• 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!

Whom do you believe?

Whom do you believe?

  • Total voters
    108
  • Poll closed .
TurtleDude said:
my bottom line-since he cannot be prosecuted or sued for this and since there is ZERO evidence that he has harassed anyone as an adult-even if she was telling the truth, it means nothing to me. The only person who should lose their job over this is FeinSwine
Click to expand...

Ah, therein lies the rub. As I stated elsewhere, I am all for letting people redeem themselves. But, the Judge is a drunk with a a gambling problem (or at least a history of strange expenditures) coupled with a serious dishonest streak. He should not be on the highest court in the land.
 
TurtleDude said:
did you complain when the dems prevented (when they were the MINORITY Party-pre nuclear option) Miguel Estrada from getting a hearing due to purely racist reasons. Or the anti semitic reasons for them doing that twice to Peter Keisler?
Click to expand...

Appellate judge nominations get nuked all the time nowadays. Hell, Obama was stopped cold from nominating anyone in the McConnell era.

BTW: for Estrada, I was still pro-Bush. By Keisler, I had enough and probably cheered the block, but do not remember it.
 
calamity said:
Appellate judge nominations get nuked all the time nowadays. Hell, Obama was stopped cold from nominating anyone in the McConnell era.

BTW: for Estrada, I was still pro-Bush. By Keisler, I had enough and probably cheered the block, but do not remember it.
Click to expand...

even the NYT was against the Keisler Block but based on that, and while I wanted Garland to have a hearing, I reject the whining from Dems who complain how the guy was treated. It was less abhorrent than Estrada (racist reasons) and Keisler (anti semitic reasons)
 
Phys251 said:
Every 17-year-old male holds down a girl against while feeling her up without her consent with another boy present and egging him on??

Do you realize what a poor view of males you just offered us?
Click to expand...

Kavenaugh has denied doing that. Have you not been paying attention?
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I honestly don’t know. It is easier for me to form an opinion when there are multiple victims. When there is only one alleged victim it really is a he said/she said scenario.
Click to expand...


So you might want to follow up on your remark to indicate an index or formula of the number of women it would take to equal the word of one guy. Or more burdensome yet, surpass the word of one single guy himself alone. Perhaps you would require it be something like three women to one guy or possibly more than three. Five to one might be satisfactory to you as it diminishes women further and strengthens men all the more. Even you might recognize however that the word of ten women to the word of one guy could be excessive. Absurd even.
 
Xelor said:
Whom do you believe?
  • Brett Kavanaugh?
  • Christine Ford?
Click to expand...


  • The one willing to testify under penalty of perjury if the other does not.
 
Tangmo said:
So you might want to follow up on your remark to indicate an index or formula of the number of women it would take to equal the word of one guy. Or more burdensome yet, surpass the word of one single guy himself alone. Perhaps you would require it be something like three women to one guy or possibly more than three. Five to one might be satisfactory to you as it diminishes women further and strengthens men all the more. Even you might recognize however that the word of ten women to the word of one guy could be excessive. Absurd even.
Click to expand...

The formula is pretty easy. If two women accused him I would lean toward believing the women. Every additional woman causes the lean to take a steeper angle. If it is just one woman making the accusation without any other evidence other than her word, then I can’t take an honest position other than “I don’t know.” And that isn’t just for sex crimes, mind you. Regardless of the crime if all I have to go off of is one single witness against a person who says they didn’t do it, then it is just one person’s word against the other. Every additional witness for a side sways that, however.
 
Kreton said:
You are going to get an almost 100% partisan split. Cons won't believe her - libs will. This has nothing to do with the actual incident it has to do with politics. He could come out and admit he did it and it would not change one mind of one con out there. She could come out and say she is lying and it would not change one mind.
Click to expand...


The difference though is that if she shot someone on 5th Avenue I'd turn against her.

Definitely.
 
I don't believe her for a moment. She didn't know where it happened or specifically when it happened, and the only real (alleged) witness she named basically said she's full of it.

As for the polygraph, they won't say who paid for it, or what the format of questioning, etc., was. A polygraph is not a lie detector, and if a person believes a certain far out fantasy was real, then that's what they "truthfully" testify about.

I think she's a bald-faced liar.

By the way, breaking news reports the FBI isn't going to touch her "case" or do an investigation. So she can either testify before the committee Monday or take a friggin hike, or both.
 
Interesting. This is the exact same logic one of my employers father's once used to describe to me how you can't trust black men, because you know how they all steal.
Xelor said:
Whom do you believe?
  • Brett Kavanaugh?
  • Christine Ford?
Please vote in the poll and use your post to explain why do you believe the person you do?


Why I believe Dr. Ford:
  • I to prep school too, and so did everyone I knew as a kid. Nothing about Ford's story sounds odd, and but for her rebuff of Brett's advance, the situation Dr. Ford describes is typical of what went on at parties.
  • We used to joke that on Friday and Saturday night, "WASP" meant white Anglo-Saxon pagan....It was good to be a white boy from a wealthy family.
  • Brett was a jock, and Christine looks to have been a rather "plain" girl. It's likely he wasn't used to getting rebuffed, especially by a "regular looking" girl. (IYAM, the only thing that prevented Chris' consent was his friend's presence. I never knew a high school girl who'd flatout have sex with someone besides us in the room.)
  • Just what do you think privileged kids' did when their parents were away? (From what I've heard of Ford's anecdote, that, or the kids having been at a friend's/sibling's fraternity party, is what I think was the situation.) The same things as when their parents were home. Literally everyone had a car and access to plenty of destinations for partying. One of my friend's family owned a rock quarry, so that was a regular place to go. Another kids' fathers owned buildings, car dealerships, construction companies, so those venues too were good party spots. Local parks were also good choices. Other kids' were diplomatic, so that always presented "opportunity," particularly since they could drink legally in their home countries, their parents didn't care if we drank with them so long as we didn't "get too out of hand." (Sometimes they'd even have us stay overnight to sleep of the buzz.) Friends who were a year older and at college were sure to invite you to a frat party or just to their school to hang out.

    Save for our being able to "do it" in our own or a guest bedroom rather than a car seat, in the basement, on/behind the bleachers, in or behind the pool/guest house, on the deck, in the hot tub, in the treehouse, in the garage, at the stables, on "Xth" green at the golf course, at Carter Baron, at the sculpture garden, etc. -- it was the '80s; public places didn't have security as they do now -- one's parents weren't an obstacle.
  • It was the early eighties. Getting alcohol, especially beer, was a problem for nobody, least of all prep school kids. (For all I know, it was that way for all 16-17 year-olds.) If you and your friends all had girlfriends, you'd even go to a college bar. As for "getting to third base" or "hitting a home run" after getting her buzzed at a bar, well, there're alleys all over D.C., especially in Georgetown.

    "Was that a rat I just saw? I don't know. You get on the car and hold your legs up just in case."
  • The bit about Brett's putting his hand over Christine's mouth reminded of a skill every guy masters by 17 (SXZ)...
  • The times were permissive of high school drinking, and among the elite crowd, more than drinking was OK so long as it didn't "make the news." For a variety of reasons, few girls like Chris would tell her parents about what'd happened. They didn't want their folks to know because that would ruin the rest of the girl's social life. High school juniors and seniors don't want to find new sets of friends, which is what would have had to happen if the girl wasn't visibly cut or bruised or something.

    Even occasionally drinking with one's teachers was something that happened. I didn't know one person (boarding or day hop kids) who, as a high school junior or senior, didn't once in a while hang out drinking with some or other of their teachers.




christine-blasey.jpg


i-thought-he-might-inadvertently-kill-me-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-goes-public-with-her-story-7.jpg


i-thought-he-might-inadvertently-kill-me-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-goes-public-with-her-story-4.jpg

(Beach Week photo)


(The guy with the mustache was Prep teacher. Some of the boys went to his bachelor party, complete with strippers.)​
Click to expand...

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
Skeptic Bob said:
The formula is pretty easy. If two women accused him I would lean toward believing the women. Every additional woman causes the lean to take a steeper angle. If it is just one woman making the accusation without any other evidence other than her word, then I can’t take an honest position other than “I don’t know.” And that isn’t just for sex crimes, mind you. Regardless of the crime if all I have to go off of is one single witness against a person who says they didn’t do it, then it is just one person’s word against the other. Every additional witness for a side sways that, however.
Click to expand...


You confirm your sexism as just another ordinary every day given aspect of your life. I want to doubt you are as oblivious as you sound but I doubt I can doubt it.
 
Tangmo said:
You confirm your sexism as just another ordinary every day given aspect of your life. I want to doubt you are as oblivious as you sound but I doubt I can doubt it.
Click to expand...

What sexism? All other things being equal I would tend to believe two people’s word over one person’s word, regardless of gender or nature of the crime. If one man accused a woman of a crime with no other evidence I wouldn’t lean either way either. So seriously, where is the sexism in my position? I have been wrong before so if I am genuinely being sexist I would like to know how.
 
Fletch said:
Kavenaugh has denied doing that. Have you not been paying attention?
Click to expand...

Oh now you're back to playing the "he didn't do it" card. I thought you were all-in with the "he was just a kid" card? Or are you going for the double play? Which is it, Fletch?
 
I dont know who to believe yet....need more information.
 
There is no way that I am believing a 30+ claim that is just conveniently being released now. Especially not from some crap pot senator who had a spy as her driver for decades.
 
Apparently she's refusing to back up her story under the harsh lights of close inspection. You'd have to have a
childlike belief in the incomprehensible to back this women whose afraid to plead her case!
 
cpwill said:
Interesting. This is the exact same logic one of my employers father's once used to describe to me how you can't trust black men, because you know how they all steal.
Click to expand...

I didn't reflect upon on the behavior and cultural ethos of "the other." My comments pertain to people in my childhood social cohort. So unless you and your employer's father are both black, it's not at all the same.
 
Xelor said:
Whom do you believe?
Click to expand...

After finding out that she refuses to go to the hearing where she will be under oath using the excuse that she won't appear unless the FBI investigates the claim I do not believe her. Being a professor she should be smart enough to know that the FBI does not investigate anything but federal crimes. And that the FBI has already stated that they will not be investigating this because its not in their jurisdiction. So she knows that her "demand" is nothing more than a stall tactic.

She is a fraud. A shill. Only coming out until AFTER the hearing. This is nothing more than an underhanded ploy to attempt to make sure that Republicans do not sit another one of their preferred judges on the SCOTUS bench. It has failed. Grassley stated that if she did not agree to show by Thursday for the hearing on Monday that the confirmation vote would continue. Good.
 
Tangmo said:
You confirm your sexism as just another ordinary every day given aspect of your life. I want to doubt you are as oblivious as you sound but I doubt I can doubt it.
Click to expand...

Jesus ****ing Christ. This is why we liberals can't have nice things.

It is LITTERALLY a he-said/she-said situation. Bob is absolutely right in withholding an opinion, and doing so makes him far more objective than others in this thread who are clearly influenced by their politics. You're siding with the alleged rape victim because your impulses tell you to do so, and you're calling him sexist for not doing the same.
 
Last edited:
Winchester said:
I can remember all kinds of **** that went on at HS parties, but dates and places, not so much. Don't think it's that uncommon.
Click to expand...

something that traumatic happened to me, I would.
 
My daughter went 4 years at Radford......known nationally for notorious partying.

I know quite a lot of what partying schools are all about.

The Op's personal experience is not a reflection of all "white boys" as he/she puts it.

In fact, it's very close to moronic.
 
Phys251 said:
Oh now you're back to playing the "he didn't do it" card. I thought you were all-in with the "he was just a kid" card? Or are you going for the double play? Which is it, Fletch?
Click to expand...

Im sorry, when was I 'all in on the he was just a kid card?' Oh thats right, I wasnt. Not sure why you have to lie about my position when my position has been quite clear from the start. Just part of dealing with a liberal I suppose. The truth here is that whether or not this incident happened is unknowable. The fact that he was a minor when this supposedly happens and has lived an exemplary life in the 36 years since works in his favor. Despite liberal lies to the contrary, the womans claims are not credible on any level.
 
Winchester said:
I can remember all kinds of **** that went on at HS parties, but dates and places, not so much. Don't think it's that uncommon.
Click to expand...

I am the same way, but here is the problem: If you dont recall specifics, then you dont wait 36 years to drop an accusation on somebody and destroy their lives and careers. You were at parties where '**** went on. How would you like it if you were accused of assault decades later? How would you defend yourself if the chartges were false?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom