StrangeSox

Judiciary Committee vote tomorrow morning. Other Senate votes over the weekend, per C-SPAN just now, confirmation timeline would put full Senate vote Monday or Tuesday. Senate has a whole bunch of arcane rules that generally mean you can't ram things through instantly.

Dr. Blasey Ford's testimony/questioning is over. Kavanaugh's will begin in ~45 minutes.

You're insisting on talking about anything but Kavanaugh's alleged sexual assaults and rapes. The "moral dilemma" you're posing is irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you want to talk about why people may or may not step in in situations like that, the bystander effect, or anything like that, feel free to start another thread. This thread is about accused attempted rapist/actual rapist Brett Kavanaugh and the allegations against him, not what one of the alleged should or shouldn't have done when they saw Kavanaugh lined up for a rape.

The ending of Blasey Ford's questioning was interesting. The hired goon pressed her on whether the five-minute segment structure was the best way or even a common way to investigate these sorts of allegations, and of course Blasey Ford said no. The prosecutor pointed out that the best method is a private one-on-one interview, which would have happened in a legitimate investigation. Grassley chose this format. Grassley, Trump, and the rest of the GOP refuses to have an actual investigation. I have no idea what that line of questioning was supposed to be.

Why does it matter if it is "okay" or not? What relevance does that have to her claims of having witnessed it and then being the victim of the same act? What bearing does it have on Kavanaugh's suitability?

what the hell is the GOP doing in this hearing oh my god

Yes, you're repeatedly attacking her by bringing up what she did or didn't do in the situations she observed prior to being raped herself. That's attacking her. That's tarring her character. There's no reason to bring that up if we're discussing what Brett Kavanaugh is alleged to have done in those instances and others. It's simply to shift the discussion to something you can attack her on. I'm ignoring your question because it's irrelevant. I'm being very clear about that. I'm not going to shift the discussion to why you think she is "wrong" in an irrelevant side track.

Even if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he simply used *extremely* bad word choice here to describe her as a credible witness, it illustrates exactly why the GOP did not want to have a bunch of geriatric white men to be the ones attacking Blasey Ford.

You're a person who is attacking a rape victim as a means to distract from anything but the issue at hand. You've made that clear. That you insist on still doing that despite multiple people seeing through it speaks volumes.

when things are going well for your nominee meanwhile C-SPAN call-ins right now are just a long stream of women sharing their stories of abuse and rape graham is an awful person

Witnesses speaking up get attacked by people like you. What a rape victim should or shouldn't have done when she witnessed other rapes when she was 20 years old is not relevant right now. The only reason to bring that up, to scold her, is to discredit and diminish her and to shift the focus from her very serious allegations.

This is why they brought in a hired goon to do the questioning, even if it isn't going well so far.

If your goal isn't to attack the alleged victim here, what is the point of this post? What is the "context" you're trying to bring here?

"why oh why didn't young women in the 80's instantly come forward???"

Your context is to attack the accusers and dissemble about "well I'm not victim blaming!" while literally saying she's guilty for not doing something to stop it when it happened to others.

I, too, am deeply confused why young women didn't come forward with serious criminal allegations against wealthy, privileged young men who also happened to be the son of a local judge/prosecutor. In the 1980's. It's such a god damned mystery.

That is some pretty fucking disgusting victim blaming.

This hearing is, predictably, disgusting. Grassley starts with a long diatribe essentially attacking both Blasey Ford and the Democrats. He rants at length while providing weak excuses for his behavior. Then, when Feinstein starts and introduces Blasey Ford, Grassley immediately interrupts her and claims "I was going to get to that!" This hired goon for the all-male, all-white GOP Judiciary has a terrible record as Joe Arpaio's crappy prosecutor. Grassley, giving zero thought to this hearing, set it up in the dumbest possible way--alternating 5 minute chunks, 1 round. So rather than his hired goon being able to build a flow and a story through her questioning of Blasey Ford, she's constantly stopped. At one point, the hired goon brings up fucking Zillow maps. Sen. Harris asks that the Democrats be provided the referenced materials so that they may follow along to the testimony. Grassley gets bent out of shape, and says he was "rudely interrupted" by this request. There's a very good reason they brought in a hired goon rather than do this themselves. Grassley also plainly lied about trying to reach out to the multiple other accusers' attorneys. These attorneys have been shouting in public that they have attempted to contact Grassley/GOP Judiciary multiple times and have received zero response. Feinstein did a good job of laying out Kavanaugh's obvious and flagrant credibility problems by citing his bullshit Fox News "I was a perfect choir boy!" interview. The man cannot help but lie over and over again. And, of course, the GOP isn't ever going to bother calling Mark Judge, a named witness/participant in at least two separate accusations. Agh. Absolutely disgusting.

Who is "profiting," who controls the business/enterprise, who makes the decision is a big distinction. Under a socialist model, the "owners" are the workers themselves. Profits go to those who input the labor, not those who own the capital. Ownership of capital would be dispersed and democratized under a true socialist system whereas under a social democracy, we still have private ownership of immense personal wealth and control of that capital that comes with it. I think this article does a decent job of describing the differences. And yes, Norway etc. are social democracies, not socialist states. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/08/democratic-socialism-social-democracy-nordic-countries This is why I assume that the uptick in support for DSA and "socialist" candidates is more an uptick in support for social democracy rather than actual democratic socialism. Could be wrong, like I said, have no data to back that up, just a gut feeling.

Those last two don't seem as corroborated as the others

Would it?