PDA

View Full Version : Should what you did as a Young'un define your life ?


racedo
24th Sep 2018, 10:43
Putting this up as I keep reading of the latest revalations regarding appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice in the US.

Kids and Students do stupid things........... should we then foreever more judge these people, on what they did in the first flushes of youth
especially when we see alcohol involved as well.

I can list easily, stupid cases of people who got up to stuff when young when judged now makes them look bad.

Fitter2
24th Sep 2018, 10:50
If you want to be seen as a fine upholder of truth and justice, you come out and say 'we all did some foolish things as teenagers, I can't remember anything like your story but it was a long time ago'.

If you deny it vehemently, and it proves to be accepted truth, your reputation now is trashed.

Hard choices......

SMT Member
24th Sep 2018, 11:01
I've done plenty of stupid things in my youth, but never ever have I tried to force my way on a female. Never. Doing so speaks a lot about the person and, frankly, in this particular respect I do belive it's only fair such actions should come back to haunt you later.

It is, perhaps, worth noticing that the case we're talking about took place in a country, where they have no qualms incarcerating below 18s for life, and are presently debating whether the mentally imparied can be executed. Obviously these people are mainly black and poor, not white and priviliged.

currawong
24th Sep 2018, 12:42
Were the "revelations" ever tested in court?

Lonewolf_50
24th Sep 2018, 12:46
A witch hunt is a witch hunt is a witch hunt.
A smear campaign is a smear campaign is a smear campaign.
US Politics as usual. This really belongs in the named hamsterwheel.

Danny42C
24th Sep 2018, 12:57
I see the "Me, too"s have started popping up - you could put money on it !

One Outsider
24th Sep 2018, 13:10
A witch hunt is a witch hunt is a witch hunt.
A smear campaign is a smear campaign is a smear campaign.
US Politics as usual. This really belongs in the named hamsterwheel.If only Brett Kavanaugh's name had been Bill Clinton, eh!

currawong
24th Sep 2018, 13:13
Got to ask yourself, many allegations seem to be getting made now that should have been made twenty, thirty, forty years ago, in many spheres.

If they did not have merit then, why do they now?

WingNut60
24th Sep 2018, 13:22
What you did as a Young'un does define your life whether you like it or not.
Whether we think it should or shouldn't is irrelevant.

The extent to which it impacts your life in the future depends on:

What you did.
Throw the tortured body of a child onto the railway tracks and people will look at you real funny for the rest of your life.

What you did about it / how you handled it
Nobody really cares that Bill smoked pot in university.
But most people think that what he did with Monica was a bit off color - not so much because of what he got up to but because he lied about it.

One Outsider
24th Sep 2018, 13:24
Pretty fancy bait and switch there, currawong. There are many reasons why victims of sexual assault do not come forward. You've demonstrated one of them.

currawong
24th Sep 2018, 13:35
Sorry One Outsider, it was a genuine question. I don't know what a "bait and switch" is.

NutLoose
24th Sep 2018, 13:55
No, when the likes of this happen

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34136388

That has the potential to destroy his future for what was a stupid lapse in judgement..

WingNut60
24th Sep 2018, 14:07
No, when the likes of this happen
That has the potential to destroy his future for what was a stupid lapse in judgement..

So give the COURTS the power to expunge the incident if society thinks that the incident is of a type that can be expunged - it's not a decision for the police.
The police enforce the law; the courts decide the penalties or otherwise.

NutLoose
24th Sep 2018, 15:16
I agree WingNut, I was just showing how the law can be seen to be lacking some common sense in some areas, BTW I am not condoning wiping all youthful crimes, just some should be looked at that seem to be one off cases or where the person may not of even realised they were comitting an offence etc, the likes of serial offending scroats should not have their assaults, thefts, TWOC'ing etc expunged when they reach say 18.

sitigeltfel
24th Sep 2018, 16:21
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/600x818/80-2b1f7dac85e17343e687de22b0547a157c67ba6104f087c448d6137fd4c6 2b23_7732fb25e6034cf281e70b57e21a937ff81148b5.jpg

racedo
24th Sep 2018, 16:30
I've done plenty of stupid things in my youth, but never ever have I tried to force my way on a female. Never. Doing so speaks a lot about the person and, frankly, in this particular respect I do belive it's only fair such actions should come back to haunt you later.
.

Hmmmm you see depends on how this is defined.................

If in teenage years walked with a girl or danced with a girl, then made a move for a kiss, which was unwelcome, then you have tried to force your way on a female.

If you decided to take her hand on said walk and she took it back then again you have tried to force your way on a female.

Doesn't really matter whether you got together in the end and married for 30 plus years, bottom line is you forced your way on a female.

RedhillPhil
24th Sep 2018, 16:31
I've now got passengers looking around at the man who suddenly burst out laughing.

Ascend Charlie
24th Sep 2018, 19:01
If in teenage years walked with a girl or danced with a girl, then made a move for a kiss, which was unwelcome, then you have tried to force your way on a female.

If you decided to take her hand on said walk and she took it back then again you have tried to force your way on a female.

Doesn't really matter whether you got together in the end and married for 30 plus years, bottom line is you forced your way on a female.

...and that's why you are still single, and have never had a date.

SMT Member
24th Sep 2018, 21:12
Got to ask yourself, many allegations seem to be getting made now that should have been made twenty, thirty, forty years ago, in many spheres.

If they did not have merit then, why do they now?

The Roman Catholic church approves of this message.

Funny, isn't it? Nearly everybody here are quick to condemn the RCC when someone steps forward decades after being abused by a member of the clergy, unquestioning taking their allegations to be the truth. But when a woman steps forward and accuses a 'respected' male Republican, it's a whole different story.

Pathetic.

SMT Member
24th Sep 2018, 21:15
No, when the likes of this happen

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34136388

That has the potential to destroy his future for what was a stupid lapse in judgement..

Just like the college frat boy who committed rape, and who's father argued he shouldn't be punished for life for '15 minutes of action'. Rape is, at least in my book, just one step down from murder. And just as a murder case never gets 'too old', neither should a rape ditto.

I need a bucket.

ShotOne
24th Sep 2018, 21:25
“Stuff such as rape..” which he’s not been accused of, still less found guilty of.

racedo
24th Sep 2018, 21:27
...and that's why you are still single, and have never had a date.

ROFL
Must show the kids that one.

The logical conclusion will be claiming that ANY action by a man is unwanted will bring what I posted as a Sex crime.

Forget about the fact that recipient may be quiet happy for it to happen
Just the timing was wrong at that second..................
that is NOT what il -liberal Feminism will allow (not gender specific as some of worst feminists are men),
you will be guilty of a sex crime because you didn't have written permission every time.

currawong
24th Sep 2018, 21:28
Calm down. No one is happy about these problems.

But, like it or not, not reporting a crime, regardless of what it is, is part of the problem.

An undeclared conviction for something could/ should limit or destroy a career path. An untested allegation should not. Sadly, nowadays it does.

racedo
24th Sep 2018, 21:34
The Roman Catholic church approves of this message.

Funny, isn't it? Nearly everybody here are quick to condemn the RCC when someone steps forward decades after being abused by a member of the clergy, unquestioning taking their allegations to be the truth. But when a woman steps forward and accuses a 'respected' male Republican, it's a whole different story.

Pathetic.

Hmmm I'm Catholic and always look at what the allegations are first.

Have individuals done horrible things.............. yup
Did they do them in the name of Religion ? No

racedo
24th Sep 2018, 21:37
Just like the college frat boy who committed rape, and who's father argued he shouldn't be punished for life for '15 minutes of action'. Rape is, at least in my book, just one step down from murder. And just as a murder case never gets 'too old', neither should a rape ditto.

I need a bucket.

Sounds like the issue is with the Parental skills of the father because he allowed his spawn the idea that it was ok.

A Rapist is a Rapist

But Gaurdian today highlighting that Rape cases in the 18-25 year age group have a poor conviction rate,
the fact that alcohol and drugs plays a large part in it shows Jurys are willing to look at it dispassionately.

G0ULI
25th Sep 2018, 01:36
A leopard cannot change its' spots. Once a person has decided to transgress the law or the currently prevailing social conventions for acceptable behaviour, they will be far more likely to repeat such behaviour. If caught, they may indeed be remorseful, but the remorse is more to do witj the consequences of getting caught than for their actions. More than a quarter of a century of involvement with the criminal justice system taught me that.

That said, it is foolish to sit in judgement over actions that took place many years ago and which were regarded as "normal" at that time. A brief skim through some of the movies from the 1960s and 70s shows many instances of male predatory behaviour towards females. Real life mirrored the fictional scenes played out in movies and on our TV screens. No one seemed to be objecting so strongly then!

Then of course great wealth or a high social position in society seems to render some people immune to prosecution for even the most heinous acts and behaviour. So nothing has really changed much over the last couple of thousand years of civilisation. The rich get to do what they like, the middle classes get the justice they can afford, and the poor get the blame.

jimtherev
25th Sep 2018, 08:44
Since I started wearing me collar backwards thirty-something years ago, I've had all sort of un-asked-for (if tasty and sometimes tempting) offers from girls & women. More than me life's worth, etc...

But what do you lovely people thing would have happened if I had reported some or all of these incidents?

Pinky the pilot
25th Sep 2018, 08:48
Did I do some stupid/dumb/insert your own definition here, things as a young 'un?

#*&# yeah!!

However, if she said NO, I never ever pushed it.:= But in several instances, many years later, found out that if I had continued attempting persuasion (read seduction) that I would have attained my goal!:E One particular Lady in question told me (about 30 years later) that she was rather disappointed that I 'gave up so easily.' (Her exact words)


Just my experiences and observations, but I cannot help wondering why all these incidents/accusations are surfacing so many years later. I'm not denying that the accusations may be genuine.....but why so many years later???:confused:

SMT Member
25th Sep 2018, 09:50
Hmmm I'm Catholic and always look at what the allegations are first.

Have individuals done horrible things.............. yup
Did they do them in the name of Religion ? No

Your last statement is certainly up for debate, as many of the victims were told by their perpetrator to keep quiet, lest they invoke the wrath of god. However, it's quite telling that you don't seem to question the testimonies coming from victims of abuse in the RCC, whilst doing nothing else when it comes to a woman accusing a politician.

currawong
25th Sep 2018, 14:11
Your last statement is certainly up for debate, as many of the victims were told by their perpetrator to keep quiet, lest they invoke the wrath of god. However, it's quite telling that you don't seem to question the testimonies coming from victims of abuse in the RCC, whilst doing nothing else when it comes to a woman accusing a politician.

That explains why a minor, in fear for their life, may not report an incident.

It does not explain why an adult would not report immediately.

Wouldn't you? After all, it might prevent the pain and suffering of all the subsequent victims. If victims 1 - 5 spoke up, victims 6 - 100 may not have become victims.

WingNut60
25th Sep 2018, 14:28
There should be a way back from a mistake, the penal system is supposed to include rehabilitation as well as punishment.......

The penal system is supposed to encompass:-

rehabilitation
punishment
deterrent to others
justice for the victims
protecting society from their further criminality

It some times seems that the only one that gets any attention is the first one.
I'm not sure that any of that actually works, but the one that works least of all is rehabilitation.
And I have no expectation that it ever will, no matter what some off-this-planet trick cyclist thinks.

The criminals that are least likely to re-offend are some man-slaughterers and some murderers.
The least likely to be rehabilitated are petty thieves and pick pockets.

So maybe we should be letting (some) of our murderers free and throwing the key away for the pick-pockets.

racedo
25th Sep 2018, 18:54
Your last statement is certainly up for debate, as many of the victims were told by their perpetrator to keep quiet, lest they invoke the wrath of god.
Doesn't mean they were doing it on the basis of religion, they were using fear, no different from the rapist who threatens to kills someone's family if told or the parent who threatens to kill the father / mother of the child they abusing.

Based on Barnado statistics the overwhelming Sexual abuse of children that occurs is by a family member and that statistic remains unchaged for decades.



However, it's quite telling that you don't seem to question the testimonies coming from victims of abuse in the RCC, whilst doing nothing else when it comes to a woman accusing a politician.

WRONG

I want to hear the testimony of both.

As for when a woman making a claim.............. again wish to hear it.

However same crowd that were giving Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton a pass now setting themselves up as moralising police.
Nobpdy has returned Harvey Weinsteins money even though it was known for decades he was abusing people.
Hollywood now out in force claiming they believe her while strangely they ignore the DAILY rape and abuse that is going on
by people desperate for a crumb of success.

In this case person concerned is not a Politician but a Judge and person could have made a claim ANYTIME in 30 plus years.

I don't notice ANY threat to their life but now they conspire with opposing politicians.
I have the same view irrespective of which party they belonged to.
Political games are being played so where the truth lies nobody cares any longer.

My original question was based on whether actions of someone in youth should forever brand them in life.

racedo
25th Sep 2018, 18:55
That explains why a minor, in fear for their life, may not report an incident.

It does not explain why an adult would not report immediately.

Wouldn't you? After all, it might prevent the pain and suffering of all the subsequent victims. If victims 1 - 5 spoke up, victims 6 - 100 may not have become victims.

Victim one could have made a complaint after psycholgist session in 2012, the fact it didn't happen indicates something else at play.

flash8
25th Sep 2018, 20:08
Kids and Students do stupid things........... should we then foreever more judge these people, on what they did in the first flushes of youth especially when we see alcohol involved as well.Depends on the crime, some crimes, murder and sex related likely indicate some latent pathology in the individual and many if not most would likely be a danger for life. On the other hand stuff like stealing traffic cones (seemed like a good idea after ten lagers) surely should be wiped clean. I think the introduction of the sex offenders register in the UK was a good move. Physical castration would be better, but perhaps I'll be accused of going over the top on that one, still.

racedo
25th Sep 2018, 22:26
Depends on the crime, some crimes, murder and sex related likely indicate some latent pathology in the individual and many if not most would likely be a danger for life.

But it then gets to what we define as a sex crime.......

Case in point................ A gent need to go, so he went to a bush to empty the bladder, cop car comes along and psots him, late at night and nobody else around. He gets done in court and it is registered as a Sex crime, his life destroyed because someone decides they can do that.

As other have said................. Underage girl texts topless photo to fellow student, he sends to his friend............. he gets done, she doesn't.

The danger is we become so puritanical that ANY interaction between the genders become fair game for complaining.
Like the gent who had a rape claim against him at Waterloo station when on camera he walked by a woman and CPS still prosecuted knowing nothing had happened.

tartare
25th Sep 2018, 23:41
Brett Kavanaugh may be appointed to an extremely powerful position, in which he might be one of just nine SCOTUS Justices who have ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all Federal and state courts.
If confirmed, he'll be there for life... that's the next 30 years at least.
His decisions and judgments have the potential to affect millions of people - and may arguably have longer term impacts in some cases than the occupant of the Oval Office.
On that basis, it seems to me that he should be held to a very, very high standard of behaviour - yes - even stretching back to his College days.

West Coast
25th Sep 2018, 23:52
Point of order, one is not appointed to the SCOTUS. Otherwise, I agree you. In this case, Ford predates his college days.

tartare
26th Sep 2018, 00:15
True ...but not by much.
Someone who is allegedly assaulting young women at age 17 is already showing some pretty aberrant behaviour - particularly if their future career is going to be focus around moral forensics?
Out of interest, what is the age of criminal responsibility in DC?

West Coast
26th Sep 2018, 00:28
. True ...but not by much.

No, not really. If it was an appointment Mitch McConnell wouldn’t be courting every swing vote with the vigor he is. Recent history has shown that SCOTUS voting has fairly close.

allegedly assaulting

Allegedly being the operative word.

tartare
26th Sep 2018, 01:02
The not by much was a reference to Ford predating his College days.

Fareastdriver
26th Sep 2018, 09:27
I'm glad I'm not rich or famous.

Pinky the pilot
26th Sep 2018, 10:15
I'm glad I'm not rich or famous.

Although I'd quite happily be the former, but not the latter.:D

racedo
26th Sep 2018, 11:36
Brett Kavanaugh may be appointed to an extremely powerful position, in which he might be one of just nine SCOTUS Justices who have ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all Federal and state courts.
If confirmed, he'll be there for life... that's the next 30 years at least.
His decisions and judgments have the potential to affect millions of people - and may arguably have longer term impacts in some cases than the occupant of the Oval Office.
On that basis, it seems to me that he should be held to a very, very high standard of behaviour - yes - even stretching back to his College days.

A young soldier aged 19, with less than a years service, scared witless because it is his first time underfire in Gulf War 1, comes across a car driving along when his unit stops for a break. On security duty and has the safety off. Instead of halting the car by raising his gun, he panics and shoots the parents and kids in that car dead.
Never faces prosecution under UCMJ for it even though his higher ups write it up because he didn't follow procedures.

Now if same person now a Senior politician would he face the same abuse as current nominee for USSC ? or would they be feted as a Hero Veteran ?

Not blaming the soldier for his actions, he will have to live with it but that is him personally.

Just highlighting the moralising that is going on.

RatherBeFlying
26th Sep 2018, 16:18
If only Brett Kavanaugh's name had been Bill Clinton, eh!

It seems Kavanaugh was drafting questions for Starr's impeachment investigation of Clinton's consensual encounters.

My admittedly foggy recall of that investigation in the previous millennium was that female WH staff were all subpoenaed on their private encounters:mad:

Now I'm wondering if Kavanaugh drafted those particular questions:E

racedo
26th Sep 2018, 18:07
It seems Kavanaugh was drafting questions for Starr's impeachment investigation of Clinton's consensual encounters.

My admittedly foggy recall of that investigation in the previous millennium was that female WH staff were all subpoenaed on their private encounters:mad:

Now I'm wondering if Kavanaugh drafted those particular questions:E

and Hillary Clinton worked on Watergate

RatherBeFlying
26th Sep 2018, 19:12
and Hillary Clinton worked on Watergate
Another illustration that rules only apply to Democrats while Republicans (especially affluent) get a free pass.

racedo
26th Sep 2018, 19:40
Another illustration that rules only apply to Democrats while Republicans (especially affluent) get a free pass.

Which ones ?

Both are full of hypocrites.

HRC----- lady should be given benefit of doubt, where as Paula Jones is a slut when it related to Bill

lomapaseo
26th Sep 2018, 21:53
Racedo

...HRC----- lady should be given benefit of doubt, where as Paula Jones is a slut when it related to Bill

How do we know that the lady in question is not a slut? We must examine that before any sort of admitting her for a character reference ... so many questions ... so little time. Perhaps a compromise is in order. We get on with the voting and revisit these questions afterwards for entertainment value

racedo
26th Sep 2018, 23:06
Racedo
How do we know that the lady in question is not a slut? We must examine that before any sort of admitting her for a character reference ... so many questions ... so little time. Perhaps a compromise is in order. We get on with the voting and revisit these questions afterwards for entertainment value

Well I have an easy rule.................. NEVER call a lady a slut.
Guess it depends on how one is brought up I suppose.

The fact that said HRC did plus said same of others who came forward, Now HRC now demands that Kavanaughs' accuser receives complete benefit of the doubt and is believed shows hypocrisy.

Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones close to $1 Million ................... Why would you do that ?

BAengineer
26th Sep 2018, 23:36
Brett Kavanaugh may be appointed to an extremely powerful position, in which he might be one of just nine SCOTUS Justices who have ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all Federal and state courts.
If confirmed, he'll be there for life... that's the next 30 years at least.
His decisions and judgments have the potential to affect millions of people - and may arguably have longer term impacts in some cases than the occupant of the Oval Office.
On that basis, it seems to me that he should be held to a very, very high standard of behaviour - yes - even stretching back to his College days.

Then can I ask you the question from the OP again to reflect the situation today. Should what someone else claims you did as a Young'un define your life?especially as there is no evidence that the claims are true.

It' a difficult question and I dont know the answer.

lomapaseo
27th Sep 2018, 03:01
The trouble with the male memory is that it's hard to separate our memories into fact vs fiction.. We talk about our ability with mary-jane-rotten-crotch as if we somehow succeeded. when all we got out of it was soiled linen. I suppose in some cases the girl defends the battle she put up when she goes to confession. Then after that and over the months we expand on it with our closest friends. Years later I have my doubts about our memory vs what really happened on both sides.

But I am governed by the laws and believe they must be upheld .... so what applies here in this case is to me is black vs white on either side only because the press has played it for maximum shock value rendering fair judgement mute.

tartare
27th Sep 2018, 04:16
So - once again - I wonder what the age of criminal responsibility is in DC?
I can't seem to find an answer on the intermouse...
Depending on that - it technically may be hard to describe a 17 year old Brett Kavanaugh as a young `un - could he have been tried as an adult under DC law if charged at that point?
If the offence is proven - my view is yes it very definitely should affect his prospects.
In fact the circumstantial evidence is looking pretty darn suspicious so far.
The guy is potentially going to be a Supreme Court Justice.
As stated before - you don't get much more powerful or influential than that.
Very, very high standards needed.

chuks
27th Sep 2018, 11:47
The age of adulthood in both the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland is 18 years.

Kavanaugh was actually a resident of Bethesda, Maryland at the time in question.

D.C is shaped like a rhombus on the map, with one quarter mostly missing, so that up in the high-rent districts of its Northwest and Northeast sectors you can find yourself going from Maryland to D.C. and back again within just a few short blocks. (It can be a bit tricky then because Maryland allows a right turn on a red light while D.C. does not, meaning that you have to pay attention to where you happen to be.)

Someone could have been at a houseparty in D.C. when they thought they were in Maryland, or the other way around, because of the odd shape of D.C. on the map. Then you could get this "So, they did not even know which state they were in!" as if they had been totally blotto. I used to take the Metro from Reagan National Airport to a stop in Bethesda and then walk to my sister's house in NW D.C., when, cold sober, I could not now tell you whether some particular house I passed along the way was in Maryland or D.C.

Kavanaugh was born in February of 1965, and he graduated from Georgetown Prep in 1983, probably in May or thereabouts, when he would have just turned 18 and thus have been an adult, subject to prosecution as an adult. On the other hand, anything short of murder that he had done in 1983 would have fallen away under the statute of limitations by now, so that it's only damage to his reputation that he now has to worry about.

You will note that Trump is only in legal difficulties now over his own sex transgressions because he called Summer Zervos a liar for having accused him of one directed at her; the transgression itself has fallen away under the statute of limitations, as have all those other episodes involving 13 other women. I assume that Kavanaugh will not be stupid enough to call one of his own accusers a liar. Instead it's just that he can not remember what went on 35 years ago, although he somehow knows, without being able to remember any details, that he did not do whatever he has been accused of doing way back then.

tartare
27th Sep 2018, 23:10
The point I'm trying to make is not whether Kavanaugh could still be prosecuted for the alleged offence.
It's that at an age when he could have possibly been tried as an adult, either in DC or Maryland, he committed a serious offence.
So any argument about youthful foolishness doesn't apply in a strictly legal sense.
In my mind it's also pretty indicative of character - even at that age.
A lot of guys I knew who were pigs that talked about women like they were pieces of meat when they were 17 or 18, still are pigs, and still do.
Ford's testimony this morning our time was searing, detailed, very specific - and judged by the reactions across the US - eminently credible.
in contrast, Kavanaugh's tears and defiance struck me as those of someone who could see a glittering career and life defining prize just out of reach - only to watch it possibly evaporate.

chuks
28th Sep 2018, 06:14
I think that Kavanaugh is sticking to the Trump playbook, behaving pretty much like a better-educated Donald Trump. That would account for the way that Trump and his cult followers like Kavanaugh. It's this simple-minded liking that must account for the way that they are defending the very-hard-to-defend, this candidate for the Supreme Court who's showing himself to be, essentially, a liar, someone not of high moral character. Good enough to be a street sweeper, sure, albeit one who would probably pocket whatever of value he finds rather than hand it in to the police, but certainly not good enough to be a judge for our highest court.

Consider the way that Kavanaugh claimed on Fox that he'd only drunk beer once he was legal to do so, at 18 years of age. Then came his own calendar for 1982, showing him going off to Timmy's for "skis," which turned out to be "brewskis," beer, when he was 17. So he was clearly lying then about doing something illegal. It's not quite rape or murder, just a pecadillo, drinking beer when too young to do so legally, but there we see Kavanaugh exposed as a liar.

Absent this liking for Kavanaugh, because of the way he personifies the Trump approach to reality, lying, prevaricating, and obfuscating, most shamelessly, clumsily, and obviously, he would have been encouraged to flounce off in tears, claiming that this was just so very, very painful and unfair to his wonderful wife, his two wonderful children, and his wonderful dog Checkers. Then, one assumes, Trump could have come up with someone else who's dependably prone to slanting his decisions in the desired direction, mainly against Roe v. Wade, but who does not have at least three women all alleging that he's got a history of low behavior.

ShotOne
29th Sep 2018, 07:09
.. drinking beer at 17 (if he did). “Not quite rape or murder..”. Seriously ?! You really have lost the plot.

Pontius Navigator
29th Sep 2018, 07:29
I went to a party XX years ago. I have an idea who else, from my circle of acquaintances might have been there. I have no recollection of any of the others who were not among my acquaintances who were or were not there.

I am sure that cuts both ways. Then suddenly one of those present appears in the media. Is it really safe to condemn someone decades later?

chuks
29th Sep 2018, 10:33
Err, no, not "seriously," not at all. Go look up "hyperbole" and "satire," please.

Something I had missed: The legal age for the consumption of alcohol in both Maryland and D.C. changed when these partyboy preppies, Kavanaugh and Judge, were 17. It changed then from age 18 to age 21. So here we have someone with some sort of superior legal mind who shows himself ignorant of a very basic detail of the law in Maryland and D.C. Kavanaugh just told those senators that he had been drinking beer legally when he was 18 ... except that no, he had been drinking beer illegally then, just as he had been at age 17.

It's one thing for Kavanaugh to have done this illegal drinking when he was an ignorant teenager, but something else again to show his ignorance of the law as an adult candidate for a place on our Supreme Court. One has to wonder what other details he has missed along the way.

Women got the vote in Maryland on 29 March 1941, when the state ratified the 19th Amendment. Not a lot of people know that, when I can think of at least one of them.

Fareastdriver
29th Sep 2018, 13:10
It looks to me that Kavanaugh is being slagged off not for what he has done; but because he is a Trump nominee. I bet some sitting members of the Supreme Court are keeping a low profile.

WingNut60
29th Sep 2018, 13:26
It looks to me that Kavanaugh is being slagged off not for what he has done; but because he is a Trump nominee. I bet some sitting members of the Supreme Court are keeping a low profile.

I doubt it. They're (almost) bullet-proof.

double_barrel
29th Sep 2018, 16:47
Regardless of politics, a 30 year old memory of a traumatic event is extremely unreliable, effectively worthless. She might very well truly believe her recollection is accurate, but there is a mass of evidence that we all construct, rearrange and modify memories. Without contemporaneous descriptions or some other evidence, we have no way of knowing what really happened.

WingNut60
29th Sep 2018, 16:58
That does not appear to be the case in prosecution of kiddie fiddlers.
The courts seem to accept a good deal of that.

Ask Rolf Harris.

chuks
29th Sep 2018, 18:09
I am not so sure about certain memories being unreliable. I was at Tan Son Nhut Air Base when the Tet Offensive kicked off, at a little place called Davis Station that was right on the inner perimeter of the main runway, with a flimsy wall of galvanized steel to protect our compound from prop- and rotorwash, since there was a ramp with VNAF H-34s and AD-1s on its other side. There were a couple of crude holes cut in the wall that you could look through to view the ramp, the taxyway, and the runway.

We were awoken from sleep by a siren, when we went outside to the sound of a lot of gunfire and explosions at about 3 a.m., I guess. (This is where there is a gap in my memory; all I am sure of is that it was night-time, not exactly what time it was.) I looked out the hole in the wall, first thing, to see a 707 lifting off with tracer from a .51-caliber machine gun arcing up towards it but falling short. Then I knew we must be in some sort of serious trouble ....

That memory stayed with me, but over the years I sometimes wondered if it was real or just the sort of thing you might piece together from seeing war movies and listening to sea stories. (The only difference between a fairy story and a sea story? One starts with "Once upon a time ... " and the other one with "Now this is no sh*t, but .... ") A few years ago, though, I came across someone else who said he'd also been at Tan Son Nhut during Tet, so I asked him if he'd seen anything in particular then. Then he mentioned that same thing, the 707 lifting off with a heavy machine gun firing at it. So I think that one event is real, that my very vivid image of it is has been perfectly preserved in my memory just the way Dr. Ford explained that.

I bet that we get some supporting evidence from this FBI investigation. Most tellingly, just look at Kavanaugh sat there frozen as Senator Durbin asks him point-blank if he wants that investigation, when he just sits there without saying a word, his face showing what seems to be petulance.

I think Kavanaugh was expecting the sort of affable encounter that his predecessor, Judge Gorsuch, got, not this pointed grilling about what he might have done to Dr. Ford 35 years ago when he seemed, by his own words, to have been a rather nasty preppie who binge-drank beer and preyed on females. If he had kept his cool and brought up this point, a valid one, about how memory can be unreliable sometimes, while also confessing that yes, he'd sometimes behaved like a preppie jerk, that might have worked. "I did not always behave well then, and I understand that now," some variation on that theme.

As it was, though, Kavanaugh lost it, ending up sat there looking like some sort of dough-faced, petulant, arrogant jerk. What was he thinking when he shot back at one of his questioners asking about whether he might have drunk to the point of having memory loss by asking her, twice, the same question? There he showed a complete lack of understanding of the reality of what he was facing: being questioned by a woman whom he had to take seriously and treat with respect. He reverted then to being who he really is, I think.

LowNSlow
30th Sep 2018, 01:19
I think that forcing yourself on anybody be it verbally or physically is reprehensible but why did she go to a party wearing a "one piece bathing suit" under her party dress? http://“He had a hard time because he was so drunk, and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit under my clothes,” she continued.

WTF?

ShotOne
30th Sep 2018, 03:38
“I bet we get some supporting evidence from the FBI investigation..”. Whether we do or not, your post, based on NO evidence and justified only (to you) by your obvious dislike of your president will stand out as outrageous. How can you possibly pretend to know what this guy was like at 17? Had you even heard of him
two months ago?

currawong
30th Sep 2018, 04:14
People seem willing to crucify a guy for partying at age 17.

But not a girl for partying at age 15.

If one is to judge character by attendance/ participation in such events, it has to cut both ways.

chuks
30th Sep 2018, 05:55
Damn, man! I knew you Aussies were party animals, but you call getting your buddy to help you drag a girl into a bedroom and trying to strip her of her clothes "partying"? If it happened as she says it did, that was attempted rape, not partying.

Anyway, a lot of the problem for Kavanaugh now is how he just responded to questions about what went on then, because he seems to be a liar.

KelvinD
30th Sep 2018, 06:34
Kavanaugh shocked me with the way he reacted when asked by a Senator if he would be willing for an FBI investigation to happen. As can be seen, he refused to answer the question but it was his demeanour that got my attention. He looked as if he was about to have a fit, his voice was raised almost to the point of hysteria and his eyes took to bulging. An amazing and troublesome reaction from an "innocent" man!

Pontius Navigator
30th Sep 2018, 08:05
chucks, distilling what you said, a traumatic event can become seated in memory. I have similar snapshots in mine. A Chinese firecracker thrown under a colleague's bed about 4 rooms away. It sounded like a submachine gun. I rem my reaction and running options through my mind. I could go to within a room of where I was even 50 years on - time of day? Dark. When was it? No idea, would have to check my log book. I know who the target was and in general who did it but no chance of naming them. In other words, memory is selective and things peripheral to the event not well defined. Indeed they are open to suggestion.

chuks
30th Sep 2018, 08:32
Yes, sometimes memory can be very exact, a "snapshot" just as you described it.

That first Space Shuttle accident ... I have an exact picture in my mind of being told about it in a bar in Nigeria. Just the direction I was facing and the general scene, of people in the bar, but I am sure that if it mattered I could look up the date of the accident (just did that), and then narrow this memory of mine down to within one day, presumably the day of the accident.

The accident took place at 1739 our time, so that I can state with nearly 100% certainty where I was on 28 January 1986 in the early evening of that day: in that particular bar in Ikeja, Nigeria. Where I was the day before or two days afterwards ... no idea at all, and not because of heavy drinking. It was just the typical pilot's life, where you wake up in a hotel or hostel trying to remember which city you are in, one of about six different ones. It was only the shock of that one particular evening, hearing about that accident.

One detail that makes Ford's account more, not less, persuasive is that her friend who was at the party, according to Ford, has no memory of that. If this were the sort of faked-up plot Kavanaugh alleges then the friend would have said that she remembered the party and that Ford, Kavanaugh, and Judge were all present.

Here again it might be not the events themselves, what Kavanaugh did or did not do to Ford and Ramirez, but the way that Kavanaugh is trying to cover up simply who he was when he was a boy at Georgetown Prep and a young man at Yale. Namely, he's obviously dissembling if not outright lying about all of that. He's been self-described and described by others as a party animal, but now we are expected to buy the opposite, that he was a good little Catholic student then, one with many female friends. It's just too much of a turn from the one reality to an alternate one, one "alternate truth" most people are not ready to accept.

double_barrel
30th Sep 2018, 08:38
That does not appear to be the case in prosecution of kiddie fiddlers.
The courts seem to accept a good deal of that.

Ask Rolf Harris.

There is no doubt that memories are highly 'constructed' and influenced by subsequent experiences. There is a mass of solid evidence to support that. There are several well documented examples of apparent historical child abuse that turn-out to be entirely fictitious. Of course most memories have a basis in fact, but all are modified. It can be shown that simply recalling and recounting a memory will change it. In this case for example, we could imagine that she had a bad experience at a party, and over the years built it around Kavanaugh because he was constantly in the news and she thought he was unpleasant at school. Of course, I don't know what really happened, but we need to be really cautious about putting too much weight on human recall, especially after long periods of time. In fact it can also be shown that people impose their expectations on recall of very recent events. To put an aviation spin on this, very often witnesses of a plane crash report the aircraft as burning as it fell, when we know for certain it was not on fire until it hit the ground. In this case the witness is simply mixing-up the sequence of events after a traumatic experience.

These days police are super careful about not allowing witnesses to contaminate each other's recall and to avoid suggesting things, if that is done carefully and there is appropriate matching circumstantial evidence then we can be very confident that there is a basis in fact - I do't know about Rolf Harris, but I have certainly seen that for Jimmy Saville and have no doubt that he was an evil piece of work. Unfortunately I fear that the publicity around the Kavanaugh case has already made it very difficult to conclude much.

(and please don't think I am defending Kavanaugh. I now nothing of him personally and I am appalled by the Republican's shamelessly riding the mad tiger that is the Trump 'administration')

WingNut60
30th Sep 2018, 10:47
There is no doubt that memories are highly 'constructed' and influenced by subsequent experiences....etc.

Yes, sort of.
I'd be more inclined to say that "There is no doubt that memories CAN BE highly 'constructed' and influenced by subsequent experiences....etc." in the sense that some of the detail can be incorrect, but that does not mean that it is all a fairy tale.

I have distinct memories that go back >55 years. The important detail is distinct and correct, because it could not have been any other way.
There are parts of it that are not distinct.
But Tony xxxxxx still burned my hand with a match under the tree in their back yard and I will NEVER forget it, or who did it, and by deduction, roughly when.

I think I have a problem with the argument that unless every detail that you remember is correct and corroborated then all of your recollection must be wrong.
I believe that, especially for traumatic memories, the "burned in your minds eye" part is more likely to be true.
And Dr Ford's testimony seemed to be describing just that.

And I know that the induced recall stuff has sometimes been discredited; I have a problem with that concept too.
But the courts do still accept evidence based on long-term memory.
Jimmy Saville died before the courts got to him, But you can still ask Rolf.

double_barrel
30th Sep 2018, 11:04
I don't want to get pedantic here and over-labour the point - and certainly there is a reality underlying most memories, but in fact ALL memories, and indeed all vision, are entirely mental constructs. There is no sense in which we record what we see like a film records a scene. Human brains are designed to sift a torrent of signals, search for patterns and construct an interpretation which is saved for future reference. A careful observer who can make reference to familiar reference points in a situation that they are familiar with, can form an accurate recall of some aspects of an event. So we are all pretty good and understanding and capturing familiar situations, but pretty terrible with radically unexpected, unfamiliar or traumatic events. That's why a pilot is far more likely to accurately describe a plane crash that they witnessed than someone not familiar with the way aircraft normally look and behave. And why my wife can perfectly describe details of a conversation with her sister about some family crisis, while I remember the cat licking its arse while some people were taking.

WingNut60
30th Sep 2018, 11:17
Not remembering whether the aircraft was on fire does not mean you should disbelieve my mental construct of the the plane crashing

redsnail
30th Sep 2018, 17:59
Memory is an interesting thing. It was a significant part of the recent BSc(hons) in Psychology I completed recently. Memory coding, recall and so on.
I can assure you a traumatic event will be remembered with quite good specific detail. Constructed memory is often vague and generalised.
Why don't people report such assaults? As we've seen in many posts, there's guilt and self doubt. "I won't be believed". So the process of going to the police and giving evidence is emotionally hard. "Were you drunk?" "what were you wearing?" "why did you go to the party?". All of these questions can be now labelled as victim blaming. Going to a party is not illegal. Wearing a bikini or a kilt isn't either. Forcing yourself on someone who may not be in a position to give informed consent, is. I have a test "would the person still have behaved in that way if there was a uniformed police person in attendance?"

Young folks experimenting with life and asking someone for a dance or a kiss or even their phone number, won't get you in trouble, persisting when a rebuttal/dismissal has been delivered, will. This is the same in the workplace today.

Now the original post asks should what you did as a youth define your life? Perhaps the perpetrator has no recollection about the event or events, but the other person certainly does and has probably had their life changed from that event onwards.

WingNut60
30th Sep 2018, 18:24
Thanks Redsnail.
I have distinct memories of events, most not traumatic, from my childhood.
I remember, in detail, things that I can not possibly have constructed from later events.

I remember distinctly how to inject caponising pellets under the comb of a chicken; how to load the needle with the pellet.
Last possible contact with that activity was when I was eight. That is almost sixty years ago.

I have other earlier memories of events that have been corroborated many years later.

I know that not all memory is reliable. I still have trouble finding my car keys on occasion.
But some of it works quite well.

BehindBlueEyes
30th Sep 2018, 18:28
I seem to recall watching a documentary about a cold case murder. When the police were re interviewing witnesses, and even suspects, the general consensus seemed to be that if someone’s recollection and story about an incident didn’t change from previous statements, even after years, it could generally be assumed to be the truth.

My only slight concern about that theory is that, if you tell the same story enough times, human nature being what it is, it then seems to become embedded as fact in your mind, even if it isn’t accurate.

Dan Gerous
30th Sep 2018, 18:54
... but why did she go to a party wearing a "one piece bathing suit" under her party dress? WTF?

Don't know how common it is, but I've heard of this before. Maybe not as a preventative measure, more as an undergarment. However, even if someone was dressed as a whore, that doesn't give you the right to rape or attempt to rape anyone.

double_barrel
30th Sep 2018, 19:09
Memory is an interesting thing. It was a significant part of the recent BSc(hons) in Psychology I completed recently. Memory coding, recall and so on.
I can assure you a traumatic event will be remembered with quite good specific detail. Constructed memory is often vague and generalised.


I'm afraid it is not as simple as that. All memory is to some extent 'constructed'. I think you forgot details of that lecture, or imposed your prior expectations on its content ;-)

There has been a lot of work on recall of events from the point of view of reliability of witnesses to crime. Perhaps have a poke around in that literature?

Pontius Navigator
30th Sep 2018, 19:37
I haven't followed the story at all and glimpsed only but on the media and some comment here, so I have a question. Was he the principal in the story of simply one present? The point being, someone simply being there might be in the incidental part of the memory

Fareastdriver
30th Sep 2018, 20:43
I still think it is because he has been nominated by Trump.

From Wiki about Christine Blasey Ford:

Ford lives in Palo Alto, California (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California), with her husband Russell Ford, whom she married in 2002, and their two sons.[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford#cite_note-Weise-15)
[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford#cite_note-Anderson-16)
[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford#cite_note-Mercury-7) She is the aunt of actress and singer Bridgit Mendler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgit_Mendler).[42] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford#cite_note-:0-42) Ford is a registered Democrat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)) who has made small contributions to political organizations.[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford#cite_note-WaPo16Sep2018-10) In 2017, she participated in a local Women's March (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Women%27s_March) protesting President Trump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump)
[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford#cite_note-Sulek-11) and attended a March for Science (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Science) in San Francisco to protest the Trump administration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration)'s cuts to research.[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford#cite_note-Anderson-16) Ford has considered moving to places such as New Zealand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand) if Kavanaugh were to become a Supreme Court Justice.[52] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford#cite_note-moved3000-52)

WingNut60
30th Sep 2018, 21:17
I still think it is because he has been nominated by Trump.



Which suggests that you think that, if he had been nominated by a Democrat president she would not have raised her hand?
That's a big call to make.

racedo
30th Sep 2018, 21:37
Memory is an interesting thing. It was a significant part of the recent BSc(hons) in Psychology I completed recently. Memory coding, recall and so on.
I can assure you a traumatic event will be remembered with quite good specific detail. Constructed memory is often vague and generalised.
Why don't people report such assaults? As we've seen in many posts, there's guilt and self doubt. "I won't be believed". So the process of going to the police and giving evidence is emotionally hard. "Were you drunk?" "what were you wearing?" "why did you go to the party?". All of these questions can be now labelled as victim blaming. Going to a party is not illegal. Wearing a bikini or a kilt isn't either. Forcing yourself on someone who may not be in a position to give informed consent, is. I have a test "would the person still have behaved in that way if there was a uniformed police person in attendance?"
.

6 plus years ago involved in an Accident where stopped to allow a Police car through and got rear ended.
Police stopped as it was classified as a POLACC.

Soon as I stepped from car officer wrote down everything I said, he did same with other driver.
It was 9am and both got breathalysed but both clear.

At 9.45 he read me back the statement I had made, i had zero recollection and he said Police told to get first statement a person makes after an incident as that in majority of cases is the truth.
Curious I asked why, he said
1.) you are in shock
2,) you will tell the truth
3.) brain hasn't had time to work on a story or change the details.
4.) as hours go on your story will change, not lying but your brain will process the information differently.

Some 20 odd years ago i worked with a guy whose best friends son was sadly stabbed to death at a pub in Birmingham in mid 1970's
The dad was there that night and even 20 years later still swore blind that X had a knife and had stabbed his son.

He became fixated that was the story, on the night in question X was in jail on remand for another crime, this one involved beating up a cop.
So as you can imagine he wasn't treated well in Winson Green but he was there on night of the crime, in hospital wing after falling down
stairs, that was what the report claimed anyway.
The dad to his death bed blamed X for the stabbing irrespective of it being impossible because he had that idea fixed in his head.
We see things and let our minds be convinced they happened even when they didn't.

racedo
30th Sep 2018, 21:47
Which suggests that you think that, if he had been nominated by a Democrat president she would not have raised her hand?
That's a big call to make.

Sadly it is the one I believe as well.
One only has to witness the MeToo movement when it focused on Hollywood.
The complete lack of criticism from particular politicians of those who they were happy to party with and accept mega donations from.
Hollywood lecturing on sex abuse when it has done zero within its own Industry gives you an idea.

currawong
30th Sep 2018, 21:53
Damn, man! I knew you Aussies were party animals, but you call getting your buddy to help you drag a girl into a bedroom and trying to strip her of her clothes "partying"? If it happened as she says it did, that was attempted rape, not partying.

Anyway, a lot of the problem for Kavanaugh now is how he just responded to questions about what went on then, because he seems to be a liar.

Where do I say that chuks?

You are adding 2 with 2 to get 5.

The partying and underage drinking seem to be being used as an indicator of character here, but only in some of those present.

Why?

redsnail
30th Sep 2018, 22:34
Double-Barrel, I did not wish to spell out the minutae of the 9 month module. Yes, all memory is (re)constructed. However, memory that is based on experience and encoded with multi mode and emotion is usually significantly clearer and richer in detail than memory that is implaned (as per the New Zealand cases).

IBMJunkman
30th Sep 2018, 22:53
Ford says she would leave the country if Kavanaugh is approved. The logic escapes me. She has lived in the same country as the man since whatever happened happened. What does she think will happen when he is on the bench? Secret Supreme Court hit squads?

I wish all the folks that said they would leave when Trump got elected would stand by their words and do it.

double_barrel
1st Oct 2018, 05:09
Double-Barrel, I did not wish to spell out the minutae of the 9 month module. Yes, all memory is (re)constructed. However, memory that is based on experience and encoded with multi mode and emotion is usually significantly clearer and richer in detail than memory that is implaned (as per the New Zealand cases).

There may be some misunderstanding here. Yes, a memory that is entirely created from almost nothing ('implanted') will be sparse on detail, and may well be detectable by interview alone. But for a 'real' event, some aspects of recall and especially sequence will be almost always be wrong, but will be slotted into the 'genuine' narrative with all the smells, sounds and emotions. Some of our most vivid memories often turn-out to be 'wrong' in terms of actors, time, place - when they can be tested. This is often hard to show in the real world, but there are many experiments demonstrating it. This is the risk with the situation under discussion here. I have little doubt that something happened to the accuser in roughly the circumstances she describes, and I have little doubt that she believes her account to be accurate.

(I,don't want to spell out my experience of forensic phsychology, but it is rather more than an undergrad module)

racedo gives a couple of good examples. THat is why immediate recording is so important. The 2nd is actually reminiscent of a classic experiment in which people were shown a tableau, asked to memorise details, and were subsequently asked 'who was holding the knife'. Many got it wrong and there was a clear unconscious contamination by prior expectations and beliefs on a simple thing such as that.

chuks
1st Oct 2018, 06:29
The estimable Currawong asks me "Where do I say that?" in response to my telling him that partying does not include (alleged) attempted rape.

He wrote of Brett Kavanaugh that's he's being crucified for having been "partying" at age 17 and beyond, and now that I am adding 2 + 2 to get 5. Now, how about adding 1 (stated) + 1 (unstated) to get 2?

Currawong, your use of the term "partying" here includes not just getting hog-weeping drunk (something that I understand some Aussies do take as "partying," since I had been right in there with them doing that), but also dragging a 15 year-old schoolgirl into a bedroom, two 17 year-old boys on one 15 year-old girl, and perpetrating a sex assault upon her. That is not "partying," but you do not seem to understand that. If Dr. Ford had merely told about going to a party, getting drunk herself while seeing Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge there also drunk, well "So what?" What you take as a crucifixion follows from her account of a sex attack, not from her telling of Kavanaugh "partying." You gave us a stated 1 (Kavanaugh going to parties and getting drunk), and an unstated 1 (Kavanaugh doing an alleged sex attack on Ford), when that adds up to 2, not 1.

Currawong, if you are into higher math then I suppose we could go for 3. 1 (partying, as you think of it), plus 1 (a sex attack), plus 1 (lying to those senators about his past), which makes 3 for Brett Kavanaugh. There are further numbers, if we want to look at his working with stolen data on behalf of George W. Bush, but we don't want to over-tax your numerical skills here. I think we can just stop at 2 for now while we wait to be told what the FBI comes up with.

I want to see the FBI put the squeeze on Mark Judge, who looks eminently squeezable, and then go back to give squishy Brett Kavanaugh another good squeezing as well. "Now, Brett, you told that Senate committee about the 'Devil's Triangle' as a drinking game, yet ten of your Georgetown classmates who all 'knew you then' agree that it refers to two males simultaneously having sex with one female; nobody we contacted knew that term as referring to a drinking game. Why is it that you are the only one who knew it as a drinking game?" There it's not what that term means, nor what "boofing" means, since I really do not want to know about either one, just whether or not Brett was lying when he testified under oath about what those terms meant 35 years ago.

To me, a lot of this should be like my being caught talking on the phone about having done a bank robbery when I try to persuade judge and jury that "Bank Robbery" is a board game I like to play, nothing more. Well, it could be! Except that nobody ever heard of a board game called that ....

It's one thing to tell porkies to a group of friendly Republican senators who just want to see you sail through a confirmation hearing, something else to lie to the FBI. Want to bet that Brett tells a different story to the FBI than he told at his hearing?

currawong
1st Oct 2018, 08:50
No chuks, my use of the term "partying" is not a catch all phrase that includes indecent assault.

In the commentary I have read there seems to be an inference that he socialized and drank (partied) underage and therefore is in all probability guilty.

It is right to investigate allegations. It is also right to be skeptical towards allegations that are unproven.

I do not have a horse in the race that is US politics. I do find the current trend that an allegation from a woman regarding some form of sexual misconduct is expected to be taken at face value, no proof required (#IBelieveHer) etc to be ... is extrajudicial the word I am looking for? Not adhering to the usual principles of justice perhaps covers it.

This appears to be one of those cases. So was Carolyn Bryant vs Emmett Till.

So, not sure who is right in this case, but alarmed at the traction some elements are able to get on allegations alone. In general, not just this case.

ShotOne
1st Oct 2018, 09:09
Yes, chuks, if these allegations are true they are serious. But that doesn't entitle you to repeat them as proven facts. For you, all the usual standards of proof are inverted. The single word "ski's" was enough to "prove" your detailed character assassination of 17yr old Kavanaugh. Even when Dr Ford's close friend testifies that that the attack didn't take place, bizarrely that, to you, is more evidence of guilt. Go figure! If you're ever accused of anything I hope the evidence is weighed in a more fair-minded way than you seem capable of.

chuks
1st Oct 2018, 10:41
"Even when Dr Ford's close friend testifies that that the attack didn't take place, bizarrely that, to you, is more evidence of guilt. Go figure! If you're ever accused of anything I hope the evidence is weighed in a more fair-minded way than you seem capable of."

Dr. Ford's friend testified that she did not remember a party such as Dr. Ford described it. She also said that she believed Dr. Ford; she did not say that "the attack did not take place." (You and many others are making that one up, ShotOne, going too far from what was actually said.)

So, there is nothing bizarre about taking what Dr. Ford said as evidence of Kavanaugh's having done what she said he did, given that her friend did not contradict what she said but merely said that she did not remember that particular party.

Given that Ford's friend was not attacked, why should one particular party among several, perhaps among many, stand out in her mind? There the friend saying "I remember that evening very well," for no obvious reason, would tend to support Kavanaugh's bleating about this all being part of a Clinton conspiracy against him. In other words, the friend was probably not faking what she remembered.

Did you catch the fact that Kavanaugh was drinking his beloved "brewskis/skis" illegally? The drinking age in both Maryland and D.C. changed from 18 to 21 years of age when Kavanaugh was still drinking illegally at 17. In fact, when he was at Yale below age 21 years then he was still drinking illegally, when this is something this candidate for our Supreme Court seems to have missed.

Connecticut: drinking age 21, since as long as I could remember, when I grew up there. Well, actually I grew up in Vietnam, but I went to High School in Connecticut, Class of 1966. Then it was either a trip to Port Chester, New York to drink legally at Vahssen's Tavern, near the Life Savers factory, or else happily drinking quite illegally in Westport and its environs. Now I am no jurist, but at least I knew then, still know now, that I was drinking illegally in High School. That puts me one up on Mr. Petulant Putty-face, I guess.

Currawong, it's not so much the drinking, or as you have it his "partying," as it is what Kavanaugh did when he had been drinking, I think, and whether he's lying now in what he says about his past. Did he black out? Did he, as both Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez now claim he did, do sexual aggression? One big problem with even that classical "I do not remember, but I am sure I never did whatever she says I did," is that if you don't remember, how can you be so sure of what you did?

Hey, one time I was the target of a rumor that I had done an up-skirt shot on a college coed. The thing was, though, I was using a Nikon F3 then. It's about the size of a half-brick, and when its shutter fires then its mirror makes a loud "Clack!" you can hear ten feet off. That would make it a pretty poor choice for sneaking a shot of Elizabeth Ferret's wazoo, wouldn't it? Then there is the question why someone who has attended the birth of one of his children, when that included seeing this furry object of regard for far too long in far too much detail, would really need a picture of one as ... what ... a reminder of what one looks like? Hey, I have been trying to forget, not to remember!

Anyway, yes, there I was, automatically guilty as charged, when I did not even bother to complain about people spreading that nasty rumor: creepy old cisgender white man, old enough to be a Grandpa to most of my classmates then, so Fageddaboudit!

I know very well how that game is played, but that's not Kavanaugh's problem now.

currawong
1st Oct 2018, 11:20
Sorry to hear that chuks.

Did you have to defend yourself in court or to the college?

Was there a consequence for the person that falsely accused you?

What do you think motivates such an accusation?

racedo
1st Oct 2018, 11:56
"Even when Dr Ford's close friend testifies that that the attack didn't take place, bizarrely that, to you, is more evidence of guilt. Go figure! If you're ever accused of anything I hope the evidence is weighed in a more fair-minded way than you seem capable of."

Dr. Ford's friend testified that she did not remember a party such as Dr. Ford described it. She also said that she believed Dr. Ford; she did not say that "the attack did not take place." (You and many others are making that one up, ShotOne, going too far from what was actually said.)
So closest friend does not ever remember a party like that ever taking place.................. BUT she believes her friend.

Now we cut a friend a lot more slack than we ever would a stranger.

Key thing is she has no recollection of a party taking place....................... her perceptions of her friend are completely irrelevant.
But people wish to believe more that she trusts her friend than the fact she has no memory of a party like that taking place and also being abandoned by her friend who left upset.

Now while I will readily testify that I do not understand the female mind, I do however know human nature.
If you are somewhere with your closest friend and something happens that they leave quickly, abandoning you and they are upset then you will attempt to find out WTF happened.
Even assumming that said friend "Doesn't want to talk about it ", you will still remember the incident because
1.) you got told what happened
2.) you were not told what happened.

Amazing 1 and 2 never seemed to have occurred.

chuks
1st Oct 2018, 13:39
I assume that Dr. Ford's friend did not remember a party featuring key details of what she alleged happened, while not doubting her account. That makes sense, doesn't it?

There probably was some little goody-goody at Georgetown Prep who never touched a drop of beer; who was always buried in his books; who weighed 98 pounds soaking wet; who had thick horn-frame glasses taped together at the bridge and five colored pens in a pocket protector in the breast pocket of his baggy white J.C. Penny's shirt; and who was a real mama's boy cum nerd: someone the exact polar opposite of Brett Kavanaugh as self-described in his yearbook. Now if that kid were to be accused of wrestling some girl his own size onto a bed and trying to have his way with her, without anything but a "she said, he said," to back that up, then, no, the girl's friends would probably not just not remember that, but also not believe that.

In my case it was one of those stupid things. We had a kid who had killed himself at school, when his parents sponsored a handsome teak bench with his name and dates on it in memoriam. It was looking a bit shaggy with weathering and lichen so that I cleaned it up and teak-oiled it as my contribution to campus upkeep labor during a time when I had finished with my regular school work. (This school had actually been started for WWII veterans, when they helped build it, but the tradition of student labor had sort of fallen away.)

One sunny afternoon I went over to "my" bench, occupied by three coeds, told them that I'd restored it, and then looked it over a bit as they were sat there on it. What I missed was one of them murmuring "This is making me uncomfortable," code-speak for "This old guy is creeping me out, looking at this bench I am sat on, thus invading my space." This was in January when we had all returned from the winter break.

The thing is, although I was studying photography, I am not one of those guys who goes around with a camera around his neck all the time. This time I did not even have my camera with me since I had been working on a Lit assignment, not doing photography. On the other hand, I suppose my image must have been "that old guy with the camera," since a Nikon F3 is hard to miss.

Along about May I asked a professor I knew pretty well how my first year back had gone (all A's, so there was that anyway). The answer came that the prof was pleased with my academic performance but a bit disappointed in my behavior on campus. The prof lost me then, so that I had to ask what the problem was with my behavior, when this crazy story about the crotch shot came out, one obtained by the prof from some of the coeds. I pointed out the sheer improbability of someone doing that with a Nikon F3, plus what in the world did I need to make such an image for anyway? Yes, I was studying photography, but people who do up-skirt shots do that with a smartphone, not with a professional-grade, large, loud, 35-mm SLR.

Anyway, this person who knew me and should have had more respect for me than to believe such a story bought it without question. Too, that rumor had to have been circulating for about four months, on a tiny campus, when none of my friends who must have heard it warned me about it. What, I should now try to prove a negative? I just figured that if someone wanted to believe that rumor ... be my guest.

There I was, arguably, in a worse situation than Kavanaugh is now. Did it ruin my scholastic life, though? Most importantly, I graduated magna cum laude. I had friends there, albeit friends I could not completely trust, not after what had happened then with that rumor. On the other hand, yes, every so often I would sit down in the Dining Hall to eat a meal when someone sat nearby would get up and move away. At least I did not have to wonder why that was, once I learned about the rumor.

I also had some relatively powerful enemies, particularly this nest of poisonous, posing feminists, somewhat aided by our Dean of Students. There were a few more encounters where I was put at a certain amount of risk, but relative to being shot at by armed robbers in Nigeria it was nothing much. I simply kept it in the front of my mind that I was playing against a stacked deck, and carried on with what mattered.

Revenge came at Commencement, when my wife and my daughter showed up. This little gender-fluid creep who'd been rowing his way across the campus with his dick, when he was not even a student but just a treasured visitor, tried to flirt with my daughter. She gave him such a dose of gamma radiation then that his plums probably turned into prunes on the spot. He looked across at me with this stricken look of "What just happened to me?" when I just grinned at him, as if to say that what sells up here on campus ... you might not want to take that act of yours out on the road.

Same thing for Trump at the UN, and Kavanaugh in front of that Senate committee, where they suddenly found themselves outside the big bubble they've lived in all their lives.

Trump starts in with the same nonsense about "greatest presidency ever" in front of select audiences of rubes, when they all stand and cheer, every damned time. He seemed to think that an assembly of world statesmen would react the same way, to rhetoric that would not fool a reasonably bright 8th Grader. Instead they laughed at him!

Kavanaugh must have been promised that the deal was done to get him onto the Supreme Court. Just show up in front of this committee, swap a few pleasantries, face a few mildly annoying questions that could easily be brushed off, get his 11-10 vote on party lines, followed next day by a 51-49 vote from the whole Senate, and there you go. His life of privilege should continue on its appointed course with its apotheosis being his promised seat on the Supreme Court.

Instead, there he sat, knocked back to looking like a preppie, Yalie, some kind of jerk. He was showing himself to the whole USA then, red-faced, pouting, shouting, sweating, guzzling water as if he'd suddenly sprung a leak .... What was all that about, really? He went in for a cake-walk, got crucified instead, and came out facing an FBI investigation!

ShotOne
1st Oct 2018, 18:11
Did that nasty experience not make you uncomfortable at the principle of trashing someone on the basis of unproven accusation?

WingNut60
1st Oct 2018, 18:12
Putting this up as I keep reading of the latest revalations regarding appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice in the US.

Kids and Students do stupid things........... should we then foreever more judge these people, on what they did in the first flushes of youth
especially when we see alcohol involved as well.

I can list easily, stupid cases of people who got up to stuff when young when judged now makes them look bad.
I know its a long way in, but this has been bugging me for a while.

Why did you fill your first post, including the title,with euphemisms?
Seems like you were painting a picture of youthful innocence instead of asking an objective question.

The way I read it, you are saying that you think that he probably did do as accused but hey, he was only a lad.
Can't be too harsh on little kids.

racedo
1st Oct 2018, 18:49
I know its a long way in, but this has been bugging me for a while.

Why did you fill your first post, including the title,with euphemisms?
Seems like you were painting a picture of youthful innocence instead of asking an objective question.

The way I read it, you are saying that you think that he probably did do as accused but hey, he was only a lad.
Can't be too harsh on little kids.

Now if this was your first post on the actual thread I would give it a lot of slack as a newcomer to the thread ................... but it is your 10th.

Makes me wonder why belatedly you start questioning the opening post.

Chronus
1st Oct 2018, 18:57
The whole of the US nuclear arsenal is no match against the power of the flower of the nation, its women. That is the sort of power that confronts Trump, poor chap, he does not stand an earthly against it.

You must have come across the story about a bloke, an old timer pilot who got into conversation with a gorgeous of the opposite sex and ended up convinced he was a lesbian. That or a monastic life seems the only safe bets for the future.

So far as all these things about memory and all that, yes most impressive, but how about Greek Mythology, is there any truth in any of that or was it all wishful thinking.

lomapaseo
1st Oct 2018, 19:02
I know its a long way in, but this has been bugging me for a while.

Why did you fill your first post, including the title,with euphemisms?
Seems like you were painting a picture of youthful innocence instead of asking an objective question.

The way I read it, you are saying that you think that he probably did do as accused but hey, he was only a lad.
Can't be too harsh on little kids.

I admire the OP opening post as it encourages discussion by jumping feet first into the conditions as they see it. That's one hell of a lot different then some other opening posts that that are as benign as a Dow Jones Industrial average (period)

WingNut60
1st Oct 2018, 20:05
Now if this was your first post on the actual thread I would give it a lot of slack as a newcomer to the thread ................... but it is your 10th.

Makes me wonder why belatedly you start questioning the opening post.

Because when I first read the initial post I read the title only and took it at face value.
Hence my first post, And I'll stand by that one.

Once I realised that the thread had a strong political slant I saw it in a different light and the thread title just started to seem way too euphemistic,

So what is it with the judge, did he throw the little kid on the railway tracks, or was he caught stealing oramges
It still seems to me that you convicted him of one or the other with your thread title.

WingNut60
1st Oct 2018, 20:10
I admire the OP opening post as it encourages discussion by jumping feet first into the conditions as they see it. That's one hell of a lot different then some other opening posts that that are as benign as a Dow Jones Industrial average (period)

From his thread title it reads as though he thinks that he's guilty of something, but asks whether he should be excused because of his age at the time.
Should what you did as a Young'un define your life ? (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/613689-should-what-you-did-youngun-define-your-life-post10263410.html#post10263410)

No mention of innocence there.
First approach was to infer clemency.

Gertrude the Wombat
1st Oct 2018, 20:29
So what is it with the judge, did he throw the little kid on the railway tracks, or was he caught stealing oramges
It still seems to me that you convicted him of one or the other with your thread title.
Didn't I gather that he completely lost it and started shrieking or shouting in some committee meeting or other?

Is that sort of demeanour what you want in a judge? - doesn't really matter what the particular cause of the toddler tantrum was, does it?

chuks
1st Oct 2018, 20:30
There must be two Brett Kavanaughs, the one that Trump has put forth for this high position, and the one we have seen misbehaving in front of that Senate committee.

Some of us here see the first one, a poor, put-upon sufferer being defamed, crucified even, for no good reason at all, the victim of a Clinton plot, their revenge for Hillary losing that election.

I just see a guy getting what he had coming to him. What is the worst thing that is going to happen to Kavanaugh?

What happened to me? I just got what I had coming to me, that's all. Try and guess who came off worse, though, when we had our free and frank exchanges of views?

Even that Dean of Students, who hauled me up before him for an interview without coffee .... He accused me of trying to annoy and upset some feminists, when I just looked him straight in the eye and said, "Yes, of course! That was the point!"

What the hell! He was all revved up to play the Grand Inquisitor until he finally broke me, led me to confess, sobbing in remorse, that I had done what I just told him straight away that I had set out to do. It was a very short interview.

Imagine Kavanaugh telling those Senators that, yeah, he was kind of a jerk during his time at Georgetown Prep and Yale, but do they have a problem with that? Look at how he went from beer-guzzling stud to high-ranking judge, headed for the Supreme Court now with 100% backing from the greatest President in US history. They should bow their heads in respectful wonder and stop with the nit-picking. "Let's all go to Hooters and have a few brewskis, okay? Cut this BS and just confirm me. I have a hot date lined up with a couple of Red Skins cheerleaders for later, when we are going to play Devil's Triangle. I heard that one of them really can suck the chrome right off a trailer hitch." Win or lose, go out with a bang.

currawong
1st Oct 2018, 21:20
I don't get where you"just got what was coming to you" chuks.

That looks to me like some random act of bastardry.

Or an act of attention seeking with no thought of the potential consequences.

racedo
1st Oct 2018, 22:24
From his thread title it reads as though he thinks that he's guilty of something, but asks whether he should be excused because of his age at the time.
Should what you did as a Young'un define your life ? (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/613689-should-what-you-did-youngun-define-your-life-post10263410.html#post10263410)

No mention of innocence there.
First approach was to infer clemency.

That is how you infer it....................... but that is YOUR reading if it,
nothing wrong with that as each of us will read it a different way.

In relation to the Judge, do i believe he did what he was accused of ?
Not on the evidence I had seen at the point of starting the thread and nothing since appears to convince me either.

Do I believe the lady is telling a version of a truth she believes, yes, but I have also posted various items which highlight
questionable memory of things including where someone believed someone has murdered their son and nothing
convinced him otherwise.

My point in starting the thread was not just on the Judge but on others who will find that actions as a Young'un will
supposedly define them for life becasue someone decides that will be the case.

IF we allow acts when we are young to completely define our lives, then we say that a teenager cannot be allowed
to make a mistake, cannot learn and cannot change. This becomes scary.

I look at the "Liberal" or in reality the "IL-Liberal elite" who have abused any type of religious morality as unacceptable
as people should be able to do what they want, now using mob rule as a method of imposing what they want on anybody.
Anybody who opposes ANYTHING they want is openly abused and threatened.

WingNut60
2nd Oct 2018, 00:15
IF we allow acts when we are young to completely define our lives, then we say that a teenager cannot be allowed
to make a mistake, cannot learn and cannot change. This becomes scary.
.

What's scary to me is the prospect of a 38-year old person with 3 convictions for unlawful sexual assault before he was eighteen sitting on a park bench across the road from my house.

Give him the benefit of the doubt? No sah.

pattern_is_full
2nd Oct 2018, 01:56
My point in starting the thread was not just on the Judge but on others who will find that actions as a Young'un will
supposedly define them for life becasue someone decides that will be the case.

IF we allow acts when we are young to completely define our lives, then we say that a teenager cannot be allowed
to make a mistake, cannot learn and cannot change. This becomes scary.

What's a "Young'un"? 9? 11? 15? 17? They are not all the same.

What's a mistake? Drinking underage? Driving underage? Driving under the influence while underage? Driving under the influence and/or while underage multiple times? Having a single-car accident while underage? Having an accident under the influence while underage? Injuring another person while driving underage? Killing another person while driving underage? Killing and/or injuring someone else while driving underage and under the influence? They are not all the same.

What's another mistake? Trying to hold a girl's hand? Trying to kiss a girl? Trying to take off a girl's clothes against her wishes? Lying on top of a girl to hold her down while you try to take off her clothes against her wishes? They are not all the same.

My point being that there are a whole spectrum of situations that you try to conflate under the simplistic "A mistake by a Young'un." And some youthful mistakes may be ignored and excused, and others need not be. Depends on their severity, and especially whether they impact another person. Whose own life may be "defined" forever-after by the incident (and did you ever think to ask about that?)

If one's life has been examined so minutely that such mistakes come to light, most likely many other actions have also come to light, and certainly the one can be weighed against the others, and a pattern of contrition and learning and change can be noted - if it is there.

From the political end, Kavanuagh's youthful indiscretions show that he was, at the least, an arrogant self-important arse who felt "entitled" to do whatever he wanted. And his behavior before the Senate most recently shows that he remains an arrogant self-important arse, who thinks he is "entitled" to be confirmed, without the - inconvenience - of answering difficult questions.

Not a whole lot of change evident over 36 years, in that department.

chuks
2nd Oct 2018, 02:57
I think that a lot of the appeal of Kavanaugh to Trump stems from his essential wrongness in terms of who a Supreme Court Justice is meant to be. Essentially honest, somewhat impartial, when people tend to forget that some Justices, such as Earl Warren, turned out not to make decisions the way they were expected to, but on the basis of their character. This Kavanaugh fellow seems to be just as unsuitable for his position as Trump also is, and in oddly similar ways, both because of their essential characters; they are lacking in honesty.

If we had vetted Trump with an FBI investigation he would most probably never have made it into office, and it will be a surprise to me if Kavanaugh survives his own further vetting, done on the basis of new accusations of gross sexual misconduct, by impartial experts from the FBI.

Meanwhile, win or lose, we've had the spectacle of a collision between one set of values, the set that stems from having essentially no values except belief in privilege, and this other, newer set of values, still being formed, that seeks to put woman and minorities into power.

It's the sort of collision we saw in that debate, Hillary telling Donald "she has a name," when all Trump could come up with was "Where did you find her?" Now it was Mark Judge telling a reporter "How did you find me?"

I think a lot of this comes from Trump simply getting carried away with himself. He's surrounded himself with toadies, and he usually gets his reinforcement from these stupid rallies that draw cheers and calls of even "Lock her up!" so that he seemed to think that he could sell this act to anyone, simply repeating it with Kavanaugh.

When the dust settles, and if it ends with Kavanaugh not making it onto the bench of the Supreme Court, then the talking heads may choose to see him as a victim of his own and Trump's supreme arrogance. These are two people who have gotten away with so much wrong-doing, Trump for sure, Kavanaugh most seemingly, that they thought they could get away with anything. If he'd thought this one through Kavanaugh should have taken fright at the thought of all that bad behavior, the illegal binge drinking and the crude stuff from his yearbook just for starters, coming to light in this new era with woman on the warpath. He may get what is coming to him for what he has got away with his whole life, his bad behavior when he was a student at Georgetown Prep and at Yale.

There is a culture war going on now, one that's often fought using really dirty tactics, or at least really rough tactics. 50 years ago the idea of attacking an establishment figure such as Kavanaugh by bringing up "what happened at Georgetown" would have been unthinkable because impossible. Dr. Ford's attack on Kavanaugh would have ended before it began with denunciation of her for being a drunken little teenage slut who had tried and failed to seduce a good little Catholic schoolboy. We see this denunciation being used now, but now it has lost its power.

What I was confronted with was something I understood: once powerless people going a bit mad, a bit drunk on their new power. One against many? Better to make a tactical withdrawal in good order because a glorious last stand, the tattered banner of truth flying in a storm of shot and shell ... I just wanted a BA, and I got one, when some of those fanatics thought that was just so, so unfair.

The thing is that I felt that I deserved that degree, just as much as Brett Kavanaugh thinks he deserves this seat on the Supreme Court. In both cases that getting what I wanted, what he wants, signifies some sort of win against an opposing faction in a culture war. In a very odd sort of way I was seen as being on what is now Kavanaugh's side in what went on then at that tiny college; most people there thought I was some sort of Republican and there was no point in trying to explain that there are more than just two sides to many conflicts.

As bad a little schoolboy as our Brett probably was, do not suppose for one minute that he'd ever feel badly about getting something that he might not be the right man for. He likes himself, Donald Trump likes him too, and the rest of us can go piss up a rope with our whining about what goes on in their world of privilege, one most of us have no real idea of.

Pontius Navigator
2nd Oct 2018, 08:16
As far as the hearings go, regardless of the truth, it is his conduct and demeanour that is remarkable.

There are various possible reactions - quiet, calm convict that the truth will out - righteous indignation that his probity being questioned - bluff or bluster or outright anger and temper. Now how we judge his approach will depend as much whether we are make or female, American or not.

Now from my perspective, I would expect a High Court judge to be beyond reproach, to maintain a calm and considered countenance and not display anger such as we have seen on TV. From that alone I would disbar him from office, but that is in UK not the US.

KelvinD
2nd Oct 2018, 08:40
racedo: The thing about flaky memories, made-up memories etc, if correct, surely holds water on both sides. So, if Prof Ford is guilty of producing erroneous memories of an evening that I am sure would be burned in her memory for a long time, then the same weight must be given to Kavanaugh's memory. And they cancel each other out. Except she has nothing to lose, while he has everything to lose. Surely, those two very different risks will have very different effects on memory?

racedo
2nd Oct 2018, 11:20
Now from my perspective, I would expect a High Court judge to be beyond reproach, to maintain a calm and considered countenance and not display anger such as we have seen on TV. From that alone I would disbar him from office, but that is in UK not the US.

This is where I have a problem because on that basis pretty much most of your Judges will be people who have NEVER done anything in life and are out of touch with the real world.

Never used drugs.......................... yup that will exclude a high proportion of current young people
Never broken the law..................... likewise

Then we ask these people to sit in Judgement on US, interpret the law laid down by elected government. who have never experienced the life the population have led.

If you cannot be angry when someone is accusing you of sexual abuse that you believe is false then when can you be angry ?

racedo
2nd Oct 2018, 11:22
What's a "Young'un"? 9? 11? 15? 17? They are not all the same.

What's a mistake? Drinking underage? Driving underage? Driving under the influence while underage? Driving under the influence and/or while underage multiple times? Having a single-car accident while underage? Having an accident under the influence while underage? Injuring another person while driving underage? Killing another person while driving underage? Killing and/or injuring someone else while driving underage and under the influence? They are not all the same.

and the law doesn't treat them as the same but should running over and killing someone in a car bar you from everything ?
or
Abandoning someone in a car who later dies at an accident ?

racedo
2nd Oct 2018, 11:28
If we had vetted Trump with an FBI investigation he would most probably never have made it into office, and it will be a surprise to me if Kavanaugh survives his own further vetting, done on the basis of new accusations of gross sexual misconduct, by impartial experts from the FBI.


Do you think Bill Clinton, GW Bush and Barrack Obama would have passed the same FBI vetting that you demand of existing President.....

As for IMPARTIAL by FBI, we have already openly seen actions by an FBI Agent who openly wished to ensure existing President was not elected.

Notice how you wish to go down the route of ensuring Government approval of Candidates who can stand for office........................
Totalitarianism at its finest.

WingNut60
2nd Oct 2018, 11:51
and the law doesn't treat them as the same but should running over and killing someone in a car bar you from everything ?
or
Abandoning someone in a car who later dies at an accident ?

Two aspects not addressed - culpability and what is everything.

Case a) - if culpability or negligence shown then YES - it should bar you from holding a drivers license at least, and maybe preclude you from holding high office.
But not from everything

Case b) - pretty much the same. Culpability can pretty much be assumed, in most cases.

In other words, it depends on the transgression and the position being sought.

Your constitution, most constitutions, already bar certain transgressors from holding office.
And no, that should not be a decision of the government.
That's why the current hearing is before a Senate (Congressional ??) committee.

racedo
2nd Oct 2018, 12:23
Two aspects not addressed - culpability and what is everything.

Case a) - if culpability or negligence shown then YES - it should bar you from holding a drivers license at least, and maybe preclude you from holding high office.
But not from everything

Case b) - pretty much the same. Culpability can pretty much be assumed, in most cases.

In other words, it depends on the transgression and the position being sought.

Your constitution, most constitutions, already bar certain transgressors from holding office.
And no, that should not be a decision of the government.
That's why the current hearing is before a Senate committee.

A - Laura Bush before she was married, running a stop light and killing someone
B - Ted Kennedy and Mary-Jo Koepechne

WingNut60
2nd Oct 2018, 12:28
A - Laura Bush before she was married, running a stop light and killing someone
B - Ted Kennedy and Mary-Jo Koepechne

Not really familiar with the first case. Did she run for office?
Ted Kennedy - yes, probably. But in his case, it was known and put to the people, and they chose to overlook it.
You don't really want SC judges appointment to go to common vote, do you?

In Oz SC positions are nominated by the law council, I think.
But then, we are much less reliant on SC judgements.
Maybe our constitution is more robust.

racedo
2nd Oct 2018, 15:41
Not really familiar with the first case. Did she run for office?
Ted Kennedy - yes, probably. But in his case, it was known and put to the people, and they chose to overlook it.
You don't really want SC judges appointment to go to common vote, do you?


Nope but should it be only judged against someone if they run for office ?

In case of Ted, he was well known for what he did as a serial womaniser but somehow the Feminist Movement always loved
him because he did their bidding.
Think he played and manipulated them well.

It is why I see hypocrisy as if Kavanaugh was a Liberal Judge none of this would be mentioned.

WingNut60
2nd Oct 2018, 16:05
Nope but should it be only judged against someone if they run for office ?

You mean Mrs GW should not have been allowed to be GW's wife?
Maybe GW would have been OK with that.

As for Teddy, he got away with it; maybe because of the times or empathy to the family.

Asking whether we SHOULD overlook Kavanaugh's alleged transgressions is a rhetorical question.
He is being judged, and not too favourably it seems; probably based on a) perceived (not proven) dishonesty and b) the position that he's nominated for.
Sign of the times.

pattern_is_full
2nd Oct 2018, 16:11
If you are going to bring up hypocrisy:

Two-and-a half years ago, the Republican Senate set a new standard that, in an election year, a Supreme Court seat could remain vacant for up to 14 months, until after the voters had spoken. Are they honestly holding to that standard now - as they rush to get their nominee confirmed in 4 months, before the election? Or are they hypocrites?

Your answer will do much to reveal whether you are a hypocrite. Pot/Kettle/Black.

lomapaseo
2nd Oct 2018, 17:28
Two-and-a half years ago, the Republican Senate set a new standard that, in an election year, a Supreme Court seat could remain vacant for up to 14 months, until after the voters had spoken. Are they honestly holding to that standard now - as they rush to get their nominee confirmed in 4 months, before the election? Or are they hypocrites?


I didn't think that applied to mid-terms

pattern_is_full
2nd Oct 2018, 17:31
Will it apply in Jan. 2020 - ya think?

racedo
2nd Oct 2018, 19:35
If you are going to bring up hypocrisy:

Two-and-a half years ago, the Republican Senate set a new standard that, in an election year, a Supreme Court seat could remain vacant for up to 14 months, until after the voters had spoken. Are they honestly holding to that standard now - as they rush to get their nominee confirmed in 4 months, before the election? Or are they hypocrites?

Your answer will do much to reveal whether you are a hypocrite. Pot/Kettle/Black.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html

Appears that GOP only followed the rule as laid down by Joe Biden when a Senator in 1992.

Wonder what Joe Biden was doing in 2016 when Garland nomination was made................... anybody got an idea ?

pattern_is_full
2nd Oct 2018, 21:08
And is the GOP following that rule consistently, or are they hypocrites, who follow it one year and abandon it when it's "their guy"? I note you dodged that question.

racedo
2nd Oct 2018, 21:42
And is the GOP following that rule consistently, or are they hypocrites, who follow it one year and abandon it when it's "their guy"? I note you dodged that question.

Question wasn't asked.........

But as you raise in the last person approved by Senate for Supreme Court in a Presidential Election year was Frank Murphy who was nominated by FDR on Jan 4th 1940.
Before that was Benjamin Cardozo in 1932 by Hoover and before that it was nominations by Wilson in 1916.

https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm

pattern_is_full
3rd Oct 2018, 02:24
Question wasn't asked.........


Oh really? Polish your reading glasses. #122 above.

Are they honestly holding to that standard now - as they rush to get their nominee confirmed in 4 months, before the election? Or are they hypocrites?

Your answer will do much to reveal whether you are a hypocrite. Pot/Kettle/Black.

I do now understand your sympathy with Judge Kavanaugh, however. You both think lying will get you out of uncomfortable questions.

ShotOne
3rd Oct 2018, 08:07
The direction of this thread confirms at least that this is about politics and almost nothing to do with what did or didn't happen thirty-something years ago.

racedo
3rd Oct 2018, 15:17
Oh really? Polish your reading glasses. #122 above.


Well question got well and truly answered and seems GOP following same criteria that has been in use for decades and Joe Biden
happily made clear this was Senate policy when he was a Senator.

Obama played politics and kept his appointment there on assumption that HRC would be elected.

pattern_is_full
3rd Oct 2018, 16:25
It is very likely true that if Kavanaugh were simply being interviewed by a private law firm as a prospective new partner, or being hired as a rank-and-file DoJ staff lawyer, that none of this would have come up.

But once one aspires to join the highest levels of power in a government (absent a dictatorship), the process does become both public and small-p political, even in the best of times.

But to get back to the original putative question - H*ll F**king YES, what one does as a youth can and should be considered in making a decision of this import. You want to join the 548 most-powerful people in the US? You'd better be prepared for your whole life to become an open book.

It does not have to be the determining factor - but that is up to the people making the decision, not the nominee. In the case of 539 of those, the voters, and for the 9 on the court, the President who proposes the nomination and the Senate, who advise and consent (or don't consent).

One of the most important characteristics of a judge or justice is - the quality of their judgement. Whether K. did or did not actually attempt or even simulate an attempt at rape we may never know, but the process of looking into that has certainly revealed that his judgment, both as a youth regarding alcohol and "civilized behavior," and in handling this modern situation in public before the nation, is quite flawed.

lomapaseo
3rd Oct 2018, 17:30
One of the most important characteristics of a judge or justice is - the quality of their judgement. Whether K. did or did not actually attempt or even simulate an attempt at rape we may never know, but the process of looking into that has certainly revealed that his judgment, both as a youth regarding alcohol and "civilized behavior," and in handling this modern situation in public before the nation, is quite flawed.

what comes first is the charge against a law, then the investigation and its support and then the judicial process before any sub-level degree of temperment comes into it.. His objections to the process was noted as he was the object of what may be a false charge. He is not an impartial judge in this circus.

Ogre
4th Oct 2018, 09:11
Stand by for round 2...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45741044

The indications are that the FBI has done whatever it had to do and has found.... well according to another source that there was no evidence that the accusation was true. Of course expect the democrat/feminist side to now be up in arms and wait for the claims of a coverup/whitewash/conspiracy.

Will the good judge be confirmed? Well even if the accusation was unfounded, the mud has been thrown and some of it will have stuck.

racedo
4th Oct 2018, 10:24
Stand by for round 2...
Will the good judge be confirmed? Well even if the accusation was unfounded, the mud has been thrown and some of it will have stuck.

Kavanaugh will in all likelihood be confirmed as little evidence to go on and complainant never made a complaint to MD Police.

Some politicians may seek to impeach / remove but better have no skeletons or graveyards in your past on ANYTHING, few will have
and they will be judged in public whether there is evidence or not. Politicians will stay very quiet.

Interesting in reading an ex UK Foreign Editors take on it that Kavanaugh was involved in investigating Vince Foster death in conjunction
with FBI. Editors narrative on the death was not in keeping with official announcements plus indicating there was evidence that FBI have to
back this up. Who knew...........

DaveReidUK
4th Oct 2018, 12:55
The indications are that the FBI has done whatever it had to do

Which, according to the BBC, didn't include any perceived need to interview either Kavanaugh or any of his accusers.

lomapaseo
4th Oct 2018, 14:11
Which, according to the BBC, didn't include any perceived need to interview either Kavanaugh or any of his accusers.

could be because we have already heard from them and some of them under oath. What the FBI seems to be interested in is new sources of possible factual info not yet heard.

racedo
4th Oct 2018, 16:16
Which, according to the BBC, didn't include any perceived need to interview either Kavanaugh or any of his accusers.

If someone has given all their evidence undr Oath then how would interviewing them again change it ?

Unaware why someone wouldn't give all the evidence that they have when they have the chance unless they were making more evidence up.

WingNut60
5th Oct 2018, 00:20
Possibly because under oath you can only answer the questions that you are asked.
An open invitation to tell all might reveal something else.

RatherBeFlying
5th Oct 2018, 01:03
How many years was Kavanaugh investigating Clinton's consensual encounters?

Now we are being fed the canard that a week is sufficient time to investigate allegations from Kavanaugh's distant past, all of which he denies.

The cartoon of the day should be 51 ostriches with their heads in the sand.

Kavanaugh's behavior at the last hearing so impressed over 2500 law professors that they signed a letter declaring Kavanaugh unfit to be a judge at any level: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/02/brett-kavanaugh-reject-supreme-court-nomination-law-professor-letter

Now if Kavanaugh had come out and admitted that he was a party animal who may have done unremembered regrettable stuff while intoxicated like many others in his cohort and apologized for any offense that may have been done - people could be understanding. But he's claiming he was a choirboy.

Maybe he was. Let's have a thorough investigation and let the chips fall where they will.

BAengineer
5th Oct 2018, 01:12
Funniest quote of the day is from Lindsey Graham who suggested we dunk him (Kavanaugh) in the water and see if he floats - even then I dont suppose it will satisfy everyone.

fltlt
5th Oct 2018, 03:32
The agreement of the commitee was an FBI investigation of the allegations before them, not to exceed 7 day’s, both sides signed off on that.
If there is nobody to corroborate the allegations then there is nothing else to investigate.

Dont forget, the commitee has an investigative arm that also questioned the folks that were named as witness to the alleged incidents, they couldn’t corroborate any of the allegations.

With 6 previous FBI background checks, of which at least a couple would have been really deep dives for positions at the White House, and nothing untoward being found, add this one, what else is left to investigate in his life?

It all comes back to Feinstein holding on to the letter, IF she had followed the established procedures in place to deal with this kind of thing, there would not have been the 3 ring circus, both families would not have gone through what they have, and none of this would have been public knowledge.

Water under the bridge, what’s done is done, etc., etc., etc.

Personally, I think that when Feinstein received the letter originally she had someone, her staff, somebody, quietly check to see if it could be corroborated. My bet is they came to the conclusion it couldn’t be, however it was just the thing to use in this me too era if all else failed and it looked as if Kavanaugh was going to be confirmed, just the thing to have him throw up his hands and walk away, or the Republicans would walk away from him.
Neither happened, the election results in November will reveal which, if any party pays a price for their behavior.

i wouldn’t give you a plugged nickel for any of them.

West Coast
5th Oct 2018, 05:28
How many years was Kavanaugh investigating Clinton's consensual encounters?

Now we are being fed the canard that a week is sufficient time to investigate allegations from Kavanaugh's distant past, all of which he denies.

The cartoon of the day should be 51 ostriches with their heads in the sand.

Kavanaugh's behavior at the last hearing so impressed over 2500 law professors that they signed a letter declaring Kavanaugh unfit to be a judge at any level: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/02/brett-kavanaugh-reject-supreme-court-nomination-law-professor-letter

Now if Kavanaugh had come out and admitted that he was a party animal who may have done unremembered regrettable stuff while intoxicated like many others in his cohort and apologized for any offense that may have been done - people could be understanding. But he's claiming he was a choirboy.

Maybe he was. Let's have a thorough investigation and let the chips fall where they will.

To be clear, if Justin isn’t satisfying your need for theatrics, you have a right to chime in. Just don’t go all drama queen with this “we are being fed” crap. You’re voluntarily joining the fray with no skin in the game. If you as a foreigner feel you’re being “fed” anything, you might want to tune out the domestic politics of another nation and remind yourself you’re not vested in the outcome no matter which way it goes.

Pontius Navigator
5th Oct 2018, 07:21
West Coast, quite. However with globalization and 24 hr media coverage our revered broadcaster is quite happy to fill our airwaves with your melodrama. Netflix etc give us the US fictional stories and the news channels the real life (I was going to say facts). I suppose some expat Americans watch it. I will ask our tame one next week.

West Coast
5th Oct 2018, 08:08
West Coast, quite. However with globalization and 24 hr media coverage our revered broadcaster is quite happy to fill our airwaves with your melodrama. Netflix etc give us the US fictional stories and the news channels the real life (I was going to say facts). I suppose some expat Americans watch it. I will ask our tame one next week.


PN

I absolutely understand and am even sympathetic to your nausea of the 24 hr news cycle, it is however controllable by a punch of remote, a swipe to the next story, etc. Given the lack of new data post accusation I’ve done exactly that, popping in only to find out if new data has arisen. If our Canadian friend is overdosing, he’s a willing addict.

WingNut60
5th Oct 2018, 11:08
I have just returned to an area with English language news coverage.... ad nauseum.

Would I like Kavanaugh on a SC in my country? No.

Do I think the process was fair and just? No. It's, an absolute f...ng disgrace.
The process and everything that supports the process appears to be 100% politicised. And that's no way to select a SC justice.

racedo
5th Oct 2018, 11:39
How many years was Kavanaugh investigating Clinton's consensual encounters?

Now we are being fed the canard that a week is sufficient time to investigate allegations from Kavanaugh's distant past, all of which he denies.

The cartoon of the day should be 51 ostriches with their heads in the sand.

Kavanaugh's behavior at the last hearing so impressed over 2500 law professors that they signed a letter declaring Kavanaugh unfit to be a judge at any level: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/02/brett-kavanaugh-reject-supreme-court-nomination-law-professor-letter

Now if Kavanaugh had come out and admitted that he was a party animal who may have done unremembered regrettable stuff while intoxicated like many others in his cohort and apologized for any offense that may have been done - people could be understanding. But he's claiming he was a choirboy.

Maybe he was. Let's have a thorough investigation and let the chips fall where they will.

Well BC's encounters with Gennifer Flowers were by all accounts consensual, however his encounters with Juanita Broderick and Paula Jones were not.
These lady's have been stating their case for years that it was NON Consensual.

Now I am struggling to find why Bill would pay Paula almost a million dollars as he was leaving office if all it was consensual bearing in mind she was taking him to court for sexual abuse.

As for the law professsors................... bet if you did a background check of 10% of them there would be lots of vacancies needing filling.

Pontius Navigator
5th Oct 2018, 11:55
West Coast, I was thinking of starting a thread "Do you watch TV?"

Throughout my career with frequent random night work I got out of the habit. A video recorded didn't help as SWMBO wanted a live programme and there weren't enough hours to play catch up.

West Coast
5th Oct 2018, 14:45
West Coast, I was thinking of starting a thread "Do you watch TV?"

Throughout my career with frequent random night work I got out of the habit. A video recorded didn't help as SWMBO wanted a live programme and there weren't enough hours to play catch up.

To your basic question. The % of my time spent watching the telly is declining as my years go up. If I do watch it’s sports, nature, history or documentaries with a smattering of the news.

RatherBeFlying
5th Oct 2018, 16:14
To be clear, if Justin isn’t satisfying your need for theatrics, you have a right to chime in. Just don’t go all drama queen with this “we are being fed” crap. You’re voluntarily joining the fray with no skin in the game. If you as a foreigner feel you’re being “fed” anything, you might want to tune out the domestic politics of another nation and remind yourself you’re not vested in the outcome no matter which way it goes. You may not be aware that I was born in LA, with siblings and nephews on the West Coast, and parents and grandparents planted in California.

Economically Canada and the US are joined at the hip. When you are tied to an elephant of uncertain disposition, you are very much interested in what is going on next door

fltlt
5th Oct 2018, 16:37
You may not be aware that I was born in LA, with siblings and nephews on the West Coast, and parents and grandparents planted in California.

Economically Canada and the US are joined at the hip. When you are tied to an elephant of uncertain disposition, you are very much interested in what is going on next door
I remember a time some 30 odd years ago when the western provinces were so upset with the Canadian Government that talk of seceding from Canada to join the US was getting quite a bit of attention.

West Coast
5th Oct 2018, 16:52
You may not be aware that I was born in LA, with siblings and nephews on the West Coast, and parents and grandparents planted in California.

Economically Canada and the US are joined at the hip. When you are tied to an elephant of uncertain disposition, you are very much interested in what is going on next door

Are you now a US citizen?

West Coast
5th Oct 2018, 16:55
I remember a time some 30 odd years ago when the western provinces were so upset with the Canadian Government that talk of seceding from Canada to join the US was getting quite a bit of attention.


Would have welcomed the flyover states with wide open arms. The coastal parts, well, we have enough LA’s, San Frans, Seattle’s and NYCs already.

WingNut60
5th Oct 2018, 19:23
I remember a time some 30 odd years ago when the western provinces were so upset with the Canadian Government that talk of seceding from Canada to join the US was getting quite a bit of attention.

I also remember a time some 30 odd years ago when the western provinces were so upset with the Canadian Government that there was talk of seceding from Canada.
What I don't remember was any serious suggestion about joining the US.

Gertrude the Wombat
5th Oct 2018, 19:48
And that's no way to select a SC justice.
From my part of the world the view is that it's utterly bizarre that a judge is appointed by politicians voting on party lines on the basis of his party political views.

We're more into the idea that judges should be appointed by people who know something about the law on the basis of their capability as a judge.

But wouldn't it be boring if we were all the same?

BAengineer
5th Oct 2018, 23:40
I have just returned to an area with English language news coverage.... ad nauseum.

Would I like Kavanaugh on a SC in my country? No.

Do I think the process was fair and just? No. It's, an absolute f...ng disgrace.
The process and everything that supports the process appears to be 100% politicised. And that's no way to select a SC justice.


Given the political nature of the SC, what other way is there to select those to serve?. Lottery? Appointment? (but by whom), election maybe?

fltlt
6th Oct 2018, 01:58
I also remember a time some 30 odd years ago when the western provinces were so upset with the Canadian Government that there was talk of seceding from Canada.
What I don't remember was any serious suggestion about joining the US.

In Dallas north (Calgary) the suggestion being floated was that as BC had the wood and hydro, Alberta the oil and gas, Saskatchewan and Manitoba could tag along if they wished.
Joining the US made sense, as at that time the natural resources were in great demand. Cooler heads eventually prevailed.
Peter Lougheed gave it some momentum with the argument over the Crow Rate on the railroads favoring the eastern provinces.
i will never forget the speech he made, “I will turn off the pipelines, let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark”.

WingNut60
6th Oct 2018, 02:32
[QUOTE=fltlt;10267064]

In Dallas north (Calgary) the suggestion being floated was that as BC had the wood and hydro, Alberta the oil and gas, Saskatchewan and Manitoba could tag along if they wished.
Joining the US made sense, as at that time the natural resources were in great demand. Cooler heads eventually prevailed.
Peter Lougheed gave it some momentum with the argument over the Crow Rate on the railroads favoring the eastern provinces.
i will never forget the speech he made, “I will turn off the pipelines, let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark”.[/QUOTE

I also remember it (reasonably) well. I remember bumper stickers to the effect.
The Quebec autonomy / independence deal came into the argument too.
But everything you mention relates to succession. That most certainly was on the agenda.
But becoming a part of the U.S.? That bit escapes me.

My sister, Canadian from Calgary, tells the tale of a conversation with friends from the U.S. who casually mentioned that Canada and the U.S. being kissing cousins, "can't see why we couldn't merge into one big happy family".
My sister's reply - "Oh really? How long have you wanted to be Canadians?"
Stunned silence.

I'll be in Calgary next week. I'll revive a few memories and see if anyone remembers your side of the story.

fltlt
6th Oct 2018, 03:55
[QUOTE=fltlt;10267064]

In Dallas north (Calgary) the suggestion being floated was that as BC had the wood and hydro, Alberta the oil and gas, Saskatchewan and Manitoba could tag along if they wished.
Joining the US made sense, as at that time the natural resources were in great demand. Cooler heads eventually prevailed.
Peter Lougheed gave it some momentum with the argument over the Crow Rate on the railroads favoring the eastern provinces.
i will never forget the speech he made, “I will turn off the pipelines, let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark”.[/QUOTE

I also remember it (reasonably) well. I remember bumper stickers to the effect.
The Quebec autonomy / independence deal came into the argument too.
But everything you mention relates to succession. That most certainly was on the agenda.
But becoming a part of the U.S.? That bit escapes me.

My sister, Canadian from Calgary, tells the tale of a conversation with friends from the U.S. who casually mentioned that Canada and the U.S. being kissing cousins, "can't see why we couldn't merge into one big happy family".
My sister's reply - "Oh really? How long have you wanted to be Canadians?"
Stunned silence.

I'll be in Calgary next week. I'll revive a few memories and see if anyone remembers your side of the story.

it would appear there have been quite a few attempts by various parties to have multiple provinces secede at one time or another, more than I realized:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessionist_movements_of_Canada

DaveReidUK
6th Oct 2018, 06:56
Given the political nature of the SC, what other way is there to select those to serve?. Lottery? Appointment? (but by whom), election maybe?

Maybe they could sit an exam.

Or a bit of role-play to make sure that they aren't prone to hysterical outbursts.

Gertrude the Wombat
6th Oct 2018, 08:22
Given the political nature of the SC
Is that a given? Perhaps the SC should have another look at the constitution and de-politicise themselves?

Fareastdriver
6th Oct 2018, 08:30
Perhaps Gertrude should have a close look at the systems commonly used in the beloved European Union.

WingNut60
6th Oct 2018, 12:22
it would appear there have been quite a few attempts by various parties to have multiple provinces secede at one time or another, more than I realized:


Yep. But most of these were political posturing.
Alberta's stance on "let 'em freeze in the dark" was, as I remember it, definitely in response to the Quebec push for full independence but with fully maintained economic ties. Which was largely interpreted by the western provinces as Quebec, being unable to support itself, still wanted economic support from them.
And thus the bumper stickers.
The "join the US bit looks as though it was mainly centred in Saskatchewan.
I do not remember any such push from Alberta or B.C.
And so far they have not resorted to full-scale civil-war, as did their neighbours.

fltlt
6th Oct 2018, 13:37
Yep. But most of these were political posturing.
Alberta's stance on "let 'em freeze in the dark" was, as I remember it, definitely in response to the Quebec push for full independence but with fully maintained economic ties. Which was largely interpreted by the western provinces as Quebec, being unable to support itself, still wanted economic support from them.
And thus the bumper stickers.
The "join the US bit looks as though it was mainly centred in Saskatchewan.
I do not remember any such push from Alberta or B.C.
And so far they have not resorted to full-scale civil-war, as did their neighbours.

Perhaps it was only talk at the CCA/oil folks get togethers, laced with quite a few politicians that seemed to be trying to advance that agenda, I know from the few I attended way back when, if you weren’t in a conversation on that topic, you soon would be.

I too lived in Calgary for a few years, NE side. Rented out the house for a couple of weeks each year at Stampede time, then through the same folks for the 88 Winter Olympics, Still have the image in my mind of the tower lit up like the torch, while stood in the snow.

The folks that rented the house liked it so much they made an offer to buy which I couldn’t refuse, but they wouldn’t take the wife, so they got the house and someone else got a girlfriend.

Move on to other things.

BAengineer
6th Oct 2018, 13:45
Is that a given? Perhaps the SC should have another look at the constitution and de-politicise themselves?

How would that work?. For instance there is nothing in the Constitution mandating Abortion access - that was a political decision by the Court. Of course the supporters of Abortion could always try to get an amendment to the Constitution, but the chances of that succeeding are pretty slim.

If you are deciding on political issues then you are going to become political - otherwise what is their role?

WingNut60
6th Oct 2018, 21:39
Perhaps it was only talk at the CCA/oil folks get togethers, laced with quite a few politicians that seemed to be trying to advance that agenda, I know from the few I attended way back when, if you weren’t in a conversation on that topic, you soon would be.

I too lived in Calgary for a few years, NE side. Rented out the house for a couple of weeks each year at Stampede time, then through the same folks for the 88 Winter Olympics, Still have the image in my mind of the tower lit up like the torch, while stood in the snow.

The folks that rented the house liked it so much they made an offer to buy which I couldn’t refuse, but they wouldn’t take the wife, so they got the house and someone else got a girlfriend.

Move on to other things.
.
Yeah, I went to the winter Olympics too.
Eddie the Eagle and Cool Runnings.

I spent a fair bit of that time up at Sunshine, which was empty, cause Kananaskis was where it was all happening.

fltlt
7th Oct 2018, 00:12
.
Yeah, I went to the winter Olympics too.
Eddie the Eagle and Cool Runnings.

I spent a fair bit of that time up at Sunshine, which was empty, cause Kananaskis was where it was all happening.

The wife at that time used to like to hang with the equestrian lot, the only thing I saw of the Olympics was the test lighting of the tower, I then headed south to warmer climes and no crowds.

BehindBlueEyes
7th Oct 2018, 14:51
Returning to the memory issues and whether something did or did not happen; I read this article online today and it refers to a syndrome called memory distrust. Memory distrust syndrome is a relatively new concept in forensic psychology, and has only begun to be studied extensively in the past 30 years.

Gisli Gudjonsson is one of its pioneers and his research has shown how it can lead to suspects making false confessions about crimes they didn’t commit. Presumably, it can work in the case of someone believing something might have happened to themselves too?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/the_reykjavik_confessions

WingNut60
7th Oct 2018, 15:53
I can see that there can be reasons for not trusting memory in all circumstances.
Plenty of evidence for that.
What I ca't see and do not support is the notion that because memory CAN be unreliable, implanted, etc then we can never trust memory and it's all fabricated.
Nor do I see that calling it a mental construct, which of course it is, in any way affects the probability of it being accurate.
Memory is a self-preservation mechanism. It's what makes you shy away from hot dogs after you eaten one that had you throwing up all night.
Or reminds you not to play with the pterodactyls.
Getting beaten up by a 140 kg policeman can make you sign a confession too, but that doesn't mean that you really committed the crime.

In particular, I don't see that being able to show that you don't remember all of the details is an argument to verify that you remember nothing, or even worse, that it's all b..lls...t.

In any case this thread is now based on a rhetorical question.

racedo
7th Oct 2018, 16:27
I can see that there can be reasons for not trusting memory in all circumstances.
Plenty of evidence for that.
What I ca't see and do not support is the notion that because memory CAN be unreliable, implanted, etc then we can never trust memory and it's all fabricated.
Nor do I see that calling it a mental construct, which of course it is, in any way affects the probability of it being accurate.
Memory is a self-preservation mechanism. It's what makes you shy away from hot dogs after you eaten one that had you throwing up all night.
.

I highlighted what happened when had an Accident with Police involved and comments from the cops about IMMEDIATE words are truth as brain not yet processed the data.

Only only has to see how much trust is placed on eye witnesses to an event taking place.
Time and again if 10 people see an incident and asked 1 week later there will be complet variants of what they saw.
MAYBE you will get a whole picture by filtering out everything but you do get a wide variety of events.

Pontius Navigator
7th Oct 2018, 19:44
In particular, I don't see that being able to show that you don't remember all of the details is an argument to verify that you remember nothing, or even worse, that it's all b..lls...t.

I thought that is the principle Barristers use.

WingNut60
13th Oct 2018, 05:40
In Dallas north (Calgary) the suggestion being floated was that as BC had the wood and hydro, Alberta the oil and gas, Saskatchewan and Manitoba could tag along if they wished.
Joining the US made sense, as at that time the natural resources were in great demand. Cooler heads eventually prevailed.
Peter Lougheed gave it some momentum with the argument over the Crow Rate on the railroads favoring the eastern provinces.
i will never forget the speech he made, “I will turn off the pipelines, let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark”.

My apologies. You are quite correct.
In Calgary now, talking to a few older Calgarians.

Only difference is that most say that it was Ralph Kline and not Lougheed.