(October 3, 2018 at 3:56 am)alpha male Wrote:

(October 2, 2018 at 5:03 pm)Joods Wrote: You should care. It goes to credibility.

Quote:Why? Because of her statement about not being able to fly? That has fuck all to do with assault.

I really don't understand how you can contradict yourself like that in a single post and not see it.  

---

Ford's former boyfriend on Ford and polygraphs, fears:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christi...unds-alarm

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201...graph.html

Quote:In a written declaration released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination.

The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted in the declaration, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor mentioned she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford going to great lengths to help a woman he believed was her "life-long best friend" prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office.

He further claimed that Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a "very small," 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door -- apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. because she felt uncomfortable traveling on planes, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh's alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living in a closed space or one without a second front door.

Way to cherry pick my post apart and still be this dumb. Honestly, I'm not even surprised anymore. One of your sources Fox news is known for being a strong supporter of the republican base so it's not surprising that they would write a biased article. 

Second - you clearly don't understand what a fear does or doesn't have exclusivity on. Just because a person has a fear of flying doesn't mean that they won't or can't fly. But keep misrepresenting this. You're doing a fine job. 

Third - an ex boyfriend who wasn't present at that party/gathering was the best you could do while completely ignoring others stepping forward who have first hand knowledge of Kavanaugh's drinking and partying, comes as no surprise to me. 

Well Joods what do you expect from a guy that worships Trump who has been accused of:

- Raping his Wife
- Walking in on Naked Teens at Miss Univ. Dressing room
- Admitting to grabbing women by the Pussy
- Raping a 13-year-old child
- Raping, groping or sexually assaulting 17 other women
- Has a son who is telling women that if they can't get used to being sexually harassed they don't belong in the workforce

(October 3, 2018 at 5:56 am)Joods Wrote: Way to cherry pick my post apart and still be this dumb. Honestly, I'm not even surprised anymore. One of your sources Fox news is known for being a strong supporter of the republican base so it's not surprising that they would write a biased article. 

It's a sworn statement and the full statement is shown in the second link. You don't need to rely on Fox's article.

Quote:Second - you clearly don't understand what a fear does or doesn't have exclusivity on. Just because a person has a fear of flying doesn't mean that they won't or can't fly. But keep misrepresenting this. You're doing a fine job. 

What do you think of the point that Ford counseled a friend regarding polygraphs but then denied repeatedly in the hearings that she had ever done so?

Quote:Third - an ex boyfriend who wasn't present at that party/gathering was the best you could do while completely ignoring others stepping forward who have first hand knowledge of Kavanaugh's drinking and partying, comes as no surprise to me. 

Those others weren't at that party/gathering either. Why the differing standards? If extraneous info is relevant for one party, it's relevant for both. Or you're just admitting that you have no concern for fairness.

I am angry and extremely fearful for the direction of Trumpism. I could give a shit less if you think Ford was simply mistaken, for a politician to insult and mock her in front of the entire nation is beyond low. One would have thought attacking two war heros would have done him in, but this, this is even worse. Trump is fucking evil and has no empathy for others.

It bares repeating again, my older sister, my younger sister were both assaulted but DID NOT report them. My older mother was raped, but between the three, only she reported it a the time, but her perps were not caught either in any case. That sick fuck is trying to take us back to the days of slut shaming, to the days of "you deserved it because of what you wore, said."

But this is his brand of politics, everyone else is lying, everyone is out to get him, and he will hurt whomever he has to to keep his power. I thought it was impossible for him to go lower, but I should know by now, his blind loyalists could watch him skull f a baby on camera, and they would blame the baby.

I have never in my 52 years ever seen such a vile politician in the west, ever.

(October 3, 2018 at 6:58 am)alpha male Wrote: It's a sworn statement and the full statement is shown in the second link. You don't need to rely on Fox's article.

Then why the link from Fox? Oh that's right - because it's every trump lover's go to.  A sworn statement is not the same as testimony. Let's bring all of these people to a hearing where they can all testify - for both sides. 

Joods Wrote:Second - you clearly don't understand what a fear does or doesn't have exclusivity on. Just because a person has a fear of flying doesn't mean that they won't or can't fly. But keep misrepresenting this. You're doing a fine job. 

AM Wrote:What do you think of the point that Ford counseled a friend regarding polygraphs but then denied repeatedly in the hearings that she had ever done so?

What does that even have to do with my second point? Nice strawman. But let's appease you and talk about it. I have no idea what her point was, to be honest. Do you have information that specifically points to her reasons? If so, I'd like to see that. 

Joods Wrote:Third - an ex boyfriend who wasn't present at that party/gathering was the best you could do while completely ignoring others stepping forward who have first hand knowledge of Kavanaugh's drinking and partying, comes as no surprise to me. 

AM Wrote:Those others weren't at that party/gathering either. Why the differing standards?

It isn't differing standards and it's about being at more than one party. It's relevant because it shows that he lied about his drinking. Kavanaugh made statements several times while testifying that he likes beer, that he likes drinking with his friends and that he still likes beer. But he downplayed how much he drank and he lied about not ever blacking out at parties when there have been witnesses coming forward saying the opposite. 

Why is it okay for you to make sure that an irrelevant polygraph test is allowed to be scrutinized, but other parties that Kavanaugh attended and lied about, aren't?

This goes to the scope of his credibility in the fact that he was not forthcoming and honest about his level of partying. Lying about anything, while under oath, to the SJC, is grounds for having your nomination terminated. Even Senator Flake has now said that if Kavanaugh has lied about his drinking, he will not vote yes. This alone speaks mounds. And let's not forget: Ford is not seeking a lifetime appointment to a seat on the highest judicial bench in this country. Kavanaugh is. 

AM Wrote: If extraneous info is relevant for one party, it's relevant for both. Or you're just admitting that you have no concern for fairness.

Let's talk about fairness. 

The republicans sitting on the Senate Judicial Committee denied the democrats of that same committee, the right to timely review 94% of Kavanaugh's papers. Ninety Four Percent. 

The republicans attempted to rush through a vote in order to get it to the main floor of the Senate as soon as they found out about the accusations leveled by Ford. 

Graham, Flake, Grassley and other republicans have made speeches to reporters and others, essentially sending out the message that women don't matter and that what happens to them doesn't matter and that they will hurry up and rush this nominee's vote through no matter what they have to do.

Mitchell (I believe that's her last name), the "special lawyer" the republicans brought in to question Ford, didn't bother questioning Kavanaugh while he was testifying.

Days after Trump praised Ford for her credible testimony, he was seen mocking her at a rally in another state. 


If the only two things you repeatedly keep bringing to the table is: 
1. that she gave advice to a friend for a polygraph test (note - not even you can say she told said friend how to beat one) and;
2. that she has a fear of flying (note - by your own posts, not even you can say that the fear 100% keeps her from flying),
then you have some real problems with your own credibility. But by all means, continue to stand with those who displayed unprofessional behavior during this entire process. And by those, I mean the POTUS and several Senate republicans who wouldn't know fairness if it bit them on the fucking ass. 

Please - keep comparing your weak points to what I've listed above. Your shit pales in comparison.

Republicans: IT'S NOT FAIR! WE WANT TO PACK THE SUPREME COURT WITH OUR CHOICES! WHY WON'T RUTH BADER GINSBURG JUST DIE ALREADY! WAAHHHH WAHHH WAHH PEOPLE ARE QUESTIONING OUR CANDIDATES! WAHH!

They're all a bunch of fucking babies. Endlessly whining that they MIGHT just be held accountable for their actions. They're such pathetic little bitches, I'm surprised anyone can support them. "WAHHH! I don't want to give Merrick Garland a vote! WAHHH You're turning that around on me! WAHHHH!" Give me a fucking break.

If you act like babies, don't be surprised to be treated like them. So Republicans should just shut the fuck up, stick their thumbs back in their mouths, and leave everything to the adults in the room.

Do you even hear yourself, Divinity?

(October 3, 2018 at 6:22 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Well Joods what do you expect from a guy that worships Trump who has been accused of:

- Raping his Wife
- Walking in on Naked Teens at Miss Univ. Dressing room

He's on tape boasting that he did the walking in on the teens.

(October 3, 2018 at 5:56 am)Joods Wrote: Just because a person has a fear of flying doesn't mean that they won't or can't fly.

I would say a fear of flying would most certainly preclude flying in a single-engine prop plane.

The claim of the second door being a remedy for her claustrophobia is also suspect based on property records, HERE.

And no one can explain why the Washington Post and Democrats have her therapy notes but no one will share them with the Republicans. It leads some to speculate that those notes contain information that could contradict Ford's testimony. Or not. But selectively withholding evidence is at the very least suspicious.

(October 2, 2018 at 2:43 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 2, 2018 at 2:01 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Or maybe its because often victims are not believed or blamed. You can see this all writ large in this case.

Questioning and investigating is not victim blaming.  It's not even saying that it is not believed or untrue.   It's also not saying that Kavenaughs claims are untrue either.   There just isn't enough information to form a rational opinion and especially not for the lynch mob mentality that is being seen.

I don't think that special pleading in these cases is justified to dispense with the principles of innocent until proven guilty and due process.  I don't see that it is unreasonable for ask for a reason to believe one persons claims over another.

It's amusing the inconstancy  seen here, vs discussion's about witness testimony (when people think we are talking about God).    There's no lists of issues with testimony or memory.   It appears that it is being demanded that it be believed against evidence and mostly based on feelings.  Quite the contrast.

The testimony about god and jesus have had time to be investigated and found wanting.

But the claims against Brett haven't been investigated and given the time limit wont be. So you will have potential rapist on the supreme court as well as the white house.

Apparently Brett and his friends lined up to rape women. So lets investigate that and do it properly.