Jump to content

Ford-Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Allegation


WestCanMan

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I disagree...it does not follow that a SC justice must always be stoic men/women of stone.

Kavanaugh's testimony and reaction to vicious attacks demonstrated his humanity and makes him more credible, same as those who support Dr. Ford's emotional display.

True.  Again, my point is that if there was any time to be professional - this was it. And he blew it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Very poor reading comprehension between you and Betsy.  Try again.

Hahahahahaha   rolling.gif

 

 

 

Quote

I wasn't comparing TWD to anything.  I was comparing Chris Hardwick's reaction to allegations to Kavanaugh's reaction.  I thought that should have been pretty obvious, even to you two.

Walking Dead?   hahahahahaha

Heck, who's TWD???   :lol:  hahahahaha  rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-smiley-emo

Goddess.....crying-with-laughter.gif.......people react to situations differently.......

 

....like, if you and I are together, and suddenly there's someone hacking people.   I run away screaming - as fast as my legs could carry me, I look back.....and there you are, silent and frozen stiff on the spot!  :)    Would you say my reaction isn't normal?   Would I say, your reaction isn't normal? 

 

 

Edited by betsy
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, betsy said:

Hahahahahaha   rolling.gif

 

 

 

Walking Dead?   hahahahahaha

Heck, who's TWD???   :lol:  hahahahaha  rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-smiley-emo

Goddess.....crying-with-laughter.gif.......people react to situations differently.......

 

....like, if you and I are together, and suddenly there's someone hacking people.   I run away screaming - as fast as my legs could carry me, I look back.....and there you are, silent and frozen stiff on the spot!  :)    Would you say my reaction isn't normal?   Would I say, your reaction isn't normal? 

 

 

Oh, so you DID understand what I was I saying, you're just being deliberately dense.  Haha, that's so funny. :blink:

So..... you come down hard on Dr. Ford for her reaction (which most women understood was completely normal) but again, Kavanaugh's over-the-top reaction is excused away. 

I'm not sure your example of how people react differently in an immediate life-threatening situation quite compares to a situation where you have the time to think about the best way to react, as Kavanaugh did.

Time to think about how to react is the key there.  I expect this will go "whoosh" over your head, as most other things do.

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/tv/chris-hardwick-will-return-host-amc-show-following-abuse-accusations-n894671

https://www.nealdavislaw.com/blog/sex-crimes/hardwick-false-allegations-dropped

Edited by Goddess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Goddess said:

So..... you come down hard on Dr. Ford for her reaction (which most women understood was completely normal) but again, Kavanaugh's over-the-top reaction is excused away.

 

This is sexist...obviously espousing a different standard for when unemotional composure is expected/required.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Goddess said:

I disagree that his reaction was "normal".  Here's why:

I'm a big The Walking Dead fan, so I watched with interest while Chris Hardwick was caught up in accusations from an old girlfriend. 

While it was being investigated, Chris Hardwick  was fired from his jobs, lost all his endorsements, and I'm sure it strained his marriage and was a very stressful time for him.

The difference was in HOW he and his wife handled it.  They never once unleashed any kind of rage against the old girlfriend or against the companies who fired him over the allegations.  Chris defended himself but he did it with grace and dignity and he did it in such a way that the offended girlfriend was also given her dignity.  He never once had a rage-filled temper tantrum.

On his facebook and twitter feeds and in articles written about him, I saw mostly women sticking up for Chris because the things being said about him were so out of character.

In the end, it was determined that the girlfriend's allegations were exaggerated and his jobs and endorsements were reinstated to him and he has made no real public comment since then about any of it.

My point is this:

No, Betsy.  Rage-filled temper tantrums is not the "normal" way to handle these kinds of allegations.

Kavanaugh immediately came out swinging - against Dr. Ford, against the public, against the Dems, against women, against anybody he could possibly make a bit of mud stick.

The accusations against Chris were so out of character for him, that it was mostly women who supported him.  I don't see that kind of support for Kavanaugh and I think that is telling.  In fact, even his close friends agree that he has been a rage-filled drinker for a long time.

Men don't have to worry about women - we're not stupid.  We intuitively know when allegations are false or exaggerated.  I knew it with Chris, I knew it with the fake hijab-cutting girl.  Their stories were just....."off".  But with Kavanaugh, the reason he is experiencing such backlash is because the allegations have a ring of truth.  Every woman feels it.  The stories from his past confirm it.

Now, if Kavanaugh had come out and said, "Hey guys, I don't remember the incident but as I was a heavy drinker in those days, it's possible that it happened just as she said.  And for that, I apologize.  I can only say that I was a product of the times and that I have learned and grown since then and ask that you all consider my long record of non-partisan judging."  If he had said that, I could have gotten on board and I don't think there would have been the backlash we've seen.

No, Kavanaugh is experiencing the consequences of his poor handling of the situation and I think that makes him a very poor judge.

That's damage control, he can't afford to be blacklisted by hollywood.  Any guy who get's metoo'd and wants to "keep" a career, better have their head down.  With Kavanaugh, he had to defend himself because if he didn't become Justice, he would have nothing - remember Pelosi and the rest were suggesting he shouldn't even be allowed his old job back, and was fired from Harvard.

Secondly, to say his past confirms an attempted rape, is totally stunned.  There is more evidence that she made up the whole thing, you don't think her story was "off", not to mention her past and the way the story was presented?  C'mon, it's obvious.

Third, If Kavanaugh had of said what you suggest, he would not have been confirmed.  It's rather naive of you to believe that he would've been forgiven.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Goddess said:

Oh, so you DID understand what I was I saying, you're just being deliberately dense.  Haha, that's so funny. :blink:

So..... you come down hard on Dr. Ford for her reaction (which most women understood was completely normal) but again, Kavanaugh's over-the-top reaction is excused away. 

I'm not sure your example of how people react differently in an immediate life-threatening situation quite compares to a situation where you have the time to think about the best way to react, as Kavanaugh did.

Time to think about how to react is the key there.  I expect this will go "whoosh" over your head, as most other things do.

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/tv/chris-hardwick-will-return-host-amc-show-following-abuse-accusations-n894671

https://www.nealdavislaw.com/blog/sex-crimes/hardwick-false-allegations-dropped

Yes I understood what you're saying - lol, you're the one who's showing denseness here.  It's not the same at all!

Think!

 

Quote

Hardwick was suspended by AMC last month after his former girlfriend penned an essay accusing Hardwick of being emotionally and sexually abusive during their relationship.

 

Kavanaugh and this guy doesn't even have an exactly identical life.....and the circumstances surrounding their scenario, aren't identical, either!  not even close! 

At least I'm glad you accept that Kavanaugh is falsely accused.   FALSE ACCUSATION. That's all they have in common.

 

 

Quote

I'm not sure your example of how people react differently in an immediate life-threatening situation quite compares to a situation where you have the time to think about the best way to react, as Kavanaugh did.

 

Ford had 36 years to think of the best way to react, didn't she?   And yet,  what she thought was the best didn't pan out being the best, did it?   It's more like a disaster for her!  For one, instead of the anonymity she had planned for, she became a public figure!   And, she's been callously used by the Democrats - screwed, like they did with Kavanugh!

Compare that with Kavanaugh -  who learned about this sudden accusation at the eleventh hour before his confirmation!  No one among the Democrats he privately met with, had given him any inkling that this was brewing.  Just the shock of it must've had an impact!

 

What I'm saying -  having the time to think, doesn't necessarily give you the best way to go about it.   Even if it's the best, you still have to deal with the unexpected.  

Furthermore, rehearsals are more likely done by those who want to hide their guilt.  It's through spontaniety that you could usually get what's real, and what's fake.   Kavanaugh's raw emotions are what made him credible!   Credible, that the nation was divided about this issue.   His raw emotions also came unexpected to his detractors, I think.....they didn't count on that.

 

People who swear they wouldn't cry, sometimes end up crying when confronting an issue headlong.   Being face-to-face with people who brought you pain could cause you to breakdown and cry.  We see that at court - sometimes, victims end up crying when recounting what happened.....or the impact it had on them.   How many times have I said I wouldn't cry - and yet, I ended up crying anyway?   That's how humans are.

Why should we expect Kavanaugh to be less human, just because of his profession? 

Edited by betsy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Goddess said:

 

So..... you come down hard on Dr. Ford for her reaction (which most women understood was completely normal) but again, Kavanaugh's over-the-top reaction is excused away.

 

My reaction to Dr Ford's testimony is normal.   Especially after Leland Keyser had repeated her sworn statement again to the FBI - and also revealed that she was pressured by Ford's allies to change her statement!

You make it so that no women tell lies - we know that isn't true, right?  Either Ford is lying, or she's confused about it!

It's possible too that Ford was the one drunk that night - or she could've been high on drugs!  That's possible,  am I right?

 

Use your common sense, woman.   If Ford had botched 100% in naming the people she said were in that small gathering of 5  -  of course she can't say she's 100% sure the man who attacked her was Kavanaugh!   Heck, her own life-long friend had not corroborated that - Keyser refuted it!  

Keyser and Kavanaugh can't be at that party at the same time.....or at ANY party!  EVER!   With, or without Ford!

 

Anyway....why isn't Ford outraged that she's been outed publicly?  Didn't she want anonymity and confidentiality? 

Why isn't she even curious as to how she ended up being named???  As to who leaked her? 

You find that a normal reaction?   I don't.

 

Yes, I ended up mocking the testimony of Ford, why shouldn't I?   She's ended up making a mockery of all REAL SEX ASSAULT/RAPE victims -  she's become a caricature!

Some of you women just don't get that.

 

Edited by betsy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Wilber said:

I think Americans deserve Kavanaugh.

I think that Canadians like you deserve another four years of Trudeau bull shit. At least Kavanaugh has class and is honest where your dictator is nothing more than a feminist leftist liberal liar and bullshitter. Just saying. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/11/2018 at 1:52 PM, Goddess said:

His temper tantrums indicate to me - and to many others -  that he is unfit for that very important position on the SC.  That was my only point.

 

Bork didn’t get angry when confronted by a pack of sleazy Democrats, led by “Killer” Kennedy. Bork lost his chance to be a SCJ. Don’t be like Bork. 

Kavanaugh wasn’t there to be dignified, he was there to defend his integrity against a pack of liars. And let’s face it - anyone who’s saying that there was enough evidence to brand Kavanaugh an attempted rapist is a liar, through and through. 

Anyone on earth could be found guilty of attempted rape if the bar was dropped low enough for Dr Ford’s case to prevail in a court of law, and yet Dems were still acting like the bulk of the evidence supported her claim. It was a disgusting political hitjob and Kavanaugh has nothing to be ashamed of unless he is guilty.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Bork didn’t get angry when confronted by a pack of sleazy Democrats, led by “Killer” Kennedy. Bork lost his chance to be a SCJ. Don’t be like Bork. 

Kavanaugh wasn’t there to be dignified, he was there to defend his integrity against a pack of liars. And let’s face it -

He failed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl1VYF0avk4

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Bork didn’t get angry when confronted by a pack of sleazy Democrats, led by “Killer” Kennedy. Bork lost his chance to be a SCJ. Don’t be like Bork. 

....

 

With Bork, Team A defeated Team B.

Defeat Bork (Team B), according to Democrats (Team A) is a win.

====

Leftists/Democrats view life as a zero-sum game: "trickle down economics", as they often say, with supposed sarcasm - ignoring the irony.

 

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2018 at 6:21 PM, Argus said:

Sam Harris crosses a line when he said, at the 1:42 mark, that Kavanaugh was confronted by "facts" from the past. There were no facts from the past related to the issue of Dr Ford's accusation at all. Shame on Sam Harris. That was an accusation from the past with less than zero evidence, which is not to be confused with "facts". I say less than zero evidence because everything she tried to use to back her story turned out to be false. Her own witnesses didn't see anything and her PTSD testimony was full of declarative statements that were proven to be lies.

He's also predicating half of his opinion on the fact that "people who thought that he should have been confirmed were using the same level of proof that would be required for a guilty verdict in a court of law". 1) That's not true. No one on Fox news was saying that is what was required, and I doubt that there's even one person in America who regularly watches CNN who thought Kavanaugh was innocent. 2) That's neither here nor there, because the level of proof was zero when all the facts were in. If the accusation was backed at all, to the point where a reasonable man thought that plausible suspicion existed, Senators could never have voted in favour of Kavanaugh. The reputation of the entire Republican party was at stake here, with the mid-term elections just weeks away. Their party would have been decimated if they voted to let Kavanaugh sit on that bench with a single, realistic question mark related to sex crimes.

 

He makes a salient point when he says that Kavanaugh lied about his calendar. I'd put it at "might have lied". For starters I don't know what Devil's triangle is. I also don't know that he even did the things that he bragged about on his teen-ager calendar, and lastly,  I really doubt that he would have handed the calendar over as exculpatory evidence if Devil's triangle really was a rape game. Why would he volunteer evidence that says "We raped sum bitches up reel good"? It makes me think that it probably wasn't a rape game. There are regional variations of card games, regional variations of what kinds of party games people palyed and what they were called. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Devil's triangle was a drinking agme in that area in the '80's. If he actually played devil's triangle, and it was a rape game, he should not have made it.

If there was something else he "lied" about, which was of lesser importance, I don't blame him. Don't forget that there were 48 Dem Senators in the same room lying at that time. He was going with the flow. He also needed to make himself seem like the purest thing since the invention of water because 48 Dem Senators were already saying that "HE WAS GUILTY". When you're in a room with 48 Senators who are saying that you're guilty you really need to pretend that you're perfect. Even if you did basic things like get drunk a few times in high school. 

We can both agree that her testimony, combined with him saying "I got so drunk a few times in high school that I puked", would have been enough for him to lose that seat. She lied, 48 Dem Senators lied at his hearing and on national TV, he had no choice but tell some little white lies. Does America deserve better than Kavanaugh, if their Senate is becoming so dysfunctional that Kavanaugh needed to do what he did to get that job? It's a sandbox with hardwood floors, and people throw around lies instead of dog poo. Utterly pathetic.

 

I'll admit right now to watching only the first 2 mins of that video, but I saw enough to know it was time to stop listening. He was already too far along the wrong path.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2018 at 7:06 PM, August1991 said:

With Bork, Team A defeated Team B.

Defeat Bork (Team B), according to Democrats (Team A) is a win.

====

Leftists/Democrats view life as a zero-sum game: "trickle down economics", as they often say, with supposed sarcasm - ignoring the irony.

 

With Bork, Team A brought the Senate down to a standard that is obviously harmful to the country and democracy in general. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Sam Harris crosses a line when he said, at the 1:42 mark, that Kavanaugh was confronted by "facts" from the past.

The facts from his past were that he was a drunken party animal, and a mean drunk according to those who were there with him at the time.
Harris basically ignored the he said/she said aspect of this to focus on a few pertinent known facts. Did a lot of people get drunk and act badly in college? Yes, many did, including Sam Harris. But few of us had the kind of reputation for a being a nasty boozehound that Kavanaugh had.

It is this that Kavanaugh lied about, avoided talking about, forgot pertinent facts about, and dodged around questions for.

Quote

He's also predicating half of his opinion on the fact that "people who thought that he should have been confirmed were using the same level of proof that would be required for a guilty verdict in a court of law". 1) That's not true.

It has been a constant in conversations. Well, there's no proof! Which is true, but the standard for appointing a judge ought not to be 'Well, we can't prove he broke the law".

Quote

If there was something else he "lied" about, which was of lesser importance, I don't blame him. Don't forget that there were 48 Dem Senators in the same room lying at that time.

Well, first, the whole senate wasn't in the room. Second, there were more of his Republican cheerleaders there than there were Democrats. Third, if your standard for honesty and integrity in a judge who sits on the supreme court is "Well, he's no more dishonest than politicians" then you clearly don't have a lot of interest in judicial integrity. 

The rest of us hold judges to a considerably higher standard than politicians. Which is why a judge who lies, who insults his questioners, who loses his cool and breaks down in tears, is someone we find to be manifestly unfit.

Edited by Argus
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Argus said:

The rest of us hold judges to a considerably higher standard than politicians. Which is why a judge who lies, who insults his questioners, who loses his cool and breaks down in tears, is someone we find to be manifestly unfit.

 

Speak for yourself....justices need only be qualified jurists...not saints in high school or university.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Argus said:

The facts from his past were that he was a drunken party animal, and a mean drunk according to those who were there with him at the time.
Harris basically ignored the he said/she said aspect of this to focus on a few pertinent known facts. Did a lot of people get drunk and act badly in college? Yes, many did, including Sam Harris. But few of us had the kind of reputation for a being a nasty boozehound that Kavanaugh had.

Wrong. That's not a fact. That's an accusation made by some and refuted by many. And don't forget that Kavanaugh was in university for many years. Not 2, not 4. Many. Over 7 years or so there would have been some big parties where he got really drunk and/or acted out of character.

Quote

It is this that Kavanaugh lied about, avoided talking about, forgot pertinent facts about, and dodged around questions for.

Wrong again. This is what Democrat Senators and left wing news lied about. They are trying to make the case that Kavanaugh's normal behaviour was to get really drunk and belligerent because he had this one incident in a bar where he threw some ice. Am I right? Yes, I'm right. A HUGE DEAL is made of the fact that Kavanaugh was in a bar where he may have started a fight. Spare me the histrionics. This is n o t h i n g. This is not proof that he was a drunken asshole. 

Quote

It has been a constant in conversations. Well, there's no proof! Which is true, but the standard for appointing a judge ought not to be 'Well, we can't prove he broke the law".

Again, in true left wing fashion, you're intentionally mischaracterizing an argument to refute it. No proof at all is a long way short of we can't prove that he broke the law. If there was something tangible, something that was even remotely credible, that would be a step towards creating uncertainty about whether or not he did it. There was ZERO. NOTHING! NO UNCERTAINTY AT ALL! That's not in the realm of proving anything or even creating uncertainty or plausibility. It's in the realm of "This is still a work of pure fiction, and the accuser is losing more and more credibility every time she opens her mouth." 

Quote

 

Well, first, the whole senate wasn't in the room. Second, there were more of his Republican cheerleaders there than there were Democrats. Third, if your standard for honesty and integrity in a judge who sits on the supreme court is "Well, he's no more dishonest than politicians" then you clearly don't have a lot of interest in judicial integrity. 

The rest of us hold judges to a considerably higher standard than politicians. Which is why a judge who lies, who insults his questioners, who loses his cool and breaks down in tears, is someone we find to be manifestly unfit.

 Every Dem Senator is on TV, radio, and wherever else they can be to say "she has to be believed, he did it, people who don't believe her are misogynists" etc. It was a complete farce and yet it still sucked a lot of people in. Kavanaugh exaggerated his sobriety to help clear his name. To be honest, he put the conversation more sharply towards truth than it was by his own words, so I'm ok with it. The standard for getting appointed to the supreme court almost became "never touched a drink in my life and only kissed one girl and every moment of my life has been recorded on video". If Kavanaugh went down then literally any man could be stopped from becoming a SCJ by a single bimbo.

 

You're not holding anyone to any standards at all. Just Kavanaugh because he may have exaggerated his sobriety. I don't think he dd. Do you know how hard it is to not go party with friends when you're 22? You'll have friends going out almost every night of the week to do something. I believe that he said no to hundreds of nights out. Hundreds. You're not holding Feinstein, Dr Ford, or any of the people who are making RIDICULOUS and extremely serious accusations about Kavanuagh's rape or drinking accountable at all.... Your whole argument is completely at a juvenile level. You're saying "I believe the 3 people who are making accusations about Kavanaugh (Dr Ford, a guy in a bar, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that there's someone else), I don't believe the 4 actual witnesses and hundreds of character witnesses that back BK, even though we already know that several declarative statements that were made by Dr Ford were proven to be lies."

Look at your own arguments from someone else's point of view. It's pathetic.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Speak for yourself....justices need only be qualified jurists...not saints in high school or university.

....and he passed every test leading up to the mostly debunked, last minute Ford accusations - accusations that fulfilled the Democrats threat to do anything and everything to block his confirmation. The withering Senate interview process could find nothing - absolutely nothing to dispute his character, jurisprudence, temperament or integrity.

If I were an American - I'd want my Supreme Court judge to fight lies, bias and injustice - especially in our political system. In doing so, do I care if he did - or did not get a bit crabby when he had too many beer in college - when there has been absolutely no pattern of any of that throughout his judicial career? Absolutely not. And do I care that he was angry in disputing the charges, that he showed some tears - that he got personal in calling out the Democrats. No, I really don't - but on reflection, I'll bet Judge Kavanaugh would have liked to be a little less emotional in his rightful accusations of Democratic chicanery.

Anyway - it's done.....and again - I don't really care other than I hope our Canadian processes don't end up stooping to such levels.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

Democrats are campaigning that if they win, they'll be re-opening it!

Doubling down on who believes Ford as opposed to Kavanaugh. It'll be interesting to see how Independent woman vote. My guess is that the majority - being independent - will be more inclined to vote according to the facts.....so the GOP might pick up more votes than they might previously have expected. Surprisingly, the GOP have the "high road" with this whole debacle - so much so that even some Democrats might stay home out of disgust. We'll just have to wait and see how things unfold.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

Surprisingly, the GOP have the "high road" with this whole debacle - so much so that even some Democrats might stay home out of disgust

Thanks for acknowledging that Democrats have at least some moral compass.  If Republicans had enough of a moral compass to have stayed home out of "disgust", Trump would not be president.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...