Of course not. Without religion morals are ala carte depending on the person you are interacting with.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tt-romneys-tax-record/?utm_term=.a781ac8b013c
Christine Ford to testify next week
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
Of course not. Without religion morals are ala carte depending on the person you are interacting with.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tt-romneys-tax-record/?utm_term=.a781ac8b013c
If he’s guilty, he probably deserves to have his character tainted a bit IMO.
So yes....there’s the rub.
My issue with this is what if it didn't happen. It's 35 years later. How could you prove a negative in this case. She can't even provide a date or location so he can argue he was somewhere else. Somewhere along the way, we've thrown out the need for any burden of proof in order to support #metoo, and that's a real issue.
It seems to me that because you are so concerned with “what if it didn’t happen”...that you are advocating for assuming or acting as if obviously it didn’t.
No we haven’t thrown out the need for any burden of proof....there is a required burden of proof for criminal prosecution...Senators will have their own level of proof and credibility on which the will base their vote....the public will have their own beliefs ranging from assuming she is lying to assuming she is telling the truth...to all points in between.
It's all going to come down to who wins the public relations campaign in the next week or two. I'm not sure getting to the bottom of the matter is going to have anything to do with any of it.
I think you have to at this point. We either go with the presumption of guilt of the presumption of innocence. No matter how this goes, 50% of the public is going to be on the wrong side of the issue and 50% will be angry.
This should have been brought forward weeks ago. If not the person's name, at least the accusation. Doing it at the 11th hour smells like the bad political games.
JD you’re always able to turn the ball and a bit and look at things a different way, so do appreciate that.
My point is had she come out in 2012 while he was a DC appeals Court Judge 2 things would have happened:
1. Allegations, true or not, would have effectively neutered his career then and there and he certainly wouldn’t have been nominated for the Suoreme Court with that baggage.
2. How can she be considered credible with her lack of remembering details that should be easy to recall for such a traumatic event?
Terrtiarily, if people questioning Kavanaugh knew this ahead of time why wouldn’t they confront him before the week his confirmation hearing start? Whole thing stinks!
What I think happened is she got loaded at a party, someone probably tried something and was rebuffed. Since the person that tried something was from the “rich boys school” that she described its easy to now say it was him and the media/liberals all Trump/conservative haters that they are ran with it. I say she is lying about it being Kavanaugh. One thing is for sure the lines have already been drawn and a hearing, barring some crazy bombshell, won’t be anything but a circus.
This is why I would be a horrific lawyer because on the surface and about 6 layers below this looks and smells like a hatchet job not to find the truth, but to keep a conservative of the Supreme Court.
I concede that the is cheap politics behind the timing by Democrats.
There is no way we have to assume she is lying because of that. That’s insane to me.
This is the kind of stuff being said that frustrates me so much.
Some officers involved in shootings don’t remember dates and details. Victims of sexual assaults and rapes often don’t remember every single detail. During traumatic events some individuals disassociate and/or hyper focus on a single thing to survive.
You’re passing judgment on credibility based without knowledge or experience regarding the science of psychology of surviving or dealing with traumatic events.
Nobody has actually even heard her testimony...her from her in her own words....
And yet close to everyone has judged her absolutely not credible or absolutely credible....without listening to what she actually has to say. Made up their minds about the evidence...before actually seeing and hearing the evidence.
That baffles me.
And yet close to everyone has judged her absolutely not credible or absolutely credible....without listening to what she actually has to say. Made up their minds about the evidence...before actually seeing and hearing the evidence.
That baffles me.
because we know this is a big hoax and she's lying...deceiving, dishonest, elusive, deceptive, perfidious, and untrustworthy...to name a few. We know this because she's being led around by the ring in her nose by the democrats and has no problem with it. she's just a pull-toy. Those are the signs of fishyness. Her actions have spoken louder than any words can or could. All this against a guy who has been investigated by the fbi and every other rat out there trying to dig up something but this is all they got. 34 years of squeaky clean. Not many people on this earth can be that good.
You're right. What baffles me is she was invited to come and and testify and says she won't, they offer to go to her, she doesn't want that, then she says under certain terms she will. It's like their bluff is continually called and they come up with something else. That's why I believe that what she is saying happened, didn't.
If the circumstances were politically reversed, I would be saying the same thing.
The certainty you have just be very comforting.
Sexual assaults is one of the most unreported and underreported crimes out there. Check out #WhyIDidntReport trending on twitter and maybe try to place yourself in those shoes for a moment before passing judgment.
Your certainty that she is lying is as politically motivated and galling as those on the other side absolutely certain she is telling the truth.
I’m gonna check out of this discussion before I say something I probably will mean, but would be taking the low road.
I’m just gonna say I fundamentally disagree with your snap judgement that she is lying and leave it at that.
Last edited:
Not interested thanks.
Don’t want to get down in the gutter.
Have a good weekend and go pokes.
I agree with this.
What I don’t understand is why it is okay to say I believe her and to make Hollywood commercials about it. Those actresses are unbelievably partisan. There is no evidence and backstory supporting her claim. However, it doesn’t mean to say she is lying.
Conversely, supporting Kavanaugh story should not be viewed as attacking her. Everything we know about the man appears he is the genuine deal.
I'll go on the record with my take...
Definitely bullshit shenanigans by Feinstein and anyone else associated with holding the letter, one that will bite them in the ass. It's poor form to use something like this as a political game. The circus we are now seeing benefits nobody.
I believe something happened to Ford. Was it Kavanaugh? Dunno. Was it attempted rape? Again, dunno. But it was obviously something unpleasant. She says there were two people in the room. Based on her recollection of people drinking at the party, my own experience leads me to believe everyone had probably consumed alcohol if there was alcohol. Could drinking mixed with emotional trauma lead to inadequate recollection of the events? Absolutely.
That said, if it was Kavanaugh, he was 17 years old. That doesn't excuse his behavior, but dudes did act differently back in the 80s. If it was Kavanaugh, there are no other allegations that have come out so I would tend to think that if it happened similar to what she said, it was an isolated incident that probably involved some mutual action that ultimately went too far. However, I don't think an isolated incident at the age of 17 demonstrates that Kavanaugh is not fit for the Supreme Court.
I have called out both those that have already concluded she is lying AND those that have already concluded she is telling the absolute, unvarnished truth.
Just saying...
I’ll go farther....those suggesting or concluding she is lying are often convinced Ellison’s accuser is being completely truthful and Vice versa for the other side.
Can’t see shit, but a red X.
Gonna have to do better than that trying to get me to go ugly.
Agreed. As I said earlier, even if she is telling the truth, the Democrats are using here in an unseemly manner...basically victimizing her again by playing shenanigans with her trauma for political gain.
That question is one that I am personally conflicted about. I don’t think it is unreasonable to take the position you have. I’m just not sure I agree. We are talking about the Highest Court in the land...the court of last resort to obtain truth and justice. Maybe that’s unrealistically idealistic...probably is.
Exactly what I meant by you turning the ball a bit with a different experience/perspective and making a valid point JD, so thanks. Duly noted.
I've done a lot of reading about the psychology of survival (three of the best books I've read on this is "The Gift of Fear," "Survival Psychology" and "Lost person behavior"), because when I go backpacking am always planning my treks to get off trail as soon as possible so I don't have to deal with other people. It is simply amazing how people make so many small mistakes that lead to incredibly tragic events. One of the terms that is often used when people are lost outdoors is called "bending the map," and it is the tendency to disregard your gps locator, what you can triangulate on the topo map and see exactly what you want to see which, hence bending the map to your perspective, and its almost always wrong. You continue to follow what you "think is the right path" but almost always the wrong path. I've been lost once and my inclination was to hunker down for the night then backtrack in the morning, knew my wife would absolutely go berserk when I didn't get home so pressed on discounting every single thing I tried to reconcile on my topo map and relying only on my gps unit. Finally stumbled out of the mountains at 3:30ish AM and headed home Crazy times but great experience.
I'm with medic in his assessment that something probably happened (Have said this before) but I'm convinced it wasn't Kavanaugh......the timing, the political implications and his career with nothing comparable in his past tells me she is mistaken and being used to further an agenda.
Absolutely a fair point, sir, and I don't disagree one bit. Without the current ability to have proof one way or the other, I decided to look only at his work as a jurist.
I have a few areas of complete disagreement, such as his dissents on the illegal immigrant abortion case and religious organizations objection to paying for contraception, and his agreement that the NSA can collect phone data without a warrant. But I have more areas where I agree with his opinions than I disagree so I can support his confirmation.
Bromwich is also a former federal prosecutor and Inspector General for the DOJ. He was one of the prosecutors during the trial of Oliver North. He has been involved in numerous other high profile investigations.
Ford's legal team just added a very seasoned lawyer and investigator.
