Trump calls Kavanaugh allegations 'scary time' for men falsely accused

[blazes]

16 hours ago, PremiumLane said:

what women have played this card so often, citations and numbers please.

 

 

 

Here the "citations and numbers" are (below) in all their malicious glory. (So, let's not hear any more bleating about sources PLEASE)

You have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to be aware of  how often in the last 30 years wrongful accusations have been thrown at men who subsequently prove to be innocent.  Some are even acquitted in a court of law, but it is always too late: their careers have been ruined, even though they have lily-white reputations.

 

Frankly, I couldn't give a sh!t about either Kavanaugh or his hideous accuser, but what is going on is not even an attempt to achieve "justice".  What is being attempted here is to politicise the court by having it favor "women's rights" and in particular the right to an abortion.  Again, I take no stand on the latter, but I do feel vomitous when all this bile is arrowed at Kavanaugh when the real aim is not to get justice for some poor "girl" of 15, 37 years later, but rather to FORCE through a political agenda.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2farchive%2flifestyle%2f1977%2f11%2f03%2fa-students-accusation-a-teachers-nightmare%2f14c7e3d4-ca68-469c-990c-11a85f7d8053%2f%3f&utm_term=.fa1dc0526148

 

https://www.nachtlaw.com/blog/2018/03/fighting-false-title-ix-accusations-in-academia.shtml

 

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/05/01/students-accused-sexual-assault-struggle-win-gender-bias-lawsuits

 

https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1998/12/09/15false.h18.html

 

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20180910152613101

 

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2017/08/experts_see_flawsin.html

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8284288/Teachers-who-were-wrongly-accused.html

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, attrayant said:

Krugman gets a bull's-eye with his piece in the NY Times: The Angry White Male Caucus

 

“[Trump’s] jihad against Barack Obama was fueled by envy: Obama was a black man who was also a class act, with all the grace and poise Trump lacks. And Trump couldn’t stand it.

 

Kavanaugh is clearly cut from the same cloth, and not just because he rivals Trump in his propensity for lying about matters great and small."

 

The highly privileged are afraid of losing their privilege to social change.

 

IMO Krugman is an liberal with blatently biased articles, and I don't bother reading his stuff anymore. I put zero stock by anything he says now.

BTW, Obama is only HALF black, he is as much white as black. I wish people would stop repeating the propaganda that he is a 100% black man.

Edited October 3, 2018 by thaibeachlovers

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

[canuckamuck]

6 hours ago, utalkin2me said:

Can you answer why Ford wanted an FBI investigation, and kav did not?

 

Ford is a Phd. She obviously isn't someone who is trying to take a quick path to get some attention. She has proven with her career she is willing to put in actual work to achieve life goals. She does not have anhistory of unstable behavior. Her testimony was incredibly convincing, even to Trump ironically. You have to answer for yourself why she would all the sudden male her life a train wreck fiasco, and all for nothing. And then take and pass a polygraph. 

 

Once you start putting the pieces all together, what is left is a man accused of a violent sex crime while plastered drunk, perhaps on the verge of a blackout. And what do we have in Kavenaugh? A man who loved to get plastered, and who seems to have some anger issues, and problems with respecting others even at the highest levels when he is 100% sober. A man who is, at this point, known to lie even while under oath. And, who is known to get extremely uncomfortable when asked about black out experiences he may have had as a youth. 

 

As I have stated, this is a mess because opinions aren't formed in a vacuum. Everyone is politically biased, kinda like climate change. I truly believe if everyone was able to analyze this entire case and watch the testimony without any biases, about 80% of the population would think he did this. And they would probably be correct. 

Based on what? 

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, utalkin2me said:

And then take and pass a polygraph. 

Means nothing if she has an incorrect memory of who did the deed. If she truly believes it was Kavanaugh, she would be telling the truth for the polygraph.

People remember things that happened long ago incorrectly, but can be convinced that they had the correct memory, when in fact it was wrong. My own sister accused me of things that never happened, but she had believed them to be true for decades.

Not for nothing are polygraphs inadmissible in a trial.

Without an independent witness, I am not convinced it was Kavanaugh. Sure, it may have happened with someone, but long ago memory is too unreliable to be evidence as to the perpetrator.

[Credo]

18 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Means nothing if she has an incorrect memory of who did the deed. If she truly believes it was Kavanaugh, she would be telling the truth for the polygraph.

People remember things that happened long ago incorrectly, but can be convinced that they had the correct memory, when in fact it was wrong. My own sister accused me of things that never happened, but she had believed them to be true for decades.

Not for nothing are polygraphs inadmissible in a trial.

Without an independent witness, I am not convinced it was Kavanaugh. Sure, it may have happened with someone, but long ago memory is too unreliable to be evidence as to the perpetrator.

Well, then Kavanaugh's friend who was in the room should explain that it was someone else or are you suggesting she got both of them wrong?

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Credo said:

Well, then Kavanaugh's friend who was in the room should explain that it was someone else or are you suggesting she got both of them wrong?

 

He’s been interviewed twice over two days by the FBI.

 

It seems he had something more to say than ‘I can’t remember’.

[attrayant]

Most people would use a wish to cure cancer, eliminate child poverty or world hunger.  But...

 

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I wish people would stop repeating the propaganda that [Obama] is a 100% black man.

 

...is just bizarre.

 

[johnnybangkok]

Firstly, I find Ford to be a particularly credible individual. I cannot see how she is benefiting from any of this (I’m sure I’ll hear about GoFund and book deals from the more vocal Trumpers soon) and what with death threats and the controversy, it seems it’s actually to her detriment. But putting “did he/didn’t he” aside I find it fantastically hypocritical of all those individuals calling this “political” and “orchestrated by the evil Dems” when the Republicans did even worse with Merrick Garland. With 10 months left in office, this was Obama’s perfectly reasonable nomination; a moderate with no accusation of any impropriety whatsoever yet the Republicans wouldn’t even give him a hearing never mind a vote. Like a petulant child they just flat out refused to even discuss the matter. 

So when you’re whining on that it’s all just “political” and the dems fault, just remember they are simply asking 

for an investigation into a claim of sexual assault, which is far more consideration given than the Republicans ever gave Garland. 

[canuckamuck]

12 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Firstly, I find Ford to be a particularly credible individual. I cannot see how she is benefiting from any of this (I’m sure I’ll hear about GoFund and book deals from the more vocal Trumpers soon) and what with death threats and the controversy, it seems it’s actually to her detriment. But putting “did he/didn’t he” aside I find it fantastically hypocritical of all those individuals calling this “political” and “orchestrated by the evil Dems” when the Republicans did even worse with Merrick Garland. With 10 months left in office, this was Obama’s perfectly reasonable nomination; a moderate with no accusation of any impropriety whatsoever yet the Republicans wouldn’t even give him a hearing never mind a vote. Like a petulant child they just flat out refused to even discuss the matter. 

So when you’re whining on that it’s all just “political” and the dems fault, just remember they are simply asking 

for an investigation into a claim of sexual assault, which is far more consideration given than the Republicans ever gave Garland. 

What evidence or testimony brought you to the conclusion that she is credible?

[ncc1701d]

Just the way he spoke and reacted in the questioning shows to me he has no business in his current job, let alone on the Supreme Court.

[stevenl]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO Krugman is an liberal with blatently biased articles, and I don't bother reading his stuff anymore. I put zero stock by anything he says now.

<snip>

But you still feel the need to share that with us. If I were to mention I don't read something any time somebody posts a link it would clog up the forum.

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

What evidence or testimony brought you to the conclusion that she is credible?

I think her demeanor was stable, focused and plausible in direct contrast to the man-child K who whinged, cried, got angry in equal measures. He didn’t look stable at all and certainly not stable enough for the highest court in the land. 

My thoughts are irrelevant though. There’s an FBI investigation (her request not his) that will hopefully throw more light on the whole sorry mess. 

If he is exonerated then fine. But I still feel he hasn’t shown the right temperament for the job. 

Edited October 4, 2018 by johnnybangkok

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

I think her demeanor was stable, focused and plausible in direct contrast to the man-child K who whinged, cried, got angry in equal measures. He didn’t look stable at all and certainly not stable enough for the highest court in the land. 

My thoughts are irrelevant though. There’s an FBI investigation (her request not his) that will hopefully throw more light on the whole sorry mess. 

If he is exonerated then fine. But I still feel he hasn’t shown the right temperament for the job. 

To be fair he has worked very hard and is now under attack. Half the country is against him and his name is being smeared. I would be angry, I would be emotional about this.

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

To be fair he has worked very hard and is now under attack. Half the country is against him and his name is being smeared. I would be angry, I would be emotional about this.

Yeah but you’re not up for a job on the Supreme Court (I’m guessing). 

With such an important job isn’t temperament important? Isn’t being able to handle pressure a prerequisite? He did neither in my opinion and as much as we may personally relate to his situation and think “I’d be angry”, I expect more composure from these people. 

Edited October 4, 2018 by johnnybangkok

[Srinivas]

10 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Yeah but you’re not up for a job on the Supreme Court (I’m guessing). 

With such an important job isn’t temperament important? Isn’t being able to handle pressure a prerequisite? He did neither in my opinion and as much as we may personally relate to his situation and think “I’d be angry”, I expect more composure from these people. 

moving the goal posts.

he is a rapist

ok not a rapist but a partier, even got drunk, might have thrown ice omg

but he did get angry when accused of rape

ok then he cant handle pressure. yeah thats it. 

 

nice set up.

 

 

 

[utalkin2me]

9 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Based on what? 

Common sense.

 

Read my 3rd paragraph, if you missed it...

 

man accused of a violent sexual crime while drunk...

 

we have a drunk, now known liar who gets angry easily and has no respect for his peers or even people above him, all while he is 100% sober. 

 

It is much easier to explain two potential witnesses who don't remember a small party 36 years ago than it is to explain the following:

 

-Why would ford want an fbi investigation and kav does not? (can you even get past this first question?)

 

-Why would ford take a polygraph, and why would she then pass it?

 

-Why would a doctor, who has no history of false allegations, all the sudden turn her life upside down?

 

-How it can be such a coincidence we are looking for a drunkard who obviously loses control of his emotions and actions, and the person accused is a drunkard who easily loses control even in front of senate committes.

 

Thenwriting is on the wall, if people were actually objective, they would see it. 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 4, 2018 by utalkin2me

[utalkin2me]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Means nothing if she has an incorrect memory of who did the deed. If she truly believes it was Kavanaugh, she would be telling the truth for the polygraph.

People remember things that happened long ago incorrectly, but can be convinced that they had the correct memory, when in fact it was wrong. My own sister accused me of things that never happened, but she had believed them to be true for decades.

Not for nothing are polygraphs inadmissible in a trial.

Without an independent witness, I am not convinced it was Kavanaugh. Sure, it may have happened with someone, but long ago memory is too unreliable to be evidence as to the perpetrator.

This is what I keep saying, what is harder to believe. Empty your mind of all political bias before answering if possible:

 

Person takes a polygraph and passes because she is telling the truth.

 

Person takes a polygraph and passes because she has no idea <deleted> happened even though she stated she is 100% sure and welcomed an fbi investigation, while the accused did not. And the person has held all these pent up emotions for 36 years because she is unsure about the identity of her attacker. 

 

Seriously... think! Think without bias. 

Edited October 4, 2018 by utalkin2me

[jackspade]

On 10/3/2018 at 3:15 PM, mikebike said:

The number of proven false sexual assault claims is around 2%.

 

Yep that is 2%. 

 

Depends on your source. Other studies indicate nearly 10%, which is a hell of a lot.

 

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

[utalkin2me]

3 minutes ago, jackspade said:

 

Depends on your source. Other studies indicate nearly 10%, which is a hell of a lot.

 

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

What is the % of false allegations by professors with their phd? That number is probably approaching 0. And what is the number for phd's with jo history of mental illness or false allegations? It is seriously 0% or thereabouts. 

 

[jackspade]

24 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

Common sense.

 

Read my 3rd paragraph, if you missed it...

 

man accused of a violent sexual crime while drunk...

 

we have a drunk, now known liar who gets angry easily and has no respect for his peers or even people above him, all while he is 100% sober. 

 

It is much easier to explain two potential witnesses who don't remember a small party 36 years ago than it is to explain the following:

 

-Why would ford want an fbi investigation and kav does not? (can you even get past this first question?)

 

-Why would ford take a polygraph, and why would she then pass it?

 

-How it can be such a coincidence we are looking for a drunkard who obviously loses control of his emotions and actions, and the person accused is a drunkard who easily loses control even in front of senate committes.

 

Thenwriting is on the wall, if people were actually objective, they would see it. 

 

 

 

 

 

1. What average American didn't get drunk in college? And most of the ones who did didn't rape people.

2. Let's assume the man is innocent (because—newsflash—he hasn't been found guilty). Wouldn't you get angry if some classmate from 30 years ago brought false allegations against you right before you were going to enter office?

3. No, it's not easier to explain 4 (not 2) witnesses who have no recollection of said event. Not easy at all.

4. Ford might want an FBI investigation because it would drastically slow down Kavanaugh's movement into office. Kav wouldn't want it because he's already through a few, and they are stressful and difficult for him and his family.

5. Anyone who thinks polygraphs are of any value is drastically misinformed and behind the times. They're provably worthless.

6. "We're looking for a drunk. Kavanaugh is a drunk. Therefore, he raped Ford."  Really?

 

Now, if the FBI investigation pans out and Kavanaugh is found guilty, then he'll get the justice he deserves. Meanwhile, let's let the process of law do its job and stop the he-said, she-said.

Edited October 4, 2018 by jackspade

[utalkin2me]

12 minutes ago, jackspade said:

 

1. What average American didn't get drunk in college?

2. Let's assume the man is innocent (because—newsflash—he hasn't been found guilty). Wouldn't you get angry if some classmate from 30 years ago brought false allegations against you right before you were going to enter office?

3. No, it's not easier to explain 4 (not 2) witnesses who have no recollection of said event. Not easy at all.

4. Ford might want an FBI investigation because it would drastically slow down Kavanaugh's movement into office. Kav wouldn't want it because he's already through a few, and they are stressful and difficult for him and his family.

5. Anyone who thinks polygraphs are of any value is drastically misinformed and behind the times. They're provably worthless.

6. "We're looking for a drunk. Kavanaugh is a drunk. Therefore, he raped Ford."  Really?

 

Now, if the FBI investigation pans out and Kavanaugh is found guilty, then he'll get the justice he deserves. Meanwhile, let's let the process of law do its job and stop the he-said, she-said.

The problem is that he has essentially lied about how much he used to drink. Turn on the news, there are at least three college roommates saying he is lyimg while umder oath.

 

And, what do we need for kav to be the person that Ford described.

1. We need him to be a drunk. Check, but as you say not that improbable.

2. We need him to be a liar. Check.

3. We need him to have a temper and be disrespectful toward women/others. Check. 

 

He painted this picture while on the stand.  Not any of us. It is just amazing to me. I personally believe one way to explian is HORRIBLE performance in front of the committee is he has held this in too long and somewhere deep down he wants to be caught. Nobody acts like that in fromt of senators. Nobody, maybe in the history of our country! 

 

The 2 witnesses are the two who's life would not be over if they told the truth. Of course the two guilty people are not going to fess up. Cmon! 

 

I would assume if i got angry I would be toast. So i would not, and would expect my close friends to tell me the same. Not that hard to sit down and answer questions... unless you have an uncontrollable temper.

 

Kavanaugh himself has decided, in writing for all to see, on the usefulness of polygraphs for government jobs! lol... so there goes that argument. I mean you could still be right, but even the accused does not agree. 

 

 

Edited October 4, 2018 by utalkin2me

[stevenl]

39 minutes ago, jackspade said:

 

Depends on your source. Other studies indicate nearly 10%, which is a hell of a lot.

 

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

Your link claims nowhere near that, plus they have the caveat that 'many published reports include data that falls outside of most accepted definitions' (of false allegations).

[jackspade]

35 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

Kavanaugh himself has decided, in writing for all to see, on the usefulness of polygraphs for government jobs! lol... so there goes that argument. I mean you could still be right, but even the accused does not agree. 

 

Google "polygraph effectiveness".  They're not effective. They're just used as political set pieces. Kavanaugh's recommendation of them for government jobs is almost certainly a political one. No informed individual actually believes they work.

[Joe Mcseismic]

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO Krugman is an liberal with blatently biased articles, and I don't bother reading his stuff anymore. I put zero stock by anything he says now.

BTW, Obama is only HALF black, he is as much white as black. I wish people would stop repeating the propaganda that he is a 100% black man.

Hmmmm.....I think it was white men that classified anyone that had up to a sixteenth black blood as black.

Octoroon - one eighth black

High Yella - One sixteenth black.

Yup, and they were still slaves.......because they were still considered as Black by their masters.

 

You do know that the song The Yellow Rose of Texas has nothing to do with flowers.......right?

[canuckamuck]

26 minutes ago, jackspade said:

 

Google "polygraph effectiveness".  They're not effective. They're just used as political set pieces. Kavanaugh's recommendation of them for government jobs is almost certainly a political one. No informed individual actually believes they work.

There is a guy who has come forward saying that Ford formerly coached his friend on how to pass a polygraph. So I wouldn't get too excited about the polygraph result from Ford.

[Srinivas]

13 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

There is a guy who has come forward saying that Ford formerly coached his friend on how to pass a polygraph. So I wouldn't get too excited about the polygraph result from Ford.

If true, then Ford lied during testimony. I was wondering why that question was asked of her in the first place during the testimony.  

[utalkin2me]

5 hours ago, jackspade said:

 

Google "polygraph effectiveness".  They're not effective. They're just used as political set pieces. Kavanaugh's recommendation of them for government jobs is almost certainly a political one. No informed individual actually believes they work.

You can say whatever you would like, but Kav has said they are effective. In a court decision no less. You're arguing that he was lying again? lol. That is a good one. 

 

Let's assume you are right and they are not effective. So what? What is "effective" to some extent is certain parcipants willingness to take them, while others are unwilling, for whatever reason. AND, it just so happens the willing party was the one who wanted the FBI to investigate, while the party who was not willing did not want the fbi involved.

 

If you are 100% innocent, don't you immediately want the fbi out there investigating to clear your name? 

 

One party is clearly afraid of further investigation and polygraphs, and another is not. 

 

 

Anything adding up yet?

Edited October 4, 2018 by utalkin2me

[Srinivas]

The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) Tweeted:
A friend of Christine Blasey Ford told the FBI she felt pressured by Ford's allies to revisit statement on the allegation against Kavanaugh https://t.co/u7XMlpx7RF

creepy

 

[helpisgood]

*Quote removed*

 

Perhaps you are referring to Sack v. U.S. Dept. of Defense, 823 F. 3d 687 (D.C., 2016)?  The text of Kavanaugh's opinion appears at the following link:

 

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20160520134

 

Also, perhaps this is the language from Kavanaugh's opinion that you may have been referring to:

 

"The Government has satisfactorily explained how polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes. It has also explained how the reports assessing the efficacy of those examinations and identifying needed fixes likewise serve law enforcement purposes. Put simply, the reports help ensure that law enforcement officers optimally use an important law enforcement tool. "

 

It's about eight paragraphs up from the end.

 

I hope that helped.

 

And, you are right!  That google.com is amazing!  ???? 

 

PS, I wonder if Kav can ask for legal fees from Ford's team?  ???? 

Edited October 5, 2018 by Scott
add PS