https://youtu.be/3uN7mInREkw

But keep trying. 

Wyrdness said:

Is there a point to this picture...?

You can't claim you can't testify due to your fear of flying, specifically because of a sexual assault. Then have a history flying around as a hobby. It seems like a small thing maybe, but being caught in a blatant lie like that doesn't help her credibility.

Frankly, its just one of many holes in her story which is why he could never actually be proven guilty. Reasonable doubt is strong with this story.

Not really the picture for some reason some how symbolises how this thread is turning out.

Quit trivializing her experience by playing loose with the facts and her words, just so you can move the goalposts in an attempt to attack a political opponent.  This is a woman who was raped for 20 mins straight.  This was much more traumatizing than what Ford supposedly had to go through, which in your original words, should aid in helping her remember it exactly.  In her own words, she cemented every detail of his face into her mind.  She shortly after (not 30+ years after) went to the authorities and had a sketch done.  They showed her pics of people who matched that sketch, and later did a line up.  She was 100% sure (hmm, sounds familiar) that it was Cotton.  She was in disbelieve when it turned out she was wrong.  It couldn't be, Cotton was the one who had raped her.  It's also important to note that she actually does remember where she was and at what time it did happen.

And her story is actually compelling.  But, now, Dems would have us convinced we need to believe a woman who conveniently knows nothing about the night in question, so it can't be proven or unproven.  She won't offer any facts about the night, where it happened, what time, how she got there.  No one corroborates her story.  In fact, they refute it.  She won't give us her therapist reports, most likely because she has more "facts" that she has changed about her story from then.  And that she has changed her story several times, even in the past few weeks, is an undeniable fact.  The only thing she knows for sure, again conveniently, is that it was Kavanaugh. 

Sorry, but we aren't just going to hang a man on such shoddy "evidence."  I know you believe the ends justify the means, but that's a poor excuse to make yourself believe the things you would have to to believe her without a shadow of a doubt.  I just pray that you don't have the same thing happen to you some time in the future.  Cause, while that would be karmatic justice, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I used forms of assault leading to the feeling of one's life being threatened. It wouldn't have made as much sense if I said sexual assault, since an online forum in itself does not allow for direct physical contact.

So if Kav instead said, 'I never sexually assaulted Ford, and while I don't remember when that may have been, or where it may have happened, I know I definitely didn't do it', that would mean he must have never sexually assaulted her? If it does, he's as innocent as she is. If it doesn't, he's as questionable as she is without evidence.

That doesn't mean we can't have an opinion of what may have occurred based on the claims and defense made, but without hard factual evidence, you can't be 100% sure.

If you wanted something, like say to cross the boarder, and they had the ability to comb through your life, and they said to you 'I see you've watched YouTube videos of people blowing stuff up, and so I've calculated there's a 0.1% chance you might physically try to do so in this Country, so your not aloud in. Turn around'. You would think this is acceptable? If you do, you should also have no problem whatsoever with Trump and his admins immigration/border policies and bans btw.

You can't honestly say if you believe Kav isn't 100% innocent, that he shouldn't be confirmed, because if you believe that, then you can't nominate anybody based on that logic. All someone has to say is, are any of the candidates available beyond a doubt 100% the best choice? If the answer is no, which you can bet it is, then you can't even nominate somebody.

This is why the rule of law exists as it does. Without it, America would still be the wild west at best.

uh i had that conversation with you and i never said that i believed hillary clinton ran a child sex ring

...what i actually said is that child sex rings were reported by alex jones and brought down by the police

"but won't believe a doctor who was sexually assaulted"

based on what evidence? because she said so?

i've been the mother of your child for 10 years now, you weren't aware that our one night stand resulted in my pregnancy and have never gained any child support from you... where can i collect my cheque?

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/christine-blasey-ford-polygraph-testimony-ex-boyfriend-contradicts/

Ford’s Ex-Boyfriend Contradicts Her on Polygraph

"The ex-boyfriend of one of the women accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct has suggested to the Senate Judiciary Committee that she may have perjured herself on several issues during her testimony.

Christine Blasey Ford testified Thursday to Congress about her allegation that the Supreme Court nominee sexually assaulted her at a party in the early 1980s when they were both minors in high school. Kavanaugh trapped her in a room, pinned her to a bed, and covered her mouth while trying to remove her clothing, Ford said, an incident that has caused her lasting trauma.

During her testimony, Ford stated under oath that she has never coached anyone on taking a lie detector test.

“Never,” she answered when asked whether she had offered advice to any individual planning to submit to a polygraph examination.

On Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee said they had received a sworn statement from a man claiming to be Ford’s former boyfriend, whose name is redacted from his letter, saying he personally witnessed Ford coaching a friend for a polygraph test.

During some of the time we were dating, Dr. Ford lived with Monica L. McLean, who I understood to be her life-long best friend,” the letter read. “During that time, it was my understanding that McLean was interviewing for jobs with the FBI and the US Attorney’s Office. I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam. Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam. Dr. Ford was able to help because of her background in psychology."

well that's interesting... it'll be very interesting to see some of the changes in responses now and lack thereof

Honestly I don't see how her testimony was moving to begin with, starting with teehee fear of flying, well not when vacation tee, hee.  Honestly she was giggling about how funny her fear of flying , or lack of is.  Coupled with the lying about her name coming out.  The best that can come of  this is people realize that  comedians like John Oliver  are really dishonest.

" The best that can come of  this is people realize that  comedians like John Oliver  are really dishonest."

that's not going to happen... the ideology driving all of this nonsense is far too tempting

for one it bestows upon its host the mantle of having the "moral high ground" and being "a good person" 

and apparently many people don't care or have been so impaired that they cannot acknowledge the constant dishonesty or delusion

and i'm not talking specifically about this case only but i'll give you an example taken from this case

now a big term i've been seeing a lot recently is "toxic masculinity" which partially refers to men being influenced to remain stoic and never express their emotions and how toxic masculinity needs to be done away with in our society

what has been the main criticism(since they cannot focus on evidence) of kavanaugh so far? keeping in mind the context of his reputation being destroyed and his family experiencing death threats... well that he's too emotional and not stoic enough... and to my amusement the irony here always seems to be lost on these people lol

but regardless i don't even necessarily think the woman is lying, but my stance is that the focus needs to be on evidence if this is really about bringing about justice for a sexual assault...  which its probably not, but i'm open minded