i

thismeintiel said: She won't give us her therapist reports, most likely because she has more "facts" that she has changed about her story from then.

I suspect that the reason she isn't giving her therapist reports is that the people who want to attack her make very unfair use of anything in them. I can't blame her for that.

On another issue, I've seen people say that Kavanaugh backed the use of lie detectors for everyone but himself. A visit to Snopes.com shows that this is not true: “Nothing in Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion addressed whether “polygraphs can be accepted as gospel by employers in making hiring decisions.” He merely observed, for the purposes of a very specific legal ruling, that the federal government sometimes uses polygraph tests for the purposes of screening applicants; he offered no judgment or opinion about their reliability or how they should or could be regarded by employers.”

Kalkano said: Tulipanzo said: How deluded do you have to be to believe she and the other accusers are lying? What possible benefit could there be? The benefit is keeping a Conservative off the Supreme Court, so they can hopefully (in their minds) win back the house in November and hold the seat open until they hopefully (in their minds) win in 2020, and put a Liberal extremist on the court, who is perfectly fine with tearing up the entire constitution and then pissing all over it. How deluded do you have to be to not see that?

If you were aware of, among other things, history, you'd know that political parties couldn't find willing accuser even WITH huge cash rewards as incentives.

For three people, who by your own words are at actoing in THE HOPES someone else wins, to all commit perjury is ludicrous.

 

Furthermore, as your underlying assumption is, tellingly, "they all lied", it seems weird for the lie to be so tame.

I doubt you even read the news, but certainly Dr. Ford's story could be made more sensational, if that were the aim. An accusation of rape would be more effective than a "mere" sexual assault one, wouldn't it?Just 3 accusers, why not more?

 

I guess these people hate the Constitution, but not enough apparently? Who can say

Mr Puggsly said: Rab said: Looks as though he lied under oath anyway "Brett Kavanaugh's classmate says he lied about drinking" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45710340 That's subjective really. I've drank to the point I couldn't really do much of anything, I wouldn't have been able to hold a drink, I wasn't blacked out though. You know what's an objective lie though? Saying you're afraid to fly but have a history of flying.

Not really subjective though. Kavanaugh's defense verges on the fact that not only did he not commit the act, but that he was pretty much an altar boy who only studied, worked with the poor and barely ever drank.

This is disproven by:

- A dozen of his Yale schoolmates and friends

- His own calendar showing several drinking events

- His high school reputation for puking

Add to that the coyness and general behaviour when answering questions about his drinking habits

 

See, "this judge used to get drunk" is not the issue.

"This judge's defense is based on a lie" is the issue.

Sordel said: i I suspect that the reason she isn't giving her therapist reports is that the people who want to attack her make very unfair use of anything in them. I can't blame her for that. On another issue, I've seen people say that Kavanaugh backed the use of lie detectors for everyone but himself. A visit to Snopes.com shows that this is not true: “Nothing in Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion addressed whether “polygraphs can be accepted as gospel by employers in making hiring decisions.” He merely observed, for the purposes of a very specific legal ruling, that the federal government sometimes uses polygraph tests for the purposes of screening applicants; he offered no judgment or opinion about their reliability or how they should or could be regarded by employers.”

 

No - what was said wasn't that he backed them for everyone but himself - what *was* said, was that he made a legal opinion saying they were useful. As a possible SC judge his *legal* opinion is actually very important. The fact that he doesn't want to take one just makes him a hypocrite - which in itself isn't disqualifying.

What is disqualifying is that we are putting up with this show at all - the circus is not befitting of the SC, or the Senate at all. His behavior to the Senate when being asked questions would have gotten him jail time if he had been in front of a judge - for contempt. I don't think he deserves the job on that alone. I don't ever think someone who sneers and rants at a job interview should get the job.

Honestly I think an investigation was warranted (I mean - it's only a lifetime appointment to the highest court). The sneering, arrogant, contemptuous manner he presented himself before congress though, that's beyond my ability to stomach. There is a list of 50 people who could fill a spot - supposedly they are as good as another (Trumps spokesperson - earlier this year said you could throw a dart) - so bring up the next person - who presumably wouldn't have all this baggage. I don't recall the last guy having sex crimes accusations - this is just silly the 'MUST BE THIS GUY RIGHT NOW' attitude and frankly it's a bit frightening.

Sordel said: i thismeintiel said: She won't give us her therapist reports, most likely because she has more "facts" that she has changed about her story from then. I suspect that the reason she isn't giving her therapist reports is that the people who want to attack her make very unfair use of anything in them. I can't blame her for that. On another issue, I've seen people say that Kavanaugh backed the use of lie detectors for everyone but himself. A visit to Snopes.com shows that this is not true: “Nothing in Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion addressed whether “polygraphs can be accepted as gospel by employers in making hiring decisions.” He merely observed, for the purposes of a very specific legal ruling, that the federal government sometimes uses polygraph tests for the purposes of screening applicants; he offered no judgment or opinion about their reliability or how they should or could be regarded by employers.”

She could have given them privately to the committee if she chose to. But, she doesn't want anyone else to see them.

 

Ljink96 said: I think it should. The timing of this is too convenient. If something really is wrong, I would just like for them to just elect him, and do a full scale FBI investigation. The guy seems guiltier than OJ at times, his demeanor, all the water drinking, and Ford's convincing hearing...I just want the facts to be brought out. Just let them rush him in, and if anything is found then act accordingly and appropriately. There isn't damning evidence coming from either party, It's basically a calender vs. hearsay..., so I say go with it until something of substantial news is brought to the light. This is just wasting time as of now.

Ford's convincing hearing??? Come on, you could see her fakeness from space.  

Final-Fan said: Ronster316 said: wow, considering that VGC is 90% liberal, i'm shocked that the poll is as close as it is.. seems to me that more and more people are waking up to the DemonRATS lying shady tactics. DemonRATS will stop at nothing to regain power, no matter how deluded their lies are, they are clearly more than happy to destroy any persons reputation, NO MATTER WHAT THE COST. Demon rats, really?  I mean, I remember you being rabid before, but please look in the mirror and ask yourself if you are faithfully doing your civic duty as a voter here.  But I have to admit, you really got me thinking.  In the console wars I've seen Micro$oft and even $ony, but where's the money-grubbing epithet for Nintendo?  Then it hit me.  NinYENdo.  So thanks for that, Ron.

Unfortunately, i am in the UK, and live in an area where my vote is worthless, thing is, no matter who we vote for here nothings going to change, the 2 biggest parties are both a JOKE.

And hey, no problem, glad i could be of assistance.................. NinYENdo, i like it, highly creative

Sordel said: Ronster316 said: Wow, considering that VGC is 90% liberal, i'm shocked that the poll is as close as it is. A lot of gamers are libertarians rather than liberals. Moreover, men are overrepresented here, and we tend to see things in terms of how we would like to be treated if we were wrongly accused whereas women see things in terms of how terrible it would be to have been abused and later not believed. (That's crude generalisation but it probably explains why the poll is more generous to Kavanagh than you might expect from a more demographically balanced sample group.)

Fair point, but despite the likely lack of participation in this poll by women, i'm still surprised the vote is this close, anything even remotely connected to President Trump on here tends to have a far higher poll ratio of a "not in his favour" outcome than a "in his favour" one.

Immersiveunreality said: Ronster316 said: wow, considering that VGC is 90% liberal, i'm shocked that the poll is as close as it is.. seems to me that more and more people are waking up to the DemonRATS lying shady tactics. DemonRATS will stop at nothing to regain power, no matter how deluded their lies are, they are clearly more than happy to destroy any persons reputation, NO MATTER WHAT THE COST. Always calling the other side the big baddies wont help us either, only if we can communicate respectively we might find common ground with people that think differently.

I share your view......... however, is it any wonder that conservatives are pissed off at the moment? Libs are harassing people while they are eating, while they are working, and if folks like "mad" Maxine get their way, soon they will be turning up on peoples doorsteps (oh, wait, they are already doing that) and lets not forget about that TERRORIST group antifa huh, running around beating people up in typically 3,4 or 5 verses 1 fights, throwing piss balloon bombs on people etc etc....... the list goes on.

Civil discourse would be great, but it's hard to achieve when libs call people Nazi's, sexist, and racists within the first 30 seconds of a conversation.

Last edited by Ronster316 - on 03 October 2018

How can Trump mock a victim when there aren't any?

1.) He was mocking the absurdity of the Left believing such a flimsy story, obviously just to oppose a political enemy, not mocking her as a person.
2.) There are no victims here. Yet. They are accusers. Until it is proven that any of these things occurred, the use of the word victim is disingenuous and is just used as a political tactic to try and sway public opinion.