J.C.MacSwell

That said, while I don't agree with blaming the victim for the delay (or never coming forward), I don't see piling on the negatives on Mistermack. Trump has already said and tweated much worse. According to a poll by the Public Religion Research Institute, a little over half of Republicans said they would consider voting for a political candidate who had been accused of sexual harassment by multiple people if they agreed with them on the issues. Conversely, 81 percent of Democrats say they would “definitely not vote for” the candidate. https://www.prri.org/research/abortion-reproductive-health-midterms-trump-kavanaugh/https://www.prri.org/research/abortion-reproductive-health-midterms-trump-kavanaugh/ So...they thus claim over half of the Republicans would consider voting for Trump...pretty solid limb they are crawling out on

She was 15 at the time. You are asking a lot of any victim, never mind a 15 year old one. Ideally they go to the police immediately, whether 5, 15, or 50, but you cannot blame them for staying silent. Ideally, they could be made to feel comfortable and safe to do so, to come forward. I am sure that taking away the rights of the accused is not the way to attempt to help them do so. Maybe it simply cannot be made fair. But at least we can avoid blaming the victim.

It appears to be heading toward a confirmation. I know many of you will be disappointed but I like the reasons given by Senator Collins on her decision. She was one of the few Republicans to call out Trump for mocking Ford.

For me, my default position would be different for a trial and for this or other circumstance, but that would only matter at the point of decision. My starting point would be be to withhold belief or disbelief, which may even be maintained afterward. Also "not guilty" does not equate to "innocent".

Do you really believe Trump would withdraw him even if they did, based on the evidence they have gathered to this point?

Right. She hoped an anonymous uncorroborated allegation would suffice on it's own. If I hadn't seen her testimony I would not have thought this was plausible from someone with a PhD.

Republicans and Democrats. I can see why neither wanted to, especially in a public forum, though for very different reasons, Mitchell maybe not due to time constraints?...but the FBI certainly had the opportunity to, and for some reason chose not to. They had plenty of time to do it even within the limited time they took for the investigation.

Obviously there is more to it than that but, rhetoric aside, that pretty much sums it up.

Understood wrt the bold. Though we have no idea how statistics should enter the discussion of this case in particular. I am not defending Kavanaugh with this argument. I am wondering why the question wasn't raised by anyone during the hearing, or by the FBI in their investigation. Planting disinformation, on it's own, is not a crime.

She might. Or she might not. But it was odd that she would have taken one and not understood how they work, and even after the fact not found out. One would think she would have had a professional interest, on top of the obvious (obvious to me...) one of finding out how much credibility it would add or not add to her allegations.

I based it on watching her being interviewed, and questioned directly on it, and instead of clarifying that she meant closer to what you believe she instead she doubled down on it. It certainly was and is newsworthy and is already a factor in the election campaign. If it is not obvious to you yet it should be soon.

Thanks. I corrected as I realized what you stated.

I reject it as being what Hirono was implying. 2.1% between Clinton and Trump. 7.8 between Trump and everyone else https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-officially-wins-popular-vote-29-million/story?id=44354341 "According to vote tallies from The Associated Press, Clinton amassed 65,844,610 votes across all 50 states and Washington D.C., 48.2 percent of all votes cast. Trump received 62,979,636 votes, 46.1 percent of all votes cast."

Are you not able to see there is a middle ground missing in those statements? Due process includes hearing someone out...while suspending both belief or disbelief...at least it used to.

Bollocks yourself.The intended context by Hirono was obvious. I'm not suggesting you don't weigh in though, even if you don't understand that.

Hirono had plenty of opportunity to make clear the context you are suggesting. She did not. The strong and intended implication was to "shut up" (her words) and take without question any statement made by an accuser. That was the message she wanted sent out to the country, not one of a reasonable call to withhold judgement. ...and yes, I would argue in support of the OP, a reasonable, moderate and balanced position IMO.

Straw Lady in this case... From the CNN article linked in my second post: Sen. Mazie Hirono said her message to men in this country is to "just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change" and later: "Not only do women like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard, but they need to be believed. They need to be believed," Hirono said her Democratic colleagues Tuesday at a news conference on Capitol Hill.

Hi Moontanman Sorry for the losses in your community. Glad you are safe. I hope your new normalcy is bearable and things trend upward

I guess that should be "disqualifying".

1. I think we can agree that attempted rape would be disqualifying. 2. I think we can agree that openly condemning a single party is very troubling 3. I can't agree that the temperament shown Thursday is disqualifying under the circumstances. Look no further than who you Americans (I am assuming by your location) have elected President of the U.S. But I would hope you would not equate 1. and 3. I am surprised you can't agree with that.

I agree with the bold. In fact I think it is more of a concern, by a huge margin, than any temperament issue. But do you not agree that the alleged attempted rape was much worse if it was true?

I disagree. If the alleged assault is true, that is much worse.

I have been wondering if this latest bit with Kavanaugh isn't playing into the GOPs hands? Trumps latest mocking of Ford doesn't help there cause but to a great extent this has already been factored out...people are actually giving Trump credit when he simply acts like a civil human being...and otherwise expect the worst type of behaviour. I suspect the latest "proven guilty when accused" until otherwise proven innocent, even where that proof may not even be possible, and the denigrating of "white men" shouldn't sit well with fair minded people. They certainly don't reflect traditional liberal values. There are good reasons behind some of what they are voicing but they are overstating their case, and this worst of the "left" just feeds and justifies (in some minds at least) the worst on the "right".

I don't agree with that. Assuming he is innocent (which I am not) he shows no lack of integrity to fight this. i would like to think that something like this could not happen in Canada, but of course it would be possible (though different system). One thought though is that our third party would have a field day if the other two parties acted in the current manner of the Democrats and Republicans. I have also been appalled by the obvious biases of the press and media on both sides. It has been terrible. Where can you go to get reliable News from the U.S. these days?

first bolded: If she has proof that naming Kavanaugh predates his nomination that does lend credence (but not proof, of course) to her allegations but says nothing about how she is being used by the Democrats. Second: I agree. Credit to the (much too) few Republicans that have called Trump out on it. No problem. I didn't have it backwards but it did come from both sides, as INow's link makes clear.