"If you ever saw me say say something specific, call me out on it. If not, don't do this BS where you're assuming that everyone you talk to is of the same cookiecutter mindset you've convinced yourself of."
you should have more sympathy for me, you have no idea on the kind of toll being constantly disappointed has
"I've never once said "women are all credible". "
and i didn't say you did, what i was commenting on were the women involved with kavanaugh
You said it in a direct reply to me referencing Dr Ford as "credible", in the GOP's own words. And you even posed it as a question for me to answer. That's implying that it is somehow a point against my argument. But if I never agreed with it to begin with, it's not.
Think about your comment if you had omitted that sarcastic question.
You would have gotten the exact same point across, without unnecessary assumptions or implications that I'd be forced to clarify.
" And not only because that's an idiotic statement. I've said "accusers should be heard."
but isn't it just as idiotic to imply that accusers aren't heard? are you implying that women when they report their cases to the police are not taken seriously? why, therefore, have we made sexual assault and rape illegal? going as far in some cases as making staring too hard illegal?
You mean like how thousands of people, including some on this forum (perhaps you as well) were convinced that Dr Ford was lying before the hearing began?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. In her case, she surprised a lot of people, including myself, with her testimony. I was expecting something else, and I'm sure several GOP members, including Trump, would rather not have had to say afterwards that she was "credible". But they were obviously advised to say so, and that was because of how the hearing went.
Furthermore, the GOP had decided to move on with the confirmation before hearing her testimony as well. Mitch Mcconnell said as much several times. It was only when Jeff Flake changed his mind last minute that they decided to have an FBI investigation first. Brief, but none the less.
And yes we have laws against rape and sexual assault. But the law enforcement officers who enforce the laws differ as individuals. Some write the case off immediately depending on the circumstances. What she was wearing, how many glasses of wine she had, the relationship between the victim and assailant, etc. And like in this case with Christine Ford, it's very common for people to dismiss sexual assault allegations if they're brought forward years later. Around 2/3 of sexual assault victims never come forward, studies show. People should not criticize when, if ever, someone decides to step forward. Because it will be difficult no matter when they decide to do it.
And in a recent case here on this forum, I remember a person posting that he "read that she said yes" and decided that the allegation was untrue.
Nowhere in the article did it say that she said yes. In fact, it even said that the alleged perpetrator himself said that she said no several times.
And yet you have people forming very strong opinions about very serious charges, while having the gall to claim they read it, without reading even a fraction of it. Let alone properly.
So yes, people are commonly not interested in hearing the victims before they form their opinions. They make their decisions based on a few cliff note points, and call it a day. Or call them liars.
"Because a statement from someone who may or may not be who NYT's source thinks he is, is not the equivalent of a polygraph test and a testimony under oath."
i guess so, but he's an accuser right? so we should hear what he has to say right?
That's what I'm saying. It would be nice if he stepped forward, like she did, so we can get the full story. Anonymous accusers are never treated with the same credibility as named accusers who testify under oath.
"Who seemingly thinks it's ok to lie under oath."
but any reasonable person doesn't think that the example you provided above is evidence of lying anyway so i really don't know how to respond to that, do you have another example?
Well let's start with Devil's Triangle. Some of his former classmates have backed up his claim that it was a drinking game. Others however, including his roommate, say that it was, as we know, a common sexual reference. And they're certain that he lied about it. Now aside from picking who to believe, let's say they're both right. Someone named a drinking game after a common sexual reference. So then that means that Kavanaugh just threw out a common sexual reference, without any context, under a list of his accomplishments in his yearbook, but was actually referring to a drinking game.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't just write "69" in my yearbook as an accomplishment with no further context, unless I wanted people to think I was referring to the sexual position.
Which leads me to another time he very obviously lied under oath. In his yearbook, under his list of accomplishments he also wrote 'Renate Alumnius', referring to a female friend of his at the time.
Nobody on this planet would read that comment, again, without any further context, and not think it was referring to them hooking up. That's how she took it as well when she found out about it. Kavanaugh however, under oath, claimed it meant something nice, and not what everyone thinks it means. And there's no way Kavanaugh didn't know how people would interpret it when he wrote it. Complete BS.
And then there's his explanation of the term "Boofing". He claimed it was flatulence. But people from his school claim it means something going into you rectum, rather than out of it.
And then there's two cases regarding his involvement of a court nomination around 2003. I went into detail about that in my reply to NightlyPoe above.
you don't mean the classmates who claim they don't recall there even being a party right?
I don't know. But it's just people remembering that they and others at the school were talking about it happening, at the time that it allegedly happened. A rumor that went around.
Last edited by Hiku - on 05 November 2018
I mentioned that not due to whether or not they were there, but because this allegation didn't originate from the accuser herself, but from various classmates who remembered hearing about it at the time. That's at least an interesting distinction from some of the other allegations.