Poll only - Who's lying?

[UglyCasanova]

I was honestly considering adding to my previous post "don't answer my question with a question", because I was sure that was going to happen. What would the point of asking her that from that point of view be? Kavanaugh already claimed that nothing happened and dodged the question about whether he ever got black-out drunk. She's crystal-clear in her assertion that he sexually assaulted her.

Alcohol intake is important in some situations regarding sexual allegations for three reasons:

1) Inhibitions: Would one act on sexual urges as a result of alcohol intake in situations that one normally wouldn't.
2) Memory
3) "Was it consensual or not"

Since Kavanaugh asserts that nothing happened between them, then the third point goes right out the window. Since her inhibitions are hardly in question as she was the victim and Kavanaugh asserts that nothing happened between them, the first point goes out the window. How exactly does the second point have a leg to stand on? "Are you sure you're remembering being sexually assaulted?" "Do you think I'd be here testifying with 100% certainty that he assaulted me if I wasn't?".

Asking Kavanaugh about his drinking on the other hand is relevant since he's the alleged aggressor in this situation. It's relevant on the first point, the second point, but not the third since neither are claiming any level of consent in their association.

That’s a helluva deflector sheiks you’ve put up there baw. Alcohol only effects one persons memory which seems odd (a 36 year old memory at that), I’d figure it could place a part in how both of them remember it. She’s crystal clear though, got it.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Whateever, your mind, Like Grassley's, etc. was made up before the hearing.

You’re right, my mind was made up that it’s impossible to know what happened between them 36 years ago. That the burden of proof should be on the accuser. That it’s a delay tactic and that none of the people who will be voting on it actually give a shit.

 

[mikeymikec]

That’s a helluva deflector sheiks you’ve put up there baw. Alcohol only effects one persons memory which seems odd (a 36 year old memory at that), I’d figure it could place a part in how both of them remember it. She’s crystal clear though, got it.

What exactly did I deflect? The rest of your response makes no sense, for the reasons I've already given. Are you going to argue that they had shared a consensual act that he can't remember even though he never gets blackout drunk and he claims he was a virgin then?

 

[soundforbjt]

You’re right, my mind was made up that it’s impossible to know what happened between them 36 years ago. That the burden of proof should be on the accuser. That it’s a delay tactic and that none of the people who will be voting on it actually give a shit.

By "none of the people" you mean Republicans of course.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Ooh Graham is scary. What's he going to do, obstruct and delay a Democratic nomination for a year? Oh wait.

Yeah they stalled until Obama was out of office.

 

[mikeymikec]

No one in congress voting on this gives a shit about the truth, nor do they give shit if it did happen anyways. This is a smear campaign and stall tactic to push the vote past midterms.

How refreshing, a "both sides" argument from the guy who won't forget to vote Republican despite smearing them.

 

[UglyCasanova]

What exactly did I deflect? The rest of your response makes no sense, for the reasons I've already given. Are you going to argue that they had shared a consensual act that he can't remember even though he never gets blackout drunk?

No, I’m arguing that her memory might not be as crystal clear as she thinks it is.

 

[Moonbeam]

You’re right, my mind was made up that it’s impossible to know what happened between them 36 years ago. That the burden of proof should be on the accuser. That it’s a delay tactic and that none of the people who will be voting on it actually give a shit.

In order to tell yourself a believable lie you tell truth about what is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that it is impossible to tell he said from she said so all efforts are made to limit the discussion to those two points of view and not examine at all what is likely to be the truth from all data that relates to the actual context. Thus we are not looking for truth but data relevant to a job application for a very critical appointment where moral character is of vital importance. Thus, when it becomes evident to all that an appointment is being rushed through for political reasons and much doubt about the candidates moral character has come into question, it becomes inevitable that delay will be sought, both for political reasons, but also on the basis of what any good person would want for the nation.

Thus we see that you are not actually such a good person and see in the other the monster that is your own political, cynical, hate projecting self. And since you are so ready to call others the actual source of your own evil, I am happy to tell you to go fuck yourself and call you the real monster. Naturally, I understand you were tortured to believe as you do and had no other way out, but you can't just go unopposed in spreading your sick thinking. I object to your dementia.

 

[mikeymikec]

No, I’m arguing that her memory might not be as crystal clear as she thinks it is.

And alcohol has what to do with that? She's already said she's 100% certain, and you're wanting to ask about whether alcohol might affect her being absolutely certain it was him?

 

[UglyCasanova]

By "none of the people" you mean Republicans of course.

No I mean none of them. If you think the politicians give a shit you’re exactly where they want you. Best thing a politician can do is convince you it’s not political.

 

[UglyCasanova]

And alcohol has what to do with that?

Your point number two above was "memory".

 

[mikeymikec]

Your point number two above was "memory".

Well done for remembering that. Now would you care to construct your argument around how her alcohol intake that night bears any relevance despite the fact that she said she's 100% certain it was him?

Do you not see a bit of a logical problem being that if she felt her memory was sufficiently hazy that she could not be certain it was him, then she would not be setting herself up to be the focus of public ridicule, death threats etc. for the sake of a hazy memory that she's not certain about?

 

[UglyCasanova]

Well done for remembering that. Now would you care to construct your argument around how her alcohol intake that night bears any relevance despite the fact that she said she's 100% certain it was him?

Do you not see a bit of a logical problem being that if she felt her memory was sufficiently hazy that she could not be certain it was him, then she would not be setting herself up to be the focus of public ridicule, death threats etc. for the sake of a hazy memory that she's not certain about?

Well I guess if she says she’s 100% certain that settles it then. If Kavanaugh is equally certain we better drill down to his drinking habits.

 

[mikeymikec]

Well I guess if she says she’s 100% certain that settles it then. If Kavanaugh is equally certain we better drill down to his drinking habits.

For a second I thought you might actually be conceding the point. Instead we're back at square one, aren't we?

 

[BUTCH1]

Ok? Has nothing to do with their high school drinking though. Especially in the night this was alleged to have occurred. If you want to know the truth this would seem relevant would it not?

As I’ve said many times before, it’s not about the truth. It’s impossible to know the truth. No one in congress voting on this gives a shit about the truth, nor do they give shit if it did happen anyways. This is a smear campaign and stall tactic to push the vote past midterms.

"Smear campaign"?, so you're saying Ford is LYING and this never happened?, I wonder if you were attacked by a drunken idiot trying to basically rape you if you thought it was all "fake".

 

[soundforbjt]

"Smear campaign"?, so you're saying Ford is LYING and this never happened?, I wonder if you were attacked by a drunken idiot trying to basically rape you if you thought it was all "fake".

No, he believes the Tucker Carlson defense, someone else did it.

 

[UglyCasanova]

No, I don’t have an opinion on who did what. My opinion is that it is impossible to know. The burden of proof though should fall on the accuser and she’s offered none other than because I said so. My opinion is that no one actually cares what happened, and that it’s a political fight over the SC seat and the midterms masquerading as a 36 year old sexual assault allegation.

 

[Maxima1]

No, I don’t have an opinion on who did what. My opinion is that it is impossible to know. The burden of proof though should fall on the accuser and she’s offered none other than because I said so. My opinion is that no one actually cares what happened, and that it’s a political fight over the SC seat and the midterms masquerading as a 36 year old sexual assault allegation.

You're an idiot if you think "beyond a reasonable doubt" should be the standard here. We all know for jobs much lower than this, we would have more scrutiny. The analogy is even greater when we consider that this job comes with life tenure and vast power over all our lives. He's not even fit for dog catcher!

 

[soulcougher73]

When he lies about the small things like what boofing, Devil’s Triangle and refuse to answer any questions directed at him. It’s obvious you are also lying about the big stuff and are thus unfit for SC Justice. His manerisms are also a dead give away, if you don’t see it you should question how smart you think you actual are. Probably should refrain from any future voting to out of shear stupidity to as your judgment is useless.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You're an idiot if you think "beyond a reasonable doubt" should be the standard here. We all know for jobs much lower than this, we would have more scrutiny. The analogy is even greater when we consider that this job comes with life tenure and vast power over all our lives. He's not even fit for dog catcher!

Lol.....don't use reason, it's all about your feels -Republicans

 

[Jhhnn]

Well I guess if she says she’s 100% certain that settles it then. If Kavanaugh is equally certain we better drill down to his drinking habits.

Yeh, forget the absolute shit show he gave us last Thursday. Even if the accusations are false what he revealed about himself disqualifies him entirely. He's incapable of doing anything on the SCOTUS other than toeing the Party line. That's obvious.

 

[Moonbeam]

No, I don’t have an opinion on who did what. My opinion is that it is impossible to know. The burden of proof though should fall on the accuser and she’s offered none other than because I said so. My opinion is that no one actually cares what happened, and that it’s a political fight over the SC seat and the midterms masquerading as a 36 year old sexual assault allegation.

Here's my opinion again:

In order to tell yourself a believable lie you tell truth about what is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that it is impossible to tell he said from she said so all efforts are made to limit the discussion to those two points of view and not examine at all what is likely to be the truth from all data that relates to the actual context. Thus we are not looking for truth but data relevant to a job application for a very critical appointment where moral character is of vital importance. Thus, when it becomes evident to all that an appointment is being rushed through for political reasons and much doubt about the candidates moral character has come into question, it becomes inevitable that delay will be sought, both for political reasons, but also on the basis of what any good person would want for the nation.

Thus we see that you are not actually such a good person and see in the other the monster that is your own political, cynical, hate projecting self. And since you are so ready to call others the actual source of your own evil, I am happy to tell you to go *** yourself and call you the real monster. Naturally, I understand you were tortured to believe as you do and had no other way out, but you can't just go unopposed in spreading your sick thinking. I object to your dementia.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Thank you for your opinion on my evil tortured beliefs. I’m glad you admit this charade is strictly political by those in power and the Supreme Court seat is the concern, not what happened between Ms Ford and Mr Kavanaugh 36 years ago.

 

[jackstar7]

This is a smear campaign and stall tactic to push the vote past midterms.

This is you saying Ford is not credible.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Odd the change in tone when the Dems were about to elect someone president who actively ridiculed and tried to silence those who accused her husband of sexual assault. Definitely not political. Definitely.