Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
I'm by no means saying I agree with the woman. But my agreeing with her on a political question does not determine whether or not she deserves to have the same standard applied to her as to any other claiming to have been sexually victimized. For example, I am wholeheartedly, aghastly, against Abortion. But for me to argue Aha! She claimed he raped her, but she's Pro Choice, so, clearly she shouldn't be believed would be poppycock. That's why I linked it for you Do you want me to go back and block-quote it? If you are referring to this: then, I am not sure you have made that case. Saying that she likes to control her own space (the alpha comment) and that she chose not to enter into an argument and was intimidated are not a change in story and, in fact, are part of the same account. Saying that she was both touched as a means of establishing dominance (running his finger up her neck, etc), and later touched in a manner more aggressive and constituting sexual assault are not mutually contradictory. Certainly, for example, it is not as contradictory as "I can't fly out to give testimony quickly because I am too terrified to fly" and "actually I fly on vacation because I am fully fine with flying". Perhaps and I'll be clear - I'm not saying the woman is correct. But for folks who said Ford must be telling the truth to come out and claim that she isn't is a double standard of evidence, and suspiciously so when it lines up so neatly with their political tribal preferences.
No. The inconsistency in the party is about her claiming in her story to the Union that she didnt say anything, but rather someone else, senior female aide spoke up and protested her serving at the party. But now, in her tweets, it is she herself arguing that she shouldn't have served the drinks at the party when she asked and that no other women in that office supported her.

And Ford has timeline inconsistencies. But Reade doesnt provide a good timeline at all, given that she knows it was warm outside (reason for short skirt), yet no dates or even months, nor time of day of attack against her. The number of people at the party didn't change. That claim is based on her telling how many boys were at the party vice the total number of people there. She has always claimed that her friend was there.

There is easily a similarity between abuse and sexual assault. Many of the same claims about Ford can also fit for Reade.

However, there is a huge difference between someone not believing someone else for differences in political beliefs and for people to be skeptical based on beliefs that are out of touch with reality and in fact at odds with the stated positions of those the person claims to support.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk