a******g
发帖数: 13519 | 1 卡哇孬在哭，他老婆却在笑，咋回事啊？ 谁来给解释一下? | j*********r
发帖数: 24733 | 2 你丫不是Jeb! 的超级粉丝吗？我去找找你那个截屏去
【在 a******g 的大作中提到】
: 卡哇孬在哭，他老婆却在笑，咋回事啊？ 谁来给解释一下?
| f*****9
发帖数: 6768 | 3 你真是个傻逼五毛，狗屁不懂
【在 a******g 的大作中提到】
: 卡哇孬在哭，他老婆却在笑，咋回事啊？ 谁来给解释一下?
| d***s
发帖数: 152 | | s*********r
发帖数: 9493 | 5 作为下午的主角，卡瓦闹的表现还是得分的
可惜他老婆这个配角不给力，出戏了
【在 a******g 的大作中提到】
: 卡哇孬在哭，他老婆却在笑，咋回事啊？ 谁来给解释一下?
| a******g
发帖数: 13519 | | d*****g
发帖数: 106 | 7 发信人: alexsung (Keep your feet on the ground.), 信区: USANews
标 题: 败了！败了！床铺不仅输了佛州，连北卡跟俄亥俄都输了！
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Nov 8 20:02:05 2016, 美东)
败了！败了！床铺不仅输了佛州，连北卡跟俄亥俄都输了！
惨败啊！哈哈哈！！
发信人: alexsung (alexsung), 信区: Minnesota
标 题: Re: 卖自行车，暖水瓶，jumperoo,
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sat Mar 31 13:54:21 2012, 美东)
自行车多少钱？
在University of St. Thomas | M******k
发帖数: 27573 | | m***i
发帖数: 1978 | | j*********r
发帖数: 24733 | | a******g
发帖数: 13519 | 11 不合理。卡哇孬背后又没长眼睛。安慰鼓励也看不到呀。
【在 m***i 的大作中提到】
: 明明是安慰和鼓励的表情
| a********9
发帖数: 3813 | 12 The eyes of the country are on a small hearing room on Capitol Hill Thursday
, where Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, the
woman who has accused him of sexually assaulting her when they were both
teenagers, are testifying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford testify on sex assault allegations
I'm watching right alongside you -- and the nation. The testimony so far has
been gripping -- and the whole hearing, featuring both Ford and Kavanaugh,
will be worth watching to get a full picture.
But several moments and themes have already stood out. Below you'll find a
contemporaneous set of takeaways that I think are worth taking note of as I
watch the hearings live. After Ford finishes, Kavanaugh will get his chance.
Again, these takeaways are in the order of the actual hearing.
1. Ford is credible
This strikes me as the first question that anyone watching the hearing had
to wonder. Before 11 days ago, no one outside of her family, social and
professional circles knew who she was. Now everyone knows who she is -- but
very few people had seen anything other than a single picture of her wearing
sunglasses. We hadn't heard her voice, seen her mannerisms. And most
importantly, we hadn't seen her tell the story of the night in 1982, in
which she alleges that assault took place.
CNN's Chris Cillizza cuts through the political spin and tells you what you
need to know. By subscribing, you agree to our privacy policy.
Within a few minutes of her reading from her opening statement, it became
clear that Ford was decidedly credible. She struck me as a normal person
thrust into an impossible situation. Someone who was doing what she believed
to be the right thing. Her voice shook. Her breath was short. She was
clearly fighting her emotions as she offered a specific and at times
devastating recounting of the episode at the center of her claim. She was
sympathetic when discussing how her life had been horribly jolted by her
decision to come forward with her allegations. (She told of having to stay
in secure locales, at times separated from her family, and with security
guards always around her.)
What I kept asking myself watching Ford's testimony (and questioning) is,
why would she be doing all of this if she didn't believe she was telling the
truth? Why subject yourself to all of this? What would her motive be for
not telling the truth -- as she remembers it -- about what happened that
night in the early 1980s? Critics would argue that her motivations are
political -- but I just don't buy it. Not in watching Ford's testimony.
2. The manner of questioning is, um, not great
It was always going to be a somewhat odd hearing, given that the 11
Republicans on the Judiciary Committee ceded their right to question Ford to
an independent prosecutor named Rachel Mitchell. (Democrats did not do the
same.) But the reality has been very jarring. For five minutes, Mitchell
goes through a meticulous checking of the story that Ford has told through a
variety of mediums. Then, suddenly, Mitchell is interrupted by Senate
Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who tells her that the allotted
five minutes is up. A Democratic senator then takes over, offering -- at
least to this point -- undiluted praise for Ford's bravery.
For a viewer -- including the senators sitting on the Judiciary Committee --
it makes the entire proceeding a bit difficult to follow. For Republicans,
who were clearly concerned about how it might look to have 11 men asking
question of a woman alleging sexual assault, the awkwardness of the back-and
-forth questioning is something they are willing to deal with given the
alternative.
3. Grassley's tin ear
The reason Republicans -- led by Grassley -- chose to bring in Mitchell
rather than to ask their own question of Ford is because they didn't want to
make themselves the story Thursday. But starting with his opening statement
, the Iowa Republican is not doing very well in that regard.
Grassley's opening statement sounded like a closing argument in which he
seemed to focus almost exclusively on how incredibly gracious he had been in
trying to ensure that Ford had a chance to tell her story. He didn't help
himself when he interrupted ranking member Dianne Feinstein, D-California,
to make clear that he had planned to introduce Ford's curriculum vitae even
as Feinstein was doing so.
On several other occasions within the first two hours of the hearing,
Grassley repeatedly interjected himself to make clear how far his committee
had bent over backward to help Ford get to this day. I understand his desire
to defend his own behavior and conduct -- and that of the Senate Republican
majority. But it rang as tone-deaf to me watching.
And maybe he's figuring that out. During the first break in the hearing,
Grassley told reporters: "I don't think I can make any comments at all today
, maybe it's something I ought to sleep on. This is pretty important. We
ought to be thinking about it a lot and not making hasty comments."
4. Hatch's 'attractive' gaffe
Asked how he believed Ford had done in the morning session of her testimony,
Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch said this: "I don't think she's uncredible
. I think she an attractive, good witness." Asked what he meant, Hatch said,
"In other words, she's pleasing."
Amid the almost-immediate furor caused by those comments, Hatch
communications director Matt Whitlock noted that "Hatch uses 'attractive' to
describe personalities, not appearances. If you search his past quotes you'
ll see he's used it consistently for years for men and women he believed has
compelling personalities."
Which I will take at face value. Hatch is an 84-year-old man who may
occasionally use words and phrases that aren't regularly used in modern
diction. But here's the thing: Context matters. If you are a sitting United
States senator who has spent an entire morning listening to Ford's testimony
about the alleged sexual assault she endured as a teenager, you just can't
use the word "attractive" or "pleasing" to describe her. You can't do it.
Full stop.
5. Mitchell's swings and misses
Rachel Mitchell, the independent prosecutor brought in by Grassley to ask
the questions on behalf of the Republican senators, seemed to have two goals
in her questioning:
Trying to find holes in Ford's story of the night in which she said that
Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her
Trying to find any sort of instance where Democrats urged Ford to come
forward or coached her on her story or her testimony
Aside from Ford acknowledging that one of the two law firms that she wound
up employing to represent her was recommended by Feinstein's office,
Mitchell failed on both accounts.
There was also a very clear prosecutorial tone to Mitchell's approach to her
questioning of Ford. Which makes sense. She is a prosecutor! But the
decision by Grassley (and, presumably, the other Senate Republicans) to
defer all of their questioning to Mitchell ensured that outcome.
6. The silence of Senate Republicans
I get why Republicans decided that they couldn't risk the images of 11 men
interviewing a woman on sexual assault allegations. But their silence
throughout the four-plus hours of questioning of Ford was striking. With the
exception of Grassley, and a handful of small interjections from South
Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, no Republicans on the dais said anything.
Which, to me, was a mistake. Why not let the nation see you thank Ford for
her willingness to testify? Or sympathize with the trauma she quite clearly
experienced -- whether or not you believe she is telling the capital "T"
truth of the matter? How could that not be a better move -- politically and
as a human -- thanks simply sitting in silence while a prosecutor questions
Ford?
【 在 alexsung (Keep your feet on the ground.) 的大作中提到: 】 : 不合理。
卡哇孬背后又没长眼睛。安慰鼓励也看不到呀。 | P****R
发帖数: 22479 | 13 卡法官从头至尾不敢说他站在保护妇女的权利的一贯性 |
|
