Trump's Second and Third year in office
Quote: terapinedWhy didn't the republicans question her about her yearbook?
You are coming on this board to ask members why the Republicans dropped the ball
weird
Because everyone is a coward. No one wants to go after the "victim"
Quote: Keyser
Wow, there's the problem. Ford drank and passed out at so many parties that she can't remember who she had sex with on various occasions. I wish Kavanaugh would sue her for tarnishing his good name.
So because Ford drank and passed out at parties and forgets sexual partners, that precludes the possibility that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her?
a) Yes
b) No
Quote: FleaswatterYou libs here should be really proud of senators Feinstein, Blumenthal, Whitehouse and Durbin (to name a few). Great show they are putting on today.
They’re holding a man credibly accused of sexual assault accountable.
Your side is, once again, going all in on defending the sexual assailant.
Quote: AussieHow many republican senators need to vote against him to kill it? Assume all democrats will vote against?
2
Quote: TigerWuSo because Ford drank and passed out at parties and forgets sexual partners, that precludes the possibility that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her?
a) Yes
b) No
It definitely reduces her credibility that it may have been consensual.
Quote: ams288They’re holding a man credibly accused of sexual assault accountable.
Your side is, once again, going all in on defending the sexual assailant.
Credibly? No place. No date. No idea how she got there. No idea how she left. No witness that will even corroborate that such party even took place. Sworn letters from ALL THREE people saying they were not at such a party. You and I have a different definition of credibly......
And his nerdy calendar..... I'm guessing you figure he was making it up 36 years ago to prepare for this farce.
Harris was good. Booker was weak.
Quote: SOOPOOCredibly? No place. No date. No idea how she got there. No idea how she left. No witness that will even corroborate that such party even took place. Sworn letters from ALL THREE people saying they were not at such a party. You and I have a different definition of credibly......
Like I said earlier, her claims were obviously credible enough to be brought before the Senate. If they were total B.S. it wouldn't even have made the local news.
Quote:And his nerdy calendar..... I'm guessing you figure he was making it up 36 years ago to prepare for this farce.
Well, people seriously think Obama's parents lied about his birth certificate so he could become President decades later....
But seriously, what does the calendar prove? Nothing.
Quote: TigerWuBut seriously, what does the calendar prove? Nothing.
It proves that "Beach Week" was a thing, but that's about it.
Four witnesses saying "it didn't happen" is different from four witnesses saying "I don't recall it happening." Why would they?
The only real witness to the attack, Mark Judge, is in hiding and Kavanaugh refused to answer the question on whether or not he should testify. Speaks volumes. The fact that Kavanaugh refused to say he was willing to demand the WH to order an FBI investigation speaks volumes. "I'll do whatever the committee wants". Well there are plenty of people on that committee that want an FBI investigation and if MY name and MY family's name was being smeared and I was innocent, I'd be demanding an FBI investigation. Speaks volumes that he's not doing that and that he completely and repeatedly dodged answering that question.
What would we say?
Quote: beachbumbabs1. This is not a trial. It's a job interview.
2. There is not a legal threshold of guilt or innocence.
3. Many on both sides have already declared their intention. Almost none of those took that position based on this issue.
4. Your trashing and memeing her here is just making you look like your mind was made up before she said a single word. Maybe you should practice what you're preaching.
Whatever his credentials, hers are not in question. You're indulging in victim blaming and discrediting her as a person, not listening to her.
Your List
1. What job is Mark Judge being interviewed for? What job are all the other guys at that prep school from the relevant years that these alleged events were taking place, who according to Swetnick were gang-raping people, interviewing for?
Speaking of, why does Swetnick directly name nobody except for Kavanaugh and Judge in her statement? If these sorts of things happened over ten times, one has to believe that she knows some of the other guys who were involved, right?
2.) There should be to accuse someone of an unprovable crime. When did we hit the point where you didn't even need corroborating evidence of any kind to accuse someone of a crime, and more importantly, when anyone else you bring up as a witness states that the event didn't happen?
3.) Agreed.
4.) I made up my mind that her accusations are decades old and unprovable, and as it turns out, her accusations are decades old and unprovable. Her testimony offered not even the faintest glimmer of anything that is even remotely passable as proof. There's nothing that the FBI could ever prove.
MY LIST
1.) I'm glad that he called Swetnick's allegations, "A Farce," because they are. Those allegations should be criminally ridiculous, but I didn't expect anything better than that from that scuzzy POS Avenatti.
2.) I predicted that Ford's testimony wouldn't prove anything, and it didn't. She offered no proof at all. Again, I'm not saying she's lying, even some Republicans seem to acknowledge that she seems to believe what she's saying...and maybe it did happen. But, there's that one little thing missing: Proof. If we're going to take Ford at 100% face value, assume everything she said is not only true in her opinion but actually 100% the case in fact--meaning physical reality and that Kavanaugh's denial means nothing, then where does it end?
3.) "But...but...we didn't do it to Gorsuch, did we?" Of course the Democrats didn't do it to Gorsuch, because they had absolutely no hope of dragging the process out for a year and a half until they could possibly take the Senate. If the Democrats were to go eighteen months without confirming anybody, they would get swept out of the SCOTUS in an absolute landslide, and they know it.
Can an FBI investigation actually prove anything? F*** no it can't, and everybody knows it can't. Not without a time machine. What an FBI investigation can do is take until November enabling Democrats to maybe, but probably not, win the Senate and then they can just block Kavanaugh because they don't want him on the SCOTUS.
Anyway, the President gets to pick his SCOTUS nominees. The President directs the FBI to look into them, or not, at his liking. Donald Trump is the President. He's the President because he won, Russian influence or otherwise.
Live with it. Quit trotting out s****y candidates like Hillary Clinton and maybe this wouldn't happen.
God bless Lindsey Graham.
Quote: TigerWuLike I said earlier, her claims were obviously credible enough to be brought before the Senate. If they were total B.S. it wouldn't even have made the local news.
The #MeToo movement is obviously powerful enough that it would be politically disadvantageous to completely disregard a person's claims, even though you know that they have absolutely no proof whatsoever. The Republicans were put between the proverbial rock and hard place, politically speaking, which is pretty clearly the entire point of this whole exercise.
Quote:Well, people seriously think Obama's parents lied about his birth certificate so he could become President decades later....
But seriously, what does the calendar prove? Nothing.
You're asking, "What does the calendar prove?" Well, it proves the same thing that Blasey Ford's testimony does. Nothing.
Quote: SteverinosIt proves that "Beach Week" was a thing, but that's about it.
Four witnesses saying "it didn't happen" is different from four witnesses saying "I don't recall it happening." Why would they?
The only real witness to the attack, Mark Judge, is in hiding and Kavanaugh refused to answer the question on whether or not he should testify. Speaks volumes. The fact that Kavanaugh refused to say he was willing to demand the WH to order an FBI investigation speaks volumes. "I'll do whatever the committee wants". Well there are plenty of people on that committee that want an FBI investigation and if MY name and MY family's name was being smeared and I was innocent, I'd be demanding an FBI investigation. Speaks volumes that he's not doing that and that he completely and repeatedly dodged answering that question.
Mark Judge hasn't been through enough already? He's not even the one who wants to be on the SCOTUS, so he's pretty much spent the last couple weeks getting his name dragged through the mud for precisely no reason for things that are 100% unprovable. Why the hell would you want to come out if you were Mark Judge?
You guys are demanding that she turn over a blue dress as the only way to definitively prove this without a shadow of a doubt. The fact remains that there IS doubt about whether this man is truthful. And for a lifetime appointment to a job tasked with seeking truth that will affect millions of lives, that is enough to disqualify him. There are plenty of other strong conservative candidates to choose from.
Quote: SteverinosYou do realize that corroboration does not have to prove guilt or innocence...right? The fact that she told her therapist in 2012 and her husband about the incident is corroborating evidence! She passed a polygraph test, and yes, while not always reliable, the FBI and other law enforcement use them to assess credibility. You'd have to believe she was planting this seed to bring down his SCOTUS nomination more than 6 years before he was even nominated! Around the same time Trump was saying his team was finding amazing things in Hawaii when his team found nothing in Hawaii.
Your spouse saying you said something is corroborating evidence? I fail to see what it corroborates. It does nothing to speak to the actual event in question. Her husband saying that she told him about it is no different, or shouldn't be, than me saying she just said it on TV earlier.
Again, I'll go over a few things that I have said throughout this discussion already:
1.) I don't necessarily disbelieve her and I did not disbelieve her prior to today, what I do believe is that she is making an accusation of 30+ years without proof.
2.) I believe that it is possible for someone to say they were told something at a certain time even though that person, in fact, was not told that thing at that time. We have a word for that and it is, "Lying."
---I'm not saying that she or anyone else is lying, in fact, Swetnick is the only person who I think is ABSOLUTELY lying, I'm just acknowledging the possibility.
3.) I think it's possible that she believes her accounting of events 100%, but the events did not happen as she remembers.
4.) As has been mentioned, she did some drinking and partying even though it seems she denies drinking very much on that particular night. Who knows? It makes it a lot harder to give her a pass for not remembering a physical place for, the most traumatic event of her life if she was basically sober.
5.) I think it's possible that something exists in-between what Blasey Ford said and what Kavanaugh said (categorical denial) which is what actually happened. For reasons stated, it wouldn't behoove Kavanaugh to say so simply because Blasey Ford can't prove that anything whatsoever happened between the two of them...so why admit to anything at all?
6.) Even if some event did happen along the lines of what Blasey Ford was saying, I'm not sure I agree with the notion that something someone did as a drunken minor should be disqualifying from the SCOTUS, particularly not when there is no proof of the event.
Why does everyone keep bringing up Trump? I'm not a Republican. I voted for Gary Johnson. I range from Moderate-Ridiculously Liberal in all facets of politics.
Quote:You guys are demanding that she turn over a blue dress as the only way to definitively prove this without a shadow of a doubt. The fact remains that there IS doubt about whether this man is truthful. And for a lifetime appointment to a job tasked with seeking truth that will affect millions of lives, that is enough to disqualify him. There are plenty of other strong conservative candidates to choose from.
Yeah, I am, because it was thirty-five goddamn years ago. She has no date. She has no physical place. Kavanaugh couldn't begin to disprove this event even if he wanted to and they FBI couldn't prove or disprove anything. Without a location for the event in question, Kavanaugh has no opportunity to remember who else may have been at that particular party, assuming he could remember anybody at all, and then get the, "Corroborating evidence," that everyone seems to love so much by way of them saying they were at this party and no such event happened.
As far as the last bit, Democrats just want to stall in case they can take the Senate, then they can prevent any candidate they choose as long as nobody defects. I'm not an idiot.
Anyway, almost everybody from both sides is disgusting. When I heard that bit where Kavanaugh's daughter supposedly said, "Pray for that woman," I'm pretty sure I threw up in my mouth. I definitely tasted something acidic.
The fact is that the entire political process has become a game of one upsmanship, the Constitution is proving day by day to be even less fit for being used as toilet paper and nobody has any interest in actually running the Government in a reasonable manner.
I'll tell you this, though: While basically Liberal, I'll never vote for a Democrat again after this nonsense. Not for anything. Not even a local position. That doesn't mean I'll be voting Republican, but anybody who is willing to associate themselves with what the Democrats have become? No thank you. Next candidate, please.
EDIT: I seriously doubt I'd vote for a Republican for anything except a local position because I refuse to associate myself by voting the same way the Evangelical White Christians do.
Quote: Mission146
Your spouse saying you said something is corroborating evidence? I fail to see what it corroborates. It does nothing to speak to the actual event in question. Her husband saying that she told him about it is no different, or shouldn't be, than me saying she just said it on TV earlier.
That’s not what legal experts on BOTH sides say. Yes, the fact that she told her husband and her therapist about the incident 6 years ago corroborates her story. It's very different than you saying she just said it on TV. Not even close, actually.
Quote: Mission146
Anyway, the President gets to pick his SCOTUS nominees.
President gets to pick SCOTUS nominees? Democrats are stalling? Yeah? Republicans stalled on President Obama’s Merrick Garland pick for 400+ days so they could steal it. It's only been 60. An FBI investigation will take days. We have 6 weeks until the midterms. Plenty of time to figure this out.
Does the senate as a whole or senators individually have the power to request an FBI investigation, as the senate/senators?
If I understood what they were saying earlier, it sounded like Ford came forward 35(?) days ago (45 now?) to some democrat(s) senators, prior to it going public, and they didn’t do anything about it?
It also sounded like the FBI had already done their “background check” or whatever you call it on Kav, and that was during the “35 days of limbo”. Maybe I’m wrong on the timeline or misinterpreted something.
It is completely normal for people to mis-remember events. Your memory doesn’t work how you probably normally think of memory (TLDR: it stitches a bunch of pieces together, oftentimes inaccurately, it’s not like a video-camera recording). It’s certainly possible Ford was attacked as she claims it but it was someone else. Wouldn’t be the first time, by any means, that the wrong person was accused of a crime.
Maybe it happened, maybe it didn’t. But if it happened, where’s the proof or even bit of evidence suggesting it happened? The closest bit of evidence is her telling her therapist (therapist? The rapist? COINCIDENCE???? You decide!!!!!) 6 years ago. But that tells us the same thing we already know — she’s accusing Kav. I assume they called or will call the therapist in for her testimony? I didn’t watch/listen to all of it, sorry if I missed it and she’s been called.
How long is this thing supposed to go on for? Days? Or is it over / almost over?
Oh well...
Quote: Mission146Without a location for the event in question, Kavanaugh has no opportunity to remember who else may have been at that particular party, assuming he could remember anybody at all, and then get the, "Corroborating evidence," that everyone seems to love so much by way of them saying they were at this party and no such event happened.
I didn't find it too unusual that a kid in high school could end up at a party and not know where it was as that was something I also did. With another friend driving at night you just didn't need to pay attention.
Quote: RS(therapist? The rapist? COINCIDENCE???? You decide!!!!!)
lmao
Quote: Steverinoslmao
That was a joke, for the record. Just putting it out there before anyone gets any ideas.
I can't help but think of the real victims here, where either way this goes any woman who is trying go get a criminal in front of a court just got punked, big time.Quote: Mission146< snip>Yeah, I am, because it was thirty-five goddamn years ago. She has no date. She has no physical place. Kavanaugh couldn't begin to disprove this event even if he wanted to and they FBI couldn't prove or disprove anything. Without a location for the event in question, Kavanaugh has no opportunity to remember who else may have been at that particular party, assuming he could remember anybody at all, and then get the, "Corroborating evidence," that everyone seems to love so much by way of them saying they were at this party and no such event happened.
I was out earlier at an office, and the air wreaked of hostility. The woman in charge of seeing to clients obviously bi passed me to serve a woman [ a stranger] that came in after me. I'm sure men are saying **** this, I don't want to deal with women at all. Good men tire of being blamed for things they are not guilty of.
I'm sure some will go out of their way to not hire women now. I'm sure there will be blowback for legitimate victims, that have been recently abused, all because of Blasey waiting 36 years to make these ridiculous claims.
dittoQuote:Anyway, almost everybody from both sides is disgusting. When I heard that bit where Kavanaugh's daughter supposedly said, "Pray for that woman," I'm pretty sure I threw up in my mouth. I definitely tasted something acidic.
Quote:I'll tell you this, though: While basically Liberal, I'll never vote for a Democrat again after this nonsense. Not for anything. Not even a local position. That doesn't mean I'll be voting Republican, but anybody who is willing to associate themselves with what the Democrats have become? No thank you. Next candidate, please.
I hope young men hear this. When I was younger and would take my wife out on a date, I never take the babysitter home afterwards, the deal was worked out and understood in advance. Even if you young guys are just dating some gal, do not be alone with the babysitter. Well it used to be if you weren't even there, you couldn't be blamed for sexual advances. Maybe that changes now? But thing about it, young women have fantasy's to. They may not even realize the harm they do.
Quote: RSThat was a joke, for the record. Just putting it out there before anyone gets any ideas.
Clearly you’ve never seen Arrested Development.
Tobias Funke was able to combine his analysis and therapy skills.
Quote: SteverinosThat’s not what legal experts on BOTH sides say. Yes, the fact that she told her husband and her therapist about the incident 6 years ago corroborates her story. It's very different than you saying she just said it on TV. Not even close, actually.
Is there absolute proof that she told them about it six years ago? Is there an audio or video recording of this being told to them six years ago?
The fact is that the political landscape has become so toxic that my starting point is, "Figure out what could be a lie. Why would the person be lying? What does the person have to gain from lying? How easy would it be to lie?"
The answers in this case are:
-To be believed.
-Because they don't want Kavanaugh in office.
-Very easy.
Why I am supposed to believe what some therapist says about something when the therapist's statement can neither be proven or disproven? We're not talking about forgetting to put the toilet seat back down, we're talking about accusing someone of sexual assault at a minimum and attempted rape in a maximum case.
If these accusations are going to stem from thirty years ago such that the statute of limitations has tolled, then I think it's perfectly reasonable to demand undeniable physical proof. If not proof, then at least some corroboration that dates back to the time of the incident.
So, do I care what conversations took place in 2012 and with whom? No, I don't. Why? Because they don't prove anything. It would not be satisfactory to get a conviction in court or a decision in a civil suit, if either of those things were even possible at this point.
The Democrats are saying that the evidentiary standard to accuse someone of attempted rape both is and should be almost nothing and I'm saying that is completely ridiculous. If that's the society they want, then they can have it, but what they will never have again is my vote for anything.
Quote:President gets to pick SCOTUS nominees? Democrats are stalling? Yeah? Republicans stalled on President Obama’s Merrick Garland pick for 400+ days so they could steal it. It's only been 60. An FBI investigation will take days. We have 6 weeks until the midterms. Plenty of time to figure this out.
The Republicans should have confirmed Merrick Garland, what's your point? Oh, the big bad Republicans didn't confirm our SCOTUS nominee, so we're just going to run around accusing people of attempted rape now to try to stall out the process.
The FBI Investigation can take as little time as it wants because, after the investigation on the Blasey Ford incident is finished, then they are going to want to have the FBI investigate the Ramirez thing...then they are going to want the FBI to investigate Swetnick's patently absurd allegations.
I think what the Democrats might be really hoping for is that the FBI goes rooting around into Kavanaugh's past and hopefully finds something completely unrelated and has to chase that. I don't know what else they could be hoping for (other than general stalling) because they are calling for an investigation into a matter that not a single person is saying can actually be proven to be true.
Like, you get that, right? That nobody disputes the unprovability of the allegation by Blasey Ford?
So, that's my entire problem. It's unprovable. I think that beyond the statute of limitations, you don't get to run around accusing people of rape and attempted rape unless you can prove your allegations, regardless of the surrounding context (SCOTUS nominee or otherwise). The Democrats believe otherwise.
Like Lindsey Graham, who I swear to God (if he existed) that I wish like Hell I'd never agree with on anything in my life saying, "If this is the new norm, you'd better watch out for your nominees."
Obviously, that threat's not good, nor is the notion of having to, 'Watch out," but who can blame him for saying that? Who could blame the Republicans for doing it. All you have to do now is cast out an unprovable accusation against someone and, by the Democrats own standard, it basically needs to be taken as truth? Hell, it'd be almost tough to blame the Republicans for now trying to take down Democratic nominees/candidates by any means necessary. Then, the Democrats will do the same.
Anyway, this whole thing is like a sibling rivalry between two small children and it's disgusting. Both of my kids are ten years old, or fewer, and they behave in a more mature way than the entire assorted leadership of both parties.
And, I can't stress this enough, this is the sort of nonsense that is permitted, if not outright encouraged, by our piece of trash Constitution.
Quote: FinsRuleI’ve lost a lot of respect for you Mission. I used to hold you in very high regard. These posts have been very surprising to me.
Oh well...
If you've lost respect for me because I think someone should be able to prove a thirty-year old allegation of sexual assault against someone if they are going to make it, then you can keep the rest of the respect you do have for me. I don't need it for anything.
Quote: ams288Clearly you’ve never seen Arrested Development.
Tobias Funke was able to combine his analysis and therapy skills.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Damn Netflix cut it before I finished watching it. :-(
Why’s his business in Boston if the show took place in Orange County? I thought it was OC, IIRC?
Btw, Charlie in it’s always sunny in Philadelphia did something similar where he went on a date with some chick and his friends prepped him beforehand, told him to say he’s a philanthropist, and he said full-on-rapist instead.
Quote: RS
It is completely normal for people to mis-remember events. Your memory doesn’t work how you probably normally think of memory (TLDR: it stitches a bunch of pieces together, oftentimes inaccurately, it’s not like a video-camera recording). It’s certainly possible Ford was attacked as she claims it but it was someone else. Wouldn’t be the first time, by any means, that the wrong person was accused of a crime.
It would be the first time in history anybody was ever wrongly accused of a crime, everybody knows that. Everybody also knows that nobody in history has been incorrectly convicted of a rape...that actually did provably occur...but then the DNA came back and later exonerated the convicted.
None of these things have ever happened. Memories are absolutely flawless after thirty years, unless you're male, then your memories are either terrible or, more likely, you're deliberately lying. False accusations are literally impossible.
Quote:Maybe it happened, maybe it didn’t. But if it happened, where’s the proof or even bit of evidence suggesting it happened? The closest bit of evidence is her telling her therapist (therapist? The rapist? COINCIDENCE???? You decide!!!!!) 6 years ago. But that tells us the same thing we already know — she’s accusing Kav. I assume they called or will call the therapist in for her testimony? I didn’t watch/listen to all of it, sorry if I missed it and she’s been called.
How long is this thing supposed to go on for? Days? Or is it over / almost over?
They have to get to work on that time machine, then they will find the proof. All they have to do is get video on every single house in a general geographical area over a period of roughly three months and just watch what happens, since we can't narrow down a place or time beyond that. It shouldn't be that hard of an investigation.
The good news is, since they will be using a time machine, the investigation will be completed instantly from our frame of reference.
It’s a job interview for possibly the most important job in the US.
Find someone else.
Edit - attempted rape
He admits to partying and drinking heavily, to the point of throwing up.
Yet when asked if he ever drank to the point of blacking out or losing memory, he said NO, that never happened.
In my extensive drinking experience, those two statements are completely contradictory.
Like everyone else here, I obviously don’t know the truth. With what evidence has been presented, i’d normally side with giving the accused the benefit of the doubt. But Kav has shown himself to be a liar in the past, and the testimony he gave today did not come off as geniuine or truthful to me.
He admits to partying and drinking heavily, to the point of throwing up.
Yet when asked if he ever drank to the point of blacking out or losing memory, he said NO, that never happened.
In my extensive drinking experience, those two statements are completely contradictory.
Like everyone else here, I obviously don’t know the truth. With what evidence has been presented, i’d normally side with giving the accused the benefit of the doubt. But Kav has shown himself to be a liar in the past, and the testimony he gave today did not come off as geniuine or truthful to me.
And there is plenty of evidence that suggest that Kavanaugh was and has not been telling the truth about his own life. That is DISQUALIFYING for the position he is applying for.
I’m done for the night. We’ll what happens.
Quote: rxwineI didn't find it too unusual that a kid in high school could end up at a party and not know where it was as that was something I also did. With another friend driving at night you just didn't need to pay attention.
I don't entirely disagree with you on that point, especially if you're drunk while riding (not driving) in the car. My point is that it just serves to make the event that much less provable or unprovable.
My problem is whether or not there is proof. That's it. It's never been anything else.
Furthermore, if the Statute of Limitations weren't up on the crime, then similarly, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The State of Maryland would be compelled to launch an investigation, or at least that county in which the event allegedly took place...assuming she can at least narrow it down to a county...which maybe she can't.
Anyway, if the Statute of Limitations weren't up, then she could go and file a criminal complaint, which she would fully be in her right to do, and then they'd better damn well launch a full investigation...but not the FBI, because the FBI lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
The criminal complaint itself would also be a matter of public record. If the statute of limitations weren't up on the alleged crime, then she could go and file the criminal complaint. I really find it difficult to imagine that they could confirm someone for SCOTUS with an active criminal investigation pending.
Anyway, that's my entire problem. There is no proof AND, from a legal/criminal perspective, it's already over. Honestly, if she had proof, it would be over anyway because of the Statute of Limitations, but I would be perfectly fine with the accusation being made after thirty years if there was at least proof.
Like it or not, Statute of Limitations exists to protect people from precisely this sort of thing. Maybe we have a question of whether those protections should extend beyond criminal/civil prosecution, I say they should. It's fine if people disagree with me. I won't lose respect for anyone who does, don't worry.
Quote: KeyserKavanaugh will be confirmed.
I think he will be too.
And it will break the Supreme Court forever...
Whenever Dems take the Presidency and control of the Senate again, no whining from the righties when they add a couple extra justices to cancel out Trump’s illegitimate ones!
Quote: gamerfreakOne thing that stuck out to me with Kav’s testimony....
He admits to partying and drinking heavily, to the point of throwing up.
Yet when asked if he ever drank to the point of blacking out or losing memory, he said NO, that never happened.
In my extensive drinking experience, those two statements are completely contradictory.
Like everyone else here, I obviously don’t know the truth. With what evidence has been presented, i’d normally side with giving the accused the benefit of the doubt. But Kav has shown himself to be a liar in the past, and the testimony he gave today did not come off as geniuine or truthful to me.
I thought he also said he has a weak stomach and that was his reason for throwing up? And something about spicy foods. Not saying that’s a legitimate reason, because it kinda sounds like BS to me. Then again, it could also be the truth, since I’ve also thrown up plenty of times from a weak stomach.
Quote: petroglyphI can't help but think of the real victims here, where either way this goes any woman who is trying go get a criminal in front of a court just got punked, big time.
I agree with this 100%.
The vast majority of sexual assault allegations are true and we need to do everything possible to encourage a society that enables women and girls to come out and speak if they have been wronged. However, it needs to be done in such a way that comports to the legal mechanisms that we have in place, which is to say, we need to educate everyone to feel as though they can speak as soon as an event happens.
This isn't about my opinion of Kavanaugh. I have no opinion of Kavanaugh other than he's a social conservative, so I would probably prefer that he not be on the SCOTUS on the grounds that he is a social conservative. Too bad, so sad.
Anyway, criminal acts need to be reported as soon as possible and we should have a society that encourages such reporting. That way, the proper authorities can do a proper investigation of the matter while it may still be provable beyond a reasonable doubt or provable based on a preponderance of the evidence if the act could also result in a civil suit.
What we don't need is unprovable accusations being brought up decades into the future because people aren't getting their way on something.
I'm tired of the notion that accusing a man of sexual assault is some minor thing that can just be done without both proof or legal consequences. Apparently, that puts me in a position such that warrants a loss of respect and/or contempt, that's fine.
Quote:I was out earlier at an office, and the air wreaked of hostility. The woman in charge of seeing to clients obviously bi passed me to serve a woman [ a stranger] that came in after me. I'm sure men are saying **** this, I don't want to deal with women at all. Good men tire of being blamed for things they are not guilty of.
I don't know about any of that because nobody was really talking about it in the context of my day-to-day life today, which is just as well by me.
The one thing I will say is that I've had the good fortune to be, "With," the same woman for over four years, but if she and I ever break up, I'll never have sex again absent a written and notarized contract authenticating mutual consent to sex. I'll put it in a safety deposit box.
Quote:I'm sure some will go out of their way to not hire women now. I'm sure there will be blowback for legitimate victims, that have been recently abused, all because of Blasey waiting 36 years to make these ridiculous claims.
I don't know that Blasey Ford's claims are, "Ridiculous," I just think they are unprovable. I think that there is an appropriate civil/criminal process for sexual assaults, or assaults of any other kind and that those finders of fact will decide whether a person is guilty or not. I think that's literally the only appropriate process for any of that, that's why it's there.
As far as going out of their way not to hire women, I hope not, but who knows? Certainly some will.
Quote:I hope young men hear this. When I was younger and would take my wife out on a date, I never take the babysitter home afterwards, the deal was worked out and understood in advance. Even if you young guys are just dating some gal, do not be alone with the babysitter. Well it used to be if you weren't even there, you couldn't be blamed for sexual advances. Maybe that changes now? But thing about it, young women have fantasy's to. They may not even realize the harm they do.
Personally, I haven't, don't and wouldn't ever use a babysitter at all. I already consider it inadvisable to be with any woman outside of a relative, my ex-wife or my fiancee' alone and I don't do it. That's been a standing policy of mine for quite a few years now, even prior to the #MeToo movement.
More than that, I don't trust anyone around my kids without my ex-wife or myself is present, with either my ex-wife's parents' or my parents' houses and school being the only exceptions there.
Quote: gamerfreakOne thing that stuck out to me with Kav’s testimony....
He admits to partying and drinking heavily, to the point of throwing up.
Yet when asked if he ever drank to the point of blacking out or losing memory, he said NO, that never happened.
In my extensive drinking experience, those two statements are completely contradictory.
When it comes to drinking, everyone is different. In my experience, I almost never vomit but have blacked out with some degree of frequency. Usually, in the rare event that I have vomited, I have not blacked out.
I also don't know if we are using, "Blacked out," the same way. I take it to mean, essentially, "Losing consciousness without deliberately choosing to fall asleep." If you mean it in terms of, "Losing memory," I have done that even on instances where I did deliberately choose to fall asleep. In any case, I almost never vomit, but usually choose to go directly to sleep in the rare case that I do. Also, on vomiting, I almost always (if not always) remember that I vomited the following day.
Quote: SteverinosIt seems that you are working from the premise that this was a criminal trial. It is not. It’s a job interview.
And there is plenty of evidence that suggest that Kavanaugh was and has not been telling the truth about his own life. That is DISQUALIFYING for the position he is applying for.
I’m done for the night. We’ll what happens.
Again, I shudder to think of the job interview where someone just randomly pops in and accuses you of a crime that the accuser cannot prove right in the middle of your interview. I don't think anybody would ever get hired for anything.
As far as any factors outside of these allegations that would or would not be disqualifying, I have exactly no opinion whatsoever. I don't know anything about any of that. I just have a very strong opinion of accusing people of unprovable crimes well after the alleged crime happened...and an even bigger issue with the fact that we, as a society, are apparently supposed to immediately believe the accuser regardless of what the accusation is.
Unless I'm eating Chicken McNuggets. (-;Quote: Mission146In any case, I almost never vomit
I just couldn't pass that up.
Quote: Mission146If you've lost respect for me because I think someone should be able to prove a thirty-year old allegation of sexual assault against someone if they are going to make it, then you can keep the rest of the respect you do have for me. I don't need it for anything.
But you need to get the proper context,
At 15 she rationalized since he hadn't actually raped her, it wasn't worth it to report him. No semen, probably not even any bruises. Her word against two boys. Held down and groped, mouth covered, but what can you prove even then?
As far as she was concerned she was never going accuse him ever until the day she saw his name on a very important short list. At that point she realized the importance of what she knew about him and had to decide that maybe she had a duty to speak out even at the risk of not being believed?
What about this scenario do you not find reasonable?
Quote: rxwineBut you need to get the proper context,
At 15 she rationalized since he hadn't actually raped her, it wasn't worth it to report him. No semen, probably not even any bruises. Her word against two boys. Held down and groped, mouth covered, but what can you prove even then?
Well, let's talk about not necessarily, "Prove," but what kind of case you could build off of that:
1.) Are either of the boys stupid enough to admit it?
-Again, the boys would both be young in this instance. Further, they're both drunk, so maybe if the cops go to the residence that night (which one would think they'd at least investigate the underage drinking) then you at least get a statement from the boys and they admit to, "Roughhousing," (or something like that) with her, but stop short (one would assume) of saying they planned to rape her.
2.) Are either of the boys stupid enough to talk about it?
-Again, maybe you get the cops questioning them that night or the following day. While the boys may not give the cops anything solid, they might be stupid enough to put themselves in the room with her.
3.) Are there other witnesses?
-Blasey Ford says there were other people at this party and, I believe, identified a few of them. Those people either did not recall or categorically denied any such party where both Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford would have been present. However, in the context of 1982, maybe the cops come by and crash the party or do the investigation and question people the following day. Are there any witnesses that put Kavanaugh and Judge in the room with Blasey Ford? Are there witnesses who at least say all three were at the party? Did anyone witness Blasey Ford run out? Did she say anything? Did she seem distressed? Did anyone hear a scream?
4.) As far as no bruises, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that there were no bruises. While it's possible to hold someone down without putting bruises on them, it's unlikely that a drunken seventeen year old is going to be deliberately doing the proper technique for that to happen. Blasey Ford also claims they all fell to the floor, so that could also result in bruising or being skinned up.
5.) Other physical evidence:
-She might have dug her nails into Kavanaugh trying to get him off of her, that would be something. I don't know that they would go DNA or hair follicle (and isn't hair follicle unreliable, anyway?) over something like this, but maybe they would have. Although, I will say that if they did an investigation and her nail marks (or if she bit him) her teeth marks are in him...that's at least going to show that something happened between the two of them.
Either way, you would have an investigation and they would either decide that there existed enough evidence to charge the boys or that there was not enough evidence to charge the boys. There would be a record of the investigation and criminal complaint, at least for a period of time, but then Blasey Ford could also have a copy.
More than that, you would have a law enforcement personnel who theoretically might still be alive to recall Blasey Ford coming in that night (or the next day) and making the allegations. That would be excellent corroborating evidence because it would at least have taken place around the time of the alleged incident.
So, that's the importance of reporting when you are wronged and hopefully all women, girls and young girls can at least take from this whole thing that it is important to seek out law enforcement if someone assaults you in any way.
Quote:As far as she was concerned she was never going accuse him ever until the day she saw his name on a very important short list. At that point she realized the importance of what she knew about him and had to decide that maybe she had a duty to speak out even at the risk of not being believed?
What about this scenario do you not find reasonable?
I don't find it reasonable to accuse someone of something after the statute of limitations has passed without even the faintest shred of proof. It should be illegal. It opens the door for anybody to freely accuse anybody else of anything as long as the accusation cannot be proven to be absolutely fictitious. That's the exact opposite of how our legal system works.
Judge Judy "If it doesn't make sense, it's usually not true."
I don't think so, but I could also be wrong. Perhaps I will remember it better 36 years from now.Quote: Mission146I want to say she said that they followed her up the stairs, but I could be wrong.
Why did she go upstairs in the first place?
Not sure why I'm asking since it didn't happen in the first place.
Quote: Mission146Again, I shudder to think of the job interview where someone just randomly pops in and accuses you of a crime that the accuser cannot prove right in the middle of your interview. I don't think anybody would ever get hired for anything.
As far as any factors outside of these allegations that would or would not be disqualifying, I have exactly no opinion whatsoever. I don't know anything about any of that. I just have a very strong opinion of accusing people of unprovable crimes well after the alleged crime happened...and an even bigger issue with the fact that we, as a society, are apparently supposed to immediately believe the accuser regardless of what the accusation is.
So Mission. Hypothetical question here
You are interviewing someone for a job position
Another individual approaches you and alerts you they were the victim of an attempted rape years ago by that possible future employee
And then a 2nd and a 3rd person made similar statement?
You would unequivocally hire the person? Just give no credence to the person alerting you?
From a business perspective that doesnt sound like a wise decision svsn if you arent certain who is telling the truth
