Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

hill16bhoy

Nermal wrote: »

Disgusting, just disgusting. Most of the people on your list were convicted, or died before they could be convicted. Comparing them to Kavanaugh is libellous, well done.

So you can't answer the question.

What is your basis for believing the stories of historical sex abuse of some victims, but not others?

Neither Roy Moore or Harvey Weinstein has been convicted.

According to your logic, if it were Moore or Weinstein who had been nominated by Trump for the Supreme Court, there would have been nothing whatsoever in their character to preclude their confirmation.

Rhineshark

Nermal wrote: »

Disgusting, just disgusting. Most of the people on your list were convicted, or died before they could be convicted. Comparing them to Kavanaugh is libellous, well done.

They were not just convicted out of nowhere. Allegations were made and (eventually...) investigated. Balance of evidence supported their guilt. Do you think that most of the above were straight up man caught raping a woman by two male witnesses like the case of that asshole swimmer? (Poor Brock, his life and sporting career ruined for 20 minutes of action!)

Kavanaugh was not really investigated. Nor was this a criminal court hearing. The FBI reopening if his background check, severely time-limited and not allowed to talk to most people involved was no real investigation. This will hang over him. If innocent, it is something that will hang over him forever. However, given his own speech, his very much not wanting an investigation, his lies about the evidence, the amount of his prior work hidden, the odd deal with Kennedy and the rest, I do suspect he prefers it this way and it works out better for him.

seamus

hill16bhoy wrote: »

There's an incredible hypocrisy at play here.

If one dismisses the allegations against Kavanaugh, by definition one then also has to dismiss any allegation where an alleged historical sexual assault wasn't directly witnessed by somebody else who backs up the complainant.

That means the vast, vast majority. Sexual predators tend not to commit their crimes in public view.

Also, if one is to go down the "standard of proof", "evidence in court" line, it's worth noting that most western countries and US states - including Maryland - do not require corroboration of eyewitness testimony. It's long been recognised that such a requirement privileges criminals, and assumes malicious motives on the part of the witness. So non-sh1thole jurisdictions don't require it.

As such the testimony of a single eyewitness is given exactly the same weight as the testimony of the defendant. It is then up to the jury to assess the quality of both testimonies against other evidence, and based on the believability/consistency of the witness themselves.

The argument that Dr. Ford's testimony on its own is not good enough, is wrong. Factually wrong. Completely wrong.


[Fair disclosure; a solicitor friend pointed this out to me, this is not something I was aware of]

Eric Cartman

hill16bhoy wrote: »

This is nonsense.

Three accusers came forward in public against Kavanaugh. The sham FBI investigation couldn't even do two of them the courtesy of interviewing them, as well as scores of other corroborating witnesses.

You and others have been shouting about "what happened to the presumption of innocence?"

So if you claim that applies to Kavanaugh, why do not claim it applies to Moore, given that Moore has not been found guilty of anything in a court of law?

It's totally illogical and hypocritical.

Because the accusations against moore werent conveniently timed, the accusations against moore came with multiple people stating they had been told about it over decades, people made jokes about keeping him away from cheerleaders, moore didnt have a litany of upstanding people giving character references, moores accusers named witnesses didnt stand up and say 'that never happened' , comparing Kavanaugh to moore is just as shady as all the cosby/weinstein comparisons and serves no basis in reality

Professor Moriarty

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Because the accusations against moore werent conveniently timed, the accusations against moore came with multiple people stating they had been told about it over decades, people made jokes about keeping him away from cheerleaders, moore didnt have a litany of upstanding people giving character references, moores accusers named witnesses didnt stand up and say 'that never happened' , comparing Kavanaugh to moore is just as shady as all the cosby/weinstein comparisons and serves no basis in reality

Correct. The Democrats got nine women together in a room and told them what to say and when to say it. All nine were lying and went public with their allegations because the Dems paid them. The Dems carefully orchestrated the timing of the their allegations against Moore for devious political reasons.

Shame on these women. Shame on the Dems. Hurrah for Breitbart who pointed out that these women were liars. Hurrah for poor Roy whose name was shamefully tarnished. Hurrah for The Donald who supported Roy throughout his ordeal. Hurrah for the truth.

Eric Cartman

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Correct. The Democrats got nine women together in a room and told them what to say and when to say it. All nine were lying and went public with their allegations because the Dems paid them. The Dems carefully orchestrated the timing of the their allegations against Moore for devious political reasons.

Shame on these women. Shame on the Dems. Hurrah for Breitbart who pointed out that these women were liars. Hurrah for poor Roy whose name was shamefully tarnished. Hurrah for The Donald who supported Roy throughout his ordeal. Hurrah for the truth.

I have no idea how you completely misconstrued mypost, I am in no way defending roy moore, I believe he did sexualy assault multiple women and theres some prett solid evidence to that.

My post was saying that the standard of evidence and everything else about the Kavanaugh case is not related and the comparison is unfair

listermint

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I have no idea how you completely misconstrued mypost, I am in no way defending roy moore, I believe he did sexualy assault multiple women and theres some prett solid evidence to that.

My post was saying that the standard of evidence and everything else about the Kavanaugh case is not related and the comparison is unfair

No one saw the evidence. The Investigation was no allowed pursue any of it.

Pelvis

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Because the accusations against moore werent conveniently timed, the accusations against moore came with multiple people stating they had been told about it over decades, people made jokes about keeping him away from cheerleaders, moore didnt have a litany of upstanding people giving character references, moores accusers named witnesses didnt stand up and say 'that never happened' , comparing Kavanaugh to moore is just as shady as all the cosby/weinstein comparisons and serves no basis in reality

The accusations against Moore happened during an election campaign.

Plenty of people came out in defense of Moore, including the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. Is Donald not upstanding enough for you?

Dr. Ford's named witnesses didn't stand up and say 'that never happened' either, and numerous others named to corroborate were never interviewed.

robinph

Pelvis wrote: »

Dr. Ford's named witnesses didn't stand up and say 'that never happened' either, and numerous others named to corroborate were never interviewed.

The most they got out of any witnesses was "I don't remember it", which is vastly different from "that never happened".

Penn

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Because the accusations against moore werent conveniently timed, the accusations against moore came with multiple people stating they had been told about it over decades, people made jokes about keeping him away from cheerleaders, moore didnt have a litany of upstanding people giving character references, moores accusers named witnesses didnt stand up and say 'that never happened' , comparing Kavanaugh to moore is just as shady as all the cosby/weinstein comparisons and serves no basis in reality

In fairness though, the accusations against Kavanaugh were not conveniently timed. Dr.Ford tried to make her accusations known to the Senate before Kavanaugh was nominated, in order to prevent the publicity and political fallout which inevitably occurred.

She knew there'd likely never be any criminal charges brought against him for it, but she felt compelled to come forward knowing he was one of the favourites because she didn't believe he should be on the SCOTUS because of what he did to her, and if there was enough belief in her claims, Trump and the Republicans could have picked someone else. We never would have known of Dr.Ford, and most of us never would have heard of Kavanaugh.

I don't dispute the timing of the release of the accusations publicly wasn't conveniently timed, but the fault for that does not lie with the woman who made the accusations.

demfad

seamus wrote: »

Also, if one is to go down the "standard of proof", "evidence in court" line, it's worth noting that most western countries and US states - including Maryland - do not require corroboration of eyewitness testimony. It's long been recognised that such a requirement privileges criminals, and assumes malicious motives on the part of the witness. So non-sh1thole jurisdictions don't require it.

As such the testimony of a single eyewitness is given exactly the same weight as the testimony of the defendant. It is then up to the jury to assess the quality of both testimonies against other evidence, and based on the believability/consistency of the witness themselves.

The argument that Dr. Ford's testimony on its own is not good enough, is wrong. Factually wrong. Completely wrong.


[Fair disclosure; a solicitor friend pointed this out to me, this is not something I was aware of]

Thanks for that.

The goal was always to try and minimize it to a 'her word against mine' situation and hope to pretend these cancelled eachother out to leave de facto no testimony.

Kavanaugh could absolutely not be made testify to the FBI because both telling the truth or lying would disqualify him.

drkpower

Captain Obvious wrote: »

There is evidence of perjury. Multiple witnesses, his calendars and his year book along with his testimony.

Well his testimony (being the potential perjury itself) clearly cant be evidence of itself. What you need is other evidence that demonstrates that his testimony was perjury.

So of the other things you mentioned:

1. What 'witnesses' are you referring to, and what do they say that provides actual evidence of perjury?
2. How is his calendar 'evidence' of perjury?
3. How is his yearbook 'evidence' of perjury?

hill16bhoy

Penn wrote: »

In fairness though, the accusations against Kavanaugh were not conveniently timed. Dr.Ford tried to make her accusations known to the Senate before Kavanaugh was nominated, in order to prevent the publicity and political fallout which inevitably occurred.

She knew there'd likely never be any criminal charges brought against him for it, but she felt compelled to come forward knowing he was one of the favourites because she didn't believe he should be on the SCOTUS because of what he did to her, and if there was enough belief in her claims, Trump and the Republicans could have picked someone else. We never would have known of Dr.Ford, and most of us never would have heard of Kavanaugh.

I don't dispute the timing of the release of the accusations publicly wasn't conveniently timed, but the fault for that does not lie with the woman who made the accusations.

Also, the "timing" of accusations is irrelevant to their credibility.

Focussing on the "timing" of the accusations is nothing more than another transparently bogus Republican-approved "talking point" to deflect away from their undoubted credibility.

Christy42

Eric Cartman wrote: »

hill16bhoy wrote: »

This is nonsense.

Three accusers came forward in public against Kavanaugh. The sham FBI investigation couldn't even do two of them the courtesy of interviewing them, as well as scores of other corroborating witnesses.

You and others have been shouting about "what happened to the presumption of innocence?"

So if you claim that applies to Kavanaugh, why do not claim it applies to Moore, given that Moore has not been found guilty of anything in a court of law?

It's totally illogical and hypocritical.

Because the accusations against moore werent conveniently timed, the accusations against moore came with multiple people stating they had been told about it over decades, people made jokes about keeping him away from cheerleaders, moore didnt have a litany of upstanding people giving character references, moores accusers named witnesses didnt stand up and say 'that never happened' , comparing Kavanaugh to moore is just as shady as all the cosby/weinstein comparisons and serves no basis in reality

The Moore incident happened around election time. Indeed between the primary and the election if I remember correctly.

Kavanagh did not have a massive amount of character witnesses and many places withdrew their support after his testimony. Well there were some character witnesses who all said he was lying about his school/college years in front of the senate. Hardly grade A support.

No witnesses said Ford's accusations 'never happened'.

Eric Cartman

Penn wrote: »

In fairness though, the accusations against Kavanaugh were not conveniently timed. Dr.Ford tried to make her accusations known to the Senate before Kavanaugh was nominated, in order to prevent the publicity and political fallout which inevitably occurred.

She knew there'd likely never be any criminal charges brought against him for it, but she felt compelled to come forward knowing he was one of the favourites because she didn't believe he should be on the SCOTUS because of what he did to her, and if there was enough belief in her claims, Trump and the Republicans could have picked someone else. We never would have known of Dr.Ford, and most of us never would have heard of Kavanaugh.

I don't dispute the timing of the release of the accusations publicly wasn't conveniently timed, but the fault for that does not lie with the woman who made the accusations.

I think the issue of timing is down to the democrats 'leaking' Dr. Fords accusation 'told in confidence' in a timeframe that meant she had to testify publically instead of it being investigated privately. They also waited until its wasnt really feasible to change nominee and court support before november , which is exactly what the dems wanted. There was not a chance in hell the GOP were going to allow that election to occur without installing somebody to the supreme court.

Had the dems 'leaked' this earlier then perhaps an alternative could be had , If they really cared about whether the supreme court was going to get somebody suitable they would have done this earlier to allow a change of nominee, but their ego got the best of then and thought that the GOP wouldnt do everything to iron clad get somebody in there before the mid terms

hill16bhoy

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Because the accusations against moore werent conveniently timed, the accusations against moore came with multiple people stating they had been told about it over decades, people made jokes about keeping him away from cheerleaders, moore didnt have a litany of upstanding people giving character references, moores accusers named witnesses didnt stand up and say 'that never happened' , comparing Kavanaugh to moore is just as shady as all the cosby/weinstein comparisons and serves no basis in reality

It's really amazing how Kavanaugh had this list of 65 women ready to go.

Almost as if he knew something was going to come out, that he had something to hide.

The first thought I'd have about somebody who had a list of 65 women giving character references that they didn't attempt to rape them, a list that was ready and waiting to go, is that they had attempted to rape at least one woman in the past - that they had something to hide.

But anyway, tell me how a list of 65 women who Kavanaugh didn't sexually assault in any way tells us that he didn't attempt to sexually assault the three women who said he did?

Anybody can come up with character references. Tom Humphries had two. I'm sure Donald Trump could come up with a list of a hundred women who say he didn't sexually assault them. That tells us nothing about what he did to the 16 women who claim he did.

I mean, do you believe Trump has committed sexual assault or not?

You say "People made jokes about keeping him (Moore) away from cheerleaders."

So, apparently "jokes" are now a reason for you not supporting Moore's candidacy.

Well, what about the at least 20 corroborating witnesses who said Kavanaugh was lying about his drinking habits? You know, the ones who were ignored by the Trump-directed sham investigation?

What about the two actual accusers who were ignored by the same sham investigation?

Yet you still support Kavanaugh's confirmation?

This does not compute.

The comparisons to Weinstein, Cosby, Savile, Smyth and Fortune serve every purpose in reality. These all involved historical allegations based on personal accounts from victims - exactly the same as Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick gave.

The argument of the pro-Kavanaugh posters is that first hand accounts from victims should be dismissed. If you apply that logic to the Kavanaugh case you have to apply to every such allegation.

Again, that's a rapist's charter.

Penn

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think the issue of timing is down to the democrats 'leaking' Dr. Fords accusation 'told in confidence' in a timeframe that meant she had to testify publically instead of it being investigated privately. They also waited until its wasnt really feasible to change nominee and court support before november , which is exactly what the dems wanted. There was not a chance in hell the GOP were going to allow that election to occur without installing somebody to the supreme court.

Had the dems 'leaked' this earlier then perhaps an alternative could be had , If they really cared about whether the supreme court was going to get somebody suitable they would have done this earlier to allow a change of nominee, but their ego got the best of then and thought that the GOP wouldnt do everything to iron clad get somebody in there before the mid terms

I don't dispute any of that. However my point is that it doesn't impact on the credibility of Dr.Ford's accusations because she made those accusations before Kavanaugh was nominated. As such, her accusations were not politically motivated, or planned to be used for political purposes, which lends credence to her claims in the same way there were rumours about Roy Moore before he went up for election. Obviously there are huge differences in how well known the rumours were and how long they were known for in both cases, but it stands that the accuser came forward before Kavanaugh's nomination.

Eric Cartman

hill16bhoy wrote: »

It's really amazing how Kavanaugh had this list of 65 women ready to go.

Almost as if he knew something was going to come out, that he had something to hide.

The first thought I'd have about somebody who had a list of 65 women giving character references that they didn't attempt to rape them, a list that was ready and waiting to go, is that they had attempted to rape at least one woman in the past - that they had something to hide.

But anyway, tell me how a list of 65 women who Kavanaugh didn't sexually assault in any way tells us that he didn't attempt to sexually assault the three women who said he did?

Anybody can come up with character references. Tom Humphries had two. I'm sure Donald Trump could come up with a list of a hundred women who say he didn't sexually assault them. That tells us nothing about what he did to the 16 women who claim he did.

I mean, do you believe Trump has committed sexual assault or not?

You say "People made jokes about keeping him (Moore) away from cheerleaders."

So, apparently "jokes" are now a reason for you not supporting Moore's candidacy.

Well, what about the at least 20 corroborating witnesses who said Kavanaugh was lying about his drinking habits? You know, the ones who were ignored by the Trump-directed sham investigation?

What about the two actual accusers who were ignored by the same sham investigation?

Yet you still support Kavanaugh's confirmation?

This does not compute.

The comparisons to Weinstein, Cosby, Savile, Smyth and Fortune serve every purpose in reality. These all involved historical allegations based on personal accounts from victims - exactly the same as Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick gave.

The argument of the pro-Kavanaugh posters is that first hand accounts from victims should be dismissed. If you apply that logic to the Kavanaugh case you have to apply to every such allegation.

Again, that's a rapist's charter.

Firstly : considering trump, moore, the metoo movement, etc... Any PR company worthnits salt would absolutely have a defense against sexual assault etc.. built up from the get go, its the first place the media and opposition go digging these days. Any campaign manager should have grilled kavanaugh day one on this and started making that list.

Secondly : Do I believe donald trump sexually assaulted women - no. I dont think there has been any claim with enough muster for me.

Thirdly : You cannot compare a high school groping allegation and drinking in college and alegations of frat house events to somebody like weinstein with a systematic entire adult life history of actually raping women , even calling it a rapists charter is putting down an implication that has no basis in reality. You cannot compare Kavanaugh to anyone who is alleged to have forcibly penetrated their victim, its on a complete other scale. And throwing Savile in there, come on , there are no allegations even remotely close to what that predatory paedophile did,

Let me ask you this, considering the timeline of events , from the day the dems leaked Dr. Fords allegations to a week before the november election, how were the GOP supposed to switch candidates and get support and get them sworn in, who else on the more right side of republicanism would have been a clean suitable candidate.

demfad

Eric Cartman wrote: »

.
Secondly : Do I believe donald trump sexually assaulted women - no. I dont think there has been any claim with enough muster for me.

If you've really considered them then perhaps you could list the allegations against him and tell us why none have enough muster?

joe40

seamus wrote: »

Also, if one is to go down the "standard of proof", "evidence in court" line, it's worth noting that most western countries and US states - including Maryland - do not require corroboration of eyewitness testimony. It's long been recognised that such a requirement privileges criminals, and assumes malicious motives on the part of the witness. So non-sh1thole jurisdictions don't require it.

As such the testimony of a single eyewitness is given exactly the same weight as the testimony of the defendant. It is then up to the jury to assess the quality of both testimonies against other evidence, and based on the believability/consistency of the witness themselves.

The argument that Dr. Ford's testimony on its own is not good enough, is wrong. Factually wrong. Completely wrong.


[Fair disclosure; a solicitor friend pointed this out to me, this is not something I was aware of]

Thanks for that post. I was amazed at the amount of people saying since there was no witness the accusation should not even be considered.
Sexual abuse crimes are seldom done in public, (not counting co-abusers) so there won't be witnesses.
That doesn't mean every accusation should automatically be believed but the credibility of the accuser is a significant factor and should not be disregared simply due to lack of witness since in these type of crimes there won't be a witness.

hill16bhoy

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Firstly : considering trump, moore, the metoo movement, etc... Any PR company worthnits salt would absolutely have a defense against sexual assault etc.. built up from the get go, its the first place the media and opposition go digging these days. Any campaign manager should have grilled kavanaugh day one on this and started making that list.

Kavanaugh's "defence" could barely have been more suspicious. He lied about his drinking habits. He lied about disparaging women in his yearbook.

In his original hearings he lied about having access to stolen Democratic documents.

If somebody is willing to lie about that stuff, on what basis should they be believed on anything else?

The 65 women thing was plain weird.

We had Republicans telling us "what 17 year old boy hasn't done that"? As if attempted rape is an entirely normal thing.

Then there was the bizarre and ridiculous doppelganger theory which Republicans actually shamelessly used to railroad through the nomination, none more so than so called "moderate" Susan Collins.

If that's good PR, I'd hate to see bad PR.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Secondly : Do I believe donald trump sexually assaulted women - no. I dont think there has been any claim with enough muster for me.

Even though he admitted it himself on tape?

See, unfortunately you're just doing what every other pro-Trump poster here has ended up doing, and that's denying reality.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Thirdly : You cannot compare a high school groping allegation and drinking in college and alegations of frat house events to somebody like weinstein with a systematic entire adult life history of actually raping women , even calling it a rapists charter is putting down an implication that has no basis in reality. You cannot compare Kavanaugh to anyone who is alleged to have forcibly penetrated their victim, its on a complete other scale. And throwing Savile in there, come on , there are no allegations even remotely close to what that predatory paedophile did,

It wasn't a "groping allegation", it was an allegation of attempted rape. One wonders why you downplay the allegation in your post and what motivation you have to do so.

I didn't compare the seriousness of what Kavanaugh is alleged to have done to what Weinstein or Savile did, though I certainly consider what Kavanaugh is alleged to have done to be very serious.

So let's get that little red herring out of the way.

The point, which you're deliberately missing, is that all these cases involved personal testimony and/or personal accounts from victims.

You strongly appear to pick and choose who to believe based on nothing more your personal political bias and/or personal convenience.

That's not arguing in good faith.

Penn

joe40 wrote: »

Thanks for that post. I was amazed at the amount of people saying since there was no witness the accusation should not even be considered.
Sexual abuse crimes are seldom done in public, (not counting co-abusers) so there won't be witnesses.
That doesn't mean every accusation should automatically be believed but the credibility of the accuser is a significant factor and should not be disregared simply due to lack of witness since in these type of crimes there won't be a witness.

And therein lies one of the biggest issues with the FBI investigation not including interviews with Ford and Kavanaugh. The prosecutor the Republicans had asking their questions said outright that the manner in which she was asking questions (5 minute bursts, jumping from topic to topic) wasn't the manner in which victims of sexual assault should be interviewed because when it's done in a more conversational way and allowing the victim to talk about everything rather than be asked questions on it, you get a far more reliable testimony with more detail because it aids memory recollection. There's also the fact that the Rep senators stopped her from asking questions to Kavanaugh when she started asking questions about the July 1st party on his calendar, which is the date which most closely lines up with everything Ford had said.

Credibility is one thing, but the manner in which both Ford and Kavanaugh were questioned, and then not allowing the FBI to interview them privately, was utterly shambolic and downright disgusting. It demonstrates that the truth was never what they were trying to find.

everlast75

It seems every time we talk about a reason why Kavanaugh should not have gotten the seat, those in defence of him change the topic.

We talk about the allegation of sexual assault, they talk about Clinton.

We talk about perjury, they talk about CBF's solicitors working pro-bono.

I posted these facts below a while ago. Combined, they are the general case against Kavanaugh.

Can those in support of him point out exactly where I went wrong?

Perhaps it is in the "credible" accusations. Even accepting that you believe this - where else?

everlast75 wrote: »

Kavanaugh had an odd view that sitting presidents should not be bothered by litigation.

Kavanaugh made it on to the list after Mueller was appointed.

The GOP withheld docs on Kavanaugh, with the determinator of what was seen or not was his friend.

Kavanaugh appeared in a TV interview in order to rubbish Ford's story before she had a chance to tell her side of the story before the Senate.

Kavanaugh lied under oath.

Kavanaugh displayed partisan bias.

Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament.

The GOP prejudged the hearing confirming that the nomination would go ahead, regardless of Ford's testimony.

The GOP senate committee hired a female prosecutor rather than ask Ford questions.

Kavanaugh had numerous credible accusations of sexual assault made against him.

The WH resisted an FBI investigation.

Kavanaugh resisted an FBI investigation.

When the WH relented, they hamstrung that investigation by restricting the number of witnesses.

The WH limited that investigation to one week.

Kavanaugh contacted witnesses to the Rameriz incident before the FBI contacted them in order to get them to support his version of events, ie witness tampering

The WH then lied about there being a restriction and allowed the FBI to speak to 6 more people.

The FBI did not speak to circa 40 people who wanted to speak to them.

The FBI did not interview Ford or Kavanaugh.

The President mocked a sexual assault victim in front of the nation.

But tell me again how the Democrats were out of order.

swampgas

As far as I can tell, all the Trump and Kavanaugh defenders are simply following the deny, deny, deny gaslighting tactic which they've been using for years.

This is what we're up against, and we're just not going to get a straight or honest answer from the Trumpists. Because they're playing by a different set of rules, where honesty is for losers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pmBC_CrQS4

Eric Cartman

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Kavanaugh's "defence" could barely have been more suspicious. He lied about his drinking habits. He lied about disparaging women in his yearbook.

In his original hearings he lied about having access to stolen Democratic documents.

If somebody is willing to lie about that stuff, on what basis should they be believed on anything else?

The 65 women thing was plain weird.

We had Republicans telling us "what 17 year old boy hasn't done that"? As if attempted rape is an entirely normal thing.

Then there was the bizarre and ridiculous doppelganger theory which Republicans actually shamelessly used to railroad through the nomination, none more so than so called "moderate" Susan Collins.

If that's good PR, I'd hate to see bad PR.





Even though he admitted it himself on tape?

See, unfortunately you're just doing what every other pro-Trump poster here has ended up doing, and that's denying reality.


It wasn't a "groping allegation", it was an allegation of attempted rape. One wonders why you downplay the allegation in your post and what motivation you have to do so.

I didn't compare the seriousness of what Kavanaugh is alleged to have done to what Weinstein or Savile did, though I certainly consider what Kavanaugh is alleged to have done to be very serious.

So let's get that little red herring out of the way.

The point, which you're deliberately missing, is that all these cases involved personal testimony and/or personal accounts from victims.

You strongly appear to pick and choose who to believe based on nothing more your personal political bias and/or personal convenience.

That's not arguing in good faith.

Dr Ford lied about her 'escape door' and 'immense fear of flying , Kavanaughs drinking was immiterial to the case as was fords fear of flying , either both count or both dont for credibility.

Also the only paragraph you didnt deal with :

Let me ask you this, considering the timeline of events , from the day the dems leaked Dr. Fords allegations to a week before the november election, how were the GOP supposed to switch candidates and get support and get them sworn in, who else on the more right side of republicanism would have been a clean suitable candidate.

Leroy42

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Let me ask you this, considering the timeline of events , from the day the dems leaked Dr. Fords allegations to a week before the november election, how were the GOP supposed to switch candidates and get support and get them sworn in, who else on the more right side of republicanism would have been a clean suitable candidate.

And that there sums up the entire episode.

It was never about whether Ford was telling the truth, whether Kavanaugh was right or not. The GOP, and Trump were up against it in terms if timeline. There is the possibility, small but there, that they may lose the majority in the Senate in November and as such they couldn't risk not getting this through now. And if they lost the house, Trump would need the SCOTUS to be in his favour to help avoid impeachment.

The rights/truth then didn't matter. It became a game of timings. The DNC played it well, as letting the info out earlier would have allowed the GOP to simply swap Kav with another one with hardly any impact. The DNC might have lost, the numbers said they were always likely to, but the damge has been done.

That is why you are hearing this nonsense about riling up the GOP base to get out and vote. There is no objective basis for that claim, but make it anyway to try to make it look like all of this wasn't the sh1tshow it actually was.

hill16bhoy

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Dr Ford lied about her 'escape door' and 'immense fear of flying , Kavanaughs drinking was immiterial to the case as was fords fear of flying , either both count or both dont for credibility.

Also the only paragraph you didnt deal with :

Let me ask you this, considering the timeline of events , from the day the dems leaked Dr. Fords allegations to a week before the november election, how were the GOP supposed to switch candidates and get support and get them sworn in, who else on the more right side of republicanism would have been a clean suitable candidate.

You're just making things up now based on what you've read on pro-Republican disinformation sites.

It's nobody else's fault except Trump's that he selected a candidate who had extremely credible accusations of sexual assault in his past.

Democrats do not exist to make things as smooth as possible for dodgy Trump nominees, as you imply.

And after the disgraceful way Merrick Garland was treated by them, Republicans have some barefaced cheek to be complaining about opposition to their nominee.

pixelburp

Just as a further rebuke against the 'fame' angle insinuated, Ford still hasn't returned home because of the sheer number of death threats made against her & her family.

You'd want to be super naive to think that the Democrats didn't strategise the use of Ford's testimony - and as Leroy42 mentions were it not for the midterms on the horizon there's a chance the nomination might have stalled - but in terms of the woman herself it's fair to say Ford coming forward has effectively ruined both her personal and professional life. God knows how her family's doing; pointing at some gofundme as a Silver Bullet is both disingenuous and wilfully dismissive of the emotional, demonstrable cost.

https://twitter.com/KasieDC/status/1049081044878708736

hill16bhoy

pixelburp wrote: »

Just as a further rebuke against the 'fame' angle insinuated, Ford still hasn't returned home because of the sheer number of death threats made against her & her family.

You'd want to be super naive to think that the Democrats didn't strategise the use of Ford's testimony - and as Leroy42 mentions were it not for the midterms on the horizon there's a chance the nomination might have stalled - but in terms of the woman herself it's fair to say Ford coming forward has effectively ruined both her personal and professional life. God knows how her family's doing; pointing at some gofundme as a Silver Bullet is both disingenuous and wilfully dismissive of the emotional, demonstrable cost.

https://twitter.com/KasieDC/status/1049081044878708736

But sure Kavanaugh was the real victim in all this, or something something.

The whole thing from the Republicans' point of view was yet another exercise in legitimising barefaced lying as the new normal in politics.

The liars know they're lying, their opponents know they're lying, everybody knows they're lying.

The liars smile and nod, and say "what are you going to do about it?"

And when barefaced lying is legitimised as normal, the possibilities for barefaced liars to get what they want are endless.

ancapailldorcha

To be honest, it seems to be that Kavanaugh is nowhere near fit to occupy the office he now holds. If the GOP had even a shred of principle or even respect for the small government ideology that the party of Reagan was committed to, Kavanaugh would not be serving as a supreme court justice.

Merrick Garland was blocked simply because Obama nominated him. While the allegations against Kavanaugh have yet to be proven, his partisanship alone makes him unfit for office. Why some people are glad that he has been appointed when there was a plethora of alternatives for Trump to choose from is beyond me. Then again, some people seem to have subscribed to an intensely hateful ideology and were simply cheering for this simply out of spite for those they perceive to be Liberals and/or Democrats.