• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Christine Blasey Ford's friend now says she's skeptical of Kavanaugh accusation

CharisRose said:
I never said it was..... Are you questioning Kyser's memory if favor of Ford's? Do you think Kyser conveniently said she didn't remember when she actually did and didn't want to help her friend out of self-interest?

Roseann:)
Click to expand...

I think more and more people are realizing that Two Door Ford is a mentally infirm pawn who was willingly used by disgusting scum bags in a craven and cowardly attempt to derail a good man, and now her house of cards come a tumbling down. I am seeing grounds for a perjury indictment against that twit
 
Fishking said:
It's interesting that you compare an attack on a government compound where our ambassador was killed and multiple U.S. security personnel to vague recollections of something that may or may not have happened at a high school party some 40 years ago or something. I mean...it's utterly stupid but interesting none the less.
Click to expand...

Makes me wonder what some people are smoking....but alas, as long as it makes them feel like they won the debate, let's throw them a party!

tenor.gif
 
Mr Person said:
As long as every last person involved in pushing the 7+ investigations allegedly into how the Benghazi attack unfolded but were merely used to smear Hillary with sloppy handling of an email server, pushed by persons who do not care at all about worse offenses under Trump, goes on. Then we have a deal.

Otherwise, it's just the usual Trumpist pride in hypocrisy.


PS: I know what the reply is going to be before I see it, and I know any person(s) making it will themselves have done worse.
Click to expand...

Not the same: Blasey-Ford got caught in several lies, she could not name the month or year it happened and every witness she name disputed her story.

In Benghazi Americans died duet to Obama/Hillary incompetence and on top of that they lied about it.

Hillarie's server was possibly the biggest confidential data breach in US history.
 
Fishking said:
It's interesting that you compare an attack on a government compound where our ambassador was killed and multiple U.S. security personnel to vague recollections of something that may or may not have happened at a high school party some 40 years ago or something. I mean...it's utterly stupid but interesting none the less.
Click to expand...

It's retarded that you think I was focusing on anything but the hypocrisy of supporting a pile of investigations designed to smear your political enemy but taking issue with merely having a hearing on a sex assault accuser's claim.

Why must you lie, btw?

(You too, Bullseye, TurtleDue, trixare4kids, all who "liked" his idiotically dishonest post for partisan reasons)





Casca XV said:
Not the same: Blasey-Ford got caught in several lies, she could not name the month or year it happened and every witness she name disputed her story.

In Benghazi Americans died duet to Obama/Hillary incompetence and on top of that they lied about it.

Hillarie's server was possibly the biggest confidential data breach in US history.
Click to expand...

If that were true Dems and GOPers would have grilled everyone equally. Instead GOPers gave speeches. Why must you all lie?






How is it that not one of you realizes how unbelievably ****ing stupid it is to act like this is some conspiracy to frame Kavanaugh when Gorsuch sailed through?

How? Why would a clever conspiracy wait until your team's dishonest shirking of constitutional duty resulted in one SCOTUS seat and you went for another? Shouldn't the frame-up have been around Gorsuch?

Stupid stupid STUPID CT
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Spin it anyway you want... but Keyser did admit that she thought Ford had a traumatic experience around that time.

The part she said didn't make any sense was how Ford got home without her. But if she doesn't remember being there at all then why would it make sense, after all it didn't happen to her.

It was also reported that she dated one of Kavanaugh's friends...and yet she said she doesn't remember Kavanaugh. That doesn't make sense either but no one doubts her lack of memory like they do Fords.
Click to expand...

There is only one spin that is acceptable, that of rational argumentation and adherence the principles of evidentiary proof. Ford made an accusation against Kavanaugh but without evidentiary proof - her accusations are little more than her word against her OWN four "witnesses."

To review:

Leland Keyser.jpg

Leyland Keyser, in particular, has explicitly stated that she cannot recall any such incident, nor ANY circumstance remotely like that kind of 'get together'. She says she has attempted and failed (more than once) to find Kavanaugh's face as even familiar to her, and that while she initially "believed" (personally trusted) her friends having had a trauma (under pressure to show support) she no longer can extend such trust - that the circumstances, the logic, and her own recollections undermine even that "trust" in the truth of her having had some similar experience.

You seem to be suffering from a bad case of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning; making the assumption that there has to be a "black swan" out there because one cannot "prove" that one could not exist...just as one cannot "prove" that a pink elephant does not exist. But while you can't "prove" a negative, you can demand evidence for an accusation. But after a year long investigation (including looking for the house that this "incident" allegedly happened in) the reporters have found nothing to challenge the recollections (or lack of recollection) of the four witnesses.

Finally, you seem a bit confused about the difference between Ford and Keyser. Ford says she remembers an incident that no one else does, while also having made other claims of fact about herself that have been falsified. Keyser says she (like the others) remember nothing - period.

You can invent all sorts of narratives to explain the absence of a black swan, but a conjecture is not evidence. At some point you are going to have to face the fact that your black swan (or pink elephant) simply doesn't exist.
 
Bullseye said:
The process WAS confirmed. Kavanaugh wasn't railroaded based on faulty or non-existent memories. His accuser had her say and a decision was made.
Click to expand...

It was a sham wham bam.

It's really a crying sham that y'all can't win without cheating and violating the constitution. So don't think we all don't notice.
 
maxparrish said:
There is only one spin that is acceptable, that of rational argumentation and adherence the principles of evidentiary proof. Ford made an accusation against Kavanaugh but without evidentiary proof - her accusations are little more than her word against her OWN four "witnesses."

To review:

View attachment 67264070

Leyland Keyser, in particular, has explicitly stated that she cannot recall any such incident, nor ANY circumstance remotely like that kind of 'get together'. She says she has attempted and failed (more than once) to find Kavanaugh's face as even familiar to her, and that while she initially "believed" (personally trusted) her friends having had a trauma (under pressure to show support) she no longer can extend such trust - that the circumstances, the logic, and her own recollections undermine even that "trust" in the truth of her having had some similar experience.

You seem to be suffering from a bad case of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning; making the assumption that there has to be a "black swan" out there because one cannot "prove" that one could not exist...just as one cannot "prove" that a pink elephant does not exist. But while you can't "prove" a negative, you can demand evidence for an accusation. But after a year long investigation (including looking for the house that this "incident" allegedly happened in) the reporters have found nothing to challenge the recollections (or lack of recollection) of the four witnesses.

Finally, you seem a bit confused about the difference between Ford and Keyser. Ford says she remembers an incident that no one else does, while also having made other claims of fact about herself that have been falsified. Keyser says she (like the others) remember nothing - period.

You can invent all sorts of narratives to explain the absence of a black swan, but a conjecture is not evidence. At some point you are going to have to face the fact that your black swan (or pink elephant) simply doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Keyser's cute.

I believe her.
 
maxparrish said:
There is only one spin that is acceptable, that of rational argumentation and adherence the principles of evidentiary proof. Ford made an accusation against Kavanaugh but without evidentiary proof - her accusations are little more than her word against her OWN four "witnesses." To review:

View attachment 67264070
Click to expand...
 
Moot said:
It was a sham wham bam.

It's really a crying sham that y'all can't win without cheating and violating the constitution. So don't think we all don't notice.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. We'all won constitutionally.
 
One person doesn't believe the accuser, therefore the accuser is lying.

Wow, Trix. ****ing wow.
 
Bullseye said:
Nonsense. We'all won constitutionally.
Click to expand...

McConnell denied Obama his constitutional right to nominate Merrick Garland. Congress and the court has been a sham ever since.
 
Moot said:
McConnell denied Obama his constitutional right to nominate Merrick Garland. Congress and the court has been a sham ever since.
Click to expand...
Which has nothing to do with this issue.
 
ajn678 said:
One privately didn't testify because she said she didn't remember anything, the other passive aggressively came out and said it was great that she was getting treatment for her drug problems.

They aren't even close to the same thing.
Click to expand...
So because she didn't lie for her friend and pretend she remembered something she says she didn't that to you is throwing her under the bus. I think your bias may be effecting your judgment a bit
 
Moot said:
One didn't testify because she didn't want the media to drag her personal life through the mud....the other risked everything to testify and now has to live in fear of her life. Either way, it's very sad for both women.
Click to expand...

She claims she doesn't remember anything like what Ford claims. Do you have evidence she is lying. Or do you think she should have just lied to support her friend.
 
Moot said:
It was a sham wham bam.

It's really a crying sham that y'all can't win without cheating and violating the constitution. So don't think we all don't notice.
Click to expand...

many of the Kavanots were willing to believe any bogus story if it smeared the judge. I remember lots of the TDS crowd really thinking Slutnik would-as a college woman-attend high school parties-where she claimed she knew women were being raped by multiple hs boys, and she kept going back until those boys pulled a train on her. And while she couldn't remember any of the victims or any of those who did her, she claimed she remembered Kavanaugh standing around the punch bowl and assumed he was putting drugs in it . yes, some TDS clowns actually said that was a credible story
 
Moot said:
Anyone can issue a false statement. Republicans do it all the time. Doh!

Without a proper FBI investigation the entire hearing was a shameful sham. Nay, make that the entire GOP Senate.

Can't argue with Carl Sagen....

dr-carl-sagan-quote-absence-of-evidence-is-not-evidence-of-absence.jpg
Click to expand...

absence of evidence of any guilt=the presumption of innocence remains intact
 
Mr Person said:
No, really, if you are concerned about whether pointing out to someone that the creator of an OP cannot whattabout themselves in their own OP is thread-jacking, report it.






Not that this is thread-jacking:



You having nothing to say about sham investigations.





If that bothers you, stop saying so many things that are stupid, dishonest, and hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

whataboutism huh go figure.
So you have nothing to add to this discussion such as kavanaugh was basically innocent of all charges.
yet he was drug through the mud simply as a hit piece by leftist to try and derail his nomination.

the question is are you ok with that sort of slander and frankly illegal activity?
 
Moot said:
It was a sham wham bam.

It's really a crying sham that y'all can't win without cheating and violating the constitution. So don't think we all don't notice.
Click to expand...

yet no one did any of those things you don't know what you are talking about.
as more information comes out even from Ford's own lawyer, it is showing more
and more that none of the accusations were true it was a hit piece stunt to try
and derail his nomination.

Even the last accusation had to be recalled and revoked because it simply wasn't true.
 
Deuce said:
One person doesn't believe the accuser, therefore the accuser is lying.

Wow, Trix. ****ing wow.
Click to expand...

actually 4 people don't believe the accuser one of those being her best friend and her own supposed eye witness.
that is pretty bad when your Own friend and eye witness doesn't believe your story.

according to the book none of her other high school friends believed her either and a few say they felt threatened if
they didn't go along with it.
 
Moot said:
McConnell denied Obama his constitutional right to nominate Merrick Garland. Congress and the court has been a sham ever since.
Click to expand...

no this is 100% wrong. Garland was nominated and the senate said no.
 
The constitutional significance of Keyser's attractiveness cannot be overstated...
 
Mr Person said:
It's retarded that you think I was focusing on anything but the hypocrisy of supporting a pile of investigations designed to smear your political enemy but taking issue with merely having a hearing on a sex assault accuser's claim.

Why must you lie, btw?

(You too, Bullseye, TurtleDue, trixare4kids, all who "liked" his idiotically dishonest post for partisan reasons)
Click to expand...

1. Point out the lie.
2. You don't think that the overrunning of a U.S. compound and the killing of a U.S. ambassador should've been investigated? You don't think knowingly propagating lies about some YouTube video being the cause to save face during elections should be investigated? Interesting. Again, stupid, but interesting.
 
braindrain said:
So because she didn't lie for her friend and pretend she remembered something she says she didn't that to you is throwing her under the bus. I think your bias may be effecting your judgment a bit
Click to expand...

That's what I just said...... Fitting name huh
 
Deuce said:
One person doesn't believe the accuser, therefore the accuser is lying.

Wow, Trix. ****ing wow.
Click to expand...

Not any kind of Wow!

Using all of the information made available to the public gives a better picture of what may have happened...(reasonable doubt?)

Was she lying about the incident? Perhaps not... But, could she have been confused about the two men she named that were in that bedroom?

In her original story a female being present at the party was not mentioned only two unnamed boys were mentioned... besides Kavanaugh

A female was added to her original story.

Then, In her Testimony before Congress...

She, named three witnesses... as being attendee's at that party. (Location-unknown) None of the three remembered that party or the incident...

Two males...Mark Judge and Patrick "PJ" Smyth. One female... her friend Leland Kyser.

Information available to the public follows...

Two men say they, not Brett Kavanaugh, had alleged sexual encounter with Christine Ford

msn news powered by Microsoft News

USA Today

Title: Two men say they, not Brett Kavanaugh, had alleged sexual encounter with Christine Ford

Christal Hayes 9/27/2018

snippets from article

"WASHINGTON - The Senate Judiciary Committee has questioned two men who say they, not Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, had the disputed encounter with Christine Blasey Ford at a 1982 house party that led to sexual assault allegations."

snip

"The committee has interviewed two men who came forward about the disputed assault at a summer house party. Both told the committee they, not Kavanaugh, "had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of his complaint," the release states."

"The previously unknown interviews could add a new layer to the evolving saga on the eve of a possible explosive hearing between Kavanaugh and Ford, though it's unknown whether the men's claims are being taken seriously."

"One of the men was interviewed twice by committee staff. He also submitted two written statements, one on Monday and a second, more in-depth statement on Wednesday."

"Committee staff spoke to a second man over the phone Wednesday who also said he believed he, not Kavanaugh, had the disputed encounter with Ford. "He explained his recollection of the details of the encounter" to staff, the release states."

"Both men were not named. USA TODAY was not able to independently vet the claims."

Roseann:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom