(09-28-2018 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 12:41 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  With these allegations, it boils down to a he said/she said situation and 36 years later, it's unlikely we'll ever know one way or the other what really went down. Some folks are more likely to believe the accuser, some folks are more likely to believe the accused. *shrug*

But man yesterday...I thought Kavanaugh straight up embarrassed himself. I get that he's pissed, but you gotta do more to at least try to come off as "above it all." He's literally being nominated for the most "above it all" position in the country. Folks in here talking Patrick Bateman-style calm, but I think there's a balance that could've been struck with defending yourself while still keeping your ish together. Show some professionalism.

Dude was up there crying about his daddy's calendars...his dad is still alive! No matter you think about Kavanaugh, that's pretty funny. Seriously, why is he crying??? Did no one prepare him for this? Geez lol

I've got no issues with the tears - this is obviously an emotional time for the guy who is being put through the ringer (to put it mildly).

I had an issue with him suggesting that this was a Clinton conspiracy.

I had an issue with him suggesting, repeatedly, that good grades means that someone can't party too hard on occasion (Rice taught me that was a big ol crock of ****).

I had an issue with him questioning a Senator and asking if she had ever blacked out as a response to her probing him (which apparently Kavanaugh even recognized was an issue, because he felt the need to specifically apologize for that).

Do you think 'party[ing] hard in school' is an event worthy of castigation in a SCOTUS nomination hearing?

I mean, jeezus h krist he was *grilled* if he had 'brewskis with Timmy on a Thursday'.....

Two things.

1) Being that the entire premise of the accusation was centered around a drunk Kavanaugh sexually assaulting Ford, being grilled about having brewskis on Thursday makes sense, that's the situation in which an alleged assault took place.

2) The question of whether Kavanaugh is truthful was also under investigation, because that is a major part of his defense - that we trust his word. Him partying hard in high school or Yale isn't the issue really, it's whether he was truthfully and accurately portraying his partying ways. I was shocked that he couldn't speak openly and honestly about that - people can both do well and party hard in college. Rice taught me that.

One thing should stand out, and Im not surprised that one thing is not noted.

The *entire* episode is based on a grand total of ZERO fing supporting evidence. Think abut that. ZERO. As in nada, zilch, the complete lack thereof.

In something aside from fing bizarro-world **** that Republican SCOTUS nominations seem to engender, *that* would be the *most* striking thing about it.

Let me rephrase, not ZERO. If truly balancing, the net weight is actually less than zero. Every single witness pointed to as 'there' said one of two things.

One, 'I dont remember' not just the actual assault, but a complete lack of knowledge on any get together like it. Or two, no, that did not happen (a refutation).

The *only* other corroborative evidence was, in fact, the calendars. Which tended to show that Kavanaugh was not present at any such event (to the extent the calendar evidence can show it).

So spare me the 'well it is part of the inquiry'.

Im a little disturbed, mind you, that it is seemingly accepted as 'par for the course' that 'party[ing] too hard' is within the tolerances of *this* investigation. If there was *any* evidence *in the gd slightest* that tended in any *scintilla* to show that Kav should be subject to this, I might agree with you.

But you seemingly swallow the approriateness to what is an edge issue in the best of cases when assessing your support of it, in case that has no utter sign of supporting evidence. I find that a tad disquieting.

So yes there are two things you cite. When you utterly overlook the predicate that I have a base problem with, that might be on point.