Cynthia McKinney on the Kavanaugh furor
Submitted by Nastarana on Wed, 09/26/2018 - 9:14am
I don't know if Dr. McKinney's essay, has been referred to here yet or not, but it does deserve a separate thread.
https://www.allthingscynthiamckinney.com/rich-white-kids/
She also identifies the complaint as a psy-op, which, as I have said, I also think it is.
Please, everyone, notice that wild times in HS did not stymie the careers of either Kavanaugh or Ford, both of them pampered children of privilege.
Comments
An excerpt
Blasey and Kavanaugh, through no fault of their own, are the victims of a culture that enshrines laissez-faire absentee parents who mindlessly leave their children behind when they go on their own vacations, pursue their careers, take long business trips, and fraternize with friends at social events, etc.; and, also, these affluent, latch-key-parents shower their ethically and morally unmoored children with cars, cash, contraceptives, and credit cards which, in turn, are used to purchase alcohol, prescription drugs, illegal drugs, and bad companions.
To me, mother of two bright and highly competent children who are having to make their own way in life without benefit of wealthy connections, and who both wipe the floor with their entitled competitors, McKinney here seems a bit too kind. Perhaps she doesn't want to be seen as angry and picking on white folks. IMHO, at some point in life you have to take some responsibility for your past misdeeds and foolishness and resolve to do better. It is not apparent to me that K nor his accuser have ever done so.
Mary Bennett
Okay, they're privileged.
No one was arguing that. They both went to elite high schools.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your aim, but I find it odd to see here the insinuation that children of privilege cannot have legitimate accounts of sexual assault, whether by peers or by elders or by employers or by family. That any claims of such can only conceivably be proffered for the sole purpose of political advantage.
Or is this an affluenza defense, conceding that something likely happened but that the perpetrator just couldn't help himself, that his parents made him that way?
Congrats to you and to Ms. McKinney for having raised children better but how does that alter the perspective on a substantial charge against this privileged nominee?
You're so right
in everything you say here. But what Cynthia McKinney does is break this series of events up into parts we can examine. I think it's very possible Christine Blasey Ford is telling the truth, that she chose this time to tell it because Kavanaugh being on the Supreme Court was worse for her than his being a federal judge for all these years in which he hasn't spoken up.
But the timing is such that those of us who see the Democrats as wantonly self-serving, may see them now taking advantage of her pain in order to delay the confirmation process long enough to achieve a Senate majority after the midterm election. So all of their "believing" of the victim just seems ruthless, opportunistic, and craven.
And as so many writers have said here at C99, this way, the Democrats don't have to go on the record challenging Kavanaugh about his corporate legal positions, which could come back to haunt them.
Cynthia McKinney's essay here is a personal view, but it's one informed by years in Congress. I think she's shining light on the public relations circus that rules our lives.
It is possible that both are true.
He is an abuser in his, er, party-private life AND this is a psy-op put out by the Dims to 1. avoid substantive examination of his judicial views and extreme pro-corporate views, and 2. (I think) divert and trivialize the Me Too phenomenon away from what I at least had hoped it would morph into, a serious discussion of the daily humiliations and verbal and other abuse women endure in this society.
I would go so far as to assert that the heavy partying of both K and Ford were winked at and enabled by their parents as "letting off steam", "wild oats", and the like.
Mary Bennett
I see no dark motive or insinuation by the essayist.
The claim by Ford is not suspect because of her background, it's suspect because of the timing of its release. He's long been a sitting judge and she could have released this information at any time during the past 6 years. That doesn't necessarily make her claim untrue, it merely marks it as politically convenient.
Sometimes, revelations or accusations that are politically
convenient are, of course, flat out bs, as I am sure we all know. Sometimes, an outside event compels someone to speak out. And, in any case, an accuser has to be ready within himself or herself to speak out, perhaps especially an accusation of sexual assault or sexual harassment, when the accuser gets put on trial, to one degree or another. For example, many decades had passed before JFK's intern wrote a book about his and her relationship, which book was published near the time of an election. (Interviewers focused more on "Why now, so near an election?" than on "Are any of your claims even true?")
I hope the hearings will lend some certainty, one way or the other, so that we don't add another divisive issue to the pile, but I doubt it. As with Clarence Thomas, Democrats may forever maintain that that the accused was guilty and Republicans may forever claim that the accusation was false. (If not for Linda Tripp and DNA testing, we may have never known for certain about Clinton and Lewinsky.)
The people who
oppose K come up with all kinds of ridiculous notions that seem to guide their judgment (or lack of judgment).
They see nefariousness in everything: he interviewed in a dark, scary room, his wife was looking at him submissively when interviewing - so she must be askared of him, she looks so sad she has a miserable marriage, he looked a certain way when he answered a question and he was lying then and therefore whenever he looks that way again, he is lying...
It is beyond pathetic.
dfarrah
Kavanaugh and Ford are both able to defend themselves, both
in the hearings and in the court of public opinion. However, McKinney seems to me to be trying the parents, more than either Kavanaugh himself or Ford herself, who were left alone "through no fault of their own."
BTW, I was a latch key kid starting about in third grade (because both my parents worked). I also got drunk at more than one college party, though, to the best of my recollection, I never tried to force my physical attentions on anyone. Since college, I have not even jaywalked often.
This is not to say anything about Ford or Kavanaugh, but only to say that kids who are left alone can grow up without either assaulting anyone or making any false accusations.
The latch-key part isn't the deal breaker IMO
It's a weird form of neglect. Having working parents doesn't mean they neglect you. I don't personally know anyone who is extremely wealthy. But I am familiar with a strain of local parents who are so obsessed with their own shit, they seriously neglect their kids. Some of it seems to be just selfishness, but some of it comes from hard times and hard luck. Sticky business to judge other parents though. Parenting is often difficult and complex.
I have much less sympathy for the super-rich. Guess they have their own shit too, but at least would have the funds to buy good care.
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
My post also mentioned my drinking to excess in college.
Many people would find the fact that I wore my house key around my neck to third grade gross child neglect, if not endangerment. I am not sure that a third grader makes a distinction between working and, say, shopping, And that was, by far, not the only disturbing thing of my childhood. But, parental behavior was not the thrust of my post.
My points were that, at some point, each of us is responsible for his or her own actions, regardless of the behavior of our parents, and also that the parents of Kavanaugh and Ford are not able to defend themselves. Moreover, what do we really know about how they raised their kids, other than hearsay?
(I edited this post because, as originally posted, it said "not gross child neglect," when I meant the opposite. My apologies to anyone my error misled.)
Good point
And blaming parents is such a slippery slope . . .
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
On the other hand...
I, too, was a latchkey kid, as were many of my friends. While my behavior was above reproach (i.e. I never got caught), some of my friends sold and/or used drugs, participated in gang rapes, groped girls, drank to excess, committed armed robberies, engaged in breaking and entering, stole cars, and more.
Many kids are irresponsible heathens when left to their own devices. That's a reflection on both childhood and parenting. If I'd had better parents, my two brothers that each died at age 20 would still be alive, my other brother wouldn't be an alcoholic, and I wouldn't be considered the white sheep of the family by being the only one of four boys that graduated from high school and has never been to prison.
And some of my friends--and probably some of yours--
acted out despite no obvious neglect or abuse on the part of their parents.
I am certainly very sorry about your family (and mine, for that matter).
Anecdotal evidence is certainly not the best, but a second cousin on my mother's side and a first cousin on my father's side had kids (one kid each) who became addicts in high school, stole things from their parents and grandparents, etc., despite my cousins doing everything that I think of as doing right by their kids.
However, my point was not that parents should raise latch key kids or that raising latch key kids does no harm. My points were that we really know nothing about Kavanaugh's parents or about Ford's parents that is not hearsay; that the parents they have no forum in which to defend themselves; and that, at some point, both Kavanaugh and Ms. Ford became responsible for their own actions (as did you and I).
May we fervently hope
That once you learned what your friends did, they immediately became ex-friends?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Even for the elites, sexual crimes are a no-no
Bombing and killing children abroad, or denying children food and medical care here at home, well, that's still OK.
It's TV values: a bare nipple is horrifying, but slaughtering dozens of women and children is still PG-13.
If you are referring to Jackson's alleged nip slip at the Super
Bowl, it's (IMO) worth recalling that Justin Timberlake ripped off part of her costume while singing a song whose lyrics included "I want you naked by the end of this song." Also, that it was daytime, and ostensibly family TV, with no advance parental guidance warning. And, that he was invited back but she wasn't.
I don't much like any of those three things and I am fine with bare nipples in other circumstances.
(I'm sorry that this reply veers from the thread topic.)
At the end of the day, it's all a class issue.
But as usual, here in the exceptional 'Murican Empire, class is something that's never allowed to be acknowledged. The term 'Deep State' also obscures the class issue..or perhaps it oversimplifies it to 'If only we get rid of these guys, then stuff will change.'
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
Of course it is.
They, the children of oligarchs, get to make error after error, while we only get one chance, as Chris Hedges has said.
Mary Bennett
It is all about class and social standing.
American Schools Have More Cops Than Social Workers
Obama's precious is caught on film smoking a joint, and she gets a gap year in Europe.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Considering that he smoked weed and got to be Editor in Chief
of the Harvard Law Review, a book contract, a state senate seat, a US Senate seat and the Oval office, she wuz robbed! (j/k)
Exactly
Class has privilege too that is not extended to lower classes or most people of color. IMO, what I see in Kavanaugh is someone who has been both coddled and bailed out all his life. That thought was verified when I read in an article linked by Wind Dancer that Kavanaugh had massive amounts of debt as recently as a little over one year ago.
Massive amounts of debt by someone in a high position of power is a huge red flag to me. Those debts suddenly disappeared before his nomination to the Supreme Court. In the article cited above, it appears that Kavanaugh received financial help, which apparently came from family members, to pay off all those debts.
Two things about this jump out for me both of which show a lack of mature judgment. First, apparently Kavanaugh has issues with spending and living beyond his means. Second, even at 53 years of age, he is being bailed out by family members.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Usually we agree,
but now I can't.
Have you read any of his opinions or writings? I believe those would much more indicate his reasoning than anything about money.
He probably has a trust fund he can access. Are we really to say that a person can't research and evaluate court cases just because he spends above his means, much like other US citizens everywhere?
This seems like grasping for straws. I simply don't believe that fitness for a job should depend on personal money management or credit scores. Too many people were wiped out in the crash. I can tell you that as an auditor, my debt has nothing to do with my conclusions about the auditees.
However, people with credit issues are considered a risk for financial operations, but the SC is not a financial operation. (my credit score is good, but I am still digging out of debt I lived on between jobs)
dfarrah
Excellent opinion piece
Her title says it all . . .
We want this guy on the Supreme Court? I don't think so. How many of the other supremes were raised this way? How many in congress? The president was I suppose.
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
I sure as hell don't
He's an abuser and I don't want him abusing our rights in this Country. The idea is that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbitor of justice. This dude doesn't care about justice and neither do those GOP senators, apparently.
Beware the bullshit factories.
I don't want him on the SC
if only because I don't want Monsanto and other polluters given an SC stamped license to poison the earth, air and water and all of us.
Mary Bennett
So he is in bed with Monsanto too?
Damn!
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
IDK actually know that he is in with the big M. but everything
I read and hear about the nominee suggests that Capitalism is his religion. I do know that Monsanto is being sued by multiple plaintiffs on more than one complaint and that some of those cases will likely arrive at the SC.
Mary Bennett
Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas is Monsanto's main man on the Supreme Court. He used to be employed by Monsanto as an attorney.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Kavanaugh was groomed for every part of his life
So he started out with the advantage of having rich parents he was also taken under someone's wing and given even more advantages to get where he is now. The federalist society has been grooming men and women their whole adult lives and they are now being put on courts across the country. Why are there so many positions available for Trump to do that? Because McConnell wouldn't let Obama's appointees have hearings. What did the democrats do or say about that? I don't know. I never heard them say anything. Obama might have during his Saturday morning chats that not many people saw. Hmm ...
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Gorsuch went to the same private school
as Kavanaugh. It is a freaking funnel wherein kids of privilege are groomed for a life in which the wheels are greased all the way to the highest court in the land.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Wow!
What a great and interesting piece by Cynthia McKinney. I think I'll cross post this over to the essay, This is what I want in a politician, by gjohnsit. THIS IS WHAT I WANT IN A POLITICIAN!
I voted for her back in 2008.
. People call me a misogynist for not voting for HER, and a racist for not voting for Obama. And I say, "yeah, that's why I voted for Cynthia McKinney, instead."
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
She nails it....
I'm actually fairly disappointed with a lot of the people on this board who are defending this sleazy attack.
Whatever their personal history, surely everybody here is politically savvy enough to recognize a David Brock hit job when they see one. But it seems as long as it's not directed at somebody 'on our side', then it's fine to shoot to kill.
Like Russiagate, the two-minutes-of-haters here promote specious, conflated allegations wholly unsupported by any evidence, while anyone who asks for a modicum of factual corroboration is bludgeoned with hysterical emotional tirades and told to 'shut the fuck up' because 'you just don't understand'.
No, you don't understand. Just as neo-McCarthyism always redounds against the left, the politics of personal destruction are anathema to Progressive reform. Whether it's Martin Luther King, Julian Assange, Bernie, or any other Progressive leader who speaks out against the predations of the elites, you can be sure some political hatchet man is cooking up some salacious sex scandal to vomit all over us when the time is right.
And it works because these scumbags know that stories of sexual assault are the easiest way to trigger traumatized people into blind rages devoid of rationality. In a way then, people are traumatized twice, first by the assault and secondly by the political exploitation that dredges up all those horrible memories again.
Come on people, surely you are all smart enough to see you are being played? That Hillary and David Brock are purposefully pushing your buttons to gin up ever more fear and loathing for their own selfish ends?
Stop promoting this sleaze.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
What left? This shithole country has never had a left faction.
It never will. And before you say it: No, liberals are right-wing reactionaries just like conservatives. They can all go fuck themselves.
None of this shit will stop until capitalism is overthrown. But as it stands now, none of the supposedly progressive assholes who keep walking back their platforms have any interest in doing that.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
Must be nice...
to live in your own dream world where non-sequiturs pass for rational replies.
I also notice that you tend to save your most confusing replies for posts that attack Hillary.
Almost as if you were trying to change the subject....
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Respectfully, . . .
. . . I think you mischaracterize The Aspie Corner's comment. That poster has issues, as he has stated openly on this blog in the past. The world's not been his oyster, let's say, and he has considerable anger about that, which leads to many comments of a strident tone.
That's tone. Not content. On the content side, I have never in my recollection seen him defending Hillary by deflection.
All that being said, maybe it would be good to step back from the personal jab at the poster, which is pure ad hominem.
I'm not sure....
you know what ad hominem means.
I am commenting solely on the content and (convenient) timing of his posts.
I made no personal attack on his character. Just his disruptive pro-Hillary politics.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Well you misjudge...
He is no fan of Clinton, Democrats, or liberals. DanceYouMonster is steering you in the right direction.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
You need to pay more attention.
The pattern is there for anyone who wishes to notice.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Yeah. A pattern you're pulling out of your ass.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
Twice on this thread alone.
Third time makes a pattern:
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
NHK...
I'm no fan of Aspie, but I think you're in the wrong here. His comment above is in no way an endorsement of Hillary. She would never support the overthrow of capitalism, and she identifies (incorrectly, in my view) as a "centrist" Democrat. Aspie thinks even leftist Democrats are too far to the right for comfort.
The anti-capitalism shtick...
is just a cover. He likes to couch Marxist sounding gobbledygook around his main point to throw you off the scent.
Twice on this thread and once on another he went out of his way to claim that the Clinton's have nothing to do with Ford's allegations.
Now ask yourself why such a professed 'anti-capitalist' would want to repeatedly make that point.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Next, you'll accuse me of being on Brock or Clinton's payroll.
You might as well. That's as god damned reactionary as it gets. In other words, you've gone full right-wing, just as any liberal would. Let me repeat myself one more time so you lesser evil assholes can understand:
Clinton and Brock, if they are behind this, are going after the ACCUSERS (Dr. Ford, et al.), while at the same time NORMALIZING rape and sexual assault. Clinton has a precedent for doing exactly this, as evidenced by her shitty record. And this kind of shit always trickles down.
They WANT Kavanaugh on the bench. After all, for Billary, womens' bodily autonomy has always been on the table. They're also capitalist pigs, just as Kavanaugh is. Why would they impede his nomination when they're ideologically aligned? IDPOL? Come on, the IDPOL shit is just Clinton's public face.
It's funny, you guys want Billary to go away, but ya can't quit her. Or the shit Democrats/Repigs for that matter.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
And yet even more denials...
Keep digging.
That is patently absurd, which I'm sure is why you posted it.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
And I find it utterly laughable
that this site conflates liberalism with the left-wing, i.e. this:
Attacking Aunt Billary is low-hanging fruit. It's been done to death on this site along with the other tabloid bullshit people whine about when it comes to the so-called elites. It's just as bad as the idiots endlessly attacking Patsy Drumpf on a minute by minute basis.
And be honest: Do you really think people are going to buy the whole high school virgin schtick his supporters (especially those literally bribing officials to get this asshole on the bench) are pushing? No. Billary and her buddy David Brock aren't going after Kavanaugh. She's going after the accusers. And as this site no doubt knows, it wouldn't be the first time.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
@ AC Ah, defending Hillary again.
Almost as if there's a pattern here.
I'm attacking Hillary because she and Brock are orchestrating this latest smear.
But you know that.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Are you serious?
Why would a Marxist defend Billary? I was doing no such thing. I even pointed out they're going after the ACCUSERS and that Billary has a history of doing so. There's nothing to be gained by defending any section of the Bourgeoisie. On the same token, I could say you're defending that asshat Kavanaugh, because every time people post tabloid-level shit on this site, this is what we devolve to. No solutions, no conversation, just more liberal conservative lesser of two evils bullshit.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
Good question.
But somehow you seem to manage it with disturbing regularity.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
This country has never had a left faction
and never will? Possibly because the USA is not Europe. I know it is hard for you to understand, but USA IS NOT and NEVER WILL BE a bigger version of Poland. One reason is that we never had a hereditary nobility. Another is that, while the founding documents may have been written by classically educated Bostonians and Virginians, the country was settled and built by European, mostly north European, peasantry. So, of course, we are grasping, vulgar, and anti-intellectual, we have a long history of being robbed and exploited by educated, high status thieves.
Mary Bennett
Actually, the US is the only democracy
...in the world that has never had an organized political Left. This is obvious and noticeable when you look at the US from the outside, and it has been commented upon not infrequently over the years. It's not really possible for a Left to emerge under the Constitution that Americans worship. For example, rights are not afforded directly to the people, instead governments and third parties are restricted in their actions. The government can un-restrict itself, as we have seen, through legislation and a politically perverted lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. The authors just couldn't imagine serfs with rights, or women, or children, or non-whites. They didn't know any better. By the 19th century, the Constitution was obsolete in terms of social evolution and spiritual/moral maturity. That explains why Americans do not have basic human rights even today, and the rights they did have have are revoked by the government as needed. That's one small example, which also includes continuing slavery, cruel and unusual punishment, and collective punishment.
I don't expect this to change before this land is returned to the indigenous people it was stolen from. However, I do believe the American people would find their centers again if they began to use correct and globally understood terminology to describe the reality around them, rather than the mutated and cynical propaganda words they use now.
That's something we can foster that would change things significantly, in my opinion.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
In fact, the idea of a true political "Left" is so abhorent
...to the psyche of the United States, that it has spent more than a century overthrowing democratic governments where political party representing the Left swept a national election. The people-centric philosophy and economics of the Left can never be allowed to gain a strong foothold, partcularly if the nation in question is resource rich or strategically located.
The Plutocrats created a fake Left for the American people, policed by the likes of Joe McCarthy when it got too real. The US movie industry was onboard enforcing this view, and still is. Can you recall an American movie where leftist ideals were seriously portrayed and where the protagonists were not exterminated like vermin at the end?
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
And the alternative is what?
Overwhelm the army of darkness with the shear force of our moral superiority? Turn the other cheek until their fists are so bloody from punching us that they repent?
Yes, this is an orchestrated campaign to discredit Kavanaugh. So what?
Nearly half the electorate does not believe in objective reality. They can't be reasoned with because they are not persuaded by reason. They must be politically defeated. Broad victories can be had during elections, but we can't just let them run wild between elections, each nomination, each vote needs to be opposed with all the legal tools available. The other side fights for every inch. Should we not do the same?
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone
Sorry, but the half of the electorate that has bought Russiagate
pretty clearly doesn’t really believe in objective reality either.
Everything you say about “the other side” also applies to a very big chunk of those who claim to be on “our side.”
Neither Dims nor Rethugs represent
"half the electorate". There are more independents, like me, than members of either party.
As for half believing in the Russia hysteria, I doubt anyone believes it outside of the Dim inner circle and its' media enablers, and most of them go along for the sake of their careers.
Mary Bennett
The alternative is a real revolution.
One that doesn't endorse Hillary. The justice Democrats are a joke. Beto is chastising protestors for chasing Cruz out of his trendy DC restaurant. AOC is walking back her vote blue no matter who endorsement of Cuomo. Gillum is dancing in the streets with Corey Booker.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Unbelievable.
I had hoped I heard wrong about Ocasio's endorsement of Schumer, but I guess she did.
Ocasio is just another photogenic, charismatic person to fool progressives.
dfarrah
Which Army of Darkness...
do you want to fight?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Thank you for that
Not Henry.
Do we know that Killary and Brock are behind this? (Answering my own question) I guess we do know that if Ford's lawyer is another child of privilege, Katz, who has long time ties to the Klintons.
Mind, I have no, zero, dada sympathy for the Rethugs, who brought this upon themselves. They could easily have let Garland have hearings, and them voted to not confirm, they did have a majority if I remember right. But, McConnell had to look like a stone cold killer instead of what he is, a corrupt and self indulgent nincompoop, not to mention, I believe though I can't prove it, agent for the PRC.
Part of the politics here, I think, is that the Rs want their Catholic vote, without which they can't win elections, back, so they put up a decent, clean living Catholic for the SC, except it turns out he ain't so clean after all. Apparently Justice Gorsuch went through the same prep school without engaging in similar drunken high jinks, or so it would seem.
Mary Bennett
Do you think that Brock got Ford to accuse Kavanaugh falsely?
Yes.
Although 'falsely' is a loaded term. Let's instead say 'without evidence'.
I have no special knowledge of what actually happened, but given the track record of the politcos promoting the allegation, I have no reason to lend any special credence to anything they claim.
The situational ethics here are atrocious.
I mean seriously, has everyone completely forgotten all the creepy Hillbot shenanigans during the 2016 primaries? You really want to give these people the benefit of the doubt?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
If anyone would have evidence of sexual assault, it would be
the victim and the perp. So, either Brock somehow got Ford to make a charge that is false or Ford made a false charge without Brock's help or she is telling the truth.
What would Ford have to gain from making the charge?
AS far as what I "really want" to do, I do not want to leap to conclusions, whether yours or those of someone else. Hence, I have not posted whether or not I believe Ford or Kavanaugh or neither of them or both of them. I simply asked you a question. So, perhaps you are doing to me what you think other posters here are doing to Kavanaugh (in terms of assuming guilt despite the absence of evidence.) In any event, I will now declare that I have not yet made up my mind.
I had been leaning toward Ford's version until I heard, earlier today, that the results of lie detector test that she allegedly passed have not been made available to the Kavanaugh camp. (Before any reader schools me, yes, I know that sociopaths and those who have deceived themselves can pass lie detector tests. However, I don't think that Anita Hill fit any part of that description and I'd be surprised if Ford does, though I have less information about this accusation than I have about Anita Hill's.)
I don't know...
Ask all the people here who are embracing the sleaze solely because they think it will help the Democrats win in November.
Or are you really so naive that you don't think there are any friends of Hillary out there who would stoop to such levels of debasement?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I asked you because of your claims. I have no logical reason
to ask those who believe her (or claim to believe her) what she would have to gain by obeying Brock to make a false claim. I also have zero reason to want to help Democrats win in November. Nor do I believe that is the motivation of all those who believe Ford (or claim to believe her). Too many of their other posts have been anti-Democratic Party.
As for me, I've voted Green or write in, beginning with the 2010 midterms; and I've certainly made enough anti-Clinton (both of them, but especially Hillary) and anti-Democratic Party posts here (and elsewhere) to be accused credibly of spreading sleaze, or of doing anything at all, to help Hillary or Democrats.
As for my "really being so naive as to" so much as ask you a simple question or two about your claims, please stop that kind of posting. You've now directed that sort of insinuation at me more than once on this thread--and I am not the only one. I don't know who gets persuaded or cowed by stuff like that, but I don't, so don't waste the bandwidth.
I have no idea...
what your point is other than you have decided to take offense because you don't like my answers to your loaded questions.
You are purposefully misinterpreting what I said. I didn't say ask those who believe her. I said ask those who who are embracing the sleaze solely because they think it will help the Democrats win in November. Big difference.
I wasn't 'accusing' you of anything, other than perhaps being duped by smear merchants in the Democratic party.
But if you really are entertaining the notion that Ford came forward sua sponte and that David Brock isn't the driving force behind these fact free sexual assault allegations, despite his long history of similar sleaze, then yes, you truly are naive.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Sprinkled with new insults, along with the old,
your "reply" indicates absence of any desire whatever on your part to have a good faith discussion with me about your position on this topic; and I have no desire to have any other kind.
Nope
Most people here have stopped voting for democrats, vote green or don't vote at all. IMO you seem to be reading things here that aren't true. Do you have proof that Hillary is behind this? Or Brock? I doubt that Ford or any woman would put themselves out there just because someone put them up to it. If that was ever found out it would ruin their lives and career.
Ford told people about this years before Kavanaugh's name came up for consideration. Or do you also think that a therapist would play along with the farce and make up fake notes that describes what Ford told her. If you answer yes to any of the questions then I'm at a loss for what to think.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
More than 3 alternatives.
Ford could have a false memory that she believes wholeheartedly is true. She could be wrong in the details, she could be wrong in the perpetrator, or she could be wrong in every respect. Or she could be telling the entire truth and Kavanaugh is, unsurprisingly, lying his ass off to get a plum job on the Supreme Court.
The McMartin Preschool fiasco showed the power of false memories. I pride my self on my near-photographic memory, but even I've discovered that some things I would swear were true aren't true while other things that are true have been blotted out. And I don't even drink.
At the risk of being tautological,
a false claim is false, regardless of whether the person making the false claim honestly believes it to be true or false or somewhere in between.
Agree, but...
A false memory, while untrue, may allow a person to pass a lie detector test, which Ford has stated she took. Which is partly why lie detectors aren't admissible in court.
Yes, we agree on that as well
https://caucus99percent.com/comment/370727#comment-370727
Ford has alot to
gain with the allegations, such as book deals, movies, and media attention.
dfarrah
I have tried very hard to ignore you, BUT
THAT insinuation is really scraping the bottom of the sleaze barrel. Putting that together with your strenuous, strained defense of Kavanaugh and your constant harping on "purity" and your insistence that there is one and only one right way to respond to a sexual assault -
There's a word for that sort of attitude, and it's not at all a nice one.
QUISLING.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
I'm disappointed with people on this board too
Especially those who seem incapable of separating this political shit show from the comments made by women sharing their very personal stories. The responses have been skin crawling in their tactlessness and callous disregard for the human being sitting on the other side of the screen.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Yeah well...
You haven't exactly been a paragon of sensitivity yourself through all this nonsense.
But in any event I agree that we all need to be more sensitive to claims of sexual abuse and not summarily dismiss them, but that also doesn't mean automatically assuming every claim is valid - especially in this scenario where there is a clear political motive and literally no corroborating evidence and no witnesses willing to confirm her side of the story.
What I find fairly distasteful however, is this 'my trauma is bigger than your trauma' competition that inevitably results during these discussions - as if anyone's argument has any more moral authority simply because they feel they suffered worse than someone else.
I also am especially disgusted by people feel free to let loose racist/sexist tirades against all 'white males' under the guise of 'sharing personal stories'. Talk about your tactless disregard. As a white male who in my youth was subject to repeated sexual assault attempts by a high school counselor, I find these types of blanket assumptions about who does what to whom especially painful.
But you know what really makes my skin crawl? People who are willing to stoop to any level of creepery just so their political team wins. I don't necessarily count you in this, but as long as we're sharing.
If you are referring to any comments I have made, please show me where.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
If you’re referring to me
To be clear: my trauma isn’t worse than most others, and I never said or implied that. In fact, it’s relatively minor if compared to what many others have dealt with. Although I sincerely have no idea why anyone sees it as a competition.
My comment was in response to someone making a statement about how the women coming out against Kavanaugh “hurts” victims of assault. Since they chose to speak for me on what hurts me, I feel it’s reasonable to say I disagree and why. And two, they asked do any of us remember what happened so long ago, and again since I personally relate - I was 14 and it was 45 years ago, but I still have vivid memories. My story was not to “compete” with anyone, nor to say I have more “moral authority” than anyone else, it was just to say that I have personal experiences which make it easy for me to understand her decision to come forward now, and yes she can remember it for 35 years.
I’ve read your ideas this is a conspiracy orchestrated by Clinton/Brock, but I’ve no idea what evidence you are going by there. Because Hillary and Brock are sleazy? They are. But do you really think they cleverly laid the groundwork 5 years ago in a therapy session with her husband? Or is the therapist notes fake? Along with the other corroborating witness that came out today — yes, there were 3 more in addition to her spouse, and also another woman came forward today as well. Plus his buddy Mark Judge wrote about their culture of getting girls drunk to take advantage of them. There’s not “no evidence” and she hasn’t even testified yet.
What bothers me is the instant and complete dismissal of their story and assuming they are lying, especially when the story isn’t even particularly far fetched. But if you have any evidence that Clintons or Brock set this up, I will look at it and, if convincing, change my mind.
From you:
"Especially those who seem incapable of separating this political shit show from the comments made by women sharing their very personal stories."
And that would be you - incapable of separating your feelings from objective evidence.
dfarrah
Thank you.
The conclusions reached by many posters here that K is an abuser or is a 'bad man' are ridiculous.
I guess they want to tell all the women who stood up for him to STFU.
Mass hysteria, I tell you, mass hysteria.
dfarrah
So what is the alternative?
To tell the handful of women who are speaking out to STFU, go away, and go wallow in sackcloth and ashes for their "guilt"?
My my, I thought that kind of judgmentalness died with Queen Victoria.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
The alternative
is to face the evidence before us. Ford made an accusation. Witnesses provided letters under penalty of perjury that completely undermine her accusations. The only evidence the accuser has provided contradicted her account.
There is no evidence supporting her accusations, and having witnesses that contradict her accusations weakens her case.
There is nothing actionable related to her accusations. Nothing.
The only thing I can think of to do is to have parents/adults chaperone every single gathering of kids until they reach the age of 30. Maybe then, all the tragedies that happen at these gatherings (overdoses, sexual assault, deaths) might be prevented. The kids are apparently, even as young adults, too stupid to protect themselves.
dfarrah
My confidence in liberty,
My confidence in liberty, justice, and the rule of law in this country is utterly destroyed and has been for some time now. I have zero confidence in any of our so called leaders to do the right thing, ever. What we have are not leaders, but bought and paid for liars who are only out for themselves. They will literally do anything to keep moving up the political ladder.
I honestly don't believe this system can be reformed. It is already dead, we are just waiting for everyone to realize it.
If it was easy, everyone would do it.
Any Senators that confirm will have to answer in November
If enough people get rightly pissed off at their Quisling Senators then the so called blue wave will happen in numbers that might be unhackable.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Oh my.
Unhackable? Umm, no. Hillary didn't lose because voting machines were hacked. She lost because she's an unlikable person and a lousy candidate who didn't even bother to campaign in the Midwest states that cost her the election.
Good catch! Bit of “neurolinguistic programming” intercepted!
Psychological reinforcement of the untrue, wrong, erroneous, fallacious, flawed, distorted, inaccurate, imprecise, untruthful, fictitious, concocted, fabricated, invented, made up, trumped up, unfounded, spurious notion that Hillary and Dems lost in 2016 because of hacking almost succeeded at slipping its way into my subconscious, without my conscious mind noticing.
Everybody's got a scenario, and they all have 1 thing in commmon
They all promote their own agenda, their own hobby horse and all have no concern for the truth. McKinney first says that the Blasey testimony is orchestrated by "the Democrats" (or just Feinstein) as a political drive-by, then she uses it to denounce bad parenting. So which is it? McKinney doesn't care. Either way it jusst serves her bias.
I seee three possible scenarios: First, that Blasey's testimony is accurate - Kavanaugh tried to rape her. This is very believable. Second, Blasey is a liar. Considering the timing and Feinstein's involvment, this is also extremely believable. But there is a third, and this admits my own bias, is that it esssentially happned, but not as Blasey described it: Blasey is a couple years younger than me, about 5, which means that she was of a generation that was taught by moralizing, domineering parents (like McKinney, though McKinney's history indicates that she has more integrrity than most)to fear and demonize boys. (I discribe my personal experiences dealing with girls that age as "the proper response to asking "what time is it?" is to yell, "get away from me you pervert!" an exaggeration, but only because they were tought that it was unladylike to yell)I knew parents like McKinney, and I hated them for all the damage they did, and are now still doing - on steroids. It is also possible that Kavanaugh felt contempt for Blasey, and was mocking her by threatening her - and she responded with paranoia. Kavanaugh might not have been a predator, he might have been just a jerk. This is the least possible of the three scenarios, but it is possible.
But none of this matters, because what really happened and why doesn't matter. Feinstein will not get her goal - Kavanaugh will be confirmed or not, it doesn't matter, but it will not change a single vote in November either way, though it will make her look good to the "Hillary wing". McKinney will feel good, seeing more confirmation of her bias - especially if Kavanaugh "geets away with it again", and America will get screwed by another fascist Supreme Court justice, this privilaged predator or another.
On to Biden since 1973
Frat Boy Shit and All the Frat Boys and Greek System Peeps
run this country right now.
Biff and Buffy are running congress and Big Corporate. They are the acolytes of the Oligarchs, and wield great power across the planet.
Why none of that systemic talk?
McKinney is the first person I've seen hit on a systemic argument for this. Maybe we should look systemically at this issue. I am sure it looks quite a bit different than some ugly lecherous teenager or college kid.
Guys like Kavanaugh run the show. Kerry was a Bonesman. Wonder what he had to do in his rituals.
Poor kids may have been alone much of the time, but it most likely wasn't a parental choice, and we sure as hell didn't get out of trouble like sexual assault because we had big things to do in our futures.
I think McKinney smashed it with this essay.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Me too
She smashed it.
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
Do we have any evidence that Kerry was a latch key kid or
or otherwise raised in a less ideal manner than most kids? If not, I'm not sure how Kerry and/or whatever he may have done as a Bonesman has to do with McKinney's article.
I'm not even sure how rich his parents were, as opposed to other members of the Forbes family.
Are You Kidding?
Bonesman types are the type that McKinney was talking about. She said her son had to be level set to join up with that rich white kid crew in private school situations.
Bonesman, I assume, and the Greek system is rife with sexual hazing and general unaccountable debauchery. I'm pretty sure these guys and the gals they hang out with are running the country.
I'd like to see a list of frat and sorority alums in our corporate and political leadership, I'm sure it's 80+%. It's a good way to separate the sociopaths from the normies.
And let's not forget when these developmental social deviance skills get called upon. It happens in the real world, in college when you are stepping up into a professional social setting. Not falling in line means a black balling from upper crust society.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
My post asked about Kerry's being a latch key kid (or not)
and the wealth (or not) of his mother and father.
Parental wealth and how parents raised/neglected a child seem central to McKinney's article. Her article is not about only anyone who acts out in high school or college, at least not as I understood it.
Pages