Va. Gov. Northam’s medical school yearbook page shows men in blackface, KKK robe

[rogue06]

It's true that was far more serious, but the debated issue with Kavanaugh wasn't whether such a thing should disqualify him, but whether it happened to begin with. There's no doubt that in this case, the incident actually occurred. Another difference that's notable is that there the whole issue was about whether Kavanaugh would get a promotion to the Supreme Court. Very few were arguing that he should resign his current position as a result of the controversy. I don't know if the two cases are necessarily that comparable.

For the past couple of years the MSM as well as more than a few politicians start demanding that action be taken on "if this is true" stories as if simply raising the question is sufficient.

[Mountain Man]

There is not adequate information/evidence to call those accusations "false." At best, they are "unproven."

So - speculation....

"Unproven" as in there was no evidence to corroborate the accuser's claims, there was quite a lot of evidence against, and their stories fell apart under scrutiny. Which is just another way of saying that the accusations against Moore and Kavanaugh were false.

[Cow Poke]

That's what Teh Interwebz sez.

Sounds to me like an argument for raising the minimum voting age.

And drinking!!!

[One Bad Pig]

That's when they say the brain has fully matured. I'm living proof that those numbers are off.

Still working on that, eh?

[JimL]

That's what Teh Interwebz sez.

Sounds to me like an argument for raising the minimum voting age.

Perhaps, but then you'd need to raise the age to 25 for military service as well, and you know that ain't happening.

[One Bad Pig]

Perhaps, but then you'd need to raise the age to 25 for military service as well, and you know that ain't happening.

Perhaps. I'm pretty sure the age was 18 for military service even before the voting age was lowered to that.

[carpedm9587]

Kavanaugh was a teenager - they're expected to do really dumb stuff - this guy was 25 years old and a med school graduate (or close to it).

if Kavanaugh did was he has been accused of, I don't care WHAT age he was. Sexual assault, IMO, has no statute of limitations and no excuse. It should follow a person and there should be consequences - even lifelong.

And 25 years old is still not past the age of "making stupid decisions," especially about things like costumes. Prince Harry was 21 when he wore his Nazi costume. I'm not going to suggest a person pay for the rest of their life for wearing the wrong costume 30 years ago. If there was a pattern of racist behavior (as Star noted) after that incident, it would be different. I have found nothing to suggest such a thing.

What I see is the left piling on because they desperately do not want to be seen as racist - and the right piling on because it's a guy from the left. I'm not joining either side.

[carpedm9587]

It's true that was far more serious, but the debated issue with Kavanaugh wasn't whether such a thing should disqualify him, but whether it happened to begin with. There's no doubt that in this case, the incident actually occurred. Another difference that's notable is that there the whole issue was about whether Kavanaugh would get a promotion to the Supreme Court. Very few were arguing that he should resign his current position as a result of the controversy. I don't know if the two cases are necessarily that comparable.

I don't think they are comparable at all - which was my point. And the other issue with Kavanaugh was the pattern of lying around the issue and his drinking habits. There was too much evidence from his peers about his drinking during H.S. and after to be ignored, IMO. And I would have voted against him simply on the basis of his manner of responding after the Ford testimony. If I were interviewing someone for a promotion and said, "I see here that you've been accused of drinking until you pass out - is that true," and the response was, "was it ever true for you?" I would have shown the candidate the door. Heck, I would probably have fired them.

[carpedm9587]

Ah, the old "IF TRUE...!!!" technique.

I was talking more about stuff from Kavanaugh's high school yearbook. Silly, vague stuff they tried to use against him. Governor dipwad's stuff was about 7 or 8 years later in life and more explicitly "off-color," so to speak -- and still not worthy of demanding his resignation IMO.

I never even considered Kavanaugh's yearbook in arriving at my opinions about Kavanaugh.

[carpedm9587]

"Unproven" as in there was no evidence to corroborate the accuser's claims,

No "no evidence"

there was quite a lot of evidence against,

And much of what was considered "evidence against" was nothing of the kind. There were a few testimonies from peers - but pretty much just as many opposing. Most of the rest of the "evidence" was, IMO, speculation and often took the form of "the absence of evidence about X is evidence."

and their stories fell apart under scrutiny.

I don't recall any stories "falling apart" under scrutiny. What I recall is two people with inadequate evidence to make their case.

Which is just another way of saying that the accusations against Moore and Kavanaugh were false.

No - not "false" - simply "not proven." There was nor adequate evidence to support OR refute the charges, AFAICT.

[Mountain Man]

No "no evidence"



And much of what was considered "evidence against" was nothing of the kind. There were a few testimonies from peers - but pretty much just as many opposing. Most of the rest of the "evidence" was, IMO, speculation and often took the form of "the absence of evidence about X is evidence."



I don't recall any stories "falling apart" under scrutiny. What I recall is two people with inadequate evidence to make their case.



No - not "false" - simply "not proven." There was nor adequate evidence to support OR refute the charges, AFAICT.

In Moore's case, the primary accuser could not remember key details, and the timeline in which she claimed everything happened was impossible.

In Kavanaugh's case, Ford couldn't remember key details, corroborating witnesses rejected the claims, and Ford's narrative went through a number of variations, and she was caught i telling several lies.

To claim that the accusations are merely "unproven", as if to suggest that they could still be true despite the contrary evidence, is intellectually dishonest.

[carpedm9587]

In Moore's case, the primary accuser could not remember key details, and the timeline in which she claimed everything happened was impossible.

And there were multiple accusers. But, frankly, my opposition to Moore had nothing to do with the accusation about his early behavior. My opposition was due to the fact that I don't think someone should occupy a position in the body that creates the laws of our land when they place their religious beliefs above the rule of law. I have no problem with someone deciding "god's law is higher than government laws," but if that means they can't follow government laws, they should not be in a position to create and/or enforce them.

In Kavanaugh's case, Ford couldn't remember key details, corroborating witnesses rejected the claims, and Ford's narrative went through a number of variations, and she was caught i telling several lies.

Corroborating witnesses didn't reject her claims - they simply could not affirm them to be true. Surprise, surprise, people who commit sexual assault don't do it with a lot of witnesses present. So it is commonly and he-said/she-said situation. That is why so few people (percentage-wise) come forward. That doesn't prove or disprove either of the claims to be true or false.

To claim that the accusations are merely "unproven", as if to suggest that they could still be true despite the contrary evidence, is intellectually dishonest.

And I find continuing to assert they are "false" when there is not adequate information to come to that conclusion to be prejudicial and reflective of a partisan bias. I guess well have to agree to disagree.

[Cow Poke]

if Kavanaugh did was he has been accused of, I don't care WHAT age he was. ....

And we already saw that some of 'was' he was accused of was outright lies. If, indeed, he had been the sexual predator and serial rapist the liars claimed he was, he most certainly shouldn't be a judge.

[carpedm9587]

And we already saw that some of 'was' he was accused of was outright lies.

I did not see evidence that convinced me anything he was accused of was "outright lies." I agree that what was presented was not adequate to say "he did it," but that's not the same thing. However, if you have evidence related to the "outright lies," I'll be happy to look at it.

If, indeed, he had been the sexual predator and serial rapist the liars claimed he was, he most certainly shouldn't be a judge.

Agreed. But it goes beyond that. His behavior in the final round of Senate hearings convinced me that he had no business being on SCOTUS. Frankly, I don't think he should be on the circuit court either. That, however, is a matter of personal opinion and probably not something we're going to agree about.

[Mountain Man]

Is this really the standard you want, carpe, that when someone is accused of something, the cloud of suspicion shall linger over their heads until the accusations have been definitively disproven, even if the claims of the accusers fall apart under scrutiny?

I guess the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty" is lost on you.