Clarence Thomas and Me

Guillotine said:
As you stated, the Senate's judgement of her credibility had more to do with politics than the substance of her claims. I was more interested in hearing if you found her credible. I did. I don't necessarily believe her claims should have stopped Thomas from being confirmed, but I had a small problem with him categorically denying everything she alleged (to the point of anger) when I felt she was probably telling the truth about his crude conduct around the office.



Those were some pretty graphic and detailed lies. No where near the ridiculous and nebulous claims of Christine Blasey Ford against Kavanaugh.
I never knew her to be an activist before she came forward, and I'm not sure she has been since. Has she?

Don't get me wrong, Thomas has been a solid constitutionalist on the court, and I support his opinions. However, I've never quite reconciled the fact that he probably lied to get the job.
Click to expand...
Applying those tests to Thomas, I think he has fared really well. Does that mean everything she said was lies? Not at all. For all I know, everything she alleged was true. There's no consequences for being wrong either way.

She was well spoken and calm. Presented herself well. She was, I believe, a law professor. That has to be factored in. She got pretty gentle treatment because the old white guys didn't want to reinforce the stereotype by going after her hard. On the level of "could her allegations be true", she had that level of credibility. On the level of "I absolutely believe everything she alleged", she didn't get there for me. Most of that had to do with the politics that were afoot rather than anything she had control over.

I think she is a quiet and shy soul, obviously intelligent, and maybe bookish. Before and after the hearing she didn't seek to be the center of nationwide public attention. So she benefits from those tests as well. She went back into academia and kinda stayed there, if my memory is correct.

She was and is a hero of the Left, and I think they have defended and protected her well. No better place to do that than in the academy.

I will say that in her favor is my understanding of the sexual instincts of young men. Take a guy in his 20s to early 30s, and his head that lacks any brain cells will tell him to do all kinds of things that he absolutely should not do. Keeping that under control at all times requires a lot of self-discipline. What do younger men typically lack? Self-discipline. A man that takes on the responsibilities of being a husband and father learns that self-discipline - or he will find himself divorced and picking up his kids every other weekend. So, can a young man be a sexual harasser and turn into someone anyone would trust their girls with? Yes. That can happen. I've seen it.

But in the end, it's the wider politics that were in play at the time that was the biggest reason for my skepticism - more than something tangible in the way she presented herself. FWIW
 
IVCguy said:
Applying those tests to Thomas, I think he has fared really well. Does that mean everything she said was lies? Not at all. For all I know, everything she alleged was true. There's no consequences for being wrong either way.

She was well spoken and calm. Presented herself well. She was, I believe, a law professor. That has to be factored in. She got pretty gentle treatment because the old white guys didn't want to reinforce the stereotype by going after her hard. On the level of "could her allegations be true", she had that level of credibility. On the level of "I absolutely believe everything she alleged", she didn't get there for me. Most of that had to do with the politics that were afoot rather than anything she had control over.

I think she is a quiet and shy soul, obviously intelligent, and maybe bookish. Before and after the hearing she didn't seek to be the center of nationwide public attention. So she benefits from those tests as well. She went back into academia and kinda stayed there, if my memory is correct.

She was and is a hero of the Left, and I think they have defended and protected her well. No better place to do that than in the academy.

I will say that in her favor is my understanding of the sexual instincts of young men. Take a guy in his 20s to early 30s, and his head that lacks any brain cells will tell him to do all kinds of things that he absolutely should not do. Keeping that under control at all times requires a lot of self-discipline. What do younger men typically lack? Self-discipline. A man that takes on the responsibilities of being a husband and father learns that self-discipline - or he will find himself divorced and picking up his kids every other weekend. So, can a young man be a sexual harasser and turn into someone anyone would trust their girls with? Yes. That can happen. I've seen it.

But in the end, it's the wider politics that were in play at the time that was the biggest reason for my skepticism - more than something tangible in the way she presented herself. FWIW
Click to expand...

That's what I was looking for. I don't disagree with a word, and I was there before you said it!

However, you glossed over the part that Thomas most likely fibbed about Anita Hill.
 
IVCguy said:
As an addendum, what is the truth when it comes to the private interactions between men and women?

We don't know, but I have a test that I apply to help. One part of it is previous behavior because it is a good predictor of present and future behavior. These nominees are vetted carefully before they are nominated. It's embarrassing to a president to nominate a sexual harasser, so they will talk to as many people as possible that he has worked with. If they come up with zilch, and a woman comes, or women come, out of the woodwork to accuse, that should at least raise an eyebrow of skepticism.

Another part of it is corroboration - and not the "I told my best friend who is also an avowed radical feminist and she will back me" kind, but more a formal complaint or objective witness kind. Uncorroborated or poorly corroborated tales give liars room to weave remarkable stories. It is not proof that the story is a lie, but it should cause one to maintain healthy skepticism.

And the big part of the test is the most important but also the most difficult - time. Ever notice how the Left is into instant judgment? "Russia! Russia! Russia! And if you don't come to the same conclusion you are a traitor and Putin follower." Lol. It takes a minute to make the accusations but years to unravel the falsehoods that undergird it. But given time, the truth can be understood.

Time also has a way of revealing one's character - and whatever that reveals, it will reinforce or defy a past accusation.
Click to expand...
Dozens, and dozens, an dozens of accusers. No one vetted Trump. The asz kissers he ran against? They were afraid to criticize him. That’s laughable. Where there is smoke there’s fire.
 
IVCguy said:
Applying those tests to Thomas, I think he has fared really well. Does that mean everything she said was lies? Not at all. For all I know, everything she alleged was true. There's no consequences for being wrong either way.

She was well spoken and calm. Presented herself well. She was, I believe, a law professor. That has to be factored in. She got pretty gentle treatment because the old white guys didn't want to reinforce the stereotype by going after her hard. On the level of "could her allegations be true", she had that level of credibility. On the level of "I absolutely believe everything she alleged", she didn't get there for me. Most of that had to do with the politics that were afoot rather than anything she had control over.

I think she is a quiet and shy soul, obviously intelligent, and maybe bookish. Before and after the hearing she didn't seek to be the center of nationwide public attention. So she benefits from those tests as well. She went back into academia and kinda stayed there, if my memory is correct.

She was and is a hero of the Left, and I think they have defended and protected her well. No better place to do that than in the academy.

I will say that in her favor is my understanding of the sexual instincts of young men. Take a guy in his 20s to early 30s, and his head that lacks any brain cells will tell him to do all kinds of things that he absolutely should not do. Keeping that under control at all times requires a lot of self-discipline. What do younger men typically lack? Self-discipline. A man that takes on the responsibilities of being a husband and father learns that self-discipline - or he will find himself divorced and picking up his kids every other weekend. So, can a young man be a sexual harasser and turn into someone anyone would trust their girls with? Yes. That can happen. I've seen it.

But in the end, it's the wider politics that were in play at the time that was the biggest reason for my skepticism - more than something tangible in the way she presented herself. FWIW
Click to expand...
Very believable summary. I thought she was telling the truth, but I wasn’t sure enough to be against confirmation.
 
Guillotine said:
That's what I was looking for. I don't disagree with a word, and I was there before you said it!

However, you glossed over the part that Thomas most likely fibbed about Anita Hill.
Click to expand...
I had problems completely believing Thomas as well. I think the current practice of taking gifts from wealthy conservatives without acknowledging them does say something about his character.
 
1708532530091.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top