Confirmed cwolff thinks all the women who came out in defense of Kavanaugh are liars.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
What a sexist.
Printable View
Confirmed cwolff thinks all the women who came out in defense of Kavanaugh are liars.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
What a sexist.
So you're okay with someone's career being ruined based on decades old allegations with no supporting evidence at all of said crime ever happening? Just keep cycling through these candidates until the Democrats get one they like whereupon they will make sure any possible accusations never see the light of day or if they do they will downplay them? You really are the biggest piece of shit I have ever had this much interaction with, and that's amazing because I've known some horrible people.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
You were okay with this when it was George Takei being accused.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Can't wait to see what happens with Ginsburg's eventual replacement.
WE HAVE TO DELAY THIS NOMINATION BECAUSE WE HAVE UNCOVERED EVIDENCE THAT THE NOMINEE SHITS HIS PANTS! THE FACT THAT HE WAS 6 MONTHS OLD WHEN IT HAPPENED DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE DIAPERS HAVE FEELINGS AND ARE PEOPLE TOO!!!!!!!!!!!11
I'm just waiting for a feminist to accuse her own son of sexual harassment because he suckled a bit too hard on her breast during breast feeding. Then of course people like time4fun will defend her and say what a traumatic experience it must have been.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
The idea that someone could be discredited through impossible-to-prove allegations should make you uncomfortable.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
"The fact that he was 19 and the room was dark and he thought I was his girlfriend waking him up with a surprise doesn't matter!!!!! Breastfeeding is my right!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
This is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
So I agreed with you a few pages ago on that point, I believe. I'm not sure why you want to re-litigate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Having said that, since you did- I feel compelled to point out that your oversimplification of the situation is a bit misleading.
There are a few things that lend credibility to her accusations and a few things that question the credibility of his response.
1) She brought the situation up 6 years ago- prior to both of his last two confirmation hearings (The last one was in 2006 I believe?)- in a private setting with a neutral third party professional who can, at least, give an official assessment of how truthful the story felt to him. She had nothing to gain by discussing this issue in therapy, there was certainly no reason to suspect any political motive, and it was in a setting you typically consider to be 100% private- meaning you don't really intend for it to ever get out when you say it. To question her credibility on this, we would have to believe that there were some reason for her to have started some lie about Kavanaugh 6 years ago when there was no apparent point to it.
2) Making this accusation publicly will subject her to an incredible amount of harassment, require her to relive trauma, and could have serious consequences for her economic and physical safety. So she would have to have an incredibly strong reason to do it. Given she's gainfully employed as a Professor and appears to have no history of criminal activity or false accusations (at least that have been brought up)- there is both a lot for her to lose and not a lot of reason to question her credibility.
3) I behooves me to remind you that Kavanaugh has already demonstrated a propensity to give false or (at best) highly misleading testimony under oath in confirmation hearings. In a He Said/She Said- he's actually in the weaker position here. His history with Congressional testimony means that there IS reason to doubt his credibility when he denies the accusations.
4) Kavanaugh has a lot to gain by lying about the situation and a lot to lose by being honest. If we're looking at this purely from the angle of motive- he has obvious motive to lie while she does not. That's not proof of anything, but it does mean that the two testimonies are not necessarily created equally- particularly in the court of public opinion.
I'll also point out that just because it's currently a bit of a he said/she said situation doesn't mean that there isn't any other evidence out there (there were at least two other people who were there at the house, for example). That's the point of an investigation. Your aggressive response to the idea of even allowing some kind of investigation is troubling, to say the least.
And finally, removing this particular situation from the board- you are strongly implying that no woman who has been the victim of sexual assault by a powerful man should come forward unless they've got video evidence (which, spoiler alert- they almost never do). That's extremely dangerous territory and an incredibly damaging message to send to victims (and a very empowering one to send to predators)
No I'm not. I didn't say she was lying anywhere either. I'm also not saying she is telling the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
She didn't name anyone at the time. This means less than squat.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
So you're saying in the era of #MeToo and "Fuck Trump at any cost" it lends credibility to her arguments to come public with this? You being for real right now?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
He's a federal judge who up until now (because of the Democrats in congress) has been a highly respected judge and HIS credibility is weaker? Fuck's sake.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Jesus Christ, you're already of the opinion that he's lying and you have the audacity to act like this is an impartial breakdown of the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
What other fucking evidence could possibly come to light now? She has already said there was only one other person in the room and from what I have heard the other person said it never happened. What else is there to investigate? Come on, answer a damn hard question for once.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Good man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
WTF? Sexist.Quote:
I'm also not saying she is telling the truth.
Reported, doxxed, IP subpoenaed, and calling your boss.
It's the logical consequence of your statement. You're dismissing the value of an investigation here because it's "just" a he said/she said with no video evidence (or equivalent- obviously you meant that to represent any form of concrete evidence).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
But if we dismiss the value of investigations every time that happens, then the vast majority of victims of sexual assault have no recourse.
There are very good reasons to support moving forward with some form of investigation. It's not something to cast doubt on or to question the value/legitimacy of.
I happen to agree with you that it's unlikely we'll see a lot of additional evidence under the circumstances, but that doesn't mean this isn't worthy of the attention it's getting and the action steps currently being taken.
I WORK FOR ME!Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
No where did I say this shouldn't be looked at. I actually said she should testify and make her case before the senate, which I believe they are setting up. That is the only "court" she'll really ever get because there isn't really anyway to bring any charges and the FBI kicked it down to state.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
You're getting dangerously close to a Monty Python skit now. "Denying being a sexual predator is exactly what a sexual predator would do!"Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
No one forced Kavanaugh to lie under oath during his last confirmation hearing. He shouldn't be removed from the process just because there was an accusation, but in a situation like this where it's likely to come down to the credibility of her testimony vs his- he's already set himself up to be the less credible of the two. And, yes, for that reason he should be removed and replaced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Also please stop saying there's no supporting evidence. That is categorically false. There is supporting evidence. You may not like it, but it exists.
That line of hers is a real head scratcher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
People have gone to jail before for making up crimes and falsely accusing people. People's lives have been ruined by spending years in jail based on false accusations. And here she is saying this woman has nothing to gain from lying so clearly that points to her telling the truth.
You're hilarious. "This woman that no one knew of until about 36 hours ago has NEVER LIED to our knowledge."Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
What is the supporting evidence? I gotta hear this shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
She claims that the notes from her psychologist where she spoke about it is supporting evidence. The source is still her own words though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Don't question her logic. She's taught logic before.. I think she would know best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Peasant.
So the only supporting evidence is indeed her own words from several years prior? I love it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
The notes in which she never mentioned any names.
The woman doesn't even have to be lying about any of this, maybe this really did happen but she's confusing who the attacker was since this happened almost 40 years ago and from what I understand she didn't talk about it with anyone until with her psychologist a few years ago.
So if I had started with "He's clearly a predator because" AND also only listed that single point- you would be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
But since my conclusion was: There are a few things that lend credibility to her accusations and a few things that question the credibility of his response.
And since I provided 4 points of evidence to support that conclusion...
It would be more accurate to say that your take on my argument is getting dangerously close to a Monty Python skit.
By most accounts.. this woman is exactly who you picture her to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Big time ax to grind.
It really is fascinating watching The Salem Witch Trials unfold right before our own eyes.
I vividly remember learning about this in school and thinking "How can people be so dumb and cruel?"
And yet here we are convicting a man (in a sense) based on one allegation and the argument is if the man were guilty he would lie about it and the accuser has no reason to lie. This is straight out of the Salem Witch Trials.
It's like we as a society hit a peak of civility a few years ago and we are now sliding backwards.
THAT'S BECAUSE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You're a joke. The things that "lend credibility to her accusations" was basically "Why would she lie?" And the things that "questioned the credibility of his response" was that of course a guilty person would lie and he supposedly lied once during a previous confirmation or whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
George Takei.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
subpoenaQuote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
That's strange, I don't recall George Takei's career hanging in the balance or half of congress dragging his name through the mud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Oh. Oh I see! You know you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this discussion, what little speck of conscience you have left realizes how fucked up this all is but you can't bring yourself to admit it so you're deflecting to George Takei's #MeToo moment that almost no one wanted to believe because he's George Takei.
A+ for effort, F for still being a failure of a human being.
The rest of your post was along the lines of 'he may have lied before so it's more likely he's lying now' and 'the woman has no benefit to lie so she is clearly telling the truth'. Both points are weak enough that I didn't really feel the need to directly respond to them. The 'he has everything to gain by lying about not being a sexual predator' bit was the only thing that stopped me because of how outlandish it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Also, I don't think you actually know what Monty Python is, which in itself is a very strong indictment of your character.
It reminds me of the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings - the same logic was used to defend Anita Hill's accusations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
That recount of my argument isn't even remotely accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
The fact that he has lied under oath before does ding his credibility in a war between two competing testimonies. That isn't remotely the same thing as suggesting it means he's automatically lying.
I didn't actually make any conclusions about who is telling the truth- my entire argument was about how the current facts in the situation affect the credibility of each person.
What's even more puzzling is that the point of mine you quoted literally included this sentence
So I'm not really sure what argument you think you're making here, but whatever it is you inferred is not what my argument stated.Quote:
That's not proof of anything, but it does mean that the two testimonies are not necessarily created equally- particularly in the court of public opinion.
PS I didn't find any of the Monty Python movies more than mildly funny. Sorry/Not Sorry
I can't say this with certainty, but I don't recall Thomas having a history of lying under oath during previous confirmation hearings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
If nothing else, that makes this situation very different.
Weird, you don't recall obsessing about his one accuser and how you were absolutely sure he was guilty? Funny how your partisanship comes into play even when sexual assault/harassment is at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Again you're talking about someone who has been in the public spotlight a lot the past few months and in the public spotlight overall for decades now and comparing him to a woman none of us knew about until 36 hours ago and saying "Well see that one time he lied? She has never lied." You're so intellectually dishonest it's disgusting.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
The hell you didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Right there. Right fucking there you say Kavanaugh has a lot to lose by being honest, clearly suggesting he's not being honest because obviously the "truth" is that he's a witch and of course a witch would lie about being a witch and why would a woman falsely accuse someone of being a witch. Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Why don't you actually post a quote?Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Weird, I don't recall saying he should lose his career over one accusation, or that congress should get involved, or that the FBI should investigate it. Because I didn't. Because once again you have nothing at all except to be your usual piece of shit self. You going to pull up a quote from me now that doesn't say anything at all what you're suggesting it says then say "See? I was right all along!" It's not like you've done that before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
All you have are your deflections and whataboutisms. time4fun really should invest in a better white knight because you're shit at this.
"Sanai told the committee leadership that “there are persons who work for, or who have worked for, the federal judiciary who have important stories to tell about disgraced former Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, and his mentee, current United States Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. I know that there are people who wish to speak out but fear retaliation because I have been contacted by more than a half-dozen such persons since Judge Kozinski resigned in disgrace.”
This must be what Feinstein was referring to when she said there were more things about Kavanaugh that people didn't know about.
https://theintercept.com/2018/09/17/...her-responded/
This isn't about him losing his career, this is about a single accuser bringing up something that happened years ago and you swallowing it completely because Takei is a Democrat. But now that a Republican SCOTUS seat is on the line you're acting horrified that a single accusation of an event that happened years ago should be taken seriously. I know asking you to act consistent is too much so I won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
subpoena subpoenaQuote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
The thing that stands out here, though, is that (according to Sanai) Feinstein never responded to his letter. I get why Grassley might not have- he would have wanted everything in that letter to go away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
But Feinstein had no such motivation. Obviously Sanai's track record here is good, but there's just a strange hole in this that doesn't quite add up. There are lots of reasons why Feinstein's office may not have reached out to him- ranging from totally mundane to concerning- but this raises the possibility that the letter didn't come across as particularly credible.
I don't know. I'm having a hard time making sense out of that.
Glad to see you admit the situations aren’t similar at all. Good job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
I don’t even remember what I said about the Takei thing. Something tells me you’re going by your faulty memory as well because time4fun desperately needs some deflections right now.
That he may have lied under oath in a previous matter dings his credibility when it comes to him denying being a sexual predator? I guess Ford better hope that she's never lied about anything at all previously because it would ding her credibility when it comes to her allegations of sexual assault. That's how it works, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
That's a variation of the "I'm not racist, but..." defense.Quote:
What's even more puzzling is that the point of mine you quoted literally included this sentence
So I'm not really sure what argument you think you're making here, but whatever it is you inferred is not what my argument stated.
So 1) Yes, having a history of lying under oath specifically to further your career makes subsequent testimony made under oath with the same end goal more questionable than that of someone with no such previous history. Look, if you want to play fantasy land here and try to argue that it doesn't- be my guest. But it's an argument that is neither accurate nor sincere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
2) I guess we're still in fantasy land
Just like you didn't remember talking about how Obama lowered the office of the presidency?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Calling a denial of sexual assault 'furtherance of your career' is one of the most bizarre, bad faith, and poorly-reasoned things I've ever read on these boards. You're desperately grasping at straws just to find a way to ignore presumption of innocence. I was hoping all your gender studies degrees would help you catch the point I was making with referencing Ford, but I guess it went over your head.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Apparently. Enjoy your stay.Quote:
2) I guess we're still in fantasy land
You're talking about the guy that wants to deprogram 1/3 of the nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
It's like I'm psychic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I'm sure I did say something about the George Takei accusation, but I know for a fact I wasn't calling for his career to be ended, nor calling for an FBI investigation, nor calling for congress to drag his name through the mud, which is what is happening here. I'm pretty sure I was making fun of feminists with the Takei accusation because it was when the #MeToo movement first started and everyone was losing their careers over accusations but when it came to Takei he was off limits and untouchable. But if you have quotes of me saying something else or saying he should have lost his job then by all means post the quotes. But something tells me this is the whole Obama lowered quote nonsense all over again.
You are a pathetic little man.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Astray
Tgo deflects madly once again to cover up his own extreme levels of hypocrisy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Look at little bitch boy here talking about deflection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Yeah that's what I thought. I don't know how it's possible but you continue to make yourself look like more of a clueless scumbag.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Both Kavanaugh and his accuser (Christine Blasey) are scheduled to appear before a Senate committee on Monday.
Let me tell you what the media will be screaming about afterwards: How the Republicans in the Senate were so mean to Blasey. How they dared to ask her a lot of questions, how they dared to question her story, and how they dared to not to accept everything she said as absolute truth. Yeah...how dare they (that's sarcasm BTW...)
Why would I quote you on something I said was irrelevant? Keep trying though!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
It's almost like you know the GOP will be monstrous to her already or are you just judging their future behavior from past behavior? Of course when you say the press you're referring to journalists right? Surely you're not lumping Fox News and the other right wing propogandists in with "the press". They're a different category all together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
In other news Dems on Judiciary are suing the national archives for access to Kavanaugh records from his time in the George W. Bush administration. It's beyond comprehension why the archives would refuse to release this information to the body that's reviewing him for a SCOTUS appointment. While they're fighting transparency on this front trump and his turd anti-American party are compromising sources and methods by releasing a dump of classified information relating to the Russia investigation.
No fucking republican should stand for this. It's shameful. FFS, trump shouldn't even be commenting on this investigation but the so-called plastic patriots on the right give 0 fucks about the country.
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Sorry, but his testimony is in furtherance of his career. He's testifying to ensure his nomination. And his testimony in 2006 was in furtherance of his career- it was to ensure his nomination.
There's literally nothing about that sentence that indicates anything negative about that fact. It's a value-neutral description of what the testimony is aimed at doing.
This game you're playing- intentionally taking the most distorted, negative interpretation of my arguments that you can is, candidly, juvenile. And it's a game you seem to enjoy playing with my posts in general.
Grow up.
This is a political hit job. The left is playing dirty.
There is no evidence on her part that this actually happened. Meanwhile the one witness that could corroborate her story denies it took place. You have letters from other women who attest to his character.
This will blow back on the left for the despicable tactics they are deploying to stop this nomination from happening.
I have to be honest here- I find it difficult to imagine that you don't fundamentally already realize that the MO of some Senate Republicans is going to be to impugn her character as best they can with biting questions. And it will be the MO of the Senate Democrats to make her appear angelic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
And you know what- this woman is about to go through the worst possible iteration of this whole process. It's bad enough to deal with skeptical questioning by Police and then being shredded by opposing counsel in a Courtroom. Being shredded by US Senators who have built careers on doing just that on national TV is going to be absolutely agonizing. Especially since she actually decided she didn't want to come forward after all because she didn't want to go through everything she would have to go through if she did. Someone leaked her letter and forced her into this situation. She and her family have apparently left their home temporarily to avoid all of the cameras and press camped out there.
So sure, maybe she made this whole thing up- for some reason that no one has yet to articulate.
But if she didn't- think about everything she's being put through right now. You want to know why so many victims of sexual assault don't end up reporting what happened to them? You're witnessing it.
So what I'm saying is that maybe it's a bit too early to start painting Congressional Republicans as the real victims here.
It's pretty safe to say that I think there are a lot less "journalists" out there than you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
As a general rule I don't trust the media. That includes CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, and <insert your favorite network here>. BBC is shade better than most of them, but I don't take their reporting as fact either.
Cut a fart, candork.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
It's going to have some serious repercussions if this turns out to be a hoax. There really needs to be a law in place that false accusers face the same penalty that would be handed down for the accusations being made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortybox
That's not a surprise. You've abandoned all reason to your conspiracy theory about liberal media bias and fallen hook, line and sinker for the B.S. you been fed. It's the greatest hoax that's ever been perpetrated on the USA. We thought people would become smarter and more informed but they were too gullible. You got conned into believing in nothing and now they can feed you anything fearlessly because you don't believe the News anymore anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
So over the last few years there have been dozens upon dozens of women who have come forward with stories of sexual assault by famous people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
Pray tell- how many of them turned out to be hoaxes?
Hell, Trump has 15+ women accusing him. Even has its own Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald...ct_allegationsQuote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
It's pretty likely that at least 1 of those women is being truthful.
Unless she filed a false police report the only thing she could be hit with is civil penalties arising from a lawsuit. I'm not sure if she herself filed anything or if it was just forwarded from Feinstein.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
All right...I have to admit...I have an attitude on this issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
I watched the Clarence Thomas hearings and I didn't believe Anita Hill...at all. I was hardly alone in that assessment.
But you're right, it's too early to draw conclusions here.
No one cares.Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAFT
Candor, out of all of the women who have come forward in the last few years- how many hoaxes can you name?Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
Kavanaugh is getting a fair hearing just like any SCOTUS nominee should. Republicans wouldn't even meet with Garland let alone give him a hearing.
Mattress Girl, Crystal Gail...........there are plenty of examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
P.S. Crystal Gail ended up murdering a person later in life.
I think it will depend on how the country will react to the constant droning on of the metoo movement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
At some point it will numb the public and won't have much of an effect anymore because we'll enter an arena where you have no idea if the accuser is telling the truth or not.
It's not unknown but it's admittedly uncommon.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
But the stakes being what they are here, the possibility can't be ignored. There are people who would attempt this sort of lie if they could get away with it (and no I don't just mean Democrats given the right situation).
But for now I'll just stop talking about the issue until after the testimonies have been given.
She’s still pushing the “why would a woman lie?” line. Unreal.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
"Mattress Girl" was not shown to be a hoax. I'm not sure where you're getting that. That guy ended up being accused of various forms of sexual assault by 4 different people. "Mattress Girl"'s case with Columbia was settled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
Crystal Magnum WAS guilty of false accusations. That was also 12 years ago.
I don't suppose you have anything within the past decade? Because if all you've got is one example from 12 years ago- that pretty much tells us what we need to know.
You're surprised? These people specifically calculate ways to destroy people because they have an axe to grind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
But it's not just "uncommon". It's almost unheard of. It's incredibly rare outside of people with severe mental illness. And it's rare because it's almost universally a horrific experience for the accuser.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
Basically it's like hearing someone fell into a meat grinder and immediately assuming they intentionally jumped. I'm sure there have been people who *have* jumped into a meat grinder willingly, but it seems prudent to avoid assuming that anyone killed by meat grinder did it on purpose because they thought it would benefit them in some way.
Is it also rare that men who've been accused of this deny it, only to have to admit later that it happened? Does that ever go on? :whistle:Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
A lot of this.
Of course a witch would deny being a witch!Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Her hatred towards men also shows as I made no mention of male or females.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Some other stats.
40% of all domestic violence is against men.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...n_1874742.htmlQuote:
The study found that men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts.
Starr also found that females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.
1. She is a left-wing bay area activist
2. She donated to ShareBlue (a Democrat front for cash-raising)
3. Possible $5,000 donated to Hillary or probable for donations to Bernie Sanders
4. She made pink pussy hats and participated in anti-Trump marches
And she spent days scrubbing her social media accounts before this came about. She's an activist with an axe to grind. I hope she gets destroyed. This is Anita Hill 2.0.
Just a few years ago Rolling Stones ran a story about someone named Jackie who was supposedly gang raped on campus. Rolling Stones had to retract the story after they determined she made the story up.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
It was a big deal at the time and here you are pretending you haven’t heard of people making up crimes committed against them in the last decade.
It's pretty flabbergasting to watch the same group of people who expressed nothing but contempt for the women who came forward and accused Trump of sexual assault and the women who came forward about Roy Moore turn around, do it again, and then act like this is an issue of contempt for men.
You gremlins (not you Candor) have immediately jumped on the "the men are the victims!" bandwagon every single time this has happened, and you've been wrong every time.
So maybe it's time for you to wake up, realize that there really aren't that many examples of powerful men who were falsely accused of sexual assault, and try be honest with yourselves and the people around you.
No one is saying Kavanaugh is automatically guilty. But your MO is always to direct your resentment towards the women involved, and you've got a terrible track record on this.
Act accordingly.
Ted Lieu released a sensible statement about this:
No reasonable person would take on @realDonaldTrump, the GOP controlled Senate and the powerful establishment while destroying her own privacy to discuss a private, humiliating, traumatic sexual assault. Unless it was true. That's why I believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.
You were just proven horribly wrong so now you move to the standard public scolding.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
https://media.giphy.com/media/qox1yTvzRLFUk/giphy.gif
Ted Lieu: CA state senator, Democrat.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Seems like there is data on it. Its about 5.5%. That is pretty far from unheard of.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rapeQuote:
In March 2017 a new study on the prevalence of false rape allegations in the United States, for the period 2006–2010, was published on the Journal of Forensic Psychology. The goal of the research was to obtain recent figures of the prevalence of unfounded allegations of rape and compare to unfounded allegations of other crimes. According to the data provided by the FBI, between 4,400 and 5,100 allegations of rape every year were deemed false or baseless after investigation, out of a total of 87,000– 90,000, corresponding to an average of 5.55%. The figure was at least five times higher than for most other offence types. Cases of disputed consent were not included in the results as they were subject to judicial review in court.
I have a hunch that those numbers have steadily increased over the past decade.Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
I love it.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
time4fun: Women don't make up stories about being raped! It just doesn't happen! Name just one time, JUST ONE TIME, in the past decade when it happened.
Tgo01: 3 years ago Rolling Stones ran a story about a woman who claimed she was gang raped on campus and Rolling Stones retracted the story after determining she made the whole thing up.
time4fun: All of you Republicans are disgusting pigs! You make men out to be the victim all the time!
time4fun, honey, baby, just admit you were wrong as usual. We're all used to it by now so it's nothing new.
This is one of my favorites.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riKYD4CXvq4
OH WOW BIG FUCKING SHOCKER THERE!Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Remember how that discussion was originally about you saying he said that Obama "degraded" the office of the presidency, he posted quotes of himself that said Obama "lowered" the office of the presidency and not "degraded" and proved your dumb claims wrong, you tried to play semantics over it, and then you moved the goalposts and were like "Just like you said you didn't say Obama lowered the office of the presidency?"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Remember that? Because it was pretty fucking hilarious.
Watch now as you deflect madly once again to cover up your own extreme levels of stupidity in just a minute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
If it was deleted it never happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
And um...sorry but Hillary won the popular vote.
Confirmed pk is Anita Hill 2.0 see you on TV Monday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortybox
Live feed via couch?Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
So first- recall my statement that it's incredibly rare outside of severe mental illness. Secondly, we've been talking about cases where someone specific is accused. The vast majority of cases deemed to be false rape cases don't involve an accusation against someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by drauz
The UK did a study on this, and only 39 out of 216 false rape claims involved naming a specific person. This study is one the most comprehensive studies of false rape claims ever made. So that means that only about 18% of false rape claims involved a specific person being accused.
Based on the FBI study you cited and the UK study, that means that we're talking about a [.9% - (% of accounts from people with severe mental illness)] chance that this story is a false accusation.
So yes, false accusations against specific people are incredibly rare
The spin is happening! It's happening!Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
time4fun: "We can just discount the idea that she is suffering from mental illness! That's just impossible!"Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
To whom did she originally tell her story to?
time4fun: "Her therapist of course, silly!"
I can't even begin to make this shit up, it's just that fucking bizarre.
https://i.imgur.com/nG0VCAh.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Fortybox
A study in 2005 in UK well before the metoo movement.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
LOL - there's no way you went to a "prestigous school". This is very sloppy and highly demonstrates you just Google crap and re-purpose it as if you "know" something about it.
https://youtu.be/smwzk0-Nz0QQuote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
https://media.giphy.com/media/1PgPvWLfXGkCY/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
So ONLY within the last 10 years, AND doesn't involve a mental illness, AND requires a specific person to be accused, AND you have to average these two different studies together...
She was right man, welcome to fantasy land.
https://steemitimages.com/0x0/https:...e%20emails.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Methais
I see my advice to grow up went over your head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
You're combining two different conversations for reasons that are unclear.
I'm sorry that it bothers you that I intentionally focused on situations that were analogous to this one, but that's a really ridiculous thing to complain about.
Why can we discount the possibility that this woman suffers from mental issues when part of the "evidence" you say we should focus on came from her therapist? Can you ever answer a tough question instead of deflecting and gaslighting everyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Because it was couples therapy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Also because she's a successful Psychology Professor with no criminal history nor any other history that would suggest serious mental issues aside from dealing with the fact that two guys allegedly tried to rape her with physical force.Quote:
Originally Posted by Archigeek
Cui bono? This woman stands to gain nothing with this testimony but a lot of assholes questioning her mental stability and vilifying her. She'll feel the ramifications personally and professionally. She has every reason not to come forward -- but she did.
Kavanaughs witness who said it didn't happen also wrote this piece in the Daily Caller
He put this in his high school yearbook and doesn't seem to have grown up. Great witness to defend a man from sexual assault.Quote:
Condolences to Hillary Clinton, who wanted to be the first woman president. She just missed it.
Barack Obama is the first female president.
…
The problem is, Barack Obama doesn’t have just a streak of the feminine in him; he seems to be a woman, and a feminist one at that, with a streak of man in him.
A quote from a playwright runs alongside the family photos on Mark Judge’s page in his high school yearbook: “Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs.”
Wait.. you believe she has nothing to gain?Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
What about stopping the SCOTUS appointment? Wouldn't that just make her an insta-celebrity to people like you? You fucking lunatics would have a parade for her and give her the key to your city.
She's a pro-Hillary supporter and an anti-Trump activist.
She's a professor of some useless class in a California college.
Kavanaugh's mother presided over her mother's foreclosure.
There are several axes to grind here.
He's not wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
https://i.makeagif.com/media/12-22-2016/8wIBYa.gif
She made up an accusation about Kavanaugh back in 2012 because she has an axe to grind against Trump??
Yeah and a big part of couples therapy is determining if one or both partners should seek individual therapy for their emotional or mental health problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Archigeek
I'm not saying being in couples therapy is a 100% slam dunk "Yes she has mental problems!" But how can we completely discount out of hand while also saying "Just look at her therapists notes!"
Do you realize you are perpetrating the harmful stereotype that everyone who suffers from mental health issues are violent or get into trouble with the law? Funny how quick you are to dump the group of people you claim to care about as soon as it becomes convenient to your argument and how quickly you'll overlook another person's transgressions as long as they hate Trump as much as you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Oh please. If she's the reason Kavanaugh doesn't get to become a justice she will be heralded as a hero by the left, she'll be too busy doing talk show after talk show with everyone praising her if this succeeds. It's like you people haven't been paying the slightest bit of attention these past 2 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
Stormy Daniels went from a has been porn actress to starring on SNL for crying out loud. Her attorney went from a nobody to a household name appearing on talk shows on a weekly basis.
This woman stands to be the newest star in left wing circles.
Also no one questioned her mental stability, time4fun is the one who kept bringing it up claiming it can't even be a possibility.
Repeat after me: THE THERAPIST'S NOTES DON'T MENTION A NAME. WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING IF SHE WAS EVEN TALKING ABOUT KAVANAUGH BACK IN 2012.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Glad I could attempt to teach you something, you pathetic excuse for a man.
Yup. Anyone damning her or vilifying her before she testified before Congress is a POS.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
Let’s hear what she has to say. Let’s hear what kavanaugh has to say.
Let’s go with your train of thought. She’s a liar, but she’s going to subject herself to the most intense political and legal scrutiny imaginable. She’ll absolutely be discovered and discredited. And then she’s what, a martyr for a two-week delay in a nomination? Sure, that seems plausible...
On the other hand, it’s incredibly likely that a powerful guy with a record of devaluing women grabbed a 15yo girl when he was a drunk 17yo and wrestled her into a bedroom with his buddy.
Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
That's strange. What about the people who are taking her word at face value before hearing her and Kavanaugh testify in court? Are they pieces of shit too or is it okay to automatically believe that a man is a rapist based on one almost 40 year old accusation where no place was specified, no date was specified, and the only other person in the room according to the accuser states the entire story is false?Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAFT
The reasons are pretty clear to anyone that isn't a living political caricature.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
I mean, Kavanaugh was also successful in his field with no other criminal history before this recent allegation. But that doesn't count, I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Keep projecting your insecurities :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
And I’m not declaring Kavanaugh a rapist on thin evidence, btw. I’m saying they both need to be heard - which they will be before the Senate shortly.
What is there to discover and be discredited? She has provided no details that would allow Kavanaugh to have an alibi. It would be one thing if she mentioned which house this was and an approximate date, then maybe we could get some details from both sides. But as it stands it happened at an undisclosed location at an unspecified date so Kavanaugh couldn't even begin to defend himself other than to say it never happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
And again the possibility is that Kavanaugh wouldn't get the nomination at all, she would be a hero to feminists, the #MeToo movement, the women's march, and everyone on the left. How can you possibly think otherwise?
Yeah I have no problem with both of them testifying before congress.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
What I have a problem with is Feinstein sitting on this until the very last second. What I have a problem with is Feinstein trying to use this as a stalling tactic/a tactic to outright smear him out of the nomination based on entirely (at the time) anonymous information. I have a problem with the idea that Democrats might keep bringing up more shit like this after the last issue has already ran its course. I have a problem with Democrats already insisting the woman has to be believed because "she has nothing to gain from this" and "Why would a woman lie?"
What if they both testify, both sides are heard, and Republicans want to go ahead and nominate him, are Democrats going to drop another bombshell and we have to postpone everything again? At what point do call Democrats out for turning this entire procedure into nothing more than a circus?
The evidence does not back up her claims. She was silent for decades until 2012. The notes are even in question because there are discrepancies in the account.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
No other allegations against this man. Zip. zilch. nada.
It doesn't add up and is just a political hit job that was purposefully done days before a vote would have taken place. Your train of thought is derailed if you cannot see this for what it is. I know people hate Trump but this is just downright dirty from the left.
She said she was assaulted by someone in 2012.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
That someone magically became "Kavanaugh" in 2018 when he was nominated.
Huh? She went to the same school as Kavanaugh. It's a he said/she said situation. What type of discovery do you believe will happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
What record are you referring to?Quote:
On the other hand, it’s incredibly likely that a powerful guy with a record of devaluing women grabbed a 15yo girl when he was a drunk 17yo and wrestled her into a bedroom with his buddy.
Please be specific. "He's a white male" will not be specific enough.
Exactly. A reasonable and logical statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
These are rare, these days...
That's amazing considering it's what Tgo, PB and a few others have been saying too.....Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAFT
What an idiot. Everyone knows Obama was the first gay president.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Villifying Kavanaugh is still cool though right?Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAFT
Don't forget the stakes here. If Kavanaugh gets appointed, SCOTUS will arguably shift to the right. Roe vs Wade could be overturned (which doesn't end abortion, it brings the issue back to the states, but that's another topic), and even gay marriage could be challenged. I believe some liberals are capable of attempting a fraud to prevent this appointment. I appreciate what time4fun is saying about false sexual assault accusations being rare, but this situation isn't normal.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
I believe Anita Hill attempted a fraud in 1991 to stop the Clarence Thomas appointment and failed. Is the current accuser a fraud? I don't know. If she is a fraud, I hope you are correct that she will be discovered and discredited. And if it is determined that she is telling the truth, I hope Kavanaugh's career in the legal system ends immediately and whatever charges that can be brought against him are made.
But IMHO the most likely result is that no definite conclusions will be drawn. Guess we'll see.
Even if it did turn out to be true, which I doubt, what are they gonna charge him with? And how, since he was a minor at the time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
They'll charge him as an adult for being an adult when the charges were brought up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
You really think a mother and wife would put herself, her husband, and her children through all of this just to block a nomination? Even if he voted down or withdraws, it's still more certain than not that another equally conservative judge will be nominated. That's an incredible price to pay for what will almost assuredly yield nothing.
I also have to point out that elements of this story don't lend themselves to your interpretation.
For one, she brought this up long before this confirmation hearing. At least 6 years ago, and she told several people (turns out a few friends were told as well).
Secondly, she wasn't going to come forward with this. The reason Feinstein sat on this information is that the accuser requested it. Someone leaked this letter to the press. That's not the behavior of someone looking to stop a nomination. She's not out doing press tours, she's fled the press, and she only reluctantly agreed to testify Monday.
And finally, if she set out to fake a story- why would she have involved a third person? That's an extremely risky element to add to a story because that person is going to deny it happened- meaning it's the word of two people againt one.
None of this is the behavior of someone who just woke up one day and decided to try to stop a confirmation.
The thing I'll point out is that the kneejerk reaction on the right when these things have happened has always been to blame the accuser. But the track record suggests that they are virtually always telling the truth.
Because no one wants to jump into a meat grinder for fun.
I think it's going to be pretty much impossible to get a definite answer one way or the other. People will see what they want to see, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
The left will stop at nothing because it's mostly comprised of sick assholes like you and soywolff now, so yes, I do believe she'd do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
And she has plenty to gain from it if she somehow succeeds with this.
The left's plan is to try and stall until after the midterms and hope they take back Congress. It's rather obvious to people who don't sniff their own farts.
Not that this will change anything but for what it's worth the central park 5 were 14, 15 and 16 when trump called for their execution. I don't believe he's even apologized for being so wrong yet. What was Kavanaugh...17?
If he was 17 (I didn't know this) then sure, try him as an adult if found guilty. If and only if he's actually guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Cutting this off at the pass but I don't know if he's guilty or not. Evidence is what matters in these cases.
They should have called in Mark Judge as well for this hearing.
Probably. Though his testimony isn't likely to be helpful for anyone. He's already denied this ever happened, which isn't great for Dr Ford. But he's also written extensively about his tendency to get black out drunk, his history of similar behavior, and his disdain of women and women's rights. I'm not sure Kavanaugh wants to be associated with any of that right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
And George Soros makes an appearance! I was wondering when he'd pop up.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-and-links-ge/Quote:
Look at what’s going on with Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation proceedings for the Supreme Court, and the fingerprints of George Soros are all over it.
First there was a report from June in the Daily Caller that found “a new political advocacy group that vowed to put $5 million behind an effort to stop … Kavanaugh’s confirmation has significant ties to the liberal financier” Soros.
They're getting their messaging mixed up. Either he was at the party or he wasn't. He either didn't do anything like this at all or it was just horseplay. What is it? Kavanaugh's team needs to pick a story and stick to it.
https://www.alternet.org/cnns-boldua...rish-horseplayQuote:
Severino was defending Kavanaugh as the judge prepares to testify before the Senate next Monday. Bolduan asked if Ford’s accusation—which includes the claim that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a party in Maryland when he was 17—is “disqualifying” if true.
Severino said Ford’s description of Kavanaugh’s attack ranges from “boorishness to rough horseplay to actual attempted rape.”
And when was the last time this tactic was used? Oh that’s right.. when the Dems lost elections and another Republican President was nominating another judge and the Dems had no other options to fight back with...
Same play, different characters....
It is baffling and horrifying that some people would rather believe in an elaborate plot to disrupt a nomination than in a rather run-of-the-mill sexual assault. That's a lot of doubling-down on bias there.
I know it's not apparent in my posts but I do appreciate your interpretation of the events.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
I haven't decided either way as to who is telling the truth. I believe the Senate is doing the right thing in having both parties testify in a hearing. Hopefully the truth will be apparent afterwards.
Not really, considering the left's track record with being so full of shit about pretty much everything and vowing to do literally anything and everything possible to stop anything Trump tries to do. It's not like they've made a secret of the fact that this is their plan ever since Hillary got pwned.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
You really think a woman would just lie about someone being a witch?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
I know it's crazy. Why would women make up stories about people being witches? It's better to believe witches are real and are tormenting these women. People are so biased.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
Why does this have to be a left or right issue? A woman claims she was sexually assaulted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Are you insinuating that this woman is lying and the Democrats put her up to it?
She seems fairly credible at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Don't keep me hanging! By all means let's hear it!Quote:
Thread: Brett Kavanaugh
False analogy.
Some women accused other people of being witches for no discernible reason at all. There were even people at the time who condemned the trials for being based on little to no evidence.
We all know how those trials turned out, right?
So let's just stop with the bullshit that it's impossible to conceive someone would lie and make up a story like this because history has shown us people are willing to do just that, especially when you have a large segment of society willing to believe your every word.
The accusation seems pretty credible? Based on what?Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAFT
Until actual evidence surfaces indicating that she's telling the truth, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAFT
I wouldn't put it past the left to try some shit like this when their goal is to stop Trump "at all costs." Would you?
Like I said, she seems credible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Too often the women in these matters are disregarded. I'm glad she's getting a chance to speak before Congress next week.
Hopefully the FBI opens an investigation.
The FBI already told Feinstein to go pound sand.Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAFT
The FBI referred it to state, this isn't the sort of thing they investigate.
I hate to say this, but I haven't really trusted Kavanaugh's judgment since I saw his financial disclosure. Judges are supposed to be the wisest among us. Look it up and see if you think he is a responsible person.
And his explanation for incurring large debts buying baseball tickets made me wonder if he is honest.
A couple hundred grand for tickets right? Any explanation on paying it back?Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
We'll see what sort of evidence she produces. I don't expect much of anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAFT
It could literally be something as simple as he put the tickets on his credit card and his friends paid him back.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Not saying that's the actual case, but that's literally all the left needs to try and turn it into some scandal, since swiping your credit card for $5 still counts as "incurring debt." and they tend to not give many shits about details or context unless it will work in favor of whatever narrative they're trying to push at the time.
I doubt she can provide evidence, considering this happened 36 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
They'd need Mark Judge to testify as well and for her story to match his.
I don't see any incentive for her to come forward with this allegation, yet Kavanaugh has every reason to deny it.
Quote:
Notable update: Hatch spokesman now says Kavanaugh did not say what Hatch said he did. Instead, he says, Kavanaugh only said he was "not at any party like the one she describes."
Ok, now they're getting the message together. Since Kavanaugh's going to have to testify again they had to walk back Hatch's comments. Got to quit outright lying and get all the ducks in a row so he doesn't explicitly commit perjury.
You're retarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAFT
Of course he doesn't want to testify. He'll get chewed up and spit out. He's been a little rat within his community of rats but going on a national stage to face examination about the things he's written across the past 35 years won't be good for him.Quote:
The former classmate of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, who was said to have been in the room when Kavanaugh allegedly sexually assaulted a woman decades ago, has told senators he will not testify at next week's hearing.
Mark Judge wrote in a brief letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that he "did not ask to be involved in this matter nor did anyone ask me to be involved."
On second thought I'm glad Democrats are finally coming around and saying that a woman should be believed no matter. After all why would a woman with children and a family to think about make up stories? It just doesn't happen.
Let's take this opportunity to reflect on other women who bravely stood up and told the truth only to have the patriarchy strike her down.
Let us remember the McCain supporter who during the 2008 elections was viciously assaulted by black Obama supporters who then drew a backwards B onto her forehead. No woman within the past decade would make up such a story so it must be true. Justice for this brave woman!
And what about Keith Ellison's accusers? He beat them because he is a dangerous man. Democrats should rise up and demand his resignation and that he withdraw from any current and future elections.
Only by standing together with women no matter what can we achieve change.
It certainly sounds like your mind is made up.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
That's kind of mean to assume cwolff has a mind. I picture him more like a robot who someone just inserts a CD into to play back the latest outrage narrative.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCranium
About Mark Judge? Yes it is. I don't think much of him or his machoman articles. I'm assuming you're talking about something else though. About Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence. Is that right?Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCranium
I do so love the irony of all of this.
Feinstein, a woman Democrat, withheld this information for months.
The Republican led senate within a week agrees to give the woman a chance to testify before congress and give her testimony.
The Democrat response? "Republicans are trying to silence women!!!!"
...what?
Whataboutism for days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Ford asked for this to be withheld. You're not paying attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I'm just asking you to take a stand with me for all of the women who have been abused by men.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
You're not suggesting women make shit up, are you?
Yeah that's great, except Feinstein still released the information just without releasing the name after almost 2 months.Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAFT
And the woman ended up coming forward anyways.
So what point is it you are making?
That's exactly what he says happened. If you were a federal appeals court judge in your 50s and had a net worth of just $65,000, would you buy between $60,000 and $200,000 of baseball tickets -- they're reported in broad ranges on financial disclosure forms -- on your credit card with the understanding that your friends would reimburse you? I'm not suggesting that it was in any way illegal or unethical. I'm suggesting that it shows poor judgment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
One of the absolute worst legal moves you can make is to testify on your own behalf, whether it's before a grand jury or the Senate.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
You're insane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
So you have no point and you're just now realizing what a political hit job this all is? Glad you finally agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAFT
So now you believe the 20+ women with sexual assault/harassment complaints against Trump. Good on you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Whataboutism for days!Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
I don't get why this isn't fully vetted in his confirmation process. Or was it all checked out but it's confidential?Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Tough titties. I'm not shedding any tears for this piece of shit if he's asked to testify. He defended his boy in the press, now he may have to answer a few questions. Why are you defending him?Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCranium
There is speculation that the accuser might not even testify.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Would she be a piece of shit if she denies to give her side of the story after causing all of this outrage?
I'm not defending him. I'm just not getting all emotional because I realize we live in a country where there are laws in place for both accuser and accused. You're willing to overlook these because you happen to dislike him.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I was giving you a compliment for standing up to Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Sure looks like a case of whataboutism to me. Are you standing with me against the criminals who carved the backwards B into that woman's forehead and against the monster Ellison or not? It's a simple question that requires a simple answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
I don't know enough about the Ellison situation but if she has a complaint against him she should move forward with it.
What's there to know? A woman with kids and a family would have no reason to lie so clearly Keith Ellison is a monster who has to go. Why are you even questioning this? Sexist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Now you're just being retarded for no reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
No, he's taking T4F and Cwolffs stance. Supposedly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
No, he's taking the stance that accusations against democrats should be taken seriously but accusations against republicans should not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Astray
Weird, almost like cwolff and time4fun think accusations against Republicans should be taken seriously no matter what but there is a grey area when it comes to accusations against Democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Is this you finally admitting how partisan you are?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
No Richard. I don't like Kavanaugh and I dont like judge but the evidence is that youre emotionally invested. I'm posting topical political shit thats in the news, you are going after me. I wasn't even talking to you but you still got to jump in and defend your peeps. Why is that? You have sympathy for them? Empathy? You feel some emotional connection which is giving you the motivation to defend these guys from me.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCranium
You really do read what you want to read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Whats my stance? Can you link it for me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Astray
You're retarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Nope, just wondering why it's okay for you to be blindingly partisan but you're always so quick to decry partisan democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I have no problem with people being partisan. What I have a problem with is one party making up rules then ignoring said rules when they are used against members of their own party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Such as the #MeToo movement being started by the left and the notion that every woman has to be believed no matter what but when Democrats start getting accused suddenly here are excuses being made and the woman (or man!) vilified.
Republicans didn't start this rule that a woman has to be believed no matter what because a woman wouldn't dream of making up stories.
Except that doesn't explain your actions at all. Good try though I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
What actions would those be exactly? It's almost as if you're just making shit up again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
So just making shit up as per usual. Just don't subpoena me, bro!Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk