Believe Accusers!

[Viri]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.



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.



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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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.

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.