of testimony with multiple witnesses and an FBI investigation? There’s just too much besides my personal assessment of her believability and Kavanaugh’s as witnesses to make the conspiracy theory seem plausible.

    Now that doesn’t mean that Feinstein and the Democrats haven’t manipulated this situation – they absolutely have. So have the Republicans. But I see nothing wrong with anything the Libertarians have said about it here. Do you?

  101. Anthony Dlugos

    sadly for all concerned, Ford would be acting pretty much the same if she is telling the truth AND if she is some level of nuts, and Kavanaugh would be acting pretty much the same if he is telling the truth AND if he is an amoral narcissist in search of raw power.

  102. robert capozzi

    pf,

    The reason CBF’s life has been upended is that her letter was leaked. It seems highly likely that, in this case, someone on the Blue Team did so.

    I don’t care for this LP missive. It loses all-but-the-most-committed NAPists at the outset. Fundamentally, the LP will go nowhere if it incorporates NAPism in all its communications. It’s too theoretical for retail politics, and I personally think the theory is incorrect (although well meaning). Again, I do favor the sentiment that the NAP engenders, and it can help strengthen L messaging through thoughtful use of rhetorical flourishes. It does not serve as a formulaic theoretical bedrock on which social change is made, as I see it.

    As for BK’s commitment to stare decisis, again, this is HIGHLY theoretical stuff. Only lawyers and those who’ve considered jurisprudential theory will understand the nuances around this subject. I’m guessing that NS wrote this release, and he should consider the audience more carefully would be my suggestion.

    I’m not as up on these matters as I was in years gone by, but I’m not sure that “originalists” reject stare decisis. I think they largely accept it, but they seek workarounds to undermine precedent. That’s what lawyers do. They chip away at precedent with the hopes it will eventually topple.

    Some Ls think that, for ex., the Constitution doesn’t explicitly authorize the feds to do X, therefore the Supremes (stacked with originalists) will just rule that X function is unconstitutional. This is a pipedream. So, for ex., the Constitution doesn’t say the feds can regulate immigration, so SCOTUS should just abolish ICE and all immigration regulations. Maybe that’s a good idea (or maybe not), but SCOTUS doesn’t work that way. It only works that way in cartoons!

  103. Anthony Dlugos

    “I don’t care for this LP missive. It loses all-but-the-most-committed NAPists at the outset. ”

    I thought about that, but I decided I’d let it slide in this case, given that the press release concerns Ford’s sexual assault allegations, and so, to the extent anyone reads it, they won’t go into the deep dive NAPists do, but will simply read it in its best possible light here, which is that we take allegations of sexual assault 100% seriously, no matter when or where.

  104. paulie Post author

    sadly for all concerned, Ford would be acting pretty much the same if she is telling the truth AND if she is some level of nuts, and Kavanaugh would be acting pretty much the same if he is telling the truth AND if he is an amoral narcissist in search of raw power.

    But even if he is telling the truth (and if he is, wouldn’t he want as many people as possible to testify to the Senate and the FBI?) he is *still* an amoral narcissist in search of raw power. He clearly showed that side of himself during his testimony with his ultra-partisan rants and his sniping with Senators. Senators who have set on that committee for 40 plus years and outside observers alike said they have never seen a nominee behave in such an angry, belligerent manner during a nomination hearing, and he is not the first nominee to have faced allegations which they said were false. Even Clarence Thomas never approached that level of hostility in answering Senators’ questions.

    Something has stunk about this nomination from the start. From the Republicans trying to conceal the vast majority of his written record to pushing questions about whether he perjured himself during the previous confirmation to his present judgeship under the rug to tooth and nail resisting a more full inquiry into the sexual abuse allegations to him lying about how much he drank when he was younger, to even telling easily disproven lies about the drinking age and various terms used in his yearbook under oath, to his record as an extreme partisan who aggressively pursued Clinton as part of the Starr team but soon afterwards as part of the Bush white house and as a Bush appointed judge writing that the president should be above even being investigated at all along with justifying torture and domestic espionage.

    Why such a rush and absolute no plan B insistence on pushing through such a nominee, who was not on the original short list and may have been added specifically because of his views about presidential immunity from investigations (at least when the president is a Republican), at the same time that the president who nominated him is facing investigations and a fairly high chance of impeachment next year? It just does not smell right…even in the unlikely event that all of his accusers are purely politically motivated liars. Way too much smoke for there to be no fire at all there.

  105. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Sure, but they could have put it in far more relatable way. Something like:

    “At the core, Ls believe that using force and aggression is wrong. Clearly, the Kavanaugh confirmation involves an especially heinous form of aggression: the charge of sexual assault.”

    Or something.

    NAPists — like church missionaries — all too often overreach, desiring to find full-blown converts at every opportunity. The NAPist dogmatist mindset is to use this news item to cast their net for more converts. In Hollywood, this is called being “too on the nose.”

  106. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    No doubt, the press release as written is a little (a lot?) clunky (e.g., “its wrong to force yourself on a woman in a drunken stupor, therefore, end social security and legalize heroin!’) with regard to Ford’s allegations and your’s is better.

    The NAPist overreaches, and if they only knew how little weight their concessions to “statism” carry with the great mass of voters.

  107. Anthony Dlugos

    paulie,

    I could see any normal person not wanting the FBI rooting around in their background and history.

    But, to reiterate where we agree, I think the press release generally struck the right balance. I.E., Ford’s accusations are credible, and more importantly, Kavanaugh is not good on principle.

  108. paulie Post author

    But, to reiterate where we agree, I think the press release generally struck the right balance. I.E., Ford’s accusations are credible, and more importantly, Kavanaugh is not good on principle.

    Exactly. BTW I just re-read it since it had been a while just to make sure I had not forgotten something, and I’m still not seeing the references to ending social security and legalizing heroin. You have to do some serious reading between the lines to find that in there, and somehow I doubt that any appreciable number of the vast hordes of people who oppose such drastic policy changes will do any such Talmudic analysis of any LP press release, including this one.

  109. robert capozzi

    re: “credible”

    Now HERE’S something that interests me from a zeitgeist/rhetorical perspective.

    In these #metoo days, it’s EXTREMELY important that women’s charges of sexual assault be taken seriously. Dismissiveness is especially toxic. Sympathy/empathy are especially important.

    I personally think, though, that using the word “credible” gives away a bit too much. I’d rather make the issue about the CHARGES vs the PERSON. I’d rather say, “These charges are gravely serious that merit investigation,” or something. “Credible” devolves into this awful position that “I believe her.”

    Why?

    Because the truth is: We don’t know. That’s the bedrock. Few know CBF, and even if we DO, we can’t know how she perceived 36 years ago, and how she recalls her memories today.

    The more precise framing is: I don’t NOT believe her.

    It may well not be PC, but I’m OK with that.

  110. paulie Post author

    I could see any normal person not wanting the FBI rooting around in their background and history.

    He isn’t a normal person. He has knowingly entered a highly charged nomination process and done nothing but exacerbate how charged it is with his tone and approach. The allegations are already out there and being hashed out in public. Reporters and all kinds of people are already rooting around in his background and history. I would never subject myself to such a nomination process, but if I did and then faced false and outrageous allegations about my history and character, I would welcome any and every investigation, in as much detail as possible and interviewing myself and as many people as could be put under oath and on the record, to as fully clear my name as possible. Wouldn’t you? That is of course the exact opposite of how Kavanaugh has approached this.

    My sense of Kavanaugh is that he is a guy who has literally spent a lifetime being two faced and sweeping shit under the rug. From his days in high school and college when he was at the same time a frequently belligerent drunk and at the same time a career oriented super-achiever. All the way to today. And everything in between. He’s so used to putting on a mask in public and telling lie after lie after lie to conceal the other side of himself, that it’s just instinctive second nature for him to lie about things like the extent of his drinking, the drinking age in Maryland in 1982, whether boofing is anal sex or flatulence, whether a devil’s triangle is a MMF menage a trois or a drinking game no one except him has heard of, what the cause of him being notorious for vomiting was, “Renate Alumni,” whether he considers Roe vs Wade to be settled law, and all manner of things big and small in between.

    It just doesn’t occur to him that being honest is ever even an option. It would feel completely unnatural and wrong. Otherwise, why not just admit that he was a heavy drinker many years ago and not always a very nice person? He did the 7 fs, the boofing, the devil’s triangle, the Ralph club; so what? So did I, and so did a lot of people. Many that didn’t wished they had.

    Just freaking admit it and say you grew up and matured in the many years since then. But no, he can’t, because he has lied too many times to too many people about it ever since. Lies built on lies built on lies. Can’t back out now. He can’t say he grew up and matured because emotionally he has not, and he has to defend who he was then because that’s still who he is now. Or because the worst allegations against him are true, and admitting the smaller things will lead to the bigger things being uncovered. Or both.

  111. paulie Post author

    https://fee.org/articles/the-constitutional-reasons-to-oppose-kavanaugh-for-the-supreme-court/

    In addition to what’s obvious from the title, with which most of us here are already familiar, this article also goes into Kavanaugh’s clear history of lying about such issues and the role he played himself in the process of destroying civil liberties through the war on terror. This clear history of lying, and the rather obvious lies about more minor and inconsequential details of his own personal history, also make him less credible when he denies more serious allegations about his past. He’s just not a reliable witness, based on numerous past and current instances of bearing false witness in matters big and small, personal as well as political.

  112. paulie Post author

    couples therapy sessions where her memories were magically “found.”

    What’s so magical about it? I’m surprised that by now anyone who has spent any time at all looking into things like this hasn’t found out that survivors of sexual abuse and assault keeping quiet about it for years and decades and coming out much later is very common, indeed more if anything the norm than the exception.

    That plus this:

    How many sex partners did Ford have between high school and college?

    Indicates an archaic attitude to those who have experienced sexual assault; the latter type of question is a big reason why the former situation is so prevalent, with many survivors spending years and decades trying to overcome fear of those kinds of questions being asked about their own history if and when they do come forward.

  113. Tony From Long Island

    AD: ” . . . I could see any normal person not wanting the FBI rooting around in their background and history. . . . ”

    Anthony, as Paulie said, a SCOTUS nominee is not a “normal” person.

    These types of accusations never came out about Gorsuch, and he was just as ideologically repugnant to me as BK. He also went to party town Georgetown Prep

  114. William T. Forrest

    Imagine Frankel and Kavanaugh sharing a prison cell one day. There are no statutes of limitations on the kinds of horrendous sex crimes it sounds like they both habitually committed in the 1980s. Frankel, this is probably not the right venue for your allocution. Try the FBI, NYPD, and local police departments in any other jurisdictions where you assaulted or raped women and girls.

  115. Anthony Dlugos

    well, let me rephrase…I could see any non-psychotic person not wanting the FBI rooting around in their background. This would be a fishing expedition, without question, and not limited to the Ford allegations only. To make matters more difficult, the republicans have only one vote to lose. Had they a 5 or 6 vote cushion, I’d bet Kavanaugh would have more quickly agreed to a further FBI investigations. Heck, with a 5 or 6 vote cushion, probably the GOP calls for the investigation early as well.

    That being said, I don’t have very much sympathy for Kavanaugh. If he wanted to be above reproach, he should have conceded to the further investigation immediately.

    “These types of accusations never came out about Gorsuch, and he was just as ideologically repugnant to me as BK.”

    As RC pointed out, that may very well be because Gorsuch was replacing a conservative vote, and Kavanaugh is replacing perhaps THE swing vote.

    Also, I think Gorsuch was a better pick than Kavanaugh, strictly on the philosophical merits. Not a great pick, but better.

    https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/27/neil-gorsuch-was-more-liberal-than-antho

  116. robert capozzi

    pf: My sense of Kavanaugh is ….

    me: What has been eye-opening for me is that it’s not just a “sense,” but absolute certainty about the character of BK. I also had the sense that it is POSSIBLE that BK is two-faced (as are we all, btw, but perhaps he’s especially conflicted). The rage I’ve seen among those CERTAIN of one narrative or the other is disappointing.

    WTF says I’m “Hamlet” on the matter, but who can say that honest uncertainty is not the appropriate response, especially when so many facts are unknown and unknowable?

  117. DJ

    paulie: In addition to what’s obvious from the title, with which most of us here are already familiar, this article also goes into Kavanaugh’s clear history of lying about such issues and the role he played himself in the process of destroying civil liberties through the war on terror. This clear history of lying, and the rather obvious lies about more minor and inconsequential details of his own personal history, also make him less credible when he denies more serious allegations about his past. He’s just not a reliable witness, based on numerous past and current instances of bearing false witness in matters big and small, personal as well as political.

    Me: He sounds perfect for DC. He could just as easily be a Democrat, i.e. a face of the Left. The face who represents and is sold as *more gov’t*.

    This whole debacle is nothing more than a shit show. It has nothing to do with the constitution, the rule of law, NAP, or a SCJ. It’s pure theatrics and nary a Democrat (faces of the Left) are in a position to point fingers on anything about anything moral. They are just as guilty of the above ranting as Kavanaugh, and not one person, from either side, has addressed their own failings in regard to “we the people”- as far as a swing vote- LOL. Don’t make me laugh. They don’t give a flying fuck about the law. They are all lawyers. It’s about winning and the end justifies the means- which is what the Libertarians here have devolved to- attack personally, destroy personally, and aggressively as “necessary”- hardly a libertarian action IMNSHO. Democrats (the faces of the Left) have voted to *keep* the war on terror going, and yet, the story about Feinstein’s “Chinese” employee has been swept under the rug- the media have been too busy with be bothered with *real* and verified Democrat personalities- Booker, Ellison, for the most recent and don’t give me that “they are SC nominees” bullshit- they (congress) doesn’t care about the law- they care about winning- the end justifies the means, just like the Libertarian (Democrat, face of the Left) apologists here.

  118. paulie Post author

    What has been eye-opening for me is that it’s not just a “sense,” but absolute certainty about the character of BK.

    Too many data points to see any other plausible explanation. I’ve listed them throughout the thread. I’m good at pattern recognition, less good at explaining it because I absorb so much data from lots and lots of sources and don’t always have time or patience to regurgitate it all, much less do so in a way that is easy to understand and process for people.

    The rage I’ve seen…

    Admittedly, I have a rage problem myself, which is why I am pretty good at recognizing others who do as well, especially based on what I saw of Kavanaugh at the hearings and what I have read about his past.

    When I was younger, my rage problem manifested itself in frequently being physically violent. I punched up, down and sideways, one on one or in groups. I think I was addicted to it, it was like a drug in itself in that it released certain brain chemicals that I would then crave again. The rage also spilled over into substance abuse and the two combined. I learned to handle it better as I got older, it took a hell of a lot of work but I am not a physically violent person anymore and have not been in a long, long time now. But I still recognize those traits in myself and in others.

    With Kavanaugh, the concern is with elevating that kind of poorly controlled rage to a higher level of power, especially given that he has shown a lifelong penchant for both abusing power himself and for enabling others (his “team”) to abuse power as well.

  119. paulie Post author

    That being said, I don’t have very much sympathy for Kavanaugh. If he wanted to be above reproach, he should have conceded to the further investigation immediately.

    Exactly. And it appears that they still have a lot to hide since the belated FBI investigation appears to have been very artificially limited, mostly on orders from the white house despite the Cheeto Benito’s lies on that score. 90% plus of Kavanaugh’s emails and memos are still being kept secret. There’s clearly a lot that those pushing him through are trying to conceal.

  120. paulie Post author

    Also, I think Gorsuch was a better pick than Kavanaugh, strictly on the philosophical merits. Not a great pick, but better.

    Agreed, at least so far. But we’ll see how he evolves as more Trump picks make it on to the court.

  121. DJ

    paulie: Agreed, at least so far. But we’ll see how he evolves as more Trump picks make it on to the court.

    Me: LOL- much to your rage fueled chagrin- I love it- oh and this:

    paulie: I have a rage problem myself,

    Me: No kiddin!? And typically, one projects themselves onto others to make them “feel” better about themselves- typical of the self righteous zealots on the Left which includes Conservatives.

    And I know you won’t read my posts- which is fine. It’s also a Leftist and Neocon action- ignore what you disagree with. LOL- that way you won’t be out- raged. LOL

  122. William T. Forrest

    Looks like it’s a done deal. Prepare for all three federal branches to make major moves to a consolidation of authoritarian fascist-conservative populist-nationalist dictatorship very soon, with major steps within the next year. Kavanaugh is being pushed through specifically to sign off on Trump ending investigations into himself and pardoning himself and anyone in any way associated, making all related records and investigations above top secret, and from there further moves to consolidate power and create dictatorship. At the same time the court will be rolling back not just Roe v Wade but Griswold v Connecticut, US v Nixon and much else. This is only the start.

  123. Anthony Dlugos

    Griswold? That might be a little hyperbolic.

    Overturning Roe is unlikely. Further chipping away is distinctly possible.

    Executive branch power consolidation almost certainly continues.

  124. paulie Post author

    I think WTF is correct on that one. Griswold made Roe, Obergfell and a lot of other decisions social reactionaries hate possible, and rolling it back has been their holy grail for a long time. I think they will do it but not right away. But the pace could be very quick too. Punctuated equilibrium model.

  125. Anthony Dlugos

    I tend to take the position that the judges are political animals too. I.E., part of the reason why National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius went the way it did is because Roberts was concerned with the long-term legitimacy of the court, and another ruling against modern liberalism might have caused half the country to call the legitimacy of the court into question.

    Consequently, I don’t think the Court will want to face the potential catastrophe of overturning Roe directly. I see chipping away at it as more likely (which could be worse, frankly).

    I’d concede that I am not 100% confident about that. Maybe 70/30 in favor of NOT overturning Roe.

  126. paulie Post author

    I tend to take the position that the judges are political animals too. I.E., part of the reason why National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius went the way it did is because Roberts was concerned with the long-term legitimacy of the court, and another ruling against modern liberalism might have caused half the country to call the legitimacy of the court into question.

    Yes, but they are making moves to the point where they don’t have to care, and opening up ways for them to control the opinion-shaping process will be in the works. Study how Putin did it in Russia for the blueprint. It took him a few years also.

    Consequently, I don’t think the Court will want to face the potential catastrophe of overturning Roe directly. I see chipping away at it as more likely (which could be worse, frankly).

    Most likely chip away first, but we shall see.

  127. Chuck Moulton

    To answer the question far above: no, a “dick in the face” is not “sexual assault” under the clear definitions of that term. It’s not penetrative. It’s not fondling. It’s not anything else that falls in that definition. A “dick in the face” is clear “assault”.

    I’m baffled why anyone can’t read and understand clear language. And I’m baffled why people keep insisting on warping repugnant behavior to fit it in a box it doesn’t belong in. Not every jerky behavior is or should be sexual assault. And not every jerky behavior is or should be rape. It is demeaning to those who have to endore actual rape and actual sexual assault to endlessly conflate disparate crimes with those crimes.

  128. robert capozzi

    pf: Too many data points to see any other plausible explanation. I’ve listed them throughout the thread. I’m good at pattern recognition…

    me: I’m sure you are. There are, however, should be some doubt involved, I submit. You were not a witness and it was 36 years ago. The certainty I’m hearing from many quarters actually astounds me.

  129. Chuck Moulton

    Robert Capozzi wrote:

    The certainty I’m hearing from many quarters actually astounds me.

    I agree. I see it everywhere and it disgusts me as someone who believes in the rule of law and a presumption of innocence.

    A friend of mine recently posted a detailed article which basically made the point that women who turn out to be lying about rape allegations usually have certain common characteristics. It then suggested therefore any woman who does not have such characteristics should be automatically believed and her alleged victim disbelieved… which is a complete non-sequitur and a horrendous flipping on its head of the rule of law.

    I don’t like the witch hunts. Yet again the liberal left has managed to take someone I’m inclined to politically distrust and turn him into a sympathetic victim of destestable character assassination. Why? Why?!!!

  130. paulie Post author

    I agree. I see it everywhere and it disgusts me as someone who believes in the rule of law and a presumption of innocence.

    No one is entitled to a Supreme Court seat. A presumption of innocence makes sense when we are talking about taking away someone’s freedom. Less so in a job interview.

    destestable character assassination.

    I don’t think so. Dozens of corroborating witnesses were not allowed to testify to Congress and did not get questioned by the FBI despite asking to be interviewed. That plus his behavior in the hearings plus his records of lying about all sorts of things big and small and the push by Republicans to sweep lots of documents and questions and witnesses under the rug and push him through at all costs is what is detestable.

    Any other Trump nominee will likely be as bad or worse on abortion or for that matter 4th amendment issues, so the insistence that it has to be Kavanaugh has to be because of his views on presidential immunity from investigation. It’s a case of collusion: Trump gets Kavanaugh on the court, Kavanaugh upholds Trump shutting down all investigations, pardoning himself and everyone tangentially involved, making anything uncovered in the investigations above top secret etc etc. Republican Senators get all kinds of quid pro quo as well. All 3 branches working together to pave the way for a dictatorship.

  131. Chuck Moulton

    Paulie wrote:

    No one is entitled to a Supreme Court seat. A presumption of innocence makes sense when we are talking about taking away someone’s freedom. Less so in a job interview.

    Even if true, none of the allegations have any bearing on his competence to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

    But setting that aside, this is not just a job interview. If it were, they could have closed hearings to consider these matters.

    No, they are destroying his reputation, his career, and his life with allegations which are not only unsubstantiated, but refuted by witnesses. It’s disgusting. No one deserves this — even politicians. If he actually did these things, then take him to court and prove it. Otherwise it is just gossip and libel and slander.

    I repeat: the left has a knack for taking people I disagree with and turning them into sympathetic martyrs through their repugnant character assassination.

  132. Chuck Moulton

    If someone falsely accused me of muder or rape or someother heinous crime and my name was being ransacked in the headlines, no I would not encourage or agree to more air time to destroy my reputation. And yes, I would be angry and emotional and forceful in defending myself. I have not spoken to anyone who told me they would respond in any other manner.

    Anyone who faults Kavenaugh for his demeanor lacks empathy and displays a complete disconnect with what it’s like to be human. If anything, I’d say Kavenaugh is much more restrained and patient than I would be in his shoes.

  133. robert capozzi

    cm: …in the rule of law and a presumption of innocence.

    me: And fairness and common decency, I’d add. Oddly enough, this disgusting process hasn’t made me all-that-sympathetic to BK in particular. But, generically, no one should be treated so shabbily.CBF was treated shabbily, too, btw.

    Ls used to say that Watergate and Vietnam undercut faith in government. The only good that might come out of l’Affaire Kavanaugh is that this might further shake our collective faith in government. But it might also just polarize more, cutting Ls out of the process (more than NAPism does).

    PF,

    While BK’s views are disturbing on the issue of presidential immunity, we simply don’t know that that’s why he was picked. You’re guessing. It’s a possible guess, but a guess nevertheless. While I can’t rule his view out of hand, I’m heavily biased against it.

  134. dL

    To answer the question far above: no, a “dick in the face” is not “sexual assault” under the clear definitions of that term. It’s not penetrative. It’s not fondling. It’s not anything else that falls in that definition.

    Yeah, well I think two bullets to the groin is a proper response to those who think they have free reign to stick their dick where it’s not wanted.

    You know, I used to think #MeToo was reactionary and neo-puritanical. Then I read the comments here and at other places…

  135. William T. Forrest

    #MeToo is long overdue. We have serial rapists and sexual harassers in power all over the place whether it be Bill Cosby or Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly, or whether it be Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh, even Paulie the post author admits right in this comment thread that he is a vicious sex criminal as well. Only about 1% of rapists ever get reported and only about 2% of rape reports are false, so you know if multiple women are coming forward as with Kavanaugh it’s like 2% of 2% of 2% of however many women it is chance that he didn’t do it. I think there are at least 5 now.

    It is shameful how long, how many men have gone away with it and not only not done time in prison but remained in positions of power and just kept doing it to more women. There aren’t nearly enough prisons built for all the sex criminals running around loose but let’s at least stop promoting them and start getting them out of their positions. Warren Redlich could help by kicking Paulie out like he finally did with Andy Jacobs. Why allow a rapist to post articles and comments here?

  136. dL

    If someone falsely accused me of muder or rape or someother heinous crime and my name was being ransacked in the headlines, no I would not encourage or agree to more air time to destroy my reputation. And yes, I would be angry and emotional and forceful in defending myself. I have not spoken to anyone who told me they would respond in any other manner.

    Well, you assuming that the allegations are false. And you also seem to endorse the notion that politicos should be beyond the reproach of mere allegations, which, of course, is a fantasy world.

    Anyone who faults Kavenaugh for his demeanor lacks empathy and displays a complete disconnect with what it’s like to be human. If anything, I’d say Kavenaugh is much more restrained and patient than I would be in his shoes.

    That’s nonsense. If I go by the SNL skit(b/c I haven’t watched any of the actual circus), I would consider him to be a whiny, entitled bitch. And I consider myself quite human.

  137. dL

    There aren’t nearly enough prisons built for all the sex criminals running around loose but let’s at least stop promoting them and start getting them out of their positions.

    I don’t subscribe to prisons or retribution. And I don’t equate the sexual revolution w/ rape culture. Nor do I ascribe to the notion of a past endemic of “boys will be boys” glorification of rape(that Pauli seemingly claims). I think human/sex trafficking is largely bullshit, and to the extent that it is a problem, it is one caused by states prohibiting free migration. That being said, I’m quite certain Hollywood has a casting couch and that powerful people use sex as a bargaining tool over others. I’m also pretty certain that people here commenting about sticking dicks in female’s faces don’t actually go around doing that but for some reason feel compelled to defend powerful people who probably did do that.

  138. paulie Post author

    Nor do I ascribe to the notion of a past endemic of “boys will be boys” glorification of rape(that Pauli seemingly claims).

    I’m not saying it was a good thing, I’m sorry that was the culture and that I was a part of it but it definitely existed. I don’t know how much things have changed in the youth culture, the parties I go to anymore are a lot less wild with an older crowd so I don’t see shit like that anymore and would not just idly watch it happen if I did.

  139. paulie Post author

    Paulie the post author admits right in this comment thread that he is a vicious sex criminal as well…Warren Redlich could help by kicking Paulie out like he finally did with Andy Jacobs. Why allow a rapist to post articles and comments here?

    Troll much? Feel free to email him. I thought the comments you are referring to were more nuanced than your characterization of them but Warren is free to read them in context and decide if he doesn’t want to be associated with me.

    Only about 1% of rapists ever get reported and only about 2% of rape reports are false, so you know if multiple women are coming forward as with Kavanaugh it’s like 2% of 2% of 2% of however many women it is chance that he didn’t do it. I think there are at least 5 now.

    Not sure which statistics you are citing but even assuming they are accurate it’s not 2% of 2% of 2% because you can have a “feeding frenzy” effect. Or, as some have alleged above, a politically motivated conspiracy (I explained why I don’t think that is likely though). Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick are the only accusers I know of, I heard a brief mention of a fourth one Wednesday night last week and then no mention of her again after that, nor do I know her name or details of what she alleged. Where did you see anything about a fifth?

  140. paulie Post author

    While BK’s views are disturbing on the issue of presidential immunity, we simply don’t know that that’s why he was picked. You’re guessing. It’s a possible guess, but a guess nevertheless.

    Yeah, it’s a guess. But I think it meets the Occam’s razor test. Kavanaugh was not on the original short list. Any other likely Trump pick would be as bad or worse on e.g. abortion and privacy issues. So what makes Kavanaugh different, unique, and why the insistence that it has to be him and no one else at any and all costs? The only unique thing about him is that extreme position on executive immunity so that’s my best guess.

  141. paulie Post author

    I would not encourage or agree to more air time to destroy my reputation

    That horse was already out of the barn. At that point if the corroborative witnesses are on your side I would want them all to get a chance to testify under oath publicly, privately or preferably both. You seem convinced all of the accusers are lying, yet they all asked to be put under oath in front of Senate, FBI or both, and to have multiple corroborating witnesses placed under oath by Senate, FBI or both as well. Multiple such witnesses have also so asked. It was Kavanaugh, Trump and the Senate NSGOP that refused. That makes me think Kavanaugh is the one who is lying, especially since he is the one with a long history of lying about lots of other things both big and small, including under oath.

    Anyone who faults Kavenaugh for his demeanor lacks empathy and displays a complete disconnect with what it’s like to be human.

    Disagreed. For one thing I have been falsely accused myself so I know it’s a very frustrating feeling so I can empathize with that part for sure. But there were many lies and much else wrong with his testimony and someone applying for a judicial position should control their frustration better. Even Clarence Thomas was much more restrained. Even former Justice Stevens, who initially supported Kavanaugh, has come out and said in public that after he watched the testimony he no longer thinks Kavanaugh belongs on the court due to his temperament as shown in the hearings.

  142. Anthony Dlugos

    “The only unique thing about him is that extreme position on executive immunity so that’s my best guess.”

    My take here is that Trump is frankly way out of his league when interviewing judges for a spot on the Supreme Court. None of the potential nominees would answer his questions about executive immunity directly, and anything above a 10th grade response would go way over his head. (as opposed to, say, Obama, who could certainly parse the answers of a potential nominee to make sure he got who he wanted.)

    Essentially, we’re getting lucky that Cheeto doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to pick someone who will do his bidding, which is why we fell ack basswards into getting not-terrible Gorsuch.

    Now, once picked, Trump is going to back Kavanaugh, simply because he doesn’t back down from a fight. An adviser could tell him now that Nominee B would more likely rubber stamp his executive decisions and grant him effective immunity, and he still might not back down from backing Kavanaugh. The threadbare Russia investigation continues because Trump would rather allow rumors of Russian involvement in the election continue instead of conceding they may have tried to mettle. His victory must be above reproach, pure as the driven snow.

  143. paulie Post author

    Even if true, none of the allegations have any bearing on his competence to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

    I don’t agree. I think personal character is a legitimate issue to consider for that kind of position.

    But setting that aside, this is not just a job interview. If it were, they could have closed hearings to consider these matters.

    Ford offered that and was not given that option. But it’s also legitimate to say that for a public office the public has some right to know what is being alleged and what the response is.

    not only unsubstantiated, but refuted by witnesses

    While it’s rare to have actual direct witnesses in sexual assault cases, there are many indirect corroborating witnesses who offered to testify and were not allowed to. And Ford, not Kavanaugh, was the one who wanted Mark Judge under oath in front of the Senate, the FBI or both.

    If he actually did these things, then take him to court and prove it.

    There are lots of things which don’t rise to the level of proof of taking it to court, and I don’t know if statutes of limitations apply and what other considerations may be involved, and yet do raise enough doubt that someone should not be appointed to a high office. Many other Supreme Court and other nominees have withdrawn or been voted down for much less.

  144. paulie Post author

    There are, however, should be some doubt involved, I submit.

    Yes, and I already stipulated that way above and said why even if the allegations are false I still oppose the nomination, as well as why I tend to believe the accusations are true in this case.

  145. Tony From Long Island

    ” . . . . .Anyone who faults Kavenaugh for his demeanor lacks empathy and displays a complete disconnect with what it’s like to be human. . . . . . ”

    It was not only his demeanor that disqualifies him, it was WHAT he was saying. His ‘vast left wing conspiracy’ diatribe shows he lacks the independence for the highest court in the land. At least he’s not supposed to actually SAY that he lacks independence. Show some decorum!!

  146. robert capozzi

    As the resident “Hamlet,” I draw a distinction between BK’s emotionalism (which was understandable IF he’s innocent) and his hyper-partisan statements plus his disrespectful repartee (which were out of bounds). Personally, I would have opposed his confirmation pre-CBF’s allegations, but the wild hyper-partisan charges and schoolyard taunts would have been the icing on the cake.

    Answering Sen. Klobuchar if she ever blacked out instead of answering whether he had was the single most infantile exchange I think I’ve seen from public servants. Speculating that “the Clintons” were behind this D push-back was pre-meditated nonsense. That was in his prepared testimony. How could he possibly know that?

  147. Anthony Dlugos

    “His ‘vast left wing conspiracy’ diatribe shows he lacks the independence for the highest court in the land.”

    “Speculating that “the Clintons” were behind this D push-back was pre-meditated nonsense.”

    Not to defend but to explain: I’ll just suggest that cockamamie suggestion was just to avoid the real reason, one he obviously could not proffer without stirring up a real hornet’s nest: that the whole thing is about reproductive rights.

    Of course,if true, that in and of itself could be another reason why he shouldn’t be nominated.

  148. robert capozzi

    AD,

    “Whole thing” on the part of the Ds or the Rs?

    It does seem more likely that the Ds ambushed BK over reproductive rights. The Rs just needed to check the box, methinks.

  149. paulie Post author

    Susan Collins is at this very moment putting the final nail in the coffin of any last minute hopes of stopping the most divisive, partisan, unpopular and ethically clouded nomination of a Supreme Court justice to ever succeed, especially for a crucial swing vote. With it, public confidence in the last branch of government widely regarded as even somewhat impartial and nonpartisan will erode. We’ll get to find out what it’s like when none of the branches of government are a check or balance on the others. It’s a sad day for us all.

    I hope I’m wrong about where this will lead, but I see little chance that I am.

  150. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    maybe not the whole thing, but this is about Roe more than anything else, by a wide margin, IMO.

  151. robert capozzi

    pf,

    It’s very rare that people pay attention to the Supremes, and almost all of their decisions are subtle and non-obvious for most. DJT is a much greater risk to humanity, IMO.

  152. dL

    We’ll get to find out what it’s like when none of the branches of government are a check or balance on the others. It’s a sad day for us all.

    how state and society interact to disappoint and render each other miserable….

  153. paulie Post author

    It’s very rare that people pay attention to the Supremes, and almost all of their decisions are subtle and non-obvious for most. DJT is a much greater risk to humanity, IMO.

    There’s an intersection there. Kavanaugh, nominated by Trump and confirmed on an almost exactly party line vote in a very narrow Senate majority, will break a 4-4 tie on many issues likely to come before the court, and one of those issues might well be Trump shutting down all investigations into himself and his associates, pardoning himself and everyone associated with him, and/or classifying everything having to do with those investigations and anything unfavorable to him that they might uncover. Among many other possible actions of the administration or of Drumpf personally that could could before the court.

    The Cheeto Benito won a fairly narrow electoral college victory on the strength of 80,000 popular votes in three states out of over a hundred million cast nationwide and an overall popular vote deficit of some 3 million, together with a 51-49 Senate, have engineered a 5-4 Supreme Court majority. All three are unpopular, with Trump and Kavanaugh both at about 40% approval and 50% plus disapproval. The Senate is also unpopular, but together all three can combine to have a unified government that is highly partisan and vindictive and more than willing to break rules and destroy norms to uphold that power and that of their financial backers. Welcome to the Hunger Games reality show, when people stop being polite and shit gets real for real.

    It would be more fitting if Manchin voted no, setting up a Pence tiebreaker for a symbolically perfect 51-50 tally, but 51-49 will be close enough. Bencheeto Trumpolini is most assuredly a great risk to humanity, and that risk grows exponentially greater as he gradually consolidates power and removes various institutional impediments to himself becoming a dictator and tyrant like those he openly admires in other countries. Those who think it can’t happen here are sadly mistaken.

  154. dL

    The Cheeto Benito won a fairly narrow electoral college victory on the strength of 80,000 popular votes in three states out of over a hundred million cast nationwide and an overall popular vote deficit of some 3 million, together with a 51-49 Senate, have engineered a 5-4 Supreme Court majority. All three are unpopular, with Trump and Kavanaugh both at about 40% approval and 50% plus disapproval. The Senate is also unpopular, but together all three can combine to have a unified government that is highly partisan and vindictive and more than willing to break rules and destroy norms to uphold that power and that of their financial backers. Welcome to the Hunger Games reality show, when people stop being polite and shit gets real for real.

    That viewpoint is certainly becoming more mainstream
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/5/17940610/trump-hitler-history-historian

  155. Anthony Dlugos

    A better 2016 short list. Not a perfect short list, whatever the nature of those charges are.

  156. William T. Forrest

    By 2016 Kozinski had already been disgraced due to his sexual harassment of colleagues and subordinates, although a fuller extent of that was revealed later. It’s telling that Kavanaugh is his protege. But then Johnson did also say that if he was in the Senate he would probably vote to confirm Kavanaugh as well.

  157. William T. Forrest

    “Troll much?”

    Nah brah. How about you?

    “Feel free to email him. I thought the comments you are referring to were more nuanced than your characterization of them but Warren is free to read them in context and decide if he doesn’t want to be associated with me.”

    Your day is coming. Maybe not yet, but sooner or later you will be hoisted by your petard and subjected to the purges of commenters at this site, which, let’s not forget, YOU started. Those purges will slowly grow and gather steam until they sweep you up as well. They may sweep me up first and they may take a while to reach you but your day is coming. Mark my words. I hope it’s sooner rather than later but either way it’s coming. Here is looking forward to that day!

  158. dL

    (Is Frankel going to censor me for copying and pasting an all-caps sentence? LOL)

    Your day is coming. Maybe not yet, but sooner or later you will be hoisted by your petard and subjected to the purges of commenters at this site, which, let’s not forget, YOU started. Those purges will slowly grow and gather steam until they sweep you up as well. They may sweep me up first and they may take a while to reach you but your day is coming. Mark my words. I hope it’s sooner rather than later but either way it’s coming. Here is looking forward to that day!

    William T. Forrest= wtf

    All Caps and purges…hmmm
    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/07/john-mcafee-physically-attacked/#comment-1640001

  159. William T. Forrest

    I’m not against the purges. Personally I called for Andy Jacobs to be purged, and am glad he was. I may have been the final straw among those who called for his removal, but if I wasn’t, I still helped make it possible. As I acknowledged, it’s entirely plausible that I will be purged myself, quite likely before Frankel, and that’s OK. There are an endless number of places where I can go to spout off, and an endless ability to create more. Frankel started the purges, and I helped expand them. I won’t care when they reach me, but he will. This has been his “home” for over ten years, much like Andy, and he is going to really hate the day when the process he started finally catches up with him, which I predict it will.

    The fact that he is a self-acknowledged rage filled rapist and rape enabler and frequent blackout drunk, and still a heavy drinker filled with rage to this very day, makes that eventuality all the more aesthetically pleasing and satisfying. Besides, despite the fact that Andy is a bigot and an asshole, and deserved to be removed for those reasons, Frankel himself acknowledges that Andy was his good friend and benefactor and did a great deal for him in the course of many years.

    Being the ungrateful backstabbing cur that he is, Frankel paid his ex-partner back by not standing in the way of his removal, and if anything egging it on. That character flaw of his is another reason why, much like Andy, he deserves the removal which he will eventually get and why it will be a good day to point and laugh when it finally happens, regardless of whether I am myself banned before then or not.

  160. robert capozzi

    pf: Kavanaugh, nominated by Trump and confirmed on an almost exactly party line vote in a very narrow Senate majority, will break a 4-4 tie on many issues likely to come before the court, and one of those issues might well be Trump shutting down all investigations into himself and his associates….

    me: Sure, that’s POSSIBLE. But you pile speculation on speculation here. And it assumes that the R justices will go along for the ride. While they are not without bias, there is a long history of SCJs bucking their political allies because the law leads them there. BK certainly is the hackiest of that group, but the other 4 would have to agree.

    I’d say you’re catastrophizing.

  161. William T. Forrest

    Via the Daily Beast:

    Believers in QAnon—a conspiracy theory based on a series of internet clues posted by an anonymous character named “Q” that posits a world in which Trump and the military are engaged in ceaseless, secret war with globalist Democratic pedophiles—think the text could mark the start of “The Storm,” a fantastical MAGA dream in which Trump’s political enemies will be arrested and tried at military tribunals.

    “That is how we will receive orders if all else fails,” wrote one QAnon believer on the 8Chan internet forum. “We are the next generation Minutemen! Standing by Sir!”

    “SO HAPPY!” wrote another. “THANK YOU 45!”

    …QAnon diehards cheered it as the perfect way for Trump to test how to deliver earth-shattering news to the entire country. On the internet forum 8Chan, QAnon fans also noted that the test message was 17 words long—a significant number for believers in the conspiracy theory, because “Q” is the 17th letter of the alphabet.

    …Others focused on the portion of the message that said “no action is needed,” which they saw as an echo of their motto: “Trust the plan.” That section of the test message, they believed, was a sign that Trump and the military are in control of the government and would soon settle all the country’s problems.

  162. William T. Forrest

    More from the Organic Prepper by way of George Lincoln “Lew” Rockwell:

    John McAfee had a different opinion about the Presidential Alert and it’s positively dystopian.

    John McAfee
    ?
    @officialmcafee
    The “Presidential alerts”: they are capable of accessing the E911 chip in your phones – giving them full access to your location, microphone, camera and every function of your phone. This not a rant, this is from me, still one of the leading cybersecurity experts. Wake up people!

    3:32 PM – Oct 3, 2018
    60.4K
    43.5K people are talking about this

    Well, that’s not good.

    And this theory has a lot more credibility because McAfee is, in fact, the big Kahuna of cybersecurity. McAfee is a British-American who is a computer programmer and entrepreneur. He created McAfee Antivirus back in the 80s, and though he sold his interest in the company, still keeps his finger on the pulse of cybersecurity and politics. He’s already announced that he’s taking a serious run at the 2020 presidential nomination on the Libertarian ticket.

    In fact, McAfee is known as one of the top cyber security experts in the world. And he’s known for bluntly telling unpleasant truths that nobody wants to believe.

    In 2016, he wrote:

    “Few people are aware of the cybersecurity risks that surround them full time.

    If you own a new Samsung TV, it’s likely constantly recording every word that is spoken in its vicinity, and these recordings are being sent to unnamed third parties.

    If you own a car newer than two years old, chances are that hackers have already figured out how to take full control of it while you are driving down the highway. Last year, a brand new Jeep was hacked into by hackers hundreds of miles away and the Jeep was forced off the road by the hackers.

    If you fly on an airplane that provides Internet access, hackers anywhere in the world can take control of the plane and alter its course and speed, and perhaps even bring it down.

    Medical devices such as pacemakers, medical monitors, and other care-critical devices can be hacked into and patients placed into life-threatening situations.

    Our mobile devices are ubiquitously used as spy devices by everyone from our NSA to bored hackers in Uzbekistan. ”

    And now he’s telling us that the Presidential Alert just unlocked access to all our phones.

    Given his track record, I tend to believe him.

  163. William T. Forrest

    That was

    Brett Kavanaugh’s Emotions Don’t Disqualify Him, but His Inflammatory and Evasive Strategy May Be Another Matter
    While the Supreme Court nominee’s anger and frustration last week were understandable, his tactics were troubling.
    Jacob Sullum|Oct. 5, 2018 11:45 am

  164. DJ

    Kavanaugh is establishment- neither left nor right although the face of more gov’t is the left. That is telling- and just one instance below.

    Speaking of the Clinton’s, here’s an interesting article inferring Brett Kavanaugh gave them cover in the Vince Foster investigation. https://nam-dev-cdn.awspreprod.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/02/sinister-battle-brett-kavanaugh-truth/

    It’s very telling that his confirmation process was relegated to shit slinging and no focus on his record- and just as telling was https://www.theroot.com/amid-abuse-allegations-minnesota-rep-keith-ellison-co-1829522680

    And https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/09/20/spartacus-had-roamin-hands-cory-booker-admitted-to-groping-high-school-friend-n2520919

  165. Gina

    “The Storm,” a fantastical MAGA dream in which Trump’s political enemies will be arrested and tried at military tribunals. …. a sign that Trump and the military are in control of the government and would soon settle all the country’s problem …The “Presidential alerts”: they are capable of accessing the E911 chip in your phones – giving them full access to your location, microphone, camera and every function of your phone. This not a rant, this is from me, still one of the leading cybersecurity experts. Wake up people!

    Wow. That is some seriously scary, totalitarian shit. And one thing for sure, if there’s any inkling of truth there, don’t count on Kavanaugh and Roberts to do do anything but defer to and make legalistic justifications for what forms of government trespass on individuals takes place as a result.

  166. Chuck Moulton

    DL wrote:
    Yeah, well I think two bullets to the groin is a proper response to those who think they have free reign to stick their dick where it’s not wanted.

    You know, I used to think #MeToo was reactionary and neo-puritanical. Then I read the comments here and at other places…

    Yet another example of hysterical ranting from people who are incapable of exercising basic logic.

    First, a bullet (or 2) to the groin would not be “sexual assault” either.

    Second, your inference that anyone who doesn’t want to torture the definition of “sexual assault” to include completely different things must therefore believe that such behavior isn’t another crime under its plain definition — or, even worse, that anyone who doesn’t want to torture the definition of “sexual assault” to include completely different things must therefore be in favor of everyone having free reign to engage in those behaviors free of any consequences — is an utter non-sequitor and is frankly insane. It’s all the more proof that those eager to character assassinate Kavenaugh are happy to step up and libel or slander anyone who disagrees with them on anything. I already said plainly that a “dick in the face” meets the textbook definition of “assault”, but does not come anywhere near the textbook definition of “sexual assault”.

    Since you and others seem intent on attacking anyone who can read the dictionary, I can’t really engage in rational discussion with irrational people. So I’ll leave it at this: for anyone who says I’m a monster for believing in basic reading comprehension and due process of law: FUCK YOU, ASSHOLES.

  167. Chuck Moulton

    DL wrote:

    Well, you assuming that the allegations are false. And you also seem to endorse the notion that politicos should be beyond the reproach of mere allegations, which, of course, is a fantasy world.

    Nope.

    I evaluate both sides and see that one keeps changing her story and has named witnesses refute it while the other does not. But even if both were equally beliveable, that does not meet the burden of proof.

    DL wrote:

    That’s nonsense. If I go by the SNL skit(b/c I haven’t watched any of the actual circus), I would consider him to be a whiny, entitled bitch. And I consider myself quite human.

    You just identified 2 problems:

    1) You go by a warped partisan re-enactment designed to exaggerate and serve an agenda rather than the source; and

    2) You lack basic empathy.

  168. Chuck Moulton

    Paulie wrote:

    There are lots of things which don’t rise to the level of proof of taking it to court, and I don’t know if statutes of limitations apply and what other considerations may be involved, and yet do raise enough doubt that someone should not be appointed to a high office. Many other Supreme Court and other nominees have withdrawn or been voted down for much less.

    It is hard to convict people in court and destroy their lives by sending them to prison. That doesn’t mean it should be easy to destroy people’s lives outside of court.

    A lot of people seem inclined to believe the woman and disbelieve the man just because of gender. I find that horrifying! That presumption is wholy incompatible with our rule of law and basic human decency.

    As a man myself, it is quite scary to imagine any of the 200 million women in the USA could wake up tomorrow and decide to make shit up to ruin my life — and succeed because so many of you are gullible and crazy. What defense do I have? Should I never interact with any women and record 24/7 of my life for permanent storage as possibly exculpatory evidence?

    In this case not only did Ford fail to meet any criminal or civil burden of proof, but her testimony was also refuted by the very witnesses she named.

    I’m no fan of Kavenaugh. He sounds like a dirtbag. Count me out of the witch hunt though.

    And as chair of the LP judicial committee, I regret to inform you that our standard pf appellate procedure do not include automatically believing any woman and automatically disbelieving any man.

  169. William T. Forrest

    “I evaluate both sides and see that one keeps changing her story…”

    I have seen zero evidence that she ever changed her story. There are also other accusers against Kavanaugh.

    “… and has named witnesses refute it while the other does not. But even if both were equally beliveable, that does not meet the burden of proof.”

    Kavanaugh is not equally believable because he told provable lies and tall tales that stretch credulity under oath. As for witnesses, Keyser said that while she doesn’t remember the events in question she believes Ford. Judge may have been blacked out, but again he nor anyone else has definitively said that they were not at the event in question, only that they recall no such event. It was a pretty unremarkable gathering for everyone except Ford so it’s not surprising that they don’t remember it.

    If she is lying, why did she offer to be questioned by the FBI? Which by the way she never was. Why was she the one who asked for dozens of other witnesses to be questioned under oath by both the FBI and the Senate?

  170. William T. Forrest

    ” It’s all the more proof that those eager to character assassinate Kavenaugh are happy to step up and libel or slander anyone who disagrees with them on anything. I already said plainly that a “dick in the face” meets the textbook definition of “assault”, but does not come anywhere near the textbook definition of “sexual assault”.”

    Sounds like you are splitting hairs. As for “character assassinating” Kavanaugh, even setting aside the sexual allegations for a moment, he lied about the drinking age in Maryland under oath – a bizarre lie because there is no chance he did not know what the drinking age was when he approached it and because it’s an easily verified fact. He lied about various terms for sexual behaviors which were alluded to in his yearbook, lied about the extent of his drinking (as literally dozens of people who knew him then have said, and offered to say under oath), lied about the disgusting role he played in the Bush war on terror and the attendant war on privacy and human rights, most likely lied about his plans on abortion and executive immunity…

    He also demonstrated the same legendary belligerence that numerous people affirm was a regular part of his sloppy drinking when he was growing up (and who knows, maybe even now). He spun a crazy conspiracy theory as part of his prepared remarks and vowed partisan revenge as a Justice of the Supreme Court, which he will now be in a position to carry out.

    If anything, his character has been whitewashed, not assassinated.

  171. William T. Forrest

    ” You go by a warped partisan re-enactment designed to exaggerate and serve an agenda rather than the source; ”

    Looked very accurate to me. I watched both.

    “You lack basic empathy.”

    Not at all, if anything it is those who claim that Ford is not credible that lack empathy. Even Kavanaugh himself said he thinks something happened to her but claims it was not him even though she is 100% sure it was. Even Trump initially conceded she is very credible, yet here you show no empathy for her.

  172. William T. Forrest

    ” That doesn’t mean it should be easy to destroy people’s lives outside of court.”

    Allow to remain on the second highest court in the country versus elevate to the highest court isn’t “destroying people’s lives.” Destroying people’s lives is what happens to victims of the Bush-Cheney-Kavanaugh terror war and domestic espionage and torture. Destroying people’s lives is what will happen to millions of women who will not be able to get a safe, legal abortion and many children born through their unwanted pregnancies. And in the high likelihood that women are telling the truth about what Kavanaugh did to them, destroying lives is what he has done to them.

  173. William T. Forrest

    “A lot of people seem inclined to believe the woman and disbelieve the man just because of gender. I find that horrifying! That presumption is wholy incompatible with our rule of law and basic human decency.”

    Well the stats that I have seen are that only about 2% of sexual assault allegations are shown to be false but something like 99% don’t get brought forward in the first place, in large part because women are so often not believed. So yes, I will tend to believe them. False accusations, although rare, do happen, and that is horrible, but given the evidence on how few are false and how many continue to hide in shame and fear of being mocked if and when they come forward, I think you are placing your presumptions and empathy in the wrong direction.

    “As a man myself, it is quite scary to imagine any of the 200 million women in the USA could wake up tomorrow and decide to make shit up to ruin my life — and succeed because so many of you are gullible and crazy. What defense do I have? Should I never interact with any women and record 24/7 of my life for permanent storage as possibly exculpatory evidence?”

    Well of course that’s scary. I wouldn’t want to be unfairly accused either. But neither would I want to be sexually assaulted (and it does happen to men too) and then deal with being mocked and disbelieved if I finally got together the courage to come forward. So while you are asking us to put ourselves in Kavanaugh’s place and imagine he is innocent, try putting yourself in the place of Ford, Ramirez, et al if he is in fact guilty.

  174. William T. Forrest

    “pf: Kavanaugh, nominated by Trump and confirmed on an almost exactly party line vote in a very narrow Senate majority, will break a 4-4 tie on many issues likely to come before the court, and one of those issues might well be Trump shutting down all investigations into himself and his associates….

    rc: Sure, that’s POSSIBLE. But you pile speculation on speculation here. And it assumes that the R justices will go along for the ride. While they are not without bias, there is a long history of SCJs bucking their political allies because the law leads them there. BK certainly is the hackiest of that group, but the other 4 would have to agree.

    I’d say you’re catastrophizing.”

    Hopefully you are correct, but I think Frankel gets this one right. Republicans have learned their lesson on how they pick justices, having as you correctly point out been burned in the past. Now they pick justices with a lot of executive branch experience, and significant pro-executive bias, and those have been far more reliable for them. Kavanaugh in particular revealed his ugly partisan side during the hearings and has vowed revenge on all who stood in his way, and owes a big debt to Trump and the Republicans in addition to his already stated views on executive immunity. It all ties together.

    Additionally, the courts will be in a significant position to cement this unified minority rule government as they will get more chances to rule on many things like racial gerrymandering, voter suppression, the war on drugs and other aspects of the overpolicing culture and its secondary effects on voter suppression, and many other things which will allow the Republicans to manipulate public opinion making, elections, perhaps even electronic vote tallying among many other things in the future to keep a hold on power.

    And not just the Supreme Court – Trump is filling the lower courts at breakneck speed, and may get more vacancies on the Supreme Court as well, especially if he gets a second term. As well, Kavanaugh will likely reshape the thinking of some of the other justices already there by virtue of his arguments and their desire to not have too many issues decided by 5-4. It’s looking more and more like the cementing of a failed democracy and emerging authoritarianism, and this appointment was a big piece of that wall.

  175. dL

    You just identified 2 problems:

    1) You go by a warped partisan re-enactment designed to exaggerate and serve an agenda rather than the source; and

    Actually, my source on this is Thomas Knapp.
    http://knappster.blogspot.com/2018/09/when-its-all-said-and-done.html#comment-4122130005
    I watched the youtube over at his blog. And I asked him if that Damon performance was bad parody. And Knapp responded by Damon was playing it reasonably straight up. If you want broach the issue of partisan sources, frankly you read like you have been listening to Rush Limbaugh.

    Yet another example of hysterical ranting from people who are incapable of exercising basic logic.

    No, what I said was a straight-forward, matter-of-fact statement. If anyone thinks they have free reign to stick their dick where it hasn’t been invited, that someone deserves to have their nuts used for target practice. And if that someone wants to go run for a dictionary, a bullet in the ass will do.

    Now, this would be an example of a rant:

    So I’ll leave it at this: for anyone who says I’m a monster for believing in basic reading comprehension and due process of law: FUCK YOU, ASSHOLES.

    As a man myself, it is quite scary to imagine any of the 200 million women in the USA could wake up tomorrow and decide to make shit up to ruin my life

    Pro-tip: I hope that isn’t your pick up line, otherwise you are not even going to be hitting foul balls. I wouldn’t worry about someone take a cheap shot at you on your home run trot. Horse before the cart.

  176. robert capozzi

    wtf: Even Kavanaugh himself said he thinks something happened to her but claims it was not him even though she is 100% sure it was. Even Trump initially conceded she is very credible, yet here you show no empathy for her.

    me: That was positioning and spin. IF they’d said CBF is a liar, they’d alienate all but the most dedicated Trumpists. They had to come off as compassionate else they’d have had maybe 20% behind them. They’d have likely lost Collins, Flake, and maybe Corker at minimum, and Manchin as well. It might also actually be sincere, unless of course BK did it, which is possible.

    What is ALSO possible that there was some sort of encounter, but CBF is exaggerating.

  177. William T. Forrest

    “… unless of course BK did it, which is possible.”

    And highly likely.

    “What is ALSO possible that there was some sort of encounter, but CBF is exaggerating.”

    That seems a lot less likely. If she is exaggerating or lying why did she volunteer to take a lie detector test, why did she volunteer to go under oath before both the Senate and the FBI, why did she ask that a whole bunch of other people also be put under oath by both the Senate and the FBI? She wanted a thorough investigation and if she was lying or exaggerating a thorough investigation would have proven that, making her susceptible to fines and jail time along with what she will already be facing as it is: destruction of career, death threats, having to move out of her home and go on the run, looking over her shoulder for the rest of her life, and a Supreme Court justice who has vowed revenge on all his enemies to go with a president and congress that are of the same mind set all working together.

    That sounds like a hell of a lot of trouble to go through for a lie or exaggeration. She could have backed out at any time, just said that it was too traumatic and that she did not feel up to testifying because it was too terrifying, which it was for her. And especially because she at first came forward anonymously before Kavanaugh was even the nominee. She will now probably have to flee the country, and even that won’t guarantee her safety or that of her family. Talk about lack of empathy, some people here seem so eager to believe she would want to take all that on for a lie or an exaggeration. I believer her, and Ramirez, and I think more will come out and taint the court for a long, long time to come.

  178. robert capozzi

    wtf: If she is exaggerating or lying…

    me: I have no idea what her state of mind might be. Exaggeration about an event 36 years ago to a 15 year old seems possible to me. False memories are also possible.

  179. DJ

    The Kavanaugh hearings were a shit show that did exactly as designed- further divide the citizens.

    The lady, allegedly being fairly well educated, as are the questioners, are guilty of fraud. Both sides of the aisle rely on the same system to accuse or exonerate using faked indignation to sway “a” court of public opinion- where was all this outrage when Clinton was in office? Oh, I’m not a Kavanaugh supporter. I personally believe the SC justices and the court itself is out of control- they are lawyers. Lawyers pay others to teach them to lie, as long as they win that’s all that matters. I don’t have the answers for instant gratification of “win”, but I assure you, what we’re witnessing in our life times cannot be a “win” for John Q Public- or Jane.

    SMH- sad, sad, sad.

  180. William T. Forrest

    ” Exaggeration about an event 36 years ago to a 15 year old seems possible to me. False memories are also possible.”

    Sure, they are possible. But it seems to me someone has to be very, very sure to take on all those consequences willingly and not back out of testifying, to go in front of hostile Senators and news cameras after receiving death threats and relive the most painful memory she has, then get interrogated about it and turned into an object of widely expressed disbelief and derision by everyone from the president at his Nuremberg style rallies to media commentators to vicious internet trolls to regular people in all sorts of places from countless comment sections like this one to diners and barber shops to you name it.

    If she received anonymous threats and all kinds of vile hate communications that were serious enough to make her flee her home with her family before she even testified, imagine how much worse it got afterwards. She knew all this was going to happen before she went through with her public testimony, in fact it was already happening, and she knew it would get worse and yet she went through with it. Think about having to do that. She knew he could very well be confirmed anyway, and he was…yet she faced the cameras and the Senators and told her story. Would you do that if you were not 100% positively sure? Think about it. Try to put yourself in her place in your mind for a moment. What would you do?

    And then keep in mind that she is not the only woman who has come forward about him. How many more have made the very rational decision to keep quiet?

  181. William T. Forrest

    “The lady, allegedly being fairly well educated,…”

    She’s not “allegedly” well educated. She’s very well educated and had a very respectable and distinguished academic career for decades:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford#Early_life_and_education

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford#Career

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford#Selected_works

    As well as a husband she married in 2002 and two children, who are presumably under 18 and live with her if they were not conceived before the marriage:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford#Personal_life

    That whole life and career is upended now. With death threats and media attention, can she go back to work teaching students or attending academic conferences? Can her kids go back to school? I don’t know what her husband does for a living, but what is this going to do to his career? To their social lives? Their ability to go out in public, take trips, etc etc?

    “guilty of fraud. ”

    You seem to be pretty sure of that, yet what is the evidence for that and why would she do it? Keep in mind again that she came forward, albeit anonymously, before he was even selected as the nominee and that she was the one who pushed all along for a full investigation, which she never got. What makes you so certain she is guilty of fraud and what sense would it make, given that she knew what would happen to her personally and that even if Kavanaugh’s confirmation had been stopped that it was just about certain that Trump could successfully get a replacement nominee on the bench before very long?

    “where was all this outrage when Clinton was in office? ”

    Is that supposed to be a serious question? Did you live through the same Clinton years that I did? I clearly recall a massive amount of indignation, up to and including impeachment hearings that went on for months and a public investigation which Kavanaugh was a team member of for years, with the attending media circus.

    “Lawyers pay others to teach them to lie, as long as they win that’s all that matters.”

    That’s true. Kavanaugh and most of the Senators are legally trained. Their “female assistant” is legally trained, and was hired for a specific purpose which she fulfilled by the Republican senators. Ford is not a lawyer and did not receive that particular training. Kavanaugh is all about winning at any cost, and has been throughout his life. He was on the cusp of achieving that lifetime appointment to the highest court in the most powerful nation-state in the world that has been his lifelong goal (which he now has). Who had the bigger incentive to lie and the better training for doing so?

    Ford is not the one who sought wealth, power and fame her whole life, Kavanaugh is. Think about it. Kavanaugh told provable lies, and made other statements which are incredibly unlikely to be anything except lies, many times under oath including during these hearings. More reasons I believe she is a lot more likely to be telling the truth, and he is more likely to be the one guilty of fraud, than the other way around.

    “. I don’t have the answers for instant gratification of “win”, but I assure you, what we’re witnessing in our life times cannot be a “win” for John Q Public- or Jane.

    SMH- sad, sad, sad.”

    Well there we fully agree. You couldn’t be more right about that one.

  182. robert capozzi

    wtf: But it seems to me someone has to be very, very sure to take on all those consequences willingly…

    Me: Possibly. Or…she could have a political agenda or insane.

  183. William T. Forrest

    Political agenda seems unlikely since she sent her letter before he was even the nominee and because she knew all along that she may not be able to stop him, and that even if she did Trump still had months of a Republican Senate to get a replacement nominee through and most likely a Republican Senate next term as well. She would have to be very extremely insane, which there are no indications from how she has lived the rest of her life up until now that she is. Add the fact that other women have come forward as well, putting their own lives on the chopping block in the process and that adds to the weight of the evidence that they are the ones telling the truth and that Kavanaugh, a known and proven liar who is intensely motivated by a desire to win at all costs at the point of achieving his lifelong dream, was the one lying.

  184. robert capozzi

    WTF,

    Again, possibly. BK could easily have been the biggest risk because of his view of presidential immunity AND because she ran in the same circles.

    Insanity is often subterranean.

  185. DJ

    WTF: “guilty of fraud. ”

    You seem to be pretty sure of that, yet what is the evidence for that and why would she do it? Keep in mind again that she came forward, albeit anonymously, before he was even selected as the nominee and that she was the one who pushed all along for a full investigation, which she never got. What makes you so certain she is guilty of fraud and what sense would it make, given that she knew what would happen to her personally and that even if Kavanaugh’s confirmation had been stopped that it was just about certain that Trump could successfully get a replacement nominee on the bench before very long?

    Me: I said all of them- her included, and IF she is so well educated how can she be complicit in the *fraud* being perpetrated, daily, in the policies *both* sides subscribe to. I understand, sorta, why politicians do it, but not civilians, even message board posters.

    And, her anonymity was foiled by a fraudster from the Left- someone we’re supposed to trust but instead saw an opportunity to further divide into a left/right paradigm solely for the purpose of self aggrandizing while exposing this lady’s past, who apparently conveniently was kept anonymous until it better served the shit show fraudsters- the whole debacle, start to finish is a shit show. As for Clinton, yes, I’m 70 and remember quite well the lack of outrage from the Left- therefore, to me, this is fake, simply because it’s a Republican, which is how the Left operates- fake outrage because- Trump. And I’m not a Trump fan. I’m not a fan of any politician except Davy Crockett. I detest ALL current members of the political elite- and this lady, being allegedly educated, is either blind, or stupid- the politico’s have an agenda and no civilian should be a part of it. There are much more important issues in this country- like making asses of the public for political gain so the public watches the right hand while the left hand fucks them. There is NO credibility in the gov’t- and this, to me, further makes me believe my views are correct.
    Shit show specialist who will stop at nothing to remain in power- of course when it’s the Left, the media is all over it- until it’s one of their own, i.e. Clinton, Ellison, Booker – and still ignore Kavanaugh’s record choosing to shit show instead.

  186. dL

    Political agenda seems unlikely

    The only political agenda I’m interested in is why so many libertarians have adopted the GOP talking points on the Kavanaugh nomination? His credibility vs her credibility is beside the point to the fundamental issue at hand: the guy is a two-bit authoritarian who is bad news RE: liberty. Just because one set of authoritarians is mean to another set of authoritarians shouldn’t prompt one to start picking sides. If Bret Kavanaugh is the only thing standing between sexual politics armageddon, then politics itself–despite the 3rd party claims to the contrary–apparently is a binary choice.

  187. Chuck Moulton

    I’m against character assassination and partisan gamesmanship. Senators should have voted against confirming Kavenaugh because of his authoritarian judicial philosophy. All of this other irrelevant nonsense is a waste of time. I hate always being put in a position to defend jerks. But when so many people are spouting demonstrable falsehoods, suggesting we throw out the rule of law, and twisting dictionary definitions for orwellian political gain, someone has to speak up for common sense.

  188. robert capozzi

    wtf: politics itself–despite the 3rd party claims to the contrary–apparently is a binary choice.

    me: I’m not sure which Ls have adopted the GOP talking points. I’ve not seen that. In MY case, my point is that this is NOT a binary situation at all. Both narratives have a lot of holes. This was a lose/lose if ever there were one.

  189. DJ

    dl: The only political agenda I’m interested in is why so many libertarians have adopted the GOP talking points on the Kavanaugh nomination?

    Me: What libertarians have adopted GOP talking points? Why have some here adopted Democrat talking points?

  190. Anthony Dlugos

    Me: What libertarians have adopted GOP talking points?

    Really, more specifically its Trump talking points, although yes, Trump and GOP talking points are essentially the same thing at this time.

    But see the “dick in the face is not sexual assault” posts, and the posts where people are feigning indignation at being “forced” to defend jerks, and posts that are essentially bemoaning the loss of wink-wink male privilege.

    The irony is that here and elsewhere, such a message is frequently being delivered by people who were apoplectic about the LP being viewed as disaffected republicans for repeatedly nominating ex-republicans, up to and including J-W, who were being decried by the very same people for their favorable comments about Hillary during the 2016 campaign.

    Such is the reality of thin libertarianism: as it approaches infinity, it sounds exactly like alt-right republicanism.

  191. dL

    I’m against character assassination and partisan gamesmanship.

    one wonders how you manage to make it through the day…

  192. dL

    In MY case, my point is that this is NOT a binary situation at all.

    Obviously, I was being sardonic, here…

  193. dL

    Such is the reality of thin libertarianism: as it approaches infinity, it sounds exactly like alt-right republicanism.

    Complete pulling something out of your azz non sequitur. Last time I checked, Gary Johnson was on record stating that he would vote to confirm Kavanaugh. Jeff Flake, another so-called libertarian-flavored GOP douche that the Cato-Reason boys are trying to recruit to follow in the steps of Johnson, actually had the power to block the nomination of Kavanaugh, but didn’t do it. So, I would proffer that there is something else at play here other than “thin libertarianism.”

  194. Anthony Dlugos

    I’m not talking about a mere affirmation that a particular Senator would take everything into account and would still vote to confirm Kavanaugh. Its possible to make that case.

    I’m talking about the “who cares if he even did do what Ford/Others alleged he did I see no violations of the NAP here.”

    Now, I must go back to reading my new issue of Cato Regulation magazine.

  195. Anthony Dlugos

    In any case, perhaps this is relevant reading to the he-said/she-said Kavanaugh-Ford case:

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-humans-are-bad-at-spotting-lies/

    “And that reality lines up well with what experts who study lying and lie detection would expect: Humans aren’t very good at being able to tell — just from watching someone and listening to them talk — whether they are being told truth or fiction…Instead, research suggests, our interpretations of testimony like Kavanaugh’s, or Christine Blasey Ford’s earlier on Thursday, will be shaped by what we already believe.”

  196. dL

    I’m talking about the “who cares if he even did do what Ford/Others alleged he did I see no violations of the NAP here.”

    Apparently, the length of the thread exceeds the memory duration RE: the original article. It clearly stated what Kavanaugh allegedly did to be force. Now, perhaps there is a disagreement over that classification. But that would only show “as NAP approaches infinity, disagreements over what constitutes force invariably arise,” which is why I don’t particularly think NAP is all that useful. However, NAP is not the only definition of thin libertarianism. There is another that defines it in terms of impersonal duties/obligations(very few). Stretched to infinity or compressed to a singular point, that definition of thin libertarianism is the farthest thing from ethnic nationalism. Unlike, say, respectability/get elected, principle be damned politics, which can easily stretched into any damn thing it wants to be, the alt-right included.

  197. DJ

    AD: posts that are essentially bemoaning the loss of wink-wink male privilege.

    Me: I’ve kept up with this thread and I’ve not seen that – that is a democrat talking point –

    I don’t disagree that there are those who are so inclined, maybe even Kavanaugh, but, there are much bigger fish to fry than personal attacks to garner sympathy for any agenda- and let’s not forget Kavnaugh’s role in the Vince Foster case which was to discredit a witness. That, and his other rulings shows me I’m correct in there being no difference between D and R politicians and it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if in fact Republicans were behind this shit show or were at least aware it was coming- yet, here we are and not one disparaging word about the Left from this forum, and in this country, the Left is the face of big gov’t which Libertarians allegedly despise. I say allegedly because of the use of Democrat talking points like the entire thread filled up with over allegations meant to discredit because- Trump.

    I posted a link above so I guess I’ll repost it since apparently no one has the balls to read it maybe a repost will help.

    That there exists a nebulous group or groups actively working against the wishes of the American people is a difficult concept for a people as conditioned as Americans are to grasp. But anyone telling you there is no Deep State is either blind and ignorant or is lying to you.

    http://src.personalliberty.com/eview/325445/395385090/
    In this article there are “ties” that bind-

  198. paulie Post author

    BK could easily have been the biggest risk because of his view of presidential immunity AND because she ran in the same circles.

    Sounds like a real stretch to believe she would throw her life away for a lie like that, but yes, it’s possible. I’ll say, however, that while possible it’s not likely, and that for numerous reasons stated by myself and others throughout the thread, I believe it’s a lot more likely that he’s lying and she is telling the truth than the other way around. I’ll also agree with the original post that even if she is in fact lying, he still should not have been confirmed for the reasons stated therein.

  199. paulie Post author

    I’m against character assassination and partisan gamesmanship.

    Same here, but I do think character matters in nominating someone to a high office, that what Kavanaugh revealed of his character during these hearings *even if he is being falsely accused* is another among many reasons he should not have been confirmed, and that for many reasons stated all throughout the thread, I think it is far more likely that his accusers are telling the truth than he is. We can disagree on that, that’s OK.

    Senators should have voted against confirming Kavenaugh because of his authoritarian judicial philosophy.

    Fully agreed.

    All of this other irrelevant nonsense is a waste of time.

    Do you agree that it would be relevant if you in fact believed his accusers? Whether you do or not is a separate matter.

    I hate always being put in a position to defend jerks.

    Understandable.

    But when so many people are spouting demonstrable falsehoods, suggesting we throw out the rule of law, and twisting dictionary definitions for orwellian political gain, someone has to speak up for common sense.

    My perspective is that Kavanaugh and those pushing him through were the ones doing that. I think I have explained it enough times throughout this thread why I think that to not bother doing so yet again. If you still don’t agree with me on that, OK, we are not going to agree. For better – or more likely worse – he’s a Supreme Court justice now, his accusers lives are ruined, and there will be a lot of ugliness from both the Democrats and Republicans on judicial nominees going forward, even much more than in the past.

  200. paulie Post author

    In MY case, my point is that this is NOT a binary situation at all. Both narratives have a lot of holes. This was a lose/lose if ever there were one.

    I haven’t seen the alleged holes in the accusers’ narratives. It’s common to not remember all details, be unsure of some parts but not others, or to state or explain the same thing slightly differently at different times. It’s not surprising that people for whom it was one of hundreds of unremarkable small gatherings in their high school years decades ago don’t remember the particular event.

    It’s not surprising that people can have fear of flying yet fly a lot anyway, or that such a fear would be more accute when flying to testify in front of hostile senators and news cameras and millions of people watching after receiving death threats than when going on a vacation or a work conference.

    Now, I will say that one area where I agree with the Republican side on this is that certain Democrats, likely Feinstein or people in her office, conspired to sit on the letter and then leak Ford’s identity to reporters when they were losing and thus put pressure on her to come out in the open and testify, not anonymously. Then lied about it afterwards. They betrayed her trust and destroyed her life, and then in the same speech where Susan Collins defended her tiebreaker for Kavanaugh she praised the roles of Feinstein, Graham and other senators. It was stomach churning.

    Somewhere way up in the thread Jill expressed optimism that Feinstein may lose her place in the Senate for that, but I doubt it, and even if she does I doubt someone much different from her will take her place.

  201. paulie Post author

    The only political agenda I’m interested in is why so many libertarians have adopted the GOP talking points on the Kavanaugh nomination?

    Too many semi-reformed conservatives and/or Republicans.

    His credibility vs her credibility is beside the point to the fundamental issue at hand: the guy is a two-bit authoritarian who is bad news

    Since we all seem to agree about that, naturally it’s the things we disagree about that get more discussion here.

    Just because one set of authoritarians is mean to another set of authoritarians shouldn’t prompt one to start picking sides.

    Of course, they are all mean to each other. That’s nothing new, nor something that should be particularly controversial here of all places.

    If Bret Kavanaugh is the only thing standing between sexual politics armageddon, then politics itself–despite the 3rd party claims to the contrary–apparently is a binary choice.

    He’s a big chunk of making things worse, but far from the only one. The Roberts-Kavanaugh philosophy of deferring to the other branches makes them bad even when it’s D policies in question. For example, if they were merely right wing judicial activists one may have expected them to throw out Obamacare but Roberts preserved it on authoritarian grounds (and with the backdrop of deferring to the other branches). Expect more of the same type of dereliction of duty from Roberts, Kavanaugh and others of their ilk in the future if we get another Democratic administration.

  202. paulie Post author

    rc

    wtf: politics itself–despite the 3rd party claims to the contrary–apparently is a binary choice.

    As best I can tell you are quoting dL, not wtf, and quoting only that part changes what he is saying by omitting context.

    I’m not sure which Ls have adopted the GOP talking points.

    I’ve seen tons and tons of Ls do it in this case and many others.

  203. paulie Post author

    I’m against character assassination and partisan gamesmanship.

    one wonders how you manage to make it through the day…

    I am against a lot of things which I encounter each and every day. Not liking them doesn’t mean I can’t make it through the day though.

  204. paulie Post author

    Last time I checked, Gary Johnson was on record stating that he would vote to confirm Kavanaugh. Jeff Flake, another so-called libertarian-flavored GOP douche that the Cato-Reason boys are trying to recruit to follow in the steps of Johnson, actually had the power to block the nomination of Kavanaugh, but didn’t do it. So, I would proffer that there is something else at play here other than “thin libertarianism.”

    Good point, and very unfortunate on their part. The LPHQ was more solid on this than GJ or certainly flaky Flake. The fact that joke of an FBI investigation satisfied him is rather revolting.

  205. paulie Post author

    I’m not talking about a mere affirmation that a particular Senator would take everything into account and would still vote to confirm Kavanaugh. Its possible to make that case

    From a libertarian perspective?

  206. dL

    I am against a lot of things which I encounter each and every day. Not liking them doesn’t mean I can’t make it through the day though.

    The point is that partisan gamesmanship and character attacks are ubiquitous in politics. It is called a contact sport for a reason. I find the outrage about it in this particular instance quite selective…

  207. paulie Post author

    The point is that partisan gamesmanship and character attacks are ubiquitous in politics. It is called a contact sport for a reason.

    Yes of course it is, and getting worse. One reason why is because Democrats are getting outgamed on gerrymandering, voter list purging, other forms of vote suppression, and the concentration of their votes in urban areas, which causes them to be really mad at a Republican unified minority government with the Supreme Court being the last piece to cement that puzzle. Democrat rage fuels Republican rage and vice versa. The bigger and more powerful government gets, the more it steps on people and destroys lives, the more money it controls, the more it sticks its nose into the personal and economic lives of more people and its goons and guns into more neighborhoods here and more countries all over the world, the higher the stakes get and the nastier the partisan divide.

    There’s also a big gender component to this, with women being far less favorable to both Trump and Kavanaugh in opinion polls, both Kavanaugh and Trump with sexual abuse/harrassment/assault allegations against them, and Trump nominating Kavanaugh to a position many women fear will strip them of their rights. Like Democrat-leaners, women are a slight majority, yet obviously nowhere near the majority where power is most concentrated. They are getting outgamed and outvoted when it comes to the presidency, congress and the courts, and in many places the same thing is happening on the state level.

    And there are age and race/ethnicity components. Although whites are still a majority it’s a diminishing one, and even many of them are in one way or another not like Trump, Kavanaugh or the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee – all 13 of whom combined are identified as white males, older, wealthy, right wing Republicans. I don’t know for a fact without checking but chances are all of them also identify as Christian, straight, and are native born. Demographically and ideologically they are a minority, yet they are who prevailed here. Everyone who is not like them in all of these respects is likely to suffer as a result of Kavanaugh’s rulings in the future for many years to come, and/or suspects that they will.

    So, yeah, a lot of people are pissed off, and that anger begets anger from those on the “other” side which ricochets back and forth.

  208. robert capozzi

    pf: I haven’t seen the alleged holes in the accusers’ narratives.

    me: The ACCUSER’S narrative is different from the predominant D narrative. Her story has understandable holes. People also have flawed memories, agendas, and are insane. The R narrative also has holes.

    The question to me is: What’s fair? Is it fair for a person to besmirch another based on an uncorroborated accusation? I say No. You, apparently, say Yes.

  209. paulie Post author

    Andy Craig
    Yesterday at 10:44 PM

    After the 2016 election and again after the Kavanaugh confirmation, perennial liberal complaints about the Senate and Electoral College have been flaring up. I have no dog in the fight of team red vs. team blue, but as a political science matter it annoys me to see the cause and effect here misrepresented.

    It’s true that both the Senate (heavily) and the Electoral College (slightly) over-represent low-population states. But Democrats who gripe about that aspect as the source of their structural disadvantage are missing the mark, because that’s not why Republicans win more seats (or presidential electors) with fewer votes. Democratic voters are inefficiently distributed relative to Republican voters, because they’re more geographically concentrated. Safe blue districts/states tend to be won by a wider margin than safe red districts/states. A typical safe red district will have ~20-30% Democratic voters, while a typical safe blue district tends to have a percentage of Republican voters in the teens or single digits. That translates into Democrats having more “wasted” votes than Republicans in districts/states they don’t win, and thus why there’s currently a structural disadvantage where Democrats have to win the two-party popular vote by 3-5 points in order to win a majority of seats, not just in the Senate and EC but across the board for House and state legislatures as well.

    That’s an inherent aspect of a plurality-wins/winner-take-all system, particularly with single-member districts, and the same thing plays out in plurality-wins systems that follow a one person, one vote rule in per-capita representation (House, state legislatures). Short of a radical change in American political geography, only some kind of proportional system would avoid this. It’s not because, as the complaint commonly goes, Wyoming has as many Senate seats (/more EVs per person) as California. The net partisan effect of that is minuscule, because Vermont also has as many Senate seats (/more EVs per person) as Texas. For example, the ten smallest states currently send more Democrats to the Senate than Republicans.

    The real cause of the structural disadvantage is that Democratic-majority areas are more lopsided than Republican-majority areas. A Democrat winning a House seat with 80% of the vote gets one seat, and a Republican winning a House seat with 60% of the vote also gets one seat. Even though taking both districts together, the two Democratic candidates got more votes than the two Republican candidates. And if the Electoral College was allocated purely by population (that is, subtracting the two each state gets for its senators), Trump still would have won in 2016 on a minority of the popular vote.

    There’s a strong case that this result is inequitable and lends itself to minority rule, but most Democrats who point out the effect are mistaken about the cause.

    As for my self-interested third-party angle: a proportional system that directly translated percentage of the total vote into percentage of seats, would leave Libertarians often holding the balance of power instead of locked out completely. So I’d happily back an effort from Democrats to, for example, make one or both chambers of some state legislatures elected on a proportional basis. Republicans would lose their minority-rule advantage, and parties outside of the big two would get our seat at the table. If there’s going to be any kind of push for electoral reform from the left, that’s where it should go. Not futile fuming about how each state gets two Senators, or that those Senators are counted for allocating votes in the Electoral College.

  210. paulie Post author

    pf: I haven’t seen the alleged holes in the accusers’ narratives.

    me: The ACCUSER’S

    I had it right, there are more than one.

  211. paulie Post author

    What’s fair? Is it fair for a person to besmirch another based on an uncorroborated accusation? I say No. You, apparently, say Yes.

    The accusations are not uncorroborated. That’s been discussed to death already in this thread. When someone is accused and that someone denies it we have to take both into consideration. It’s not fair to the accused to just automatically believe any accusations, but neither is it fair to the accusers to just say oh well there’s no way to know. There are many additional clues to who is telling the truth that have been discussed to death here. Lots of people have been denied supreme court seats, and for that matter far less high placed jobs, because they are accused of various things, without ever having been convicted, arrested or even sued for those things. It’s far from always fair, but many employers understandably don’t want to even take a chance when they don’t have to. Many supreme court and other nominees have withdrawn for far less, for that matter.

    As for besmirching reputation, I think we should all realize that horse is already out of the barn and has been for a long time. Once the accusations exist they can’t just be wished away.

  212. paulie Post author

    My comment re Andy Craig post quoted above: There are also a lot of issues with partisan/racial gerrymandering of districts which exacerbates this as well as the massive voter suppression efforts of the Republicans and their allies, and that’s without even broaching the hot potato of black box voting (electronic vote manipulation).

  213. robert capozzi

    pf: There are many additional clues to who is telling the truth that have been discussed to death here.

    me: Right. Then the question becomes: Are the clues strong enough to draw a conclusion?

    The Collins standard of “more likely than not” strikes me as reasonable, and it requires much more work. It also seems that reasonable people can disagree about it.

    I’m sure I don’t know the truth. I’m guessing. I lean to Bill Maher’s explanation: That it happened, but that BK wasn’t trying to rape her. He was drunk and horsing around. He was a 17-year-old knucklehead.

    But it’s a guess. The truth might be quite different.

    The Swetnick story seems absurd, given that she’s IIRC 3 years older than BK. 20 year olds generally didn’t hang with HSers, do they?

    This entire lurid episode was completely avoidable had Feinstein used better judgment.

  214. William T. Forrest

    “Then the question becomes: Are the clues strong enough to draw a conclusion?”

    I think so, yes, for reasons stated earlier.

    “The Collins standard of “more likely than not” strikes me as reasonable, and it requires much more work. It also seems that reasonable people can disagree about it.”

    That standard is reasonable but how she applies it isn’t. If she is to be taken at her word she is extremely gullible and sees nothing but good intentions from not only Kavanaugh but her Senate colleagues ranging from Feinstein to Graham. It may not be completely impossible that someone rose so high in politics and maintained a position like Senator while being that naive, but it seems incredibly unlikely to me, even less likely than that Kavanaugh told the truth throughout almost all of his testimony – and that does not seem likely at all.

    “That it happened, but that BK wasn’t trying to rape her. He was drunk and horsing around. He was a 17-year-old knucklehead.”

    He was trying to take off her clothes against her will and covering her mouth to keep her from screaming. On the other hand he was too clumsy to actually manage to get her clothes off and most likely too drunk to fuck. Most likely he did not think of it as rape but where do you think it would cross the line? If you have to cover someone’s mouth up to keep them from screaming I think you have crossed it by that point for sure. And Mark Judge, she remembers, was going back and forth between encouraging and trying to stop him – kind of like the role Jeff Flake played at the end of the nomination process, in a way. If there had been a girl there playing a similar role, she could have grown up to be Susan Collins.

    “The Swetnick story seems absurd, given that she’s IIRC 3 years older than BK. 20 year olds generally didn’t hang with HSers, do they?”

    I’m not sure how old Swetnick is or why she would have been hanging around high schoolers when she was 20, but while it’s not the general norm, yes, some 20 year olds do hang around high schoolers for a wide variety reasons that are really their own business. This site says she is currently 55, which would mean the age difference would be 2 years or potentially slightly less or more depending on when their birthdays are.

    https://nordic.businessinsider.com/julie-swetnick-brett-kavanaugh-third-accuser-2018-10?r=US&IR=T

    The same article says she was going to a community college, so there probably wasn’t the same kind of party scene at the college as there might have been at a 4 year school. It also doesn’t say whether she went straight to community college from high school; maybe she was in between the two. She might have been 18 or 19, so why would it be so strange that she would go to rich kids’ high school parties? Maybe she had better prospects there than at university parties at 4 year schools she was not attending or just found it easier to get invited. Who knows?

    On the other hand yes, Swetnick’s claims are more sensational than the others, and they are being represented by the sensation and publicity seeking Avenatti, so they seem the least solid of the three – but they may nevertheless be true. Ford seems very believable to me, Ramirez pretty believable as well, Swetnick is a tossup.

    “This entire lurid episode was completely avoidable had Feinstein used better judgment.”

    That’s possible. Or maybe some of the other accusers would have come forward anyway. Most likely, it would have been swept under the rug, but then that was the end result anyway, so Feinstein certainly did Ford no favors if she was behind the leaks – which does seem likely.

  215. DJ

    Alleged death threats- lets make that clear- ruining her life, speculation, lets make that clear- a hefty go fund me acct certainly assuages- her mentors, the Left, the face of big gov’t, will provide for her and most likely assured her that from the get-go- because, Trump. It’s a shit show to make people focus on the right hand while the left hand fucks them- divide and conquer, a tactic as old as time.

    What’s surprising to me is those here choose to choose sides. The SC is a joke and given way too much credit- politicians will get their way regardless of it’s rulings. Citizens will get fucked, period. Why? Because lawyers learn how to parse words- “depends on the definition of is” and they are lawyers who have lawyers in training working as staff members. That and citizens weren’t “educated” to care, but were indoctrinated to conform. It’s called education because it does pass on knowledge but it teaches conforming- group think- left/right paradigm. Being forced to conform starts at an early age in gov’t approved indoctrination centers when brains are sponges- that is “a” face of the Left and Republicans in DC are just as guilty, therefore, they too are “Left”.

    SMH- and y’all argue about it, succumb to it and exacerbate it.

  216. William T. Forrest

    ” – a hefty go fund me acct certainly assuages- …”

    There are multiple gofundme accounts allegedly raising money on her behalf. It’s not clear how much of that she will actually get, as gofundme is ridden with fraud. I kind of doubt it will be enough to make up for the loss of her career and quite likely her husband’s career as well, having to move out of their home, attorneys fees, and a security detail (for how long?), having to worry about being physically attacked by people for the rest of her life, disrupting her kids’ lives, problems with being seen in public for the rest of their lives… and it goes on.

    I don’t know why you doubt there are death threats. They may or may not be serious, but when you are the recipient, it’s hard to tell. There are literally millions of fanatical Trump fans, many of them unhinged enough to make threats, not a few with the experience and training to carry them out. She’s is in the public eye of hundreds of millions of people and directly in the path of their storm of hate, many of them just hate women to begin with, and information and hate gets traded on many sites like 4chan and 8chan. The far right actually kills quite a few people, and maims many more. I haven’t actually looked but I will be willing to bet if you go to 4chan or similar forums they will be ridden with plenty of messages like

    “If she thought that was rape wait til we show her what a real rape is”

    “Hey we just hacked her email”

    “Here’s some photo surveillance of her house”

    “My buddy who drives a delivery van just spotted her hideout at a motel”

    And so on.

    These people live for their hate, it’s what sustains them. Many of them are just blowing off steam online and will never do anything in real life, some might issue threats but nothing else, some may be crazy enough to actually carry them out.

    I don’t know why anyone would doubt that threats are happening. I don’t believe Kavanaugh about a lot of things, but I do believe him when he says he has also received threats. Of course, as a wealthy and powerful justice of the supreme court, he will be in a lot better position to handle them than a woman who just lost her whole life basically.

  217. robert capozzi

    wtf: If she is to be taken at her word she is extremely gullible…

    me: I find that to be an arrogant assumption. It’s like saying, “If she doesn’t agree with me, she must be wrong.”

    wtf: He was trying to take off her clothes against her will and covering her mouth to keep her from screaming.

    me: Here’s why my GUESS is that CFB is exaggerating what happened. If a 17-year-old football player — drunk or not — REALLY wanted to take a 15-year-old girl’s off, he could have, I strongly suspect. It MIGHT be that he was pawing her and perhaps trying to cop a feel.

    Importantly, these are just guesses. Coulda been someone else. Could be a fabrication. The certitude I’m hearing from you and PF astonish me, frankly.

  218. William T. Forrest

    “I find that to be an arrogant assumption. It’s like saying, “If she doesn’t agree with me, she must be wrong.””

    No, it’s not like that at all. Her speech, which I watched in full, was ridden with sugary pap not just about Kavanaugh but about the Senate Republicans on the Judiciary committee as well as Feinstein. Sorry if you think this is arrogant but those statements were unbelievably naive, especially for a US Senator with lots of experience around the political class.

    “If a 17-year-old football player — drunk or not — REALLY wanted to take a 15-year-old girl’s off, he could have, I strongly suspect. ”

    He was extremely drunk to the point of having very poor coordination at that point in time, and hindered by her one piece bathing suit under her clothes. I see no reason that would be in any way implausible.

    “Importantly, these are just guesses.”

    They are not *just* guesses, and there’s no point in repeating all the many different reasons why she is more credible than he is; that’s been done enough times above. I don’t think anyone here has said that we can be 100% sure, only that we have strong reasons to believe who we believe. What’s the point of continuing to repeat the same things over and over after he is already on the Supreme Court? This is getting very boring and useless.

  219. robert capozzi

    wtf: He was extremely drunk to the point of having very poor coordination at that point in time,

    me: Listen to yourself. Do you REALLY mean to say DEFINITIVELY that “he was extremely drunk”? Or did you mean, “Perhaps he was extremely drunk…”?

    Poor epistemology leads one astray. Since non-rigorous epistemology is among the largest dysfunctions in our society IMO, I don’t find it boring.

  220. Chuck Moulton

    Amthony Dlugos wrote:

    But see the “dick in the face is not sexual assault” posts, and the posts where people are feigning indignation at being “forced” to defend jerks, and posts that are essentially bemoaning the loss of wink-wink male privilege.

    Unreal how many morons post here who can’t read the dictionary.

    This is pretty much what is going on here:

    Moron: Bob murdered Sam.
    Me: What?! No he didn’t.
    Moron: Yes he did.
    Me: What makes you think Bob murdered Sam?
    Moron: Well, he stole her car.
    Me: That’s not murder. It’s grand larceny.
    Moron: Same thing.
    Me: No it’s not. They have different definitions.
    Moron: Well, close enough.
    Me: You are using a term understood to mean one thing to describe someone who did something not included just to mislead others.
    Moron: Well, “murder” should include car theft.
    Me: Then get the generally accepted defintion changed. Don’t mislead people.
    Moron: It’s close enough.
    Me: No, that is disrespectful to people actually murdered.
    Moron: Why do you condone car theft? You have to be a pretty awful person to favor car theft.
    Me: I don’t favor car theft. I’m against it. I’m sinply pointing out that car theft is grand larceny, not murder.
    Moron: You wouldn’t be wasting your breath talking about this if you weren’t so keen on everyone having their car stolen. You’re a car theft apologist. You probably stole a lot of cars yourself.
    Me: Sigh.

  221. paulie Post author

    What’s the point of continuing to repeat the same things over and over after he is already on the Supreme Court?

    It’s what we do here.

    This is getting very boring and useless.

    Getting? LOL.

  222. dL

    Unreal how many morons post here who can’t read the dictionary.

    Merriam-Webster:
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexual%20assault

    illegal sexual contact that usually involves force upon a person without consent or is inflicted upon a person who is incapable of giving consent (as because of age or physical or mental incapacity) or who places the assailant (such as a doctor) in a position of trust or authority

    I don’t see the word “penetration” in the definition. Your claim that an uninvited dick in the face(with a hand over the mouth) can’t be sexual assault because there is no penetration is not the dictionary definition. So who is the moron?

  223. William T. Forrest

    “. Do you REALLY mean to say DEFINITIVELY….”

    How many more times and ways are you going to ask the same thing? It’s been answered, many times. I do see a small chance she wasn’t telling the truth, but only a small chance. I’ve already explained why. Sorry for using shorthand in explaining why nothing in her story seems hard to believe, including that part. Refer back to the thread why I find her to be much more persuasive than merely not being hard to believe, and the many reasons I find Kavanaugh far less persuasive. It shouldn’t be very hard to do that, so I think I should stop replying to you unless you say something that has not already been covered, and I haven’t seen that in a while now.

    “It’s what we do here.”

    Why? Seriously.

    “Getting? LOL.”

    OK, you got me on that one. Now go jump off a ledge.

    “uninvited dick in the face(with a hand over the mouth)”

    It sounds like you are conflating the Ford and Ramirez accounts.

  224. dL

    It sounds like you are conflating the Ford and Ramirez accounts.

    What I wrote has nothing to do with the who alleged what or who or who is not credible circus.

  225. paulie Post author

    Why? Seriously.

    Same reason you keep responding when you know better. Lastworditis. I’m actively trying to fight my admittedly bad case of this pernicious disease. Obviously not always with success but I’ve made a little progress. The first step is of course to admit it.

  226. DJ

    WTF: There are multiple gofundme accounts allegedly raising money on her behalf. It’s not clear how much of that she will actually get, as gofundme is ridden with fraud. I kind of doubt it will be enough to make up for the loss of her career and quite likely her husband’s career as well, having to move out of their home, attorneys fees, and a security detail (for how long?), having to worry about being physically attacked by people for the rest of her life, disrupting her kids’ lives, problems with being seen in public for the rest of their lives… and it goes on

    Me: SMH- I typed out a long reply then deleted it- I’ll reduce it to- Bullshit.

  227. DJ

    This reminds me of a conversation I’m trying to have on another message board- a lady who claims to have taught critical thinking in college is anti-Trump- she’s all about anti-Kavanaugh and admits Democrats align more with her views, ignoring, obviously, that Democrats are no better than Republicans or vice versa which can be arrived at with just a smidgen of critical thinking-

    Why no focus on his rulings? His rulings are anti- what we call American- he’s been involved in more shit than I can remember for short attention span fools to wrap their heads around- yet, here we are discussing his personality- I first heard the term the politics of personality when Obama was campaigning for his first ascendancy into saint hood- I never imagined how deep that ran- I posted a link above, twice, and nobody here has the balls to read it- it points out Kavanaughs establishment connections that illustrate his rise to political fame, as it were. Yet here we are acting like a bunch of little girls (pun intended) who are just learning the world doesn’t revolve around them- that’s bad parenting- not intellectual discourse- intellectual discourse would involve how to combat his politics- piss on his personality or alleged indiscretions- what’s the definition of is? I didn’t have sex with that woman- I had to dodge bullets getting off the helicopter- the vast right wing conspiracy.

    I must be crazy- I keep posting here over and over expecting different results- and keep getting disappointed- just like Democrats disappoint, just like Republican disappoint- absolutely no discernible difference- even the rhetoric (see this entire thread) is the same- Capozzi and Moulton are the only voices of reason- and I have often disagreed with them on “issues”- but this entire thread (with the noted exceptions) is nothing more that “typical” Democrat/Republican talking point politics of personality. Shallow to say the least.

  228. Tony From Long Island

    DJ: ” . . . . . that Democrats are no better than Republicans or vice versa which can be arrived at with just a smidgen of critical thinking- . . . . ”

    That conclusion can be reached by critical thinking, as can the opposite. It all depends on who is doing the thinking and their cognitive ability.

    DJ: ” . . . . I first heard the term the politics of personality when Obama was campaigning for his first ascendancy into saint hood . . . ”

    Ignoring the smear on President Obama, you must not be very old to have only recently discovered the politics of personality.

  229. William T. Forrest

    “I’ll reduce it to- Bullshit.”

    Bullshit squared. And it stops there.

    “Why no focus on his rulings? His rulings are anti- what we call American- he’s been involved in more shit than I can remember for short attention span fools to wrap their heads around- yet, here we are discussing his personality”

    They have been discussed here quite a bit too, and there’s just isn’t much disagreement about that here. It’s not surprising that people on a discussion forum focus more about what they disagree on than about what they agree on.

    I think pretty much everyone who has commented here so far agrees that his rulings, and his record in the Bush white house, have a lot to be very concerned about.

    Perhaps we disagree about how likely he is to be guilty of the sexual abuse allegations, and if so, we’ll have to disagree – I’m tired of going back and forth about it. Perhaps you also think that *even if he did it* that should not be relevant to getting a position on the Supreme Court. If so, we disagree about that too, and will continue to disagree because that has also been beat to death here.

    But it sounds like we do in fact agree that he should have been disqualified on other grounds, *regardless* of whether the sexual assault allegations are either true or relevant at all. The press release which started this discussion says so, too.

  230. DJ

    WTF: The press release which started this discussion says so, too.

    Me: Playing into- the cult of personality and ignoring the issue of “judging” (rulings) as an establishment statist.

  231. DJ

    Tony: Ignoring the smear on President Obama, you must not be very old to have only recently discovered the politics of personality.

    Me: Don’t ignore the smear- it is what it is. The truth. That said my evolution has covered decades- my political views have been: kind of aware, semi-aware, fully aware, paying attention- I started “paying attention” when Bush jr was in saint hood- I was a life long Republican beginning with >Goldwater< I am 70, will turn 71 in DEC if I last that long, so, no I'm pretty old and ignoring your personal smear against me in which you assumed you were being cute, or smart and being neither – during Bush jr's reign on the throne I began to question why nothing changed- then Obama began his ascendancy to the throne of saint hood (depicted IIRC in his convention appearance) with Romney the countering effort- Obama had him hands down on personality- provided arrogance and condescension is your cup of tea- it ain't mine- but, their rhetoric was selling the same bullshit with different words- at the behest of my oldest son and a couple of posters on another message board I began listening to Ron Paul- terrible personality (IMO) but his "message" made sense- I *had been* a talk show junkie- I drove 18 wheelers cross country and had a lot of time to listen, and *think*- Andrew Wilkow was a favorite and he used the term, which I had not heard *at the time*- Mike Church was a favorite too, but his personality sucked (IMO) but his "message" was libertarian- I began *reflecting* on *me*, as a person and discovered "I" am libertarian- based on issues, not personality- politics, even here, has become cultish- cults require "personality" and are the epitome of group think, which I detest. I don't subscribe to or identify with the left/right paradigm in identity- though, the left, in the US, represents big gov't, which I detest, so that would make me a period's width to the right and my Nolan Chart test backs it- the left/right paradigm is non-existent inside the beltway and the results speak for themselves- both sides of the political aisle subscribe to the same monetary policy which finances the same foreign policy which drives domestic policy which are *the* issues that count- I don't give a flying fuck about a personality- I think it's absurd yet most voters are played using it- and this thread confirms even Libertarian Party members are swayed by it- it's absurd, and discouraging, especially when I look at the intelligence level here- every person here is, I think, (me the exception) formally educated if you "pay attention" to their writing skills, vocabulary, etc. and are "intelligent"- yet, here they/we are because- Trump- personality- I have yet to see a disparaging word about ANY politician on the left- none-zero- nada-zilch- that tells me they favor the left- the face of big gov't in the US- and, this thread (IMO) validates that because it is focused on "personality" of a Trump appointment whose "personality" is in question and side stepping (ignoring, in spite of what WTF says) his rulings- yet not a disparaging word has been uttered about Feinstein w/o whom this would never have even been brought out- she couldn't defeat him (Trump) on merit, or reason so she attacks him personally- the epitome of immature and petulant little girl behavior- but, let's blame Kavanaugh for the "alleged" destruction of Ford- LOL and SMH at the same time- the politics of personality and cult behavior which is *a* big part of THE problem this country faces being epitomized on a Libertarian message board vs being the change you want to see by denouncing the personality bullshit and focusing on the issues, which are exacerbated by the cult of personality politics.

  232. DJ

    Another thing Tony- I’ve disagreed with “issues” here with Capozzi and Moulton, mostly I don’t like Capozzi’s personality because of his use of acronyms in a demeaning manner and I’ve pointed out I think he’s a pseudo-intellectual and arrogant- but I’ll still talk issues with both and in this thread they are the voices of reason- as is Knapp is in his new thread.

  233. William T. Forrest

    Just in case DJ’s scrollbar does not work this is from the text of the press release we are commenting on:

    Well before these serious charges, Libertarians have condemned the nomination of Kavanaugh from day one.

    “Unfortunately, Brett Kavanaugh has a troubling track record of giving a pass to excesses in the war on terrorism,” said Libertarian National Committee Chair Nicholas Sarwark on the day of the announcement. “It’s good that he’s a Second Amendment supporter, but it’s unacceptable that he’s also willing to suspend the Fourth and Fifth Amendments when he deems it necessary.”

    For instance, when Amir Mohamed Meshal, a natural-born citizen of the United States, fled from Somalia’s civil war into Kenya in 2007, he was captured by the U.S. Combined Joint Task Force. The American Civil Liberties Union complaint filed on his behalf claimed that Meshal was “interrogated more than thirty times by U.S. officials who failed to adhere to the most elementary requirements of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991,” and that “U.S. officials repeatedly threatened Mr. Meshal with torture, forced disappearance, and other serious harm.”

    Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion in Meshal v. Higginbotham, which said that although Meshal’s allegations were “quite troubling,” he had no standing to pursue claims that his constitutional rights were violated because he was overseas when it happened, and part of a terrorism investigation.

    “Matters touching on national security and foreign policy fall within an area of executive action where courts hesitate to intrude absent congressional authorization,” wrote Judge Janice Rogers Brown in her decision, with which Kavanaugh concurred.

    “If the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 does not constitute ‘congressional authorization,’ I don’t know what would,” Sarwark said.

    Also troubling is Kavanaugh’s professed deference to judicial precedence. It’s unlikely he would vote to overturn the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873, which created a privately owned butcher monopoly in New Orleans and have been used to justify crony capitalism ever since. He certainly won’t vote to overturn the Gold Clause Cases from the 1930s, which effectively changed the constitutional definition of money from gold and silver to paper and have enabled inflationary monetary policy ever since. Unlimited quantities of newly minted Federal Reserve money have made it easy for the federal government to wage undeclared wars from the Korean War era until today’s endless Middle East wars. It’s doubtful that Kavanaugh will vote to shift war-making powers from the executive branch back to Congress. He claims to be an originalist in his interpretation of the Constitution, but he’s not.

  234. Anthony Dlugos

    pc: Too many semi-reformed conservatives and/or Republicans.

    cm: I am not — nor have I ever been — a Republican or a conservative.

    Many of the most dogmatic NAPists AREN’T semi-reformed conservatives or Republicans. They just end up running interference for them.

    This is not the first time that the worst possible, least logical, most deliberately provocative argument on an issue is shared by the most dogmatic NAPists and the most reactionary conservatives.

    About the time many dogmatic NAPists were trotting out variations of the “dick in the face is not sexual assault” argument, the most reactionary conservatives I know were ALSO proffering what were remarkably similar (if not as extreme) arguments that to me just boiled down to being upset about the perception of a loss of male privilege.

    I don’t think the NAPists INTEND to run interference for reactionaries, but their insistence on philosophical purity gets interpreted by people living in the real world as “semi-reformed conservat[ism],” I.E., republicans who want to smoke pot.

    Its also possible that the average NAPist is just an reactionary who at least implicitly sees in the NAP a way of keeping social structures the way the are now, since they benefit from them. Could explain why a whole lot of NAPists I run into are abortion prohibitionists.

  235. Chuck Moulton

    I’m not a NAPist either. I led the charge to get rid of the NAP LP membership pledge.

    I’m a utilitarian anarcho-capitalist, not a natural rights anarcho-capitalist. They are two independent ways of coming to the same conclusion.

  236. robert capozzi

    AD: the average NAPist is just an reactionary who at least implicitly sees in the NAP a way of keeping social structures the way the are now, since they benefit from them.

    Me: Great point about NAPists being reactionary, but I don’t think that’s their motive. Above all else, the NAPist wants things to be simpler, less complicated. I do, too, but they seem to think that simplification can be achieved through the use of a simple principle, namely, the NAP. They arrive at their simple principle simply, disregarding the current state of affairs and how they got to be the way they are.

  237. paulie Post author

    Chuck, you’re just you, not a cog in a class of people. I don’t think I meant to say that any and all libertarians who don’t believe the Kavanaugh acusers are semi-reformed conservatives. Perhaps I was saying that there’s a large overlap between semi-reformed conservatives and those who say they are libertarians and think Kavanaugh was not treated fairly. But it’s obviously not a 100% overlap, and if however I worded it lent itself to you thinking that’s what I meant I apologize. I think, however, that Dlugos unfortunately does have a valid point there about all too many (but obviously not all) of my fellow extreme libertarians or “napists” or whatever term you want to use.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *