# Believe Accusers!



## Deleted User (Sep 28, 2018)

People who are accusing other people must be listened to! By dismissing their accusations we are saying it is OK what they are doing, and that must not be allowed! Even if there is no proof, it is to be expected of something like this when the abused and the accusers have kept it to themselves in order to prevent being embarrassed. How in this country have we moved to a point where we do not listen to people who have experienced such traumatic things because there is no proof. Shouldn't their mental state be proof enough of the horrible things they have experienced? We should listen to them with pure intent!

Do you know what I just described?
The Salem witch trials.

Never in American history has this much mass hysteria been present since the Salem witch trials, in which many people were tried for "witchcraft" using only the accuser's state of mind as evidence. They would be presenting their argument and pretend to be distracted by invisible blue butterflies (obviously not everyone did this). Over 20 people in the colonial time of America were executed (hanged, drowned, pressed) because of these silly arguments.

While obviously those who claim rape should not be disregarded because these things do happen. I am not stating that rape or sexual abuse doesn't happen. That is the only difference between the Salem witch trials and what is happening now.

I will stand beside any rape victim and call for even death *if there is evidence*. We have reverted as a society, we have turned around. At what point did our judicial system decide it was OK to listen to accusers with no proof except for that which is in their head?

In the case of Kavanaugh, for instance, I am not saying that Kavanaugh is guilty. I am not saying that Kavanaugh is innocent. What I am saying is that we should not even be having the debate in the first place. This debate is pointless. It is only a "he said" or "she said". You can show all the evidence you want of things that have been written or things that have been said, but if you cannot show evidence of the alleged crime, then what evidence is there that makes a difference.

I am almost 100% certain that if a straight, white, christian male were to make these accusations (regardless of whether or not they were true) they would be dismissed in a heart beat.

The Salem witch trials were a series of over 200 trials, where nineteen of the accused were found guilt. 14 of which where killed by hanging, 1 of which being pressed to death while refusing to admit he was a witch. Others were drowned, because they were assumed to be witches who could swim for an eternity (and died because of exhaustion).

In the modern times, we are no longer killing people physically, but rather killing them socially, emotionally, politically. We aren't even burning the bridges for these people, but we are burning the materials used to build bridges. We have no idea what happened, and all we can go off of are two (maybe a few more) people making claims and accusations.

We have regressed beyond recovery.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Sep 28, 2018)

In order for someone to be believed they must show proof.
You can't just believe someone when they say something of certain magnitudes. What about the accused? They could be innocent but are getting attacked due to their beliefs, race, gender, etc.


----------



## lordkaos (Sep 28, 2018)

blujay said:


> People who are accusing other people must be listened to! By dismissing their accusations we are saying it is OK what they are doing, and that must not be allowed! Even if there is no proof, it is to be expected of something like this when the abused and the accusers have kept it to themselves in order to prevent being embarrassed. How in this country have we moved to a point where we do not listen to people who have experienced such traumatic things because there is no proof. Shouldn't their mental state be proof enough of the horrible things they have experienced? We should listen to them with pure intent!
> 
> Do you know what I just described?
> The Salem witch trials.
> ...


there's just one difference though, witchcraft doesn't exist, men who rape women do.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 28, 2018)

Look at Black Lives Matter, an example of false accusations without proof. Riots right after an accusation before the court case even starts.
Evidence needs to be shown if you accuse someone of something.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Sep 28, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Look at Black Lives Matter, an example of false accusations without proof. Riots right after an accusation before the court case even starts.
> Evidence needs to be shown if you accuse someone of something.


I agree with this completely.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 28, 2018)

lordkaos said:


> there's just one difference though, witchcraft doesn't exist, men who rape women do.





blujay said:


> While obviously those who claim rape should not be disregarded because these things do happen. I am not stating that rape or sexual abuse doesn't happen. That is the only difference between the Salem witch trials and what is happening now.


Please read the entire thing.


----------



## dAVID_ (Sep 28, 2018)

DAILY REMINDER: The burden of proof is on the one making the statement, and everyone is innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 28, 2018)

PanTheFaun said:


> I agree with this completely.


The horrible thing was that for Michael Browns case it was completely made up. The Ferguson community lied, intimidated witnesses, pressured people to lie about the cop. They shouted death threats, a few people were afraid to tell the truth that the cop was innocent because they were scared of retaliation. Threats were made to the residents, they posted notes on the apartment buildings to not tell cops and that there were gunshots every night. Basically stitches for snitches.

Same with a good number of other cases that evil cop killing innocent blacks were made up. And its the same formula, riot before any evidence comes out.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Sep 28, 2018)

SG854 said:


> The horrible thing was that for Michael Browns case it was completely made up. The Ferguson community lied and conspired against the cop. They shouted death threats, a few people were afraid to tell the truth that the cop was innocent because they were scared of retaliation. Threats were made to the residents, they posted notes on the apartment buildings to not tell cops that there were shootings every night. Basically stitches for snitches.
> 
> Same with a good number of other cases that evil cop killing innocent blacks were made up. And its the same formula, riot before any evidence comes out.


It's the downfall of modern society.


----------



## Chary (Sep 28, 2018)

The whole metoo thing is a double edged sword. I’m really glad that women are now coming forward (and I hope that abused men also begin to have a louder voice as well) and getting vindication against human trash rapists. 

But, it’s a slippery slope that leads to blind accusations and a mentality of guilty until proven innocent.


----------



## dAVID_ (Sep 28, 2018)

Chary said:


> The whole metoo thing is a double edged sword. I’m really glad that women are now coming forward (and I hope that abused men also begin to have a louder voice as well) and getting vindication against human trash rapists.
> 
> But, it’s a slippery slope that leads to blind accusations and a mentality of guilty until proven innocent.


Yeah, false rape accusations are the modern form of stoning.


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 28, 2018)

Relevant


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 28, 2018)

blujay said:


> In the case of Kavanaugh, for instance, I am not saying that Kavanaugh is guilty. I am not saying that Kavanaugh is innocent. What I am saying is that we should not even be having the debate in the first place. This debate is pointless. It is only a "he said" or "she said". You can show all the evidence you want of things that have been written or things that have been said, but if you cannot show evidence of the alleged crime, then what evidence is there that makes a difference.
> 
> 
> We have regressed beyond recovery.


several people called for an invesitgation. one side keeps saying "noooo~" if everyone wanted to be formal instead of making this a bigger circus let the authorities do their part and everyone can move on.

that being said, all humans are capable of lying.



Chary said:


> The whole metoo thing is a double edged sword. I’m really glad that women are now coming forward (and I hope that abused men also begin to have a louder voice as well) and getting vindication against human trash rapists.
> 
> But, it’s a slippery slope that leads to blind accusations and a mentality of guilty until proven innocent.



pretty much exactly how i feel. glad a conservative sees things similar to a lefty.


----------



## kuwanger (Sep 28, 2018)

blujay said:


> How in this country have we moved to a point where we do not listen to people who have experienced such traumatic things because there is no proof. Shouldn't their mental state be proof enough of the horrible things they have experienced? We should listen to them with pure intent!
> Do you know what I just described?
> The Salem witch trials.



Thanks for entirely missing the point.



blujay said:


> I will stand beside any rape victim and call for even death *if there is evidence*. We have reverted as a society, we have turned around. At what point did our judicial system decide it was OK to listen to accusers with no proof except for that which is in their head?
> 
> In the case of Kavanaugh, for instance, I am not saying that Kavanaugh is guilty. I am not saying that Kavanaugh is innocent. What I am saying is that we should not even be having the debate in the first place.



Wow, so now Congress is the Judiciary and interviewing someone about their character, which inherently would include not only any accusations put against them but also their demeanor in addressing those accusations, is above reproach?  Is anyone calling for Kavanaugh to go to jail?  Is the call for an FBI investigation one of looking for proof meant precisely to confirm or deny the veracity of their stories to decide if Kavanaugh is a liar?  Is the intention to lead to some sort of grand jury investigation or conviction without any proof?



blujay said:


> In the modern times, we are no longer killing people physically, but rather killing them socially, emotionally, politically. We aren't even burning the bridges for these people, but we are burning the materials used to build bridges. We have no idea what happened, and all we can go off of are two (maybe a few more) people making claims and accusations.



Are you talking about convicted felons?  Registered sex offenders?  Or simply people who are in the public eye who are accused of things?  That last bit, political murder, is as old as society.  The same with accusing people of really all sorts of crimes, whether someone is convicted or even fully exonerated, being treated differently.  The only real "solution" to that would be wipe history and punish those who continue to spread any information about accusations.

tl;dr - When you try to get a job, the job interview might dig up a lot of questionable things and you might not get the job.  That's not the same as the risk of prison.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 28, 2018)

blujay said:


> In the case of Kavanaugh, for instance, I am not saying that Kavanaugh is guilty. I am not saying that Kavanaugh is innocent. What I am saying is that we should not even be having the debate in the first place. This debate is pointless. It is only a "he said" or "she said". You can show all the evidence you want of things that have been written or things that have been said, but if you cannot show evidence of the alleged crime, then what evidence is there that makes a difference.


The accusers want an FBI investigation because they know their testimony will hold up under threat of perjury.  Kavanaugh and the Republicans don't want an FBI investigation because they know the exact opposite is true for him.

It's also ridiculous to coddle a grown man who is being considered for a lifetime appointment.  Even if these allegations aren't proven true now, they can be later.  Even if the allegations were all proven false, Kavanaugh has shown he doesn't have the temperament expected of an SC judge.  Republicans need to have a little more respect for the position and what it represents.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 28, 2018)

my whole deal with this, is why not just let an investigation take place? 
just seems strange to me.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 28, 2018)

PanTheFaun said:


> It's the downfall of modern society.


And now they all get to enjoy the Ferguson effect. Cops are now backing off because they are afraid of becoming the new racist and have their lives ruined by criminal charges even if they do everything right. Cops are policing Black neighborhoods less, stop and frisk rates went down, less enforcement of broken windows policing, and crime rates and murder rates soared in many cities. And people are begging cops to come back but cops are afraid being charged of racism. 

Who needs to stop a crime before it happens, stop and frisk is racist and hurts black peoples feelings. Lets wait till after the crime happens before cops do anything. Black Lives Matter got exactly what they wanted. This is what they wanted right, less policing in black neighborhoods because apparently cops were only there to be racist, even though the same policing BLM criticized is what reduced crime in the 90's and thousands of blacks today would've been dead without it. 

Believe the accusers! Who needs evidence of racism when they can riot without it. They won. Mission accomplished. They got what they wanted and now blacks are dying.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Sep 28, 2018)

Don't you love Twitter and Facebook, the new age Inquisition?


----------



## sarkwalvein (Sep 28, 2018)

People should be heard and things investigated, of course, but by no means shall the life of the accused be destroyed without a proof.
The problem is that today's society is playing accuser-judge-executioner all in their hands, disregarding any kind of fair trial.

PS: And I am not talking just about Kavanaugh, but about the general trend of disregarding the importance of proof and facts and going by emotion and mob-mentality.



blujay said:


> I am almost 100% certain that if a straight, white, christian male were to make these accusations (regardless of whether or not they were true) they would be dismissed in a heart beat.


I agree with mostly everything but this. Though there is a bias, the mass hysteria is generalized, and trying to make your point about some racial/privilege based unfairness debilitates your point. It will still happen if the accuser was a straight, white, christian, male... he only needs to find some way to play the social victim. The problem here is people moving on emotions instead of facts.


----------



## Jayro (Sep 28, 2018)

Sorry, but without proof, they could be lying. So many innocent people go to jail for their accuser lying. So many men are rotting in jail _RIGHT NOW_ because of false rape accusations.
Thanks, but no thanks OP.


----------



## Greymane (Sep 28, 2018)

imo, believe holds no place in a court of law, facts and evidence do.
If believe is all that is needed to convict or free people, you might as well do away with courts and laws and let anarchy reign.
Cause what is the purpose of it all at that point? Hoping you get it right once a while?


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 28, 2018)

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. On the one hand I agree that at the principal of it, she shouldn't even had been allowed through the front gates. And besides that two other guys claimed that she was mistaken and one of those two did it. don't say that they were paid off, cause then I could say SHE was paid off.

But on the other hand, i feel like we're making a mountain out of a molehill. This is a congressional hearing. The guy isn't gonna go to jail. Not to mention, but as @Xzi mentioned, this is a lifetime position. If there was a hint that the guy had done any kind of felony, criminal activity etc. then yeah, of course it should be looked into.

I guess I think it went too far. She should've gotten her say and then be dismissed for having no evidence.

Instead this could mess up the guys career.


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 28, 2018)

I unfortunately knew it would come to this eventually. 

The whole #metoo movement is rapidly spinning out of control. I've just read an article on jezebel.com that...well...implicitly outlaws anything regarding relationships if you look closely into it (it's about the accusation of Jack Smith). The stakes are obviously much higher here. and it's pretty much impossible to do anything but believing either side. The facts are from THE FREAKING EIGHTIES!!! Honestly: what kind of evidence would an FBI investigation turn up, really? You know the answer to this: nothing but wasted time. Time that's very valuable, for that mid-midterm election thing.

You know I hate Trump as much as the rest of the non-US world, but I can't fault him for pinning this on democrats (even though Blasey Ford is technically politically independent).  Republicans blame democrats for abusing #metoo to sabotage their government governing tasks (and they'll be right, in their way). Democrats blame republicans for trying to put an accused sex abuser in place (and they'll be right, in their way).


...but for me personally, I choose to believe Ford. She should've gone to the police LAST FREAKING CENTURY but that doesn't mean I think she lied.

EDIT: I'm an image thinker. Combine that with stupid series like cold case, CSI cyber, CSI and the like, and I can just about picture how this'll go...


Older veteran character: okay, crew: listen up. You've seen the news: Ford has accused Kavanaugh of rape in the '80s. She's about to testify next friday. Kavanaugh claims to be innocent. More importantly: Kavanaugh is to be made judge for life in three days. That means we've got to find out who's lying before then!
*instant swap to the street*
cop 1: this should be the place where the alleged accusations happened. They must've entered here...
*insert sepia shot where two 80s-dressed characters walk in without sound whatsoever*
cop 2: and this is where he allegedly thrown her on the bed.
*zoom in on the wood...that has A SCRATCH, implying that this came from the rape 34 years ago*
*meanwhile*
nerdy investigator: chief? You want to come here for a second. We've got something.
Veteran character: okay...what have you got?
nerdy investigator 2: as you can see from the insertion traces you'll see a detriment in the aging process of the inner membrane. Moreso, we've been able to extract some residu of live organic tissue that isn't created by the host and in age matches the date of...
Veteran character: in English please?
nerdy investigator 2: this piece on her clitoris means that she had forcefull sex about 34 years ago. We also extracted some sperm from that time...but we cannot prove that it belongs to Kavanaugh.
nerdy investigator 1: damn it. She could've been raped by ANYONE! Kavanaugh will never consent to submitting a DNA sample, seeing how it could be used to prove his guilt.
*zoom in on chief's head*
Veteran character: this calls for swift and diplomatic action. I'll ask for the full co-operation from the highest level authorities!
*flash to another situation*
Donald Trump (on television): it's NOT TRUE! Not! True! It's so not true that it's lying. LY-ING! They're the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They're democrats. It's true! They've planted it there themselves!
Chief of Veteran character: damn it! This whole thing has gone political. You've got to solve this NOW! Can you handle it?
Veteran character *with dramatic music*: I _always_ solve my cases!

*insert commercial break*

...and so on, and so on.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 28, 2018)

Just a quick note here for anyone unaware: Neil Gorsuch attended the exact same high school as Brett Kavanaugh, yet Gorsuch was confirmed with basically no fuss and no sexual assault accusers.  Big shocker, turns out if you keep things consensual then shit like this can't come back to haunt you later.  The only people afraid or angry at the MeToo movement are the ones with skeletons in their closets.  If you're just some Joe Schmoe then it's likely nobody would care anyway, but attempting to become a supreme court justice is obviously going to run a spotlight through your life.


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Sep 28, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> Relevant



Jesus! Why does that feel like something that was made just yesterday? How old is that episode?


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 28, 2018)

JiveTheTurkey said:


> Jesus! Why does that feel like something that was made just yesterday? How old is that episode?


November of 1994, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_Badman


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 28, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The accusers want an FBI investigation because they know their testimony will hold up under threat of perjury.  Kavanaugh and the Republicans don't want an FBI investigation because they know the exact opposite is true for him.
> .



The FBI doesn't investigate criminal accusations where it has no jurisdiction. No federal crime was alleged here. Only juvenile misconduct. In the context of Supreme Court nominations, the FBI performs background checks. The Ford allegation was appended to Kavanaugh's background check last week, then sent to the White House and Senate Judiciary committee, along with a statement from the FBI that there was no federal crime alleged, so they were done with it. The Senate Judiciary Committee is the fact finder in this proceeding.

An FBI investigation _was_ conducted during the Thomas confirmation hearings, because Anita Hill alleged a federal offense.


----------



## ken28 (Sep 28, 2018)

--


----------



## sarkwalvein (Sep 28, 2018)

I'm not sure if people are being sarcastic or they don't notice the OP is against all this social executions without proof or facts. 

Oh, the shortcomings of written communication.


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Sep 28, 2018)

Studies have shown approx. 4% of accusations of sexual misconduct tend to be false (margin of error makes it more like 2-8%).

A lot of people try and dismiss 100% of accusations, leading to dividing families in cases of familial harassment, or putting the victim in a situation where they stand accused of lying even though they're statistically much less likely to be lying than telling the truth, as evidenced by recent studies. We should not lean either way, but we should hear out the accuser and at least give them a chance to come forward. Many victims are too traumatized to even do that much, or still scared of their assailant. The reason I think MeToo has been a somewhat decent movement is that it's given people a voice and motivation to come forward with something they may not have otherwise found the courage to. If it led to a spike in false allegations, it's still likely nominal in comparison to the spike in true stories to come of it. 92-98% vs. 2-8%. I'm going to hear an accuser out.

It's hard to produce proof for assaults that took place years ago as well, but this doesn't mean the accuser is lying. How many consensual encounters can you prove happened a decade ago, for instance? While I understand burden of proof and why it's important, things like witnesses play a key role in this kind of accusation, because it's extraordinarily unlikely that there's any physical evidence left of it.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 28, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> The FBI doesn't investigate criminal accusations where it has no jurisdiction.


I'm quite aware the FBI doesn't reach conclusions, the Republicans repeated that like a mantra throughout the entire hearing.  That isn't the point of requesting an investigation, the point is fact-finding so Senators can make informed decisions and ask informed questions.



Hanafuda said:


> In the context of Supreme Court nominations, the FBI performs background checks. The Ford allegation was appended to Kavanaugh's background check last week, then sent to the White House and Senate Judiciary committee, along with a statement from the FBI that there was no federal crime alleged, so they were done with it. The Senate Judiciary Committee is the fact finder in this proceeding.


Precisely, a background check is what we need.  And no, the FBI is not "done with it," their involvement has to be requested from someone higher up before they get involved at all.  A senate hearing is not an investigation, nor is it a trial.  Even the Bar Association has stepped in and requested an FBI investigation in an unusual move for them.  Republicans only want you to believe that a senate hearing is a substitute because they don't want to open up Kavanaugh to possible prosecution for all his obvious lies.  Not to mention there are another four accusers lined up after Ford that Republicans don't even want to acknowledge.

Again, even if I didn't believe any of the accusers, Kavanaugh acted like a damn child throughout the entire hearing.  He should be disqualified for the position based on his temperament alone.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Sep 28, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> I'm not sure if people are being sarcastic or they don't notice the OP is against all this social executions without proof or facts.
> 
> Oh, the shortcomings of written communication.


That click bait title is working...

F'real, was wary when I read the title. Then I decided to read the post. I feel a bit better. Ha.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Sophie-bear said:


> Studies have shown approx. 4% of accusations of sexual misconduct tend to be false (margin of error makes it more like 2-8%).
> 
> A lot of people try and dismiss 100% of accusations, leading to dividing families in cases of familial harassment, or putting the victim in a situation where they stand accused of lying even though they're statistically much less likely to be lying than telling the truth, as evidenced by recent studies. We should not lean either way, but we should hear out the accuser and at least give them a chance to come forward. Many victims are too traumatized to even do that much, or still scared of their assailant. The reason I think MeToo has been a somewhat decent movement is that it's given people a voice and motivation to come forward with something they may not have otherwise found the courage to. If it led to a spike in false allegations, it's still likely nominal in comparison to the spike in true stories to come of it. 92-98% vs. 2-8%. I'm going to hear an accuser out.
> 
> It's hard to produce proof for assaults that took place years ago as well, but this doesn't mean the accuser is lying. How many consensual encounters can you prove happened a decade ago, for instance? While I understand burden of proof and why it's important, things like witnesses play a key role in this kind of accusation, because it's extraordinarily unlikely that there's any physical evidence left of it.


Which is why there needs to be more support for outing the guilty sooner than later.


----------



## gman666 (Sep 28, 2018)

To make matters worse some of these accusations only come out after someone becomes a significant figure in the public eye. . . Or because of Partisan BS. I can't believe we've left behind "Inoccent until proven guilty" at the cost of our own selfish agendas. Makes me want to stay far away from all forms of Mass Media (Who benefit from sensationalized news stories) and Social Media (Which encourages Mob Mentality and Rewards that Mob with instant gratification "Upvotes"). It is tiring and infuriating to see that everbody done lost their damn minds.


----------



## Carnelian (Sep 28, 2018)

Nobody is trustable in Shitmerica.


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Sep 28, 2018)

Memoir said:


> Which is why there needs to be more support for outing the guilty sooner than later.


Absolutely agreed. This would be the ideal.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 28, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Precisely, a background check is what we need.  And no, the FBI is not "done with it," their involvement has to be requested from someone higher up before they get involved at all.  A senate hearing is not an investigation, nor is it a trial.  Even the Bar Association has stepped in and requested an FBI investigation in an unusual move for them.  Republicans only want you to believe that a senate hearing is a substitute because they don't want to open up Kavanaugh to possible prosecution for all his obvious lies.  Not to mention there are another four accusers lined up after Ford that Republicans don't even want to acknowledge.




A re-compile of his background check will be just that. Statements that have already been provided under penalty of felony will be taken again. There's no criminal investigation to be conducted because it's not a federal offense. This just makes for more delay, a window to throw more wrenches into the works, to then argue for even more delay. There's no way the Democrats will say 'ok then' after one week. The primary goal here is to prevent Kavanaugh being on the court for the October term of court, which is probably accomplished now, with the secondary goals being to ultimately force the nomination to be pulled, so they can start preparing their rapist/racist/nazi/pedo ambush on the next person nominated.







EDIT/UPDATE:

twitter.com/PressSec/status/1045779267827699712
Given the Flake-out today, and Murkowski et al climbing on, looks like Trump did the smart thing and ordered the FBI to conduct an investigation, to be closed within a week. Since the President's role is just to nominate and the process is currently in the hands of the Senate, I think he was right to cooperate with the request. Will Democrats cooperate and stick to their terms of a floor vote after the FBI's concludes its one-week investigation? We'll see, but I expect Gloria Allred to break on the scene on Monday with a woman who claims Brett Kavanaugh made her suck off a dog while he assfucked her with a frozen turkey leg and some Crisco, then made her snowball him.

Edit 2: 
I'm already seeing people (presumably democrats) complaining in the comments to the Press Secretary's announcement that a one-week limit is not enough time to do a proper investigation and launching abuse at the President for doing that, even though one week is what the Senate Democrats asked for.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 29, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Given the Flake-out today, and Murkowski et al climbing on, looks like Trump did the smart thing and ordered the FBI to conduct an investigation


Sure, waiting to request an investigation until after his name was dragged through the mud by his own actions and the court of public opinion is the _smart_ thing.


----------



## Viri (Sep 29, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> We'll see, but I expect Gloria Allred to break on the scene on Monday with a woman who claims Brett Kavanaugh made her suck off a dog while he assfucked her with a frozen turkey leg and some Crisco, then made her snowball him.


Hey now, let's be realistic here, there won't be one women who claims that, there will at least be 5 of them! You sexist bigot! Also, I can't seem to recall, but I do think he raped me too, in the early 2000's.

http://kavanaughaccusationgenerator.com/


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 29, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Sure, waiting to request an investigation ...




As Lindsey Graham rather unexpectedly blurted out yesterday, if you really wanted an investigation it could've started in July.


----------



## bitjacker (Sep 29, 2018)

<commencing rant> How much money does it cost TAXPAYERS to take every little dumb thing to court? I paid taxes. I do not agree with money i made being allocated for dumb shit. How is it fair that Brett gets gutted across all media platforms with subliminal suggestion that he is basically a rapist (making defense highly improbable)? Why does the fbi get jurisdiction (violation of due process of law) simply because of a wild hazy accusation had sex with the dnc and birthed a high profile case? I am kind of pissed that dumb shit plugs up the airwaves so I dont get real news.<rant concluded>


----------



## Xzi (Sep 29, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> As Lindsey Graham rather unexpectedly blurted out yesterday, if you really wanted an investigation it could've started in July.


Were the accusations even public in July?  And Democrats had already requested an investigation several times, but a request is nothing more than that.  Without the majority party or someone higher up agreeing to it, a request is easily stonewalled.  Lindsey was being a disingenuous prick with those statements.  His natural state of being.



bitjacker said:


> <commencing rant> How much money does it cost TAXPAYERS to take every little dumb thing to court?


This was a senate panel, not a trial.  It costs taxpayers nothing except what we already pay senators.  Hearings for supreme court nominees are commonplace.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 29, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Were the accusations even public in July?  And Democrats had already requested an investigation several times, but a request is nothing more than that.  Without the majority party or someone higher up agreeing to it, a request is easily stonewalled.  Lindsey was being a disingenuous prick with those statements.  His natural state of being.




The accusation didn't need to be public. It could've been kept classified in committee, from Day 1. The Democrats never requested or made any effort at an investigation until after Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings were over, after sitting on Ford's letter for 2 months. Then they refused to participate with the Committee in conducting an investigation once the story was public.

As for Trump, I really don't think he was in any position to be ordering the FBI to do anything with this until he received a request from the Committee as a whole. The President nominates the candidate, the Senate vets the candidate. I do think he should've also just kept his mouth shut altogether (including Twitter) this past week about Kavanaugh, but Trump's gonna Trump. It would be foolish to think he changed any person's mind one way or the other though.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 29, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> The Democrats never requested or made any effort at an investigation until after Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings were over, after sitting on Ford's letter for 2 months.


Oh c'mon, you know that's bullshit.  A cursory Google search shows requests for an investigation from five days ago all the way back to as far as a month ago.



Hanafuda said:


> Then they refused to participate with the Committee in conducting an investigation once the story was public.


Again, the senate are not investigators.  They're not a proper substitute for investigators either.  The investigators are supposed to gather all the facts and hand them over _to_ the senate _before_ hearings are conducted.  That way senators have all the facts in front of them instead of just making assumptions.


----------



## Tigran (Sep 29, 2018)

I'll tell you one of the reasons I tend to believe the accusers more than the accused in many cases like this.

The responce from the accused. They arn't. "Wait... What the hell are you talking about? I supposedly did what?" There is never any... realism to their response, it's almost always. "Whatever we did was consensual."

I mean seriously.. if I was being accused of rape, my first response would be "What the F&&&K? What the hell are you talking about? When?" I mean... those are realistic comments to make, not the almost verbatim every time "it was consensual".

Not to mention the Man can't even keep his story straight, if he could, that would give him more credence, but he can't. And attacking someone who asked as simple question during a Job interview *which this still in reality was*, is not a good sign, neither is almost breaking down and whining "me me me!" 

If he had been a Democratic canidate that did that, the republicans would be calling him a "Crybaby snowflake."


----------



## granville (Sep 29, 2018)

I will preface this to say that yes false accusations do happen. They are disgusting and should be punished extremely severely if discovered. I do not consider the fear of them to be irrational or unreasonable either. I will point towards the Duke Lacrosse case and could mention a lot of others as well. So don't think i'm coming at this with the desire to get rid of due process and automatically assume all women are truthful saints who would never make such a thing up. Before the hearings, I was open minded but still very skeptical about the allegations.

So all of that having been said, the problem is that Kavanaugh during the questioning yesterday did not behave like an innocent man. He made a fool of himself attempting to address his seemingly rowdy college years. Of which includes alleged drinking and sexual promiscuity. Drinking and sex (consensual of course) are not illegal or indicative of someone being a bad person, and he could have just fessed up to this with little to no controversy. He instead attempted to deny the behavior by telling absurd and farfetched stories about what his old fratboy language "really meant". He came across as a dishonest person due to this, even though it was very minor petty crap that he shouldn't feel the need to lie about...

Getting more specifically into the allegations of sexual assault however, Kavanaugh was also extremely hostile towards any suggestion of an investigation. He also refused the request to have him undergo a polygraph test, which in 2016 he himself claimed was a valid tool to test the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants (and recommended their use by employers to judge potential employees). Now to be quite clear, Kavanaugh was 100% correct when he rebutted that polygraphs are inaccurate and inadmissible in a court of law. But he can't have it both ways. He previously extolled their virtues as a means of extracting truth and has fallen into his own trap.

The governor of Maryland (Larry Hogan, a Republican btw) called for a delay in the Kavanaugh vote until a full investigation is made. The current dean of Yale has also done the same, along with the American Bar Association. The editors of the Jesuit's official magazine "America" have demanded that his nomination be withdrawn outright.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 29, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Oh c'mon, you know that's bullshit.  A cursory Google search shows requests for an investigation from five days ago all the way back to as far as a month ago.



I meant wrt: Ford specifically.



> Again, the senate are not investigators.  They're not a proper substitute for investigators either.  *The investigators are supposed to gather all the facts and hand them over to the senate before hearings are conducted.*  That way senators have all the facts in front of them instead of just making assumptions.



Are you suggesting that is SOP? Other than the exception of the Thomas confirmation, which I explained the FBI's involvement there - Hill _alleged_ a federal offense - when has the FBI conducted an INVESTIGATION of a SCOTUS candidate? I'm not aware of that happening before.


----------



## Viri (Sep 29, 2018)

> Believe Accusers!





Spoiler











Hey guys! Do you still believe me?


----------



## bitjacker (Sep 29, 2018)

what we already pay senators.  
needs to actually be for accomplishing work senators need to do (no bullshit last minute red tape even if it costs 2 seconds)
The government already cripples itself enough from dumb shit.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Sep 29, 2018)

blujay said:


> Please read the entire thing.


You mean the whhhoooollle wooooooorrrd liiiike thiiiiis.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 29, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Are you suggesting that is SOP?


Not SOP, no, but nor is this a standard hearing like the one that was held for Gorsuch.  When events from the past are in doubt the senate always relies on the FBI to do the gruntwork of digging up all the facts.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 29, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Not SOP, no, but nor is this a standard hearing like the one that was held for Gorsuch.  When events from the past are in doubt the senate always relies on the FBI to do the gruntwork of digging up all the facts.




Well, normal except the Democrats filibustered during Gorsuch. First time since 1968, and why? But I know what you're saying.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 29, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Even the Bar Association has stepped in and requested an FBI investigation in an unusual move for them.



FWIW this turned out to be false. The current President of the ABA wrote that letter without authority from the Standing Committee that actually reviews and rates judges. Kavanaugh's top rating with the ABA is unchanged and the ABA makes no request for an FBI investigation, but the damage was done thanks to NYT and Senate Democrats running with it. I hate the term but this is an actual example of 'fake news.'

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DoNj47EWkAA5uMg.jpg


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 29, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Well, normal except the Democrats filibustered during Gorsuch. First time since 1968, and why? But I know what you're saying.


the republicans refused to hear an obama nomination for over 2 years. this is par for the course.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 29, 2018)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> the republicans refused to hear an obama nomination for over 2 years. this is par for the course.



Garland was nominated in March 2016, so I'm not sure where you get "for over 2 years." But you won't get an argument from me on this one. I think the Republicans should have held hearings for Garland. Maybe not actually confirmed him, but they should have held hearings. But, that's just 'should have,' and it's just an opinion. The Constitution says the President's nominee gets confirmed with the 'advice and consent' of the Senate. It doesn't say _how_ the Senate will advise, it doesn't say the Senate has to consent. There have been 26 Supreme Court nominations in a Presidential election year, only 8 have been confirmed. Historically, it's a weak situation to be in, going back to the early 1800's. Thurmond said so in the 60's (see Thurmond rule), Biden said so in 1992, Reid and Feinstein said so in the 2008. There's no actual "rule" of course, but it's not 'unprecedented.' It's just a label applied to the situation where the party in power in the Senate is able to say 'fuck off' to a President of the opposing party in his final year.


----------



## bodefuceta (Sep 29, 2018)

It's amazing how many crimes are forgotten until the perpetrators become close to important positions.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 29, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> The current President of the ABA wrote that letter without authority from the Standing Committee that actually reviews and rates judges.


So?  It was a request for an FBI investigation, not a request to review or change his rating within the ABA.


----------



## Wolfy (Sep 29, 2018)

Yeahhhhh, I firmly believe that there are way more people who will take advantage of that logic over those who legitimately need it. Just look at the Kavanaugh case going on right now. "Apparently" the accuser talked to Fernstein back in July, but only now when he's close to getting confirmed do they use her? By leaking out her name and address when she wanted to stay anonymous just because it would help their "cause". I feel sorry for the woman, I really do. But she's being used and way too many of her "facts" don't make sense, even her "witnesses" say they did not see Kavanaugh at the party.

This whole movement lately will destroy the world if let it. People please don't be so gullible.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 29, 2018)

Wolfy said:


> Yeahhhhh, I firmly believe that there are way more people who will take advantage of that logic over those who legitimately need it. Just look at the Kavanaugh case going on right now. "Apparently" the accuser talked to Fernstein back in July, but only now when he's close to getting confirmed do they use her? By leaking out her name and address when she wanted to stay anonymous just because it would help their "cause". I feel sorry for the woman, I really do. But she's being used and way too many of her "facts" don't make sense, even her "witnesses" say they did not see Kavanaugh at the party.
> 
> This whole movement lately will destroy the world if let it. People please don't be so gullible.


Did you even watch Ford's testimony?  She sure as hell sounded a lot more credible than Kavanaugh who dodged every question.  We'll have the facts in a week and I don't think they're going to be favorable to Brett.


----------



## Wolfy (Sep 29, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Did you even watch Ford's testimony?  She sure as hell sounded a lot more credible than Kavanaugh who dodged every question.



I've seen enough women lying straight to judge's faces even after they've been proven to being the agitator in a case. I don't buy that this is all coming to light now without political motive.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 29, 2018)

Wolfy said:


> I've seen enough women lying straight to judge's faces even after they've been proven to being the agitator in a case. I don't buy that this is all coming to light now without political motive.


Ford isn't even the one who brought the allegation to light.  It was leaked by someone else because she had told people about it as far back as 20 years prior.  Might've been her husband or one of her friends who thought better of putting a sexual predator on the supreme court.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 29, 2018)

Xzi said:


> So?  It was a request for an FBI investigation, not a request to review or change his rating within the ABA.



But it wasn't from the ABA as a body, just the current President exceeding his authority (he went rogue). The rating is a statement of the Association's position on whether a judge is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, so anything that steps in front of that recommendation (like the letter in question) needs to be voted on. The ABA's rating on Kavanaugh is still that he is "well-qualified" for the SCOTUS.




Xzi said:


> Ford isn't even the one who brought the allegation to light.  It was leaked by someone else because she had told people about it as far back as 20 years prior.  Might've been her husband or one of her friends who thought better of putting a sexual predator on the supreme court.



20 years prior? Who are those people, I haven't heard about them. Have they given sworn testimony? The most recent I've heard of Ford describing an event similar to what she's telling now was in 2012, _after_ Kavanaugh's name had been written up in the press as Romney's likely first pick if he were to get elected. That's when it was described to her therapist, though the number and gender of the persons involved changed several times after that, and Kavanaugh specifically was never mentioned to the therapist. Probably - it's not like they're allowing discovery on the therapists' notes or anything, they're just telling you what's in them.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 29, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> But it wasn't from the ABA as a body, just the current President exceeding his authority (he went rogue). The rating is a statement of the Association's position on whether a judge is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, so anything that steps in front of that recommendation (like the letter in question) needs to be voted on. The ABA's rating on Kavanaugh is still that he is "well-qualified" for the SCOTUS.


Well that's not very reassuring, he should've been downgraded at least a little after the temper tantrum he threw in front of the senate.  If that was his interview, that display would've disqualified him for most fast food jobs.  And that really has nothing to do with my politics, even Gorsuch handled everything about his nomination in a much better way.  As opposed to Kavanaugh who came off as both entitled and unstable.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 29, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Well that's not very reassuring, he should've been downgraded at least a little after the temper tantrum he threw in front of the senate.  If that was his interview, that display would've disqualified him for most fast food jobs.  And that really has nothing to do with my politics, even Gorsuch handled everything about his nomination in a much better way.




I'll just say this, strictly hypothetically -- if I were innocent of the things Kavanaugh's been accused of (attempted rape, dick exposure, drugging and gangbanging girls) but unsubstantiated, uncorroborated accusations that I had done these things were published in all the newspapers, television news, all over the internet, and my two young daughters were exposed to these vicious smears and lies, forever pulling a dark perv cloud over their perception of their father for the rest of their lives, and again I stress if none of these accusations were actually true but just being spread for political gain despite the harm being caused .... and then you sat me down in front of the very people who had done this to me and my family, I'd probably be beating some fucking skulls in, not just speaking in harsh tones.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 29, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> 20 years prior? Who are those people, I haven't heard about them. Have they given sworn testimony? The most recent I've heard of Ford describing an event similar to what she's telling now was in 2012, _after_ Kavanaugh's name had been written up in the press as Romney's likely first pick if he were to get elected.


Sorry not 20 years, think I was mixing it up with something else, but still three different friends and her husband gave sworn affidavits that she had discussed this with them well prior to Kavanaugh being nominated.  Suggesting that Romney _maybe_ considering Kavanaugh is connected to her sharing her story in 2012 is ridiculous.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/...sations-with-blasey-ford-about-alleged-attack



			
				TPM said:
			
		

> Three of professor Christine Blasey Ford’s friends and her husband have given her attorneys detailed letters describing the date, time, place and context of conversations they had with her when she told them about her alleged sexual assault at the hands of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
> 
> All four of the conversations, according to the writers’ memories, took place before President Donald Trump announced Kavanaugh as his nominee.





Hanafuda said:


> I'll just say this, strictly hypothetically -- if I were innocent of the things Kavanaugh's been accused of (attempted rape, dick exposure, drugging and gangbanging girls) but unsubstantiated, uncorroborated accusations that I had done these things were published in all the newspapers, television news, all over the internet, and my two young daughters were exposed to these vicious smears and lies, forever pulling a dark perv cloud over their perception of their father for the rest of their lives, and again I stress if none of these accusations were actually true but just being spread for political gain despite the harm being caused .... and then you sat me down in front of the very people who had done this to me and my family, I'd probably be beating some fucking skulls in, not just speaking in harsh tones.


If you're trying to disprove that you're a violent aggressor when drunk, it's probably not the greatest idea to get up in front of the senate and act like a violent aggressor when you're sober.  It might make you feel a little better, sure, but it's not going to help win over any hearts and minds.


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 29, 2018)

Anybody would do that especially if they have all those senators on the left calling him a rapist online and on liberal news outlets and saying I believe the accuser even before the hearing took place because of political bias.

At the end of the day nobody had their mind changed, they already knew who they were voting for even before a nominee was even named.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 29, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> Anybody would do that


Anybody with zero sense of professionalism or self-preservation, sure.



Joe88 said:


> At the end of the day nobody had their mind changed, they already knew who they were voting for even before a nominee was even named.


If nobody's mind was changed they would've voted to confirm yesterday.  Ford was far more convincing than Kavanaugh.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 30, 2018)

Oof, I knew there'd be strings attached with Trump ordering the investigation.

'Report: White House Is Controlling Who FBI Interviews in Kavanaugh Investigation'

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...estigation-limited-by-white-house-report.html



			
				NYMag said:
			
		

> But on Saturday afternoon, NBC News reported that the White House was limiting the scope of the probe to cover only Ford and Ramirez — not Julie Swetnick, the third woman to come forward with allegations of misconduct against Kavanaugh. “Instead of investigating Swetnick’s claims,” according to NBC, “the White House counsel’s office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview, according to several people who discussed the parameters on the condition of anonymity.” NBC also reported that certain other areas of investigation would also be off limits. For instance, the agency cannot request employment records from a supermarket where key witness Mark Judge worked, which might help corroborate Ford’s account of running into him after her alleged assault. And it cannot look into discrepancies between Kavanaugh’s account of only drinking moderately in college and that of at least one classmate, who has said he was lying.



They can't even look into Mark Judge's employment history just because it would probably back Ford?  If true this is a sham investigation.  What a shitshow this whole thing has been, and all just because Trump needs to shove through Kavanaugh's vote against dual sovereignty so he can pardon without fear of state-level prosecution.  Also the whole "believes a president can't do anything criminal" schtick definitely scores Brett a lot of points.

Oh well, even if it looks like the slow fall of an empire being televised to me, the internet always has at least one reaction that makes me die laughing.

(Bit loud)


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 30, 2018)

If someone I know comes and tells me something shit has happened to them then I will believe something shit has happened to them. If that means I get to drop everything to sit them down, talk, get them out of there... no hesitation there. I will however need evidence if I am to go after someone else. For said people from the first example I will happily lend my investigative and legal abilities too (or direct them such that things are properly investigated... conflict of interest and all that). There may be some base human instinct to protect my tribe but I will fight that in myself, have seen too many things missed and overlooked for me not to do that. Similarly "better ten guilty men go free than one innocent gets punished" is such a fundamental thing for my approach to the world (and hopefully the legal systems of it too) that to stray from that would be sad.

Largely mirrors my thoughts on the matter


For a better example of the base rate fallacy
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/07/terrorists_data.html

Also relevant (the whole thing is good, but the witness part and the payoff for the opening bit too).


I have similarly done things with charities sorting adult survivors of abuse (I was mostly doing tech for them but shop talk and all that is a thing). Massive empathy for people involved, and it is very hard to fake being as broken as some are, but their credibility as witnesses (and witnesses are already incredibly unreliable)... nah. Granted most of that is a somewhat different scenario and slightly different ages but not radically.

As for the supreme court nomination case under discussion. While I imagine his appointment will not lead to the US supreme court steering things in directions I would like (not properly seen his history but if some of the key things brought up are true then yeah) I have not seen enough to make me want to dismiss him, be it emotionally, pragmatically* or legally and the chances of the latter happening without a confession or time machine are so low it is unreal. I have however been out of the loop for the last few days.

*thinking the sort of high responsibility positions where your character, thought processes and more are determined by extensive interviews by people that know how to do it, testing and such.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2018)

Sophie-bear said:


> Studies have shown approx. 4% of accusations of sexual misconduct tend to be false (margin of error makes it more like 2-8%).
> 
> A lot of people try and dismiss 100% of accusations, leading to dividing families in cases of familial harassment, or putting the victim in a situation where they stand accused of lying even though they're statistically much less likely to be lying than telling the truth, as evidenced by recent studies. We should not lean either way, but we should hear out the accuser and at least give them a chance to come forward. Many victims are too traumatized to even do that much, or still scared of their assailant. The reason I think MeToo has been a somewhat decent movement is that it's given people a voice and motivation to come forward with something they may not have otherwise found the courage to. If it led to a spike in false allegations, it's still likely nominal in comparison to the spike in true stories to come of it. 92-98% vs. 2-8%. I'm going to hear an accuser out.
> 
> It's hard to produce proof for assaults that took place years ago as well, but this doesn't mean the accuser is lying. How many consensual encounters can you prove happened a decade ago, for instance? While I understand burden of proof and why it's important, things like witnesses play a key role in this kind of accusation, because it's extraordinarily unlikely that there's any physical evidence left of it.



Mate, there were multiple studies done on memory reliability. And to the researchers shock, it was absurdly easy to implant false memories over the course of three days. Espescially with allegations like this, witnesses shouldn't be involved at ALL. 

Also, you can't argue with statistics in a court of law. Think how that would go.

Judge: You would like to present your only piece of evidence besides the witness?

Prosecutor: Yessir!

Judge: very well, pull it out.

Prosecutor: This is a graph, found at the scene of the crime! It clearly says there is at least a 92% chance of the defendant being guilty!

Judge:..

Judge: backed by what research? I need to know the parameters.

Prosecutor: uhhh *insert research citation*

Judge: this is assuming that the court is good at determining whether or not a rape claim is false or not. Also, what about the 8%?

Prosecutor: Oh them, psh who cares about them

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also, side note, but why is everyone acting like body language is admissible evidence. Quite frankly, if I were in his position I'd be tripping over myself with words and being hyper aggressive and crap. I don't think it's right to assume who's correct without solid evidence.


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 1, 2018)

Carnelian said:


> Nobody is trustable in Shitmerica.


Your intelligence is astounding. Please tell us shitmericans more about how to be a great country like yours.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 1, 2018)

JiveTheTurkey said:


> Your intelligence is astounding. Please tell us shitmericans more about how to be a great country like yours.


First you should drop the imperial unit system.  /s

PS: joke

But you actually should /s


----------



## Tigran (Oct 1, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> First you should drop the imperial unit system.  /s
> 
> PS: joke
> 
> But you actually should /s



I'm... not actually going to argue that.


----------



## granville (Oct 1, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> First you should drop the imperial unit system.  /s
> 
> PS: joke
> 
> But you actually should /s


We SHOULD do that at least. Serious.


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 1, 2018)

What? No I like my inches.


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Oct 1, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Also, you can't argue with statistics in a court of law. Think how that would go.


That's not at all relevant to what my statement was, nor is it relevant to the topic. The topic is about believing accusers (or rather disbelieving), and I'm presenting the notion that _most_ accusers in this specific scenario are not lying or making things up. Witnesses are generally the only acceptable remaining form of evidence left from these kinds of crime, which is why witness testimony can make or break a case. I shouldn't need to repeat myself, but it's hard to muster up physical evidence of sexual assault, period. Unless it's garnered fairly immediately, at the scene, it's unlikely to exist... especially in cases not involving intercourse. We can't just pretend all assault victims are liars because they don't have physical evidence because a significant portion of sexual assault crimes do not produce physical evidence. This is a fact. You have to hear both sides of a story, as well as witness testimony, and determine who you most believe is telling the truth. And yes, that includes breaking down body language and emotional cues, as well.

To ramble a bit, I was part of a jury selection for this type of crime a few years ago and they made this clear to us. Also, they made it clear that intoxication of either party at the time of the event by no means excuses the actions of the aggressor, if indeed they were committed, as we have laws (in Michigan, where I was at the time, at least) that protect those under the influence. Intoxication could be a factor but is not considered consent.

The key to a decision of guilty or not guilty is the jury's belief beyond the shadow of a doubt that the defendant is guilty or not guilty. Nothing else.


----------



## orangy57 (Oct 1, 2018)

I feel the same way, like if Kavanaugh did it, I don't think there's any evidence to actually put him in prison.

i don't want him to be supreme court justice tho, he's a little uhh unstable


----------



## Viri (Oct 1, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> First you should drop the imperial unit system.  /s
> 
> PS: joke
> 
> But you actually should /s


Never! I actually know F and C. I actually like both.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 1, 2018)

Okay. So. A lot of folks are saying innocent until proven guilty. Which is true, he shouldn't receive governmental punishment until there's been a hearing and evidence presented.

But what we're talking about is his fitness for a particular position. Our standard is less "guilty or not guilty" and more "just cause to investigate and take a critical look". Folks aren't even entertaining the notion of the possibility. Folks aren't treating it as a the very real, very serious concern it is. which is fairly alarming.

According to the research, it is rare, very rare, for false accusations to occur. And when we break the numbers down into their context, a situation like this (where there's nothing in it for this person to come forward other than being honest) and you go to "pretty much impossible".

So what if she's telling the truth as far as she knows it, but she's misremembering and it was actually someone else? This is possible, the human brain is pretty bad with memories, especially memories created during trauma or high-intensity moments. Given how he's presented himself, though, and how he's reacted, it's probably more likely than not to be him. The more familiar she was with him beforehand also bolsters her testimony.

But even if everything she said was false, which I don't think it is, the way this person has handled themselves and the whole situation is disgraceful and shady. Someone with the integrity of a wet paper bag should not be nominated to one of the most powerful positions in the US for the rest of their life.


----------



## Tigran (Oct 1, 2018)

I do agree, it's -very- possible that she could be mis-remembering. It happens all the time, and a skilled person can often -make- it happen on someone else.

But I think the biggest thing here... is the response. It's not "I have no idea what she's talking about." or even a goold ol, "What the hell?!"

I also think the sudden "Nope nope nope! Don't look at me! Don't look at me!" is a very... bad vibe. Especially from someone who is trying to become one of the highest seats in the country. Any judge that is worth two shits literally would go. "Hey... I am innocent. This needs to get cleared up right away."

This is one of the cases where the accused is actually saying much more than the accuser is.

Hell.. the man almost broke down in a Job interview... WTH kind of supreme court judge is that? Who does he think he is? Judge Judy?


----------



## granville (Oct 1, 2018)

This isn't a criminal trial at present and may well never reach that point (even if a miracle occurs and Kavanaugh's nomination is rejected). We're not debating innocent until proven guilty in that sense. The debate is whether Kavanaugh has demonstrated the suitability for a job. In Kavanaugh's case, a position on the Supreme Court.

I do not believe there is any question there. Based on the behavior he demonstrated during the hearing, he should obviously have his nomination removed. He was visibly terrified and non-receptive to the suggestion of an FBI investigation. Lied under oath over even very petty things (which weren't even illegal) such as drinking and sexual conduct. The overall behavior was erratic and EXTREMELY suspicious, the opposite of how one expects an innocent man to act. His nomination should unquestionably be removed.

Imagine how this situation would have played out on a more local level. Take someone applying for work as a teacher in an elementary school. They receive multiple accusations of molested children. On their own, the allegations don't have definitive proof to 100% convict someone. But the accused behaves in a very erratic and suspicious manner when questioned by authorities. They don't want an investigation, a bunch of the answers are blatant lies and overall they behave in a manner exactly opposite to what one expects from an innocent person. After all of this, I do not think any school would be likely to consider this person as a teacher. Regardless of whether the case ever made it to court.

Though I will add that most criminal investigators and courts would unquestionably entertain you as a major suspect if you behaved in such a manner.


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 1, 2018)

If only people threw accusations and investigations to stuff like idk... Bengazi? Illegal Servers quietly active since before 9/11?- btw deleted. 'But what difference at this point does it make.'


----------



## Tigran (Oct 1, 2018)

JiveTheTurkey said:


> If only people threw accusations and investigations to stuff like idk... Bengazi? Illegal Servers quietly active since before 9/11?- btw deleted. 'But what difference at this point does it make.'




Private email servers? You mean like the ones -everyone- used? Yes.. lets not forget one of Bush's best friends Colin Powell used one too.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/colin-powell-defends-personal-email-227889

But hey, you want to start going into private emails, how about this guys?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/24/jared-kushner-private-email-white-house-243071

Oh... Also lets not forget the private cell phone no one is allowed to see:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-personal-cellphone-call-canada-justin-trudeau-2018-7

As for Bengazi, there have been numerous, NUMEROUS investigations into that. And the she was able to remain calm during 8 hours of trial while Kavenough literally broke down and started ranting like a madman.

Lets be honest, if he was a democratic nominee, the Republicans would have been looking at his actions going "He's just a crybaby snowflake!" *and I would have agreed with them, as his actions were not of someone who should be sitting on the bench&


----------



## dpad_5678 (Oct 1, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> DAILY REMINDER: The burden of proof is on the one making the statement, and everyone is innocent until proven guilty.


cough

Also, Trump wants to fuck his daughter so I doubt sexual assault is something that we should be putting above him.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2018)

Sophie-bear said:


> That's not at all relevant to what my statement was, nor is it relevant to the topic. The topic is about believing accusers (or rather disbelieving), and I'm presenting the notion that _most_ accusers in this specific scenario are not lying or making things up. Witnesses are generally the only acceptable remaining form of evidence left from these kinds of crime, which is why witness testimony can make or break a case. I shouldn't need to repeat myself, but it's hard to muster up physical evidence of sexual assault, period. Unless it's garnered fairly immediately, at the scene, it's unlikely to exist... especially in cases not involving intercourse. We can't just pretend all assault victims are liars because they don't have physical evidence because a significant portion of sexual assault crimes do not produce physical evidence. This is a fact. You have to hear both sides of a story, as well as witness testimony, and determine who you most believe is telling the truth. And yes, that includes breaking down body language and emotional cues, as well.
> 
> To ramble a bit, I was part of a jury selection for this type of crime a few years ago and they made this clear to us. Also, they made it clear that intoxication of either party at the time of the event by no means excuses the actions of the aggressor, if indeed they were committed, as we have laws (in Michigan, where I was at the time, at least) that protect those under the influence. Intoxication could be a factor but is not considered consent.
> 
> The key to a decision of guilty or not guilty is the jury's belief beyond the shadow of a doubt that the defendant is guilty or not guilty. Nothing else.



Ah. Sorry if I wasnt making my point clear. I was saying that the human element is the faultiest element.

Let me make somthing clear. I don't like kavanaugh. At all. Just sayin.


----------



## Viri (Oct 1, 2018)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3256157/Student-17-hanged-falsely-accused-rape.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-37696222
The mother deserved it for raising a rapist!
Believe accusers!


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 1, 2018)

Even though American society still haven't reached the point of going mob-style to lynch people based on their "jury of the peoples", it's steps away from it (and the world follows). I don't see the day people go literally witch hunting and burning on the stake too far. And anyway, isn't this social assassination we see right now just a modern way of witch hunting and burning on the stake. The reference made by the OP is spot on.

It is a pity, but as I wrote earlier, the world is fucked up between disguised dogmatic totalitarianism and populist nationalistic fanaticism. No place for dialogue. That's what we are living on. The "rift" is producing more extremists on both sides, and those extremists drive people that were rational into extremism after feeling pushed by them (this sadly I believe is happening to the OP, he is being driven to an opposing extreme by extremists... though I hope I am wrong, but many other people here on this thread are extremists already, even though they seem to think they are "on the side of justice" or something, they don't stop rewriting and bending reality, pretty much 1984 style, doublethinking much?).

- too much of a sensationalist statement?
- ... nope.


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 1, 2018)

Tigran said:


> Private email servers? You mean like the ones -everyone- used? Yes.. lets not forget one of Bush's best friends Colin Powell used one too.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/colin-powell-defends-personal-email-227889
> 
> ...


I don't see how any of those are illegal or have broken laws. One of your articles says "There is no indication that Kushner has shared any sensitive or classified material on his private account,... Still". Well, Clinton did... and they did plenty of run arounds to get away from prosecutions. Although I don't trust these news sources because bias has been skewed to support these people, I gave the benefit of the doubt and read them. Still not convinced what the illegal side of this refers to.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



sarkwalvein said:


> I don't see the day people go literally witch hunting and burning on the stake too far.


I see that coming soon. After seeing the German people rallied up in outrage over the migrant crisis, I have a feeling we won't be in Kansas anymore.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 1, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> I don't see the day people go literally witch hunting and burning on the stake too far.


Oh give me a break.  This never had to be a circus, Republicans could've conceded to an FBI investigation from the start and then we wouldn't have needed the "he said she said" senate panel to happen in public.

As has been stated multiple times, this isn't a criminal trial.  There are zero repercussions for Kavanaugh even if he's guilty of all the accusations.  Being denied the highest judgeship in the country is not comparable to being burnt at the stake.  Kavanaugh keeps living his super-wealthy cushy lifestyle regardless.

I really have a hard time believing Republicans couldn't find anybody else with the exact same judicial opinions who would be able to get through a senate hearing without looking like an overly-emotional partisan hack.  IIRC Trump picked Kavanaugh at random from a list of 25 names given to him by the Federalist Society.  At this point attempting to force him through is just one big 'fuck you' to Democrats _and_ women.  It's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see how it plays for them during midterms.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 1, 2018)

Xzi said:


> There are zero repercussions for Kavanaugh even if he's guilty of all the accusations. ...



zero repercussions. right.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 1, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> zero repercussions. right.


It's all past the statute of limitations AFAIK.  The guy went to a high school that had a full nine-hole golf course on it.  I think he'll survive.

The only repercussions he can face now would come from lying to the FBI, but given the way this investigation has been forced to limit its scope, he probably won't have to.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 1, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It's all past the statute of limitations AFAIK.  The guy went to a high school that had a full nine-hole golf course on it.  I think he'll survive.




He'll survive. Is _that_ your litmus test on the permissibility of destroying someone's personal and professional reputation for life with perversion smears that have no evidence to back them up other than the accusation itself, so long as it's good for your side? That would make you a small, low, evil person if so.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 1, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> He'll survive. Is _that_ your litmus test on the permissibility of destroying someone's personal and professional reputation for life with perversion smears that have no evidence to back them up other than the accusation itself, so long as it's good for your side? That would make you a small, low, evil person if so.


He destroyed his own reputation by failing to categorically deny any of the accusations.  Instead he cried, screamed, and dodged questions.  He might've convinced more people he was guilty, but I don't think anybody was convinced of his innocence through that performance.  If he had stayed calm and answered questions directly and without hesitation, we'd be having an entirely different discussion.  I doubt any member of the GOP would've felt the need for an FBI investigation to follow up at that point.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 1, 2018)

Xzi said:


> He destroyed his own reputation by failing to categorically deny any of the accusations.  Instead he cried, screamed, and dodged questions.  He might've convinced more people he was guilty, but I don't think anybody was convinced of his innocence through that performance.  If he had stayed calm and answered questions directly and without hesitation, we'd be having an entirely different discussion.  I doubt any member of the GOP would've felt the need for an FBI investigation to follow up at that point.



You're living on a different planet or something. There isn't a thing I agree with in what you just wrote. Live long and prosper.


----------



## WeedZ (Oct 1, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> He'll survive. Is _that_ your litmus test on the permissibility of destroying someone's personal and professional reputation for life with perversion smears that have no evidence to back them up other than the accusation itself, so long as it's good for your side? That would make you a small, low, evil person if so.


"No evidence" isnt that what an investigation is for?

And what happens if hes found guilty. No jail, no fines, still rich, still has career, does not get the job he wants. Who cares?

And I just read that trump is 'calling for an investigation' into kavanaugh being traumatized. This government is run by a bunch of fucking clowns.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 1, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> You're living on a different planet or something. There isn't a thing I agree with in what you just wrote. Live long and prosper.


It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not, that's the reality.  Gorsuch is on the supreme court right now because he acted like an adult throughout the confirmation process.

And though I shouldn't have to remind you since I said it only a couple posts ago, Kavanaugh's reputation would've stayed intact with a quiet FBI investigation initiated after the accusations surfaced.  Instead Republicans chose a public hearing and only called two witnesses, literally turning it into a "she said he said" despite their supposed objections to that format.

Lastly, Trump attempting to micromanage the investigation into these matters doesn't do Kavanaugh any favors in terms of presumed innocence.  You don't interfere with investigations unless you have something to hide.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 1, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Kavanaugh's reputation would've stayed intact with a quiet FBI investigation initiated after the accusations surfaced.



Wrong. Democrats or Ford's lawyers leaked the story to the press, who ran with it publicly, before Senate Republicans were ever informed. The only real opportunity for a discrete investigation into Ford's accusation was if Feinstein had brought it confidentially to the Committee's attention when she received it in July. Instead, she sat on it to use it as a weapon of last resort, waiting even until the confirmation hearings were actually over. Last I read, they STILL have not even provided the Republican members of the committee with an unredacted copy of Ford's letter to Feinstein, nor other relevant discovery. There's no point in 'investigating for truth' when the side asking for it is obstructing it at the same time.





> Lastly, Trump attempting to micromanage the investigation into these matters doesn't do Kavanaugh any favors in terms of presumed innocence.  You don't interfere with investigations unless you have something to hide.



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/politics/fbi-kavanaugh-investigation-scope-democrats.html


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 1, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not, that's the reality.


Whose reality?
You're speaking with emotions and not facts. 
You're giving monologues not engaging into dialogue.
Is that thing you call reality some kind of perception bending official narrative. 
Does controlling language give you the power to decide and enforce some "reality"?

And that said, which is this authority that decided what the official "reality" narrative is?


----------



## Xzi (Oct 1, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Wrong. Democrats or Ford's lawyers leaked the story to the press, who ran with it, before Senate Republicans were ever informed.


Speculative.  We don't know who leaked it to the press, even Chuck Grassley's office had the information at the time of the leak.



Hanafuda said:


>


Yeah, let's take something Trump says at face value even though earlier parts of the article contradict this.



			
				NYTimes said:
			
		

> Instead, the F.B.I. was directed by the White House and Senate Republicans to interview just four people: Mark Judge and P.J. Smyth, high school friends of Judge Kavanaugh’s; Leland Keyser, a high school friend of one of Judge Kavanaugh’s accusers, Christine Blasey Ford; and Deborah Ramirez, another of the judge’s accusers.


If they're only allowed to interview four people, that's not "whoever they deem appropriate," and it's not at their discretion.  There are several more sources stating that the investigation is being limited by the white house beyond a reasonable degree.



sarkwalvein said:


> Whose reality?


The reality we all live in.  The one where SCOTUS justices are expected to be calm, rational, and non-partisan.  These are not new expectations.  Enough playing Calvinball with ethical and political rules.

Late edit, but here's Kavanaugh himself agreeing with me from 2015.  He's referring to being a judge at any level, too, not only the supreme court:

'Kavanaugh in 2015: A Judge Must Keep “Emotions in Check” and Not Be a “Political Partisan”'

https://www.motherjones.com/politic...ons-in-check-and-not-be-a-political-partisan/


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 1, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> Even though American society still haven't reached the point of going mob-style to lynch people based on their "jury of the peoples", it's steps away from it (and the world follows). I don't see the day people go literally witch hunting and burning on the stake too far. And anyway, isn't this social assassination we see right now just a modern way of witch hunting and burning on the stake. The reference made by the OP is spot on.
> 
> It is a pity, but as I wrote earlier, the world is fucked up between disguised dogmatic totalitarianism and populist nationalistic fanaticism. No place for dialogue. That's what we are living on. The "breach" is producing more extremists on both sides, and those extremists drive people that were rational into extremism after feeling pushed by them (this sadly I believe is happening to the OP, he is being driven to an opposing extreme by extremists... though I hope I am wrong, but many other people here on this thread are extremists already, even though they seem to think they are "on the side of justice" or something, they don't stop rewriting and bending reality, pretty much 1984 style, doublethinking much?).
> 
> ...





sarkwalvein said:


> Even though American society still haven't reached the point of going mob-style to lynch people based on their "jury of the peoples", it's steps away from it (and the world follows). I don't see the day people go literally witch hunting and burning on the stake too far. And anyway, isn't this social assassination we see right now just a modern way of witch hunting and burning on the stake. The reference made by the OP is spot on.
> 
> It is a pity, but as I wrote earlier, the world is fucked up between disguised dogmatic totalitarianism and populist nationalistic fanaticism. No place for dialogue. That's what we are living on. The "rift" is producing more extremists on both sides, and those extremists drive people that were rational into extremism after feeling pushed by them (this sadly I believe is happening to the OP, he is being driven to an opposing extreme by extremists... though I hope I am wrong, but many other people here on this thread are extremists already, even though they seem to think they are "on the side of justice" or something, they don't stop rewriting and bending reality, pretty much 1984 style, doublethinking much?).
> 
> ...


Just quoting myself here because what is going on right now is exactly what I was taking about. This degree of fanaticism.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 1, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> Just quoting myself here because what is going on right now is exactly what I was taking about. This degree of fanaticism.


Holy shit man, how is suggesting they nominate a different person for the position in any way being fanatical?  It's literally the most rational thing Trump could do right now, and it's what any other president would do in this situation.  I don't want some anti-abortion, pro-presidential immunity nutjob on the supreme court, but that doesn't mean they can't get one through easily if they just pick a guy who can act normal for a few hours during confirmation hearings.

I get the feeling you didn't watch the hearing or pay attention to the public's reaction at large.  Here's a great recap for anyone in that position:



Coverage of Kavanaugh starts at about 2:00, though the bit about 'Gritty' the hockey mascot at the beginning is pretty funny too.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> but that doesn't mean they can't get one through easily if they just pick a guy who can act normal for a few hours during confirmation hearings.



Dude, I can appreciate your other arguments. But this "he's so whiny and snowflakish" thing is absurd. His professional and personal life is crumbling around him. Imagine waking up one morning. You've worked hard for this moment and are about to become a Supreme Court judge. And then you receive a phone call.

Apparently his personal relationships are suffering, etc. Listen man, you really don't get to judge him in that manner until you've actually gone through what the guy is going through.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 3, 2018)

Seems there might be a few issues for Dr. Ford to resolve about her testimony. The double-door renovation project on her house took place in 2008, not 2012 as she testified, and was done to allow a marriage counselor who had previously resided in the home to continue keeping her practice there. Later, it provided a separate apartment space for those Google interns. But the construction was done years before she allegedly told her husband they needed two front doors because Kavanaugh's a home-invading rape ninja.

Also, there's this tonight -- a longtime boyfriend of Ford's has provided Senate Judiciary a sworn statement that he witnessed Ford once coaching someone on how to take a polygraph (she explicitly denied ever doing so during her testimony), that she has no fear of flying whatsoever, never mentioned a traumatic event in high school, never mentioned the name Brett Kavanaugh, and ran up charges on his credit card after he had already broken up with her because she fucked around on him lol.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/02...e-judiciary-witnessed-coach-friend-polygraphs

The name is redacted here, but Senate Judiciary knows his identity.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Seems there might be a few issues for Dr. Ford to resolve about her testimony. The double-door renovation project on her house took place in 2008, not 2012 as she testified, and was done to allow a marriage counselor who had previously resided in the home to continue keeping her practice there. Later, it provided a separate apartment space for those Google interns. But the construction was done years before she allegedly told her husband they needed two front doors because Kavanaugh's a home-invading rape ninja.
> 
> Also, there's this tonight -- a longtime boyfriend of Ford's has provided Senate Judiciary a sworn statement that he witnessed Ford once coaching someone on how to take a polygraph (she explicitly denied ever doing so during her testimony), that she has no fear of flying whatsoever, never mentioned a traumatic event in high school, never mentioned the name Brett Kavanaugh, and ran up charges on his credit card after he had already broken up with him because she fucked around on him lol.
> 
> ...



Honestly, if you really want to use the 'oh but da buddy language!!' Excuse, then all indications lead to ford being the liar. My brothers a psychologist, and he says that all of the classical signs of a liar is on fords side. Ntm, but all of the people involved, even the best friend, claim that ford is really confused. Not throwing accusations or anything. Just sayin.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 3, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Seems there might be a few issues for Dr. Ford to resolve about her testimony. The double-door renovation project on her house took place in 2008, not 2012 as she testified, and was done to allow a marriage counselor who had previously resided in the home to continue keeping her practice there. Later, it provided a separate apartment space for those Google interns. But the construction was done years before she allegedly told her husband they needed two front doors because Kavanaugh's a home-invading rape ninja.
> 
> Also, there's this tonight -- a longtime boyfriend of Ford's has provided Senate Judiciary a sworn statement that he witnessed Ford once coaching someone on how to take a polygraph (she explicitly denied ever doing so during her testimony), that she has no fear of flying whatsoever, never mentioned a traumatic event in high school, never mentioned the name Brett Kavanaugh, and ran up charges on his credit card after he had already broken up with her because she fucked around on him lol.
> 
> ...



20 years is a long time, and I'm not sure why we should trust his memory more than hers. There could be many numerous reasons she didn't tell him about what happened or gave more details. And phobias can develop overtime when things are left unresolved. Someone more skilled can explain how his testimony doesn't impact hers much, but it doesn't overly change my opinion of the situation.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 3, 2018)

osaka35 said:


> 20 years is a long time, and I'm not sure why we should trust his memory more than hers. There could be many numerous reasons she didn't tell him about what happened or gave more details. And phobias can develop overtime when things are left unresolved. Someone more skilled can explain how his testimony doesn't impact hers much, but it doesn't overly change my opinion of the situation.



He witnessed her coaching someone on how to take a polygraph, and even remembers the name of the person she coached. From Ford's testimony in front of the Committee:



> “Have you ever had discussions with anyone, beside your attorneys, on how to take a polygraph?” Mitchell asked.
> 
> “Never,” Ford responded.
> 
> ...






TerribleTy27 said:


> Honestly, if you really want to use the 'oh but da buddy language!!' Excuse, then all indications lead to ford being the liar. My brothers a psychologist, and he says that all of the classical signs of a liar is on fords side. Ntm, but all of the people involved, even the best friend, claim that ford is really confused. Not throwing accusations or anything. Just sayin.



Yeah I know the purported body-language experts have been putting their opinions out there, but tbh I've been ignoring those. I don't care which side they claim is more truthful, I just don't feel like I'm gonna trust that 'science' to a degree that I'm going to let it inform me on whether someone is truthful or not.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 3, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> He witnessed her coaching someone on how to take a polygraph, and even remembers the name of the person she coached. From Ford's testimony in front of the Committee:


"coaching" would indicate she helped her how to beat the system. His words would indicate she let someone know what a polygraph was, what it does, and to not be nervous. My guess is she was thinking "no, I didn't tell someone how to cheat the polygraph test" and he was thinking "she totally talked to someone about what a polygraph was and what to expect". "how to take one" feels like they're asking if she told someone how to cheat, ya know? which he verified she didn't X'D.  

kind of like...if you have to pee in a cup for a drug test. if someone explained to me the process and how it worked, that's not the same as someone telling me how to get around my pee being tested.

Possibly not, but that's how it reads to me.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 3, 2018)

osaka35 said:


> "coaching" would indicate she helped her how to beat the system. His words would indicate she let someone know what a polygraph was, what it does, and to not be nervous. My guess is she was thinking "no, I didn't tell someone how to cheat the polygraph test" and he was thinking "she totally talked to someone about what a polygraph was and what to expect". "how to take one" feels like they're asking if she told someone how to cheat, ya know? which he verified she didn't X'D.
> 
> kind of like...if you have to pee in a cup for a drug test. if someone explained to me the process and how it worked, that's not the same as someone telling me how to get around my pee being tested.
> 
> Possibly not, but that's how it reads to me.




She wasn't just asked about coaching. Read the quoted text above from her testimony. She was asked about giving basic advice, tips too.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 3, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> She wasn't just asked about coaching. Read the quoted text above from her testimony. She was asked about giving basic advice, tips too.


I read. I figured she could have taken that to mean tips on how to cheat the thing. tips in a "wink, wink" kind of way rather than "did you explain what one was and what it did". First thing about hearings like this is they tend to look for an out when it comes to accusers, even if they have to create the out from nothing. I don't like how they asked the question if they just wanted to know the innocent question.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 3, 2018)

osaka35 said:


> I read. *I figured she could have taken that to mean tips on how to cheat the thing.* tips in a "wink, wink" kind of way rather than "did you explain what one was and what it did". First thing about hearings like this is they tend to look for an out when it comes to accusers, even if they have to create the out from nothing. I don't like how they asked the question if they just wanted to know the innocent question.



Nope, that would be 'countermeasures' against the instrument, which Mitchell specifically excluded from that question re: "any sort of tips."


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 3, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Nope, that would be 'countermeasures' against the instrument, which Mitchell specifically excluded from that question re: "any sort of tips."


I'm still suspicious of the wording. I'm also not sure why it matters X'D that's not the kind of detail most people would be expected to remember anyway.


----------



## urherenow (Oct 3, 2018)

Can't be bothered to read all the replies but I'll put in my 2 cents and walk away.

"Accusers" should be heard and the allegations investigated. Period. INVESTIGATED.

But what the hell do you mean by "Believe the accusers"? If you are saying that they are automatically telling the truth, then you are a complete IDIOT. From the founding of the country, it has ALWAYS been INNOCENT until proven guilty. There is ZERO proof in this dumb Kavanaugh case (dumb because it revolves around an accusation of an underage teenager, who isn't even being accused of rape. Doubly stupid because her "witnesses" don't even collaborate her story.).

You think accusers should be believed without question? Tell that to these people: https://www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/


----------



## WeedZ (Oct 3, 2018)

urherenow said:


> Can't be bothered to read all the replies but I'll put in my 2 cents and walk away.
> 
> "Accusers" should be heard and the allegations investigated. Period. INVESTIGATED.
> 
> ...


You should read to at least the second paragraph of the op


----------



## urherenow (Oct 3, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> You should read to at least the second paragraph of the op


Oh... good. All the stuff I've been hearing and reading on social media... the title nearly gave me an aneurysm and that's as far as I got


----------



## Dissaor (Oct 3, 2018)

I don't belive anything or anyone without proof, sorry, also all this, lets call it "accusation movement", is putting in great danger one of the pillars of criminal law, the presumption of innocence, they wanna turn it the other way around.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Dude, I can appreciate your other arguments. But this "he's so whiny and snowflakish" thing is absurd. His professional and personal life is crumbling around him. Imagine waking up one morning. You've worked hard for this moment and are about to become a Supreme Court judge. And then you receive a phone call.
> 
> Apparently his personal relationships are suffering, etc. Listen man, you really don't get to judge him in that manner until you've actually gone through what the guy is going through.


Ford has received numerous death threats and has already been forced to move twice.  Yet she didn't lose her shit and avoid answering questions like Kavanaugh did.  If you want to be a supreme court justice, you have to act like one.  The only reason this seems "unfair" to Kavanaugh is because he's had every advantage in life up to this point.

Hundreds of law professors agree that Kavanaugh's temperament is not fit for the supreme court:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...supreme-court-nomination-law-professor-letter

And, as I posted earlier, even Kavanaugh from 2015 agrees that judges must keep their emotions in check and remain non-partisan:

https://www.motherjones.com/politic...ons-in-check-and-not-be-a-political-partisan/

Not that I expect blatant hypocrisy to slow down the GOP in the least.

As a last note: it's one thing to get emotional over potentially damaging accusations, but that's not what Kavanaugh was getting emotional about.  He was crying and yelling over memories about calendars, weight lifting, and beer.  There's nothing that uniquely qualifies this guy to be on the supreme court, but plenty of what we've seen should be disqualifying.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Ford has received numerous death threats and has already been forced to move twice.  Yet she didn't lose her shit and avoid answering questions like Kavanaugh did.  If you want to be a supreme court justice, you have to act like one.  The only reason this seems "unfair" to Kavanaugh is because he's had every advantage in life up to this point.
> 
> Hundreds of law professors agree that Kavanaugh's temperament is not fit for the supreme court:
> 
> ...



Mate, he's been accused of _rape_. Ford was calm? Good for her. But again, I really feel this isn't a good way to see whether or not he's fit for the job.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Mate, he's been accused of _rape_. Ford was calm? Good for her. But again, I really feel this isn't a good way to see whether or not he's fit for the job.


Senate hearings are the same way they've measured every other justice's fitness for the job.  Why would we make up new rules specifically to benefit Kavanaugh?  And why do you care so much about him personally?  He's one of a million judges with the same type of conservative opinions.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 3, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Honestly, if you really want to use the 'oh but da buddy language!!' Excuse, then all indications lead to ford being the liar. My brothers a psychologist, and he says that all of the classical signs of a liar is on fords side. Ntm, but all of the people involved, even the best friend, claim that ford is really confused. Not throwing accusations or anything. Just sayin.



You are though as are most of the people in this thread. You can't just say your brother, who we have no way of knowing isn't just a mouthpiece for you, says these things and then deny any involvement in repeating them. This does bring up a great point though.

The narrative that is being made up by both sides is one of victim hood. Both sides have defenders who seem not to understand that they are doing the same thing they are calling the other side out for doing. At least, I hope they are unaware and they the political hypocrisy that is so common nowadays is unintentional.

Mr. Kavanaugh has worked in our political system for ages as an operative and as a judge. This means he has taken part in tearing down many many people, both politically and judicially. To behave in crisis as he did during his testimony would result in being held in contempt of court almost instantly and he, of all people, should know that. Emotion has no place in a member of the judicial, and Judges shouldn't be reacting in an emotional way. It seems that only counts on issues they define as emotional as opposed to being a steady guideline.

His life is no more ruined than hers. He gets no more threats then she does. It's ridiculous to pretend that this is somehow harder on him, when our nation is split and both sides are acting like immature children about it. They are both being attacked by the two different sides of the media, having everything about their personal lives splattered everywhere.

The truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes and I would love to find it. We may never get to that point as both sides tend to political hysteria nowadays. Take Mr Grahams performance on the Judiciary Committee. It was shamefully partisan and full of unproven accusations.

Indeed, it would seem to me that anyone who seriously wants to stop the accusation nature would look elsewhere than our two party system where this is prevalent on both sides. I have seen Republicans celebrate endlessly about the fall of Democrats and vice versa. Both sides have behaved shamefully.

And there are, I'm sure, good people on both sides as well.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> The truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes and I would love to find it. We may never get to that point as both sides tend to political hysteria nowadays. Take Mr Grahams performance on the Judiciary Committee. It was shamefully partisan and full of unproven accusations.


Oh the FBI will get to the truth.  The report isn't going to be released to the public unless one of the senators leaks it, however.  There are still reports of certain people close to Kavanaugh in his younger years being turned away for their testimony, so I think the white house is still micromanaging to some degree even though they supposedly loosened the previous restrictions.  I also think a week is too short to get to _all_ the facts one would want in a case like this, but maybe the FBI will surprise me.  Either way I think we'll eventually get _enough_ of the facts to make a judgment, even if that comes after Republicans have already shoved Kavanaugh through.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 3, 2018)

urherenow said:


> Can't be bothered to read all the replies but I'll put in my 2 cents and walk away.
> 
> "Accusers" should be heard and the allegations investigated. Period. INVESTIGATED.
> 
> ...



I find it funny that you used DNA to exonerate people when it is considered very unreliable in most cases. Here's just one article about it: https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/480747/

There are many more out there. 



Xzi said:


> Oh the FBI will get to the truth.  The report isn't going to be released to the public unless one of the senators leaks it, however.  There are still reports of certain people close to Kavanaugh in his younger years being turned away for their testimony, so I think the white house is still micromanaging to some degree even though they supposedly loosened the previous restrictions.  I also think a week is too short to get to _all_ the facts one would want in a case like this, but maybe the FBI will surprise me.  Either way I think we'll eventually get _enough_ of the facts to make a judgment, even if that comes after Republicans have already shoved Kavanaugh through.




Yes and no. The FBI has been turned into a political casualty by the current administration in an attempt to insolate them from any actual investigation. This also benefits Mr. Kavanaugh as a large portion of his supporters are already predisposed to ignore the law enforcement they love so much. It's the height of double standard. With that and the "fake news" society that we now live in, anything that disagrees with you isn't real.

I do find it ironic that the conservatives in the US were the first to complain about safe spaces and now want to actually government mandate them. They want to control language, data, and the very way we think and I can't help but feel that is incredibly dangerous. I would feel that way no matter what political party was in charge, and in the past have felt that way about some of the actions taken by previous administrations.

In something as benign as California enacting its own neutrality laws, the current Administration has attacked them with unfair and unproven accusations about them wanting to harm business. Gay marriage faced unfair accusations that it would cause the end of the world. 

Some victims of sexual assault are unfairly accused of asking for it. Some men are unfairly accused of sexual assault. It's a cycle and not nearly as simple as some people like to make it out.

A moment of honesty seems necessary however. Both parties will allow these people to run rampant if it improved their fortunes and they will gladly make a mockery of our government and country to do so. Republicans and Democrats are, and always have been, two sides of the same coin. This is a show for the midterms and make no mistake, if the Judges or his accuser lives are ruined by this, it comes by the hands of both parties for political ascendancy.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Oct 3, 2018)

i have a better question: why is he allowed to be on your supreme court if he perjured himself
loads of the shit in his yearbook has been sourced as being not what he said, like that devil's triangle thing
he was under oath and he lied, isn't that a strike one, you're out kinda deal when you're _making them part of your most powerful legal body_

even in the case of the ford woman we have people coming out of the woodwork saying that it was "... consistent with stories we heard and lived..."
she was talking about it it 2012, much earlier than kavanaugh was even conceptually a supreme court nominee
she's even done a fuckin' polygraph
but it's not like it matters even if she _is_ telling the truth, because a majority of republicans say he should be confirmed even if he did it
this moral grandstanding is pointless, the constituents of the guys who want him in don't care if he's guilty

if there's a saving grace for you, this is just another footnote in a long four years of shit the rest of the world is laughing at you for, it probably won't register in the long run against everything else


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> Some victims of sexual assault are unfairly accused of asking for it. Some men are unfairly accused of sexual assault. It's a cycle and not nearly as simple as some people like to make it out.


True, but as has been pointed out in this thread, the frequency of false accusations is about 2-8%.



kingfrost said:


> Republicans and Democrats are, and always have been, two sides of the same coin.


This talking point gives Republicans power.  Obama's presidency and his nominees were nowhere near this level of shitshow.







Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States , https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...nd-Convictions-A-Warning-for-Trump-Appointees


----------



## kuwanger (Oct 3, 2018)

Sadly haven't read through all the posts, but is it not enough that Kavanaugh lied about the legal age to drink where he lived and hence was drinking underage?  Or that when asked questions about his drinking, he repeatedly was combative going as far as when asked if he'd ever been black out drunk or had any partial memory loss released to drink saying back rather snappishly, "No, have you?"

Really, everything about that exchange just makes me think that Kavanaugh is an alcoholic in extreme denial about both his past and possible his current drinking habits.  The fact that he admits to in high school drinking, being valedictorian, and on the varsity team makes it clear to me he was and probably still is very good at covering up his drinking habits.  Regardless of whether what he stated is outright perjury, there is something deeply disturbing in his behavior.



TerribleTy27 said:


> But this "he's so whiny and snowflakish" thing is absurd. His professional and personal life is crumbling around him. Imagine waking up one morning. You've worked hard for this moment and are about to become a Supreme Court judge. And then you receive a phone call.
> 
> Apparently his personal relationships are suffering, etc. Listen man, you really don't get to judge him in that manner until you've actually gone through what the guy is going through.



Literally every statement he made to the press could be a lie and there's absolutely zero legal or other jeopardy in what he says.  For someone who worked so hard to become a Supreme Court judge to think be unable to hold it together at his confirmation hearing?  I can somewhat get it.  I'd even understand it if it was about all the accusations made against him.  But, he snapped at people merely asking legitimate (but probing) questions about his drinking habits.  He was vague about how much he drank.  He lied about the legality of his drinking.

If this is where all the effort in his life was leading to, he honestly failed pretty horribly:  not in being emotional but being clearly unstable and lying about the wrong things.

PS - It's quite possible he wasn't lying but just didn't know the drinking age changed.  It's hard to believe, though, given he drank in college as well.  In '83 while 18 he went to Yale, the drinking age was 20.  And in '85 when he was 20, the drinking age was raised to 21 (though he would have been grandfathered in).  This push by MADD to enforce a national drinking age of 21 was heavily reported at the time, along with the many States who had lower drinking ages who were reluctant to change their laws.

PPS - And as far as I know, the major reason for the push back against MADD was the "if we can be called on to fight, why can't we drink" of the Vietnam War era.  That and the usual Federal government bullying States to act in a certain way using Federal funds.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2018)

Darth Meteos said:


> i have a better question: why is he allowed to be on your supreme court if he perjured himself





kuwanger said:


> Sadly haven't read through all the posts, but is it not enough that Kavanaugh lied about the legal age to drink where he lived and hence was drinking underage? Or that when asked questions about his drinking, he repeatedly was combative going as far as when asked if he'd ever been black out drunk or had any partial memory loss released to drink saying back rather snappishly, "No, have you?"


The only reasonable explanation I can come up with for why Republicans want to push Kavanaugh's confirmation through right _now_ is that they believe Mueller is going to drop the big hammer on Donnie soon, and odds are a lot of them are implicated.  They need his vote against presidential indictments to keep the first domino from falling and protect themselves.  After all, even if Democrats win the senate or congress in the mid-terms, Republicans still have until January or February to get another justice confirmed.  So there really shouldn't be any rush to get Kavanaugh in particular through.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 3, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Seems there might be a few issues for Dr. Ford to resolve about her testimony. The double-door renovation project on her house took place in 2008, not 2012 as she testified, and was done to allow a marriage counselor who had previously resided in the home to continue keeping her practice there. Later, it provided a separate apartment space for those Google interns. But the construction was done years before she allegedly told her husband they needed two front doors because Kavanaugh's a home-invading rape ninja.
> 
> Also, there's this tonight -- a longtime boyfriend of Ford's has provided Senate Judiciary a sworn statement that he witnessed Ford once coaching someone on how to take a polygraph (she explicitly denied ever doing so during her testimony), that she has no fear of flying whatsoever, never mentioned a traumatic event in high school, never mentioned the name Brett Kavanaugh, and ran up charges on his credit card after he had already broken up with her because she fucked around on him lol.
> 
> ...



So just to clarify, it's not ok to believe Kavanaugh's roommate because they didn't like each other but completely OK to believe a woman's ex boyfriend because? If anything, that letter proves what I've been saying which is that either side will sacrifice credibility for political expediency. 

You know how who the good Judge nearly quoted in the Judiciary hearing? Hilary Clinton. No joke, his entire opening was just like her "there is massive right conspiracy to hurt my husband" impeachment testimony. Guess what? Bill Clinton sexually assaulted someone, even many woman. 

Do you know why Monica Lewinsky was brought forward to testify? Political expediency. She was advised to save a dress with semen on it as proof but political allies of the right. I'm sure this will be misrepresented as some sort of conspiracy for the Clinton's to have revenge on him or some nonsense like that, but many people didn't believe Clinton was capable of that and still don't. 

The Democrats questioned the validity of the women's claims too. Any good Republican should have this story memorized because it's a great talking point in any conversation about sexual assault that allows them, in their mind, to discount the other side. 

What I'm saying is, the Republicans went all out and it turned out that Bill Clinton had actually possibly sexually assaulted someone. The Republicans did this with no thought toward his daughter or the effect it would have on government. 

As such, seeing them make the same claims the Democrats made then, and seeing the same ridiculous defense being used just shows that nothing has changed since then. 

They even questioned if Bill Clinton was hid daughters father and accused Hilary of killing her real father Vince Foster. Of course, no one believes that now right? 



kuwanger said:


> Sadly haven't read through all the posts, but is it not enough that Kavanaugh lied about the legal age to drink where he lived and hence was drinking underage?  Or that when asked questions about his drinking, he repeatedly was combative going as far as when asked if he'd ever been black out drunk or had any partial memory loss released to drink saying back rather snappishly, "No, have you?"
> 
> Really, everything about that exchange just makes me think that Kavanaugh is an alcoholic in extreme denial about both his past and possible his current drinking habits.  The fact that he admits to in high school drinking, being valedictorian, and on the varsity team makes it clear to me he was and probably still is very good at covering up his drinking habits.  Regardless of whether what he stated is outright perjury, there is something deeply disturbing in his behavior.
> 
> ...



It's quite simple. His side, like the Democrats with Bill Clinton as I mentioned early, do not care if he did it or not. They care that he is conservative and most of all that he is extremely prolife, to the point of calling birth control a form of abortion.

Republicans would be quick to say to the truth doesn't matter in our government anymore, Democrats would say that they are trying to find the truth, and I would say the truth has never mattered in American politics. Only the spin. 

False accusations are part and parcel of our government. False accusation were made about WMDs so we went to war. False accusations about Marijuana keeps it from the hands of people it could help medicinally. It's hilarious that most of my county is only upset about false accusations when it benefits or hurts "their guy".


----------



## Tigran (Oct 3, 2018)

Darth Meteos said:


> i have a better question: why is he allowed to be on your supreme court if he perjured himself
> loads of the shit in his yearbook has been sourced as being not what he said, like that devil's triangle thing
> he was under oath and he lied, isn't that a strike one, you're out kinda deal when you're _making them part of your most powerful legal body_
> 
> ...



Because to most people.. The GOP and Republicans are "Good christians!" Which to most of the brainwashed in the country literally means that they are above reproach and can't do any wrong.. Because a "Good Christian!" would never do anything wrong.. And if "Good Christians!" arn't in power... that means that Gays, Blacks, Mexicans,.... AND ATHETISTS! will all come out of the wood work and break down the "Moral fibers!" of america with stuff like that.


These are the people who have an add on youtube saying the left want a government that "Controls everything, even individuality." Even though it's literally the GOP and Republican's that are making laws on which bathroom a trans-gendered person can use, supposedly as way to avoid sexual assult........ x.x;

Most of these people have been taught for -years- by the GOP to "FEAR! FEAR FEAR!" And "Don't ask questions... Ever!" so now that things are this bad, the GOP and most republican voters are digging their heals in even further because they have no idea what else to do.


----------



## kuwanger (Oct 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The only reasonable explanation I can come up with for why Republicans want to push Kavanaugh's confirmation through right _now_ is ...



I disagree.  I think the Republicans are well aware that if they lose a lot of seats, then any SCJ they push through will look illegitimate which by extension means they are a prime target for being replaced in the following election.  The second part is that given it took from July to now to get this far with Kavanaugh, they're likely afraid that Democrats could effectively stall any other nomination until they possibly are in power--there's no guarantee of it, but power swapping has happened a lot lately.  The third part is, they really just don't care. A lot of Republicans have walked in strong lockstep with an "ends justify the means"* approach for such a long time, I think their only real concern is achieving the goal of getting a conservative judge on the SC.  Anyone who is sufficiently vetted in that regard is good enough for them.

* Look no further than their whole "repeal Obamacare".  I'm still waiting for them to "repeal [and replace] (nifty add-on)", given they had 7+ years to come up with something better.

Edit:


kingfrost said:


> It's hilarious that most of my county is only upset about false accusations when it benefits or hurts "their guy".



It's funny you bring that up because I was going to note, everything about this is just like the whole impeachment of Clinton:  to lie about an extraneous thing of a personal matter that may or may not effect the job as a means of saving oneself embarrassment and a possible opening of further political attack.


----------



## Tigran (Oct 3, 2018)

Here is a funny thing though.. A Supreme Court Justice -can- be impeached.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> I disagree. I think the Republicans are well aware that if they lose a lot of seats, then any SCJ they push through will look illegitimate which by extension means they are a prime target for being replaced in the following election.


I agree with most of what you said, but I still think they're willing to lose mid-terms to get the 5-4 vote on the bench for a lifetime.  It takes 2/3rds of the senate to impeach a SCOTUS judge and I don't see that many Republicans going along with it basically ever, even if it's confirmed that Kavanaugh is a rapist.


----------



## Tigran (Oct 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I agree with most of what you said, but I still think they're willing to lose mid-terms to get the 5-4 vote on the bench for a lifetime.  It takes 2/3rds of the senate to impeach a SCOTUS judge and I don't see that many Republicans going along with it basically ever, even if it's confirmed that Kavanaugh is a rapist.



Then we just need someone angry enough to Snipe Kavanaugh.. Problem solved.


----------



## kuwanger (Oct 3, 2018)

Tigran said:


> Here is a funny thing though.. A Supreme Court Justice -can- be impeached.



Ah yes, Samuel Chase.  "He was impeached on grounds of letting his partisan leanings affect his court decisions, but was acquitted by the Senate and remained in office." and "In 1762, Chase was expelled from the Forensic Club, an Annapolis debating society, for "extremely irregular and indecent" behavior."  Oh, and "Born April 17, 1741 Somerset County, Maryland, British America".  You go, Maryland.

PS -- "Funny" in context now stuff in relationship to Kavanaugh's drinking:  '"The narrative shows how pathetic Clinton is," Kavanaugh argued, "that he needs therapy, not removal. It's a sad story. Our job is not to get Clinton out. It is just to give information."'


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2018)

Tigran said:


> Then we just need someone angry enough to Snipe Kavanaugh.. Problem solved.


I wouldn't advocate for violence, but at that point we'd need some massive amounts of civil disobedience to make government remember who they work for.


----------



## Tigran (Oct 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I wouldn't advocate for violence, but at that point we'd need some massive amounts of civil disobedience to make government remember who they work for.



Who's talking violence? I was talking about on ebay... The man would then probably break down and cry in his home for several weeks and not make it to his confirmation.


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 3, 2018)

Darth Meteos said:


> i have a better question: why is he allowed to be on your supreme court if he perjured himself
> loads of the shit in his yearbook has been sourced as being not what he said, like that devil's triangle thing
> he was under oath and he lied, isn't that a strike one, you're out kinda deal when you're _making them part of your most powerful legal body_
> 
> ...


It's because they cannot prove it, a bunch of 60-80 year olds trying to use "urban dictionary" as a source isn't valid.

Also polygraphs arn't admissible as any type of evidence because they can be easily tricked, especially since it was revealed she took it on the day of her grandmother's funeral in a hotel in Balitmore. You know because stress levels mean nothing when taking one...

The general problem is she had zero evidence to show, not that I was expecting much evidence for a 35 year old attempted rape allegation. The 3 people who she named will not corroborate her story, she cannot remember anything other than kavanaugh trying to rape her. You just create a fallacy, you can't prove it happened but at the same time you can't prove it didn't happen.


----------



## kuwanger (Oct 3, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> It's because they cannot prove it,



Which goes to show, people in the US are perfectly okay with being a lying illegally alcoholic 18 year old but have serious issues with a lying 18 year old engaging in legal, but "morally reprehensible", sex games.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Oct 3, 2018)

maybe there should be an "opt-in" option for people to prove how much they really want a "guilty until proven innocent" system, anyone who thinks that kind of system wouldn't lead to complete chaos is an idiot, "oh my ex boyfriend didn't give me the cat we both owned together.....RAPEEE!!!!", "oh that girl in starbucks wouldn't give me her number......RAPPPPEEEEE!"

it would be absolute chaos with the law being used as a tool to harass and bully others into bending to your will and all you would need to do to get someone sent to prison is to get yourself alone in a room with someone for 5 minutes


----------



## Tigran (Oct 3, 2018)

gamesquest1 said:


> maybe there should be an "opt-in" option for people to prove how much they really want a "guilty until proven innocent"



That's what our system already is,  otherwise why do we have jails full of people who haven't been to trial yet?


----------



## gamesquest1 (Oct 3, 2018)

Tigran said:


> That's what our system already is,  otherwise why do we have jails full of people who haven't been to trial yet?


you can be held if there is sufficient cause to believe you have done something or the crime is so serious you would be deemed a risk to others to be out while they investigate, but your not going to be sentenced and have a criminal record if there isn't enough evidence to even suggest you committed the crime, and generally you only get held upto about 48 hours or so unless there is substantial evidence to the point you can be charged

but ofc that's from a uk perspective, I don't think there would be too much of a difference in how things are handled in the US, although I could be wrong I know states have different laws etc


----------



## kuwanger (Oct 3, 2018)

gamesquest1 said:


> but your not going to be sentenced and have a criminal record if there isn't enough evidence to even suggest you committed the crime ... but ofc that's from a uk perspective, I don't think there would be too much of a difference in how things are handled in the US, although I could be wrong I know states have different laws etc



'According to the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance, "The overwhelming majority (90 to 95 percent) of cases result in plea bargaining."' -- https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plea_bargain

I presume this is what's being referred to.  People suspected of a crime are told they could spend n many years in jail if convicted or can plea to n/10 years.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Oct 3, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> 'According to the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance, "The overwhelming majority (90 to 95 percent) of cases result in plea bargaining."' -- https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plea_bargain
> 
> I presume this is what's being referred to.  People suspected of a crime are told they could spend n many years in jail if convicted or can plea to n/10 years.


yeah, ok that is a pretty fucked up system imho, you shouldn't be threatened to admitting to a crime, that said if there was zero or very little substantial evidence against you your lawyer should tell you to go to trial and win, personally I feel the legal system still needs work to become more just but guilty until proven innocent is a huge leap in the wrong direction


----------



## Tigran (Oct 3, 2018)

gamesquest1 said:


> yeah, ok that is a pretty fucked up system imho, you shouldn't be threatened to admitting to a crime, that said if there was zero evidence against you your lawyer should tell you to go to trial and win, personally I feel the legal system still needs work to become more just but guilty until proven innocent is a huge leap in the wrong direction



We still have people sentanced just for being black, or sentanced to death because they are gay.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Oct 3, 2018)

Tigran said:


> We still have people sentanced just for being black, or sentanced to death because they are gay.


personally I would like a system where the judge/jury don't get to know the race/gender/sexual orientation of the accused, deal in the facts so everyone is treated equally, but ofc that throws up its own issues such as showing cctv footage of a crime taking place etc


----------



## Tigran (Oct 3, 2018)

I agree with that desire. But again, as you state it causes it's own problems.

One interesting solution, which probably has it's own problem, is Professional Jurors.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Oct 3, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> Which goes to show, people in the US are perfectly okay with being a lying illegally alcoholic 18 year old but have serious issues with a lying 18 year old engaging in legal, but "morally reprehensible", sex games.


why can't he drink at 18?

EDIT: OH FUCK YOU HAVE THE LEGAL AGE AT 21, DON'T YOU


----------



## kuwanger (Oct 3, 2018)

gamesquest1 said:


> that said if there was zero or very little substantial evidence against you your lawyer should tell you to go to trial and win



Which leads to the second problem:  public defenders in many locations are heavily overworked.  "In a lawsuit brought in Washington State, it emerged that publicly appointed defense attorneys were working less than an hour per case, with caseloads of 1,000 misdemeanors per year." -- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/17/poor-rely-public-defenders-too-overworked  So, those who have can afford a lawyer have good reason to fight evidence suspect evidence.  But if the evidence is eyewitness testimony where you were picked out of a line-up?  So, you can go broke trying to defend yourself even if you have the money.



Darth Meteos said:


> why can't he drink at 18?



"But Maryland's minimum legal drinking age for beer and wine was changed to 21 from 18 in July 1982, during the summer before Kavanaugh's senior year. It was already 21 for hard liquor. Therefore, any drinking that Kavanaugh did in the state of Maryland during high school was illegal." -- https://www.businessinsider.com/mar...tt-kavanaugh-legally-drink-high-school-2018-9

Like I was saying, MADD was pushing to raise the legal age from 18 to 21 and lobbied to passed a law in 1984 that tied Federal Highway Funding to making it 21 with progressively larger cuts to State over time for those that didn't comply.

PS - Sort of a shame that at the end of every episode of Perry Mason or Matlock, to stay true to realism, they didn't have the recently exonerated client dumping a wheelbarrow full of money on their lawyer's floor for services rendered.


----------



## PoppaDre (Oct 3, 2018)

I definitely clicked the wrong post. Damn small iPhone screen and big thumbs


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 3, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> Sadly haven't read through all the posts, but is it not enough that Kavanaugh lied about the legal age to drink where he lived and hence was drinking underage?



Kavanaugh admitted to drinking underage. Please show me from his testimony where he lied about the legal drinking age.




kingfrost said:


> So just to clarify, it's not ok to believe Kavanaugh's roommate because they didn't like each other but completely OK to believe a woman's ex boyfriend because?



Kavanaugh's roommate (Roche) didn't witness _anything_. He said he _believes_ Ramirez because that could have happened, but he didn't witness it. He has only an opinion.




> What I'm saying is, the Republicans went all out and it turned out that Bill Clinton had actually possibly sexually assaulted someone. The Republicans did this with no thought toward his daughter or the effect it would have on government.



The problem with Clinton/Lewinsky is that Clinton was serving as POTUS at the time their dalliance occurred. He wasn't a 17 year old minor when it happened. It happened in the White House. There was physical evidence and recordings to prove it. And he lied about it.

I get your point about political leanings by people on both sides prejudicing their respective bias, but there are some very significant distinctions between the facts of the Clinton/Lewinsky thing and the Kavanaugh accusations. They can't be equated, even remotely.


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 3, 2018)

"Believe accusers!"- Emmet Till


----------



## eworm (Oct 3, 2018)

I'm just gonna...
​
...leave this here...

EDIT:
Actually, those are also relevant:
​


----------



## Viri (Oct 3, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Ford once coaching someone on how to take a polygraph


Remember, if you want to fake a polygraph test, when you're about to tell a lie, bite the fuck out of the side of your cheek! Bite as hard as you can! I took a lie detector test for fun in high school, and did that, and passed, even though I lied.  Pain really messes with the test.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Oct 3, 2018)

Viri said:


> Remember, if you want to fake a polygraph test, when you're about to tell a lie, bite the fuck out of the side of your cheek! Bite as hard as you can! I took a lie detector test for fun in high school, and did that, and passed, even though I lied.  Pain really messes with the test.


that's not even covering the fact people can convince themselves of stuff, give a kid a test and ask if there is a monster under the bed, even if polygraphs were 100% accurate peoples minds are not and can fill in gaps for them and enough pressure/support to come to a specific conclusion regarding something can lead a person to believing a story

not making any assertions either way, but pointing out polygraphs are not even reliable even discounting the fact its fairly simple with a few hours coaching to defeat them, there is a reason we haven't just replaced courts and trials with polygraph tests

I would say the same thing if Kavanaugh had submitted a polygraph test result as proof he didn't do it, its as good as using mood rings to say what mood someone is in


----------



## Viri (Oct 3, 2018)

gamesquest1 said:


> I would say the same thing if Kavanaugh had submitted a polygraph test result as proof he didn't do it, its as good as using mood rings to say what mood someone is in


If he passes the test, people will just say polygraph tests are unreliable. If he fails the test, "RAPIST!"


----------



## Eastonator12 (Oct 3, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> People should be heard and things investigated, of course, but by no means shall the life of the accused be destroyed without a proof.
> The problem is that today's society is playing accuser-judge-executioner all in their hands, disregarding any kind of fair trial.
> 
> PS: And I am not talking just about Kavanaugh, but about the general trend of disregarding the importance of proof and facts and going by emotion and mob-mentality.
> ...


For instance, there is a woman(i can't remember her name, sorry) who accused Bill Clinton of sexually harassing her, rape, whatnot. The dems basically say "yeah, whatever", even though it has been PROVEN bill clinton is a rapist, during the time he was in office. So dems don't care about women, nor do they believe them. Kavanaugh's accuser is full of shit, she was "too afraid" to fly in to testify, yet she's perfectly fine going to maryland and hawaii? makes no fucking sense. And if you get raped, by all means, TELL THE FUCKING POLICE. Don't wait 40 years to tell someone. It's clear the dems plan is to stall Pres Trump from appointing another judge until after the midterms, where they hope to win.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2018)

Yep, I'm tagging out. The toxicity in this thread has gone into overdrive. It is astonishing how many times everyone in this thread managed to misquote or completely made up stuff regarding Ford and Kavanaugh. Not just the accusers, but the defenders as well. It's absurd.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 3, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Kavanaugh admitted to drinking underage. Please show me from his testimony where he lied about the legal drinking age.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He clearly states repeatedly that it was legal for him to drink at the time as the drinking age was 18. The one time I remember he masked it by saying it was almost always 18 when he lived in Maryland which is a far way from saying I drunk illegally or underaged.

His whole testimony was extremely dodgy and he routinely refused to answer questions. He clearly lied about what terms meant, unless he spoke a different language from the rest of the country. The clearest way he came across had little to do with he actual accusations. He came across as someone attempting to reinvent his personal history to fit a mold that the base desired more snuggly.

There were many more accusations made than just Monica Lewinsky and it went back much farther in time than just her as well. My point was that she stuck because there was actually physical evidence. Also, you're right it is different because Monica wasn't sexually assaulted maybe sexually harassed, but if you actually read interviews with her, it comes off like she was upset he didn't keep his promises to her and was a liar, which made it easy for political operatives to take advantage of her. I would say it was similar in that neither side really cared about the fallout to the victims of the process, which is what I focused on anyway.



Eastonator12 said:


> For instance, there is a woman(i can't remember her name, sorry) who accused Bill Clinton of sexually harassing her, rape, whatnot. The dems basically say "yeah, whatever", even though it has been PROVEN bill clinton is a rapist, during the time he was in office. So dems don't care about women, nor do they believe them. Kavanaugh's accuser is full of shit, she was "too afraid" to fly in to testify, yet she's perfectly fine going to maryland and hawaii? makes no fucking sense. And if you get raped, by all means, TELL THE FUCKING POLICE. Don't wait 40 years to tell someone. It's clear the dems plan is to stall Pres Trump from appointing another judge until after the midterms, where they hope to win.



Show me where it's settled that Bill Clinton was a rapist. Yes he was accused of by several people, notably not the person who had actual proof of a sexual relationship with the president, but by other woman.

By the logic shown in this thread by your fellows, we need cold hard physical proof that he raped someone or you are a false accuser. You are guilty of the very thing you're accusing other people of.

Also the Republican party and Bill Clinton both took advantage of a young woman, but only one did for it political purpose. Monica Lewinsky has never said that Bill Clinton raped her, she has played around with the idea of sexual assault which it probably won't as given the power dynamic at play. She very clearly thought he was telling the truth when he said he would leave Hilary and was crushed when he didn't, if you go by her own narrative. Other people planted the idea of testifying against him in the impeachment process. You would have to be willingly blind not to see the parallels between the two cases and how they were handled here, which most people in this thread seem to be, for political "points" for their side.

Mitch McConnell has stated that no matter what the FBI finds they will vote on his confirmation. That stinks of political expediency and it is clear that the Republican party is pushing his nomination for their base in time for midterms.

It blows my mind how much of the American process is basically sports. People routinely call out every team but their own and refuse to see anything wrong with their team even when the writing is clear on the wall.

No one in congress truly cares if this is true or not, no matter their party affiliation. They only care for the optics they can get. The Democrats play progressive, and the Republicans play the repressed white men under attack by harpies. The key thing to remember is that it is all political theater, and to massively simplify a form of political prostitution.

Edit: I'd also like to say that while polygraphs are unreliable and this is known fact, law enforcement and the justice system still regularly use them. If you would like that to change, I suggest you do something about it other than use it as an attempt to discredit one person.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2018)

People still aren't getting it through their heads that this is a job interview, not a criminal trial.  Setting aside the accusations of sexual misconduct altogether for the moment, is it really that unreasonable to deny a person a job because they screamed, cried, dodged questions, lied, and rambled about how much they like beer at their job interview?  We expect better than that from burger flippers in the US, let alone SCOTUS justices.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 3, 2018)

Viri said:


> If he passes the test, people will just say polygraph tests are unreliable. If he fails the test, "RAPIST!"



Yes and I suppose you honestly believe if she had failed that they wouldn't use that as proof she was lying? Political discourse nowadays simply comes down to what side you're on. Everything else is decided and filtered from there.

I would also like to point out that as much as some people act like Kavanaugh is getting much worse than Ford, I would say she took the larger risk. Political types recover from sexual assault accusations true or not. Half of our last four presidents have done so before being elected President. The woman that accused them on the other hand? They have no public life and most people will remember them as harpies and ungrateful woman. Monica Lewinsky is the most high profile example of this and is likely what Ford has to look forward to for the rest of her life.

The Republicans didn't protect Monica and I doubt the Democrats will Ford. To pretend that history has shown the accused to suffer more than the accuser is a ridiculous assertion.

Just look at the Republican Senators and our President even feeling free to attack and make fun of her. For them to pretend they are better than than the Democrats in any way is hilarious. They will ruin Ford's life and like Monica, I don't think she'll come out of it better than the one she accused.

People should absolutely keep that in mind as they attack accusers and act as if there is no sacrifice. There is always sacrifice.


----------



## Viri (Oct 3, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> Yes and I suppose you honestly believe if she had failed that they wouldn't use that as proof she was lying? Political discourse nowadays simply comes down to what side you're on. Everything else is decided and filtered from there.


I don't believe lie detector tests should be used at all. They can be cheated pretty easily, and I get pissed off when I see them used on talk host shows.




kingfrost said:


> The Republicans didn't protect Monica and I doubt the Democrats will Ford. To pretend that history has shown the accused to suffer more than the accuser is a ridiculous assertion.


Haha, they don't give a flying fuck about Ford. They're not going to defend her.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 3, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> Yes and I suppose you honestly believe if she had failed that they wouldn't use that as proof she was lying?



If she had failed the polygraph they'd have just given another one until she passed. For all we know, she did take more than one. Her lawyers have held back almost all documentary evidence the Senate Judiciary Committee has requested as relevant, even though they claim these docs as support her accusation. 

And if she was unable to pass the polygraph altogether, we would never have even heard she'd taken one. The only way we know she did is because she let it be known.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2018)

Viri said:


> Haha, they don't give a flying fuck about Ford. They're not going to defend her.


It's not the job of senate Democrats to protect her past her involvement in these accusations.  At that point it's law enforcement's job, and she may yet have to go into witness protection.  At least the Democrats are taking the accusations seriously, where the Republicans were dismissive from the very beginning.

Perhaps the bigger issue still is that a majority of polled Republicans want Kavanaugh confirmed _even if the assault accusations are all true:_

https://www.salon.com/2018/09/27/po...nfirmed-even-if-assault-accusations-are-true/



			
				Salon said:
			
		

> Eighty-three percent of Republicans support Kavanaugh's nomination, according to a recent survey by NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll. More noteworthy, 54 percent of Republicans said that they would support confirming Kavanaugh even if it turned out that the sexual assault accusations against him are true. Only 32 percent of Republican voters disagreed with that sentiment.



This shows a strong moral rot taking hold inside the GOP, and the scary thing is that it's a result of constituents mirroring the leadership's values (or lack there of) and opinions instead of the leadership reflecting their constituent's values and opinions.  Banana Republic, monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, or even The Handmaid's Tale?  Bring it on as long as their side can claim some sort of subjective "win."

They'd really "own the libcucks" by devaluing the position of SCOTUS justice to any town drunk, right?  /s


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 3, 2018)

Viri said:


> I don't believe lie detector tests should be used at all. They can be cheated pretty easily, and I get pissed off when I see them used on talk host shows.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, they don't give a flying fuck about Ford. They're not going to defend her.



Thank you, that was the point I was making. Glad you understood.

Also polygraphs are still ordered by judges and used by the police, so surely you'll want to actually do something about such a horrible thing and not just whine about it when it doesn't benefit your party. I wonder if Judge Kavanaugh has ever ordered a polygraph be taken? 



Hanafuda said:


> If she had failed the polygraph they'd have just given another one until she passed. For all we know, she did take more than one. Her lawyers have held back almost all documentary evidence the Senate Judiciary Committee has requested as relevant, even though they claim these docs as support her accusation.
> 
> And if she was unable to pass the polygraph altogether, we would never have even heard she'd taken one. The only way we know she did is because she let it be known.



See you just made false accusations. You don't know anything about how she took them, why, how many, or when but that doesn't stop you from making accusations that you have no evidence to back up.

I thought the point here was that too many people make accusations without collaboration? That's exactly what you just did.


----------



## kuwanger (Oct 3, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Kavanaugh admitted to drinking underage. Please show me from his testimony where he lied about the legal drinking age.



'Kavanaugh explained: "My friends and I, boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. I still like beer... The drinking age as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal. Senior year in high school, people were legal to drink."' -- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...h-wrongly-claims-he-could-drink-legally-in-md

Unless Kavanaugh isn't a person...  Yes, he could have legally went across the border to Washington, DC to drink for the last four months as a senior, but that's not at all how he stated it.  Travelling across the border to buy alcohol and going back to Maryland to drink would have been illegal.  Just generally saying "seniors were legal" is inaccurate.  It's no different than if someone lived in Utah a couple miles from Nevada's border said "weed is legal" when it is legal in Nevada.  That's not at all how jurisdiction works, and I would think a judge would know this.  Admittedly, I don't think he stated anything about the legal drinking age in Connecticut at Yale, so I can't say he lied about the drink age there.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 3, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> 'Kavanaugh explained: "My friends and I, boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. I still like beer... The drinking age as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal. Senior year in high school, people were legal to drink."' -- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...h-wrongly-claims-he-could-drink-legally-in-md
> 
> Unless Kavanaugh isn't a person...  Yes, he could have legally went across the border to Washington, DC to drink for the last four months as a senior, but that's not at all how he stated it.  Travelling across the border to buy alcohol and going back to Maryland to drink would have been illegal.  Just generally saying "seniors were legal" is inaccurate.  It's no different than if someone lived in Utah a couple miles from Nevada's border said "weed is legal" when it is legal in Nevada.  That's not at all how jurisdiction works, and I would think a judge would know this.  Admittedly, I don't think he stated anything about the legal drinking age in Connecticut at Yale, so I can't say he lied about the drink age there.



He never says "I was legal to drink." He was 17 and admits drinking beer that summer, so he admits underage drinking. So what? But he doesn't say he was legal to drink then. He says seniors were legal. That's the world I lived in too, the drinking age was still 18 when I turned 18, but was bumped to 19 a month later and I had to wait another 11 months after being legal for a month (no gf clause). Weird times. But because it was legal for h.s. seniors to buy beer, drinking beer for high school kids was common. Drinking and buying beer by those over 16 wasn't a big deal - the legal age was 18 and it wasn't a hot issue back then, so most stores would sell you beer if you were at least 16-ish, and no demand for ID. I bought beer once when I was 15, walked into a little mom&pop store, grabbed a six-pack of Budweiser and walked right to the counter. The old man said "nope, until you're 18 if you want to buy beer here, go back there and get something dusty that's not selling." So I bought a six-pack of Shaefer.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



kingfrost said:


> See you just made false accusations. You don't know anything about how she took them, why, how many, or when but that doesn't stop you from making accusations that you have no evidence to back up.
> 
> I thought the point here was that too many people make accusations without collaboration? That's exactly what you just did.




It wasn't an accusation. It was a supposition. Learn the diff. Accusation: it happened. Supposition: it could have happened, we can't know.


----------



## kuwanger (Oct 3, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> He never says "I was legal to drink." He was 17 and admits drinking beer that summer, so he admits underage drinking. So what?



He never said "I was legal to drink" but did he say "I was an underage drinker"?  No, just as it was implicit that when 17 he was an underage drinker he implied that when he turned 18 he was legal to drink.  As for "so what?"  As someone trying so harder to become a lawyer and a judge, generally it shows a lack of respect for the law.  There was no point at which he at all apologized or seem apologetic for his behavior/actions or in any way tried to explain his behavior *except* to imply that he was at least legal part of the time.



Hanafuda said:


> Weird times. But because it was legal for h.s. seniors to buy beer, drinking beer for high school kids was common. Drinking and buying beer by those over 16 wasn't a big deal



Perhaps this was the reason MADD pushed so hard to raise the age limit to 21 because so many people didn't see it as "a big deal"?  Certainly, I remember it being a pretty big deal the shift from 18 to 21 in the 80s.  The generally dismissive attitude does seem a "big deal" to me.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 3, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> Certainly, I remember it being a pretty big deal the shift from 18 to 21 in the 80s.



Yeah, it was a big deal if it affected you directly lol. How old are you? I'm 51. I remember most (not all, obviously) men back then holding the 'if you're old enough to fight for your country, you're old enough to drink a beer' position. And most (not all, obviously) women being on the "muh precious baby" side. But despite controversy in the media coverage, I'm sure you know access to alcohol for 16-18 year olds was still very low security even after the law changed. My university had a bar in my dorm my freshman year, even though most of the freshman were still 18 for at least half the year, and the drinking age was 19. There was no carding going on whatsoever - that's a _public_ university selling beer directly to underage students. No scandal, no outrage.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 3, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> If she had failed the polygraph they'd have just given another one until she passed.



That is not a supposition. You are not saying that it could have happened. You're saying they definitely would have done so. Your next sentence is a supposition where you say they "might" have already done so.

The difference is small and not important in the greater scheme of things. Suggesting that someone is lying repeatedly and in different ways is much the same as accusing them at some point.



Hanafuda said:


> He never says "I was legal to drink." He was 17 and admits drinking beer that summer, so he admits underage drinking. So what? But he doesn't say he was legal to drink then. He says seniors were legal. That's the world I lived in too, the drinking age was still 18 when I turned 18, but was bumped to 19 a month later and I had to wait another 11 months after being legal for a month (no gf clause). Weird times. But because it was legal for h.s. seniors to buy beer, drinking beer for high school kids was common. Drinking and buying beer by those over 16 wasn't a big deal - the legal age was 18 and it wasn't a hot issue back then, so most stores would sell you beer if you were at least 16-ish, and no demand for ID. I bought beer once when I was 15, walked into a little mom&pop store, grabbed a six-pack of Budweiser and walked right to the counter. The old man said "nope, until you're 18 if you want to buy beer here, go back there and get something dusty that's not selling." So I bought a six-pack of Shaefer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you admit you're using very thin semantics on both accounts to attempt to prove something to everyone that no one but you sees. The last line of a debate is when we start talking about the semantics of what he said.

The truth is if he wanted to say he was underage he could have. He said what he said so that it would mask the fact that he was drinking illegally. Just because everyone does something doesn't make it any less illegal. Just because you say that it didn't matter to anyone at the time doesn't mean it didn't.

Obviously it matters to someone or be would just admitted it. As is, he came very close to lying under oath. Also I suppose you can collaborate that the definitions mean what he said, despite the fact that they are colloquial terms with known meanings?



Hanafuda said:


> Yeah, it was a big deal if it affected you directly lol. How old are you? I'm 51. I remember most (not all, obviously) men back then holding the 'if you're old enough to fight for your country, you're old enough to drink a beer' position. And most (not all, obviously) women being on the "muh precious baby" side. But despite controversy in the media coverage, I'm sure you know access to alcohol for 16-18 year olds was still very low security even after the law changed. My university had a bar in my dorm my freshman year, even though most of the freshman were still 18 for at least half the year, and the drinking age was 19. There was no carding going on whatsoever - that's a _public_ university selling beer directly to underage students. No scandal, no outrage.



It doesn't matter if it wasn't a big deal. It was illegal. It doesn't matter if they did a bad job of enforcing the law, it was still illegal. He is an officer of the court system and he showed contempt for the law. He then attempt to use half truths to hide this fact which suggests shame itself. He was also overly defensive and attacked a senator who asked if he ever blacked out.

It would have been simple to say no politely, she wasn't rude and didn't attack him. I'm sure you'll make an excuse but whether or not he raped someone, whether or not you think it was moral of him to break the law, he still behaved horribly.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2018)

Deleted


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 3, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> That is not a supposition.



You're right, that particular sentence is not technically a supposition. But neither is it an accusation. Just conditional speculation, and therefore not an assertion of anything definite. The sentence begins with "IF", so it is not an assertion that it actually happened. 




> So you admit you're using very thin semantics on both accounts to attempt to prove something to everyone that no one but you sees.



I'd rather be a stickler about semantics than presumptive.

Even kuwanger acknowledges that Kavanaugh never stated, "I was legal to drink," which you claimed he said. You are extrapolating statements/admissions from Kavanaugh's actual words by implications you perceive through bias.


----------



## kuwanger (Oct 3, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Yeah, it was a big deal if it affected you directly lol. How old are you? I'm 51. I remember most (not all, obviously) men back then holding the 'if you're old enough to fight for your country, you're old enough to drink a beer' position. And most (not all, obviously) women being on the "muh precious baby" side.



In in my late 30s, so it didn't personally effect me.  I also don't disagree with the whole "old enough to fight for your country, you're old enough to drink a beer"--although hard liquor was until 21 at the time in Maryland.  The thing is, he wasn't even "old enough to fight for your country" and the whole "drinking in high school" obviously wasn't about some respect for adults and their rights.  It was guys wanting to drink a lot of alcohol and be "men" who could "hold their liquor".  I get it.  Not everyone did get wasted.  But isn't there something rather disturbing if what he said was true, that on "Beach Week" he didn't write about all the sex adventures he was going to enjoy but about all the drinking games he was going to be/was involved in?

Like I was saying, this just leads me to believe he was an alcoholic.  It's why I really tend to believe he did black out at times.  It doesn't mean I inherently believe Ford, btw.  But it just seems like a deep level of denial.


----------



## Tigran (Oct 3, 2018)

Hey.. If you're go by Christian beliefs... Trump is pretty much the Anit-Christ.

*Daniel 11:37 ESV / 8 helpful votes  *
He shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women. He shall not pay attention to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all.

*Daniel 7:25 ESV / 7 helpful votes  *
He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.

Rev 13:5
And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 3, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> You're right, that particular sentence is not technically a supposition. But neither is it an accusation. Just conditional speculation, and therefore not an assertion of anything definite. The sentence begins with "IF", so it is not an assertion that it actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I never claimed he said he was legal to drink. I said he didn't come out and say he wasn't. Whether omission in this case is a form of lie is up to the person watching his performance.

The fact that we've reached Clinton levels obfuscation tells me all I need to know about your bias. You're debating what the meaning of the world if is now. Good show.

I never said she did say that, and it's no wonder you support Kavanaugh and see nothing wrong with his testimony, you're dodging the questions just as he did. You're not answering what I asked so I'm going to assume you don't have a defense for it.

I've not been biases in the least. I don't know if he raped her or not. I do know that he behaved unbefitting of a judge and practiced the same partisan attack he accused people of doing to him.

But please continue to pretend that anyone who doesn't like the way he behaved is some sort of Democratic paid protester like his party members do. It's truly almost reached a "it's because I'm black isn't it?"  level of delusion at this point.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2018)

'*Kavanaugh Described Himself and Friends as 'Loud, Obnoxious Drunks' in 1983 Letter Signed 'Bart'*'

https://www.newsweek.com/kavanaugh-...nds-loud-obnoxious-drunks-1983-letter-1150388

This confirms that Kavanaugh lied to the senate about being the 'Bart' in Mark Judge's book, "Wasted."  How many counts of perjury is too many?


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 3, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> In in my late 30s, so it didn't personally effect me.  I also don't disagree with the whole "old enough to fight for your country, you're old enough to drink a beer"--although hard liquor was until 21 at the time in Maryland.  The thing is, he wasn't even "old enough to fight for your country" and the whole "drinking in high school" obviously wasn't about some respect for adults and their rights.  It was guys wanting to drink a lot of alcohol and be "men" who could "hold their liquor".  I get it.  Not everyone did get wasted.  But isn't there something rather disturbing if what he said was true, that on "Beach Week" he didn't write about all the sex adventures he was going to enjoy but about all the drinking games he was going to be/was involved in?
> 
> Like I was saying, this just leads me to believe he was an alcoholic.  It's why I really tend to believe he did black out at times.  It doesn't mean I inherently believe Ford, btw.  But it just seems like a deep level of denial.



Well, I can only speak for myself, but I was around in those exact years, and about the same age. I started drinking at 15, and the goal for me and my friends was to get as drunk as possible, when possible. Started smoking some weed during senior year, i.e. 17yo. In college, tried mushrooms and acid a number of times. Cocaine twice, didn't really like it or understand why people would pay so much for it. And all the while, a lot of drinking. Like, 20 beers at a keg party was a normal Friday night. There were numerous times I drank heavily enough to puke my guts out at the end of the night. But I never 'blacked out,' even with the combination of alcohol plus some drugs along the way. I don't even really know what 'blacking out' would be like. So I think it's a stretch to assume that a person who drank heavily for a while in their youth must have also "blacked out."

Also, FWIW, by 33 I stopped drinking altogether. Stayed 'dry' for about 11 years, while my kids were small. About 6 years ago I started sipping whiskey neat on Friday and Saturday nights, never more than 3 drinks in one night though. It is relaxing, but it's not a need. I never drink to intoxication now. It _is_ possible, I know from experience, to be an irresponsible drinker and pothead/Deadhead type under 25yo and turn out straight and responsible after 35yo. From casual conversation with most of the people I know around my age from work, it's the norm, actually.


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 3, 2018)

No judge, lawyer, prosecutor, or the police can order and make someone take a polygraph test.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 3, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> He clearly states repeatedly that it was legal for him to drink ...






kingfrost said:


> I never claimed he said he was legal to drink.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Well, I can only speak for myself, but I was around in those exact years, and about the same age. I started drinking at 15, and the goal for me and my friends was to get as drunk as possible, when possible. Started smoking some weed during senior year, i.e. 17yo. In college, tried mushrooms and acid a number of times. Cocaine twice, didn't really like it or understand why people would pay so much for it. And all the while, a lot of drinking. Like, 20 beers at a keg party was a normal Friday night. There were numerous times I drank heavily enough to puke my guts out at the end of the night. But I never 'blacked out,' even with the combination of alcohol plus some drugs along the way. I don't even really know what 'blacking out' would be like. So I think it's a stretch to assume that a person who drank heavily for a while in their youth must have also "blacked out."


The difference is that I'd hope you would have the good sense to realize you wouldn't make for a good SCOTUS justice.  Neither would I or any other "average" citizen.  People aiming for a SCOTUS seat are supposed to be well above average in every way.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The difference is that I'd hope you would have the good sense to realize you wouldn't make for a good SCOTUS justice.  Neither would I or any other "average" citizen.  People aiming for a SCOTUS seat are supposed to be well above average in every way.



They should also be human, but sure I agree there's an expectation that they'll be peerless and pure as driven snow or something. I actually think a person who's never been in the ditch is unqualified to judge those who have, but such is life.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> They should also be human, but sure I agree there's an expectation that they'll be peerless and pure as driven snow or something. I actually think a person who's never been in the ditch is unqualified to judge those who have, but such is life.


SCOTUS doesn't rule on the guilt or innocence of people who have been in a ditch though, they rule on issues which impact millions of people in sometimes noticeable, sometimes not so noticeable ways.  I don't think the standards should be loosened in terms of the moral authority judges are required to maintain, but the unspoken rule of needing to be rich to become a judge does need to be tossed out.


----------



## kuwanger (Oct 3, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> There were numerous times I drank heavily enough to puke my guts out at the end of the night. But I never 'blacked out,' even with the combination of alcohol plus some drugs along the way. I don't even really know what 'blacking out' would be like. So I think it's a stretch to assume that a person who drank heavily for a while in their youth must have also "blacked out."



Perhaps it is a stretch.  It is hard to not have doubt though when a person says they never blacked out or had even partial memory loss from heavy drinking for years.  But yes, it is possible it never happened.



Hanafuda said:


> It _is_ possible, I know from experience, to be an irresponsible drinker and pothead/Deadhead type under 25yo and turn out straight and responsible after 35yo. From casual conversation with most of the people I know around my age from work, it's the norm, actually.



Isn't that sort of a selection bias?  Also, being an alcoholic doesn't necessarily mean being a heavy drinker or having a ruined life.  Like you say, it's more about the "need" to drink.  A lot of people are in denial about such their "needs" in life.  For example, I'd readily admit I'm a sugar-holic and a meat-holic.  It doesn't mean I couldn't give those things up.  It does mean it'd be very hard for me, and I'd long for them.  So, it's possible Kavanaugh moved from a binge drinker (which he heavily downplayed) to a social drinker and was never an alcoholic.  But, I really don't see any evidence of that.  The simple fact that he seems to be in denial of his past is precisely why I don't believe that interpretation.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 4, 2018)

Darth Meteos said:


> i have a better question: why is he allowed to be on your supreme court if he perjured himself
> loads of the shit in his yearbook has been sourced as being not what he said, like that devil's triangle thing
> he was under oath and he lied, isn't that a strike one, you're out kinda deal when you're _making them part of your most powerful legal body_



Looks like "Devil's Triangle" was a (drinking?) game after all. Not, as Vox and others claimed, a reference to a two man / one woman threesome.

From Kavanaugh's yearbook that got leaked today, these guys ALL list their participation in "Devil's Triangle." The first guy's reference to it actually says he "Lost at Devil's Triangle." Now, there might have been a lot of partying going on at Kavanaugh's high school ... but what's more credible? That this many guys _all_ double-teamed girls before they even had a h.s. diploma in their hand?, or that they came up with a drinking game at parties, gave it a cool name, and it was epic?

High school and sometimes college too is full of tight cliques and inside jokes.


----------



## Viri (Oct 4, 2018)

Believe accusers!



Spoiler


----------



## Xzi (Oct 4, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Looks like "Devil's Triangle" was a (drinking?) game after all. Not, as Vox and others claimed, a reference to a two man / one woman threesome.


That's not a claim made up by Vox, it's been the common definition of the phrase for decades.  Think about it: "Devil's triangle" = two "horns."

Now, they might've had a different usage for it back then, but I don't see how claiming it as a game where the participants drink to excess really helps Kavanaugh's case.  His college roommate has already called him a violent drunk.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 4, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> No judge, lawyer, prosecutor, or the police can order and make someone take a polygraph test.



https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/admissability-of-polygraph-tests-in-court.html

Police regularly pressure people into taking polygraphs. It's a known practice. You can argue that legally it's not required but neither are a lot of things police make it seen like you have to do.

Also not that in a few states they are only admissible if both parties agree, which is still pointless, a few are inadmissible, and in federal courts, which Kavanaugh served in they are admissible mainly as determined by the judge.

So I stand by what I said, they are regularly used in the courts and by police.

As for the quote of me saying he clearly says he's legal to drink, that's my mistake  and many many others. The fact that multiple belief he said that, on all sides of this debate, should go to show just how obfuscating his testimony was. He clearly attempts to couch his own illegal activity in the fact that some of them were illegal.

Or in the fact he was an athlete.


Hanafuda said:


> Looks like "Devil's Triangle" was a (drinking?) game after all. Not, as Vox and others claimed, a reference to a two man / one woman threesome.
> 
> From Kavanaugh's yearbook that got leaked today, these guys ALL list their participation in "Devil's Triangle." The first guy's reference to it actually says he "Lost at Devil's Triangle." Now, there might have been a lot of partying going on at Kavanaugh's high school ... but what's more credible? That this many guys _all_ double-teamed girls before they even had a h.s. diploma in their hand?, or that they came up with a drinking game at parties, gave it a cool name, and it was epic?
> 
> High school and sometimes college too is full of tight cliques and inside jokes.



So now we get to apply equal standards right? If thus is exonerating proof why didn't he already release it? If it was listed in multiple one's of his friends yearbook and he knew this, why not mention that in his tantrum? 

It's almost like this was made for a specific purpose, like proving more cover to a certain nominee. Mind you, I'm not accusing, just supposing what could have happened by the suspicious way we have acquired this new information.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 4, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/admissability-of-polygraph-tests-in-court.html
> 
> Police regularly pressure people into taking polygraphs. It's a known practice. You can argue that legally it's not required but neither are a lot of things police make it seen like you have to do.
> 
> ...



Your link says they are used by police as leverage. They don't actually use them to collect evidence. They use it as a scare tactic in order to gain other evidence. It also says that the courts don't like them, and in several states they are summarily rejected as evidence.

The reason why is because they're unreliable. They can only tell you changes in certain body stuff like heart rate and blood pressure. guessing whether those translate into a lie or not is completely subjectional and is far too susceptible to the personality of the one reading the polygraph. They're used, but they shouldn't be. They can say whatever the expert you picked is willing to say, which isn't evidence; it's opinion.

 Just one of those antiquated things we're moving away from


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 4, 2018)

osaka35 said:


> Your link says they are used by police as leverage. They don't actually use them to collect evidence. They use it as a scare tactic in order to gain other evidence. It also says that the courts don't like them, and in several states they are summarily rejected as evidence.
> 
> The reason why is because they're unreliable. They can only tell you changes in certain body stuff like heart rate and blood pressure. guessing whether those translate into a lie or not is completely subjectional and is far too susceptible to the personality of the one reading the polygraph. They're used, but they shouldn't be. They can say whatever the expert you picked is willing to say, which isn't evidence; it's opinion.
> 
> Just one of those antiquated things we're moving away from



That doesn't change the fact they are used and that if you refuse to take one, it can color the response from police and some judges toward you as being guilty. I never said they were effective, nor do I even think they are.

Just because you're "woke" about polygraphs, doesn't mean everyone is. Just because less than 20% of states have laws about about the admissibility of them, and about half that simply that both sides must agree doesn't mean they aren't used.

And even in this situation, it was a formality before a hearing in front of congress who at that time had refused to have any other investigation of the claims done. It's not like anyone said, she passed the polygraph, let's execute him.

It was simply part of a process, and being used in much the same way law enforcement still *uses *them.

Edit: I would also like to clarify my position. I don't know whether she was assaulted by him or not. I do know that this will be used in the future as proof to discredit sexual accusations against politicians for years and years to come.

I don't absolve, as I've posted many times, the Democrats or the Republicans from their part in this process. I have pointed out many times multiple ways that both have propagated sexual assault and harassment. 

I don't care if Brent Kavanaugh is confirmed because I have hope in the checks and balances that are supposed to operate in my government. The Supreme Court does not exist to make laws. There should be not victory or defeat in this process, and I think it's a sad state of affairs that the past few confirmations have become this Swamp of politics.

I do, however, think that a Justice of the Supreme Court ranting under oath and in public about unproven political conspiracy is extremely dangerous when a portion of the electorate believes that the President is in a super secret fight with pedophiles because of 4chan.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 4, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> That doesn't change the fact they are used and that if you refuse to take one, it can color the response from police and some judges toward you as being guilty. I never said they were effective, nor do I even think they are.
> 
> Just because you're "woke" about polygraphs, doesn't mean everyone is. Just because less than 20% of states have laws about about the admissibility of them, and about half that simply that both sides must agree doesn't mean they aren't used.
> 
> ...


Which I suppose shows how poorly educated our police force and judges can be, I suppose. You don't have to be smart or informed to be a judge or police officer. By the same token, if you're black and a police officer thinks that means you're far more likely to be guilty, we most definitely shouldn't be using that as a reason to support more of that behaviour. Call it out when it happens, acknowledge it happens, but certainly never accept its usage. It may colour their perception of things, but it should never be allowed to stand, ya know? I don't think we disagree, though, fairly sure we're mostly on the same page, just felt like clarifying.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 4, 2018)

osaka35 said:


> Which I suppose shows how poorly educated our police force and judges can be, I suppose. You don't have to be smart or informed to be a judge or police officer. By the same token, if you're black and a police officer thinks that means you're far more likely to be guilty, we most definitely shouldn't be using that as a reason to support more of that behaviour. Call it out when it happens, acknowledge it happens, but certainly never accept its usage. It may colour their perception of things, but it should never be allowed to stand, ya know? I don't think we disagree, though, fairly sure we're mostly on the same page, just felt like clarifying.



We absolutely are. I suppose the only thing I'm pointing out is that they are still used. I don't believe they should be.

Most of my argument has been that this isn't even a sexual accusation case. It's a political process and both sides have used the sexual assault charges as a sort of political proxy for the things their side wants to see. 

In pointing out mistakes Kavanuagh made in testimony, I hope to show that they were intentional. We can see how he didn't have to say he drunk illegally because his supporters emphasize with that and will defend him. Neither of them have provided has an airtight testimony but I didn't expect that anyone.

I think that using this case to somehow apply to all sexual assault accusations will lead to more harm than good. For that matter, I do think people get too invested in a public facade and think they actually know a person as well.

Most of all, to pretend this isn't political for both parties is to miss the political freak show currently going on in our capital. Both parties have resorted to new lows since 2016.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 4, 2018)

I am finding this debate over the drinking age and the... moral implications of a 16+ year old maybe deigning to drink some booze almost as hilarious as the time I went on Chinese chat rooms and they were discussing how bad porn is.

I should also note "blacked out" has some considerable time spent on its definition and meaning in the court system, something quite different to what a lot of non legal types would define is as encompassing.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 4, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> I am finding this debate over the drinking age and the... moral implications of a 16+ year old maybe deigning to drink some booze almost as hilarious as the time I went on Chinese chat rooms and they were discussing how bad porn is.


So now a judge shouldn't even have to know the law?  Remember that he's lying about it _now,_ not when he was 16.  If it's "no big deal" as you're implying, then there's no reason he shouldn't have been honest and direct about it.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 4, 2018)

Xzi said:


> So now a judge shouldn't even have to know the law?  Remember that he's lying about it _now,_ not when he was 16.


What knowing the law entails might vary. We have reference sources for a reason. Anyway that is probably a different discussion. Related to that might be the value of knowing what is essentially random historical ephemera.

I am not entirely sure where you are heading though. I was seeing people seemingly getting morally outraged that a later years teenager enjoys a drink and coming from a place, one with what would be a very familiar culture to anybody from the mainstream US culture that went to there, where 14-15 year olds can regularly be expected to have a drink or three and nobody really cares it was highly amusing. Even more amusing is lawyers are generally known around here for their hard drinking. Guess I might have another thing to note for the little aside there, and note once more it would be something of "two countries separated by a common language".

Anyway if I am interviewing for a big boy judge it almost seems pointless asking about boring stuff like that. Instead I would be posing legal hypotheticals, and unanswerable questions so I can see their logic in attempting to broach it.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 4, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> What knowing the law entails might vary. We have reference sources for a reason. Anyway that is probably a different discussion. Related to that might be the value of knowing what is essentially random historical ephemera.
> 
> I am not entirely sure where you are heading though. I was seeing people seemingly getting morally outraged that a later years teenager enjoys a drink and coming from a place, one with what would be a very familiar culture to anybody from the mainstream US culture that went to there, where 14-15 year olds can regularly be expected to have a drink or three and nobody really cares it was highly amusing. Even more amusing is lawyers are generally known around here for their hard drinking. Guess I might have another thing to note for the little aside there, and note once more it would be something of "two countries separated by a common language".
> 
> Anyway if I am interviewing for a big boy judge it almost seems pointless asking about boring stuff like that. Instead I would be posing legal hypotheticals, and unanswerable questions so I can see their logic in attempting to broach it.



I don't see the moral outrage at him drinking. I see people observing that his entire testimony was semi-truthful at best and using this as an example of times he didn't give a complete answer, or when he verbally attacked a Senator asking him a question about it.

As for the legal definition of black out you mentioned in your other posts, it doesn't matter. He didn't define the word before he answered, nor did the Senators. As long as the legal definition of blackout isn't wide awake, I think everyone understood what was meant. 

As for your opinion on what they should ask, it's a known quantity what he will do. In a Supreme Court confirmation, a judge's past judicial history is typically reviewed as well as other jobs. Other than the time Kavanaugh served George W. it was already reviewed. There's no reason to suspect his opinion would change.

As for unanswerable questions, that seems like something that should completely out of the scope of his job. A judge shouldn't be inventing answers to questions, they should be using current law and the constitution to answer legal questions.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 4, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> I don't see the moral outrage at him drinking. I see people observing that his entire testimony was semi-truthful at best and using this as an example of times he didn't give a complete answer, or when he verbally attacked a Senator asking him a question about it.
> 
> As for the legal definition of black out you mentioned in your other posts, it doesn't matter. He didn't define the word before he answered, nor did the Senators. As long as the legal definition of blackout isn't wide awake, I think everyone understood what was meant.
> 
> ...



I was seeing people assign more value than "boys will be boys" to the potentially underage drinking and that I found hilarious. The other stuff is potentially disturbing but I was not commenting on that for that comment.

The legal definition matters a lot. There is a way of manipulating conversation using such things -- if the guy is a judge sitting in a what is normally fairly serious and legally binding hearing with politicians (I don't know the full laws here but every legal and governmental tradition that makes up America's take on such things that I know more of would say take them seriously, court seriously).
Spin it another way. I am an engineer. Ask me what a strong material is and I will tell you. Ask me what a tough material is and I will tell you. They are not the same thing, not at all, despite what the general public might think. Amusingly that is a distinction that has to be made in court and a literal example from one of my text books covering court interactions (in this case a lawyer was repeatedly using the wrong word despite being corrected several times as it helped their case).
Secondly the legal concept of mens rea (guilty mind) is modified when various parties are "blackout drunk".

I dare say we have a slightly different interpretation of unanswerable questions, to say nothing of the whole point of the court there being to be the final word on questions that are asked. You ask someone something they will likely not (assuming they have not got serious skills most normal people do not, to say nothing of in the case of the law nobody knows how many there are) be able to answer on the spot. However you get to see them start to outline the problem and puzzle out at least where they would head in such things and from that you can tell a lot. It is not necessarily quite the same as the issue spotting exams that law schools favour but not far off.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 5, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> I was seeing people assign more value than "boys will be boys" to the potentially underage drinking and that I found hilarious. The other stuff is potentially disturbing but I was not commenting on that for that comment.
> 
> The legal definition matters a lot. There is a way of manipulating conversation using such things -- if the guy is a judge sitting in a what is normally fairly serious and legally binding hearing with politicians (I don't know the full laws here but every legal and governmental tradition that makes up America's take on such things that I know more of would say take them seriously, court seriously).
> Spin it another way. I am an engineer. Ask me what a strong material is and I will tell you. Ask me what a tough material is and I will tell you. They are not the same thing, not at all, despite what the general public might think. Amusingly that is a distinction that has to be made in court and a literal example from one of my text books covering court interactions (in this case a lawyer was repeatedly using the wrong word despite being corrected several times as it helped their case).
> ...



First of all, boys will be boys is not a sound defense for any sort of behavior. It's an explanation used by many to cover behavior that is reprehensible such as bullying and hazing. These activities for years have been defended as "boys being boys" despite the emotional and sometimes physical turmoil they can cause.

Second, the matter at hand isn't if he had one beer underage and I've literally not seen anyone saying he drunk underage and just that as some kind of moral argument against him. There's a difference between underage drinking and repeatedly drinking to the point where you don't remember things i.e blackout. Most people have an issue with the multiple reports that Kavanaugh drunk to the point where he was belligerent or blacked out. I haven't really seen anyone upset simply at the fact he drunk underage.

Third of all, that's not an unanswerable question to my understanding but more of a critical thinking exercise. The reason neither side asked any of those questions is because they don't want a judge who's going to demonstrate critical thought. They want a judge who's going to make decisions straight down the party line. I think some of our misunderstanding is coming from the fact that the political and legal worlds may overlap but they are in no way, shape or form the same. 

Politicians don't care if a judge can think critical. They care only about the decisions he will make on key issues. This is what the confirmation process is really about. The majority party puts up a candidate with views it supports and the other party attempts to undermine them unless there's enough moderation in the candidates views for their to be an agreement meant. 

Part of that is the issue with Kavanaugh. The worry is that he will be a key vote for conservatives on many issues, where as the Judge he's replacing Justice Kennedy was often a vote that could go either way. This is why this process has become so critical. 

I agree that, in a perfect world, the process would be about the fitness of the candidate and his personal views wouldn't matter. However, that's not how this process has worked for many many years if ever. In fact, many people of both parties are calling out Kavanaugh for saying what comes around goes around, Democratic conspiracy, and all of that in his opening statement for this very reason. 

Also on that note, to gain my personal respect, which I know doesn't matter, all Kavanaugh would have had to do is behave how a judge on the highest court in the land should behave and be cool and calm under pressure. To say he didn't do that would be a massive understatement.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 5, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> First of all, boys will be boys is not a sound defense for any sort of behavior. It's an explanation used by many to cover behavior that is reprehensible such as bullying and hazing. These activities for years have been defended as "boys being boys" despite the emotional and sometimes physical turmoil they can cause.
> 
> Second, the matter at hand isn't if he had one beer underage and I've literally not seen anyone saying he drunk underage and just that as some kind of moral argument against him. There's a difference between underage drinking and repeatedly drinking to the point where you don't remember things i.e blackout. Most people have an issue with the multiple reports that Kavanaugh drunk to the point where he was belligerent or blacked out. I haven't really seen anyone upset simply at the fact he drunk underage.
> 
> ...



Hazing is a bad thing now? Serves a valuable purpose for a lot of things in bonding and group dynamics. It can certainly get out of hand but as a principle I have no great objections.
Similarly I have never seen boys will be boys as code for that sort of thing. More for when stuff when down but nobody but those involved was ultimately hurt and thus the mere act of going through the motions of punishment is enough.

Again blackout has meanings to a lawyer. I saw some query it in passing and seemingly attach great meaning*, however the mere fact the questions are being asked says most of what I would note. I similarly have no problem with someone drinking to blackout drunk if they want and don't find it reflecting on their moral character. Belligerent would be a different matter if it was more than once (though I suppose some might say alcohol does not make you an arsehole, just makes you truer to your underlying self).

*I am slightly curious how much is an attempt to answer and not just plead the fifth as it were.

You say critical thinking (though I would probably have a different definition of that, still an important skill though), I say unanswerable question. Either way if nobody is asking such things then it speaks to greater problems.

As for under pressure I would say it is less of a concern for a supreme court justice. Any dynamic courtroom lawyering stuff (such that it even exists) should have happened several trials ago and we are purely down to logic at this point.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Oct 5, 2018)

Tl;dr

@blujay raped me with his tiny bird dick.
...and i liked it.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 5, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Hazing is a bad thing now? Serves a valuable purpose for a lot of things in bonding and group dynamics. It can certainly get out of hand but as a principle I have no great objections.
> Similarly I have never seen boys will be boys as code for that sort of thing. More for when stuff when down but nobody but those involved was ultimately hurt and thus the mere act of going through the motions of punishment is enough.
> 
> Again blackout has meanings to a lawyer. I saw some query it in passing and seemingly attach great meaning*, however the mere fact the questions are being asked says most of what I would note. I similarly have no problem with someone drinking to blackout drunk if they want and don't find it reflecting on their moral character. Belligerent would be a different matter if it was more than once (though I suppose some might say alcohol does not make you an arsehole, just makes you truer to your underlying self).
> ...



I would absolutely say hazing is a bad thing and a relic of the mistakes of past ages. However, I'm quite aware that we don't need to agree on that. I've seen first hand the kind of toxic environment it can breed, and also think it only serves to enhance the tribal and primal underlying that has left our current society so upended.

On the next subject, perhaps we live in different areas or have different circles we move in. When I was younger, I frequently saw boys will be boys used as the first defense for straight boys both physically and harassing homosexual boys. To be clear, I'm referring to groping, grabbing, throwing rocks, and other forms of physical assault. I also saw it used it used to excuse boys drinking underage, driving drunk, and having "victimless" accidents, as long as, of course, they were in the right group.

I am aware that blackout Habs meanings for lawyers. Black outs aren't legally a defense against anything for one, and for two they can be used to put you in a certain place and time even if you say you weren't there. If there is anything more you would like to add, please do because just saying it means different things to a lawyer and not explaining is just gatekeeping at best. 

Obviously, the issue here is that everyone has different standards. Burning the flag for example is legally grey, and some people think it should be enforced as a crime, while some see it as a protest. Ironically, many who are ok with underage drinking, in this context, see it as wrong to burn the flag and think it should be punishable. The point being, everyone picks and choose.

I would say that being able to function properly under pressure is very important. They're going to make legal decisions that effect the rights as life so many many people. Even Mr. Kavanaugh believes this if his op-ed in the WSJ wasn't just more damage control for his failed appearance.


----------



## Viri (Oct 5, 2018)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Tl;dr
> 
> @blujay raped me with his tiny bird dick.
> ...and i liked it.


Me too! Believe me! Also vote is going forward! We might end up with a new judge soon.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 5, 2018)

Viri said:


> Me too! Believe me! Also vote is going forward! We might end up with a new judge soon.



Yes we very well may.

As for the jokes about sexual assault, I can only say that shows how seriously his supporters take any accusations, credible or not. I pray no one you know is ever personally affected and has to be in that position. I really do.

There's a time and place for jokes like that and they shouldn't be involved in discussion of whether an affluent political official sexually assaulted a woman.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 6, 2018)

So yeah, seems like they have the votes to confirm this jackass.  FBI investigation was a limited sham according to several different sources, the Bar Association is re-opening their evaluation into his rating, and we know of at least a few instances of evidenced perjury in front of the senate, but he's gonna get confirmed anyway.  So much for any shred of legitimacy remaining in rule of law.


----------



## kuwanger (Oct 6, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Instead I would be posing legal hypotheticals, and unanswerable questions so I can see
> their logic in attempting to broach it.



They already went through that in previous testimony with Kavanaugh.  Most of his answers (that I saw, anyways) were of the "it depends" sort without real clarification.  It would have actually been nice to see him try to reason out any sort of a hypothetical.



FAST6191 said:


> Again blackout has meanings to a lawyer. I saw some query it in passing and seemingly attach great meaning*, however the mere fact the questions are being asked says most of what I would note.



I'd point out that he wasn't merely asked if he had blackouts but 'about his drinking habits, including if he had ever drunk so much he "didn't remember what happened the night before or part of what happened."'  So, this really isn't some discussion about the semantics of the legal definition of the word "blackout".  He did respond by rephrasing it as "asking about blackout" and perhaps that gets him off the hook?  I don't know if he ever did have a situation where he had partial memory loss because of drinking, but if he did, it would seem that he committed equivocation which is nominally considered lying.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, my issue isn't whether he drank a lot or not or even if it was per se illegal when he drank.  It's that he clearly seems in denial about his drinking to the point of perjury.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> So yeah, seems like they have the votes to confirm this jackass.  FBI investigation was a limited sham according to several different sources, the Bar Association is re-opening their evaluation into his rating, and we know of at least a few instances of evidenced perjury in front of the senate, but he's gonna get confirmed anyway.  So much for any shred of legitimacy remaining in rule of law.



Of course. Susan Collins was likely decided from the beginning anyway as evidenced by a speech that addressed no one's concerns with him as a candidate except to lie about his views on abortion and gay marriage. 

What troubled me the most about it is that she shifted blame for our current division onto "algorithms showing us what we want to see" and didn't address half her party going to Twitter to say that they showed the Democrats and etc etc who make up half the country.

I fear that soon her party will move to regulate the internet as they have threatened and this was some sort of first step toward that. Why do else mention it at all?


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 6, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> I fear that soon her party will move to regulate the internet as they have threatened and this was some sort of first step toward that. Why do else mention it at all?


Her party literally removed government regulation of the internet with net neutrality


----------



## Viri (Oct 6, 2018)

Well, if he doesn't get the votes to be confirmed, this is going to rile up the right. They'll be riled up and show up in bigger numbers next month. If he does get confirmed, then, yay, a new judge! 

Either way, it's a win win in my book.


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 6, 2018)

problem is they don't care it's a red congress the only hope we have is to flip the congress to blue and i fear trump is looking into "options" to remain in power for life and i bet republicans will be on board destroying our countries ideals to the core.... welcome to the USSA (united solviet states of America) comrade who needs russia to invade anyways?


----------



## Viri (Oct 6, 2018)

chrisrlink said:


> i fear trump is looking into "options" to remain in power for life


Ahahahaha! You know, it's funny how the right thought the same about Obama! Obama was going to cancel the 2016 election, and declare martial law.

Also, for those who want a nice laugh.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/05/politics/melania-trump-pith-helmet-africa/index.html


----------



## TyDye (Oct 6, 2018)

blujay said:


> People who are accusing other people must be listened to! By dismissing their accusations we are saying it is OK what they are doing, and that must not be allowed! Even if there is no proof, it is to be expected of something like this when the abused and the accusers have kept it to themselves in order to prevent being embarrassed. How in this country have we moved to a point where we do not listen to people who have experienced such traumatic things because there is no proof. Shouldn't their mental state be proof enough of the horrible things they have experienced? We should listen to them with pure intent!
> 
> Do you know what I just described?
> The Salem witch trials.
> ...



Thanks to that post I just lost 100 brain cells and now im going to take a IQ test and show it to law enforcement and put you in jail because it sure was a traumatic experience


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 6, 2018)

any cheap first world country to immagrate to i had enough of this BS...


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> So yeah, seems like they have the votes to confirm this jackass.  FBI investigation was a limited sham according to several different sources, the Bar Association is re-opening their evaluation into his rating, and we know of at least a few instances of evidenced perjury in front of the senate, but he's gonna get confirmed anyway.  So much for any shred of legitimacy remaining in rule of law.



There was no credible, corroborated accusation.
Accuser could not place alleged offense by date or location. Significant holes in timeline, facts were changed in response to scrutiny.
The witnesses named by both accusers (Ford, Ramirez) all said they knew nothing of the events accuser described.
The Democrats played dirty pool in their presentation of these accusations, by holding them back until after the confirmation hearings had concluded, to effectuate delay.
Accusers' confirmed acquaintances/ex-S.O.'s presented sworn statements refuting their stories, and raising perjury questions
Democrats & Flake specifically asked for an FBI investigation of limited scope and not more than 1 week, then complained when they got it
FBI investigation requested by Democrats uncovered witness tampering, by Democrats

"Rule of law" means equal protection, due process, and a presumption of innocence. The perverted standard being pushed by the Democrats and #metoo is for the opposite. You call Kavanaugh a jackass in your post above because you assumed his guilt before any proof. Then when the masses start getting wind of the bullshit in the air, you condemn Kavanaugh for his demeanor under the torture of false accusation wrongly imposed. This is really despicable, shameful, dishonest behavior. Everyone knows and can see it, just the dyed-in-the-wool liberals don't care.








Ford's and Ramirez' accusations were given more than fair credence considering the incidents they allege occurred almost 40 years ago. Sexual assault and rape are crimes. Those proven to have committed these crimes must be punished, as any criminal. But sexual assault and rape do not get special exceptions from the Constitutional rights afforded to all of us of a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, due process of law, and equal protection under the law. 

Don't bother pointing out that this was a job interview, not a criminal trial. Because it was neither. It was the Inquisition, the oldest play in the Democrat Party handbook.


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 6, 2018)

chrisrlink said:


> problem is they don't care it's a red congress the only hope we have is to flip the congress to blue and i fear trump is looking into "options" to remain in power for life and i bet republicans will be on board destroying our countries ideals to the core.... welcome to the USSA (united solviet states of America) comrade who needs russia to invade anyways?


Americans hated socialism so much they voted FDR in 4 terms.


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 6, 2018)

and now they LOVE it thats why I want the hell out and let this ship sink without me


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 6, 2018)

chrisrlink said:


> and now they LOVE it thats why I want the hell out and let this ship sink without me


What?! Love? Aside from a trend in believing socialism is the answer to all problems I have a hard time seeing this.


----------



## dAVID_ (Oct 6, 2018)

Viri said:


> Believe accusers!
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


holy shit their faces look so artificial


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2018)

JiveTheTurkey said:


> Americans hated socialism so much they voted FDR in 4 terms.



At least FDR made you work for your welfare (see, e.g WPA)


----------



## Viri (Oct 6, 2018)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ould-follow-heres-how/?utm_term=.f6d5d6d9c7d1

Well, I guess they're already moving onto talking about how to impeach him. I'm sure he'll be impeached at the same time Trump is.


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> At least FDR made you work for your welfare (see, e.g WPA)


I wish this were true today, when I was on welfare I couldn't work a good job without losing my foodstamps (thus spending the extra earnings on food). It was only until I got a good job that I embraced the fact that we were going to lose welfare and have to start buying food with money and honestly it was hard at first. It felt like a huge loss for a small gain because I didn't know how to manage money and would end up with scarce food but after a while we started doing better. I haven't looked back to welfare and I hope to do good to remain that way. I'm grateful for welfare but I hate how the system is operating.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> Her party literally removed government regulation of the internet with net neutrality



I'm hoping that you're literally intentionally misunderstanding what I've said. There's a difference between regulating social media and search engines, which her party supports, and net neutrality, which is literally about access.

Trump and the Republican party wanted to lessen business regulation on the telecoms and increase it on how the companies actually indexing and bring you data. It's not a hard to understand distinction.

Of course, looking at the comments here that have little do with Supreme Court nominations like a rant about welfare and the boogymen of Kavanaugh being impeached, it's not hard to see whose interest it is in to misled people.

There should be no winning in politics, because it should be about making it better for all American citizens.


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 6, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> Of course, looking at the comments here that have little do with Supreme Court nominations like a rant about welfare


Sorry


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

JiveTheTurkey said:


> Sorry



Sorry for what? All this has done is the open the door for this to be the new political discourse.

As Judge Kavanaugh put it, what goes around will come around.


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 6, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> Sorry for what? All this has done is the open the door for this to be the new political discourse.
> 
> As Judge Kavanaugh put it, what goes around will come around.


I tend to talk about irrelevant stuff


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2018)

Ways of Knowing If Everyone Sees Through Your Bullshit Now

1. The Onion starts mocking you







https://politics.theonion.com/senator-feinstein-wondering-if-now-a-good-time-to-discl-1829555909


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Ways of Knowing If Everyone Sees Through Your Bullshit Now
> 
> 1. The Onion starts mocking you
> 
> ...



The onion also has this article blasting Kavanaugh. They aren't partisan as much as you seem to want them to be.

https://politics.theonion.com/kavanaugh-blasted-for-destroying-reputation-of-good-man-1829554513

Even better 

https://www.theonion.com/nation-urged-to-be-extra-sensitive-to-men-reliving-trau-1829447828


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> The onion also has this article blasting Kavanaugh. They aren't partisan as much as you seem to want them to be.
> 
> https://politics.theonion.com/kavanaugh-blasted-for-destroying-reputation-of-good-man-1829554513
> 
> ...




Oh, I think The Onion is a nonpartisan source of satire, as it should be. Sometimes their style of humor is the best way to really put the spotlight on the truth of a matter. But just because they ran a few jokes about Kavanaugh doesn't change that they're showing just how obvious Feinstein and the Democrats are with their 'strategy.'

The thing is with Kavanaugh -- he's a privileged, elitist, smarmy, self-important twerp who is most likely obtuse to the realities of existence the lower classes share. The same can be said for practically every Supreme Court justice ever, every US Senator ever. You'll never hear me disputing that. I probably couldn't stand to be in the same room with the guy for 15 minutes. But tell me he got the same treatment as Kagan, or Sotomayor, or Ginsberg did, and I'll laugh.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Oh, I think The Onion is a nonpartisan source of satire, as it should be. Sometimes their style of humor is the best way to really put the spotlight on the truth of a matter. But just because they ran a few jokes about Kavanaugh doesn't change that they're showing just how obvious Feinstein and the Democrats are with their 'strategy.'



Political satire is first and foremost a vehicle for humor. They ran several jokes about Kavanaugh and how he ruined his own reputation and how dare we not give a man what he wants right now which are also good points.

I don't agree with how Feinstein did this, shocking I know. However, in current politics we've entered a state where everything is zero sum. Why we've entered that state is no doubt a topic for massive debate.

I agree satire makes good points about both sides. Both sides are full of it, as the satire shows. We live in a post truth world now, this is the new political environment. There are examples everywhere. If we had a competent government, perhaps it could be made better somehow or trust restored but apparently the majority of Americans wants a bloody war instead.

To pretend like either side has the moral high ground is to deny reality. It's a bad sign when moderation becomes the new radical.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 6, 2018)

A potentially relevant video in all this


----------



## Xzi (Oct 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> There was no credible, corroborated accusation.


There was no credible investigation, so how are we supposed to know?  The FBI didn't even interview Ford or Kavanaugh.  The Republicans don't want the facts out, so the public won't find out the truth until much, much later.

Also again, he disqualified himself without even taking the accusations into account.  Emotional instability, consistent perjury, and blind partisanship do not a good SCOTUS justice make.  I'll say it again: the legitimacy of the supreme court is dead.  Kavanaugh is going to be deciding rulings based on "revenge" against the Democrats and women for his entire time on the court.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> A potentially relevant video in all this




I'm on my way out so only had time to browse/shuffle to a couple bits, but looks interesting. No idea what side the guy favors or if he's just dispassionately commenting/analyzing, but I will definitely watch later. First thought though -> guy looks a little green to be speaking for "lawyers." Need 20-30 years in the profession, as a litigator (not desk jockey type), to really have sufficient XP for that.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm on my way out so only had time to browse/shuffle to a couple bits, but looks interesting. No idea what side the guy favors or if he's just dispassionately commenting/analyzing, but I will definitely watch later. First thought though -> guy looks a little green to be speaking for "lawyers." Need 20-30 years in the profession, as a litigator (not desk jockey type), to really have sufficient XP for that.



That's false I would say. I also didn't watch the video but I've had to use many many attorneys. We won't go into why , but many times the older they are the less they actually know or do and the more they shift you off to their staff. Whereas the younger attorney has more of a freshly educated knows what's laws as they are now eager to please attitude that makes them much better for something that is, basically, a law lesson video.

It's a problem I've ran into many times with partners in law firms. They speak with you and represent you in court but they don't do any of the actual work beyond that. There are exceptions of course, but I doubt they'll the type to be doing YouTube videos.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> There was no credible investigation, so how are we supposed to know?  The FBI didn't even interview Ford or Kavanaugh.



Do you understand that Ford testified to the Committee that she told them EVERYTHING she knew? If the FBI interviewed her and she gave them any difference in the story or any new information, it would mean she lied to the Committee and withheld information. Her lawyers and the Dem senators who kept bleating that whine knew this and had no intention of submitting her to FBI scrutiny.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Do you understand that Ford testified to the Committee that she told them EVERYTHING she knew?


It doesn't matter in the least.  If the FBI doesn't interview the two key figures they're supposed to be investigating, it's a sham investigation.  The setting, the stakes, and the questions asked are all going to be different from a senate panel.  It's also obvious that if they didn't interview the two people most directly involved, they avoided interviewing a lot of important secondary figures too.


----------



## dAVID_ (Oct 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm on my way out so only had time to browse/shuffle to a couple bits, but looks interesting. No idea what side the guy favors or if he's just dispassionately commenting/analyzing, but I will definitely watch later. First thought though -> guy looks a little green to be speaking for "lawyers." Need 20-30 years in the profession, as a litigator (not desk jockey type), to really have sufficient XP for that.


How would you be able to know that you need 20-30 years of experience? Isn't that what the purpose of a title is?


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Do you understand that Ford testified to the Committee that she told them EVERYTHING she knew? If the FBI interviewed her and she gave them any difference in the story or any new information, it would mean she lied to the Committee and withheld information. Her lawyers and the Dem senators who kept bleating that whine knew this and had no intention of submitting her to FBI scrutiny.



Now now you can't claim two things at once like you did. You can't say she should have told them everything they needed to know so she didn't need to be interviewed and then turn around and say she didn't want to be.There's also absolutely no proof that they didn't want the FBI to interview her so that's a "false accusation".

I think that is important to note that they didn't do much of an investigation especially when Susan Collins wants to make a 45 minute speech about how we need to heal the rift. A deeper investigation would only have made them look better when it found nothing and if, as my wonderful Senator Cocaine Mitch said, the Republican base is really up in arms and going to vote, they had has absolutely nothing to lose in doing so.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It doesn't matter in the least.  If the FBI doesn't interview the two most key figures they're supposed investigating, it's a sham investigation.  The setting, the stakes, and the questions asked are all going to be different from a senate panel.  It's also obvious that if they didn't interview the two people most directly involved, they avoided interviewing a lot of important secondary figures too.



Well that just goes to the question of exactly what the FBI was doing. You keep using the word investigation, but that implies fact-finding and reaching a conclusion. SJC is the fact finder for these hearings. The FBI conducted a supplemental background check, only. They can not and will not ever give an opinion as to whether Ford or Kabanaugh was telling the truth. That’s the SJC’s job.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Well that just goes to the question of exactly what the FBI was doing. You keep using the word investigation, but that implies fact-finding and reaching a conclusion.


Don't play this game.  The investigation didn't find anything because the white house didn't want it to find anything.  Even if FBI's mission was just "fact-finding," they did a piss poor job of that too because we don't have any more facts now than we did during the senate panel.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Well that just goes to the question of exactly what the FBI was doing. You keep using the word investigation, but that implies fact-finding and reaching a conclusion. SJC is the fact finder for these hearings. The FBI conducted a supplemental background check, only. They can not and will not ever give an opinion as to whether Ford or Kabanaugh was telling the truth. That’s the SJC’s job.



Yet again absolutely wrong. 

It's correct in that the SJC AND White House mislead the public saying this was an investigation if a limited one and only permitted a background check. 

FBI investigations do end with a solid opinion however. To pretend that all the FBI does is collect information is to greatly misinterpret its purpose as a law enforcement agency.

For that matter, the SJC doesn't investigate. The constitution, as I've heard for the past month, says that the senate has the right of advise and consent. That doesn't grant them the right to investigate.

Now we can go back to jurisdiction and how the local law enforcement should be the ones to investigate but you can't pretend about the role of FBI in investigations.


----------



## dAVID_ (Oct 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Don't play this game.  The investigation didn't find anything because the white house didn't want it to find anything.  Even if FBI's mission was just "fact-finding," they did a piss poor job of that too because we don't have any more facts now than we did during the senate panel.


Maybe they weren't able to find any evidence because it was 20+ years ago. Shocking.
But I would agree that Kavanaugh's responses are questionable.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> Maybe they weren't able to find any evidence because it was 20+ years ago. Shocking.
> But I would agree that Kavanaugh's responses are questionable.



Testimony is evidence as much as people want to pretend it's not. Also it's on record that it was a limited scope background check. They didn't gather anything, they interviewed 9 out of 10 people they were given on a list by the White House.

Even if I find the accusations to be political in nature, I can't believe any sane individual would deny the investigation was also political cover.


----------



## dAVID_ (Oct 6, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> Testimony is evidence as much as people want to pretend it's not. Also it's on record that it was a limited scope background check. They didn't gather anything, they interviewed 9 out of 10 people they were given on a list by the White House.
> 
> Even if I find the accusations to be political in nature, I can't believe any sane individual would deny the investigation was also political cover.


There is no way to know for sure if Kavanaugh is lying or not, same with any of the accusers.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 6, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> Maybe they weren't able to find any evidence because it was 20+ years ago. Shocking.
> But I would agree that Kavanaugh's responses are questionable.


The FBI can and often does get to the heart of the facts in cases much older than 20 years.  They weren't able to find any evidence because they were given a week and several over-bearing restrictions on who they were allowed to interview.


----------



## dAVID_ (Oct 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The FBI can and often does get to the heart of the facts in cases much older than 20 years.  They weren't able to find any evidence because they were given a week and several over-bearing restrictions on who they were allowed to interview.


Which are?


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> There is no way to know for sure if Kavanaugh is lying or not, same with any of the accusers.



That's not true. Testimony can be used to pick at strands until the truth comes out. The way people agree or disagree in their accounts can be very telling to a talented FBI Agent.

As to your other comment, they were told who they were allowed to interview and were given a rather a strict time line that has serves no other purpose than political ascendancy.


----------



## dAVID_ (Oct 6, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> That's not true. Testimony can be used to pick at strands until the truth comes out. The way people agree or disagree in their accounts can be very telling to a talented FBI Agent.


I think at the very best you could corner him into saying certain things, then asking other questions, and attempting to find discrepancies.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> I think at the very best you could corner him into saying certain things, then asking other questions, and attempting to find discrepancies.



That is evidence.

I would add that Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice both crimes that involve misleading an investigation. Guilty people do stupid things when being investigated.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 6, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> Which are?


Well for starters, they didn't interview Kavanaugh or Ford.  As I told Hanafuda, an FBI interview is far different from a senate panel, so that doesn't excuse the negligence here.  It would take me a minute, but I could gather you probably at least ten articles from other people who wanted to give their testimony and were rejected as well, including his college roommate and drinking buddies.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> There was no credible investigation, so how are we supposed to know?  The FBI didn't even interview Ford or Kavanaugh.  The Republicans don't want the facts out, so the public won't find out the truth until much, much later.
> 
> Also again, he disqualified himself without even taking the accusations into account.  Emotional instability, consistent perjury, and blind partisanship do not a good SCOTUS justice make.  I'll say it again: the legitimacy of the supreme court is dead.  Kavanaugh is going to be deciding rulings based on "revenge" against the Democrats and women for his entire time on the court.



This. All of it. It doesn't even matter at this point if he is guilty of the sexual accusations. He should be disqualified simply becasue he's an unstable, lying (about several things outside of the sexual accusations), partisan. Even if we were to take the "You'd be pissed too if you were accused of...." thing into account, he is still unqualified and unable to be fair based upon his partisanship alone. What's so fucking difficult about just picking another candidate? Why does it HAVE to be this loser?


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Don't play this game.  The investigation didn't find anything because the white house didn't want it to find anything.  Even if FBI's mission was just "fact-finding," they did a piss poor job of that too because we don't have any more facts now than we did during the senate panel.




Yeah we do. Witness tampering.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



dAVID_ said:


> How would you be able to know that you need 20-30 years of experience? Isn't that what the purpose of a title is?



I plead the 5th.


----------



## dAVID_ (Oct 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Yeah we do. Witness tampering.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Oooops. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Yeah we do. Witness tampering.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



OK. Please show me this cold hard proof. It better not be testimony because you've told us how unreliable that is.

I looked myself. There is none, just testimony and some calls from the Right wing side of the MSM to investigate other than article about people the FBI interview saying Kavanaugh had contact several people to make sure they had the right memories.

I don't see how any of the sources involved are credible.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Yeah we do. Witness tampering.


I don't know what this means.  Are you talking about the witness tampering Kavanaugh committed?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...-ramirez-allegation-earlier-than-he-says.html



			
				NYMag said:
			
		

> During Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate testimony last week, Orrin Hatch asked the prospective Supreme Court justice, “When did you first hear of Ms. Ramirez’s allegations against you?” Kavanaugh replied, “In the last — in the period since then, the _New Yorker_ story.” Hatch was referring to Deborah Ramirez’s charge that Kavanaugh humiliated her by waving his penis in her face while she was intoxicated. Kavanaugh appeared to be saying he heard of the charges after they appeared in _The_ _New Yorker_ in September.
> 
> NBC reports that this, like many things Kavanaugh said in his testimony, is false. Kavanaugh’s friends gathered testimony attempting to refute Ramirez’s allegations weeks before _The_ _New Yorker_’s story was published. Some of the witnesses were contacted by people working on Kavanaugh’s behalf as early as July, according to text messages one witness has shared with the FBI.



Because even though it's a perjury-tampering two for one, the FBI obviously didn't look into that either.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> OK. Please show me this cold hard proof. It better not be testimony because you've told us how unreliable that is.
> 
> I looked myself. There is none, just testimony and some calls from the Right wing side of the MSM to investigate other than article about people the FBI interview saying Kavanaugh had contact several people to make sure they had the right memories.
> 
> I don't see how any of the sources involved are credible.




https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152

It would come down to the actual content of the text messages from McLean to Keyser, which the FBI, White House, and Senate all have. But Keyser says she was being pressured to change her sworn statement.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152
> 
> It would come down to the actual content of the text messages from McLean to Keyser, which the FBI, White House, and Senate all have. But Keyser says she was being pressured to change her sworn statement.



Yes the Wall Street Journal is right leaning MSM. They have published many pro trump editorials. I don't pretend there isn't liberal MSM, I don't see the point in pretending there isn't conservative as well.

For someone so concerned about false accusations and how they effect people's lives, I am surprised that you would engage in spreading them. I wish I could say I found it shocking. 

Only for counterpoint I will post: 
https://lawandcrime.com/politics/le...w-kavanaugh-might-have-tampered-with-witness/

I feel that both articles make a solid case for how childish both sides are being. I fear that this will damage our country and divide it more and more.

In truth, this thread should be called "Believe accusers (but only ones that are politically expedient to my views!).


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 6, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> In truth, this thread should be called "Believe accusers (but only ones that are politically expedient to my views!)


Well that's all this whole circus has ever been about


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> Well that's all this whole circus has ever been about



Of course it is. Since the election in 2016, it's all this has been. Anyone who disagrees with you is a loser, rapist or rape enabler, has fake supporters, is part of a massive conspiracy to destroy you, or is dying of illness. We allowed this and even normalized it by electing someone whose only real appeal was made through it, it's really no wonder both political parties are taking it up.

We can't undo it however and instead of making it better, both sides have decided to use it as political ammunition.

The WSJ, which we were just discussing, ran a headline that said "Susan Collins Consents" which is a glorified rape joke. Neither side has handled this properly.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> Yes the Wall Street Journal is right leaning MSM. They have published many pro trump editorials. I don't pretend there isn't liberal MSM, I don't see the point in pretending there isn't conservative as well.
> 
> For someone so concerned about false accusations and how they effect people's lives, I am surprised that you would engage in spreading them. I wish I could say I found it shocking.
> 
> ...




Do you see the words "might have" in the headline for the story you linked? Ok then. Might have, could have, suggests ... and even if you get to a point where it's proven Kavanaugh knew Ramirez was trying to find witnesses to join her in a hit job (none would), that doesn't mean Kavanaugh knew the specifics, or that he didn't understand Orrin Hatch to be asking when he had first heard there were public accusations against him in the media from Ramirez. It's all subjective - if you choose to assume a few things, you can reach the conclusion you want.

As for what's the WSJ, sure it's a conservative outlet, but the paper's leanings have no bearing on what they report there, i.e. that Keyser told the FBI she felt pressured to change her statement, and that FBI provided the texts to WH and Senate.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Do you see the words "might have" in the headline for the story you linked? Ok then. Might have, could have, suggests ... and even if you get to a point where it's proven Kavanaugh knew Ramirez was trying to find witnesses to join her in a hit job (none would), that doesn't mean Kavanaugh knew the specifics, or that he didn't understand Orrin Hatch to be asking when he had first heard there were public accusations against him in the media from Ramirez. It's all subjective - if you choose to assume a few things, you can reach the conclusion you want.
> 
> As for what's the WSJ, sure it's a conservative outlet, but the paper's leanings have no bearing on what they report there, i.e. that Keyser told the FBI she felt pressured to change her statement, and that FBI provided the texts to WH and Senate.



There is always bias in the media. 

They headlined an editorial Susan Collins Consents. You think that's unbiased? Would you feel the same if the NYT ran an article about how Kavanuagh forced himself on the Supreme Court? Would you admit they were biased?

Might isn't some great protector of false information. If I say Donald Trump might be a woman, it doesn't mean that no one call me out on it being false.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> There is always bias in the media.
> 
> They headlined an editorial Susan Collins Consents. You think that's unbiased? Would you feel the same if the NYT ran an article about how Kavanuagh forced himself on the Supreme Court? Would you admit they were biased?
> 
> Might isn't some great protector of false information. If I say Donald Trump might be a woman, it doesn't mean that no one call me out on it being false.



Yeah there's always bias, but are you suggesting Keyser _didn't_ tell the FBI she felt pressured to change her sworn statement, or that the FBI _didn't_ provide the texts from McLean to Keyser to the WH and Senate? Because unlike all that 'might have', 'could have', 'suggests' stuff you see in the usual biased articles (which are really just advocacy in disguise), this story is just a reporting of information, not speculation.


*This is all it really comes down to: Does "Believe Accusers" mean that every time a male person is nominated to the Supreme Court, all it takes to end them is a female person willing to testify he did some unwelcome sexual act involving her once, even though there is no evidence to support this other than her say-so??? *

*Yes or No???*


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Yeah there's always bias, but are you suggesting Keyser _didn't_ tell the FBI she felt pressured to change her sworn statement, or that the FBI _didn't_ provide the texts from McLean to Keyser to the WH and Senate? Because unlike all that 'might have', 'could have', 'suggests' stuff you see in the usual biased articles (which are really just advocacy in disguise), this story is just a reporting of known things, not speculation.





Hanafuda said:


> Yeah we do. Witness tampering.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



OK you presented the article in the quotes above as proof for your statement. 

You did not say there might be witness tampering. You were point black asked what the FBI investigation proved and you said, also point blank, witness tampering.

You have no proof other than an article that says it might have happened.

From your article:



> The statement to the FBI offers a glimpse into how Dr. Ford’s allies were working behind the scenes to lobby old classmates to bolster their versions of the alleged incident, as were Judge Kavanaugh’s



Read that last sentence for me and tell me why you didn't mention it. It clearly states they both did so. Yes the headline doesn't, which shows the bias, but the article does.


----------



## Viri (Oct 6, 2018)

Welp, we got a new judge! Also, the REEEEEEEEEEEEing was funny as fuck!



Spoiler



THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> OK you presented the article in the quotes above as proof for your statement.
> 
> You did not say there might be witness tampering. You were point black asked what the FBI investigation proved and you said, also point blank, witness tampering.
> 
> ...




The WSJ article doesn't say it might have happened. It says Keyser told the FBI that McLean pressured her to change her statement, it says the FBI provided text messages to the WH and Senate of those communications.

I'm not the WSJ. I'm entitled to my opinion. Just like the people here who believe Kavanaugh is a mad drunken serial rapist are entitled to theirs.


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 6, 2018)

Kavanaugh has been confirmed by the senate by a vote of 50-48

He is expected to be sworn in monday or tuesday


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm not the WSJ. I'm entitled to my opinion. Just like the people here who believe Kavanaugh is a mad drunken serial rapist are entitled to theirs.



Congratulations, you avoided my question just as Kavanaugh did. 



Viri said:


> Welp, we got a new judge! Also, the REEEEEEEEEEEEing was funny as fuck!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm glad to see people don't just shut up and do what politicians say anymore. No matter who those people are. 

I heard people say for years we should protest if we felt strongly about something but when you actually do it you get vilified and called fake by the party you protest against.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> Congratulations, you avoided my question just as Kavanaugh did.



I edited/added to the post. Probably still won't satisfy you, but thread is moot now until the next time Trump nominates someone and we learn they're a racistnazipedojunkiedrunkrapistnecrophile despite decades of unquestioned service on the Federal bench.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> I edited/added to the post. Probably still won't satisfy you, but thread is moot now until the next time Trump nominates someone and we learn they're a racistnazipedojunkiedrunkrapistnecrophile despite decades of unquestioned service on the Federal bench.



Yes you know, predators never hide for many years in public sight. Never ever. Can't name a single one.

Or are you claiming that was all false too?

Also you didn't change anything to make me happy. I'd rather you leave it all the same, so people can see the misleading bits. 

It was never personal though.


----------



## Viri (Oct 6, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> I'm glad to see people don't just shut up and do what politicians say anymore. No matter who those people are.
> 
> I heard people say for years we should protest if we felt strongly about something but when you actually do it you get vilified and called fake by the party you protest against.


The REEEEEing was music to my ears, and made me laugh non stop. Also please say it with me, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Brett M. Kavanaugh! Or, just "Your honor"


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

Viri said:


> The REEEEEing was music to my ears, and made me laugh non stop. Also please say it with me, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Brett M. Kavanaugh! Or, just "Your honor"



I don't have to say anything. It means absolutely nothing to me. 

In fact, from a purely personal point, this is the absolute best thing that could have happened. He will be excellent on the court for me and my interests.

Don't confuse hypothetical discussion about political principles with reality.


----------



## Viri (Oct 6, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> I don't have to say anything. It means absolutely nothing to me.
> 
> In fact, from a purely personal point, this is the absolute best thing that could have happened. He will be excellent on the court for me and my interests.
> 
> Don't confuse hypothetical discussion about political principles with reality.


In other words, "Your honor"


----------



## Xzi (Oct 6, 2018)

Viri said:


> The REEEEEing was music to my ears, and made me laugh non stop. Also please say it with me, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Brett M. Kavanaugh! Or, just "Your honor"


The only people that have been treating this like a team sport are the Republicans, as usual.  Giving due consideration to a different, more qualified nominee was not an unreasonable or partisan request.

With another US institution de-legitimized, ultimately the only "winner" in this whole scenario is Putin.  Kavanaugh sitting on the supreme court only further divides an already extremely divided nation.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

Viri said:


> In other words, "Your honor"



I don't think Mr. Kavanaugh feels the need for vindication as much you do. It must be sad not having wins of your own so you need his to feel better.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> Yes you know, predators never hide for many years in public sight. Never ever. Can't name a single one.
> 
> Or are you claiming that was all false too?




I'm not sure what this is even about. Am I claiming what was all false, exactly?




> Also you didn't change anything to make me happy. I'd rather you leave it all the same, so people can see the misleading bits.



I _added_ a couple sentences to my post, to address your previous statement more thoroughly. I didn't alter the original content I'd posted, in fact you'd already quoted it in your next post while I was doing the edit/add.


----------



## Viri (Oct 6, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> I don't think Mr. Kavanaugh feels the need for vindication as much you do. It must be sad not having wins of your own so you need his to feel better.


I hope you're used to calling him "Your honor", because he's going to be a judge for a loooong time!


----------



## Xzi (Oct 6, 2018)

Viri said:


> I hope you're used to calling him "Your honor", because he's going to be a judge for a loooong time!


Unless he's appearing in front of the supreme court, he can call Kavanaugh whatever the hell he wants to.  For my part I wouldn't even call him "your honor" even if I had a case reach SCOTUS.  "Your drunkenness" maybe though.


----------



## Viri (Oct 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Unless he's appearing in front of the supreme court, he can call Kavanaugh whatever the hell he wants to.  For my part I wouldn't even call him "your honor" even if I had a case reach SCOTUS.  "Your drunkenness" maybe though.


Well, depending on the case, if you don't treat a judge with respect, they're not going to rule in your favor. And if your case somehow did make it to the Supreme Court, I would suggest you treat them with respect, as that case must be very important. But hey, you do you! 

Oh, and I like beer!


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm not sure what this is even about. Am I claiming what was all false, exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Pointing out the hypocrisy at acting like only Trump supporters are accused of sexual assault. Here's the thing, plenty of then aren't accused of it at all. This whole, oh no one of them is, now everyone will be is a ridiculous strawman.

I saw what you added. In the end I don't care about the sexual assault claim to be honest, I care, from a purely ideological point, that he behaved like a child in front of a political committee and feed conspiracy theories at the same time.

I care that the conservative party wants to celebrate this whole charade as a victory, as you can see from some in this thread, when really all they have done is feed a massive amount of division in this country.

The Republican party had a change to seize the high ground in this, but told the Democrats hold my beer and proceeded to show us they can always win the political limbo contest.

I am glad that people are finally seeing Washington for what it actually is now. It's a repugnant cesspool, and has only gotten worse. Maybe one day, people will see past the partisanship and actually want to fix it.

Until then I might as well benefit from it.



Viri said:


> Well, depending on the case, if you don't treat a judge with respect, they're not going to rule in your favor. And if your case somehow did make it to the Supreme Court, I would suggest you treat them with respect, as that case must be very important. But hey, you do you!
> 
> Oh, and I like beer!



That's not how the legal system actually works. Justices aren't supposed to nurture personal vendettas against the people in their courts. I've actually been in front of several judges, never called them your honor. I've said sir when I felt it was appropriate but not all the time either.

But enjoy your fantasy.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 6, 2018)

Viri said:


> Well, depending on the case, if you don't treat a judge with respect, they're not going to rule in your favor. And if your case somehow did make it to the Supreme Court, I would suggest you treat them with respect, as that case must be very important. But hey, you do you!


Kavanaugh isn't going to give rulings with any sort of impartiality anyway.  He made that clear with his "Clintons and Soros" rant.  The only positive highlight is that he will be a galvanizing force for the left as long as he sits on the court, and leftist views are still a vast majority in this country even if they don't get a majority of representation.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> I care that the conservative party wants to celebrate this whole charade as a victory, as you can see from some in this thread, when really all they have done is feed a massive amount of division in this country.
> 
> The Republican party had a change to seize the high ground in this, but told the Democrats hold my beer and proceeded to show us they can always win the political limbo contest.



Wait a second. The Republican party had a chance to seize the high ground, huh? How was that? How were they to do this, in your opinion?


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm on my way out so only had time to browse/shuffle to a couple bits, but looks interesting. No idea what side the guy favors or if he's just dispassionately commenting/analyzing, but I will definitely watch later. First thought though -> guy looks a little green to be speaking for "lawyers." Need 20-30 years in the profession, as a litigator (not desk jockey type), to really have sufficient XP for that.


Guy is a trial lawyer (at least partially criminal side of things as well, in some of his other videos he seems to have moved since into other related areas) for a big firm and otherwise has the relevant skills if his website is anything to go by -- https://www.legaleagleprep.com/about

And yeah he mostly seemed to go in on that for the dispassionate and technical approach, or perhaps the lawyer equivalent of old school hacker, which suits me rather nicely.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Wait a second. The Republican party had a chance to seize the high ground, huh? How was that? How were they to do this, in your opinion?


Pick another name from the list of 25 that they got Kavanaugh from?  They could've had him confirmed a week later at most, which could've been now.  Odds are no accusations come forward and the guy can act normal (not hyper partisan or hyper emotional) for a few hours during confirmation hearings.  Instead Republicans made it blatantly clear that they really don't give a fuck about de-legitimizing the supreme court or the confirmation process.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Guy is a trial lawyer (at least partially criminal side of things as well, in some of his other videos he seems to have moved since into other related areas) for a big firm and otherwise has the relevant skills if his website is anything to go by -- https://www.legaleagleprep.com/about
> 
> And yeah he mostly seemed to go in on that for the dispassionate and technical approach, or perhaps the lawyer equivalent of old school hacker, which suits me rather nicely.




I haven't gotten to the video yet but that was not a good comment (from me). I was literally getting called to head out to shopping with my wife when I typed it and it was just my first impression after seeing about 6-7 seconds of the guy, that he looked kinda young, like under 35. Since you're typically going to be at least 25-26 or older before admitted to the bar somewhere, 10 yrs or less experience which doesn't really = veteran litigator. But I didn't give him enough of a fair shake to dispel that (probably unfair) presumption.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Wait a second. The Republican party had a chance to seize the high ground, huh? How was that? How were they to do this, in your opinion?



How about no accusing protestors of being paid plants constantly? How about not attempting to pass a background investigation off as an actual investigation? How about addressing both Judge Kavanaugh and Senator Lindsey Graham's, to be quite frank, scary as hell attack on an entire party that makes up half the county. How about they stop flogging Clinton like this is still the 2016 election? This is the party that was triggered by Clinton referring to them as deplorable but they have no problem attacking others.

The whole process has highlighted that the Republican party expects to treat others one way, such as the accusations that Hilary is a murderer than their surrogates like to make, accusations that have no credible collaboration.

In short, even though I'm sad to see it, I can't say the Republicans don't deserve this. They started the false accusation train, legitimized and now are sucking at its teat and they want to complain when anyone else resorts to their tactics.


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 6, 2018)

Actually he is being sworn in tonight.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> Actually he is being sworn in tonight.



Of course he is. They want to push it through as soon as possible.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 6, 2018)

Sad day for this country. The blatant disrespect for the people of this country, the head-in-sand approach to human rights, the disregard for logic, compassion, and thoughtful assessment. This country continues to increase in silliness and vapid sensibilities.

The vast majority of folks are against this nonsense. But it's things like this that makes me aware we're more oligarchy than a proper democracy.


----------



## Viri (Oct 6, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> Actually he is being sworn in tonight.


Doesn't it look so... right?


Spoiler


----------



## Xzi (Oct 6, 2018)

osaka35 said:


> Sad day for this country. The blatant disrespect for the people of this country, the head-in-sand approach to human rights, the disregard for logic, compassion, and consideration for other humans. This country continues to increase in silliness and vapid sensibilities.
> 
> The vast majority of folks are against this nonsense. But it's things like this that makes me aware we're more oligarchy than a proper democracy.


Yep, Kavanaugh is going to be the fourth supreme court justice nominated by a president who didn't win the popular vote.  We are witnessing the dying breaths of Democracy in the US.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Yep, Kavanaugh is going to be the fourth supreme court justice nominated by a president who didn't win the popular vote.  We are witnessing the dying breaths of Democracy in the US.



You know it's funny because when I was a kid people loved to say the Star Wars prequels were crap, and in some ways they were. In some ways, they were utterly perfect.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 6, 2018)

I hope all this backfires on them. Clearly the whole system needs to be fixed and significantly safeguarded.

Too much power is being given to people, that simply doesn't care.


----------



## Viri (Oct 6, 2018)

I applaud and congratulate the U.S. Senate for confirming our GREAT NOMINEE, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, to the United States Supreme Court. Later today, I will sign his Commission of Appointment, and he will be officially sworn in. Very exciting!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 6, 2018


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Yep, Kavanaugh is going to be the fourth supreme court justice nominated by a president who didn't win the popular vote.  We are witnessing the dying breaths of Democracy in the US.




Jesus Christ. The popular vote means NOTHING in a Presidential election. The USA is not a democracy, never was, never intended to be. Find another country if that's what you want, or else start the revolution.

I'm out. Star Wars Prequels _are_ crap.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Jesus Christ. The popular vote means NOTHING in a Presidential election. The USA is not a democracy, never was, never intended to be.
> 
> I'm out. Star Wars Prequels _are_ crap.



It's a Democratic Republic. Some local decisions are made democratically and for large mostly federal decisions we elect representatives.

You misrepresent what others are saying for your personal goals. Without the democratic principles that are a part of our country, we wouldn't be the United States.

But of course you're entitled to your opinion about a move.

Edit:BTW the only person who mentioned the popular vote is you. Like our president, his supporters seem hung up on losing it.


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 6, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> Edit:BTW the only person who mentioned the popular vote is you. Like our president, his supporters seem hung up on losing it.


Xzi mentioned it on the last page https://gbatemp.net/threads/believe-accusers.519412/page-14#post-8321748


----------



## Viri (Oct 6, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> Edit:BTW the only person who mentioned the popular vote is you. Like our president, his supporters seem hung up on losing it.


Are you blind? He's literally quoting a post mentioning the popular vote.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 6, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> Xzi mentioned it on the last page https://gbatemp.net/threads/believe-accusers.519412/page-14#post-8321748





Viri said:


> Are you blind? He's literally quoting a post mentioning the popular vote.



So here we go. I made a mistake not seeing that. It's great and I'm allowed to. I own up to that.

So can either of you answer how we aren't at least partly a Democratic country? Anyone want to address anything else in my post? No?

Edit:Just released if I sniffed and licked my lips repeatedly I'd basically be Kavanaugh right now.


----------



## kuwanger (Oct 6, 2018)

Viri said:


> And if your case somehow did make it to the Supreme Court, I would suggest you treat them with respect, as that case must be very important.



How about, I'll treat him with all the respect he showed the SCJ, including with all the emotionalism?  Oh, right, that only works when you have a majority in your pocket from the start supporting your position no matter what you say or do.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 7, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> So here we go. I made a mistake not seeing that. It's great and I'm allowed to. I own up to that.
> 
> So can either of you answer how we aren't at least partly a Democratic country? Anyone want to address anything else in my post? No?
> 
> Edit:Just released if I sniffed and licked my lips repeatedly I'd basically be Kavanaugh right now.



Ok, since you're asking about it ...

_partly_ Democratic? sure.

Local/state can be as 'democratic' as they wanna be. They have their own constitutions and laws, has nothing to do with the Federal government. The United States Federal Government though is a Representative Republic, where the members of Congress and the President are chosen by indirect democracy. And until the 17th Amendment, there was no election for US senators. State governors appointed them. So every action of the Federal government has ALWAYS had at least one level of separation from direct democracy, and usually more. Remember that even the President is not elected by the people. The people elect Electors, who then vote in the actual Presidential election.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 7, 2018)

Polygraphs are not lie detecters. They can be fooled.

An Ex Boyfriend said that Ford since she's a psychologist helped a friend on how to take a polygraph. Strange that she said she doesn't know polygrpahs since it's her profession. And he said she never showed a fear of flying. And that Ford did credit card fraud. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ch...for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm.

Ford goes from crying then to acting normal smiling straight right after like it's no big deal. And she keeps talking in a high pitched innocent sounding tiny girl voice. And she's constantly trying to do that pretty girl pose and trying to look cute. And her crying croakyness sounds manufactured, she didn't get a tissue to clear her supposed flem that caused her supposed croakyness in her throat either, did it just magically go away. It seems like she's using emotion to manipulate. It sounds like a prepared speech. I'm not buying it.


----------



## Tigran (Oct 7, 2018)

Viri said:


> In other words, "Your honor"




Glad you're so happy. Hope you are happy when somethign fucks you over and everyone just ignores it... or when you are raped or abused and everyone goes "HERP DERP! DON'T BELIEVE HIM!"


----------



## Xzi (Oct 7, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> The USA is not a democracy, never was, never intended to be.


It was always intended to be a Democratic Republic.  We left the British empire because we weren't receiving sufficient representation for paying taxes, and now we're right back to that same situation in 2018's USA.  If not for democracy we might as well have stayed a monarchy, because oligarchy is turning out to be so much worse than that in several ways.  More precisely we're probably somewhere between an oligarchy and a banana republic at this point, which was always the danger for us if democracy's influence started waning.


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 7, 2018)

Tigran said:


> Glad you're so happy. Hope you are happy when somethign fucks you over and everyone just ignores it... or when you are raped or abused and everyone goes "HERP DERP! DON'T BELIEVE HIM!"


I woke up drunk at a senior drinking party with a dick in my mouth. I don't blame anyone even the f* that did that to me except only myself.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 7, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Ok, since you're asking about it ...
> 
> _partly_ Democratic? sure.
> 
> Local/state can be as 'democratic' as they wanna be. They have their own constitutions and laws, has nothing to do with the Federal government. The United States Federal Government though is a Representative Republic, where the members of Congress and the President are chosen by indirect democracy. And until the 17th Amendment, there was no election for US senators. State governors appointed them. So every action of the Federal government has ALWAYS had at least one level of separation from direct democracy, and usually more. Remember that even the President is not elected by the people. The people elect Electors, who then vote in the actual Presidential election.



The electors vote based on the popular vote and have never broken from that in the history of the Republic. True, it's on a state by state basis, but that's hardly not democracy. You would have a point if they actually had.

So basically you're saying Democracy is a part of our government, whether direct or indirect. And no, The United States is a democratic Republic, in that we democratically elect representatives, whether electors, Senators, or Representatives. What we were before the 17th amendment is up for debates, but doesn't really matter unless it's abolished. I'm sure many people will pick through my words and try to find something to contradict, while ignoring any ridiculous claims of their own side.



SG854 said:


> Polygraphs are not lie detecters. They can be fooled.
> 
> An Ex Boyfriend said that Ford since she's a psychologist helped a friend on how to take a polygraph. Strange that she said she doesn't know polygrpahs since it's her profession. And he said she never showed a fear of flying. And that Ford did credit card fraud. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ch...for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm.
> 
> Ford goes from crying then to acting normal smiling straight right after like it's no big deal. And she keeps talking in a high pitched innocent sounding tiny girl voice. And she's constantly trying to do that pretty girl pose and trying to look cute. And her crying croakyness sounds manufactured, she didn't get a tissue to clear her supposed flem that caused her supposed croakyness in her throat either, did it just magically go away. It seems like she's using emotion to manipulate. It sounds like a prepared speech. I'm not buying it.




And what did Kavanaugh do? I've never said I believed her or didn't, but I find it hilarious that you point out things she did that may her untrustworthy then he then turned around and did. It show how both sides are just making partisan attacks. Kavanaugh repeatedly got angry, cried, got angry again, then acted calm and smug, verbally sparred with Senators, cried some more, and had all of those weird verbal tics.

Yet again you're repeating things that have never be collaborated. An ex boyfriend said them and no proof was ever fine. Let me get this straight, Kavanaugh gets the benefit of the doubt when multiple women say something, and it's false accusations. A single ex can say something, and it's absolutely true and quotable as fact. Do you see the hypocrisy there? My ex told people all sorts of stuff about me one he was a few states away. It seems that people who are against false accusations only care when those false accusations don't benefit them.

To the Republican party and neoconservatives, if you're against false accusations, maybe you shouldn't repeat them constantly, and then expect everyone to believe you when you say there are some against you. We all make mistakes, true, but if you want na apology from Dr. Ford why not also push for one from Donald Trump and his surrogates who falsely accused Hilary Clinton of dying, she's still alive and fine, murdering 4 American soldiers in Benghazi, even if she was responsible there's a different between that and her physically murdering them,  and for saying she killed Vince Foster. There is no proof she did those things, no collaboration, no investigation, and yet they are regularly repeated by the party and its surrogates as fact. For that matter apologize to Megyn Kelly for implying that asking hard questions means she's on her period, as I'm sure they didn't check her afterwards. All false accusations, and no apologies.



JiveTheTurkey said:


> I woke up drunk at a senior drinking party with a dick in my mouth. I don't blame anyone even the f* that did that to me except only myself.



So we're supposed to just believe you? We need corroboration of this, and actual physical evidence that it happened.

Also your statement is paramount to if a woman or men is drunk, they deserved to be sexually assaulted or raped. I expected as much, but that doesn't make it anymore right. In fact, the kind of attitude you just demonstrated is a lot like the attitude sexual assault victims face from people in general.

"oh you had.a beer, so you were asking for it" is basically how your comment translates into reality.


----------



## Viri (Oct 7, 2018)

Tigran said:


> Glad you're so happy. Hope you are happy when somethign fucks you over and everyone just ignores it... or when you are raped or abused and everyone goes "HERP DERP! DON'T BELIEVE HIM!"


Well, I'm a guy, so that probably would already happen. Esp, if a girl rapes me. If a guy rapes me, dw, I'll report the rape asap, not 30 years later. I'll report when the dna is still in my asshole!


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 7, 2018)

Viri said:


> Well, I'm a guy, so that probably would already happen. Esp, if a girl rapes me. If a guy rapes me, dw, I'll report the rape asap, not 30 years later. I'll report when the dna is still in my asshole!



I know you don't know this, but a majority of rape kits in the US go untested because of the cost. Your precious asshole dna would be no different.

As for rape by woman, blame the right. They're the ones who believe no red blooded patriot could ever be be raped by a woman. Just like he could never rape a woman.


----------



## Viri (Oct 7, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> I know you don't know this, but a majority of rape kits in the US go untested because of the cost. Your precious asshole dna would be no different.
> 
> As for rape by woman, blame the right. They're the ones who believe no red blooded patriot could ever be be raped by a woman. Just like he could never rape a woman.


I looked up my city, we don't have a huge of a backlog of rape tests. So, my asshole cum would come in handy! Either way, I wouldn't wait 30 years to report my rapist. 2 years tops, and I can get revenge on my rapist, and probably by my own hands!


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 7, 2018)

Viri said:


> I looked up my city, we don't have a huge of a backlog of rape tests. So, my asshole cum would come in handy! Either way, I wouldn't wait 30 years to report my rapist. 2 years tops, and I can get revenge on my rapist, and probably by my own hands!



Mhm. I'm sure you have loads of proof that you just forgot to share.

It's funny you end your post about justice for rape by saying you'd take part in vigilante justice which is against the rule of law. It says so much about you.


----------



## Viri (Oct 7, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> Mhm. I'm sure you have loads of proof that you just forgot to share.
> 
> It's funny you end your post about justice for rape by saying you'd take part in vigilante justice which is against the rule of law. It says so much about you.


I know!  If someone held me down, raped me, and I found them, I would take the law into my own hands.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 7, 2018)

Viri said:


> I know!  If someone held me down, raped me, and I found them, I would take the law into my own hands.



Here we go everyone. What I've been waiting for. Viri has vehemently supported Judge Kavanaugh, a side that says we must have due process and respect the rule of the law.

When he thinks about what he would personally do if it raped, that all goes out the window and shows what a farce all this high horse nonsense from the Republicans has been.

Thank you Viri, I appreciate your candidate honesty and hope you realize that you just legitimized mob violence in the case of sexual assault. You have basically sad if Dr. Ford was raped by the Judge Kavanaugh, whether there is proof or not, as long as she knows she was, she should hunt him down and kill him with her own two hands.

An eye for an eye. I would never support that but you do.


----------



## Viri (Oct 7, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> Here we go everyone. What I've been waiting for. Viri has vehemently supported Judge Kavanaugh, a side that says we must have due process and respect the rule of the law.
> 
> When he thinks about what he would personally do if it raped, that all goes out the window and shows what a farce all this high horse nonsense from the Republicans has been.
> 
> ...


Well, I mean if the guy is holding me down, and trying to rape me, I'm probably going to shoot him. If I was somehow disarmed, I would report it to the police. I would get the DNA test done, and if the DNA test showed who did it, I would get my revenge. I wouldn't go after someone innocent, I would only go after them if there isn't a shadow of a doubt.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 7, 2018)

Viri said:


> Well, I mean if the guy is holding me down, and trying to rape me, I'm probably going to shoot him. If I was somehow disarmed, I would report it to the police. I would get the DNA test done, and if the DNA test showed who did it, I would get my revenge. I wouldn't go after someone innocent, I would only go after them if there isn't a shadow of a doubt.



There's a difference between personally knowing something and proving it in any sort of public venue. For all we know Dr. Ford does know he was the one that did it, she just can't prove it to the world.

But past even that, you do realize that you may not need DNA to tell who raped raped you right? It's not like they always knock you out, sometimes they want you to know or they want you to be conscious to fight back because that makes it better. Also DNA isn't nearly as reliable as it's made out to be on TV Shows.

I get that this whole thing feeds into the power fantasies the right loves (the "if I was ever getting raped I'd shoot them" but) but that's your business really.

At the end of the day, you are still from the side calling for innocent until proven guilty, while still saying if a person wasn't found guilty of raping you, you'd take justice into your own hands. Whatever odd excuses you want to hide that behind, you're still encouraging vigilante justice which is against the rule of law.


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 7, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> For all we know Dr. Ford does know he was the one that did it, she just can't prove it to the world.


Yeah it's more easier to fool the world than to explain to the world they have* been fooled.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 7, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> The electors vote based on the popular vote and have never broken from that in the history of the Republic. True, it's on a state by state basis, but that's hardly not democracy. You would have a point if they actually had.
> 
> So basically you're saying Democracy is a part of our government, whether direct or indirect. And no, The United States is a democratic Republic, in that we democratically elect representatives, whether electors, Senators, or Representatives. What we were before the 17th amendment is up for debates, but doesn't really matter unless it's abolished. I'm sure many people will pick through my words and try to find something to contradict, while ignoring any ridiculous claims of their own side.
> 
> ...


I never said it was truth but this got very little media coverage to verify of it was true or not.

The ridiculous thing if Kavanaugh didn't show emotion he would be criticized of being guilty because no person would stay calm of being falsely accused and having their life ruined. But if he gets angry he's guilty because if he was innocent he would stay calm. It's a lose lose for him no matter what he does. Ford sounded manufactured, a difference.

FBI found no evidence for the claims against Kavanaugh. Democrats complained that investigation didn't go thoroughly enough. But what do they expect to find? FBI already investigated him 7 times. At most they are going to get, I think he did it, I don't think he did it. Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty. FBI found no evidence to point he's guilty so he'll be treated as innocent. Since no evidence was found, lack of evidence shows that Ford lied.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 7, 2018)

SG854 said:


> I never said it was truth but this got very little media coverage to verify of it was true or not.
> 
> The ridiculous thing if Kavanaugh didn't show emotion he would be criticized of being guilty because no person would stay calm of being falsely accused and having their life ruined. But if he gets angry he's guilty because if he was innocent he would stay calm. It's a lose lose for him no matter what he does. Ford sounded manufactured, a difference.
> 
> FBI found no evidence for the claims against Kavanaugh. Democrats complained that investigation didn't go thoroughly enough. But what do they expect to find? FBI already investigated him 7 times. At most they are going to get, I think he did it, I don't think he did it. Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty. FBI found no evidence to point he's guilty so he'll be treated as innocent. Since no evidence was found, lack of evidence shows that Ford lied.



Testimony is evidence. The FBI, as the Republican party loved to repeat despite being false, never concludes an investigation with a decision on guilt. We have no proof Ford lied.

However let's clarify should we? FBI background investigations are different than investigations in general. I had to have an FBI background investigation for a job at one point, and easily passed it despite being involved in unsavory behavior and having a substance abuse problem at the time. They found no evidence because they don't actively investigate. They check some references for personal behavior, check your background like employment and stuff and little else.

I would wager the interviews that took this week were about character and not about the actual accusations and this is why it was also a background investigation and not a real one.

To say that Ford is a liar is just as a fake accusation as to say he raped her. We have no proof either way and unless you were there you also don't know.

Edit: I'd like to add that the age of the case is only ever factored into this when it benefits Kavanaugh. It had been 30 years, so what evidence were you hoping for? The FBI didn't interview the accusers or any of the witnesses they had despite it being presented as a credible and bipartisan investigation.

Most real investigations interview the alleged victims.


----------



## eyeliner (Oct 7, 2018)

May I ask (because I just took note of this thread right now), if the accusations against Kavanaugh were made before his person was advanced as a proponent for the position, or after?

My apologies for not knowing these facts, despite being bombarded with this fact (his accusation, not when he was accused) and I'm not even in America.

I find it curious how in a few short years what was considered "machismo" is not assault. Heck, even movies from the 90's shown women being nothing more than candy for testosterone filled horndogs. Watch any action movie and how most times the hero just pulls the female and plants a kiss on her out of the blue. Women sighed because of it. Not call rape.

Is this politics, culture, or just plain stupidity?

For me, the "No" word has a very specific meaning. But alas, I'm not rich, powerful or a douchebag as as such, can't distill any other meaning of the word.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 7, 2018)

eyeliner said:


> May I ask (because I just took note of this thread right now), if the accusations against Kavanaugh were made before his person was advanced as a proponent for the position, or after?
> 
> My apologies for not knowing these facts, despite being bombarded with this fact (his accusation, not when he was accused) and I'm not even in America.
> 
> ...



Basically the accusation was sent to a Senator, and not meant to be revealed. Someone leaked it to the media and from there on it became a political play piece of both parties.

There is proof that she mentioned she was raped by him before in therapy, although at first she didn't use his name which is not at all unusual in cases where powerful people are involved.

What you're describing from a cultural viewpoint has only really existed in movies. The US as a country has had great issues with sexism, as well as many other isms, in the past and we never really dealt with it. Maybe we will now, or maybe, and far more likely in my opinion, we will simply get worse.

The answer to you question is that it's all three. Both political parties have weaponized it to a ridiculous extent and it will only weaken my, and many other here's, country.

I don't know how this is being covered outside the US, but within the US the amount of "fake news" and "alternative facts" have been ridiculous.

I'll just sum it. Women sent claims in private, didn't want it revealed. Was leaked to press, don't know by who despite false claims that we do. I assume if it's important we'll find our with a congressional investigation. Women was asked to testify in front of SJC, did not want to. Was cajoled by both sides into doing so. Becomes polarizing figure in American history.

I would also add that coming coward later in time isn't new in the US or even in our politics. Many people can forward to accuse President Bill Clinton of assaulting them many times during his life and not always recently. This was used as part of the impeachment process. Then there the accusation against a previous Supreme Court Justice.

In short, it's definitely political and both sides are guilty of it.

Edit: I'll also add that the 90s are almost 20-30 years ago and that that's a long time in American cultural.


----------



## eyeliner (Oct 7, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> I don't know how this is being covered outside the US, but within the US the amount of "fake news" and "alternative facts" have been ridiculous.


Thank you for the elaborate reply.
Around here, it's just the update snippet:
"This happened on the streets, and the president said this. Meanwhile the the senate ruling is like that..."


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 7, 2018)

eyeliner said:


> Thank you for the elaborate reply.
> Around here, it's just the update snippet:
> "This happened on the streets, and the president said this. Meanwhile the the senate ruling is like that..."



You're very welcome. Honestly your news is probably more reliable than ours in terms of bias in this case. 

And I almost would prefer your news to ours. Both sides are stoking the good old end of days talk at this point.


----------



## eyeliner (Oct 7, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> You're very welcome. Honestly your news is probably more reliable than ours in terms of bias in this case.
> 
> And I almost would prefer your news to ours. Both sides are stoking the good old end of days talk at this point.


Well, we've got other issues around here, though. Because it's a foreign affair, we just have the gist of it, though we've got the same treatment about Cristiano Ronaldo / Kathryn Mayorga. We just let justice run it's course, despite some messed up rulings.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 7, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> The electors vote based on the popular vote and *have never broken from that in the history of the Republic*. True, it's on a state by state basis, but that's hardly not democracy. You would have a point if they actually had.




Yes they have, many times. Like, 163 times. There's never been an instance where 'faithless electors' had much of a chance to change the outcome, but in 2016 there were a LOT of people hoping and pushing for it. You don't remember that? Celebrities and activists were _begging_ electors to not vote for Trump. And that's not going to be the last time. 

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-faithless-electors-2016-story.html


----------



## Xzi (Oct 7, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Yes they have, many times. Like, 163 times. There's never been an instance where 'faithless electors' had much of a chance to change the outcome, but in 2016 there were a LOT of people hoping and pushing for it. You don't remember that? Celebrities and activists were _begging_ electors to not vote for Trump. And that's not going to be the last time.
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-faithless-electors-2016-story.html


Because the electoral college was meant to protect us from seating a despotic populist president hellbent on de-legitimizing every American institution.  Now that they've failed at that, we might as well rid ourselves of the useless archaic system.  At this point it's just another tool used to ignore the will of the voters.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 7, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Yes they have, many times. Like, 163 times. There's never been an instance where 'faithless electors' had much of a chance to change the outcome, but in 2016 there were a LOT of people hoping and pushing for it. You don't remember that? Celebrities and activists were _begging_ electors to not vote for Trump. And that's not going to be the last time.
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-faithless-electors-2016-story.html



Oh please. The overall electorate still went with the popular vote in all 167, not 163, times except for 1 when in 1796 where it determined that the Vice President would be President and vice versa. That is hardly a break from the popular vote and other than that one instance they have always voted for a third party candidate and have never switched between two candidates of a major party.

Of course you'd jump on something that doesn't even moderately change what I said. But yes let's be exact as we have now.for whatever it's actually worth. 

Of course I remember that. Do you remember when the Supreme Court ordered a recount be stopped and decided a Presidential election? That seems like it would have more to do with this thread.

Oh did I mention that many sources now agree Gore would have won the recount.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa


----------



## SG854 (Oct 7, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> Testimony is evidence. The FBI, as the Republican party loved to repeat despite being false, never concludes an investigation with a decision on guilt. We have no proof Ford lied.
> 
> However let's clarify should we? FBI background investigations are different than investigations in general. I had to have an FBI background investigation for a job at one point, and easily passed it despite being involved in unsavory behavior and having a substance abuse problem at the time. They found no evidence because they don't actively investigate. They check some references for personal behavior, check your background like employment and stuff and little else.
> 
> ...


Age benefits Kavanaugh? Ford was the one who waited 30 yrs before saying anything. 

A friend of ford, Leland Keyser, said that allies of Ford pressured her to change her earlier statement that she knew nothing about the incident. Leland Keyser was someone that Ford said was present at the house when she was assaulted. So this isn't a random person. 

Keyser originally said that she doesn't know Kavanaugh and has no recollection of him being present at the party. All the people Ford said was a witness said they cannot recall the incident. 

Chuck Grassley continues to criticize that the repeatedly refuse to provide evidence to the senate and to turn over Fords documents. Its getting harder to give Ford the benefit of doubt.

All of this seams like a smear campaign by Democrats and using delay tactics and time manipulation to push off Kavanaugh's confirmation. Senator Feinstein received the sexual abuse allegation on July 30 from Ford and did nothing. Then all of a sudden when Kavanaugh was going to be confirmed they bring it out. Democrats knew that a non criminal FBI investigation has less power to compel testimony. So of course people wont be satisfied with the FBI investigation. The FBI investigation seemed like another delay tactic.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 7, 2018)

SG854 said:


> All of this seams like a smear campaign by Democrats and using delay tactics and time manipulation to push off Kavanaugh's confirmation.


Bullshit.  If Republicans truly believed she was lying, they'd go after Ford for defamation or libel.  They know it would open the case back up to a discovery process far more legit than the four-day FBI investigation though, so I don't expect it to happen ever.  They never cared about disproving the accusations against him, only about getting him seated.  The Republican base automatically disbelieves sexual assault accusers regardless of the facts anyway.  They are the party of Roy Moore, after all.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 7, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> Oh please. The overall electorate still went with the popular vote in all 167, not 163, times except for 1 when in 1796 where it determined that the Vice President would be President and vice versa. That is hardly a break from the popular vote and other than that one instance they have always voted for a third party candidate and have never switched between two candidates of a major party.
> 
> Of course you'd jump on something that doesn't even moderately change what I said. But yes let's be exact as we have now.for whatever it's actually worth.
> 
> ...




I think it was just misunderstanding. I thought you meant no elector had ever individually voted against the popular vote of their constituency.

Gore? You're still hung up on that? Almost 20 years ago and still butthurt. Amazing. "Many sources" may say something, but it's still just speculation. Nobody will ever _know_. And what you have there from Jan 2001 is not in agreement with *THIS.* Either way its well over and America was going to lose in the election regardless of Bush or Gore winning. They're both among the worst to ever hold office.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 7, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Age benefits Kavanaugh? Ford was the one who waited 30 yrs before saying anything.
> 
> A friend of ford, Leland Keyser, said that allies of Ford pressured her to change her earlier statement that she knew nothing about the incident. Leland Keyser was someone that Ford said was present at the house when she was assaulted. So this isn't a random person.
> 
> ...



We went through this early but several people also came forward saying Kavanaugh attempted the same thing. Hanafuda even helpfully provided that a WSJ piece that mentioned that in the body that Kavanaugh participated in the same behavior.

I say if they both did they should be punished. You just forgot one of them did it all and push for one of them to be punished. Another example of a conservative unconcerned with the rule of the law and more concerned with a personal vendetta. It's the exact thing you accuse the left, but with the general lack of self awareness in politics nowadays, you blunder forward.

The FBI investigation is what the White House wanted it to be. They were the client who ordered the background investigation.




Hanafuda said:


> I think it was just misunderstanding. I thought you meant no elector had ever individually voted against the popular vote of their constituency.
> 
> Gore? You're still hung up on that? Almost 20 years ago and still butthurt. Amazing. "Many sources" may say something, but it's still just speculation. Nobody will ever _know_. And what you have there from Jan 2001 is not in agreement with *THIS.* Either way its well over and America was going to lose in the election regardless of Bush or Gore winning. They're both among the worst to ever hold office.



This is pointless. Did you miss the part where I said the Supreme Court suspended the recount? Did you miss me saying they gave the election to someone? You can't just pretend that I didn't say that and present it as proof against what I said when I already mentioned it.

Edit: I skimmed the article and it seems that Bush would have one of if the count was done one way, Gore if it was done another. If anything that reads as a call to completely redo our election structure which we never really did, except to go to extremely easy to hack digital voting machines that in some cases just print out paper votes. 

As I said before, neither in the Construction gives the Supreme Court the power to decide elections. However you feel about the results, it should truly disturb the party who thinks they overreached to legalize gay marriage to see them actually suspend our election and then decide it.

And yes, big surprise I know, but I believe history is important. Otherwise we just watch it repeat. You may find that appealing but I don't.

The Supreme Court was never meant to have the power to overpower the electorate and decide an election. People can draw their own conclusions about why it happened, but I would say it would make people look differently at a President attempting to stuff the court after his party held a nomination open for a year for him to fill.

And Gore was never President, so I'm going to assume you're referring to his Vice President when the Vice Presidency has no real power and therefore can't really even be considered an office. It's a running joke in Washington that they are simply the spare and that's the their only role.

As for Bush, he made some troubling decision, but I think we all know who history will remember as the worst. He's just not finished yet.

This thread, in general has been masterclass in the political state of our capital as people misrepresent, twist, and lie all the while ignoring large bits of testimony that they apparently can't use to further their own goal.


----------

