(September 29, 2018 at 11:43 am)Brian37 Wrote: Outside this issue of this particular case, those on the right whom support them are the same bullshit arguments when a spouse reports abuse, their first reaction is "Then why didn't you just leave?"

This over simplification of "one size fits all", is why assault victims don't report when it first happens.

I'd really recommend for those who do not understand what Ford did when she did it, study the psychological reasons both the perp and the victim do what they do.

I mean that outside our political differences.

But Brian believing  in domestic abuse or rape is equal to believing in magic sky wizards .....

(September 29, 2018 at 10:56 am)alpha male Wrote:

(September 29, 2018 at 9:58 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Sounds like the tale about a dead Jew that I'm familiar with.

So you agree that belief of Ford is a position of faith.

We have the witnesses in this case and can examine them. We don't in the case of your Lord. If you're trying to say that we have no credible evidence for the stories about Jesus, I think you're right.

(September 29, 2018 at 10:37 am)Joods Wrote:

(September 29, 2018 at 10:33 am)Aroura Wrote: This isn't a criminal case.

This isn't a criminal case.

This isn't a criminal case.

Stop making arguments as if it were.

Arguments are still going to be made, regardless. Why? Because this is a discussion board and we are discussing Kavanaugh's alleged actions and his behavior during the time he was testifying at the hearing.

My comment was in response to other posters continually commenting on the judicial process.  Because this is not a judicial process.  That was my point.

---

(September 29, 2018 at 10:46 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(September 29, 2018 at 10:33 am)Aroura Wrote: This isn't a criminal case.

This isn't a criminal case.

This isn't a criminal case.

Stop making arguments as if it were.

So you don't need evidence and reasons for you belief then?

Does that standard only apply to a criminal case?

edit:   This seems like a principle that may bite you in the ass later (on an atheists forum).

Yes, and I have them, and I've listed them, and more keep piling up.  You just dismiss them.

But you keep saying stuff about judicial process.  The FBI investigation is part of a background check, not part of a judicial process. The standards are not the same.

For instance, if someone has a reputation of substance abuse that is discovered in a background check, they don't need for him to be guilty of any specific crime for people to be concerned about his fitness for office.  They don't need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to disqualify him, not an arrest record, or tapes of him snorting coke.  Just the reputation would be enough to disqualify him.

It seems a lot of people misunderstand what I'm saying here.  Do you understand my point now? This isn't a criminal trial.  He can be disqualified on a much smaller amount of evidence or even suspicion than it would take to convict him in a criminal trial.  I didn't make these rules, this is just how these appointed positions work.

So the question is, is there enough suspicion to disqualify him?
The answer for many of is is yes. For the majority of Americans, the answer is yes.  For me the answer is already yes.

Will the FBI uncover enough for the Republicans in congress to disqualify him?
I don't know, but I suspect not. After all, it seems most think even proof of the deed would not disqualify him.  


So my question to you is, what preponderance of evidence, if any, would disqualify him in your eyes?

In any case, this is all still just a dog and pony show for the pleebs. The fact that congress can set a time limit on the FBI investigation shows me that.  Even if he is disqualified, they will simply nominate another far right judge and ram him down the public's throat asap.  Assuming they can do it before the next election.  
This position is too pivotal for them to risk it all by caring about the truth, something republicans have already shown an utter disregard  for.

(September 29, 2018 at 11:23 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(September 29, 2018 at 11:10 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: I was being glib.

I mean that for Alpha and RR, sorry.

I don't see how anyone could look at both and claim he was more credible than she was.

Oh, no; that was my bad.  My comment was supposed to be in response to RR, not you.

Quote:[b]RoadRunner79 Wrote:And you have the testimony from a number of others, that say they have no recollection of this party.  The testimony from Kavenaugh and Judge, that this did not occur.   And the testimony of her good friend, who was supposedly there (as well as a number of other parties with Ford), but denies having ever known Judge and Kavenaugh or remembering the party described.  There is zero corroborating evidence.  It seems that this is based on more emotion and I see people pointing to the ends, rather than the means.  I'm starting to suspect that this is the case in a number of arguments here (hence the inconsistencies I see in many)  It's less about reason and evidence, and more about emotion and the desired result.

Never has a statement possessed so much distortion of facts utter projection and outright hypocrisy .

Indeed. People have been disqualified from a lot lesser positions for a lot less. It happens all the time.

(September 29, 2018 at 11:35 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:So you agree that belief of Ford is a position of faith.

Nope but i can see why a moron like you would make that comparison you have already shown inability of differentiating basic facts .

---

(September 29, 2018 at 11:10 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: I was being glib.

He does not seen capable of getting that and even if you were not his response to you is still wrong and seems more like projection then much else .

I just don’t have the energy today for a debate with RR about witness testimony, lol.

(September 29, 2018 at 11:49 am)Aroura Wrote:

(September 29, 2018 at 10:37 am)Joods Wrote: Arguments are still going to be made, regardless. Why? Because this is a discussion board and we are discussing Kavanaugh's alleged actions and his behavior during the time he was testifying at the hearing.

My comment was in response to other posters continually commenting on the judicial process.  Because this is not a judicial process.  That was my point.

---

(September 29, 2018 at 10:46 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: So you don't need evidence and reasons for you belief then?

Does that standard only apply to a criminal case?

edit:   This seems like a principle that may bite you in the ass later (on an atheists forum).

Yes, and I have them, and I've listed them, and more keep piling up.  You just dismiss them.

But you keep saying stuff about judicial process.  The FBI investigation is part of a background check, not part of a judicial process. The standards are not the same.

For instance, if someone has a reputation of substance abuse that is discovered in a background check, they don't need for him to be guilty of any specific crime for people to be concerned about his fitness for office.  They don't need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to disqualify him, not an arrest record, or tapes of him snorting coke.  Just the reputation would be enough to disqualify him.

It seems a lot of people misunderstand what I'm saying here.  Do you understand my point now? This isn't a criminal trial.  He can be disqualified on a much smaller amount of evidence or even suspicion than it would take to convict him in a criminal trial.  I didn't make these rules, this is just how these appointed positions work.

So the question is, is there enough suspicion to disqualify him?
The answer for many of is is yes. For the majority of Americans, the answer is yes.  For me the answer is already yes.

Will the FBI uncover enough for the Republicans in congress to disqualify him?
I don't know, but I suspect not. After all, it seems most think even proof of the deed would not disqualify him.  


So my question to you is, what preponderance of evidence, if any, would disqualify him in your eyes?

In any case, this is all still just a dog and pony show for the pleebs. The fact that congress can set a time limit on the FBI investigation shows me that.  Even if he is disqualified, they will simply nominate another far right judge and ram him down the public's throat asap.  Assuming they can do it before the next election.  
This position is too pivotal for them to risk it all by caring about the truth, something republicans have already shown an utter disregard  for.

But he will keep banging the drum of comparing rape too belief in sky wizards

(September 29, 2018 at 12:04 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:[b]RoadRunner79 Wrote:And you have the testimony from a number of others, that say they have no recollection of this party.  The testimony from Kavenaugh and Judge, that this did not occur.   And the testimony of her good friend, who was supposedly there (as well as a number of other parties with Ford), but denies having ever known Judge and Kavenaugh or remembering the party described.  There is zero corroborating evidence.  It seems that this is based on more emotion and I see people pointing to the ends, rather than the means.  I'm starting to suspect that this is the case in a number of arguments here (hence the inconsistencies I see in many)  It's less about reason and evidence, and more about emotion and the desired result.

Never has a statement possessed so much distortion of facts utter projection and outright hypocrisy .

And irony.  It's so thick in that comment you could cut it with a dull spoon.

(September 29, 2018 at 12:06 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(September 29, 2018 at 11:35 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Nope but i can see why a moron like you would make that comparison you have already shown inability of differentiating basic facts .

---

He does not seen capable of getting that and even if you were not his response to you is still wrong and seems more like projection then much else .

I just don’t have the energy today for a debate with RR about witness testimony, lol.

I hear you we done this song and dance with him so many times it's frankly gotten boring .He's lost every time so we can safely disregard his opinion on the matter .