Thread Rating:

Poll

4 votes (33.33%)
9 votes (75%)

12 members have voted

VCUSkyhawk
VCUSkyhawk
Joined: Sep 22, 2013
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 644
Thanks for this post from:
onenickelmiracle
October 3rd, 2018 at 4:47:53 PM permalink
Quote: onenickelmiracle

Just something he said that would incriminate premeditation for something like he did.



Oh gotcha. Damn I would feel bad too. Try not to beat yourself up too much about it though.
I got a plan, we take all your picks we reverse them like one of those twilight zone episodes where everything is the opposite. You say "black" we go white.
Sandybestdog
Sandybestdog
Joined: Feb 3, 2015
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 214
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146RogerKint
October 3rd, 2018 at 5:26:48 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

1. This is a job interview, not a criminal trial.

2. Mitchell did question for 3-4 Senators on Kavanaugh. Then Graham took his time back and she never spike again.

3. Before you use her (paid) opinion, ask yourself: where is her report on Kavanaugh? She was there for the entire questioning of him, and did some of it herself. Why was only her opinion on Ford released?



1) So you're saying it's OK to deny someone a job (and ruin his life in the process) based on a mere accusation? You can't accuse someone of something with no evidence nor witnesses and then when they defend themselves and provide more evidence that they didn't do it than evidence provided against them say well it's not based on criminal convictions but mere allegations. You can't make something up and then when disproven use the disproven allegation to say well simply because of the seriousness of the accusation someone should be denied something.

As a single, young white male, I can't help but say to myself throughout this entire process, why bother even trying? You could work your whole, play by the rules, have countless people vouch for you and have all of it ruined based on political and social motives of other people. Men would say, how do we protect ourselves? The universal response would be well it's simple, don't abuse women. Well we know now that that isn't enough to protect yourself anymore. The testimony of hundreds of women who actually know you including the former Secretary of State is not enough to protect you against even one unverifiable accusation.

2) She questioned him enough to get his account of things and his denial of ever having any sexual contact with the accuser. What else is she supposed to ask him? She can't ask him where he was on such and such date because the accuser can't remember the date. She can't ask him if he had have been to such and such house because the accuser can't remember which house it happened in. Graham took back the floor when it was clear that the whole hearing was just a charade by the democrats. The truth was never their goal, just seek and destroy. As pointed out, Dr Ford is perhaps just as much a victim in all of this as Kavanaugh. She is just a tool. Her accusations were never addressed during the previous hearing even though they were known all along because the Democrats were only going to use them once it became clear that they couldn't destroy him on the merits.

3) There's no report on Kavanaugh because that's not why she was there. She was there because the media had a frenzy about the realization that 11 white Republican men would be questioning a woman making sexual assault allegations. She is a sexual assault prosecutor. She brings cases like this to trial for a living. So don't you think her opinion of the accusers testimony is important? She is aware of what is needed to bring about a criminal conviction.

I served on a jury a few years ago. It was a civil case against an insurance company, not a criminal case. What was made abundantly clear throughout the entire trial was that the typical "shadow of a doubt" required in a criminal case is not required in a civil one. It is simply a "preponderance of the evidence". In other words 51% for one side or the other was enough to completely side with one party. She is stating that if brought to trial not only would the accusations not meet the criminal requirement, they don't even meet the civil one. So in her opinion, Dr Ford's accusations are more not believable than believeable. Of course I looked all day to find this rather newsworthy report on CNN but they were too busy investigating a bar fight that happened over 30 years ago. I think if these accusations fail to bring him down, surely IceCubeGate will.
FinsRule
FinsRule
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
  • Threads: 120
  • Posts: 3701
October 3rd, 2018 at 5:57:17 PM permalink
They say only about 5% of these cases are false allegations. So Iíll go with that and say 95% chance it happened, while leaving open the 1 in 20 chance Iím being duped.

Oh no! Poor young white males! Wait, what does white have to do with it? Anyway, I think we will be ok. 5% false allegations sucks, but it also sucks for the 30% of women that are sexually abused.. I guess life isnít fair.

Finally, his life is not ruined! Do you know how many jobs I have not gotten? He gets to keep his current job, and he aced his interview for Fox News. The best case scenario for him is the Supreme Court, and worse case is either more fame/money, or back to relative obscurity. He gets to choose.

People are assigning too much importance to this. If he gets in, it doesnít mean itís open season on sexually assaulting people. If he doesnít, someone with the exact same ideology is going to get the job.
Fleaswatter
Fleaswatter
Joined: Dec 1, 2010
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 442
Thanks for this post from:
petroglyph
October 3rd, 2018 at 6:22:11 PM permalink
I found the evidence, he wrote this:

"I spent the last two years of high school in a daze, locking away the questions that life seemed insistent on imposing. I kept playing basketball, attended classeds sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically."

oops, it was Barack Obama in "Dreams of my Father" not Kavanuagh
Last edited by: Fleaswatter on Oct 3, 2018
new motto for the left: ďI don't know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was,Ē (John Brennan Mar 25, 2019)
FinsRule
FinsRule
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
  • Threads: 120
  • Posts: 3701
October 3rd, 2018 at 6:31:17 PM permalink
Quote: Fleaswatter

I found the evidence, he wrote this:

"I spent the last two years of high school in a daze, locking away the questions that life seemed insistent on imposing. I kept playing basketball, attended classed sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically."

oops, it was Barack Obama in "Dreams of my Father" not Kavanuagh



He made typos in his book? Anyway, Iím guessing if he sexually assaulted someone, we would have found out by now.
Fleaswatter
Fleaswatter
Joined: Dec 1, 2010
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 442
October 3rd, 2018 at 6:41:37 PM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

Quote: Fleaswatter

I found the evidence, he wrote this:

"I spent the last two years of high school in a daze, locking away the questions that life seemed insistent on imposing. I kept playing basketball, attended classed sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically."

oops, it was Barack Obama in "Dreams of my Father" not Kavanuagh



He made typos in his book? Anyway, Iím guessing if he sexually assaulted someone, we would have found out by now.



Thanks for the catch, I corrected the quote.
new motto for the left: ďI don't know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was,Ē (John Brennan Mar 25, 2019)
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 248
  • Posts: 7812
October 3rd, 2018 at 10:15:22 PM permalink
Quote: Fleaswatter

I found the evidence, he wrote this:

"I spent the last two years of high school in a daze, locking away the questions that life seemed insistent on imposing. I kept playing basketball, attended classeds sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically."

oops, it was Barack Obama in "Dreams of my Father" not Kavanuagh



So if Obama could come out about it why does Kavanaugh feel the need to lie
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 99
  • Posts: 14231
Thanks for this post from:
gamerfreak
October 3rd, 2018 at 10:24:32 PM permalink
Quote: Sandybestdog

1) So you're saying it's OK to deny someone a job (and ruin his life in the process) based on a mere accusation? You can't accuse someone of something with no evidence nor witnesses and then when they defend themselves and provide more evidence that they didn't do it than evidence provided against them say well it's not based on criminal convictions but mere allegations. You can't make something up and then when disproven use the disproven allegation to say well simply because of the seriousness of the accusation someone should be denied something.



Nope. Didn't say that. I am saying he lies, he's partisan where he's required to be impartial, and he's not good enough for the job he's applying for. He doesn't get it, ooh, hurt him by sending him back to his top-salary Court of Appeals job. Except he's not good enough for that either, because he lied to get it. Felons don't belong in the judge's chair in court.

Quote:


As a single, young white male, I can't help but say to myself throughout this entire process, why bother even trying? You could work your whole, play by the rules, have countless people vouch for you and have all of it ruined based on political and social motives of other people. Men would say, how do we protect ourselves? The universal response would be well it's simple, don't abuse women. Well we know now that that isn't enough to protect yourself anymore. The testimony of hundreds of women who actually know you including the former Secretary of State is not enough to protect you against even one unverifiable accusation.

What makes you think you're the only class of person who is or can be the victim of false accusations? It happens to the rest of us all the time. Entitle much? You're buying into the paranoid bs Trump is putting out there.
Quote:


2) She questioned him enough to get his account of things and his denial of ever having any sexual contact with the accuser. What else is she supposed to ask him? She can't ask him where he was on such and such date because the accuser can't remember the date. She can't ask him if he had have been to such and such house because the accuser can't remember which house it happened in.

She had just started to ask him about the date of July 1, which contained several of the names of people she said were there. She got cut off by a nonsense rant, and no Republican asked him anything of substance after that. God forbid they should ask a question that had anything to do with finding any truth.
Quote:

Graham took back the floor when it was clear that the whole hearing was just a charade by the democrats. The truth was never their goal, just seek and destroy.

You bought that? Wow. He interceded to shut Mitchell up. We'd already had one paranoid conspiracy-laden rant that day, so why not throw another? He was auditioning for Attorney General or Chief of Staff, both of which will be vacant very soon.
Quote:

As pointed out, Dr Ford is perhaps just as much a victim in all of this as Kavanaugh. She is just a tool. Her accusations were never addressed during the previous hearing even though they were known all along because the Democrats were only going to use them once it became clear that they couldn't destroy him on the merits.

Dr Ford did not want her name known and did not want to testify. She was leaked by someone with an agenda. You did get that she initiated the warning when she heard he was on the list right? Before he was nominated. Some conspiracy. Like they could fill in the blank on her accusation with whatever Judge Trump put up for consideration. /sarcasm
Quote:



3) There's no report on Kavanaugh because that's not why she was there. She was there because the media had a frenzy about the realization that 11 white Republican men would be questioning a woman making sexual assault allegations. She is a sexual assault prosecutor. She brings cases like this to trial for a living. So don't you think her opinion of the accusers testimony is important? She is aware of what is needed to bring about a criminal conviction.

Still not a criminal trial. And yes, if she were doing the job she was supposedly hired to do, and probably did, she took an expert read on Kavanaugh, his lies, bluster, deflection, and insouciance, and wrote that report, too. But we'll never see it.
Quote:



I served on a jury a few years ago. It was a civil case against an insurance company, not a criminal case. What was made abundantly clear throughout the entire trial was that the typical "shadow of a doubt" required in a criminal case is not required in a civil one. It is simply a "preponderance of the evidence". In other words 51% for one side or the other was enough to completely side with one party. She is stating that if brought to trial not only would the accusations not meet the criminal requirement, they don't even meet the civil one. So in her opinion, Dr Ford's accusations are more not believable than believeable. Of course I looked all day to find this rather newsworthy report on CNN but they were too busy investigating a bar fight that happened over 30 years ago. I think if these accusations fail to bring him down, surely IceCubeGate will.



It'a not a civil trial, either. It's not analogous. Mitchell was a showpiece because the Republicans were too chickens!#/ about the campaign commercials they would fill, to do their jobs. And most too full of malice and disbelief to treat Dr. Ford with enough respect to question her without providing that fodder. Ben Sasse and Jeff Flake get a better grade from me, in retrospect, because at least they recognize some compassion in themselves, and are still human enough to recognize when they're being shined on.

You're being manipulated by people with an agenda. So am I. But I know there are much better choices for SCOTUS than this partisan hack. Conservative or not. I was pleased to support John Roberts. I don't agree with his every decision, but he's a fine justice. I didn't oppose Gorsuch except for the procedural nastiness about Garland. But this guy?

He's not good enough. His entitlement alone makes him a bad judge. He doesn't respect the rights of the people he rules on.

The whole point of a lifetime appointment is to provide the freedom from obligations and debts to powerful people. You can't put a party operative in there, any more than you can put a lobbyist in that seat. His obligations are too heavy.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
October 3rd, 2018 at 11:04:36 PM permalink
An excellent analysis, BBB, ... thank you.
I'm entering this thread at page 30 and have been trying to ignore the barrage of accusations and counter-accusations.

Criminal trial, civil trial, .... burdens of "proof" ??

Its all just an opportunity to win by grabbing the headlines. I'm reminded of that sports team that had its visitors locker room painted pink... everything was viewed as a chance to win. Hearings, twitter, news feeds, cartoons, ... no one listens to evidence any more, its all sound bites being drowned out by other sound bites.

The only revelation being made is the total lack of character for everyone involved.
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 149
  • Posts: 19144
October 4th, 2018 at 1:00:48 AM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

Dr Ford did not want her name known and did not want to testify.

OH, BULLSH*T! x1000. That's what she wants you to think, and you fell for that BS, so sad, I thought you were smarter than that.


Nowadays, Apparently, you ain't cool unless you #MeToo.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪

  • Jump to: