Reply With Quote
Ding!
I didn't say he shouldn't be called to testify. I said he shouldn't volunteer. You never volunteer to take the stand.
Trump suggests drunk women cannot be sexually assaulted
President Trump suggested during a press scrum that women who are drunk cannot be sexually assaulted.
Trump responded by dismissing Ramirez’s allegation,
in part because she admits she was drinking the night Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her at a party while both of them were students at Yale.
“The second accuser has nothing.
The second accuser doesn’t ever know
—
she thinks maybe it would’ve been him, maybe not, she admits that she was drunk,”
Trump said.
“She admits time lapses —
there were time lapses.
This is a person,
and this is a series of statements that is gonna take one of the most talented,
one of the greatest intellects from a judicial statements in our country —
gonna keep him off the United States Supreme Court?”
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-drun...-3eee23b7a6a7/
Ding!
I didn't say he shouldn't be called to testify. I said he shouldn't volunteer. You never volunteer to take the stand.
Islam is peaceful
Provide any evidence of the woman's motive.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-25-2018 at 03:45 PM.
Hilarious if true
The justice system should put the clamps on people sitting on accusations for decades then using them as a weapon in opportune moments. In fact, someone who does what this woman is doing should be sued and they should lose. There has to be exceptions, of course, like if someone had no idea who did this to them but knew the face and realized "that's him", or in the case of a capital crime that doesn't have a statute of limitations like murder.
To sit on something that supposedly destroyed you until you can create a media firestorm with it, that doesn't really support your privacy or security fear angle. Had she even said anything at age 25 when she already had a PhD in psychology, that would have at least been consistent.
I don't know about this guy, don't give a if I never hear his name again, but the conduit to fame through timing based calculated bombs needs to be addressed.
I’m not going to go back and read this entire thread, but I do want to point out that anything Boutons says regarding women needs to be taken with an even larger grain of salt then normal based solely on the way he’s described any woman that is not a liberal while posting on this site in the past.
I’m nearly positive he’s a very angry sexual male that resents most women.
This from some asshat whose sole metric on how credible the accuser is, is the party affiliation of the accused?
Really?
I generally believe the woman, because that is what the reasonable, evidence based, tentative conclusion should be, barring some other stronger evidence. Doesn't matter who the accused is.
That Kavanaugh was part of an en led, spoiled "bro" culture at his university, with friends that actively bragged about doing the exact kinds of things he is accused of doing, does provide some context, in which to view the claims.
If you want to expect a 15 year old girl to come forward in that era, well that just seems too much "blame the victim-y" to me.
But, by all means, keep being a piece of . The young women and girls hear you loud and clear, and they get to vote their conscience. Keep not believing them and calling them liars.
Most victims never come forward. Many wait decades.
Most don't because they think they won't be believed.
Provide any evidence that waiting for a long time means that the claim is less likely true.
.
What a load of bull . You know full well cases like Whole Woman's Health v. erstedt will get their fourth and fifth anti-abortion votes from Gorsuch and Kavanaugh (vs nobody and Kennedy in 2016) and Roe Vs Wade will be subject to death by 1000 cuts in red states.
strawman
You just can't go more than a few posts without actively lying. It's as sad as it is predictable.
You just validated CC’s point.
K should be impeached for numerous LIES he told Congress, even before the current show.
and therefore K must not be on SCOTUS
K is a Repug/oligarchy PIECE OF that degrades America, just like the kakistocrats throughout Trash's Exec branch.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 09-25-2018 at 04:01 PM.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/u...ein-women.htmlLeigh Corfman recently said that the Republican candidate for Senate in Alabama, Roy S. Moore, sexually assaulted her when she was 14, nearly four decades ago. She said she worried for years that going public would affect her children, and that her history of divorce and financial mistakes would undermine her account. After being approached by a Washington Post reporter, she agreed to tell her story, and later said, “If anything, this has cost me.”
But negative consequences are not the only thing to keep victims from coming forward. Experts point to a more fundamental issue: When the perpetrator is someone they trusted, it can take years for victims even to identify what happened to them as a violation.
Reah Bravo, one of several women who say that the broadcast journalist Charlie Rose made unwanted sexual advances while they were working for him, told The Washington Post, “It has taken 10 years and a fierce moment of cultural reckoning for me to understand these moments for what they were.”
Scott Berkowitz, the president of RAINN, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, said confusion and self-blame are common: “A lot of people who call the national hotline, one of the first questions they ask is, ‘Was I raped?’ ”
Offenders encourage confusion and shame and exploit people’s reluctance to identify themselves as victims. Ms. Valliere said the offenders she treats list two main tactics they use to obscure assaults: They camouflage the act as horseplay or humor, or they act as though nothing happened.
“If they do this enough, the victim can get really confused, like they’re really the bad one for thinking badly about the offender,” she said.
Psychologically, waiting to come forward is consistent with someone telling the truth, and not lying.
That is what we understand about how humans process such things.
"conduit to fame"
What a cliche. Don't you dare question the motives of the woman!!! She's a true believer liberal democrat. She is taking one for the cause. Then ends justify (sic) the means.
Fine. Any evidence? Corroboration? Also, if we are going to start making decisions based on "consistencies" and"usually" and "probably", we should "probably" consider changing the cons ution and eliminating individual rights all together (ironic since that is what you fear from Kavanaugh). Is it usual for the story to change in the ensuing 5 years after it was first told, and then, amazingly EXACTLY when the person you're accusing is up for the Supreme Court? Got any statistics? Have any cynicism at all?
Thanks for making my point.
Ironically, if not for the "current show", we could actually be discussing what he said during his three days of testimony. THAT is actually relevant.
No.
His point was that I have excluded the possibility entirely. It is possible she is lying.
I just don't find his post hoc rationalizations to be very convincing of anything other than his ability to rationalize his seeming belief that Republicans never do these sorts of things and all Democrats and liberals are liars.
Could she be lying? Sure.
How probable is that? Seems to me that the odds are pretty slim to start with, and nothing I have seen really moves the needle on that. That invalidates his point. We disagree on the odds of that, and he wants to lie about what I believe.
I don't think he said anything about how he got rid of his debts during that testimony.
Her motive? closure? vengeance? both totally more legit than K will ever be.
And if she helps keep your lying piece of prick off SCOTUS, great side effect.
So, you don't have any real evidence concerning her motive?Provide any evidence of the woman's motive.
SHE'S DEFINITELY IN IT FOR THE FAME CONDUIT
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
