Kavanaugh Can Join Thomas.

[downbeatplumb]

[quote='downbeatplumb' pid='1824620' dateline='1538587035']

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.

Yeah.... seems like double standards to me...... reasons you give for one set of claims are then contradicted when concerning other claims.  Which this, and the comments lead me to suspect that you lot, base most of this on feelings and emotions rather than reasons and evidence.      As to the investigation, the FBI seems to have gotten done earlier than required.

I had heard concern that no one was being contacted for the "investigation".

"Ranking Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein called it an "incomplete investigation," adding that "the most notable part of this report is what's not in it"."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45741044

 If you think that the multiple investigations into this man, are lacking, then I ask how, what type of further investigation do you require, and how much time (reasonably)  do you think that will take?   These seem like rational questions that would justify the calls for delay that are not being answered.

How long do rape investigations normally take? is it usually more than a week? I think it probably is.   

And if you have warrant for a justified belief that Judge Kavenaugh raped women, then I would suggest pressing criminal charges.   There is nothing which prevents investigation and due process after the confirmation.  Make a solid case, and then we can talk again.  (Perhaps a peer review scientific paper that prooves that Kavenaugh did what he was alleged to have done.  My observations are however, that the more information that comes out seems to be weakening Fords case, not strengthening it.

Lets do the investigation BEFORE voting him to the highest court of your country.
I know this sort of thing wouldn't fly over here. He would have stood down.

But then I hear he is a catholic and I suppose they are used to this sort of thing. Being the rapeyest religion.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

Yeah.... seems like double standards to me...... reasons you give for one set of claims are then contradicted when concerning other claims.  Which this, and the comments lead me to suspect that you lot, base most of this on feelings and emotions rather than reasons and evidence.      As to the investigation, the FBI seems to have gotten done earlier than required.

I had heard concern that no one was being contacted for the "investigation".

"Ranking Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein called it an "incomplete investigation," adding that "the most notable part of this report is what's not in it"."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45741044

 If you think that the multiple investigations into this man, are lacking, then I ask how, what type of further investigation do you require, and how much time (reasonably)  do you think that will take?   These seem like rational questions that would justify the calls for delay that are not being answered.

How long do rape investigations normally take? is it usually more than a week? I think it probably is.   

And if you have warrant for a justified belief that Judge Kavenaugh raped women, then I would suggest pressing criminal charges.   There is nothing which prevents investigation and due process after the confirmation.  Make a solid case, and then we can talk again.  (Perhaps a peer review scientific paper that prooves that Kavenaugh did what he was alleged to have done.  My observations are however, that the more information that comes out seems to be weakening Fords case, not strengthening it.

Lets do the investigation BEFORE voting him to the highest court of your country.
I know this sort of thing wouldn't fly over here. He would have stood down.

But then I hear he is a catholic and I suppose they are used to this sort of thing. Being the rapeyest religion.

So no specifics.... I'm not surprised.   It seems that many are saying that is quite thorough.  Accusations without reasons or evidence are starting to wear pretty thin with me anymore.

[DodosAreDead]

I absolutely agree. It's concerning to me, what this tells us about our humanity. Some democrats are ready to possibly end up destroying a man's life based on a false accusation. Some Republicans are ready to possibly end up destroying a woman's life by tearing her apart, calling her a false accuser, when she truly has been sexually abused. (Both 'possible' scenarios, I'm not saying that Kavanaugh is innocent or Ford is truthful and not mistaken - I'm simply laying out the possible ways in which either person's life could be unfairly destroyed.) All so that each party's political agenda isn't compromised.
I'm socially and fiscally liberal, but I can't imagine hating someone simply for being Republican. There are several republicans I hate/dislike, but that's because of their individual opinions / statements / political stances. 
In any case, I believe Ford for reasons other than her being a democrat and kavanaugh a republican. 

Some democrats are ready to possibly end up destroying a man's life based on a false accusation

You want to lie, that's fine.  You want to have me buy the lie, that's not fine.

It is obvious that you're one of the basket of deplorables that would excuse every evil Dumbfuck does because he's an R beside his name.

I seriously hope you will never be in Christine Blasey Ford's position.

---

It's extremely amusing to me how you're quoting only a small part of my post and making it seem like I'm saying something very different to what I'm actually saying. 
It's also amusing that something that is 'obvious' to you is actually false, as I've said in my very first post on this thread that I'm left leaning. I'm starting to see a pattern emerge here... apparently you just can't read well. 
The most amusing thing? We don't even have different opinions. You just keep on twisting mine to make it seem like we do. 
Oh, and you 'seriously hope' that I won't get sexually assaulted in high school and have to testify years later? Gee, what a nice, kind, person you are.

[downbeatplumb]

So no specifics.... I'm not surprised.   It seems that many are saying that is quite thorough.  Accusations without reasons or evidence are starting to wear pretty thin with me anymore.

Well there wouldn't be any specifics. No one is allowed to disclose the specifics.

What are you not understanding about this?

[RoadRunner79]

So no specifics.... I'm not surprised.   It seems that many are saying that is quite thorough.  Accusations without reasons or evidence are starting to wear pretty thin with me anymore.

Well there wouldn't be any specifics. No one is allowed to disclose the specifics.

What are you not understanding about this?

So then, it's Fienstein's opinion (who I expect would disagree, and scream delay no matter what), vs a number of people who said that the report was thorough.

[downbeatplumb]

So no specifics.... I'm not surprised.   It seems that many are saying that is quite thorough.  Accusations without reasons or evidence are starting to wear pretty thin with me anymore.

Well there wouldn't be any specifics. No one is allowed to disclose the specifics.

What are you not understanding about this?

[Pat Mustard]

The saddest thing is that I'm seeing women post on FB that they think Ford is a liar.  What the heck is this country coming to?

I don't know. It's very sad when a woman cannot get support from others. Especially on this issue.

My ex is brainwashing my youngest. Just last night we got in an argument when she said she thought Ford should have come out publicly years ago. I was stunned at this remark.

If you were Irish, I'd suggest me getting her to speak to our Juvenile Liaison Officer for five minutes. Or any Guard who does a lot of sexual assault cases (there's one who's pretty much tied up on historical cases related to the former industrial school in the town).

She'd be set straight.

---

AM has a point about the Trumpists uniting over this enough that their numbers at the polls won't be depressed and it making taking the Senate less likely. That was always a long shot, though; we'll have to make the most of the House (fingers crossed).

If Kavanaugh is forced into the court, then apathy is still very likely to seep in. The basket of deplorables got their "win", and it's very hard to sustain anger when you're "winning".

[Brian37]

So no specifics.... I'm not surprised.   It seems that many are saying that is quite thorough.  Accusations without reasons or evidence are starting to wear pretty thin with me anymore.

Well there wouldn't be any specifics. No one is allowed to disclose the specifics.

What are you not understanding about this?

He wants to play victim, confusing "presumption of innocence" and "job reviews" as being the same thing as "miss one detail, sucks to be you."

If we go by his logic, anyone who calls 911 after a crime who didn't see everything, or didn't see the perp, is automatically a liar and the police should always walk away and tell them they are fucked.

"Presumption of innocence" is now what they are hiding behind, but had no problem following a bully who shouted "LOCK HER UP" and vilified my neighbors, has vilified entire religions, attacked war heros, vilified his own intel and the free press.

She was specific, she did name a specific area between her own house and the club, just not a specific house. She did name a specific location in the house, and she did name the specific perps.

Again, if we go by his logic, when I got my nose broken by the bullies on my street, if they had not turned on each other, which they did, then by his logic, I would have been fucked. But the reason they did flip on each other, wasn't because the police blindly believed me, but because they were trained to interview everyone involved. And I wasn't even there when the juvenile court convicted the guy whom punched me in the face. I didn't have to testify because the others turned on him and I am sure the court was protecting me from more pain because I was a kid. Point is they had enough without me, in that I ended up in the hospital and the woman whose door I knocked on, and the medical report, and I am also sure they checked out each of the kids prior behavior in school too. But the fucker who broke my nose got his due process, and for anyone who claimed he did not CAN GO FUCK THEMSLEVES!

And I am also sure if their parents and lawyers wanted to push it, they could have forced me into a court to face them. But I am also sure the reason I was not subject to reliving that pain, is because the investigation did it's job and his lawyers most likely told him and his parents, if you force Brian on the stand, you will get a worse sentence than if you simply plead to a lesser charge. 

The presumption of innocence is a separate issue than the investigation itself. If we are going to blindly say one gap in a claim means the entire thing is a lie then there should be no police at all.

[RoadRunner79]

Well there wouldn't be any specifics. No one is allowed to disclose the specifics.

What are you not understanding about this?

He wants to play victim, confusing "presumption of innocence" and "job reviews" as being the same thing as "miss one detail, sucks to be you."

If we go by his logic, anyone who calls 911 after a crime who didn't see everything, or didn't see the perp, is automatically a liar and the police should always walk away and tell them they are fucked.

"Presumption of innocence" is now what they are hiding behind, but had no problem following a bully who shouted "LOCK HER UP" and vilified my neighbors, has vilified entire religions, attacked war heros, vilified his own intel and the free press.

She was specific, she did name a specific area between her own house and the club, just not a specific house. She did name a specific location in the house, and she did name the specific perps.

Again, if we go by his logic, when I got my nose broken by the bullies on my street, if they had not turned on each other, which they did, then by his logic, I would have been fucked. But the reason they did flip on each other, wasn't because the police blindly believed me, but because they were trained to interview everyone involved. And I wasn't even there when the juvenile court convicted the guy whom punched me in the face. I didn't have to testify because the others turned on him and I am sure the court was protecting me from more pain because I was a kid. Point is they had enough without me, in that I ended up in the hospital and the woman whose door I knocked on, and the medical report, and I am also sure they checked out each of the kids prior behavior in school too. But the fucker who broke my nose got his due process, and for anyone who claimed he did not CAN GO FUCK THEMSLEVES!

And I am also sure if their parents and lawyers wanted to push it, they could have forced me into a court to face them. But I am also sure the reason I was not subject to reliving that pain, is because the investigation did it's job and his lawyers most likely told him and his parents, if you force Brian on the stand, you will get a worse sentence than if you simply plead to a lesser charge. 

The presumption of innocence is a separate issue than the investigation itself. If we are going to blindly say one gap in a claim means the entire thing is a lie then there should be no police at all.

I would agree that the presumption of innocence does not mean that we don't investigate a claim of assault.  But this is just stuff you are making up again...  You have no clue, and should focus on your own arguments more, rather than mis-representing others.   Unless it is your intent to be dishonest.

[John V]

"Ranking Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein called it an "incomplete investigation," adding that "the most notable part of this report is what's not in it"."

Yeah, like corroboration of any of the charges.