Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    19 Sep '18 02:509 edits
    There is no proof for either side, so all we have is reasonable doubt. I will now supply the reasonable doubt to exclude the testimony of Christine Ford.

    1. It happened 30 or 40 some years ago. Why wait this long? Sure, it is possible that she was traumatized from the attack, but we all know if Kav was not being put on the Supreme Court, nothing would have ever been said about it. And from what I understand, she does not even claimed to have been raped.
    2. Dims did this with Clearance Thomas as well. It is now an established pattern to accuse conservative nominees of some sort of sexual misconduct without any evidence
    3. Ford has a history of hating Trump and is active in protesting him and even wrote the ACLU that Trump was abusing children at the border. She is obviously apart of the "resist" movement, thus explaining these accusations.
    4. The allegations were known as far back as July, but were held back by Feinstein. Why? Now that it is known, Ford is refusing to testify and insists a lengthy investigation be conducted first by the FBI. Well excuse me, I thought giving testimony was apart of the investigation process. In fact, her testimony is all the evidence we have, so why not present it before the world to see? This conduct is indicative of merely delaying this process as long as possible.
    5. There are no witnesses that will corroborate her story. None.
    6. Women Kav has known and dated have come forth to back him. Not having a pattern of behavior indicates that no such behavior exists.
    7. Judge Kavaugh ruled against Ford's parents in a foreclosure ruling in the past. More bad blood.


    Now it's your turn Dims. Why should we believe Ford?
  2. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    19 Sep '18 03:14
    Originally posted by @whodey
    There is no proof for either side, so all we have is reasonable doubt. I will now supply the reasonable doubt to exclude the testimony of Christine Ford.

    1. It happened 30 or 40 some years ago. Why wait this long? Sure, it is possible that she was traumatized from the attack, but we all know if Kav was not being put on the Supreme Court, nothing would ...[text shortened]... ruling in the past. More bad blood.


    Now it's your turn Dims. Why should we believe Ford?
    You believe Kavanaugh because it serves your political interests to do so.

    You expect the other side to automatically believe Ford because it would serve their political interests to do so.

    I'd prefer to wait to hear their testimony.
  3. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    19 Sep '18 03:21
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    You believe Kavanaugh because it serves your political interests to do so.

    You expect the other side to automatically believe Ford because it would serve their political interests to do so.

    I'd prefer to wait to hear their testimony.
    We all have political bias. So what? You pretend you would really care about this had Kav not been nominated for the Supreme Court? Really?

    Again, all we have is reasonable doubt to go on. I've already shown the bias of the accuser and you don't care because it suits your political goals.
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    19 Sep '18 03:221 edit
    Originally posted by @whodey
    We all have political bias. So what? You pretend you would really care about this had Kav not been nominated for the Supreme Court? Really?

    Again, all we have is reasonable doubt to go on. I've already shown the bias of the accuser and you don't care because it suits your political goals.
    You really have only shown your own extreme biases.

    As you do every day here.

    Kavanaugh is not charged with a criminal offense so the standard of proof is not "beyond reasonable doubt". It is ridiculous to judge the matter by media reports; let the parties testify and unearth whatever other evidence can be found and then apply the proper "preponderance of evidence" standard.

    Politics should have nothing to do with it.
  5. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    19 Sep '18 03:351 edit
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    You really have only shown your own extreme biases.

    As you do every day here.

    Kavanaugh is not charged with a criminal offense so the standard of proof is not "beyond reasonable doubt". It is ridiculous to judge the matter by media reports; let the parties testify and unearth whatever other evidence can be found and then apply the proper "preponderance of evidence" standard.

    Politics should have nothing to do with it.
    She should testify, but won't

    Don't you agree that this is not a good sign?

    But to say that politics should have nothing to do with such appointments is just pretending that reality does not exist.

    Really? We all understand how the system has devolved. Just get your stooges in place to change around the Constitution to your liking.

    In fact, for a very, very, long time, appointing a Supreme Court nominee was automatic. The circus we see around this nomination was nonexistent.
  6. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    19 Sep '18 03:50
    Originally posted by @whodey
    She should testify, but won't

    Don't you agree that this is not a good sign?

    But to say that politics should have nothing to do with such appointments is just pretending that reality does not exist.

    Really? We all understand how the system has devolved. Just get your stooges in place to change around the Constitution to your liking.

    In fact, for ...[text shortened]... Supreme Court nominee was automatic. The circus we see around this nomination was nonexistent.
    If she refuses to testify, then the matter is closed. Kavanaugh will get confirmed.

    I don't remember you making a nostalgic plea for non partisanship when Merrick Garland was denied a hearing and vote.
  7. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    19 Sep '18 03:531 edit
    Originally posted by @whodey
    She should testify, but won't

    Don't you agree that this is not a good sign?
    https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/christine-blasey-ford-is-willing-to-testify-to-congress

    Christine Blasey Ford Is Willing to Testify to Congress


    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/17/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-allegations/1333161002/

    "Both Kavanaugh and Ford said they would be willing to testify."
  8. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52853
    19 Sep '18 07:392 edits
    Originally posted by @whodey
    She should testify, but won't

    Don't you agree that this is not a good sign?

    But to say that politics should have nothing to do with such appointments is just pretending that reality does not exist.

    Really? We all understand how the system has devolved. Just get your stooges in place to change around the Constitution to your liking.

    In fact, for ...[text shortened]... Supreme Court nominee was automatic. The circus we see around this nomination was nonexistent.
    Why don't you read what Kavanaugh wrote in his HS yearbook? It was vetted by the staff of this Roman Catholic school and is disturbing to say the least.

    Then there is the fact Ford had to seek therapy YEARS before K was nominated, and there are therapist notes to that effect and she passed a lie detector test which of course since she in on the other side of your loving picture of K, now means lie detector tests are unreliable, but if K takes the same test which he won't, and fails, that would only prove to you just how unreliable those tests are.

    The thing is, republicans had learned ZERO from the Anita hill testimony 27 years ago. Orin hatch made an absolute fool of himself comparing her to the Exorcist. Now Ford is 'mixed up'.

    And Trump has been thoroughly handled by his handlers this time, not tweeting his usual garbage but now saying both sides need to be heard and what if it takes a couple of weeks, there needs to be an investigation. His staff worked him over real good it seems, for now they have him under control, maybe threatening him with taking away his Iphone so he can't tweet for a week or somethingšŸ˜‰

    So the senate has to know what he said, and come next the next few days it will be clear whether there will be an actual FBI investigation but it looks like Trump already got to the FBI and they deny now actually having to make judgments as to the character of a nominee. Which is utter bullcrap, that is what they are SUPPOSED to do and do all the time for many many nominees
    .
    So we will see how far the hypocrisy goes in the senate hearings.
    They claim if Ford refuses to testify, they will force a vote next Wednesday but they HAVE to listen to what American's are saying and they are saying you better let the FBI do their duty and investigate everything in Kavanaugh's background and all the corroborating evidence Ford can muster also and present their findings to the Senate committee.

    If they don't it will be because Trump has gotten to them. And voters WILL notice come November.

    Trump is actually helping democrats by telling his base, there will be a red wave coming, a landslide is going to take place which, since his base hangs on his every word like he is a tent preacher, they may believe him and not feel like they need to vote and then get a huge surprise come November.

    Godda love it.

    Here is a sample of Kavanaugh's HS days as written by K himself:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-news-kavanaugh-high-school-yearbook-keg-city-sexual-references-20180918-story.html
  9. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    19 Sep '18 11:07
    Originally posted by @whodey
    There is no proof for either side, so all we have is reasonable doubt. I will now supply the reasonable doubt to exclude the testimony of Christine Ford.

    1. It happened 30 or 40 some years ago. Why wait this long? Sure, it is possible that she was traumatized from the attack, but we all know if Kav was not being put on the Supreme Court, nothing would ...[text shortened]... ruling in the past. More bad blood.


    Now it's your turn Dims. Why should we believe Ford?
    "Why wait this long?"
    the woman came forward now and received death threats. why wait this long though?

    well, 30-40 years ago she was young and decided the best way to deal with it is put it behind her. Then, the slimeball became a judge and of course she won't go against a judge. Now that slimeball is almost going to be one of the most powerful people in the US, making decisions that would shape your country for decades. She now decided she would rather put up with the death threats (because of which she and her family apparently had to move) and let the country know that the slimeball also has sexual assault in his past (in addition to being corrupt af).

    In a world where a woman receives death threats for coming forward with rape accusations, i tend to believe the woman.

    There will be no movie starring this woman. No advertising deal worth millions. No book deal. If she is lucky, those rabid psychos will forget about her and that will be that. She had nothing to gain for coming forward with this accusation and everything to lose.
  10. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    19 Sep '18 11:341 edit
    Originally posted by @zahlanzi
    "Why wait this long?"
    the woman came forward now and received death threats. why wait this long though?

    well, 30-40 years ago she was young and decided the best way to deal with it is put it behind her. Then, the slimeball became a judge and of course she won't go against a judge. Now that slimeball is almost going to be one of the most powerful peop ...[text shortened]... be that. She had nothing to gain for coming forward with this accusation and everything to lose.
    Do you also believe the woman who accused Bill Clinton of rape?

    Hillary I think called her a bimbo.
  11. SubscriberPonderable
    chemist
    Linkenheim
    Joined
    22 Apr '05
    Moves
    527860
    19 Sep '18 11:39
    The USA has a Problem. If a supreme court is a battelground Fairness is the first victim.

    In fact whodey has a Point: Why is the committee not enough?
    No1 has a Point: Would anyone even consider a full Investigation by the FBI is not completely confident?

    The time elapsed is not a Point. Kavanaugh could plead on this only if he would admit the roiginal Charge, ask for forgiveness and explain how he changed since.
  12. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    19 Sep '18 11:46
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Do you also believe the woman who accused Bill Clinton of rape?

    Hillary I think called her a bimbo.
    yes, all the evidence point to bill clinton being at least a sexual harasser.

    do try to stay focused on the subject though. i know your mental illness flares up if you don't talk about a clinton for more than 10 minutes, but there is no reason we should have to endure your fits.
  13. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    19 Sep '18 12:56
    Originally posted by @zahlanzi
    yes, all the evidence point to bill clinton being at least a sexual harasser.

    do try to stay focused on the subject though. i know your mental illness flares up if you don't talk about a clinton for more than 10 minutes, but there is no reason we should have to endure your fits.
    So why did the Dims not support his impeachment via a trial in the Senate?

    Would you say that they were aiding and abetting a sexual predator for political purposes?

    You know, the same people that are still there.
  14. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    19 Sep '18 13:08
    Originally posted by @whodey
    So why did the Dims not support his impeachment via a trial in the Senate?

    Would you say that they were aiding and abetting a sexual predator for political purposes?

    You know, the same people that are still there.
    So why is whodey incapable of sticking to a subject for a whole hour before bringing in the Clintons into it?

    Would you say he is obsessed with the Clintons to the point of psychosis? Or bringing up the Clintons ad nauseam is his main tool of trolling and wants to milk it for all it's worth before attempting other trolling techniques because he is lazy and doesn't like moving out of his comfort zone?
  15. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    19 Sep '18 13:171 edit
    Originally posted by @zahlanzi
    So why is whodey incapable of sticking to a subject for a whole hour before bringing in the Clintons into it?

    Would you say he is obsessed with the Clintons to the point of psychosis? Or bringing up the Clintons ad nauseam is his main tool of trolling and wants to milk it for all it's worth before attempting other trolling techniques because he is lazy and doesn't like moving out of his comfort zone?
    The Clintons are very much still apart of the big political picture

    Hillary still gives her 2 cents about the situation, and it is Hillary who funded the dossier about Trump that is an ongoing investigation.

    Naturally, Hillary not being under investigation for colluding with Russians to obtain the dossier does not concern you.

    Perhaps Trump's biggest accomplishment is publicizing the deep state and their media goons.
Back to Top