Its a big leap to "rape" vs consensual 3-some. Maybe the committee should have asked the person that wrote it in his yearbook to determine what it meant.

I'm with you, never heard of it until last week ... but admittedly I wasn't a jock and wasn't getting the action he apparently was.

I kinda agree with this. Regardless if the 3 accusations are true, I'm pretty sure he lied (but not sure that can be "proven").

Yup, agree with this. Most people would understand.

I'm not sure I'd previously heard of it, but as soon as I heard the phrase it I kinda had an inkling what it might be.

I HAVE heard of an Eiffel Tower though.

Why didn't they try that against Gorsuch last year then? There are dozens of qualified conservative judges with temperament worthy of being on the Supreme Court who didn't likely perjure himself.

Because there was no use trying to delay - what were they delaying for? This year, the arguable basis is trying to get to midterms, hope for a sea change in Congress, and push back against the nominee. None of that was available last year. McConnell checkmated them last year and they had no answer. This year, they have a viable strategy.

Yes, that was point. Obviously. The comment I was responding to suggested it was a commonly known term. I would disagree.

I have a general question - who in the hell keeps all of this crap? Do any of you have letters you wrote about parties, keep calendars from high school, etc.? I can think of one letter I have from about 25 years ago, that I wrote to my aunt, that was returned to me by my uncle after my aunt died, in which I told her about this girl I was dating who I was pretty sure I was going to marry (and did, about 7 years after I wrote it). That's it.

These people are hording 35 year old "let's go party at the beach this summer" letters? Why?!

He's a jock douche desperately holding onto his glory days?

Anyways, publicizing that letter seems pretty pointless to me.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...-rally-n916061

The leader of "the greatest most awesome country eeeeever", ladies and gents.

This is where I am with it. As has been said, if he'd taken a different tack at the hearing, things would be different. I'd be defending him, inasmuch as I consider the need for originalist judges the single greatest imperative in modern politics, don't think there should ever have been a hearing, etc. A Supreme Court Justice must be someone who consistently tells the truth though. Occasional misstatements, ok. Pattern of lying, regardless of circumstances, absolutely not ok.

It had a wiki page that someone saw fit to edit after the fact to include the definition that Kavanaugh made up. Plus some in his circle of friends have already said it referred to a threesome.

There's a Wiki page for Pornogrind, too, but I don't know that I would posit that as proof that the term is known to the general public.

I'm not even arguing that he likely didn't know what it meant. I just made a throwaway comment that I was not familiar with the term that you chose to blow up into a point that I wasn't trying to make.

I'm pretty much in the middle on Kavanaugh. I don't care whether he's confirmed or not. I'm just sitting back and watching the whole circus with a mix of sadness and amusement. I don't know that he's credible/believable on a variety of issues, and I don't know that any of his accusers are specifically credible in terms of his involvement in anything they've alleged. The only certainty I can point to is that both of the political sides have little regard for the truth, so long as they accomplish their big picture objective.

In a world where there are clones of him that don't have this issue, wouldn't you prefer any them? I don't know why this specific aspect of it needs to be partisan.

I'm not looking for a liberal judge right now(just not going to happen),one that has the minimum abilities to do the job would be nice though.

In a normal administation, Amy Coney Barrett would be sailing through confirmation after Kavanaugh withdrew.

So, "both sides" and all that, right?

That's lazy and BS. There are plenty of easily accessible reasons and decisions that Kavanaugh has been involved in that reasonable people could oppose him for, rather than just trying to pull a McConnell.

It's fun though that you have already decided that the Dems are just in this to block ANYONE, not this specific asshole.

Is there any Trump nominee you think the Democrats wouldn't try to block at this point?

Well you teed that up nicely...:popcorn:

Merrick Garland?

I don't think he's on Trump short list at the moment.

Just off the top of my head, I think that Hardiman would get the Gorsuch treatment--sound and fury at the hearing, but ultimate confirmation with some Dem votes.

dola.

I think that there are two points people are ignoring.

1. The Senate confirmed Gorsuch with Democratic votes for the "Garland" seat. If they weren't willing to burn it down for that, then it isn't about them.

2. But for Dr. Ford coming forward, Kavanaugh would be on the Court right now. He was sailing through confirmation.

I just don't see the evidence for "they will do this to any nominee," and I see a decent amount of evidence cutting the other way.

IDK if sailing through includes sound & fury & 90% of Dem Senators voting against her, but day one of his nomination before all this stuff I was hearing how Kavanaugh would ban abortion due to his Catholic faith, and Barrett is also Catholic. She'd probably be better than Kavanaugh, but that's also during her confirmation for a circuit court which has no authority to overturn Roe v Wade. I imagine it'd be a lot more of the same if she was nominated and seen as the potential swing vote for that on the Supreme Court

I completely disagree. The Dems had no ability to hold up Gorsuch, so they didn't. The argument for delaying any Republican nominee at this stage is the midterms. To me, it's clear.

Now, I'm a "to the victor goes the spoils" kinda guy, so I think what McConnell did in 2016 was BS just like I think the Dems delay strategy this year is BS. But for what it is, it seems fairly transparent to me.

Barrett and Hardiman would both get through, with the former having a more contentious hearing. Collins would naively say that neither of them will overturn Roe, when I think they are all more likely to overturn it than Roberts.

The Dems also have no ability to hold up Kavanaugh. But for some GOP Senators, he'd already be confirmed.

Agreed, but based on the timing, they decided to play the best hand they could to try to delay until the midterms, in hopes that the results would alter the balance of power before the nomination could be confirmed. My point is, they had no such potential end game in 2016 so they let Gorsuch go. It may not be a winning hand, but they stretched it out as best they could. Perhaps if they had come up with something more substantive (in terms of evidence), they would have succeeded.

Wasn't a lot of it built around all those documents that were needlessly marked as confidential and not provided to the committee, as well as a ton of documents also only having been provided at the last minute?

I agree Hardiman would probably get the most bipartisan support and seems to align closest to my views from that list, (plus he's a non-Ivy Leaguer from the Boston suburbs!), but he was also nominated to the Circuit Court back in the innocent less partisan days of the Bush Administration, when Circuit Court vacancies weren't yet a political battleground & competency alone seemed to be enough.

Barrett or Kavanaugh? Before the personal stuff came up the documents were a huge issue during the initial judiciary committee hearing for Kavanaugh (with Booker & Harris kind of playing to the 2020 Dem electorate, Cornyn from Texas iirc threatening Booker with disbarrment from the Senate, etc), but the 3 places the Dems seemed to be planning to attack were his partisanship during the Clinton impeachment, his belief in nearly absolute Presidential authority (when Dems are really hoping they can impeach Trump in 2019-20), and most importantly the belief he'll overturn Roe v Wade (which they've tied in to his Catholic faith and wanted personal correspondence released, because he's not on record much there).

I confess I wasn't paying attention during Barrett's confirmation process to know how it started, though she put a lot of stuff out in public law review articles when at Notre Dame, and the questions from Feinstein seemed centered on those. That NYT "bombshell"?/claim was put out very late in the process - I suspect if she's nominated for the SC a lot of people who've never heard of People of Praise (I sure hadn't - don't get mad Butter) would have very strong opinions on them quite quickly.

The conspiracy behind the timing is interesting. It seems to suggest months ago Dems in power knew all this info on Kav, they thought it so truthful they then thought how to weaponize it. The Dems secretly decided to hold off, knowing Ford will testify, others will come forward and the public to will be outraged. That's seems like a lot, for a group that was remarkably flaccid during Garland and Gorsuch and a president who is very good at controlling the narrative.

Your point is wrong.

Pre-Trump GOP members are having real problems with today's political climate. It's not so easy to just blame Democrats for everything and claim "both sides" have problems and call it a day, like it used to be when the Clintons were the easy boogeyman. Hell, Kavanaugh himself used them, something that seemed straight out of a Fox News talking points memo. This BS will keep going on and on like this until some people break from the right and join the center and stop the toxic partisanship that is gripping the country.

It's just not both sides. If you want to keep deluding yourself that it is, then feel free. It sounds like you are almost already there.

If you can't see that there is anything wrong with Kavanaugh the nominee based on his demeanor and answers at the Congressional hearings vs. what has been revealed about him (sexual assault allegations notwithstanding) elsewhere, then we'll have to agree to disagree. Vehemently.

An absolute bonus is that there are mid-terms coming up. But it could be argued that Trump brought this on himself, as it appears that Kennedy was trying to beat the mid-terms by retiring when he did.

The intimation that is there that I wish people would just come out and say, is that the Democrats had some hand in totally making up these charges. If that's the case, then just come out and say that's what you think happened instead of beating around the bush.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means they came up with the best delay tactic they could on the fly, struck gold with Ford and held it as long as they could so that a proper investigation couldn't be done over a month before the confirmation hearings.

Perhaps in a perfect scenario for the Republicans, the Dems would have had nothing and just opposed on the merits of his positions. However, Ford came along and changed the equation - which they knew early on. Whether or not she testified, this was going to be the hill the Dems died on. But, the power of politics being what it is, all it proves to me is that even the Dems didn't give a crap about Ford - they knew she would be forced to testify in front of the nation and still went down that path.

You can fuck off.

The point was that many classmates of Kavanaugh's say that IN THEIR CIRCLE the phrase was known to mean male-male-female sex.

But I am sure I am just being irrational and a partisan hack, and I'm sure ol' Brett was being super-truthful and naive, like when he totally didn't start a bar fight or wrote a letter about being a loud, obnoxious drunk.

Yeah, we'll just have to disagree that this is a Republican-only problem. I am anti-Trump, didn't vote for him before and certainly will not in the future. I'd be happy if he resigned tomorrow. So my comments are not politically slanted in an attempt to come off as unbiased. I haven't voted for a Republican for President since before Obama - haven't brought myself to vote Democrat either, but that's probably more on them than me at this point. I do think it's laughable that you think "joining the center" simply means switching my vote to the other party, though. Seeing US politics in this simplistically stupid, black and white, them or us way is how we got where we are, IMO.

I don't really have an opinion on Kavanaugh, mainly because whether it's him or someone else just like him, it doesn't change much in the grand scheme of things. I'd be perfectly fine with him being replaced at this point. Once you've become as disillusioned with the entire political spectrum as I have, it's hard to argue for character when the votes/decisions are still going to come out the same in the end. Who's character are we judging anyone against these days, anyway? They are all unprincipled scumbags.

As for the last point, I don't believe Dems made this up at all. I believe they are guilty of using Ford and contributing to the unfortunate experience she's had to go through in front of the country, but I haven't seen anything that suggests some big conspiracy to have her lie about this incident. I agree that opinion's out there, but that's not my opinion.

I've already said I believe something happened to her. I don't have enough evidence on either side to judge whether he or she is lying about that specific incident. Just because the dude partied a lot doesn't make him an attempted rapist. So on the flipside, this idea that yearbooks, calendars, and 35 year old letters somehow "prove" her allegations, is likewise an untenable position to hold, IMO.

And the point that KSyrup has been making and I piled on to is that him saying he hasn't heard of something isn't saying Kavanaugh hadn't heard of it. Getting super emotional and yelling at us doesn't help your contention that Democratic supporters are truthful angels and partisanship is now a one sided problem...

Had an interesting conversation with a guy at work today. He a very left leaning Dem.
He doesnt believe Ford, stating reconstructive memory. No one can remember exactly what happened that long ago. He said this is how you go after these guys. You hit the tabloid aspect of it. Sex is what people respond to and listen to.
He believes Kavanaugh should not be on the SC, which I agree with, but his reason was one I wasnt aware of.
Seems Kavanaugh was heavily in debt. He had $250k in credit card debt (baseball tickets), that was paid off in the last couple years. Guy couldnt pay it off before, but somehow it went away. Well, we all know how it got paid off. But people wont respond to accounting and math. They will respond to sex.
Same thing happened in the Greitens case. Had to bring sex into it to make people pay attention to all the dark money that guy was getting.

Sad commentary on our society.

What does your friend from work do for a living?

He is a teacher. I know where you are going. But memory is a complicated thing. And like unset cement, it is vulnerable for the first few hours after an event. While I believe something happened to Ford, I think she is going after the wrong person. As most of her testimony indicates.

Again, Kavanaugh is not the right guy for this position, but I think he is a victim of a witch hunt. The left should have gone after his financial issues to show he is unfit.

But as I said, the average person isnt interested in finances like they are tabloid stories.

Well if you know where I am going you shouldn't have used that silly anecdote in the first place.

The point is, that memories can change, especially if you are being coached. Again, I believe something happened to her. I also believe that the dems coached her into thinking who it was.

I think this is a witch hunt, and the dems should be going after him about his finances.

Im not sure why there is such a feeling that he did this. But there is no evidence that supports her claims.

The dems missed their chance when the went all in on this claim. It was a colossal misplay that further divides the country. Then again, I think this is the agenda for the left. Divide and conquer.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

The LEFT wants to divide and conquer? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA (now if you said, the fringes on both sides want to do that, you MAY have a bit more of a point, )


And she does have evidence that there was an assault, the years of therapist notes long before this became an issue.

This may be the most ludicrous thing I have read in this thread.

Have you not noticed the overall climate in this country since November 2016? Do you think it's a coincidence?

People may have not liked Obama, but he NEVER used the kind of rhetoric Trump does to divide the country.

There a couple of unfounded accusations being made.

1 - Ford has never claimed to have repressed memories. She has been clear she remembered the event from the time it happened, she just didn't tell anyone until much later.

2 - There is no evidence of any coaching by Dems, and if there was it would have had to have happened years ago, before she told her therapist. How exactly would that have worked?

The left has done its share of fanning political flames.

God no shit, can his post be any more tone deaf and oblivious to the level this admin has taken that agenda to?

Just Fox News poisoning. It inflicts many.

I can't even imagine what kind of bubble someone lives in that they actually think the left is the reason for the division we have ( not the FAR left, fringe supporters on either side are always responsible for a certain level of division). Not to mention their example of why Ford isn't credible is that one dem from work who is completely unqualified to make an assessment on her testimony thinks she is confused.

yep.

My mother in law suffers from it.

I am currently in my own personal hell. We just sold our house in Oregon and have been staying with my in laws since July waiting to buy a house in NJ. She has Fox News on all day and any time you try and have a discussion with her all she does is regurgitate the shit she hears. She doesn't even realize she is doing it.

I have started wearing earbuds and listening to the radio because I can't take it.

What are you basing that claim on? Is this something you know, you learned, you experienced?

From my experience it’s total bullshit. I’ve known literally dozens of teenage girls sexually assaulted (again my school is a small program that specializes in providing students with trauma and emotional issues a more supportive and rigorous environment). Never, not once, has there been a total mis-remembering of the key people. While who did what and when has at times been out of order, the people were never confused.

Even the teens who were making years old/childhood accusations (molestation) for the first time never confused who it was.

I so happy to hear Jim Hopper on npr last week The Effects Of Sexual Assault On The Brain : NPR . He is one of the best experts on sexual assault and the brain and totally contradicts your claim. My program has used his materials and done his training.

So I’m a bit triggered when I read a claim like the one you made. The fact it is so common, I think there is something cultural behind it. Not sure if it is this existential threat against all men, like trump suggested yesterday, or just tribalism, or...

To personalize it even more, I really hope if a family or friend ever confides in you about a traumatic event you can listen, offer help and not doubt them because their memory is “unset cement”.

I was going to go with the fringes of both sides. But, really, it is just both parties. Its time for a multi party system

Again, there is no supporting evidence that Kavanaigh did this. And Im sure she was assaulted, I think that her memory is incorrect on who did it and the dems jumped on it.

Are you serious? Obama started it. When he refused to back the police when all the shootings went down and was supporting the criminals, that was the beginning of the divide. I blame Obama for where we are. In fact, Obama is the reason Trump was elected. He divided the country to the point it pissed off a whole bunch of people that wouldnt even have voted in 2016, to the point that they came out elected Trump.

It's amazing how conservatives have no agency and are simply forced to take questionable actions by Democrats. They don't want to, but they have no choice.

Were you listening to what Obama said, or what Republicans stated Obama said?

What President Obama really thinks about the police - The Washington Post

Hold on, the phone is ringing, it's 2008....

Flashback: McCain tells supporter Obama is 'a decent... - YouTube

He is pretty connected into the political system in our state and deals with politicians on a regular basis. He is in the state office of the NEA.

His other comment was "I dont say this around my liberal friends" before he said he doesnt believe Ford.

That was pretty telling. Just like this discussion. You guys swallow the party line just like you accuse me of. Again, the hypocrisy of your party.

You believe her because it fits your agenda. You dont want another conservative judge. And I dont disagree with that. But there is no evidence that this happened. There are no witnesses. This is a case of he/she said.
You are going all in with this. I suggested that this was the wrong point for the dems to sell out on. His finances should have been the issue raised. He has dark money coming from somewhere (Trump) and that is a dangerous thing, especially, for the office he has been nominated for.

I do not believe he assaulted Ford. I believe she was assaulted. The dems are wrong here. And they are further dividing the country. I hope it is worth it.

How does him being connected to the political landscape lend any credibility to his statements about how memories are formed? It’s like me asking my plumber for tax advice because he is use quickbooks to track his billing.

Perception is reality.

While this article does high light the that Obama was generally supportive of police, it also shows the dumb things he said and did. So when I talk about this stupidity of his words and actions, it is the same way you guys point out the stupidity of Trumps words and actions. And how divisive Trump is. Which I agree with. But sayong that Obama had no part in this is plain wrong. His words and actions, that the GOP jumped on, is what started the division.

The article ends saying its politics. But these politics led to the division of the country.

Why so many critics of President Obama insist that he hates police officers - The Washington Post

Sigh. Im saying she doesnt remember who did it. Im saying this a political attack using this woman who was assaulted and hung around Kavanaughs group, as a pawn. Im saying this is politically motivated by the dems. IMO, her memory of who did it is wrong. All we have to go on is what she said. And ruining someones career over an accusation of something that may or may not have happened 37 years ago is wrong. If you cant see that, I pity you.

Why is her word more trustworthy than his on this matter? Oh yeah, because he is a white male. I forget that sometimes.

You keep saying this. Are you her psychiatrist? Do you have inside information that no one else does? You cry about no evidence but then concoct some weird conspiracy theory that her mind is playing tricks on her. Actually I shouldn't say you concocted it, it's been one of the right-wing talking points where you get your views from.


Because she has nothing to gain from this. And because he has repeatedly lied under oath about other stuff. Typically when deciding who to believe, I'll take the one who isn't constantly lying about easily refutable stuff.

And good lord, the "white male are the real victims" stuff. How many hours of Fox News are you pouring into your brain?

You keep spouting, so I guess I will too. You are being feckless. You have taken the humanity out the situation and turned into vile fodder for political titillation- or whatever your getting out of posting.

Your certainty suggest there is no room for empathy, you’ve got it all figured out- Dems bad, women weak, men victims.

Again, if you are making your claim on real evidence or experience, then share it, I shared where I’m coming from. Otherwise, please try and post in comic sans so we know not to take your opinion seriously.

Yes, that's why he was elected. A bunch of people saw the police weren't being supported and decided to elect a criminal who was surrounded by other criminals in his campaign. The same guy who tweets almost daily about his disdain for our federal law enforcement agency and how unfair it was that his criminal associates are being sent to jail.

Jesus fuck, why would you ever think anything so stupid as that? I mean, I'm thirty years out from high school myself, and I guarantee that I remember every physical interaction with a girl I had during high school, even the one-time "making out at a party" dates. And if I can remember the consensual ones, I'm pretty sure girls can remember the non-consensual ones, because those tend to stick out in the mind on account of being, you know, traumatic.

I guarantee my college roommate remembers the person that raped him.
I guarantee my sister remembers the guy whose nose she broke when she was sexually assaulted 27 years ago.
I guarantee my wife remembers the creepy guy three times her age who tried to groom her by buying her sex mags and dildos when she was a 16 year old at her first job.

Your claim that Ford can't remember who treated her like that is easily the most vile, evil, sickening thing I've ever read from anyone on this forum.

And Jon's been here for twenty years.

Excellent post. Your conclusion is on point as well.

All that matters is what Fox News says about Obama. That muslim foreigner couldn't to be trusted. The end. Facts haven't mattered in so long.

tarcone,


Just... just back away.


Sit down. Be humble.

You do know women have misidentified their attackers in the past right?

For example: https://www.democratandchronicle.com...tion/29668953/

As far as Kavanaugh and Ford is concerned I'm not going to pretend I know what the truth is with the numerous articles I have read.

Did you know about this case or searched for it?

I think before Fords testimony/ detailed letter the public had every right to be skeptical. But I’m saying what was said and how she gave her testimony is completely consistent with a sexual assault victim. If she gave answers like Kav did, then yes, totally different situation.


So in your post it says “Peacock could provide no specific details about the sexual assault.“. That is nothing like the Ford, it was all about her specific details and his lack of them.

When did I say that? It's nice for you to laugh it off as a "stupid, simplistic" world view, but it has to start somewhere. For now I would take just a few senators at this point to come out against Trump. I honestly thought that by this point there would have been a few with a backbone, but it hasn't happened. That's who the real fight should be against, he and his tactics and ideology. I am no supporter of Bernie or the far left, that's for sure, and if the Dems shift that way I'll be right there against it.

On what basis are you making this claim? You're implying, again, that these were repressed memories, but she has always said she remembered the event but didn't tell anyone. According to her she has been clear on the identity of the assailant since she was fifteen.

Where was that his point? His point seemed to be that if he hadn't heard of it, it seems reasonable to believe that Kavanaugh also hadn't heard of it, and you would have to be able to come up with some kind of proof that he had heard of it. No one is trying to charge him with perjury, but we ARE trying to determine his fitness as a nominee, and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that points in a negative way, not the least of which is his reticence to answer a lot of direct questions about his teenage/college years. Instead choosing to become argumentative with those who would dare question him.

Also, I'm getting emotional about your stupid fucking jab at me, so my previous post stands about what you can feel free to do or not do.

Any sliver of credibility you had is gone with that last statement. Way to regurgitate the latest Trump soundbite. Poor, white men have it SO tough. What a joke.

She was calm and composed, as composed as someone in her spot could be. She answered every question she was asked.

BK on the other hand made this absurd opening statement, went after the Dems and the Clintons ( despite claiming he is neutral with regards to politics), then during his questioning from the committee yelled, berated, deflected, and threw back questions in senators faces. To the point he had to apologize to one of them after a break.

If you watched the testimony and came away with her being the confused one and him being the honest choir boy then you have zero ability to judge someones character.

I generally now have given up interacting online with people on politics and want to be respectful of peoples opinions but are you fucking kidding me!

Why isn't anyone talking about this bombshell NYT piece? It's the first taste of all the info that we've been missing, and it's the first true bit of fact that has always been suspected. Now it's out there and what, it's not big enough?

It's fairly common right wing rhetoric that Obama was the great divider of our country. My FIL spouts the same shit Tarcone has about Obama and Kavanaugh because he gets his news from Fox and Facebook. He also blames liberals for everything.

I have been nursing another theory about the state of division, the deep, deep "us vs. them" mentality in America that is so quick to demonize those we disagree with and completely cloud our perception of reality through partisan lenses. What began the state of affairs that most of us only believe Fox News or CNN, but despise the other as discredited?

You could probably trace such things back to Burr v. Hamilton, if you wanted to, but I'm talking about the current generation of adults. And you could likely trace a number of our current divides back to the Vietnam War, as most of our college professors and media gatekeepers had their worldview shaped during that time period. But even more recently, how did we learn to hate one another?

I trace it to the 2000 election, Gore v. Bush. Right or wrong, the court decisions that led to Bush's victory began a narrative that the election, indeed the nation, was "stolen." Among the American left, there was a sense of disillusionment, even betrayal, by our government.

People were very angry. And it came out, sometimes passive aggressively, but it came out in how our media, especially, treated Bush. For the first time in my memory, a president wasn't treated as an election winner, but as an "illegitimate" president. From that anger, that betrayal, came SNL and others lampooning a president like I had never seen. He was mocked, derided, and it was uglier than many remember.

But this, in turn, pissed off America's more right-leaning types. They began to see the national media/entertainment complex as united against their president. As openly biased and uncredible. The "us v. them" mentality began to really set in, as Republican-leaners felt the culture had begun to persecute them.

Then, the Obama election. On one side, the opportunity to finally vanquish the "illegitmate" president and right a long-standing betrayal. On the other, the media's fawning, overtly biased coverage of Obama only confirmed the "us v. them" complex and the distrust of news sources.

Then, what did many on the right do? Began to question Obama's "legitimacy" as a president. Oh, how that pissed off the left. YOUR president is illegitimate! No, YOUR president is illegitimate! The us v. them camps solidified.

Then comes Trump. At a critical time when our nation needed a healer to fix this bitter, bitter, ugly divide ... we got instead the personification of that divide. A man who would slander, lie, and revile anyone who disagreed with him.

Obama's earlier comments about flyover country where people "cling to the guns and their Bibles" were still stinging in middle America and the South. Hillary's "deplorables" comment was essentially a final straw. The right believed the left mischaracterized them, hated them, and they were willing to back a candidate that would give it right back.

Finally ... Twitter. Might as well be putting blood in the water.

But my theory is that the 2000 election really kicked off a cycle of elections not as mood swings in a nation ... but as revenge. Obama was revenge for Bush. Trump was revenge for Obama. And is there any doubt that many in the left today are looking at these Midterms as revenge for Trump?

We've become the Hatfields v. McKoys. And I don't think it was Obama who fired the first shot. I think the 2000 election was the bomb that blew up, and people on both sides thought it was the other side that shot first.

I actually believe the current division in the country is largely because of the shifting social beliefs of the majority. The country is in the process of shifting from center right to center left on most social issues. Obama just happened to be the president when things like legalized gay marriage, legalized Marijuana, and along with allowing gays into the military became a thing. These were going to happen eventually with or without Obama, and he had no control over some of the social changes we saw over his 8 years.

Those hanging onto those longstanding social beliefs felt alienated and Trump was able to tap into those vulnerabilities by attacking the PC culture, the belief that Christian values are under attack, and convincing some that racist and mysogynistic views aren't really wrong but instead what makes us proud Americans. Those attacks on minorities, women, gays, ect have pushed the left further to the left while the right feels they're correcting 8 years of Obama's oppression.

Edit: I wanted to add that the rise of social media has also given young people a political platform they never had before and old white guys are struggling with how to handle it. All of these things have played major roles in the increasing division of this country. You could also get into the fact that the current minority party that has won the popular vote in the general election once in the past 26 years has complete control of the government. The list goes on and on as to the causes, but I believe the root cause is the social shift we're seeing.

Dude, they fucking impeached Clinton. Bush was hardly the first president people thought was illegitimate.

One of my theories is that people who blame Obama for dividing the country just don't want to come out and say that they didn't like a black President and therefore were open to voting for a white nationalist (those that still hold onto birtherism even more so).

sex sells? If the Kavanaugh nomination wasn't happening right now, this would have been covered more I think. Tax talk is pretty boring in comparison. If there's more of an investigation by the IRS/NY State, I think this will get covered more.

Yes, I considered taking it back there. I definitely think that the impeachment was a major piece of kindling in the anger over the "stolen" 2000 election.

But the impeachment ultimately failed. It didn't remove a president or instill one, so I don't find that argument as persuasive. And I didn't hear much "illegitimate" talk over Clinton (and I was a Rush Limbaugh listener at the time), while that barb has been traded with every president elect since - Bush, Obama, and Trump.

On the division of politics and people in America, I agree with both Revrew and Atocep to a degree. However I feel like the political climate would have been ripe for this at any point in our country's history.

The flame to that gasoline has been the internet, instant access to unvetted communication/information and ability to share unfounded beliefs from your car in front of Walmart. The savvy ones actually building up a brand around their nonsense, which gets confused with credibility. Even the ability for average Americans to see how the sausage is made, so to speak. Some of it is ugly, but necessary.

It's why a China seeks to control the internet like they do. I certainly believe their should be zero censorship, but at the same time it's clear humans as a whole don't have the capability to use a powerful tool like the internet for anything but destruction(and making money at the expense of others). Our ability to adapt and survive before civilized society does not translate well to where we are today.

Like everything it seems, no single problem and any real solution would require total control of the masses. Us humans just continue to evolve and blindly find our way.

There was a political writer (I forget who) who said that the social media incentives are perverse. You get followers by picking a tribe and posting/sharing tribal orthodoxy.

So you build up a ton of followers who expect that. And every single time you post something that deviates from that orthodoxy, you lose followers.

Since followers are basically how you convince advertisers to pay you, you have a very strong incentive to just keep posting the same echo chamber shit (or at least to just be silent if you really disagree with what your team is doing).

There is plenty of evidence that the current levels of division started with the moves by Gingrich to have Jim Wright removed as Speaker of the House, then accelerated following the 1994 midterms. It has been a continual downhill trend since toward polarization.

This is spot on, IMO. It's allowed people to create and exist in sheltered tribes, with news and commentary filtered for those specific tribes. You don't have to deal with news that challenges your preconceptions, you can just watch or read the news that caters to you.

Maybe everyone just knew it already. Maybe we've just been conditioned to understand that laws don't apply to large financial crimes or to wealthy individuals.

You can't look at the politics of division without acknowledging Newt's role. His 1996 letter is a founding document.

Funny that you should mention this.

https://www.wired.com/story/informat...shape-america/


Not too hard to tie all these guys together. One conspiracy after another, and from a policy perspective it's a really, really good argument for censorship and media policies.


How else do you defend against a wild, unfounded conspiracy that is set in motion, run with by plenty of people willing to "look for the truth", then when it goes bananas you back away, disavow your connections and go start again. Even if it's disproved in short order, it's out there now, and the chances that it's going to be resolved on it's own are slim. It now becomes a part of the 'bigger picture' the 'real story' the 'truth behind the curtain'. This is some damaging stuff. It's beyond making money now, it's an actual threat to the truth. For the longest time, I was a believer that every person should have their right to speak their beliefs and truths. I don't think I believe that anymore. Even my son, said he would rather live in a world that was stable, where he could be happy, even if he didn't know the dirty truth behind it all. That was an eye opening statement from a 16 year old, and one I wouldn't have figured from him, but it remains that this is the ultimate result of the world that was created around us. If it doesn't have any sort of stability, if it's always inconsistent and churning, what good is it? The truth really doesn't matter if your life is always under fire.

This whole debacle just makes my head and my soul ache.


It's no surprise that Im in the small right minority on this board.



Despite that there is still a necessary level of decorum, intellectual honesty, and (for lack of a better word) maturity that has to be expected (from both sides) as a base line for adult interaction. Sadly its totally lacking from the conversation on both sides of the aisle. (EDIT*** I dont mean FOFC here just general public)


For years I was a Rush listener. I gave up on him early in Obama's first tenure. It reached a point where I personally felt 'For God's sake the truth is bad enough. Quit exacerbating it by faulty logic jumps and innuendo.' I cant say he was the first to do so, just the one I heard. Now 10 years later its devolved to the point where that is the accepted common place for both sides. Just spew hate, partisanship, and half truths to make your opponent look bad regardless of the truth or the consequence.


I largely just avoid political debate now because so few people in my life interaction are actually interested in a meaningful conversation. Instead the goal seems to be to convert the opposition, or discredit them, never to learn about them and try to even understand their point of view.



So here I sit, I listen to Fox for 10 minutes and Im done being pandered to with viewpoints I tend to agree with but with (at best) intellectually flawed arguments or (at worst) complete fabrication and propagandizing. I switch over to CNN (or others) and I see the opposite from the other side...and my brain just shuts down.


To me this Kavanaugh hearing is the perfect example. While I liked the nomination initially, I am done with him. Its time for a new candidate. But my reasoning for why, seems different than most any other view I've heard.


If he did some bad things that he regrets as a teenager and young adult. If he drank too much, participated in consensual promiscuity (I understand that isnt the allegation with Ford - Ill come back to that)but if he was a general knuckle head asshole as a young guy...and he has matured. I can forgive darn near anything. I've been pretty open here...I was a troubled youth. That's actually too nice. I was a piece of shit bad guy for much of my life. At 22 I had my son and through some combination of reality, divine intervention, luck and personal growth I pivoted my entire life. Today my friends, my employees, my family they dont even know that old me. When I sit with my 17 year old son I talk openly and honestly about the mistakes I made about how choices can compound and lead you down the wrong path. He looks at me astonished that this square ass dweeb ever did the things I admit to.

So I get it.

Folks can change, I believe.


If Kavanaugh had just stated up front - look I did a lot of dumb stuff I aint proud of. But Im a different more mature guy today. 20 year old me isnt sitting hear seeking this nomination. I made mistakes and learned and grew from them....that simply nearly ends the conversation. Whether he knows the meaning of slang terms wrote in his high school yearbook becomes a non-issue. He has defused all that.


Instead the fact that he hasnt or cant accept or admit his past failure reveals to me a lack of humility necessary for growth and change. It shows a lack of judgement by doubling down on his stupidity. At that point...at this level of leadership, arguably the most important in the country, its time for the next option.


I'll offer a contrarian viewpoint to Shkspr but also agree with his conclusion. In contrast I can not remember every sexual encounter from high school. I can vividly remember certain scenarios or places and cant remember who the other party was in a couple cases. However, I can 100% guarantee you that every one of those encounters was consensual. Because that's a pretty clear line (in almost all cases)...I mentioned earlier I can forgive most things...sexually assaulting*** a woman or child are at the top of my personal non forgiveness list. To me there are certain actions that are character flaws not bad judgements. Someone who would harm a weaker individual has, again to me, an innate character flaw that they wont out grow. So if he violently physically assaulted a woman then he is disqualified in my eyes. Did he or not? I dont know and dont know how we ascertain for certain this many years later.



*** This is unpopular to say and not politically correct but in my view sexual assault comes in different severities. I have a lot more tolerance for the college drunken hookup where both parties are some level on intoxicated its consensual at the time and then regret sinks in and stories change. I think we have all seen that play out, both ways. But a man physically forcing himself on an unwilling female that just completely violates my entire sensibilities. To me, and again I recognize Im extreme in this view point, Physically assaulting a woman or child is not a rehabilitation punishment. Its a time to flush the gene pool.




Thanks for letting me ramble a few minutes. I know my overall viewpoints arent shared by any here. But it can be somewhat cathartic for me to share my views even with those who disagree.

That is a very thoughtful, well written, logical and sane argument. (And I agree with the vast majority of your stances.)

I AM OUTRAGED.

That was a good read CU Tiger, thanks for posting.

There's probably no single person as responsible for our current state than Newt. From The Atlantic:


I think a lot of the problem is simple sorting, as the parties are more single ideology than in previous decades, but what Gingrich did matters. Ever since then everything has been in reaction to his basic premise of forcing contrast rather than compromise.

For the record, since I've had some extremely heated posts with all of this shit, I've never really said anything at all about Kavanaugh and his confirmation specifically. The parts of this that make me angry are the times when we just have blatant misogyny on display. Victim blaming, being dismissive even when extremely common traits and stories of sexual assault victims are clearly on display, hearing Trump (and some board members here) talk about how hard it is to be a white man... these things are just completely repulsive to me.

Politically speaking, Kavanaugh comes across as a raving conspiracy theorist (the clintons, REALLY?!). Much like how I'm baffled about the response of the more moderate right to Trump in congress... I have the same feelings here. Just go nominate one of another 100 conservative judges who likely share your views but are safe and easy picks to get through. But whatever.

On an individual level, I'm resigned to the political ends here. But the personal misogyny that has been put on display here is just fucking despicable. And that's what will leave a lasting impact on me, far more than any results. We can do better.

I agree with this completely as well.

For me it boils down to this if we are truly taking in all of the evidence we have available to us:

"This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups."

Judges who spout conspiracy theories or who show such clear pre-disposed bias should not be on the Supreme Court regardless of who is nominating them. That seems to be an easy concept to agree on and should quickly disqualify any individual.

The bias is a feature not a bug.

Too many agreements and hugs going on in here now.


Lets bring out the torches, gasoline, napalm and herpes .


All joking aside, the civility is nice and I wish this would occur out there in the "real world" more frequently. But as soon as Kav is confirmed, here we'll go again . . .

There is enough blame on both sides, but good lord listening to this press conference the language they use is so devisive. McConnel doesn’t need to use the words he did. It has become so much about winning than it has about what’s right for all citizens. That’s all on Trump.

Sen Heitkamp of North Dakota a NO on Kavanaugh.