Political Fart Noise Part II

[greg1647545532]

Right, well it's very coincidental that things are only now coming out, 30+ years later, things that happened in high school, now that he's been nominated by Trumpy.

 

I don't think it's coincidental at all.

 

Look, at best, based on Mark Judge's tell-all and what we know about Kavanaugh, he was a rich white asshole who partied hard all through his upper-crust prep school and college years, and still managed to become a successful federal judge with a supreme court nomination. That's shitty. Guys who fuck off that hard in their formative years don't succeed in life, unless they're loaded, then the rules don't apply.

 

Do you think if she'd come out 35 years ago the rules would have applied? Because I don't believe they would have applied to Bret "silver spoon" Kavanaugh in the slightest. Rich white kids didn't have to go to Vietnam, they don't have to study hard, they don't have to face consequences for their actions. Dr. Ford surely knew that, so what would the point have been in coming forward 35 years ago. "Boys will be boys, and besides its your word against his, and do you know who his father is?" Please.

 

So she's carried this with her for 35 years, until, jesus christ, that shitbag is going to be on the SUPREME COURT!? Fuck that noise, this is her chance to finally put an end to his consequence free lifestyle.

 

That's the way I see it, at least. I can see why "bone spurs Trump" and his rich elitist friends see no problem with yet another rich asshole being put in a position of great authority, but I don't see why Joe the Plumber is all up in arms about defending this guy.

 

Good thing there's burden of proof. Prove it and then everyone will know he's a scumbag.

 

It's not a trial, there is no burden of proof. She can testify and the Senate can choose to do whatever they want with that information. They can choose not to confirm his nomination if they don't like the color of his socks.

 

If he stinks, dump him and nominate someone else. The Senate doesn't owe him any benefit of the doubt like a jury would.

[Geeto67]

Right, well it's very coincidental that things are only now coming out, 30+ years later, things that happened in high school, now that he's been nominated by Trumpy.

 

It's coming out now because this is when it is supposed to come out. These hearings are public for the specific reason of giving one last opportunity to air grievances against the nominee that would not have had the opportunity to have been addressed in the closed previous hearings for his lower court appointments.

 

It's not coincidence, this is "the system" working as it should so you don't give an immoral shitbag a lifetime appointment to a government job in the highest court in the land.

 

I understand that yeah, rape and racism is bad and you certainly don't want anyone on the SCOTUS that can be accused of those things. But if it's truly in the name of justice, than where were you 35 years ago? (I understand it's a hard thing to come out and speak about -- still very coincidental timing).

 

You are making the kind of statements that explain why 2/3 of sexual assaults go unreported at the time of the attack (and the number was likely much higher in the early 1980s). Why are you ignoring all the other times when it wasn't coincidental timing when it was just a victim trying to get on with her life. Do you just ignore those because now it is "coincidental" timing that isn't actually coincidental because this is exactly when these things are supposed to be brought up?

 

 

Good thing there's burden of proof. Prove it and then everyone will know he's a scumbag.

 

Nope, no burden of proof here because this isn't a trial, it's a senate hearing. The burden that has to be met is can you convince a senator. It's not "beyond a reasonable doubt", it's not "Preponderance of the evidenc", "Probable cause", "reasonable suspicion", or any of the dozens of actual legal standards of proof we have built into the judicial system - It's "convince an old cranky white conservative senator that has already said publicly he made up his mind before the evidence has been fully presented that he is wrong".

 

 

By the way, all this is a distraction from the fact that republicans have not released the majority of his records including those necessary to verify some claims believed to be false regarding his time with the W white house. There is a very real possibility that Kavanaugh may have lied under oath and instead of investigating it at all, the GOP has said: "nope sorry we are just going to keep that to ourselves".

[zeitgeist57]

Fox News...has an EXCLUSIVE interview...with Brett Kavanaugh....and a female journo is conducting the interview???

 

WHAT ARE THE CHANCES, AMIRITE?!? #optics

[oh8sti]

There is a burden of proof here whether you like it our not.

 

You do not get to weaponize the met too movement just to get your way.

 

If you accuse someone of something horrible than you need to prove it or don’t accuse them. In our current culture, the MSM is deciding the fate of some rightly horrible people. BUT, there have been times in this movement when someone good was accused and MSM/Twitter/dems decide they are guilty and their lives are ruined. That is wrong.

 

If Greg and Kerry are willing to considering Kav NOT guilty, then I will consider the fact that he is. If he did these things than he should admit to it and let’s all move on.

Edited September 25, 2018 by Panduh
Poor wording

[TTQ B4U]

Look, at best, based on Mark Judge's tell-all and what we know about Kavanaugh, he was a rich white asshole who partied hard all through his upper-crust prep school and college years, and still managed to become a successful federal judge with a supreme court nomination.

 

 

 

The Senate doesn't owe him any benefit of the doubt like a jury would.

 

So the FBI and others missed all this rich history of his hard partying in college and other antics? In terms of the senate, you're right, they don't owe him anything. Kavanaugh never said nor implied they did but let's see if his accuser even shows up let alone can furnish even an ounce of proof.

 

The entire story is drama at its best. Trump should be jealous that these buffoons are putting on a far better reality show than he ever could.

[oh8sti]

So the FBI and others missed all this rich history of his hard partying in college and other antics? In terms of the senate, you're right, they don't owe him anything. Kavanaugh never said nor implied they did but let's see if his accuser even shows up let alone can furnish even an ounce of proof.

 

The entire story is drama at its best. Trump should be jealous that these buffoons are putting on a far better reality show than he ever could.

 

I was wondering that too - kind of a key thing no one wants to talk about...

 

He’s been through the depth of background checks that the FBI will do...again....in this “investigation” the dems want so badly. The only issue is, it will bring them to the same conclusion they’ve arrived at time and time again. They only want it because of the stalling it creates. To me, that’s all I need to know about the dems motives here. They don’t give 2 shits about the sexual assault. They never did. They never will. It’s a weapon, not a cause.

[TTQ B4U]

They don’t give 2 shits about the sexual assault. They never did. They never will. It’s a weapon, not a cause.

 

 

there's ZERO evidence or anything to support the allegations. the second lady has an even less. complete mockery of our system and the fools coming out telling men to "shut up" or the fruit-cake in CT that lied about being in Vietnam just shit on his own law degree with his response. Dude needs to go. Our lawmakers are a complete joke.

[greg1647545532]

You do not get to weaponize the met too movement just to get your way.

 

You also don't get to sit on a SC nomination for a year just to get your way. You don't get to hold endless bogus Benghazi hearings to get your way. You don't get to make up lies about the president's birth certificate to way.

 

I'll readily admit that Democrats are amping up the politics around this situation, but I believe the accusation is credible, and is amping up politics around a credible accusation of sexual assault really the line we're drawing now about what's kosher and what's not? Seems a bit fresh.

 

f you accuse someone of something horrible than you need to prove it or don’t accuse them. In our current culture, the MSM is deciding the fate of some rightly horrible people. BUT, there have been times in this movement when someone good was accused and MSM/Twitter/dems decide they are guilty and their lives are ruined. That is wrong.

 

If Greg and Kerry are willing to considering Kav NOT guilty, then I will consider the fact that he is. If he did these things than he should admit to it and let’s all move on.

 

If you sexually assault someone, you need to face justice. In our current culture, people get away with it. That is wrong.

 

So of course I'll consider that he's not guilty, it's a true he-said she-said, we'll never know the truth, and the truth might be that she's confused or lying and he really didn't do it. But I'll go one further, and say that even if he did do it -- let's say he was arrested, tried, and convicted 35 years ago, I don't think that should necessarily disqualify him from the SCOTUS. If he did do it but got away with it for 35 years, and admitted it now with great remorse, I don't think that should disqualify him from the SCOTUS. It's a data point, but it's not the whole of someone's character.

 

But he didn't admit to it and now we're in a pickle. He either really didn't do it, or he did do it and he's a piece of shit for not owning up to it. And, let's be frank, we'll never know. So now what? It's a very unsatisfying position to be in.

 

It's ALSO unsatisfying, though, to know that most sexual assaults aren't reported, and most reported sexual assaults don't result in any justice. These are facts that should bother everyone, just as much and probably a lot more than whether or not some prep school kid makes the SC. Yes, Brett Kavanaugh might get fucked, but people get fucked every day, quite literally, and never get any justice.

 

So, I'll be honest, I don't really care if he gets confirmed or not. I think it's somewhat bad taste to nominate two prep school east coast elites back to back, if we think the SCOTUS should be some cross section of America. But they're just going to replace him with another conservative, and frankly I don't really care that much about the SC anyway.

 

I'll feel bad for Kavanaugh if he's innocent and he got screwed out of this, and I'll keep feeling bad for all the women who get assaulted and don't get justice, and that's about as far as I'm going to get on this.

[greg1647545532]

So the FBI and others missed all this rich history of his hard partying in college and other antics? In terms of the senate, you're right, they don't owe him anything. Kavanaugh never said nor implied they did but let's see if his accuser even shows up let alone can furnish even an ounce of proof.

 

The entire story is drama at its best. Trump should be jealous that these buffoons are putting on a far better reality show than he ever could.

 

The FBI and others probably didn't care about hard partying and antics in high school, but this here's the problem with forum arguments. I was responding to kickass about why maybe Dr. Ford sat on this for 35 years. People find that very suspicious, so I presented what I think is a plausible rationale. And then you come at my words from a different angle.

[Geeto67]

There is a burden of proof here whether you like it our not.

 

you didn't answer a single one of my questions.

 

I sometimes forget that I am talking to people who aren't saavy with legal standards. Burden of Proof as a legal concept in government proceedings refers to the legal threshold that must be met to justify an outcome. This isn't the same thing as saying "nobody has to prove anything" which would be dumb given the context.

 

In senate hearings like this one there is no legal standard for burden of proof. It's just what the senators are willing to believe. Take the politics out of it for a second - many of the conservative senators have gone on record as saying, BEFORE all the testimony has been heard and the evidence has been presented, that there isn't anything that will change their minds. Do you have a problem with that?

 

I do, and not because politics are a team sport, but it basically sends the message that this is all a show and they don't care about the nominee so long as he is willing to toe the line. Republicans have been burned by SC appointments before, notably Kennedy and Souter, where once appointed the judge turns out to be more moderate than the extremist they were looking for, so I get why they want to ram an old boys club guy like Kavanaugh through.

 

Also, I should note that this timeline and sense of urgency is manufactured. They delayed Merrick Garland for a year for no good reason than they wanted the clock to run out and for the majority to shift so they could vote him down. They are worried about the same thing happening to them here, quite a Hypocritical standard if you ask me.

 

 

You do not get to weaponize the met too movement just to get your way.

 

If you accuse someone of something horrible than you need to prove it or don’t accuse them. In our current culture, the MSM is deciding the fate of some rightly horrible people. BUT, there have been times in this movement when someone good was accused and MSM/Twitter/dems decide they are guilty and their lives are ruined. That is wrong.

 

If Greg and Kerry are willing to considering Kav NOT guilty, then I will consider the fact that he is. If he did these things than he should admit to it and let’s all move on.

 

Greg pretty much summed up what I wanted to say more eloquently.

 

I will add this though, I am witholding final judgement on him as to whether he did or didn't do it until all the evidence is presented and heard. However, since I was a litigator once upon a time I view things from that lens, if this were a criminal or civil suit and I were Kavanaugh's lawyer - based specifically on what we know in the public so far, I would be advising him to take a plea deal or settle the case and not go to trial. He has a real credibility problem and she has enough evidence to bolster her credibility that I wouldn't feel confident taking this to trial for an acquittal or not guilty plea on his behalf (I might do it anyway in the criminal trial because of the stakes and the burden of proof is higher but I wouldn't expect to win).

[Geeto67]

there's ZERO evidence or anything to support the allegations.

 

That's a false statement. There is evidence. It's not a lot of evidence and it's not as weighty as a police report or pictures of the brusies, but to say there is ZERO evidence means you either aren't paying attention or are delusional.

 

the second lady has an even less.

Can you have less than zero? I mean Robert Downey Junior did in the 80's but that involved a lot of drugs and also was fiction. You see how laughable you are being right now?

 

complete mockery of our system and the fools coming out telling men to "shut up" or the fruit-cake in CT that lied about being in Vietnam just shit on his own law degree with his response. Dude needs to go. Our lawmakers are a complete joke.

 

What are you talking about? First off, this is the system working - the mockery of the system was a bunch of senators not doing thier job for a year because they just didn't like that the democrats got to pick a supreme court judge. There wasn't even a scandal and they didn't even dislike his politics, they just didn't like who nominated him.

 

Also what does Richard Blumenthal have to do with this in any measure? seriously? and where do you get off being "high horse" about the lying of a senator when you yourself put a person that lies on a constant basis in the white house and continue to support him. nice double standard you have there.

[CRed05]

I didn't mean burden of proof in the law (trial) sense, but the "philosophical" sense, I guess. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

[greg1647545532]

I didn't mean burden of proof in the law (trial) sense, but the "philosophical" sense, I guess. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

 

I get what you're saying.

 

Thing is, in this case we have eyewitness testimony. It's not hearsay, it's not conjecture, it's the gold standard of trial evidence. It's pure, clean, the good stuff. In fact, I was on a jury a couple years ago, I forget the charge (it was a felony home invasion). There were some problems with the physical evidence that we didn't fully understand until the trial was over, so the prosecution's case really boiled down to the eyewitness testimony of two people who lived in the house.

 

During jury selection, the prosecutor made it a point to ask every single one of us if we understood that eyewitness testimony was sufficient evidence to find someone guilty. I didn't really understand what she was going for at the time, but we spent 3 days deliberating because we're all cynical assholes and we considered every possible scenario in which the witnesses were lying.

 

 

So let's talk about your philosophical definition here. Dr. Ford made a claim, so the burden of proof is on her. As proof she presented evidence -- her own eyewitness testimony, notes from her therapist, and testimony from her husband (which is hearsay but not necessarily inadmissable). If this were a trial, that evidence could be sufficient for a conviction, assuming the jury found the evidence convincing beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

If the burden of proof weren't on Dr. Ford, what we'd see is her throw out an accusation, present no evidence (not even her own recollection), and demand that Judge Kavanaugh produce evidence to refute it. That's the philosophical argument I think you're trying to make, but I hope you see what it doesn't really apply here.

 

What you mean to say is simply that you don't find the evidence convincing. You don't find it convincing beyond a reasonable doubt (I don't either), but you don't find it convincing even at whatever standard you consider reasonable for a job interview. Is that about right?

[TTQ B4U]

That's a false statement. There is evidence. It's not a lot of evidence and it's not as weighty as a police report or pictures of the brusies, but to say there is ZERO evidence means you either aren't paying attention or are delusional.

 

I must have missed all the evidence. So far we have what a story told to the media, brought to and sat on by a senator and a woman who said he did something but doesn't remember much if anything about it.

 

Can you have less than zero? I mean Robert Downey Junior did in the 80's but that involved a lot of drugs and also was fiction. You see how laughable you are being right now?

Yes we can. Read the second woman's story and we have a completely laughable situation.

 

What are you talking about? First off, this is the system working - the mockery of the system was a bunch of senators not doing thier job for a year because they just didn't like that the democrats got to pick a supreme court judge.

yes/no. they stalled until the new POTUS was in place. they worked the system but they didn't pull out the stupid allegation card of penises being shown, etc.

 

There wasn't even a scandal and they didn't even dislike his politics, they just didn't like who nominated him.

Correct.

 

Also what does Richard Blumenthal have to do with this in any measure?

Guess you didn't see his comments. Evidently people are guilty and have to prove they are innocent of any accusations vs the other way around.

 

where do you get off being "high horse" about the lying of a senator when you yourself put a person that lies on a constant basis in the white house and continue to support him. nice double standard you have there.

Guess Blumenthal is no better and now has a twisted sense of his understanding of our legal and eithical systems work; but hey, let's continue to try and make things about Trump right?

[CRed05]

What you mean to say is simply that you don't find the evidence convincing. You don't find it convincing beyond a reasonable doubt (I don't either), but you don't find it convincing even at whatever standard you consider reasonable for a job interview. Is that about right?

 

Yes. Fair is fair, whether it's on trial or for a job application.

 

Relying on eyewitnesses alone is fine, but like I sort of mentioned in an earlier post, people have different motives as to why they might be making up a bullshit story. Weigh the motives, and see what makes more sense. In this case, the bullshit is heavier on my scale. Whether I was part of a jury, or the guy making the decision whether or not Kavanaugh should be accepted on the SC, this is the process I would go through.

 

I don't understand that you can say that you don't find it convincing beyond a reasonable doubt, yet think the accuser is right and he shouldn't be SC justice. I'm not too thrilled about his views on Roe v Wade and abortions, but the conservatives were voted in power, it's their turn to nominate.

 

And if democrats want to ever have their turn again, they need to stop this behavior that has put me, and I'm sure many others off of wanting to vote for them again.

 

They used to say they support free expression on college campuses. Now, they do everything possible to silence students and speakers who disagree with their views.

https://townhall.com/columnists/justinhaskins/2018/09/24/dear-moderate-democrats-your-party-has-completely-abandoned-you-n2521802

[Geeto67]

I must have missed all the evidence. So far we have what a story told to the media, brought to and sat on by a senator and a woman who said he did something but doesn't remember much if anything about it.

See greg's post above.

 

 

 

yes/no. they stalled until the new POTUS was in place. they worked the system but they didn't pull out the stupid allegation card of penises being shown, etc.

 

I'm sorry that you think that it's ok for them to stall a supreme court appointment for a year but that isn't working the system. In fact it was considered by many Unconstitutional: https://www.acslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/old-uploads/originals/documents/Con%20Law%20Scholars%20on%20Scotus%20Vacancy.pdf

 

When I say many, I mean the preeminent constitutional law scholars in this country (some of them politically republican themselves). The problem with a constitutional violation perpetrated by the senate is they are usually the ones legislating enforcement against said violation.

 

Or to put it simply - you are completely ok with republicans defying the constitution and then doing nothing about defying the constitution because it helps their cause, But you object to what's going on now because there is a penis involved?

 

whether you like it or not, Dr. Ford's allegation is credible. Don't like that democrats are making an issue about it - tough shit, it doesn't make it any less credible. Maybe it's a little opportunistic but it's not unconstitutional.

 

Aren't you one of these "too many liberties with the constitution" guys? the too biggest offenses against the constitution were committed in our lifetimes by the republican party (Bush v. Gore in 2000 and Merrick Garland's stalled nomination) and you don't seem to have a problem with them, but somehow the interpretational justice system we have currently goes too far? :dumb:

 

Guess you didn't see his comments. Evidently people are guilty and have to prove they are innocent of any accusations vs the other way around.

 

 

Guess Blumenthal is no better and now has a twisted sense of his understanding of our legal and eithical systems work; but hey, let's continue to try and make things about Trump right?

 

Blumenthal is still not relevent. He's just a dude running for an office, he has no sway and honestly it's the voters of CT's problem to deal with his lying.

 

As for making it about trump, well yeah dude - you can't really help to install one of the biggest, lousiest (objectively bad at it as he gets caught in his own lies constantly), liar in the history of the office and then expect to not get called a hypocrite for calling out someone who lies

[Geeto67]

Relying on eyewitnesses alone is fine, but like I sort of mentioned in an earlier post, people have different motives as to why they might be making up a bullshit story. Weigh the motives, and see what makes more sense. In this case, the bullshit is heavier on my scale. Whether I was part of a jury, or the guy making the decision whether or not Kavanaugh should be accepted on the SC, this is the process I would go through.

 

Technically Kavanaugh has the greater motive for lying in this case because he actually has something at stake to win or lose. Dr. Ford personally only has a losing proposition based on the history of how accusers are treated and nothing to gain by Brett not getting the seat since the GOP will just pick a name off the list of 26 other qualified GOP potential nominees.

 

Weighing the motives - yeah it still doesn't look good for BK. But whatever - weighing the motives is just a subjective way to rationalize your support for BK.

 

I don't understand that you can say that you don't find it convincing beyond a reasonable doubt, yet think the accuser is right and he shouldn't be SC justice. I'm not too thrilled about his views on Roe v Wade and abortions, but the conservatives were voted in power, it's their turn to nominate.

 

Reasonable Doubt isn't the standard here. That may be the standard in the criminal case if there is ever one brought, but the standard is actually change the old dude's mind that he has already made up because of political motives. It's kind of an impossible standard that no one is going to be happy with.

 

And if democrats want to ever have their turn again, they need to stop this behavior that has put me, and I'm sure many others off of wanting to vote for them again.

 

If Merrick Garland didn't put you off voting for republicans, then why should this put you off for voting democrats?

[TTQ B4U]

 

I'm sorry that you think that it's ok for them to stall a supreme court appointment for a year but that isn't working the system.

 

Agree. They should have just heard him and voted him down if they didn't want him. Same result, less the waste of time.

 

whether you like it or not, Dr. Ford's allegation is credible

what makes it credible? because she said so?

 

:dumb:

Blumenthal is still not relevent.

agree....but he's a waste of air in the position he's in. needs to go.

 

As for making it about trump, well yeah dude - you can't really help to install one of the biggest....blah, blah......

This is about a SCOTUS pick not the POTUS.

img[src=/banners/smilies/Dumb.png] {display:none !important;}img[src=/banners/smilies/Dumb.png] {display:none !important;}

[CRed05]

Technically Kavanaugh has the greater motive for lying in this case because he actually has something at stake to win or lose. Dr. Ford personally only has a losing proposition based on the history of how accusers are treated and nothing to gain by Brett not getting the seat since the GOP will just pick a name off the list of 26 other qualified GOP potential nominees.

 

Weighing the motives - yeah it still doesn't look good for BK. But whatever - weighing the motives is just a subjective way to rationalize your support for BK.

 

Burden of proof is on her. He's not making accusations, she is. I don't support him, nor do I support people who use sexual assault as a political tool.

 

 

 

Reasonable Doubt isn't the standard here. That may be the standard in the criminal case if there is ever one brought, but the standard is actually change the old dude's mind that he has already made up because of political motives. It's kind of an impossible standard that no one is going to be happy with.

 

If I wanted to change his mind, I'd try to put reasonable doubt in his mind. If I can't, then I either went about this whole thing the wrong way, Kavanaugh is innocent of this accusation, or Old Dude is the one that doesn't belong in the position he's in if he can't make a fair, unbiased choice. The last being a whole different conversation.

 

 

If Merrick Garland didn't put you off voting for republicans, then why should this put you off for voting democrats?

 

I've never voted Republican.

[Geeto67]

what makes it credible? because she said so?

 

Just in case you forgot what we are talking about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credibility

 

Because she submitted written notes, corroborated by other witnesses, that show a discussion regarding the assault before the current situation in the context of seeking treatment. Because there is other testimony, attesting to her discussion of this when it was relevant to psychological treatment and also evidence of this affect on her behavior, before it was a politically relevant question. It's "a little more" than "she just said so.

 

 

This is about a SCOTUS pick not the POTUS.

img[src=/banners/smilies/Dumb.png] {display:none !important;}img[src=/banners/smilies/Dumb.png] {display:none !important;}

 

No, it's about the double standard you hold for your team against others. Liars are ok if you win, but not when they oppose you.

[Geeto67]

Burden of proof is on her. He's not making accusations, she is. I don't support him, nor do I support people who use sexual assault as a political tool.

 

Then why is this an issue for you? Even if the democrats are being opportunistic, she doesn't stand to win anything from using this as a tool. Removing politics out of it and using your strongest motive theory, it's still her believing he isn't fit to hold SCOTUS office because she was attacked and him lying about it to secure the confirmation winning out over any other possible motives.

 

 

If I wanted to change his mind, I'd try to put reasonable doubt in his mind. If I can't, then I either went about this whole thing the wrong way, Kavanaugh is innocent of this accusation, or Old Dude is the one that doesn't belong in the position he's in if he can't make a fair, unbiased choice. The last being a whole different conversation.

 

You'd put doubt in his mind. "Reasonable" is a legal term of art that considers the "common sense" of an "average" person in society. There is a specific definition that doesn't apply to both your example (causing doubt in one person) or this senate hearing. Dr Ford has to overcome an unreasonable amount of politically motivated opinions against her - it's an impossible standard. The only reason the hearing is willing to hear her at all is to appear sympathetic to the voter base in the looming midterm - if they weren't worried about optics in the midterms, she could produce a video of the assault and they still wouldn't hear her testimony - they don't need to they have the majority where it counts.

 

 

 

I've never voted Republican.

 

Then why are you rushing to their defense? Seems odd.

[TTQ B4U]

Just in case you forgot what we are talking about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credibility

 

Because she submitted written notes, corroborated by other witnesses, that show a discussion regarding the assault before the current situation in the context of seeking treatment. Because there is other testimony, attesting to her discussion of this when it was relevant to psychological treatment and also evidence of this affect on her behavior, before it was a politically relevant question. It's "a little more" than "she just said so.

 

 

still no proof of anything nor do I see the above as credible. she may very well feel what she is stating is true and she may very well have written notes but he can do the same and you can also claim no credibility but in the end we're at a he-said/she-said bullshit argument with no or proof about a matter that's over 36yrs old and from when the dude was in high school. I mooned a kid from the bus when I was in 7th grade so I guess I'll never be on the supreme court either.

 

 

No, it's about the double standard you hold for your team against others. Liars are ok if you win, but not when they oppose you.

again, less about Blumejob's lies and more about his stupid view of how he somehow thinks the burden is for someone being accused of something to have to prove they are innocent of said claim. LOL. I suppose by his standards someone can accuse him of something that never happened and he's supposed to magically come up with how he never did it. He's an idiot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

^^ she's a dumb cunt who needs to jump in some hot lava and remove herself from our air supply.

[Geeto67]

still no proof of anything nor do I see the above as credible.

Well you aren't anybody and honestly you have no incentive politically to believe her. It's a good thing I don't value you determination of credibility, the only thing that scares me is that one day you may be on a jury.

 

she may very well feel what she is stating is true and she may very well have written notes but he can do the same and you can also claim no credibility but in the end we're at a he-said/she-said bullshit argument with no or proof about a matter that's over 36yrs old and from when the dude was in high school.

 

Remember, she doesn't have a third party account written about her being incoherently drunk, making repeated poor choices, and generally being a douchebag. He does. You don't like that the issue turns on eyewitness testimony, and because it is "he said, she said" you are unwilling to consider anything else that might tip the scales one way or the other. Again, glad you aren't a legal professional, but then again if you were - you'd probably have a different opinion on it.

 

I mooned a kid from the bus when I was in 7th grade so I guess I'll never be on the supreme court either.

 

 

yeah, THAT's the reason you won't be appointed to the supreme court. :rolleyes:

 

 

again, less about Blumejob's lies and more about his stupid view of how he somehow thinks the burden is for someone being accused of something to have to prove they are innocent of said claim. LOL. I suppose by his standards someone can accuse him of something that never happened and he's supposed to magically come up with how he never did it. He's an idiot.

 

^^ she's a dumb cunt who needs to jump in some hot lava and remove herself from our air supply.

 

still not relevant.

[greg1647545532]

Yes. Fair is fair, whether it's on trial or for a job application.

 

I would posit that your standard of evidence isn't as high as you claim it is for a job interview. Let's say you're hiring for a position and you call Joe's last employer, who says that Joe had a mean streak and would bully his subordinates. Whoever you're talking to could be lying, or mistaken, but how much effort are you going to put into verifying that information? If Joe isn't anything special, you're going to scuttle his application and hire someone who poses no risk to you (because if you hire Joe and he behaves as advertised, that's on you). Sucks to be Joe if it was a false accusation, but I'm guessing you wouldn't lose sleep over it.

 

Or maybe I'm wrong and you'd go to bat for Joe.

 

Relying on eyewitnesses alone is fine, but like I sort of mentioned in an earlier post, people have different motives as to why they might be making up a bullshit story. Weigh the motives, and see what makes more sense. In this case, the bullshit is heavier on my scale. Whether I was part of a jury, or the guy making the decision whether or not Kavanaugh should be accepted on the SC, this is the process I would go through.

 

I don't understand that you can say that you don't find it convincing beyond a reasonable doubt, yet think the accuser is right and he shouldn't be SC justice. I'm not too thrilled about his views on Roe v Wade and abortions, but the conservatives were voted in power, it's their turn to nominate.

 

I don't think I said he shouldn't be a SC justice, I think I actually said "So, I'll be honest, I don't really care if he gets confirmed or not." Direct quote.

 

Let's be frank, if it weren't a sexual assault allegation -- if it were, say, an 11th hour accusation of high school bullying, of the sort that was levied at Mitt Romney, I don't think much would go down different. Democrats would still be insisting that the accusations be heard, Republicans would still be insisting that it was all a bogus political stunt. The only difference is that there wouldn't be a hearing this Thursday, and there wouldn't be any accusations about "weaponized #metoo". And I think that's what this really comes down. This is politics as usual, with the added angle that Republicans are stuck humoring an accusation that they don't want to have to humor, which is one more foothold in the culture war that they're waging against the libs. And that's really what's going on here. Republicans can't back down from Kavanaugh, because the only thing conservative voters respond to anymore is sticking it to the libs, and confirming him would really stick it to the libs.

[TTQ B4U]

Well you aren't anybody and honestly you have no incentive politically to believe her. It's a good thing I don't value you determination of credibility, the only thing that scares me is that one day you may be on a jury.

 

can't wait for jury duty.

 

Remember, she doesn't have a third party account written about her being incoherently drunk, making repeated poor choices, and generally being a douchebag. He does.

I am not sure we can say that about her for sure or not.

 

You don't like that the issue turns on eyewitness testimony, and because it is "he said, she said" you are unwilling to consider anything else that might tip the scales one way or the other. Again, glad you aren't a legal professional, but then again if you were - you'd probably have a different opinion on it.

eyewitness testimony? I see people diggin up a story that supposedly took place 36yrs ago. show me him doing something like what he's been accused of in the past 10 years with credible evidence and you might change my mind.

 

Will be interesting to see how these same lawmakers respond to the Keith Ellison case as it unfolds.