I no longer believe the accusers

[Doc1]

Doris Kearns Goodwin, the presidential historian, drawing an analogy to Kavanaugh's possible confirmation, told a short story on Bill Maher's show last night about how in 1850 a congressman from South Carolina whacked a congressman from Massachusetts across the head with a heavy cane. He became a hero to the South and his supporters all started sporting canes.

This enraged the North so much, to the tipping point of mobilizing the north against the South and slavery and inevitably the creation of the party of Lincoln.

I hope we can do the same, starting in November.

Kavanaugh is all about ending the investigation into Trump, creating law that a sitting POTUS can't be investigated.
Look it up. It's right there in black and white from Kavanaugh's publications.

He didn't just kiss Trump's ring. He sucked on it.
.
.
..

Post the source kid. You're a known partisan liar.

 

[forkup]

Meaning I have only her testimony and Kavanaugh's to go by. In my opinion Ford's was more credible, but that could just be my party affiliation. What isn't an opinion is that a Supreme Court justice should be beyond reproach. Kavanaugh isn't. What isn't an opinion is the a Supreme Court justice should at least hold an illusion of impartiality. Kavanaugh doesn't. What isn't an opinion is that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country is not well served if it's members have put themselves open for demands to recuse themselves by their previous actions. Kavanaugh did.

Prove her allegations.
Prove he isn't "impartial".
He isn't beyond "reproach" only because you bought accusations you can't prove and you choose to believe her.
You'll demand recusal over allegations unproven. You are quite the partisan kid.

LOL, people like you tried to destroy his life and you're upset because he came out swinging? Price less. How special you must think you are.

I'm not upset, with what he said. I'm upset that being credible accused of something like this doesn't disqualify someone from getting a promotion. As to us destroying his life. He would still have been a federal judge, he wouldn't go to jail, nor would he be demoted.
I gave this analogy before but I'll give it again. Say I'm on a school board and I have to vote on the hiring of a coach for the girls softball team. The day before the vote my wife tells me, a friend told her he did to her what Ford accused her of. Would that information not disqualify him for the job? Especially if I have 24 other equally qualified people to take his place, as is the case for this seat?

Bad analogy. 36 year old allegations that ONLY surface when his appt came up are spurious at best. She didn't say anything when he worked for Starr.
She didn't anything when Bush apptd him.
She waited until AFTER the proceedings were coming to a close in a last ditch effort to stop it. It was political from the start.
7 FBI background checks and nothing. You find her "credible" because of your politics, nothing more.
65 women supported him in a letter.
All the women that worked for him gave him glowing recommendations.
NONE of her witnesses corroborated her accusations.

It was political from the start. He is guilty because you "feel" he is guilty.

-Actually 1 of those 65 woman said she was hurt and embarrassed by what Kavanaugh wrote about her in the yearbook Renata was her name. As to the 64 others. If I try really hard I think I can come up with 65 woman I knew in high school I didn't try to rape and even will speak well of me. I will even assume the same for you. Neither is his support universal. Is Brett Kavanaugh’s High School Ditching Him? Nearly 100 Alumni Sign Petition Against the Supreme Court Nominee.
-As to my analogy. It would also be just an instance of a victim speaking up, ONLY to deny this fictitious coach a position so why is it a bad analogy?
-As to the background check. Do you think the FBI speaks to everybody you have ever met when they perform a background check, or seven in this case? I sure as hell don't.

 

[bripat9643]

Doris Kearns Goodwin, the presidential historian, drawing an analogy to Kavanaugh's possible confirmation, told a short story on Bill Maher's show last night about how in 1850 a congressman from South Carolina whacked a congressman from Massachusetts across the head with a heavy cane. He became a hero to the South and his supporters all started sporting canes.

This enraged the North so much, to the tipping point of mobilizing the north against the South and slavery and inevitably the creation of the party of Lincoln.

I hope we can do the same, starting in November.

Kavanaugh is all about ending the investigation into Trump, creating law that a sitting POTUS can't be investigated.
Look it up. It's right there in black and white from Kavanaugh's publications.

He didn't just kiss Trump's ring. He sucked on it.
.
.
..

So you believe confirming Kavanaugh is the equivalent of whacking all you leftwing morons over the head with a cane? That's why you're all called "snowflakes," on top of being called morons, that is.

 

[SweetSue92]

If one cannot prove one assertions said assertions by definition false.

No then they are by definition unproven. There is a difference. I can't proof there is life on other planets, yet that does not mean it's proof that there isn't. It's called an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

He was seated because all you people had were her accusations, you lost.

Sure, we lost. I have a feeling though it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory. You now have someone seated on the bench that is on record saying he will not be impartial. You have now seated someone who will be controversial as long as he has the seat. You have now seated someone who will work as a stark reminder to woman what the GOP stands for. It doesn't matter for you, or most other people on the right who posts here. However if there's a better way to alienate independants and make Democrats come out in November I have yet to hear about it.

Reminder: your people didn't need mobilization to come out to the polls. Ours did. Your attack on Kavanaugh did that in spades.

Well done.

You do realize there's more of us then there are of you. The thing that has usually skewed the results is that turnout historically is higher on your side. I think if you guys have a high turnout and we do. Republicans lose.

Typically your people need to be paid to do stuff. lol

 

[Tilly]

Meaning she couldn't prove shit but you believe her anyway because Kavanaugh is a poo poo head. Good lord.

Meaning I have only her testimony and Kavanaugh's to go by. In my opinion Ford's was more credible, but that could just be my party affiliation. What isn't an opinion is that a Supreme Court justice should be beyond reproach. Kavanaugh isn't. What isn't an opinion is the a Supreme Court justice should at least hold an illusion of impartiality. Kavanaugh doesn't. What isn't an opinion is that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country is not well served if it's members have put themselves open for demands to recuse themselves by their previous actions. Kavanaugh did.

Prove her allegations.
Prove he isn't "impartial".
He isn't beyond "reproach" only because you bought accusations you can't prove and you choose to believe her.
You'll demand recusal over allegations unproven. You are quite the partisan kid.

As to proving her allegations, I don't have to. My standard of proof to not want him on the Supreme court is that the accusations are credible or not. If you would suggest to put him in jail that standard would be beyond reasonable doubt. It's an important distinction.

How can an accusation be credible when there’s nothing to back it up and even her own witnesses, including a friend, don’t corroborate any part of her story?
FFS!

Her friend actually issued a statement she believed Ford. She simply stated she couldn't remember the incident. As to why it is credible. You have to look at her testimony, asses if she comes over as believable. Hear Kavanaugh speak and do the same. At that point you have to see who you believe. Not for nothing, EVERYBODY including Trump said she was credible.

Her friend said she was pressurised into adding to her original statement which was that she has no recollection of any such party or incident and had never met Kav.

Frauds testimony was not in the least believable.

Politicians saying she is credible is politicians being diplomatic.
They would be torn limb from limb by the screeching banshees otherwise.

Baseless accusations do not get to destroy a man’s rep and future, as proven today.
Yay!

Innocent until proven guilty.

It’s really simple and I believe you are pretending not to get it, unless you are stupid or so partisan you can’t think straight.

Maybe it will happen to you one day and then you’ll get a clearer understanding of why presumption of innocence is so important, particularly when your accuser provides so few details you have no hope of providing an alibi, and you can’t prove a negative.

 

[forkup]

No then they are by definition unproven. There is a difference. I can't proof there is life on other planets, yet that does not mean it's proof that there isn't. It's called an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

He was seated because all you people had were her accusations, you lost.

Sure, we lost. I have a feeling though it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory. You now have someone seated on the bench that is on record saying he will not be impartial. You have now seated someone who will be controversial as long as he has the seat. You have now seated someone who will work as a stark reminder to woman what the GOP stands for. It doesn't matter for you, or most other people on the right who posts here. However if there's a better way to alienate independants and make Democrats come out in November I have yet to hear about it.

Reminder: your people didn't need mobilization to come out to the polls. Ours did. Your attack on Kavanaugh did that in spades.

Well done.

You do realize there's more of us then there are of you. The thing that has usually skewed the results is that turnout historically is higher on your side. I think if you guys have a high turnout and we do. Republicans lose.

You lost more independents today than you would admit to.

Maybe, I doubt it. I have a feeling Kavanaugh's testimony will not age well.

 

[SweetSue92]

He was seated because all you people had were her accusations, you lost.

Sure, we lost. I have a feeling though it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory. You now have someone seated on the bench that is on record saying he will not be impartial. You have now seated someone who will be controversial as long as he has the seat. You have now seated someone who will work as a stark reminder to woman what the GOP stands for. It doesn't matter for you, or most other people on the right who posts here. However if there's a better way to alienate independants and make Democrats come out in November I have yet to hear about it.

Reminder: your people didn't need mobilization to come out to the polls. Ours did. Your attack on Kavanaugh did that in spades.

Well done.

You do realize there's more of us then there are of you. The thing that has usually skewed the results is that turnout historically is higher on your side. I think if you guys have a high turnout and we do. Republicans lose.

You lost more independents today than you would admit to.

Maybe, I doubt it. I have a feeling Kavanaugh's testimony will not age well.

Doesn't matter sweetheart. That's Justice Kavanaugh to you, and to all of America.

 

[Doc1]

Prove her allegations.
Prove he isn't "impartial".
He isn't beyond "reproach" only because you bought accusations you can't prove and you choose to believe her.
You'll demand recusal over allegations unproven. You are quite the partisan kid.

LOL, people like you tried to destroy his life and you're upset because he came out swinging? Price less. How special you must think you are.

I'm not upset, with what he said. I'm upset that being credible accused of something like this doesn't disqualify someone from getting a promotion. As to us destroying his life. He would still have been a federal judge, he wouldn't go to jail, nor would he be demoted.
I gave this analogy before but I'll give it again. Say I'm on a school board and I have to vote on the hiring of a coach for the girls softball team. The day before the vote my wife tells me, a friend told her he did to her what Ford accused her of. Would that information not disqualify him for the job? Especially if I have 24 other equally qualified people to take his place, as is the case for this seat?

Bad analogy. 36 year old allegations that ONLY surface when his appt came up are spurious at best. She didn't say anything when he worked for Starr.
She didn't anything when Bush apptd him.
She waited until AFTER the proceedings were coming to a close in a last ditch effort to stop it. It was political from the start.
7 FBI background checks and nothing. You find her "credible" because of your politics, nothing more.
65 women supported him in a letter.
All the women that worked for him gave him glowing recommendations.
NONE of her witnesses corroborated her accusations.

It was political from the start. He is guilty because you "feel" he is guilty.

-Actually 1 of those 65 woman said she was hurt and embarrassed by what Kavanaugh wrote about her in the yearbook Reanta was her name. As to the 64 others. If I try really hard I think I can come up with 65 woman I knew in high school I didn't try to rape and even will speak well of me. I will even assume the same for you. Neither is his support universal. Is Brett Kavanaugh’s High School Ditching Him? Nearly 100 Alumni Sign Petition Against the Supreme Court Nominee.
-As to my analogy. It would also be just an instance of a victim speaking up, ONLY to deny this fictitious coach a position so why is it a bad analogy?
-As to the background check. Do you think the FBI speaks to everybody you have ever met when they perform a background check, or seven in this case? I sure as hell don't.

People like you pick and choose based on what you "feel". Sorry but that isn't how things work. I don't make decisions based on feeling, only facts. 7 background checks and nothing but that isn't convenient so you discount it.
Emotions and feelings are the stuff of the weak in these matters, sorry.

 

[forkup]

Meaning I have only her testimony and Kavanaugh's to go by. In my opinion Ford's was more credible, but that could just be my party affiliation. What isn't an opinion is that a Supreme Court justice should be beyond reproach. Kavanaugh isn't. What isn't an opinion is the a Supreme Court justice should at least hold an illusion of impartiality. Kavanaugh doesn't. What isn't an opinion is that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country is not well served if it's members have put themselves open for demands to recuse themselves by their previous actions. Kavanaugh did.

Prove her allegations.
Prove he isn't "impartial".
He isn't beyond "reproach" only because you bought accusations you can't prove and you choose to believe her.
You'll demand recusal over allegations unproven. You are quite the partisan kid.

As to proving her allegations, I don't have to. My standard of proof to not want him on the Supreme court is that the accusations are credible or not. If you would suggest to put him in jail that standard would be beyond reasonable doubt. It's an important distinction.

How can an accusation be credible when there’s nothing to back it up and even her own witnesses, including a friend, don’t corroborate any part of her story?
FFS!

Her friend actually issued a statement she believed Ford. She simply stated she couldn't remember the incident. As to why it is credible. You have to look at her testimony, asses if she comes over as believable. Hear Kavanaugh speak and do the same. At that point you have to see who you believe. Not for nothing, EVERYBODY including Trump said she was credible.

Her friend said she was pressurised into adding to her original statement which was that she has no recollection of any such party or incident and had never met Kav.

Frauds testimony was not in the least believable.

Politicians saying she is credible is politicians being diplomatic.
They would be torn limb from limb by the screeching banshees otherwise.
Baseless accusations do not get to destroy a man’s rep and future.

Innocent until proven guilty.

It’s really simple and I believe you are pretending not to get it, unless you are stupid or so partisan you can’t think straight.

Maybe it will happen to you one day and then you’ll get a clearer understanding of why presumption of innocence is so important, particularly when your accuser provides so few details you have no hope of providing an alibi, and you can’t prove a negative.

I'm not pretending I don't get innocent until proven guilty. I'm saying it's a concept that does NOT apply when doing a job interview. Furthermore I know you guys get that since you need no actual conclusive evidence to call her a fraud. To you she is GUILTY of lying. You have just as little bases to make that assessment as I do.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You obviously dont care that future women are less likely to be believed when it comes to sexual assault.

Hmmmmm.....is there a reason?

I asked once already - what makes you (all) imagine that? Did Fox insinuate it or.... ?

The more women who make false accusations the more likely the real claims will be ignored.
It's a simple concept,but I'm not surprised you dont get it.

How do you asses in this case the accusations are false?

The fact she couldnt come up with the place,the time,how she got there,how she got home and no corroborating witnesses.
Along with the fact she lied about being afraid to fly and that she'd never talked to anyone about polygraph tests.
Add the fact she claimed her mental problems were brought on by here house remodel in 12 when it actually happened in 08.
This bitch is a walking contradiction and anyone who believes her shit is a partisan fucktard.

I'll play this game again.
-Ok, try to remember something really traumatic in your life. What are the chances you'll remember what you had for lunch that day? Or even what the exact date was? Or a hundred of other details? You will however remember the thing that was traumatic very vividly. Chances are you will also remember some inane detail from that day. The point is trying to asses the truthfulness of something like this by what a person can and can't remember is a bad way to go about it.
-Equally bad is trying to go by the fact that corroboration is hard to come by. Going by her testimony there are only 3 people who had a reason to remember this particular party. Two of them committed a crime and the third is a victim. No reason to assume the two culprits would have corroborated there own behavior.
-Third her fear of flying. This argument at best shows that political games were played. That doesn't make the accusation less credible. But also on merit it fails, since people often do stuff their afraid of. It's called courage and courage usually doesn't imply untruthfulness.
-Fourth the polygraph. The name of the boyfriend wasn't released, nor does it mean the polygraph was rigged. The only thing it might mean that in the past she helped a friend. If an inconsistency is the standard you need to dismiss the allegations, then I have news for you. Several NON anonymous witnesses came forward openly saying that Kavanaugh outright lied about his drinking habits. Why does that not prompt you to dismiss his testimony?

Read the first few sentences and stopped.
I remember every traumatic event in my life like it was yesterday.
From the moment I found out my father had died when I was 16 to the day my mother told me to run right before her sexual assault while we were in the woods picking dewberries when I was 7.
Fuck you ya piece of shit!!!!

 

[forkup]

LOL, people like you tried to destroy his life and you're upset because he came out swinging? Price less. How special you must think you are.

I'm not upset, with what he said. I'm upset that being credible accused of something like this doesn't disqualify someone from getting a promotion. As to us destroying his life. He would still have been a federal judge, he wouldn't go to jail, nor would he be demoted.
I gave this analogy before but I'll give it again. Say I'm on a school board and I have to vote on the hiring of a coach for the girls softball team. The day before the vote my wife tells me, a friend told her he did to her what Ford accused her of. Would that information not disqualify him for the job? Especially if I have 24 other equally qualified people to take his place, as is the case for this seat?

Bad analogy. 36 year old allegations that ONLY surface when his appt came up are spurious at best. She didn't say anything when he worked for Starr.
She didn't anything when Bush apptd him.
She waited until AFTER the proceedings were coming to a close in a last ditch effort to stop it. It was political from the start.
7 FBI background checks and nothing. You find her "credible" because of your politics, nothing more.
65 women supported him in a letter.
All the women that worked for him gave him glowing recommendations.
NONE of her witnesses corroborated her accusations.

It was political from the start. He is guilty because you "feel" he is guilty.

-Actually 1 of those 65 woman said she was hurt and embarrassed by what Kavanaugh wrote about her in the yearbook Renata was her name. As to the 64 others. If I try really hard I think I can come up with 65 woman I knew in high school I didn't try to rape and even will speak well of me. I will even assume the same for you. Neither is his support universal. Is Brett Kavanaugh’s High School Ditching Him? Nearly 100 Alumni Sign Petition Against the Supreme Court Nominee.
-As to my analogy. It would also be just an instance of a victim speaking up, ONLY to deny this fictitious coach a position so why is it a bad analogy?
-As to the background check. Do you think the FBI speaks to everybody you have ever met when they perform a background check, or seven in this case? I sure as hell don't.

People like you pick and choose based on what you "feel". Sorry but that isn't how things work. I don't make decisions based on feeling, only facts. 7 background checks and nothing but that isn't convenient so you discount it.
Emotions and feelings are the stuff of the weak in these matters, sorry.

People make decisions on feelings all the time. You felt that Trump would be a better President then Clinton. You feel that Ford is lying. Maybe you even feel that God exist. Point is in a lot of decisions in life feeling is often the only thing to go by.

 

[Tilly]

Prove her allegations.
Prove he isn't "impartial".
He isn't beyond "reproach" only because you bought accusations you can't prove and you choose to believe her.
You'll demand recusal over allegations unproven. You are quite the partisan kid.

As to proving her allegations, I don't have to. My standard of proof to not want him on the Supreme court is that the accusations are credible or not. If you would suggest to put him in jail that standard would be beyond reasonable doubt. It's an important distinction.

How can an accusation be credible when there’s nothing to back it up and even her own witnesses, including a friend, don’t corroborate any part of her story?
FFS!

Her friend actually issued a statement she believed Ford. She simply stated she couldn't remember the incident. As to why it is credible. You have to look at her testimony, asses if she comes over as believable. Hear Kavanaugh speak and do the same. At that point you have to see who you believe. Not for nothing, EVERYBODY including Trump said she was credible.

Her friend said she was pressurised into adding to her original statement which was that she has no recollection of any such party or incident and had never met Kav.

Frauds testimony was not in the least believable.

Politicians saying she is credible is politicians being diplomatic.
They would be torn limb from limb by the screeching banshees otherwise.
Baseless accusations do not get to destroy a man’s rep and future.

Innocent until proven guilty.

It’s really simple and I believe you are pretending not to get it, unless you are stupid or so partisan you can’t think straight.

Maybe it will happen to you one day and then you’ll get a clearer understanding of why presumption of innocence is so important, particularly when your accuser provides so few details you have no hope of providing an alibi, and you can’t prove a negative.

I'm not pretending I don't get innocent until proven guilty. I'm saying it's a concept that does NOT apply when doing a job interview. Furthermore I know you guys get that since you need no actual conclusive evidence to call her a fraud. To you she is GUILTY of lying. You have just as little bases to make that assessment as I do.

What about you don’t get to destroy man’s reputation, career and life on the baisis of cos i said so dont you get?

The onus of proof is not on the accused, and certainly not when their are so few details provided by the accuser that you are prevented from even providing an alibi.

Now that you persist in this stupidity, I hope this happens to you, then you’ll see how quickly clarity depends on that muddled cucked mind of yours.

 

[Doc1]

LOL, people like you tried to destroy his life and you're upset because he came out swinging? Price less. How special you must think you are.

I'm not upset, with what he said. I'm upset that being credible accused of something like this doesn't disqualify someone from getting a promotion. As to us destroying his life. He would still have been a federal judge, he wouldn't go to jail, nor would he be demoted.
I gave this analogy before but I'll give it again. Say I'm on a school board and I have to vote on the hiring of a coach for the girls softball team. The day before the vote my wife tells me, a friend told her he did to her what Ford accused her of. Would that information not disqualify him for the job? Especially if I have 24 other equally qualified people to take his place, as is the case for this seat?

Bad analogy. 36 year old allegations that ONLY surface when his appt came up are spurious at best. She didn't say anything when he worked for Starr.
She didn't anything when Bush apptd him.
She waited until AFTER the proceedings were coming to a close in a last ditch effort to stop it. It was political from the start.
7 FBI background checks and nothing. You find her "credible" because of your politics, nothing more.
65 women supported him in a letter.
All the women that worked for him gave him glowing recommendations.
NONE of her witnesses corroborated her accusations.

It was political from the start. He is guilty because you "feel" he is guilty.

-Actually 1 of those 65 woman said she was hurt and embarrassed by what Kavanaugh wrote about her in the yearbook Renata was her name. As to the 64 others. If I try really hard I think I can come up with 65 woman I knew in high school I didn't try to rape and even will speak well of me. I will even assume the same for you. Neither is his support universal. Is Brett Kavanaugh’s High School Ditching Him? Nearly 100 Alumni Sign Petition Against the Supreme Court Nominee.
-As to my analogy. It would also be just an instance of a victim speaking up, ONLY to deny this fictitious coach a position so why is it a bad analogy?
-As to the background check. Do you think the FBI speaks to everybody you have ever met when they perform a background check, or seven in this case? I sure as hell don't.

People like you pick and choose based on what you "feel". Sorry but that isn't how things work. I don't make decisions based on feeling, only facts. 7 background checks and nothing but that isn't convenient so you discount it.
Emotions and feelings are the stuff of the weak in these matters, sorry.

People make decisions on feelings all the time. You felt that Trump would be a better President then Clinton. You feel that Ford is lying. Maybe you even feel that God exist. Point is in a lot of decisions in life feeling is often the only thing to go by.

Decisions based on "feelings" are for the weak. You reveal another weakness, thinking because you do and see things a certain way you think that everyone else does it too. What makes you think Rump is any different that Obambi? Why do you think Kissinger visited Rump in the White House? Why do you think Rump is spending like a drunken sailor? Why do you think Rump is provoking both Russia and China right now? Why do you think Rump just threatened to bomb Pooties Missile Sites in Syria? You choose to live in the paradigm that has been rammed down your throat, I don't.

 

[Doc1]

LOL, people like you tried to destroy his life and you're upset because he came out swinging? Price less. How special you must think you are.

I'm not upset, with what he said. I'm upset that being credible accused of something like this doesn't disqualify someone from getting a promotion. As to us destroying his life. He would still have been a federal judge, he wouldn't go to jail, nor would he be demoted.
I gave this analogy before but I'll give it again. Say I'm on a school board and I have to vote on the hiring of a coach for the girls softball team. The day before the vote my wife tells me, a friend told her he did to her what Ford accused her of. Would that information not disqualify him for the job? Especially if I have 24 other equally qualified people to take his place, as is the case for this seat?

Bad analogy. 36 year old allegations that ONLY surface when his appt came up are spurious at best. She didn't say anything when he worked for Starr.
She didn't anything when Bush apptd him.
She waited until AFTER the proceedings were coming to a close in a last ditch effort to stop it. It was political from the start.
7 FBI background checks and nothing. You find her "credible" because of your politics, nothing more.
65 women supported him in a letter.
All the women that worked for him gave him glowing recommendations.
NONE of her witnesses corroborated her accusations.

It was political from the start. He is guilty because you "feel" he is guilty.

-Actually 1 of those 65 woman said she was hurt and embarrassed by what Kavanaugh wrote about her in the yearbook Renata was her name. As to the 64 others. If I try really hard I think I can come up with 65 woman I knew in high school I didn't try to rape and even will speak well of me. I will even assume the same for you. Neither is his support universal. Is Brett Kavanaugh’s High School Ditching Him? Nearly 100 Alumni Sign Petition Against the Supreme Court Nominee.
-As to my analogy. It would also be just an instance of a victim speaking up, ONLY to deny this fictitious coach a position so why is it a bad analogy?
-As to the background check. Do you think the FBI speaks to everybody you have ever met when they perform a background check, or seven in this case? I sure as hell don't.

People like you pick and choose based on what you "feel". Sorry but that isn't how things work. I don't make decisions based on feeling, only facts. 7 background checks and nothing but that isn't convenient so you discount it.
Emotions and feelings are the stuff of the weak in these matters, sorry.

People make decisions on feelings all the time. You felt that Trump would be a better President then Clinton. You feel that Ford is lying. Maybe you even feel that God exist. Point is in a lot of decisions in life feeling is often the only thing to go by.

I was told you raped someone in High School, have you had to pay for that action yet?

 

[forkup]

I asked once already - what makes you (all) imagine that? Did Fox insinuate it or.... ?

The more women who make false accusations the more likely the real claims will be ignored.
It's a simple concept,but I'm not surprised you dont get it.

How do you asses in this case the accusations are false?

The fact she couldnt come up with the place,the time,how she got there,how she got home and no corroborating witnesses.
Along with the fact she lied about being afraid to fly and that she'd never talked to anyone about polygraph tests.
Add the fact she claimed her mental problems were brought on by here house remodel in 12 when it actually happened in 08.
This bitch is a walking contradiction and anyone who believes her shit is a partisan fucktard.

I'll play this game again.
-Ok, try to remember something really traumatic in your life. What are the chances you'll remember what you had for lunch that day? Or even what the exact date was? Or a hundred of other details? You will however remember the thing that was traumatic very vividly. Chances are you will also remember some inane detail from that day. The point is trying to asses the truthfulness of something like this by what a person can and can't remember is a bad way to go about it.
-Equally bad is trying to go by the fact that corroboration is hard to come by. Going by her testimony there are only 3 people who had a reason to remember this particular party. Two of them committed a crime and the third is a victim. No reason to assume the two culprits would have corroborated there own behavior.
-Third her fear of flying. This argument at best shows that political games were played. That doesn't make the accusation less credible. But also on merit it fails, since people often do stuff their afraid of. It's called courage and courage usually doesn't imply untruthfulness.
-Fourth the polygraph. The name of the boyfriend wasn't released, nor does it mean the polygraph was rigged. The only thing it might mean that in the past she helped a friend. If an inconsistency is the standard you need to dismiss the allegations, then I have news for you. Several NON anonymous witnesses came forward openly saying that Kavanaugh outright lied about his drinking habits. Why does that not prompt you to dismiss his testimony?

Read the first few sentences and stopped.
I remember every traumatic event in my life like it was yesterday.
From the moment I found out my father had died when I was 16 to the day my mother told me to run right before her sexual assault while we were in the woods picking dewberries when I was 7.
Fuck you ya piece of shit!!!!

What was the date your father died? What was he wearing. Etc. When my mother died I was laying in my bed for an afternoon nap. I remember giving her CPR. I remember the feeling of panic. I remember after they carried her of, that the floor was covered in wraps of syringes and the likes. I don't know the date it happened. I don't know what I had for lunch. I don't know if my youngest brother was home etc. The day stands out as being very vivid, but in truth it is impressions interlaced with very vivid details. For the record my wife was assaulted to. She didn't report him but did call his fiance after she spend the best part of a day trying to remember details to establish his identity. I will even venture that if this guy years from now would be up for the bench she might feel she needs to step forward. Calling someone you never met a piece of shit doesn't speak to good about who you are as a person by the way.

 

[forkup]

I'm not upset, with what he said. I'm upset that being credible accused of something like this doesn't disqualify someone from getting a promotion. As to us destroying his life. He would still have been a federal judge, he wouldn't go to jail, nor would he be demoted.
I gave this analogy before but I'll give it again. Say I'm on a school board and I have to vote on the hiring of a coach for the girls softball team. The day before the vote my wife tells me, a friend told her he did to her what Ford accused her of. Would that information not disqualify him for the job? Especially if I have 24 other equally qualified people to take his place, as is the case for this seat?

Bad analogy. 36 year old allegations that ONLY surface when his appt came up are spurious at best. She didn't say anything when he worked for Starr.
She didn't anything when Bush apptd him.
She waited until AFTER the proceedings were coming to a close in a last ditch effort to stop it. It was political from the start.
7 FBI background checks and nothing. You find her "credible" because of your politics, nothing more.
65 women supported him in a letter.
All the women that worked for him gave him glowing recommendations.
NONE of her witnesses corroborated her accusations.

It was political from the start. He is guilty because you "feel" he is guilty.

-Actually 1 of those 65 woman said she was hurt and embarrassed by what Kavanaugh wrote about her in the yearbook Renata was her name. As to the 64 others. If I try really hard I think I can come up with 65 woman I knew in high school I didn't try to rape and even will speak well of me. I will even assume the same for you. Neither is his support universal. Is Brett Kavanaugh’s High School Ditching Him? Nearly 100 Alumni Sign Petition Against the Supreme Court Nominee.
-As to my analogy. It would also be just an instance of a victim speaking up, ONLY to deny this fictitious coach a position so why is it a bad analogy?
-As to the background check. Do you think the FBI speaks to everybody you have ever met when they perform a background check, or seven in this case? I sure as hell don't.

People like you pick and choose based on what you "feel". Sorry but that isn't how things work. I don't make decisions based on feeling, only facts. 7 background checks and nothing but that isn't convenient so you discount it.
Emotions and feelings are the stuff of the weak in these matters, sorry.

People make decisions on feelings all the time. You felt that Trump would be a better President then Clinton. You feel that Ford is lying. Maybe you even feel that God exist. Point is in a lot of decisions in life feeling is often the only thing to go by.

Decisions based on "feelings" are for the weak. You reveal another weakness, thinking because you do and see things a certain way you think that everyone else does it too. What makes you think Rump is any different that Obambi? Why do you think Kissinger visited Rump in the White House? Why do you think Rump is spending like a drunken sailor? Why do you think Rump is provoking both Russia and China right now? Why do you think Rump just threatened to bomb Pooties Missile Sites in Syria? You choose to live in the paradigm that has been rammed down your throat, I don't.

You only make rational decisions? How do you eat? Do you go by nutritional value? Do you drink? If you do that's not very rational. Do you believe in God? Do you have kids? If you do what was the rational? For the record. I'm not religious, I drink moderately, I don't smoke and I consider myself a pretty rational human being. Rationally speaking though it's insane to claim that I don't make decisions based on feelings all the time.

 

[Doc1]

Bad analogy. 36 year old allegations that ONLY surface when his appt came up are spurious at best. She didn't say anything when he worked for Starr.
She didn't anything when Bush apptd him.
She waited until AFTER the proceedings were coming to a close in a last ditch effort to stop it. It was political from the start.
7 FBI background checks and nothing. You find her "credible" because of your politics, nothing more.
65 women supported him in a letter.
All the women that worked for him gave him glowing recommendations.
NONE of her witnesses corroborated her accusations.

It was political from the start. He is guilty because you "feel" he is guilty.

-Actually 1 of those 65 woman said she was hurt and embarrassed by what Kavanaugh wrote about her in the yearbook Renata was her name. As to the 64 others. If I try really hard I think I can come up with 65 woman I knew in high school I didn't try to rape and even will speak well of me. I will even assume the same for you. Neither is his support universal. Is Brett Kavanaugh’s High School Ditching Him? Nearly 100 Alumni Sign Petition Against the Supreme Court Nominee.
-As to my analogy. It would also be just an instance of a victim speaking up, ONLY to deny this fictitious coach a position so why is it a bad analogy?
-As to the background check. Do you think the FBI speaks to everybody you have ever met when they perform a background check, or seven in this case? I sure as hell don't.

People like you pick and choose based on what you "feel". Sorry but that isn't how things work. I don't make decisions based on feeling, only facts. 7 background checks and nothing but that isn't convenient so you discount it.
Emotions and feelings are the stuff of the weak in these matters, sorry.

People make decisions on feelings all the time. You felt that Trump would be a better President then Clinton. You feel that Ford is lying. Maybe you even feel that God exist. Point is in a lot of decisions in life feeling is often the only thing to go by.

Decisions based on "feelings" are for the weak. You reveal another weakness, thinking because you do and see things a certain way you think that everyone else does it too. What makes you think Rump is any different that Obambi? Why do you think Kissinger visited Rump in the White House? Why do you think Rump is spending like a drunken sailor? Why do you think Rump is provoking both Russia and China right now? Why do you think Rump just threatened to bomb Pooties Missile Sites in Syria? You choose to live in the paradigm that has been rammed down your throat, I don't.

You only make rational decisions? How do you eat? Do you go by nutritional value? Do you drink? If you do that's not very rational. Do you believe in God? Do you have kids? If you do what was the rational? For the record. I'm not religious, I drink moderately, I don't smoke and I consider myself a pretty rational human being. Rationally speaking though it's insane to claim that I don't make decisions based on feelings all the time.

LOL, context is your friend unless you don't know how to apply it. Try and leave it in the context of the conversation. You are very clearly not suited for this.

 

[forkup]

As to proving her allegations, I don't have to. My standard of proof to not want him on the Supreme court is that the accusations are credible or not. If you would suggest to put him in jail that standard would be beyond reasonable doubt. It's an important distinction.

How can an accusation be credible when there’s nothing to back it up and even her own witnesses, including a friend, don’t corroborate any part of her story?
FFS!

Her friend actually issued a statement she believed Ford. She simply stated she couldn't remember the incident. As to why it is credible. You have to look at her testimony, asses if she comes over as believable. Hear Kavanaugh speak and do the same. At that point you have to see who you believe. Not for nothing, EVERYBODY including Trump said she was credible.

Her friend said she was pressurised into adding to her original statement which was that she has no recollection of any such party or incident and had never met Kav.

Frauds testimony was not in the least believable.

Politicians saying she is credible is politicians being diplomatic.
They would be torn limb from limb by the screeching banshees otherwise.
Baseless accusations do not get to destroy a man’s rep and future.

Innocent until proven guilty.

It’s really simple and I believe you are pretending not to get it, unless you are stupid or so partisan you can’t think straight.

Maybe it will happen to you one day and then you’ll get a clearer understanding of why presumption of innocence is so important, particularly when your accuser provides so few details you have no hope of providing an alibi, and you can’t prove a negative.

I'm not pretending I don't get innocent until proven guilty. I'm saying it's a concept that does NOT apply when doing a job interview. Furthermore I know you guys get that since you need no actual conclusive evidence to call her a fraud. To you she is GUILTY of lying. You have just as little bases to make that assessment as I do.

What about you don’t get to destroy man’s reputation, career and life on the baisis of cos i said so dont you get?

The onus of proof is not on the accused, and certainly not when their are so few details provided by the accuser that you are prevented from even providing an alibi.

Now that you persist in this stupidity, I hope this happens to you, then you’ll see how quickly clarity depends on that muddled cucked mind of yours.

Your onus of proof to call her a liar is on you. Yet you have not provided it either. Why does that not apply to you?

 

[Doc1]

How can an accusation be credible when there’s nothing to back it up and even her own witnesses, including a friend, don’t corroborate any part of her story?
FFS!

Her friend actually issued a statement she believed Ford. She simply stated she couldn't remember the incident. As to why it is credible. You have to look at her testimony, asses if she comes over as believable. Hear Kavanaugh speak and do the same. At that point you have to see who you believe. Not for nothing, EVERYBODY including Trump said she was credible.

Her friend said she was pressurised into adding to her original statement which was that she has no recollection of any such party or incident and had never met Kav.

Frauds testimony was not in the least believable.

Politicians saying she is credible is politicians being diplomatic.
They would be torn limb from limb by the screeching banshees otherwise.
Baseless accusations do not get to destroy a man’s rep and future.

Innocent until proven guilty.

It’s really simple and I believe you are pretending not to get it, unless you are stupid or so partisan you can’t think straight.

Maybe it will happen to you one day and then you’ll get a clearer understanding of why presumption of innocence is so important, particularly when your accuser provides so few details you have no hope of providing an alibi, and you can’t prove a negative.

I'm not pretending I don't get innocent until proven guilty. I'm saying it's a concept that does NOT apply when doing a job interview. Furthermore I know you guys get that since you need no actual conclusive evidence to call her a fraud. To you she is GUILTY of lying. You have just as little bases to make that assessment as I do.

What about you don’t get to destroy man’s reputation, career and life on the baisis of cos i said so dont you get?

The onus of proof is not on the accused, and certainly not when their are so few details provided by the accuser that you are prevented from even providing an alibi.

Now that you persist in this stupidity, I hope this happens to you, then you’ll see how quickly clarity depends on that muddled cucked mind of yours.

Your onus of proof to call her a liar is on you. Yet you have not provided it either. Why does that not apply to you?

Why you apply a different standard to Tilly than you do Ford? Tilly is FAR more credible than you.

 

[forkup]

-Actually 1 of those 65 woman said she was hurt and embarrassed by what Kavanaugh wrote about her in the yearbook Renata was her name. As to the 64 others. If I try really hard I think I can come up with 65 woman I knew in high school I didn't try to rape and even will speak well of me. I will even assume the same for you. Neither is his support universal. Is Brett Kavanaugh’s High School Ditching Him? Nearly 100 Alumni Sign Petition Against the Supreme Court Nominee.
-As to my analogy. It would also be just an instance of a victim speaking up, ONLY to deny this fictitious coach a position so why is it a bad analogy?
-As to the background check. Do you think the FBI speaks to everybody you have ever met when they perform a background check, or seven in this case? I sure as hell don't.

People like you pick and choose based on what you "feel". Sorry but that isn't how things work. I don't make decisions based on feeling, only facts. 7 background checks and nothing but that isn't convenient so you discount it.
Emotions and feelings are the stuff of the weak in these matters, sorry.

People make decisions on feelings all the time. You felt that Trump would be a better President then Clinton. You feel that Ford is lying. Maybe you even feel that God exist. Point is in a lot of decisions in life feeling is often the only thing to go by.

Decisions based on "feelings" are for the weak. You reveal another weakness, thinking because you do and see things a certain way you think that everyone else does it too. What makes you think Rump is any different that Obambi? Why do you think Kissinger visited Rump in the White House? Why do you think Rump is spending like a drunken sailor? Why do you think Rump is provoking both Russia and China right now? Why do you think Rump just threatened to bomb Pooties Missile Sites in Syria? You choose to live in the paradigm that has been rammed down your throat, I don't.

You only make rational decisions? How do you eat? Do you go by nutritional value? Do you drink? If you do that's not very rational. Do you believe in God? Do you have kids? If you do what was the rational? For the record. I'm not religious, I drink moderately, I don't smoke and I consider myself a pretty rational human being. Rationally speaking though it's insane to claim that I don't make decisions based on feelings all the time.

LOL, context is your friend unless you don't know how to apply it. Try and leave it in the context of the conversation. You are very clearly not suited for this.

Context? What is irrational of not wanting a guy on the supreme court who is credibly accused of sexual assault. What isn't rational about not wanting a judge who literally said he will not judge impartial? What is not rational about picking the side of an alleged victim of sexual assault over that of the alleged perpetrator? You don't have any better rational then I do for believing Kavanaugh and hide behind innocent until proven guilty when it is simply a matter of whom do you believe in this case.

 

[forkup]

Her friend actually issued a statement she believed Ford. She simply stated she couldn't remember the incident. As to why it is credible. You have to look at her testimony, asses if she comes over as believable. Hear Kavanaugh speak and do the same. At that point you have to see who you believe. Not for nothing, EVERYBODY including Trump said she was credible.

Her friend said she was pressurised into adding to her original statement which was that she has no recollection of any such party or incident and had never met Kav.

Frauds testimony was not in the least believable.

Politicians saying she is credible is politicians being diplomatic.
They would be torn limb from limb by the screeching banshees otherwise.
Baseless accusations do not get to destroy a man’s rep and future.

Innocent until proven guilty.

It’s really simple and I believe you are pretending not to get it, unless you are stupid or so partisan you can’t think straight.

Maybe it will happen to you one day and then you’ll get a clearer understanding of why presumption of innocence is so important, particularly when your accuser provides so few details you have no hope of providing an alibi, and you can’t prove a negative.

I'm not pretending I don't get innocent until proven guilty. I'm saying it's a concept that does NOT apply when doing a job interview. Furthermore I know you guys get that since you need no actual conclusive evidence to call her a fraud. To you she is GUILTY of lying. You have just as little bases to make that assessment as I do.

What about you don’t get to destroy man’s reputation, career and life on the baisis of cos i said so dont you get?

The onus of proof is not on the accused, and certainly not when their are so few details provided by the accuser that you are prevented from even providing an alibi.

Now that you persist in this stupidity, I hope this happens to you, then you’ll see how quickly clarity depends on that muddled cucked mind of yours.

Your onus of proof to call her a liar is on you. Yet you have not provided it either. Why does that not apply to you?

Why you apply a different standard to Tilly than you do Ford? Tilly is FAR more credible than you.

I have not once claimed I know Kavanaugh did it. I even said that I don't think he should be jailed because the standard of proof for that has not been met. Tilly did claim Ford was a fraud. My standard of proof for claims has been consistent. Her's hasn't been.