• 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!

A sad, sad day

You would have a point if "proven" was added to your statement......

PROVEN HOW?

The testimony of three women is not enough "substantiation" of probable guilt of attempted rape. And a hurried FBI investigation (in all of two-days) is completely insufficient.

The process was rushed by Senate Replicants with a majority who wanted a Quick Vote to solidify the Replicant representation on the SC.

Yes, that is depth to which political intrigue has sunk in Lalaland on the Potomac ...
 
PROVEN HOW?

The testimony of three women is not enough "substantiation" of probable guilt of attempted rape. And a hurried FBI investigation (in all of two-days) is completely insufficient.

The process was rushed by Senate Replicants with a majority who wanted a Quick Vote to solidify the Replicant representation on the SC.

Yes, that is depth to which political intrigue has sunk in Lalaland on the Potomac ...

Three women all with questionable holes in their stories and no evidence or witnesses to back them up. The only allegation that seems even remotely credible is Ford's, in my opinion the other 2 are hurting her case rather than helping because it makes it look like a partisan hit job.
 
The accusations are well documented and you are blind to their merit.

From TimeMag here, the full statement from Ford’s lawyers, Debra S. Katz, Lisa J Banks, and Michael R. Bromwich, below.



Thus sworn testimony was obviated on the specious argument that the hearing had to make a decision quickly in order to move on to a Senate vote. Yet another fallacy by the Replicants to get what they want, no matter what and no matter how ...

The accusations were not supported by anything...except the word of Ford, herself, and she provided enough during the committee hearing to call her credibility into question.

Baseless accusations should never be enough to convict...not even in the court of public opinion.
 
You are devoid of any sense whatsoever of the tragedy that befell three women who testified under oath what Kavanaugh did to them.

This refusal to face justice is unforgivable.

You (plural) are a sorry lot of blind individuals who think that "proof" of rape must evident, current and indisputable. (If there is no semen, then no DNA. If no DNA, no proof of guilt!) And because of your blind political philosophy you refuse to admit that Kavanaugh has no right whatsoever to be on any court in America - and given his misconduct certainly NOT the Supreme Court.

This is the second monstrous political injustice to hit America in two-years. The first being Donald Dork himself ...

Sorry but that is just stupid. Only one woman testified under oath and her story was not supported by a single fact or by any of the people she claimed to have been there, including her closest friend. The second woman wasnt credible and the third is a complete fraud who will no doubt soon be facing charges along with her shyster lawyer. Maybe in France they dont have the presumption of innocence, but here we do. If there was even a shred of credible evidence that any of these accusations were true, Kavanugh would not have been approved. Lesson: if you are going to bring 36 year old accusations against someone, bring some evidence. But lets face it, you dont care about evidence and you dont care if he is innocent, so discussing this topic with you is pointless
 
Three women all with questionable holes in their stories and no evidence or witnesses to back them up. The only allegation that seems even remotely credible is Ford's, in my opinion the other 2 are hurting her case rather than helping because it makes it look like a partisan hit job.

One other woman who did not get to testify had intended to bring her medical records regarding the incident with Kavagnau.

Would that have convinced you? I doubt it.

Should we ask raped women to carefully keep a sperm sample so the police can identify the attacker?

Witnesses? Are you kidding? You'd be damn fool to rape a woman with witnesses watching!

The Replicants patently resorted to push-comes-to-shove tactics in order to get "their guy" on the court. Why?

Because they want desperately to maintain untouched the Electoral College and Gerrymandering. This latter is in fact at the SC, which continues to delay killing it. Why?

Because without the ability to "carve votes" out of the electorate, the Replicants would start losing voting-majorities and thus elections ...
 
Yesterday was a sad, sad day for America and particularly American women.


That someone, man OR woman, with an accused and testified background of sexual harassment could be admitted to the HIghest Court in the Land is inadmissible in any decently functioning democracy ...




20181006_wwd000.jpg
I totally disagree. Yesterday was a day America should be proud of because it's a confirmation that our system works. A man was raked over the coals by nebulous accusation after accusation, and yet even our country's premier investigative agency could find not a shred of evidence to support them. Justice vs "she said therefore he's guilty" mob mentality.
 
One other woman who did not get to testify had intended to bring her medical records regarding the incident with Kavagnau.

Would that have convinced you? I doubt it.

Should we ask raped women to carefully keep a sperm sample so the police can identify the attacker?

Witnesses? Are you kidding? You'd be damn fool to rape a woman with witnesses watching!

The Replicants patently resorted to push-comes-to-shove tactics in order to get "their guy" on the court. Why?

Because they want desperately to maintain untouched the Electoral College and Gerrymandering. This latter is in fact at the SC, which continues to delay killing it. Why?

Because without the ability to "carve votes" out of the electorate, the Replicants would start losing voting-majorities and thus elections ...

The only rape allegations made were the gang rape parties. In her statement she went to as many as 10 parties where multiple men were huddled outside bedroom doors waiting in turn for an opportunity to rape someone. If this was such a common occurrence then there would be multiple victims and other witnesses to corroborate her testimony. This story as it is told is simply ridiculous and is hard to take seriously. Of course this is from a southern perspective, maybe it is a cultural thing and gang rape is a social activity up north.
 
Just one bit od advice for you: Stay in France.

You are devoid of any sense whatsoever of the tragedy that befell three women who testified under oath what Kavanaugh did to them.

This refusal to face justice is unforgivable.

You (plural) are a sorry lot of blind individuals who think that "proof" of rape must evident, current and indisputable. (If there is no semen, then no DNA. If no DNA, no proof of guilt!) And because of your blind political philosophy you refuse to admit that Kavanaugh has no right whatsoever to be on any court in America - and given his misconduct certainly NOT the Supreme Court.

This is the second monstrous political injustice to hit America in two-years. The first being Donald Dork himself ...
 
This is the second monstrous political injustice to hit America in two-years. The first being Donald Dork himself ...

You're in France. Why should you care?
 
During a job interview...I am not allowed to use "he said she said" when determining an applicants eligibility. If I did, I could wind up in a lot of legal trouble.


There's, like....laws, and ****.

Of course you can. When an employer contacts the applicant’s previous employer as a reference they are going on nothing but that previous employer’s word. They don’t demand evidence for any bad behavior the previous employer claims happened.
 
The only rape allegations made were the gang rape parties. In her statement she went to as many as 10 parties where multiple men were huddled outside bedroom doors waiting in turn for an opportunity to rape someone. If this was such a common occurrence then there would be multiple victims and other witnesses to corroborate her testimony. This story as it is told is simply ridiculous and is hard to take seriously. Of course this is from a southern perspective, maybe it is a cultural thing and gang rape is a social activity up north.

Bollocks!

On your planet, not on mine. You just want to deny the facts of the matter because the guy is a Fellow Replicant ... !
 
Just one bit od advice for you: Stay in France.

More one-liner sarcasm from the Rabid Right.

Which is all they are good-for given their reduced mental state ...
 
According to leftists...no one should ever be allowed to hold public office if someone makes an allegation about them, no matter how ridiculous or unfounded it may be.

Well...ALMOST no one....

keith_ellison_ap_img.jpg
 
Bollocks!

On your planet, not on mine. You just want to deny the facts of the matter because the guy is a Fellow Replicant ... !

What facts am I denying?

Here are some facts regarding her story:
1. She can't say that Kavanaugh specifically was one of the people that raped her. So technically her allegation is that he was at the party that she was gang raped and that he may have raped her.
2. NBC was unable to independently verify any of her claims.
3. Her story changed between her written statement and interview with NBC.
4. Even many Democrats dismiss her claims as being outlandish and do not view her as credible. Hell, we had a poll on this forum and only roughly 15% actually viewed her story as credible.

Link:https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...ugh_was_one_of_the_ones_who_assaulted_me.html
 
One other woman who did not get to testify had intended to bring her medical records regarding the incident with Kavagnau.

Would that have convinced you? I doubt it.

Should we ask raped women to carefully keep a sperm sample so the police can identify the attacker?

Witnesses? Are you kidding? You'd be damn fool to rape a woman with witnesses watching!

The Replicants patently resorted to push-comes-to-shove tactics in order to get "their guy" on the court. Why?

Because they want desperately to maintain untouched the Electoral College and Gerrymandering. This latter is in fact at the SC, which continues to delay killing it. Why?

Because without the ability to "carve votes" out of the electorate, the Replicants would start losing voting-majorities and thus elections ...

Yes...yes... by now we all know you enjoy partisan ranting about those sinister "Replicants" and I am also sure you can provide us a list of hostile characterizations of Republicans, including their love of cannibalism and weekly practice of baby sacrifice. However, should you ever wish to rejoin the land of the disinterestedly objective, you might actually familiarize yourself with more than the parroting rantings of Ford's attorneys own hostile vagaries.

First, Senator Feinstein and the Democratic leadership knew of her accusations long ago. They had months to call to investigate and resolve this before the election; obviously they chose not to do so as it was in their interest to see it ripen at the last moment and then potentially derail too late for Trump to submit another nomination for timely consideration (i.e. until after a new Senate is seated).

Second, the delaying and then derailing tactics almost worked...but not quite. When push came to shove, there was no "there-there". A woman claimed she experienced an incident in high school. Two other whack-a-doodles appeared making ludicrous claims (one with seeming mental problems) that were either highly implausible or absurd - so much so they actually undermined Ford's case.

Third, there is no corroborating evidence of any of Ford's varying memories- Ford's four alleged witnesses either denied or cannot substantiate any part of her claims. Many holes in her story make little sense. And many other assertions about her own characterizations of her phobias and resultant trauma have been shown to be dubious or false.

Last, whether or not Ford is accurate, delusional, mistaken, or exaggerating boorish teen behavior is unknown. What is known is that high school and college partying, drinking games, and coed chasing is not a disqualifier for any office. The assumption that a federal judge, in his/her youth, must have had a puritanical (and preferably had a monastic) personal life is absurd.

The ploy for delay and derailment has failed. Dr. Ford can go back to nurturing her neurosis and dealing with real or manufactured numerous phobias, and share her politics and views with her like-minded educational psychologists.
Kavanaugh escaped a lynch mob (or dodged a bullet).

The circus is over. Time to move on.
 
Last edited:
Last, whether or not Ford is accurate, delusional, mistaken, or exaggerating boorish teen behavior is unknown

Typical male diminishment of a cruel physical attack upon a female in order to force a sex-act. (And you insinuate it's "just partying"!)

What an ignorant, jerkish mentality! (Dense people must "undergo the experience personally" to understand the mental damage done to the victim.)

You should be ashamed of yourself ...
 
You're in France. Why should you care?

Why should where I am physically have any bearing whatsoever on "what I care".

Care is geographical? What nonsense!

Any more like that one? (Then keep 'em to yourself!)
 
Of course you can. When an employer contacts the applicant’s previous employer as a reference they are going on nothing but that previous employer’s word. They don’t demand evidence for any bad behavior the previous employer claims happened.

When checking references, the only question you are legally allowed to ask is "Did John Q work there, and from when till when?"

Because everything else is an opinion.
 
The circus is over. Time to move on.

Nope, the circus is only starting in November. (Which is the reason you are scared sitless.)

Sit back and enjoy it. The blood will the running thick and fast ...
 
Yesterday was a sad, sad day for America and particularly American women.


That someone, man OR woman, with an accused and testified background of sexual harassment could be admitted to the HIghest Court in the Land is inadmissible in any decently functioning democracy ...




20181006_wwd000.jpg

perfect cartton
 
When checking references, the only question you are legally allowed to ask is "Did John Q work there, and from when till when?"

Because everything else is an opinion.


Judges issue opinions.

So do elected politicians base their votes on opinions.

The Far Right just blew up the Court and hasn't any clue of it. Safest place to stand when a right whinger is throwing a bomb is in front of him. Just keep some distance and he'll miss you for sure.
 
Back
Top Bottom