Reply With Quote
Good question.
Why wouldn't the police investigate a rich white prick?
but i didn't so i suppose i lied. i didn't vote in 2000. i just turned 18 and the voting was a few months later of which i took no part in. still i might had voted for kerry for the of it though but def not gore.
ps: is there a way to check who you voted for in the past? i tried googling yesterday but couldn't find anything other than to register to vote.
Good question.
Why wouldn't the police investigate a rich white prick?
If you can't argue with logic, argue with emotion and attack the other guy personally, right?
your new MO.
what are you even talking about? i'm not right nor left wing of anything. either way, the far left and i hope yall burn in !koriwhat, a right wing millennial, lambasting people for their lack of political accountability in 1996 when he wasn't old enough to drive a ing car, aaaaaaaaaand lying about it to sound impartial. ing lol.
Beginning to sound like Cosmoreds: muh jacket flap
Feel free to provide any evidence to support the theory that it is fabricated. As noted, the instances of women making up rape allegations completely... are vanishingly rare in the scientific literature.
But thanks for pointing out how thin your standard of evidence is.
Much harder to investigate when she does not know what year
And it could be 35 years ago !
Kerry wasn't running in 2000 dude. Do you think the ticket in 2000 was Bush Gore Kerry? You would have been old enough to vote for Kerry in 2004, but it sounds like you're confused about the ordering process.
I've already argued with logic. I have provided evidence of how rare false allegations generally are, and how delays and even inconsistencies don't indicate false reporting.
You have chosen to ignore that because you are a horrible human being who wants to support team red no matter how immoral that makes you.
That is insulting, but not an ad hominem.
You aren't wrong because you are an asshole. You are an asshole, because you are a horrible human being. There is a difference.
As noted, I lost any shred of respect for you here when you started twisting things and blaming the victim to protect your preferred political agenda.
That’s not how it works.
Actually it is.
"she is lying" is a specific claim, that carries with it a burden of proof. I have tried explaining this kind of to you for years, and you still don't get it. smh.
The burden of proof is on the accuser.
"Why can't this person you believe provide these answers?"
traumatized?
willful, long-ago forgetting of extremely unpleasant details, other than the two assholes who did it to her?
https://www.vox.com/science-and-heal...ord-psychology
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...JnI/story.html
=======================
Jennifer Rubin: Republicans, be forewarned: Kavanaugh’s accuser has options
When she gets in front of the cameras, she should remind the country:
• This concerns attempted rape, something far more serious than the allegations raised by Anita Hill against Clarence Thomas during his 1991 confirmation hearings.
• The FBI investigated Hill’s claims within three days (Republicans could have sent the FBI and gotten a report back by now if they hadn’t been stalling).
• Mark Judge allegedly witnessed the attack, but Republicans refuse to call him as a witness, so we can assume that they regard him as a person who would harm Kavanaugh’s defense.
• Republicans' insistence that Ford provide even more detail is hypocritical (since they don’t want an FBI investigation) and misguided, given the large body of research concerning memories of victims of sexual assault (e.g., gaps in memory are common).
• If Kavanaugh was an excessive drinker in high school, as has been alleged, he’s in no position to testify accurately as to what he did and didn’t do.
• The unsubstantiated attacks on Ford by members such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., reveal that they have predetermined the outcome of the hearing.
(“She had plenty of chances to bring it up, she did not,” Graham said.
“We’re not going to play this game anymore.
We [want] Miss Ford to be heard but clearly to me, in August, she hired a lawyer who’s a very activist lawyer,
who does not like President Trump and paid for a polygraph.”)
But this is no “game,” and
Ford has every right to seek counsel to fend off attacks like the very ones that Republican senators are making.
• There is no need to rush to a vote in the next few days. None. Republicans have set an artificial deadline for fear that more damaging information might come out.
In short, Ford can use the hearing to put the senators, who have behaved shabbily, on defense.
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/comme...ennifer-rubin/
My guess is that she, her lawyer(s), and probably some other very smart people are helping her write a written statement to be read to the Senate.
I think she should request a public, not private appearance, giviving the Senators a national TV chance to show, repeatedly, what misogynist assholes they are.
Apparently, she’s afraid to fly.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...charges-834664
Delay, delay, delay
The studies I provided you, had you bothered to read them, show that we know victims of trauma will often not fully remember everything. Humans tend to forget small details.
So you are going to ignore the evidence that says humans can tell the truth about something and not remember all the details?
nah, i stated i might had voted in 2004 for kerry but can't really remember. i know for sure obama 2 terms and def not gore in 2000.
Go eat a . Delay was fine with you for Garland, and he wasn't accused of attempted rape.
You hypocritical sack of .
I get that you are desperate to believe her with the flimsiest of stories because because its good for blue team.
That doesn't make you a bad person.
And just because 9 out of 10 told the truth in your "do entation" that doesn't mean the 10th didn't flat out lie.
OK here is some evidence. Three people whom she claims to have been in the house on the night of the alleged rape deny either being there or that it happened. Therefore she is mistaken.
If it was 3-1 in her favor, thiS would be over. He’d be done
As noted, the instances of false reports are small.
Barring other evidence we have two accounts. "I dont' remember doing that" and "I remember it happened".
Brett being drunk and not remembering allows both people to be telling the truth, and IN FACT for "it happened" to be true.
Given how rare false, fabricated reports are, and how implausible that someone would be willing to endure personal and professional ruin, stupid bull innuendo from Cosmic notwithstanding, the balance seems fairly obvious.
Especially given the other person alleged in the room had a pretty clear pattern of mysogeny later in life. My guess is that he egged his friend on after getting drunk. no way to know that.
We will never know conclusively, but have enough information to figure out which end of the scale the needle is pointing to.
There are other qualified judges, and it won't be the end of the world.
Why not pick someone who isn't accuse of attempted rape to be a supreme court judge?
... and if you read the actual studies, almost none of the women actually made it up out of whole cloth.
Most of that last 1 just had accounts that were so thinly evidenced, that they had to be shrugged off as unprosecuted-able.
But again, you dont' give two s about evidence, as already noted. Republicans always get the benefit of the doubt, so you can get your preferred ideology's policies. Winning at any cost, and the ends justify the means. Pure moral bankruptcy.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-21-2018 at 04:13 PM.
Mistaken about who was there at the party, sure. that is an ancillary detail.
Again, due to the way memory works, and especially of trauma, that isn't really all that unexpected.
Answer me this:
If you didn't want to be dragged into a media frenzy, or be called to testify in front of congress, would you lie about being there to be kept out of it if it wasn't under oath and with no other consequences?
I wouldn’t but I cannot speak for Dr. Ford
Also, not just at the party - in the room
Her statements I am aware of say that there were three people in the room, her, Kavenaugh, Judge.
feel free to provide a specific account.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions