Forums - Politics Discussion - Should Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination Continue?

Should Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination Continue?

Yes 53 47.32%
 
No 41 36.61%
 
Trump should pick a new canidate 18 16.07%
 
Total:112
Wyrdness said:

Is there a point to this picture...?



Currently Replaying: Baten Kaitos

Around the Network

Mr Puggsly said:

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.

That's not a very good example.  You can fly and still be afraid of doing it.  An objective lie would be saying you have never flown on an airplane but there is video evidence, tickets, baggage claim checks, passenger manifests, prior admissions, etc...proving you have flown on an airplane.

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.



Recently Completed
Gears 5
for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Kalkano said:

Is there a point to this picture...?

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



SpokenTruth said:
thismeintiel said:

https://youtu.be/3uN7mInREkw

But keep trying. 

Did you read anything I wrote?  She picked a guy out of a line up based on a description and selected the guy who most resembled her attacker. The real attacker was not in the lineup.  Dr. Ford knew Kavanaugh, her attacker, personally.  No line up needed.

 

Jennifer Thompson did not know Ronald Cotton.  He simply resembled Bobby Poole who was not in the police line up.

 

Dr. Christine Ford knew Brett Kavanaugh.  But keep trying.

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.



SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Wonder how long before someone makes a claim in this thread that some of us, if not all of us, verbally assaulted them at some point in time in the past and they feel their was life was threatened. They don't remember when, or where exactly, but they know for sure it was us. They can't comment again either, because they are afraid of commenting, which is unfortunate, but we understand, don't we?

When we are all asked to prove our innocence beyond doubt with only that minimal information at hand, or face being banned, I wonder how many would still think the burden is on Kav to prove his innocence or face being rejected?

Did you just equate verbal abuse with sexual assault? 

Also, I tried elk meat once.  I don't remember exactly where or when but I know I've tried it.  Or because I can't remember when or where does that mean I must have never had elk?

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.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 02 October 2018

Around the Network
Ckorik said:
2.)  But even if we're going with the most basic "gotcha!" here and just taking AP's scant quotes on the subject, the principle I'm talking about still holds up: someone not willing to take a "lie detector" test, which has been categorically shown to have scant scientific evidence in its favor, should not be any determiner as to whether or not Kav gets on SCOTUS.  Even the College Humor guy has expatiated on this topic so it's not like many people suspect you're going to catch Kav red-handed like this is Meet The Parents. 

 

 

No - I agree with you - I also understand that they aren't admissible - however he *as a judge* argued they are relevant. That matters because his legal opinion is on record and in a judgment. As a member of the SC he may be (may is a strong word - but appropriate here) be a swing vote to allow their use for trial. The hypocrisy (in my opinion) is in issuing a legal opinion that they have validity, while hiding behind the legal defense that they are not permissible. Given he has actually made *legal rulings* on them - that is valid.

Again, as I mentioned in 1.) part of comment, I still have issues taking that logical through-line because that AP story is so limited on providing details or links.  I don't even see the full context of the Defense Dept.'s argument there either.  There's a difference between the threat of a lie detector's validity to criminals and actually believing their validity.  I'm only making this distinction with the limited knowledge I have on this case because...Miranda & your lawyer are your only lines of defense one has when arrested.  Police have a lot of legal protection when lying to the accused in hoping to suss out information.  

And the more I see how limited D's and AP's story is and using this judicial resolution as a cudgel the more I'm inclined to believe it's more nuanced than either wish to acknowledge.



July 2020 Articles:

https://www.vgchartz.com/article/444305/goosebumps-dead-of-night-xone/ (Goosebumps Dead of Night Review - 3/10)

SpokenTruth said:
Why is is that some people will believe that Hillary Clinton ran a child sex ring out of the back of a DC pizza parlor but won't believe a doctor who was sexually assaulted and passed a polygraph test?

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?



SpokenTruth said:
Machiavellian said:

Didn't Kavanaugh declined to take the polygraph test as well.  Not only that but it was Kavanaugh himself who stated how important polygraph test are but he declined to take the test.  Of course he reversed his opinion when it when it was his time to be put on the seat.  At least now that the FBI will investigate this matter, he will have his chance to prove his innocence when they hook him up to the test.

I hope they also give the test to Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnik.

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

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 02 October 2018

o_O.Q said:
SpokenTruth said:

I hope they also give the test to Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnik.

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.



I HAVE A DOUBLE DRAGON CAB IN MY KITCHEN!!!!!!

NOW A PUNISHER CAB!!!!!!!!!!!!!

masschamber said:
o_O.Q said:

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