So here's what I think happened between Kavanaugh & Ford

[Pogo]

Having spent four fairly boozy years in college, having been to my share of college parties, and just having a fundamental understanding of that environment, here's what I think happened.

I think he was drunk and he dry humped her for "fun". Stupid, sophomoric, thoughtless, "fun". The mix of booze, testosterone and adrenaline can make a young guy do some pretty stupid shit, and you can DOUBLE that when a buddy is there. He and his buddy laughed about it, and maybe she hid her horror by not acting like she had been attacked. Ask them about it a week later, and they may or may not have remembered it.

Different people (men and women) are sensitive to entirely different things. Clearly this really, profoundly hurt Ford, even though he was clowning around. It wasn't a rape, it wasn't an attempted rape, it was a short, stupid, ignorant act by a drunk kid who was showing off and should have fucking known better. Some women would have laughed it off, some would not, and there is no right or wrong response to it.

Should that disqualify any candidate, three decades later, nominated by a President from either party, for the Supreme Court? Not in my book, but it certainly provides a pretty good excuse for partisans of the opposite party nowadays.

My two cents. Yours?
.

I agree with the fundamental premise that Kavvy's behavior was partially inspired by juvenile recklessness. But your hypothesis is almost entirely a series of alleged events. There is no substantive link between the particulars that Ford has alleged and the particulars you are suggesting as an alternative, and no basis to invent these alternate allegations.

I see no reason to discount the fundamental story that Ford has told. I don't believe she is lying when she says she was pushed into the room by Judge, nor when she says that Kavvy covered her mouth to suppress her screams. Believing your suggestions requires that we either believe Ford is lying, or that her mind invented those things over time. Neither one is a justifiable hypothesis. And, incidentally, ends up essentially being the same tired "She's crazy, she's confused" excuses that have historically been used to marginalize women when they bring sexual assaults to light.

There's a fine line here, and I'm just trying to drill down a bit on it. Maybe a good term would be "perceived intent". I'm not trying to discount her story as much as I am theorizing a situation in which she reasonably perceived herself to be in grave danger when she in fact was not.

I can sure as hell picture a situation in which a drunk guy forces himself on a woman without actually intending to rape her. For him it's, maybe, aggressive, drunk, manly playfulness. For her, it's a fuckin' attack.

Such theorizing is dangerous on a highly partisan message board, granted, but what the hell.

And then, I think it's fair to question whether something that happened that long ago applies today. If my little story is close to being right, then I'd think he was being dishonest in his testimony, and that's that.
.

I'd have to largely agree with that. Along similar lines, I can't help but remember that Ford herself said that her fear was that Kavvy would accidentally kill her. It seems clear that she would concede that--to a certain extent--he may not have fully recognized the significance of his actions. Even then, I think we have to still balance that against the fact that she did not fully recognize the significance of his actions. As she's said, because he didn't actually rape her she told herself it wasn't really a big deal.

There are plenty of lines of inquiry that could end inconclusively trying to examine whether being drunk leads people to do things that are incompatible with their true nature, or reflective of their true nature. And plenty more about to the degree teenage immaturity implies a need for youthful correction or adult punishment. And while I'm not generally inclined to tolerate a "boys will be boys" defense I also think that it has to be remembered that teenagers of the 70s and early 80s were raised differently than those being raised today.

I think most people have been barking up the wrong tree over all of this. I'm not willing to say that Ford's allegations, even if true, are disqualifying. If Ford had reported the assault when it happened, and if he had been charged and convicted, he would have ended up with a sealed juvenile record, and none of us would be able to know about it now. Chances are, even despite all that, he would still have ended up in the same place and would still have been nominated now, but this story would not be on anyone's plate (and rightly so, because I don't think a single mistake from decades in one's past should hang over them forever). Maybe the sum total of the various allegations that seem to reach well into his adult life, but that is probably left as a separate discussion.

I think the credibility question is more important. And for my part, I've continually pointed to discrepancies that indicate he has lied under oath. Considering the wider context of his nomination and judicial history, his dishonesty is the most important matter.

There were no "actions." This event never happened.

And you know this how again?

Gather 'round everybody --- a Finger Boy with jelly all over his face is about to prove a negative.

I gotta see this.

 

[Mac1958]

Having spent four fairly boozy years in college, having been to my share of college parties, and just having a fundamental understanding of that environment, here's what I think happened.

I think he was drunk and he dry humped her for "fun". Stupid, sophomoric, thoughtless, "fun". The mix of booze, testosterone and adrenaline can make a young guy do some pretty stupid shit, and you can DOUBLE that when a buddy is there. He and his buddy laughed about it, and maybe she hid her horror by not acting like she had been attacked. Ask them about it a week later, and they may or may not have remembered it.

Different people (men and women) are sensitive to entirely different things. Clearly this really, profoundly hurt Ford, even though he was clowning around. It wasn't a rape, it wasn't an attempted rape, it was a short, stupid, ignorant act by a drunk kid who was showing off and should have fucking known better. Some women would have laughed it off, some would not, and there is no right or wrong response to it.

Should that disqualify any candidate, three decades later, nominated by a President from either party, for the Supreme Court? Not in my book, but it certainly provides a pretty good excuse for partisans of the opposite party nowadays.

My two cents. Yours?
.

I agree with the fundamental premise that Kavvy's behavior was partially inspired by juvenile recklessness. But your hypothesis is almost entirely a series of alleged events. There is no substantive link between the particulars that Ford has alleged and the particulars you are suggesting as an alternative, and no basis to invent these alternate allegations.

I see no reason to discount the fundamental story that Ford has told. I don't believe she is lying when she says she was pushed into the room by Judge, nor when she says that Kavvy covered her mouth to suppress her screams. Believing your suggestions requires that we either believe Ford is lying, or that her mind invented those things over time. Neither one is a justifiable hypothesis. And, incidentally, ends up essentially being the same tired "She's crazy, she's confused" excuses that have historically been used to marginalize women when they bring sexual assaults to light.

There's a fine line here, and I'm just trying to drill down a bit on it. Maybe a good term would be "perceived intent". I'm not trying to discount her story as much as I am theorizing a situation in which she reasonably perceived herself to be in grave danger when she in fact was not.

I can sure as hell picture a situation in which a drunk guy forces himself on a woman without actually intending to rape her. For him it's, maybe, aggressive, drunk, manly playfulness. For her, it's a fuckin' attack.

Such theorizing is dangerous on a highly partisan message board, granted, but what the hell.

And then, I think it's fair to question whether something that happened that long ago applies today. If my little story is close to being right, then I'd think he was being dishonest in his testimony, and that's that.
.

I can sure as hell picture a situation in which a drunk guy forces himself on a woman without actually intending to rape her. For him it's, maybe, aggressive, drunk, manly playfulness. For her, it's a fuckin' attack.
Manly playfulness? Forces himself on a woman without actually intending to rape her? What IS he doing, then, Mac?

Showing off. Being an asshole. I don't know about you, but I saw stuff not terribly unlike this, and varying degrees of this shit happens every weekend on college campuses.

I'm not condoning or pardoning it. I have two daughters. I just don't see life as a simple, binary, either/or thing. That's just not the way my little brain works.
.

This mess is anything but simple, but I guess the fact that I didn't attend college until I was older is why this behavior is hard for me to dismiss. I did my share of wrestling to keep boys from "stealing bases" so to speak, but Never did anything like this happen to me at a party, or to anyone I knew. And we were far from girl scouts in those days.

Yeah, understandable. I just saw enough of this that it's a little difficult for me to issue a 100% condemnation.

I'm just not (yet) convinced that what she perceived was accurate. She may have truly been horrified, I get it.
.

 

[bripat9643]

No. It DIDN'T happen.
The day someone is guilty over a 40 year old "HE DID IT" by some ugly hag is the day ALL men should tread carefully.

You need to slow down your reading. What I just said DID happen was Kavanaugh's paranoid meltdown in the committee hot seat. Which --- it did.

I have to presume you're addressing me as the prior post, since you didn't quote anybody.

No it didn't, he should have been more aggressive, about the second time a commie senator asked him if he would ask for an FBI investigation, he should have asked the commie committee members for a show of hands, if he got another clean background check form the FBI, WOULD THEY VOTE FOR HIS CONFIRMATION???

You can bet your ass not one single hand would have risen. It all pure political bullshit.

You don't "ask for a show of hands" in a judicial hearing. klown shoes.

Know what else you don't do? Ask one of the Senators if she's ever been drunk to unconsciousness.

The fucking commies threw civility out the window, Kavanaugh is fighting for his professional life, if he wasn't completely pissed he wouldn't be human. And asking for a show of hands, would prove this bullshit about another investigation was just another delaying tactic, because it wouldn't change one commie vote on the committee. Nothing about this hearing was directed at obtaining the truth.

Wasn't it.

Then why did Kavanaugh immediately trot out his calendar from 1982 and immediately try to shift the attention to "weekends"?

And why did Rachel Mitchell then question the entry for July 1st, which was a weekday not a weekend, where he had listed a social/drinking gathering that matched Ford's description?

That was the last question Mitchell got to put forth, so at that point obtaining the truth was, as you noted, out the window.

Parties are generally held on weekends, not weekdays when most people have to work.

He didn't say a thing about drinking, turd.

There is no truth in your post.

 

[pop102377]

Having spent four fairly boozy years in college, having been to my share of college parties, and just having a fundamental understanding of that environment, here's what I think happened.

I think he was drunk and he dry humped her for "fun". Stupid, sophomoric, thoughtless, "fun". The mix of booze, testosterone and adrenaline can make a young guy do some pretty stupid shit, and you can DOUBLE that when a buddy is there. He and his buddy laughed about it, and maybe she hid her horror by not acting like she had been attacked. Ask them about it a week later, and they may or may not have remembered it.

Different people (men and women) are sensitive to entirely different things. Clearly this really, profoundly hurt Ford, even though he was clowning around. It wasn't a rape, it wasn't an attempted rape, it was a short, stupid, ignorant act by a drunk kid who was showing off and should have fucking known better. Some women would have laughed it off, some would not, and there is no right or wrong response to it.

Should that disqualify any candidate, three decades later, nominated by a President from either party, for the Supreme Court? Not in my book, but it certainly provides a pretty good excuse for partisans of the opposite party nowadays.

My two cents. Yours?
.

She said he was trying to get her clothes off. She took a polygraph test and passed. He refused. Not SCOTUS material.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pogo]

and the emotional meltdown in general, comprise conduct unbefitting of a judge, regardless what the backstory is or isn't.

I love how we keep hearing that until we have experienced sexual assault we shouldn't be passing judgment on someone who claims they have, but it's okay for you to pass judgment on Kavanaugh for getting emotional the other day despite the fact you haven't endured two weeks of being called a rapist in front of your family, friends, and the entire world. Judges aren't superhuman deities. They are people and until you've gone through what he and his family have you have no idea how you would respond if you were in his position.

You'd think a moderator would know better than to edit the content out of a post.

Some reason you couldn't deal with it? Any reason you only quoted the LAST, least important item?

Also feel free to quote me saying "until we have experienced sexual assault we shouldn't be passing judgment on someone who claims they have" before you put words in my mouth, K?

 

[bripat9643]

Having spent four fairly boozy years in college, having been to my share of college parties, and just having a fundamental understanding of that environment, here's what I think happened.

I think he was drunk and he dry humped her for "fun". Stupid, sophomoric, thoughtless, "fun". The mix of booze, testosterone and adrenaline can make a young guy do some pretty stupid shit, and you can DOUBLE that when a buddy is there. He and his buddy laughed about it, and maybe she hid her horror by not acting like she had been attacked. Ask them about it a week later, and they may or may not have remembered it.

Different people (men and women) are sensitive to entirely different things. Clearly this really, profoundly hurt Ford, even though he was clowning around. It wasn't a rape, it wasn't an attempted rape, it was a short, stupid, ignorant act by a drunk kid who was showing off and should have fucking known better. Some women would have laughed it off, some would not, and there is no right or wrong response to it.

Should that disqualify any candidate, three decades later, nominated by a President from either party, for the Supreme Court? Not in my book, but it certainly provides a pretty good excuse for partisans of the opposite party nowadays.

My two cents. Yours?
.

I agree with the fundamental premise that Kavvy's behavior was partially inspired by juvenile recklessness. But your hypothesis is almost entirely a series of alleged events. There is no substantive link between the particulars that Ford has alleged and the particulars you are suggesting as an alternative, and no basis to invent these alternate allegations.

I see no reason to discount the fundamental story that Ford has told. I don't believe she is lying when she says she was pushed into the room by Judge, nor when she says that Kavvy covered her mouth to suppress her screams. Believing your suggestions requires that we either believe Ford is lying, or that her mind invented those things over time. Neither one is a justifiable hypothesis. And, incidentally, ends up essentially being the same tired "She's crazy, she's confused" excuses that have historically been used to marginalize women when they bring sexual assaults to light.

There's a fine line here, and I'm just trying to drill down a bit on it. Maybe a good term would be "perceived intent". I'm not trying to discount her story as much as I am theorizing a situation in which she reasonably perceived herself to be in grave danger when she in fact was not.

I can sure as hell picture a situation in which a drunk guy forces himself on a woman without actually intending to rape her. For him it's, maybe, aggressive, drunk, manly playfulness. For her, it's a fuckin' attack.

Such theorizing is dangerous on a highly partisan message board, granted, but what the hell.

And then, I think it's fair to question whether something that happened that long ago applies today. If my little story is close to being right, then I'd think he was being dishonest in his testimony, and that's that.
.

I'd have to largely agree with that. Along similar lines, I can't help but remember that Ford herself said that her fear was that Kavvy would accidentally kill her. It seems clear that she would concede that--to a certain extent--he may not have fully recognized the significance of his actions. Even then, I think we have to still balance that against the fact that she did not fully recognize the significance of his actions. As she's said, because he didn't actually rape her she told herself it wasn't really a big deal.

There are plenty of lines of inquiry that could end inconclusively trying to examine whether being drunk leads people to do things that are incompatible with their true nature, or reflective of their true nature. And plenty more about to the degree teenage immaturity implies a need for youthful correction or adult punishment. And while I'm not generally inclined to tolerate a "boys will be boys" defense I also think that it has to be remembered that teenagers of the 70s and early 80s were raised differently than those being raised today.

I think most people have been barking up the wrong tree over all of this. I'm not willing to say that Ford's allegations, even if true, are disqualifying. If Ford had reported the assault when it happened, and if he had been charged and convicted, he would have ended up with a sealed juvenile record, and none of us would be able to know about it now. Chances are, even despite all that, he would still have ended up in the same place and would still have been nominated now, but this story would not be on anyone's plate (and rightly so, because I don't think a single mistake from decades in one's past should hang over them forever). Maybe the sum total of the various allegations that seem to reach well into his adult life, but that is probably left as a separate discussion.

I think the credibility question is more important. And for my part, I've continually pointed to discrepancies that indicate he has lied under oath. Considering the wider context of his nomination and judicial history, his dishonesty is the most important matter.

There were no "actions." This event never happened.

And you know this how again?

Gather 'round everybody --- a Finger Boy with jelly all over his face is about to prove a negative.

I gotta see this.

Because she's obviously lying. You have to be brain damaged or a Dim douchebag to deny it.

 

[Clementine]

No. It DIDN'T happen.
The day someone is guilty over a 40 year old "HE DID IT" by some ugly hag is the day ALL men should tread carefully.

You need to slow down your reading. What I just said DID happen was Kavanaugh's paranoid meltdown in the committee hot seat. Which --- it did.

I have to presume you're addressing me as the prior post, since you didn't quote anybody.

No it didn't, he should have been more aggressive, about the second time a commie senator asked him if he would ask for an FBI investigation, he should have asked the commie committee members for a show of hands, if he got another clean background check form the FBI, WOULD THEY VOTE FOR HIS CONFIRMATION???

You can bet your ass not one single hand would have risen. It all pure political bullshit.

You don't "ask for a show of hands" in a judicial hearing. klown shoes.

Know what else you don't do? Ask one of the Senators if she's ever been drunk to unconsciousness.

The fucking commies threw civility out the window, Kavanaugh is fighting for his professional life, if he wasn't completely pissed he wouldn't be human. And asking for a show of hands, would prove this bullshit about another investigation was just another delaying tactic, because it wouldn't change one commie vote on the committee. Nothing about this hearing was directed at obtaining the truth.

.

The left doesn't give a shit about truth. They want to stop Kavanaugh. Period. The attacks started immediately and I'm betting that protest signs had been premade with every potential nominee.

This came out in the 11th hour, after all other attempts to stop him had failed.

Feinstein needs to be charged for sitting on the supposedly letter for 3 months and failing to disclose it.

Ford is just not credible. Her story is full of holes. No one backed up her story. Two came forth to say they were there that night but Kavanaugh was not there. I don't believe she had a cell phone in 1982.

I think she is part of the anti-Trump crowd and will do anything to stop him.

It's crazy that the left does not want a Supreme Court judge who has a record of following the constitution. He has not allowed his political or religious views in his courtroom. He follows the law. The left doesn't not want a judge who will uphold the constitution. They want a liberal judge who will legislate from the bench, like Sotomayor. She had numerous verdicts overturned by higher courts and yet still made it to SCOTUS. Now there is no higher court to make sure she abides by the law.

It shouldn't matter what a judge's political or religious views are. Fair judges will hate some of their rulings because the law doesn't always go along with their beliefs. Kavanaugh is just the kind of judge we should have because he strictly follows the law.

I can only assume that the left hates the constitution and that is why they are fighting this.

Congress has gotten lazier each year. They don't do their jobs. They admit to not having time to read bills before voting on them. It goes along party lines. Some don't show up to vote. I've seen so much footage of other congress members voting for their fellow critters when they didn't show up. They all have time to campaign for themselves and their fellow party members. They always have time for fund raising. Yet, they don't do the jobs they were elected to do. What happens as a result is that we have presidents issuing executive orders (to get things done) and it goes to the courts to determine whether they are legal or not. So, the left wants to make sure that activist liberal judges will shoot down anything they don't like, whether legal or not. And they want them to uphold what they want, whether legal or not.

The left prefers to bypass congress. Congress gets paid to pass the buck and let others do their work for them. This all needs to change. And if a judge does not follow the law, they need to go. No lifetime on SCOTUS if they screw up.

Judges exist to uphold the law. Period. At least Kavanaugh has proven that he will do that. No wonder the left hates him so much.

 

[boedicca]

Here's what actually happened between Kavanaugh and Ford:

Nothing.

 

[boedicca]

Maybe

But I think it was more than just a dry hump for fun

He tried to remove her clothes but she had a bathing suit on underneath and he gave up

Prove it, asshole.

AM I THE ONLY ONE who has noticed the ring around Chrissy's throat?

View attachment 219298

What is that?

1. Residual marks left from her B&D sex collar removed for the hearing?
2. Deliberately put there to subliminally make her appear more the "victim?"
3. Leftover choke marks from her husband after pleading with the psycho liberal bitch not to go through with this crap failed?

I want this to end up with Brett on the Supreme Court, Feinstein impeached and Chrissy Ford counter-sued for one million dollars.

She looks way older than 51.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Having spent four fairly boozy years in college, having been to my share of college parties, and just having a fundamental understanding of that environment, here's what I think happened.

I think he was drunk and he dry humped her for "fun". Stupid, sophomoric, thoughtless, "fun". The mix of booze, testosterone and adrenaline can make a young guy do some pretty stupid shit, and you can DOUBLE that when a buddy is there. He and his buddy laughed about it, and maybe she hid her horror by not acting like she had been attacked. Ask them about it a week later, and they may or may not have remembered it.

Different people (men and women) are sensitive to entirely different things. Clearly this really, profoundly hurt Ford, even though he was clowning around. It wasn't a rape, it wasn't an attempted rape, it was a short, stupid, ignorant act by a drunk kid who was showing off and should have fucking known better. Some women would have laughed it off, some would not, and there is no right or wrong response to it.

Should that disqualify any candidate, three decades later, nominated by a President from either party, for the Supreme Court? Not in my book, but it certainly provides a pretty good excuse for partisans of the opposite party nowadays.

My two cents. Yours?
.

I agree with the fundamental premise that Kavvy's behavior was partially inspired by juvenile recklessness. But your hypothesis is almost entirely a series of alleged events. There is no substantive link between the particulars that Ford has alleged and the particulars you are suggesting as an alternative, and no basis to invent these alternate allegations.

I see no reason to discount the fundamental story that Ford has told. I don't believe she is lying when she says she was pushed into the room by Judge, nor when she says that Kavvy covered her mouth to suppress her screams. Believing your suggestions requires that we either believe Ford is lying, or that her mind invented those things over time. Neither one is a justifiable hypothesis. And, incidentally, ends up essentially being the same tired "She's crazy, she's confused" excuses that have historically been used to marginalize women when they bring sexual assaults to light.

There's a fine line here, and I'm just trying to drill down a bit on it. Maybe a good term would be "perceived intent". I'm not trying to discount her story as much as I am theorizing a situation in which she reasonably perceived herself to be in grave danger when she in fact was not.

I can sure as hell picture a situation in which a drunk guy forces himself on a woman without actually intending to rape her. For him it's, maybe, aggressive, drunk, manly playfulness. For her, it's a fuckin' attack.

Such theorizing is dangerous on a highly partisan message board, granted, but what the hell.

And then, I think it's fair to question whether something that happened that long ago applies today. If my little story is close to being right, then I'd think he was being dishonest in his testimony, and that's that.
.

I'd have to largely agree with that. Along similar lines, I can't help but remember that Ford herself said that her fear was that Kavvy would accidentally kill her. It seems clear that she would concede that--to a certain extent--he may not have fully recognized the significance of his actions. Even then, I think we have to still balance that against the fact that she did not fully recognize the significance of his actions. As she's said, because he didn't actually rape her she told herself it wasn't really a big deal.

There are plenty of lines of inquiry that could end inconclusively trying to examine whether being drunk leads people to do things that are incompatible with their true nature, or reflective of their true nature. And plenty more about to the degree teenage immaturity implies a need for youthful correction or adult punishment. And while I'm not generally inclined to tolerate a "boys will be boys" defense I also think that it has to be remembered that teenagers of the 70s and early 80s were raised differently than those being raised today.

I think most people have been barking up the wrong tree over all of this. I'm not willing to say that Ford's allegations, even if true, are disqualifying. If Ford had reported the assault when it happened, and if he had been charged and convicted, he would have ended up with a sealed juvenile record, and none of us would be able to know about it now. Chances are, even despite all that, he would still have ended up in the same place and would still have been nominated now, but this story would not be on anyone's plate (and rightly so, because I don't think a single mistake from decades in one's past should hang over them forever). Maybe the sum total of the various allegations that seem to reach well into his adult life, but that is probably left as a separate discussion.

I think the credibility question is more important. And for my part, I've continually pointed to discrepancies that indicate he has lied under oath. Considering the wider context of his nomination and judicial history, his dishonesty is the most important matter.

Astoundingly well put. I agree with literally everything in this post with the possible exception of teenagers "being raised differently" in different eras.

Well mainly I just mean that society's attitudes towards the genders has been in constant and dramatic flux for many decades now.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Having spent four fairly boozy years in college, having been to my share of college parties, and just having a fundamental understanding of that environment, here's what I think happened.

I think he was drunk and he dry humped her for "fun". Stupid, sophomoric, thoughtless, "fun". The mix of booze, testosterone and adrenaline can make a young guy do some pretty stupid shit, and you can DOUBLE that when a buddy is there. He and his buddy laughed about it, and maybe she hid her horror by not acting like she had been attacked. Ask them about it a week later, and they may or may not have remembered it.

Different people (men and women) are sensitive to entirely different things. Clearly this really, profoundly hurt Ford, even though he was clowning around. It wasn't a rape, it wasn't an attempted rape, it was a short, stupid, ignorant act by a drunk kid who was showing off and should have fucking known better. Some women would have laughed it off, some would not, and there is no right or wrong response to it.

Should that disqualify any candidate, three decades later, nominated by a President from either party, for the Supreme Court? Not in my book, but it certainly provides a pretty good excuse for partisans of the opposite party nowadays.

My two cents. Yours?
.

I think a close, male relative has been abusing her since childhood

I'm more inclined to think something did happen. What pushed me in that direction was the way he danced around agreeing with calling for an FBI investigation. Merits of the investigation aside, he could have just wholeheartedly said, "yes, absolutely, let's do it", and he did not. He kept deflecting to "I called for a hearing". More than once. That didn't look good.

I'd just need more info to reach a conclusion.
.

That's fucking ridiculous. Who would ever do that? What an absurd standard

Why?
.

Its totally unAmerican and gives the Fascist Progressive democrat Party a free roll for absolutely no good reason.

Why make a bet with absolute zero upside and infinite downside?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Maybe

But I think it was more than just a dry hump for fun

He tried to remove her clothes but she had a bathing suit on underneath and he gave up

Prove it, asshole.

AM I THE ONLY ONE who has noticed the ring around Chrissy's throat?

View attachment 219298

What is that?

1. Residual marks left from her B&D sex collar removed for the hearing?
2. Deliberately put there to subliminally make her appear more the "victim?"
3. Leftover choke marks from her husband after pleading with the psycho liberal bitch not to go through with this crap failed?

I want this to end up with Brett on the Supreme Court, Feinstein impeached and Chrissy Ford counter-sued for one million dollars.

She looks way older than 51.

In that picture she look more like 81

 

[bripat9643]

Somebody had to take her to the party and take her home that night. Who? If there's one person who could validate her state after she left the party after being assaulted, that's the person. But she doesn't remember who it was. And everybody in America knows about her and this story by now, but nobody has come forward and tell us about how Ford was acting on the way home. Then there's the problem with the dates and places, she doesn't know exactly where or when and never reported the attack to anybody. I understand that, it can't be easy to do that, especially when you're 15 but damn, you can't just say well she claims this so it must be true. Point #4.

We've already done this to death. There is nothing memorable about "a ride home". There isn't particularly anything memorable about a small party where some kids drunk and everybody gets a ride home. Neither would be worthy of memory. There IS on the other hand much to remember about suffocating from a hand being placed over one's mouth with a bigger older person on top of them in a locked room. A hell of a lot. This argument of not remembering the journey home has never had merit.

Matter of fact any such journey would be even less likely to be recalled since during that journey the events in the bedroom would have been forefront in the victim's mind. Far more likely is that the car driver would end up saying "Christine? Christine? We're here" because she hadn't noticed.

rapists don't rape somebody when they're 17 and then never do it again

And again with the reading comprehension --- this isn't a rape. But drunks who get smashed to the point of puking, blacking out and having to reconstruct what went down during that period, *DO* do it again. And as Kavanaugh confirmed, he does.

So she just had the most devastating experience of her life, and someone she has to know intimately comes to pick her up, and that person notices nothing unusual about her?

You have to be brain damaged to believe that. Your theories are all the product of brain damage.

 

[bripat9643]

Having spent four fairly boozy years in college, having been to my share of college parties, and just having a fundamental understanding of that environment, here's what I think happened.

I think he was drunk and he dry humped her for "fun". Stupid, sophomoric, thoughtless, "fun". The mix of booze, testosterone and adrenaline can make a young guy do some pretty stupid shit, and you can DOUBLE that when a buddy is there. He and his buddy laughed about it, and maybe she hid her horror by not acting like she had been attacked. Ask them about it a week later, and they may or may not have remembered it.

Different people (men and women) are sensitive to entirely different things. Clearly this really, profoundly hurt Ford, even though he was clowning around. It wasn't a rape, it wasn't an attempted rape, it was a short, stupid, ignorant act by a drunk kid who was showing off and should have fucking known better. Some women would have laughed it off, some would not, and there is no right or wrong response to it.

Should that disqualify any candidate, three decades later, nominated by a President from either party, for the Supreme Court? Not in my book, but it certainly provides a pretty good excuse for partisans of the opposite party nowadays.

My two cents. Yours?
.

People Ford claimed were there have not backed up her story. Two other guys stated they were there but Kavanaugh was not. Also, her total lack of details is problematic. Not to mention the claim about calling on a cell phone in 1982.

Even if she was correct, it just doesn't sound like a huge deal. They were young and stupid. And drunk.

I suspect that she is a militant leftist who was willing to do anything to stop Kavanaugh. Considering how the left has completely overreacted about everything since the election, nothing surprises me anymore.

Then there is this video. I want to know what is in the envelope that Sheila Jackson Lee discretely handed Ford's lawyer after the hearing. Payment for a job well done? This whole thing stinks. It didn't matter who Trump picked for SCOTUS. The left was ready to attack before they even had a name.

----------------------------------- heard the envelope contained note of encouragement . [who knows]

Yeah, like 100 x $100 bills.

 

[Pogo]

You need to slow down your reading. What I just said DID happen was Kavanaugh's paranoid meltdown in the committee hot seat. Which --- it did.

I have to presume you're addressing me as the prior post, since you didn't quote anybody.

No it didn't, he should have been more aggressive, about the second time a commie senator asked him if he would ask for an FBI investigation, he should have asked the commie committee members for a show of hands, if he got another clean background check form the FBI, WOULD THEY VOTE FOR HIS CONFIRMATION???

You can bet your ass not one single hand would have risen. It all pure political bullshit.

You don't "ask for a show of hands" in a judicial hearing. klown shoes.

Know what else you don't do? Ask one of the Senators if she's ever been drunk to unconsciousness.

The fucking commies threw civility out the window, Kavanaugh is fighting for his professional life, if he wasn't completely pissed he wouldn't be human. And asking for a show of hands, would prove this bullshit about another investigation was just another delaying tactic, because it wouldn't change one commie vote on the committee. Nothing about this hearing was directed at obtaining the truth.

Wasn't it.

Then why did Kavanaugh immediately trot out his calendar from 1982 and immediately try to shift the attention to "weekends"?

And why did Rachel Mitchell then question the entry for July 1st, which was a weekday not a weekend, where he had listed a social/drinking gathering that matched Ford's description?

That was the last question Mitchell got to put forth, so at that point obtaining the truth was, as you noted, out the window.

Parties are generally held on weekends, not weekdays when most people have to work.

He didn't say a thing about drinking, turd.

There is no truth in your post.

7/1/82 was a Thursday, dolt. Look it up.

And what do you think "skis" refers to? Going skiing? In Maryland in July?

You know what, while we're about it, and waiting with bated breath for the same retard who can't understand "skis" to astutely prove a negative, why don't you also regale us with what you think "devil's triangle" refers to. Or "boof". Or a reference to "Renate Alumnius"

Here's a vague hint to the second one.... at 1:39

​

That was actually the first time I ever heard of "boof" and had to have it explained. And the record came out.......... 1982. The same year and the same summer, as Kavanaugh's calendar entry.

 

[boedicca]

Maybe

But I think it was more than just a dry hump for fun

He tried to remove her clothes but she had a bathing suit on underneath and he gave up

Prove it, asshole.

AM I THE ONLY ONE who has noticed the ring around Chrissy's throat?

View attachment 219298

What is that?

1. Residual marks left from her B&D sex collar removed for the hearing?
2. Deliberately put there to subliminally make her appear more the "victim?"
3. Leftover choke marks from her husband after pleading with the psycho liberal bitch not to go through with this crap failed?

I want this to end up with Brett on the Supreme Court, Feinstein impeached and Chrissy Ford counter-sued for one million dollars.

She looks way older than 51.

In that picture she look more like 81

She has bad skin - the kind that wrinkles and and pits quickly with age. I wonder if some of her emotional instability is due to untreated early onset menopause. That would explain a lot.

 

[Clementine]

Having spent four fairly boozy years in college, having been to my share of college parties, and just having a fundamental understanding of that environment, here's what I think happened.

I think he was drunk and he dry humped her for "fun". Stupid, sophomoric, thoughtless, "fun". The mix of booze, testosterone and adrenaline can make a young guy do some pretty stupid shit, and you can DOUBLE that when a buddy is there. He and his buddy laughed about it, and maybe she hid her horror by not acting like she had been attacked. Ask them about it a week later, and they may or may not have remembered it.

Different people (men and women) are sensitive to entirely different things. Clearly this really, profoundly hurt Ford, even though he was clowning around. It wasn't a rape, it wasn't an attempted rape, it was a short, stupid, ignorant act by a drunk kid who was showing off and should have fucking known better. Some women would have laughed it off, some would not, and there is no right or wrong response to it.

Should that disqualify any candidate, three decades later, nominated by a President from either party, for the Supreme Court? Not in my book, but it certainly provides a pretty good excuse for partisans of the opposite party nowadays.

My two cents. Yours?
.

People Ford claimed were there have not backed up her story. Two other guys stated they were there but Kavanaugh was not. Also, her total lack of details is problematic. Not to mention the claim about calling on a cell phone in 1982.

Even if she was correct, it just doesn't sound like a huge deal. They were young and stupid. And drunk.

I suspect that she is a militant leftist who was willing to do anything to stop Kavanaugh. Considering how the left has completely overreacted about everything since the election, nothing surprises me anymore.

Then there is this video. I want to know what is in the envelope that Sheila Jackson Lee discretely handed Ford's lawyer after the hearing. Payment for a job well done? This whole thing stinks. It didn't matter who Trump picked for SCOTUS. The left was ready to attack before they even had a name.

----------------------------------- heard the envelope contained note of encouragement . [who knows]

Yeah, like 100 x $100 bills.

Yes, nothing encourages people like cold, hard cash.

 

[bripat9643]

Having spent four fairly boozy years in college, having been to my share of college parties, and just having a fundamental understanding of that environment, here's what I think happened.

I think he was drunk and he dry humped her for "fun". Stupid, sophomoric, thoughtless, "fun". The mix of booze, testosterone and adrenaline can make a young guy do some pretty stupid shit, and you can DOUBLE that when a buddy is there. He and his buddy laughed about it, and maybe she hid her horror by not acting like she had been attacked. Ask them about it a week later, and they may or may not have remembered it.

Different people (men and women) are sensitive to entirely different things. Clearly this really, profoundly hurt Ford, even though he was clowning around. It wasn't a rape, it wasn't an attempted rape, it was a short, stupid, ignorant act by a drunk kid who was showing off and should have fucking known better. Some women would have laughed it off, some would not, and there is no right or wrong response to it.

Should that disqualify any candidate, three decades later, nominated by a President from either party, for the Supreme Court? Not in my book, but it certainly provides a pretty good excuse for partisans of the opposite party nowadays.

My two cents. Yours?
.

I agree with the fundamental premise that Kavvy's behavior was partially inspired by juvenile recklessness. But your hypothesis is almost entirely a series of alternate alleged events. There is no substantive link between the particulars that Ford has alleged and the particulars you are suggesting as an alternative, and no basis to invent these alternate allegations.

I see no reason to discount the fundamental story that Ford has told. I don't believe she is lying when she says she was pushed into the room by Judge, nor when she says that Kavvy covered her mouth to suppress her screams. Believing your suggestions requires that we either believe Ford is lying, or that her mind invented those things over time. Neither one is a justifiable hypothesis. And, incidentally, ends up essentially being the same tired "She's crazy, she's confused" excuses that have historically been used to marginalize women when they bring sexual assaults to light.

Why do you believe her and not Judge? This is just another variation of "guilty until proven innocent." Your theory requires Judge to be lying. I'm far more inclined to believe him than to believe her. She admits she was so drunk she can't remember anything clearly.

I have no trouble believing Ford is lying. She has been well paid for lying.

No, she "admits" to one beer. The insignificant details of a day 36 years ago would be fuzzy to nonexistent for all of us.

She says she can't remember where the party was or who drove her home and who was even at the party, but we are supposed to believe her and not Judge? Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Ford has gained $750,000, moron. And don't think that was all from small donors. It's Soros money.

 

[bripat9643]

Having spent four fairly boozy years in college, having been to my share of college parties, and just having a fundamental understanding of that environment, here's what I think happened.

I think he was drunk and he dry humped her for "fun". Stupid, sophomoric, thoughtless, "fun". The mix of booze, testosterone and adrenaline can make a young guy do some pretty stupid shit, and you can DOUBLE that when a buddy is there. He and his buddy laughed about it, and maybe she hid her horror by not acting like she had been attacked. Ask them about it a week later, and they may or may not have remembered it.

Different people (men and women) are sensitive to entirely different things. Clearly this really, profoundly hurt Ford, even though he was clowning around. It wasn't a rape, it wasn't an attempted rape, it was a short, stupid, ignorant act by a drunk kid who was showing off and should have fucking known better. Some women would have laughed it off, some would not, and there is no right or wrong response to it.

Should that disqualify any candidate, three decades later, nominated by a President from either party, for the Supreme Court? Not in my book, but it certainly provides a pretty good excuse for partisans of the opposite party nowadays.

My two cents. Yours?
.

She said he was trying to get her clothes off. She took a polygraph test and passed. He refused. Not SCOTUS material.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That polygraph was absolutely worthless, and you know it.