Jump to content

six-hopper

Honk if Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted you.

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

He was talking about someone who had zero facts and perjured herself in front of the committee with respect to her history with polygraph testing (something I'm sure they will compassionately not pursue). Absolutely nothing he said about her was untrue. 

I'm not discounting that any woman could have been sexually assaulted by anyone in their past. But having absolutely no evidence at all- literally nothing- doesn't give the impression of believability. And any evidence she might have had- like these supposed notes from her therapy sessions- she refused to provide to the committee. If you're already out there and you're public, I don't understand why you don't put the proof on the table. It's one thing if you're afraid to come forward for years. But she was already forward. This was put up time. I don't know what she ultimately wanted the senate, the FBI, or anyone else, to do about the fact that she refused to provide evidence. Maybe there weren't ever any therapy notes? We'll never know, because she refused to provide them. Nothing she did helped her case. 

I don't know why you even post here anymore.  You're still insisting that victims of sexual abuse need documented proof - it doesn't happen that way.  Why are you still doing that?  Don't you know that predators take that sort of caution before they act?  It never happens in front of a video camera or in front of witnesses who will testify.  Never.  Ask your favourite Catholic priest.  You are clueless, absolutely clueless.  This is a forum for sensible people who have legitimate differences of opinion between left and right in politics and economics, and both of those are acceptable points of view.  You are neither left nor right, you are a misogynistic, xenophobic Trumper.  You do not belong in a forum with decent conservatives and liberals, and it is time for you to leave.   

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, wolverinefan said:

Did we watch the same interview? He flat out mocked her. It was appalling. I know you have a ***** for Trump and that's fine, but condoning his cowardice here really ruins any chance of you ever being taken seriously. 

 

You mean appalling like chasing senators out of restaurants, flipping them off and threatening them and their spouse because you disagree with them politically? Appalling like that? Because that is the sort of crap the left has been doing for months, as encouraged by a democratic congresswoman. 

Did Trump say anything about her that wasn't true? Does she know the address of the house, the date it happened, how she got there, how she got home? Any of that? No, she doesn't. Did he mock sexual assault? No. He called out someone who can't produce a shred of evidence to support their claim. And note that he only called her out after the FBI had concluded she wasn't credible. 

I personally would have liked her to produce the therapy notes to the senate. Grassley told her that it could have been done in a confidential way to protect her privacy. He gave her every opportunity to produce evidence. She refused. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

You mean appalling like chasing senators out of restaurants, flipping them off and threatening them and their spouse because you disagree with them politically? Appalling like that? Because that is the sort of crap the left has been doing for months, as encouraged by a democratic congresswoman. 

Did Trump say anything about her that wasn't true? Does she know the address of the house, the date it happened, how she got there, how she got home? Any of that? No, she doesn't. Did he mock sexual assault? No. He called out someone who can't produce a shred of evidence to support their claim. And note that he only called her out after the FBI had concluded she wasn't credible. 

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

You mean appalling like chasing senators out of restaurants, flipping them off and threatening them and their spouse because you disagree with them politically? Appalling like that? Because that is the sort of crap the left has been doing for months, as encouraged by a democratic congresswoman. 

Did Trump say anything about her that wasn't true? Does she know the address of the house, the date it happened, how she got there, how she got home? Any of that? No, she doesn't. Did he mock sexual assault? No. He called out someone who can't produce a shred of evidence to support their claim. And note that he only called her out after the FBI had concluded she wasn't credible. 

I personally would have liked her to produce the therapy notes to the senate. Grassley told her that it could have been done in a confidential way to protect her privacy. He gave her every opportunity to produce evidence. She refused. 

I'm just going to take the high road since you live in a fantasy world and say that I'm glad that you and no one you are close to have had an experience where you are mocked like Trump did to Dr. Ford. Because holy cow,  the delusion is real. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Charles Liston said:

I don't know why you even post here anymore.  You're still insisting that victims of sexual abuse need documented proof - it doesn't happen that way.  Why are you still doing that?  Don't you know that predators take that sort of caution before they act?  It never happens in front of a video camera or in front of witnesses who will testify.  Never.  Ask your favourite Catholic priest.  You are clueless, absolutely clueless.  This is a forum for sensible people who have legitimate differences of opinion between left and right in politics and economics, and both of those are acceptable points of view.  You are neither left nor right, you are a misogynistic, xenophobic Trumper.  You do not belong in a forum with decent conservatives and liberals, and it is time for you to leave.   

I'm going to take the high road and not be as disrespectful to you as you were to me. 

Again, I don't know how it's done in cannuck-land, but here, people are innocent until proven guilty. I never asked for a video camera. I asked for a date, time and place. Pretty simple stuff. She could offer none of those. And the supposed witnesses she had said they didn't even know him and had no idea what party she was talking about. And when she said she had evidence given to her therapist, she then steadfastly refused to provide those notes to the senate. The senate gave her every opportunity to provide something---anything--- to establish one shred of credible evidence supporting her claim. She could offer nothing of the sort. The FBI then found nothing, too.

I don't know if you have a son, but if you do, you should ask yourself if you'd want him accused of something he didn't do by someone with no evidence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

 

I don't know if you have a son, but if you do, you should ask yourself if you'd want him accused of something he didn't do by someone with no evidence. 

What if he did do it?  Would it be OK if there was no proof of it?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tiger337 said:

What if he did do it?  Would it be OK if there was no proof of it?  

Yes because he's Trump's pick. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

 

I don't know if you have a son, but if you do, you should ask yourself if you'd want him accused of something he didn't do by someone with no evidence. 

What if your daughter was assaulted but had no evidence? You know, like the majority of rape cases. Would you believe her?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wolverinefan said:

What if your daughter was assaulted but had no evidence? You know, like the majority of rape cases. Would you believe her?

Is she a Democrat?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tiger337 said:

Is she a Democrat?  

Hopefully not or she will be chastised for getting too drunk or wearing too scandalous of clothing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, wolverinefan said:

What if your daughter was assaulted but had no evidence? You know, like the majority of rape cases. Would you believe her?

In that hypothetical, I would expect that she'd be able to tell me who, what, where, when. Basic facts. I've asked alot of women the question "If something like this happened to you, would you, at an absolute minimum, remember date, time and place"? They all gave the exact same answer. **** yes.

The bottom line is, Ford couldn't even put a date on the calendar and a place on the map to make him refute where he was. He showed up with calendars from 36 years ago documenting his whereabouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

In that hypothetical, I would expect that she'd be able to tell me who, what, where, when. Basic facts. I've asked alot of women the question "If something like this happened to you, would you, at an absolutely minimum, remember date, time and place"? They all gave the exact same answer. **** yes.

The bottom line is, Ford couldn't even put a date on the calendar and a place on the map to make him refute where he was. He showed up with calendars from 36 years ago documenting his whereabouts.

IF something happened to you. Enough said. Ask someone who it has ACTUALLY happened to and maybe you'd get a real answer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

I'm going to take the high road and not be as disrespectful to you as you were to me

 

He wasn't being disrespectful.  He was just saying what he believes to be true.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tiger337 said:

He wasn't being disrespectful.  He was just saying what he believes to be true.  

Every leftist that has a problem with someone starts throwing out the "ists". That's when I know they have nothing of substance to say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/how-the-trauma-of-sexual-_n_6294546.html

I'll share this article as a starting point, but you can find many others. Note that the date is long before we knew Dr. Ford existed. I'm glad that you don't have experience with this, but many do. 

Read it, stop being such an ignorant and disrespectful dingus, and educate yourself. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sexual assaulters do not do it in front of witnesses.  Don't believe me, ask Weinstein or Rose or Lauer or CK or any other serial pervs that you can think of.  Anyone who thinks that a sexual assault victim has to provide hard evidence is a misogynistic, xenophobic Trumper.  Not a conservative or a Republican.  A Trumper.  Enjoy the last 2 years, the rest of us are going to try to pretend that it never happened.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wolverinefan said:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/how-the-trauma-of-sexual-_n_6294546.html

I'll share this article as a starting point, but you can find many others. Note that the date is long before we knew Dr. Ford existed. I'm glad that you don't have experience with this, but many do. 

Read it, stop being such an ignorant and disrespectful dingus, and educate yourself. 

I never said that Ford may not have been assaulted by someone, in fact, I've said several times on here that it's quite possible that she was. What I have said is that she couldn't prove she was assaulted by Kavanaugh. And when she refused to provide the one key piece of evidence that she insisted supported her claim, she lost any and all credibility with her charge against Kavanaugh. 

Start reading what is actually there, and not what you think is there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Charles Liston said:

Sexual assaulters do not do it in front of witnesses.  Don't believe me, ask Weinstein or Rose or Lauer or CK or any other serial pervs that you can think of.  Anyone who thinks that a sexual assault victim has to provide hard evidence is a misogynistic, xenophobic Trumper.  Not a conservative or a Republican.  A Trumper.  Enjoy the last 2 years, the rest of us are going to try to pretend that it never happened.    

In this country we have due process. That's just the way it is. It was that way before Trump and it will be that way after him (God willing). 

Oh, and by the way, she said there was witness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

I never said that Ford may not have been assaulted by someone, in fact, I've said several times on here that it's quite possible that she was. What I have said is that she couldn't prove she was assaulted by Kavanaugh. And when she refused to provide the one key piece of evidence that she insisted supported her claim, she lost any and all credibility with her charge against Kavanaugh. 

Start reading what is actually there, and not what you think is there. 

And per the usual, you not only completely ignore my point, but try to throw in an insult too. I quit. You’re so wrapped up in your fantasy land that there is no point in speaking to you. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

I never said that Ford may not have been assaulted by someone, in fact, I've said several times on here that it's quite possible that she was. What I have said is that she couldn't prove she was assaulted by Kavanaugh. And when she refused to provide the one key piece of evidence that she insisted supported her claim, she lost any and all credibility with her charge against Kavanaugh. 

Start reading what is actually there, and not what you think is there. 

Really, you should just stop now.  Don't announce that you are leaving, just stop posting.  How many times do you have to be told that there is never any "proof" of sexual assault?  How many more times would you have to be told?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Charles Liston said:

Really, you should just stop now.  Don't announce that you are leaving, just stop posting.  How many times do you have to be told that there is never any "proof" of sexual assault?  How many more times would you have to be told?

There's never any proof, huh? Ford is the one who said that there was in fact a witness in her case- Mark Judge. He then provided a sworn statement that he has no recollection of anything of the sort and that he never saw Kavanaugh act in that manner. And ford is also the one that said she had therapist's notes where she discussed this. Notes she subsequently refused to provide to the senate when they were requested. 

I don't care what the alleged crime is, that's still an 0 for 2. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wolverinefan said:

And per the usual, you completely ignore my point. I quit. You’re so wrapped up in your fantasy land that there is no point in speaking to you. 

I understand.  You're right, there is no point.  Don't speak to him anymore, he's not worthy of you.  He doesn't have any useful or original ideas about it.  Neither do I, because it never happened to me, thank goodness.  But that doesn't give me the right to be an ***hole when someone tries to explain it to me so that I could learn something that was not taught at the dinner table at Fred Trump's place.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

Every leftist that has a problem with someone starts throwing out the "ists". That's when I know they have nothing of substance to say. 

Just bolding this for the irony. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Gehringer_2 said:

doesn't make it any less nonsense. The corporation is the creation of statue law, the idea that it could have inherent rights beyond the reach of statue law is just an example of how silly legal 'reasoning' gets, in any era. CU conflated the convenience of letting corporations appear administratively as single entities with them having some kind of existential standing, which is just the same old logical fallacy of imputing actual existence to conceptual constructs,  which dates back a lot further than 1830. To be precise - at least St Anselm in 1100 AD. There is nothing new under the Sun in bad reasoning. I would note it took a lot longer than 200 yrs for Anselm to finally not be taken seriously, the same will eventually happen to current US corporate jurisprudence.

You're right, St. Anselm was around long before 1830.  I think he was born in the same year as another legendary bad reasoner, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...