In wake of Kavanaugh allegations "two of my daughters have told me stories that I have never heard before about things that happened in high school & hadn't told their parents... I don't this we can disregard Ford and the seriousness of this."
happens to women very often, or is not a rare event; to finally recognize and to believe women agonize over powerful incidents like Ford's in silence a lifetime.
Only now with the #metoo movement (obviously sometimes abused as a movement by some) is important as a wake up call for the national conscience.
This is why the Anita Hill hearings were such a sham but important now as view into who we are as men; as they will remain a black mark in American history.
The question is what is the standard of belief. It's somewhere between "All accusers should be believed" and "Innocent until proven guilty" as this is a court of public opinion and not a court of law. Unfortunately, confirmation bias comes into play and people believe those who they want to believe. For me, in every case I'd like to see some corroboration. As the article I've posted 3 times points out, memory is not reliable.
and we all agree, Lauer and Bill O'Reilly are scumbags along with Weinstein. When Al Franken was accused of being a turd to women - not even an abuser per se - he was admonished by you and most if not all Republicans. he was immediately scorned and forced to leave office.
so true to form, once an accuser of Kavanaugh became public with her account of abuse, so to did other accounts become public so what do you all do? You call her and them delusional, mixed up, psychos, liars, partisan and on and on. The Senate majority won't investigate any of the claims against Kavanaugh rather they want the conformation expedited or hurried through.
And yet you stand there calling for fairness and a standard, questioning anyone who sees her and the many others who have come forward as a character witnesses.
I guess your standard is a Double one.
On Franken
1. This took place during your 15 month long hiatus, not sure why you think I "admonished him and forced him to leave office". Really weird that you are blaming me for that.
2. Your thinly veiled defense of him is cute.
3. I've always maintained that it was up to the voters to remove him. He did stupid things, didn't commit impeachable/expellable crimes though in my opinion. I didn't think he should be pressured into resigning and you should note that it was democrats that put the pressure on, not republicans.
On Kavanaugh
1. My position has been consistent.
2. You have no idea what it is.
3. Here is what my opinion is: 35 year old memories are not reliable, both could be telling the truth, some corroboration would be nice. Something could have happened, or not, no way to know. Absent corroboration, have to tilt towards innocent until proven guilty. If there were pictures of the event occurring, like with Franken, then we'd have something to go on.
On the other accounts.
1. They are increasingly less credible.
2. I remain open minded on all, but none approach a level that could be considered credible.
3. For instance, NYTimes and WashPost rejected the 2nd story because they couldn't verify it. The last 2 are worse on the credibility front.
So back to my original point... Agree or disagree?
Back dooring your opinions on one person to throw shade onto another isn't a defense, it's a committal to the former.
This isn't about the NYTimes or WaPo - it's about your double standards of who you side with on the lark idea that memory fades or changes over time - something we all agree is mostly true. These posts are about your "standard" post.
PS: what "thinly veiled"? What does that mean? There is nothing "veiled" in my post. I say investigate the claim - end of idea.
"Back dooring your opinions on one person to throw shade onto another isn't a defense, it's a committal to the former."
I don't even know what this means. Care to clarify? I am guessing it's about Franken. If so, I didn't bring him up. You did.
"This isn't about the NYTimes or WaPo"
It's very strange that you conflated these points that I very clearly separated together, I intentionally organized my post in such a way to make it easy for you to comment on the specific ideas that you disagree with. You chose to shuffle the deck and throw it in a blender, I find that incredibly weird.
Can we agree that if the NYTimes AND WaPo chose not to run this particular story (Deborah Ramirez), it lacks credibility? Or are they in on the double standard right wing conspiracy against the accusers as well?
" - it's about your double standards of who you side with on the lark idea that memory fades or changes over time - something we all agree is mostly true."
What is a "lark idea" and who is the "we" that all agrees? It seems like you are trying to criticize my statement but at the same time agree with it. More weirdness from you, have you been drinking?
You claim I have a double standard, prove it. What in your mind is an equivalent case to the Kavanaugh situation where you think I was inconsistent?
"These posts are about your "standard" post."
Yes, let me replay the tape for you Jim (this is in chronological order, a concept I know that you struggle with)
1. You posted about #MeToo and a wake up call for the national conscience.
2. I agreed with #MeToo being a good thing, but raised the question about the standard of belief in the court of public opinion. I still have no idea what your thoughts are on this question as you've ignored it entirely.
3. You accused me of all sorts of things with out any substantiation (must be what Brett Kavanaugh feels like).
4. I defended myself against your accusations point by point.
5. You conflated my well organized response into a jumbled mess yet still haven't offered any thoughts on my "standard" post. So now what?
Thinly veiled -
"When Al Franken was accused of being a turd to women - not even an abuser per se - he was admonished by you and most if not all Republicans. he was immediately scorned and forced to leave office."
You are blaming me for Al Franken's demise while also pointing out how it wasn't really that bad. This leads me to believe that you are upset that Franken resigned, meaning you didn't think he should have and somehow it's my fault. This is "thinly veiled" as in you're disguising your real opinion on the matter (Franken didn't deserve this) by attacking me.
I shouldn't need to state this, but I had nothing to do with Al Franken resigning his office. I didn't even think that he should have to. But if you were to be intellectually honest, blame for Franken's demise is (in descending order):
1. Al Franken's actions.
2. Democrats that called for him to resign.
Now, who has the double standard?
I do admire you sticking with it, knowing that there is no chance in hell that he will understand what you are talking about.
(no message)
(no message)
Why is it there is only one knee jerk comment for each issue for you nutties?
The investigation should be appropriate and proportional to the accusation. In this case, the accusations have already been investigated as much as the accusations warrant.
I can't believe I'm defending Kavanaugh. I don't even think he was the best choice. You guys are so insane, you compel people who don't like Trump and Kavanaugh to defend Trump and Kavanaugh. It will be interesting to see if this gets out the Red vote this year.
(no message)
(no message)
By the way, a majority of my ND friends are liberals who can't stand Trump. Do you have any friends who defend Trump?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
iggles, CC72 and WestCoastIF.
You're not defending Kavanaugh, your defending you. And you're a Trumpoid so please, don't post how you dislike him again. It makes you come across as even more asinine than you already are.
(no message)
(no message)
about clinton’s. because woman, at times, also play a part for going further than they intended. hormones, you know, both genders have them.
Being such a blowhard all the time must be exhausting for you.
What do you hope to accomplish with such dipshit posts?
Ahhhhhhh! Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi
researching accusations:; let’s just be sure there is something to research. and, when the accusations are proven wrong, let’s be sure the accuser receives an appropriate penatly. ive seen too many lose jobs or worse over false or unproven accusations.
(no message)
If you have a daughter who went through Catholic HS and then college you know this.
So to all of the cuck callers, Fuck you.
(no message)
(no message)