I no longer believe the accusers

[eagle1462010]

The left used a Hack with no evidence to back up a claim.............so full of holes that it looked Swiss.......

Then justify it by saying it's a job interview and not a court room.

Pure unethical asshats who could care less that they attacked and tried to destroy a family based on a bunch of lies.

Shows who they are and why they are useless to me. I could care less what they think..........

Just watched the video of Collins trying to get to work.....being screamed at by protesters getting on an elevator......Collins looked scared.........and after the doors closed they gave each other high 5's saying good work team...........because they scared her.

Pure fucking asshats at work using intimidation ...................they are not going to like it if we push back...........

 

[Tilly]

How can an accusation be credible when there’s nothing to back it up and even her own witnesses, including a friend, don’t corroborate any part of her story?
FFS!

Her friend actually issued a statement she believed Ford. She simply stated she couldn't remember the incident. As to why it is credible. You have to look at her testimony, asses if she comes over as believable. Hear Kavanaugh speak and do the same. At that point you have to see who you believe. Not for nothing, EVERYBODY including Trump said she was credible.

Her friend said she was pressurised into adding to her original statement which was that she has no recollection of any such party or incident and had never met Kav.

Frauds testimony was not in the least believable.

Politicians saying she is credible is politicians being diplomatic.
They would be torn limb from limb by the screeching banshees otherwise.
Baseless accusations do not get to destroy a man’s rep and future.

Innocent until proven guilty.

It’s really simple and I believe you are pretending not to get it, unless you are stupid or so partisan you can’t think straight.

Maybe it will happen to you one day and then you’ll get a clearer understanding of why presumption of innocence is so important, particularly when your accuser provides so few details you have no hope of providing an alibi, and you can’t prove a negative.

I'm not pretending I don't get innocent until proven guilty. I'm saying it's a concept that does NOT apply when doing a job interview. Furthermore I know you guys get that since you need no actual conclusive evidence to call her a fraud. To you she is GUILTY of lying. You have just as little bases to make that assessment as I do.

Actually, we do have a basis to judge that she's lying. Her story changed multiple times. The people she claimed were there said they weren't. Her ex's sworn statement that she had indeed helped someone prepare to pass a polygraph after her testimony that she hadn't. His statement that she frequently flew and after living with her for 6 years never knew about her alleged claustrophobia. The fact that the famous second door was installed 4 years earlier than she indicated and that it led to rental space. I can go on, however, you get the idea. It's called a preponderance of evidence.

And Kavanaugh lied about his drinking. He cried when talking about calendars his father who is alive by the way taught him to make. Why are calendars something to cry about? He apparently forgot the meaning of words when explaining some of the things he wrote in the yearbook. He was very amendment of wanting his name cleared. But was resistant when asked to allow the people who's job it is to do so. Etc. Etc. As to the rest. Not remembering something doesn't mean something didn't happen. An argument from ignorance. The same goes that pointing to inconsistencies proves she lied. On the one hand you guys keep on mentioning it's over 30 years ago. On the other hand you guys point to everything she can't remember as prove that she has to be lying. Seems trying to have it both ways in my opinion.

I think you would really benefit from enrolling in some LOGIC classes
You really are incredibly dense.
And you do not speak for women.
You simply agree with the screaming banshees who demand EVERY woman be believed.
Seriously, I couldn’t think of a better person than you to face the same EMPTY allegations that have been thrown at Kav.
You really stink as a human being.

 

[bripat9643]

Her friend said she was pressurised into adding to her original statement which was that she has no recollection of any such party or incident and had never met Kav.

Frauds testimony was not in the least believable.

Politicians saying she is credible is politicians being diplomatic.
They would be torn limb from limb by the screeching banshees otherwise.
Baseless accusations do not get to destroy a man’s rep and future.

Innocent until proven guilty.

It’s really simple and I believe you are pretending not to get it, unless you are stupid or so partisan you can’t think straight.

Maybe it will happen to you one day and then you’ll get a clearer understanding of why presumption of innocence is so important, particularly when your accuser provides so few details you have no hope of providing an alibi, and you can’t prove a negative.

I'm not pretending I don't get innocent until proven guilty. I'm saying it's a concept that does NOT apply when doing a job interview. Furthermore I know you guys get that since you need no actual conclusive evidence to call her a fraud. To you she is GUILTY of lying. You have just as little bases to make that assessment as I do.

Actually, we do have a basis to judge that she's lying. Her story changed multiple times. The people she claimed were there said they weren't. Her ex's sworn statement that she had indeed helped someone prepare to pass a polygraph after her testimony that she hadn't. His statement that she frequently flew and after living with her for 6 years never knew about her alleged claustrophobia. The fact that the famous second door was installed 4 years earlier than she indicated and that it led to rental space. I can go on, however, you get the idea. It's called a preponderance of evidence.

And Kavanaugh lied about his drinking. He cried when talking about calendars his father who is alive by the way taught him to make. Why are calendars something to cry about? He apparently forgot the meaning of words when explaining some of the things he wrote in the yearbook. He was very amendment of wanting his name cleared. But was resistant when asked to allow the people who's job it is to do so. Etc. Etc. As to the rest. Not remembering something doesn't mean something didn't happen. An argument from ignorance. The same goes that pointing to inconsistencies proves she lied. On the one hand you guys keep on mentioning it's over 30 years ago. On the other hand you guys point to everything she can't remember as prove that she has to be lying. Seems trying to have it both ways in my opinion.

Your promoting a series of transparent lies, which makes you a douchebag.

Kavanaugh did not lie about his drinking.

What the fuck does "He was very amendment [sic] of wanting his name cleared" mean?

What he resisted was the thin Dim douchebag excuse for dragging out the with trial any further. Who would want that? The idea that the purpose of the FBI investigation was to clear his name couldn't be a bigger lie. The purpose was to drag out the hearing so the Dim douchebags would have more time to manufacture more dirt.

Not remembering something doesn't mean it didn't happen? And not having pictures of big foot doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Your ignorance of the facts doesn't mean they aren't facts.

Inconsistencies don't prove she lied? Then what would prove she lied? With rules of evidence like that, how could Kavanaugh possibly clear his name?

You have to be a fucking moron not to see the illogic in what you posted.

No I choose to find Ford credible. And I KNOW Tilly's certainty she isn't is misplaced.

Dear God.
I hope you never do jury duty.

And don’t bother with your schtick about this not being a court of law.
If someone’s going to destroy your reputation, your career, and possibly your family in front of the entire world, you should at least have the decency to stick to one version of your story and provide some EVIDENCE.

Seems to me I would be a better juror then you. See I know the difference between what I believe and what I know. You conflate them.

Hmmm, no, you obviously don't. You believe things with no evidence whatsoever, like the claim that Ford is "credible."

 

[Tilly]

Her friend said she was pressurised into adding to her original statement which was that she has no recollection of any such party or incident and had never met Kav.

Frauds testimony was not in the least believable.

Politicians saying she is credible is politicians being diplomatic.
They would be torn limb from limb by the screeching banshees otherwise.
Baseless accusations do not get to destroy a man’s rep and future.

Innocent until proven guilty.

It’s really simple and I believe you are pretending not to get it, unless you are stupid or so partisan you can’t think straight.

Maybe it will happen to you one day and then you’ll get a clearer understanding of why presumption of innocence is so important, particularly when your accuser provides so few details you have no hope of providing an alibi, and you can’t prove a negative.

I'm not pretending I don't get innocent until proven guilty. I'm saying it's a concept that does NOT apply when doing a job interview. Furthermore I know you guys get that since you need no actual conclusive evidence to call her a fraud. To you she is GUILTY of lying. You have just as little bases to make that assessment as I do.

Actually, we do have a basis to judge that she's lying. Her story changed multiple times. The people she claimed were there said they weren't. Her ex's sworn statement that she had indeed helped someone prepare to pass a polygraph after her testimony that she hadn't. His statement that she frequently flew and after living with her for 6 years never knew about her alleged claustrophobia. The fact that the famous second door was installed 4 years earlier than she indicated and that it led to rental space. I can go on, however, you get the idea. It's called a preponderance of evidence.

And Kavanaugh lied about his drinking. He cried when talking about calendars his father who is alive by the way taught him to make. Why are calendars something to cry about? He apparently forgot the meaning of words when explaining some of the things he wrote in the yearbook. He was very amendment of wanting his name cleared. But was resistant when asked to allow the people who's job it is to do so. Etc. Etc. As to the rest. Not remembering something doesn't mean something didn't happen. An argument from ignorance. The same goes that pointing to inconsistencies proves she lied. On the one hand you guys keep on mentioning it's over 30 years ago. On the other hand you guys point to everything she can't remember as prove that she has to be lying. Seems trying to have it both ways in my opinion.

Your promoting a series of transparent lies, which makes you a douchebag.

Kavanaugh did not lie about his drinking.

What the fuck does "He was very amendment [sic] of wanting his name cleared" mean?

What he resisted was the thin Dim douchebag excuse for dragging out the with trial any further. Who would want that? The idea that the purpose of the FBI investigation was to clear his name couldn't be a bigger lie. The purpose was to drag out the hearing so the Dim douchebags would have more time to manufacture more dirt.

Not remembering something doesn't mean it didn't happen? And not having pictures of big foot doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Your ignorance of the facts doesn't mean they aren't facts.

Inconsistencies don't prove she lied? Then what would prove she lied? With rules of evidence like that, how could Kavanaugh possibly clear his name?

You have to be a fucking moron not to see the illogic in what you posted.

No I choose to find Ford credible. And I KNOW Tilly's certainty she isn't is misplaced.

Dear God.
I hope you never do jury duty.

And don’t bother with your schtick about this not being a court of law.
If someone’s going to destroy your reputation, your career, and possibly your family in front of the entire world, you should at least have the decency to stick to one version of your story and provide some EVIDENCE.

Seems to me I would be a better juror then you. See I know the difference between what I believe and what I know. You conflate them.

Nope, you don’t.
You are happy to see a family have their lives destroyed on a story that is absurdly lacking in ANY facts.
That makes you a despicable excuse for a human being.

 

[ptbw forever]

These women who have came forward to accuse Brett Kavanaugh are all connected and all are part of the "Resist" movement.

All of them lied and need to be prosecuted and receive the maximum penalty as do their lawyers who are also connected and the Democrats who put this all together.

What these people have done is beyond disgusting and they need to be punished.

I hope they get what they deserve and if you are one of those who "Believe" these women, you are the problem and there is no respect or credibility is completely gone. Your status is now that of a partisan hack who deserves hell.

Just start with your first sentence.
Prove it or just Shut the Fuck Up.
.
..
.

Look at the libtard trying to pretend hes a tough guy. Hahaha

Go fuck yourself pussy.

Unlike you, I don't have to pretend.
I asked for proof that Dr. Ford is part of the Resist movement.
I found her online and she's donated all of $80.50 to a Dem candidate, in her entire life.
And participated in one event protesting Trump's cutbacks of $776M to the National Science Foundation.


Now, you go fuck yourself.
.
.
.

Only NBC Notes Kavanaugh Accuser and Lawyer Are Dem Activists

Ford has not only donated to Democrats, but also recently signed on to a Physicians for Human Rights letter protesting the Trump administration’s immigration policy.​

Just consider her lawyer:

Christine Blasey Ford's attorney, Debra Katz, serves as vice chair for a "Soros-funded organization" Project On Government Oversight (POGO) that opposes the Supreme Court confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.

POGO co-signed a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Grassley along with a variety of lefty groups demanding Kavanaugh records. This was the obstruction tactic of choice of the left for trying to secure the Court seat before they fastened on to this latest smear.

In 2017, Katz labeled all senior Trump administration officials to be “miscreants.” Hypocritically, she also staunchly and repeatedly defended Bill Clinton against claims of sexual harassment made by Paula Jones in the 1990s.

"Debra Katz, is a very well known Democratic activist. Who by the way – her lawyer was very defensive of Bill Clinton when he got accused of Paula Jones and said that one allegation of Bill Clinton allegedly taking out his private parts in front of Paula Jones wasn’t enough for sexual harassment. But now, wants to – you know, this Supreme Court nomination not to go forward because of this allegation."

Katz is no more or less partisan than Kavanaugh is, then.
Kavanaugh served as Ken Starr's clerk and right hand in the Bill Clinton investigation, from White Water to Monica Lewinsky.
Sorry, again.

And oh, you forgot that tidbit at the end were Fox tries to bury the fact that Ford DID TAKE A POLYGRAPH TEST AND PASSED.
Something that pussy cocksocket Kavanaugh wouldn't do.

Then Kavanaugh cried last Thursday throwing in that the Clintons were in on this smear of him.
He's the biggest partisan hack to enter the Beltway since Trump.
Try again, loser.
.
.
.

Polygraphs don't mean shit.

If Democrats weren't so anti-science you would understand that.

 

[forkup]

Her friend said she was pressurised into adding to her original statement which was that she has no recollection of any such party or incident and had never met Kav.

Frauds testimony was not in the least believable.

Politicians saying she is credible is politicians being diplomatic.
They would be torn limb from limb by the screeching banshees otherwise.
Baseless accusations do not get to destroy a man’s rep and future.

Innocent until proven guilty.

It’s really simple and I believe you are pretending not to get it, unless you are stupid or so partisan you can’t think straight.

Maybe it will happen to you one day and then you’ll get a clearer understanding of why presumption of innocence is so important, particularly when your accuser provides so few details you have no hope of providing an alibi, and you can’t prove a negative.

I'm not pretending I don't get innocent until proven guilty. I'm saying it's a concept that does NOT apply when doing a job interview. Furthermore I know you guys get that since you need no actual conclusive evidence to call her a fraud. To you she is GUILTY of lying. You have just as little bases to make that assessment as I do.

Actually, we do have a basis to judge that she's lying. Her story changed multiple times. The people she claimed were there said they weren't. Her ex's sworn statement that she had indeed helped someone prepare to pass a polygraph after her testimony that she hadn't. His statement that she frequently flew and after living with her for 6 years never knew about her alleged claustrophobia. The fact that the famous second door was installed 4 years earlier than she indicated and that it led to rental space. I can go on, however, you get the idea. It's called a preponderance of evidence.

And Kavanaugh lied about his drinking. He cried when talking about calendars his father who is alive by the way taught him to make. Why are calendars something to cry about? He apparently forgot the meaning of words when explaining some of the things he wrote in the yearbook. He was very amendment of wanting his name cleared. But was resistant when asked to allow the people who's job it is to do so. Etc. Etc. As to the rest. Not remembering something doesn't mean something didn't happen. An argument from ignorance. The same goes that pointing to inconsistencies proves she lied. On the one hand you guys keep on mentioning it's over 30 years ago. On the other hand you guys point to everything she can't remember as prove that she has to be lying. Seems trying to have it both ways in my opinion.

Your promoting a series of transparent lies, which makes you a douchebag.

Kavanaugh did not lie about his drinking.

What the fuck does "He was very amendment [sic] of wanting his name cleared" mean?

What he resisted was the thin Dim douchebag excuse for dragging out the with trial any further. Who would want that? The idea that the purpose of the FBI investigation was to clear his name couldn't be a bigger lie. The purpose was to drag out the hearing so the Dim douchebags would have more time to manufacture more dirt.

Not remembering something doesn't mean it didn't happen? And not having pictures of big foot doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Your ignorance of the facts doesn't mean they aren't facts.

Inconsistencies don't prove she lied? Then what would prove she lied? With rules of evidence like that, how could Kavanaugh possibly clear his name?

You have to be a fucking moron not to see the illogic in what you posted.

just unbelievable.
Forkup is either gaslighting or is an idiot.

Not gaslighting, as for me being an idiot, could be, but that again is an opinion now isn't it?
- Kavanaugh statements about his drinking have been refuted by a lot of his former Yale acquaintances. Either he lied or they did. Not conclusive but definitely inconsistent.
-At several times during his testimony he said he wanted to do anything to get his name cleared. Several times he was asked if he would support the FBI doing an investigation. He refused to say that he did, to the point of just stop speaking.
You justifying why he would resist that investigation is just the same as me justifying Ford's inconsistencies.
-Bripat refused to even acknowledge that weird crying episode about calender's.
These are inconsistencies. Unlike you I don't think it is conclusive but that doesn't mean they were not there.

 

[forkup]

I'm not pretending I don't get innocent until proven guilty. I'm saying it's a concept that does NOT apply when doing a job interview. Furthermore I know you guys get that since you need no actual conclusive evidence to call her a fraud. To you she is GUILTY of lying. You have just as little bases to make that assessment as I do.

Actually, we do have a basis to judge that she's lying. Her story changed multiple times. The people she claimed were there said they weren't. Her ex's sworn statement that she had indeed helped someone prepare to pass a polygraph after her testimony that she hadn't. His statement that she frequently flew and after living with her for 6 years never knew about her alleged claustrophobia. The fact that the famous second door was installed 4 years earlier than she indicated and that it led to rental space. I can go on, however, you get the idea. It's called a preponderance of evidence.

And Kavanaugh lied about his drinking. He cried when talking about calendars his father who is alive by the way taught him to make. Why are calendars something to cry about? He apparently forgot the meaning of words when explaining some of the things he wrote in the yearbook. He was very amendment of wanting his name cleared. But was resistant when asked to allow the people who's job it is to do so. Etc. Etc. As to the rest. Not remembering something doesn't mean something didn't happen. An argument from ignorance. The same goes that pointing to inconsistencies proves she lied. On the one hand you guys keep on mentioning it's over 30 years ago. On the other hand you guys point to everything she can't remember as prove that she has to be lying. Seems trying to have it both ways in my opinion.

Your promoting a series of transparent lies, which makes you a douchebag.

Kavanaugh did not lie about his drinking.

What the fuck does "He was very amendment [sic] of wanting his name cleared" mean?

What he resisted was the thin Dim douchebag excuse for dragging out the with trial any further. Who would want that? The idea that the purpose of the FBI investigation was to clear his name couldn't be a bigger lie. The purpose was to drag out the hearing so the Dim douchebags would have more time to manufacture more dirt.

Not remembering something doesn't mean it didn't happen? And not having pictures of big foot doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Your ignorance of the facts doesn't mean they aren't facts.

Inconsistencies don't prove she lied? Then what would prove she lied? With rules of evidence like that, how could Kavanaugh possibly clear his name?

You have to be a fucking moron not to see the illogic in what you posted.

No I choose to find Ford credible. And I KNOW Tilly's certainty she isn't is misplaced.

Dear God.
I hope you never do jury duty.

And don’t bother with your schtick about this not being a court of law.
If someone’s going to destroy your reputation, your career, and possibly your family in front of the entire world, you should at least have the decency to stick to one version of your story and provide some EVIDENCE.

Seems to me I would be a better juror then you. See I know the difference between what I believe and what I know. You conflate them.

Nope, you don’t.
You are happy to see a family have their lives destroyed on a story that is absurdly lacking in ANY facts.
That makes you a despicable excuse for a human being.

You think so? Seems just another opinion, not to mention that you just make another assumption that I'm happy about this. First, I don't like that Feinstein didn't go to Grassley and stop him from being nominated. Neither am I happy with Trump for not just pulling him and nominate another judge on the shortlist.I don't like that the left threatened his family nor the right threatened Ford. I'm also not happy that Kavanaugh when he defended himself abandoned any pretense of being someone that could be a judge in an impartial manner. And finally I'm not happy that Ford took over 30 years to step forward. Although on that last one I have personal experience of the difficulty stepping forward on these kinds of things. A difficulty that this entire thing has proved yet again.

 

[ptbw forever]

Nobody "proved" anything, you simply choose to believe the lies.

Again how do you know that, besides your opinion?

If one cannot prove one assertions said assertions by definition false.

No then they are by definition unproven. There is a difference. I can't proof there is life on other planets, yet that does not mean it's proof that there isn't. It's called an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

He was seated because all you people had were her accusations, you lost.

Sure, we lost. I have a feeling though it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory. You now have someone seated on the bench that is on record saying he will not be impartial. You have now seated someone who will be controversial as long as he has the seat. You have now seated someone who will work as a stark reminder to woman what the GOP stands for. It doesn't matter for you, or most other people on the right who posts here. However if there's a better way to alienate independants and make Democrats come out in November I have yet to hear about it.

You are oblivious to how Democrats have alienated independents.

Democrats have attacked the presumption of innocence and due process, things that independents and Democrats have taken for granted for centuries.

You have angered Republicans everywhere, you have turned off long time Democrat voters and you have lost independents.

Despite record turnout you are not blowing us away, we are catching you bastards every step of the way and this is literally the best you can do. We are the majority, and we will make you bow down to our will in November.

 

[forkup]

Again how do you know that, besides your opinion?

If one cannot prove one assertions said assertions by definition false.

No then they are by definition unproven. There is a difference. I can't proof there is life on other planets, yet that does not mean it's proof that there isn't. It's called an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

He was seated because all you people had were her accusations, you lost.

Sure, we lost. I have a feeling though it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory. You now have someone seated on the bench that is on record saying he will not be impartial. You have now seated someone who will be controversial as long as he has the seat. You have now seated someone who will work as a stark reminder to woman what the GOP stands for. It doesn't matter for you, or most other people on the right who posts here. However if there's a better way to alienate independants and make Democrats come out in November I have yet to hear about it.

You are oblivious to how Democrats have alienated independents.

Democrats have attacked the presumption of innocence and due process, things that independents and Democrats have taken for granted for centuries.

You have angered Republicans everywhere, you have turned off long time Democrat voters and you have lost independents.

Despite record turnout you are not blowing us away, we are catching you bastards every step of the way and this is literally the best you can do. We are the majority, and we will make you bow down to our will in November.

You know what the problem is with stating opinion as fact? Facts have the nasty habit of biting you in the ass. Let's just wait a month, before seeing what this does.

 

[eagle1462010]

Again how do you know that, besides your opinion?

If one cannot prove one assertions said assertions by definition false.

No then they are by definition unproven. There is a difference. I can't proof there is life on other planets, yet that does not mean it's proof that there isn't. It's called an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

He was seated because all you people had were her accusations, you lost.

Sure, we lost. I have a feeling though it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory. You now have someone seated on the bench that is on record saying he will not be impartial. You have now seated someone who will be controversial as long as he has the seat. You have now seated someone who will work as a stark reminder to woman what the GOP stands for. It doesn't matter for you, or most other people on the right who posts here. However if there's a better way to alienate independants and make Democrats come out in November I have yet to hear about it.

You are oblivious to how Democrats have alienated independents.

Democrats have attacked the presumption of innocence and due process, things that independents and Democrats have taken for granted for centuries.

You have angered Republicans everywhere, you have turned off long time Democrat voters and you have lost independents.

Despite record turnout you are not blowing us away, we are catching you bastards every step of the way and this is literally the best you can do. We are the majority, and we will make you bow down to our will in November.

Let them implode themselves.............Blue Dogs are turning Red as the Walk Away movement gains momentum...........

 

[ptbw forever]

Meaning she couldn't prove shit but you believe her anyway because Kavanaugh is a poo poo head. Good lord.

Meaning I have only her testimony and Kavanaugh's to go by. In my opinion Ford's was more credible, but that could just be my party affiliation. What isn't an opinion is that a Supreme Court justice should be beyond reproach. Kavanaugh isn't. What isn't an opinion is the a Supreme Court justice should at least hold an illusion of impartiality. Kavanaugh doesn't. What isn't an opinion is that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country is not well served if it's members have put themselves open for demands to recuse themselves by their previous actions. Kavanaugh did.

Prove her allegations.
Prove he isn't "impartial".
He isn't beyond "reproach" only because you bought accusations you can't prove and you choose to believe her.
You'll demand recusal over allegations unproven. You are quite the partisan kid.

As to proving her allegations, I don't have to. My standard of proof to not want him on the Supreme court is that the accusations are credible or not. If you would suggest to put him in jail that standard would be beyond reasonable doubt. It's an important distinction.

Your opinion is not the standard by which anyone's life should be destroyed. You don't him being a Constitutionalist and that's why you don't want him seated. Innuendo and unproven allegations should not derail a man's life. Well unless of curse you're a partisan hack.

Do you care that for hundreds of thousands if not millions of woman getting him on the bench is a slap in the face forcing them to relive their trauma and telling them in no uncertain terms that coming forward against powerful men doesn't pay? Since we are talking about lives being destroyed? Sorry that I don't feel sympathy for the poor little federal judge here.

There are millions of women who are FURIOUS at Ford and especially at the Democrats for politicizing and trivializing their trauma.

Very few of the protesters have ever even experienced anything resembling sexual assault.

 

[ptbw forever]

If one cannot prove one assertions said assertions by definition false.

No then they are by definition unproven. There is a difference. I can't proof there is life on other planets, yet that does not mean it's proof that there isn't. It's called an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

He was seated because all you people had were her accusations, you lost.

Sure, we lost. I have a feeling though it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory. You now have someone seated on the bench that is on record saying he will not be impartial. You have now seated someone who will be controversial as long as he has the seat. You have now seated someone who will work as a stark reminder to woman what the GOP stands for. It doesn't matter for you, or most other people on the right who posts here. However if there's a better way to alienate independants and make Democrats come out in November I have yet to hear about it.

Reminder: your people didn't need mobilization to come out to the polls. Ours did. Your attack on Kavanaugh did that in spades.

Well done.

You do realize there's more of us then there are of you. The thing that has usually skewed the results is that turnout historically is higher on your side. I think if you guys have a high turnout and we do. Republicans lose.

That is no longer true.

 

[eagle1462010]

If one cannot prove one assertions said assertions by definition false.

No then they are by definition unproven. There is a difference. I can't proof there is life on other planets, yet that does not mean it's proof that there isn't. It's called an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

He was seated because all you people had were her accusations, you lost.

Sure, we lost. I have a feeling though it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory. You now have someone seated on the bench that is on record saying he will not be impartial. You have now seated someone who will be controversial as long as he has the seat. You have now seated someone who will work as a stark reminder to woman what the GOP stands for. It doesn't matter for you, or most other people on the right who posts here. However if there's a better way to alienate independants and make Democrats come out in November I have yet to hear about it.

You are oblivious to how Democrats have alienated independents.

Democrats have attacked the presumption of innocence and due process, things that independents and Democrats have taken for granted for centuries.

You have angered Republicans everywhere, you have turned off long time Democrat voters and you have lost independents.

Despite record turnout you are not blowing us away, we are catching you bastards every step of the way and this is literally the best you can do. We are the majority, and we will make you bow down to our will in November.

You know what the problem is with stating opinion as fact? Facts have the nasty habit of biting you in the ass. Let's just wait a month, before seeing what this does.

He countered an opinion with his opinion............were do you spin it to a fact................it is an opinion and the facts of what comes are unknown.............it will be determined by voter turn out in the next election to the consequences..............yet current polling give the GOP a major boost because of the confirmation hearings.............while polls can be wrong and are wrong all the time..........the Dems lost BIG ............will it hold a month or will the next so called crisis made up by the Dems make everyone forget what just happened..............

We shall see................

 

[Tilly]

Actually, we do have a basis to judge that she's lying. Her story changed multiple times. The people she claimed were there said they weren't. Her ex's sworn statement that she had indeed helped someone prepare to pass a polygraph after her testimony that she hadn't. His statement that she frequently flew and after living with her for 6 years never knew about her alleged claustrophobia. The fact that the famous second door was installed 4 years earlier than she indicated and that it led to rental space. I can go on, however, you get the idea. It's called a preponderance of evidence.

And Kavanaugh lied about his drinking. He cried when talking about calendars his father who is alive by the way taught him to make. Why are calendars something to cry about? He apparently forgot the meaning of words when explaining some of the things he wrote in the yearbook. He was very amendment of wanting his name cleared. But was resistant when asked to allow the people who's job it is to do so. Etc. Etc. As to the rest. Not remembering something doesn't mean something didn't happen. An argument from ignorance. The same goes that pointing to inconsistencies proves she lied. On the one hand you guys keep on mentioning it's over 30 years ago. On the other hand you guys point to everything she can't remember as prove that she has to be lying. Seems trying to have it both ways in my opinion.

Your promoting a series of transparent lies, which makes you a douchebag.

Kavanaugh did not lie about his drinking.

What the fuck does "He was very amendment [sic] of wanting his name cleared" mean?

What he resisted was the thin Dim douchebag excuse for dragging out the with trial any further. Who would want that? The idea that the purpose of the FBI investigation was to clear his name couldn't be a bigger lie. The purpose was to drag out the hearing so the Dim douchebags would have more time to manufacture more dirt.

Not remembering something doesn't mean it didn't happen? And not having pictures of big foot doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Your ignorance of the facts doesn't mean they aren't facts.

Inconsistencies don't prove she lied? Then what would prove she lied? With rules of evidence like that, how could Kavanaugh possibly clear his name?

You have to be a fucking moron not to see the illogic in what you posted.

No I choose to find Ford credible. And I KNOW Tilly's certainty she isn't is misplaced.

Dear God.
I hope you never do jury duty.

And don’t bother with your schtick about this not being a court of law.
If someone’s going to destroy your reputation, your career, and possibly your family in front of the entire world, you should at least have the decency to stick to one version of your story and provide some EVIDENCE.

Seems to me I would be a better juror then you. See I know the difference between what I believe and what I know. You conflate them.

Nope, you don’t.
You are happy to see a family have their lives destroyed on a story that is absurdly lacking in ANY facts.
That makes you a despicable excuse for a human being.

You think so? Seems just another opinion, not to mention that you just make another assumption that I'm happy about this. First, I don't like that Feinstein didn't go to Grassley and stop him from being nominated. Neither am I happy with Trump for not just pulling him and nominate another judge on the shortlist.I don't like that the left threatened his family nor the right threatened Ford. I'm also not happy that Kavanaugh when he defended himself abandoned any pretense of being someone that could be a judge in an impartial manner. And finally I'm not happy that Ford took over 30 years to step forward. Although on that last one I have personal experience of the difficulty stepping forward on these kinds of things. A difficulty that this entire thing has proved yet again.

You’ve decided you find someone with no evidence and an ever changing story ‘credible’, that makes you a useful idiot for the screaming banshees who are demanding every woman be believed.
I can guarantee you I know more about the issues involved in stepping forward having been on the receiving end of a violent rape at knifepoint, yet I will NEVER support the idea that every woman be believed, nor will I EVER support a man and his family being destroyed by allegations with no evidence. That you do sickens me, and I am done with you now.

 

[ptbw forever]

If one cannot prove one assertions said assertions by definition false.

No then they are by definition unproven. There is a difference. I can't proof there is life on other planets, yet that does not mean it's proof that there isn't. It's called an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

He was seated because all you people had were her accusations, you lost.

Sure, we lost. I have a feeling though it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory. You now have someone seated on the bench that is on record saying he will not be impartial. You have now seated someone who will be controversial as long as he has the seat. You have now seated someone who will work as a stark reminder to woman what the GOP stands for. It doesn't matter for you, or most other people on the right who posts here. However if there's a better way to alienate independants and make Democrats come out in November I have yet to hear about it.

You are oblivious to how Democrats have alienated independents.

Democrats have attacked the presumption of innocence and due process, things that independents and Democrats have taken for granted for centuries.

You have angered Republicans everywhere, you have turned off long time Democrat voters and you have lost independents.

Despite record turnout you are not blowing us away, we are catching you bastards every step of the way and this is literally the best you can do. We are the majority, and we will make you bow down to our will in November.

You know what the problem is with stating opinion as fact? Facts have the nasty habit of biting you in the ass. Let's just wait a month, before seeing what this does.

The only thing I stated that wasn't yet true is that we are the majority and that we will win in November.

Everything else I stated is observable fact. Your party is literally pretending that walkaway is a Russian campaign because you all are so scared of the reality unfolding before you, and the campaign is only a fraction of the movement. Even if you somehow squeak a victory out in the House the movement will only grow day by day, week by week and on and on until you CAN'T win anymore. 2020 is a done deal and walkaway was really designed to affect 2020 rather than 2018. The fact that walkaway is already big enough to affect 2018 when it was created just months ago means that your party's future is now very very short.

Not only is the walkaway campaign detrimental to Democrats in their current form, but it is a truly wonderful place where the best of humanity shows itself every single day. Anybody who is tired of political violence and tension can go to the walkaway facebook page and be showered with love. The walkaway movement is the REAL spirit of the hippie peace movement. It is an extremely attractive movement comprised of people of all walks of life being the best people they can be. Who wouldn't join that?

 

[blastoff]

These women who have came forward to accuse Brett Kavanaugh are all connected and all are part of the "Resist" movement.

All of them lied and need to be prosecuted and receive the maximum penalty as do their lawyers who are also connected and the Democrats who put this all together.

What these people have done is beyond disgusting and they need to be punished.

I hope they get what they deserve and if you are one of those who "Believe" these women, you are the problem and there is no respect or credibility is completely gone. Your status is now that of a partisan hack who deserves hell.

You no longer believe? How could you ever have believed in the first place with exactly zero corroboration and four witnesses who disputed her claims from the get-go?

 

[miketx]

And they care what you think because......?

Thanks to democrat scum, women everywhere are going to have a much harder time proving anything. Thanks demoscum.

Pure bullshit.

Republicans didn't believe any of the 15 women who came forward about Trump's "issues"..

Did you forget that?

Republicans only believe women when it is about Dems...ya know...like Al Franken

Republicans did not force Franken to resign. Democrats did. Furthermore, we have photographic evidence of Franken's crimes. All of the bimbos accusing Trump were proven to be liars. Hillary paid them off. Lisa Blum admitted it.

Republicans were SCREAMING

And yes Dems do deal with these issues when they arise..unlike Republicans who attack the women...like you just did

Hey Lush, why can't these women prove anything? In the future why will it be even harder for women to prove anything? Because, lush, of this amoral attack on Kavanaugh that nothing was proven yet you still want the judge punished.

 

[Vel]

How can an accusation be credible when there’s nothing to back it up and even her own witnesses, including a friend, don’t corroborate any part of her story?
FFS!

Her friend actually issued a statement she believed Ford. She simply stated she couldn't remember the incident. As to why it is credible. You have to look at her testimony, asses if she comes over as believable. Hear Kavanaugh speak and do the same. At that point you have to see who you believe. Not for nothing, EVERYBODY including Trump said she was credible.

Her friend said she was pressurised into adding to her original statement which was that she has no recollection of any such party or incident and had never met Kav.

Frauds testimony was not in the least believable.

Politicians saying she is credible is politicians being diplomatic.
They would be torn limb from limb by the screeching banshees otherwise.
Baseless accusations do not get to destroy a man’s rep and future.

Innocent until proven guilty.

It’s really simple and I believe you are pretending not to get it, unless you are stupid or so partisan you can’t think straight.

Maybe it will happen to you one day and then you’ll get a clearer understanding of why presumption of innocence is so important, particularly when your accuser provides so few details you have no hope of providing an alibi, and you can’t prove a negative.

I'm not pretending I don't get innocent until proven guilty. I'm saying it's a concept that does NOT apply when doing a job interview. Furthermore I know you guys get that since you need no actual conclusive evidence to call her a fraud. To you she is GUILTY of lying. You have just as little bases to make that assessment as I do.

Actually, we do have a basis to judge that she's lying. Her story changed multiple times. The people she claimed were there said they weren't. Her ex's sworn statement that she had indeed helped someone prepare to pass a polygraph after her testimony that she hadn't. His statement that she frequently flew and after living with her for 6 years never knew about her alleged claustrophobia. The fact that the famous second door was installed 4 years earlier than she indicated and that it led to rental space. I can go on, however, you get the idea. It's called a preponderance of evidence.

And Kavanaugh lied about his drinking. He cried when talking about calendars his father who is alive by the way taught him to make. Why are calendars something to cry about? He apparently forgot the meaning of words when explaining some of the things he wrote in the yearbook. He was very amendment of wanting his name cleared. But was resistant when asked to allow the people who's job it is to do so. Etc. Etc. As to the rest. Not remembering something doesn't mean something didn't happen. An argument from ignorance. The same goes that pointing to inconsistencies proves she lied. On the one hand you guys keep on mentioning it's over 30 years ago. On the other hand you guys point to everything she can't remember as prove that she has to be lying. Seems trying to have it both ways in my opinion.

Only an idiot or someone lacking an attention span thinks that Kavanaugh lied about his drinking. He stated clearly that sometimes he drank too much. He's had people validate the meanings of what, as a child, had been written in his yearbook. His being adamant about the fact that he was already answering their questions plus the fact that he'd already had 6 extensive FBI background checks in no way indicates guilt. Why would he want to continue to allow people to further drag his name through their mud for political purposes? And I can tell you, a woman forgets many things but she doesn't forget the circumstances surrounding the event where she first realized she was sexually vulnerable. You say you speak for your wife, ask her when and where. She'll know. Also, please educate yourself and quit assuming that you speak for women. All that was done here is that the democrat party tried to weaponize the pain and fear of every woman who has ever suffered an assault to turn them into a battering ram against republicans.
https:/www.tennesseestar.com/2018/10/07/nine-times-the-media-pushed-misinformation-about-Kavanaugh/

 

[Pogo]

-Actually 1 of those 65 woman said she was hurt and embarrassed by what Kavanaugh wrote about her in the yearbook Renata was her name. As to the 64 others. If I try really hard I think I can come up with 65 woman I knew in high school I didn't try to rape and even will speak well of me. I will even assume the same for you. Neither is his support universal. Is Brett Kavanaugh’s High School Ditching Him? Nearly 100 Alumni Sign Petition Against the Supreme Court Nominee.
-As to my analogy. It would also be just an instance of a victim speaking up, ONLY to deny this fictitious coach a position so why is it a bad analogy?
-As to the background check. Do you think the FBI speaks to everybody you have ever met when they perform a background check, or seven in this case? I sure as hell don't.

People like you pick and choose based on what you "feel". Sorry but that isn't how things work. I don't make decisions based on feeling, only facts. 7 background checks and nothing but that isn't convenient so you discount it.
Emotions and feelings are the stuff of the weak in these matters, sorry.

People make decisions on feelings all the time. You felt that Trump would be a better President then Clinton. You feel that Ford is lying. Maybe you even feel that God exist. Point is in a lot of decisions in life feeling is often the only thing to go by.

My decisions aren't based on feelings. They are based on facts. I didn't feel Trump would be a better president than the corrupt criminal Hillary. I knew it based on the facts I know about each of them. I also know that Ford is lying.

What you *SHOULD* know by now is that you can't prove that negative. You've been busted on it before.

Nevertheless, here you come again selling the same shit, oblivious to the fact that you'll just get called on it again. Then you'll lick your wounds wondering what happened because you never learn.

When I have ever wasted my time trying to prove a negative? Your moronic insistence they I do so only proves what a dumbass you are.

You haven't. That part sails over your pointed little head. You just plop out dipshit ass-sertions like the one you just plopped above, oblivious to the inconvenient fact that that carries the burden of proof, which you don't have. So when you say "I also know that Ford is lying" the only lying actually going on is in your own ass-sertion because you *DON'T* know that.

And yet you keep digging into the same hole.

 

[bripat9643]

People like you pick and choose based on what you "feel". Sorry but that isn't how things work. I don't make decisions based on feeling, only facts. 7 background checks and nothing but that isn't convenient so you discount it.
Emotions and feelings are the stuff of the weak in these matters, sorry.

People make decisions on feelings all the time. You felt that Trump would be a better President then Clinton. You feel that Ford is lying. Maybe you even feel that God exist. Point is in a lot of decisions in life feeling is often the only thing to go by.

My decisions aren't based on feelings. They are based on facts. I didn't feel Trump would be a better president than the corrupt criminal Hillary. I knew it based on the facts I know about each of them. I also know that Ford is lying.

What you *SHOULD* know by now is that you can't prove that negative. You've been busted on it before.

Nevertheless, here you come again selling the same shit, oblivious to the fact that you'll just get called on it again. Then you'll lick your wounds wondering what happened because you never learn.

When I have ever wasted my time trying to prove a negative? Your moronic insistence they I do so only proves what a dumbass you are.

You haven't. That part sails over your pointed little head. You just plop out dipshit ass-sertions like the one you just plopped above, oblivious to the inconvenient fact that that carries the burden of proof, which you don't have. So when you say "I also know that Ford is lying" the only lying actually going on is in your own ass-sertion because you *DON'T* know that.

And yet you keep digging into the same hole.

Wrong, shit for brains, Ford's claims are the ones that require proof. Being skeptical requires nothing. Those who insist she is credible need to produce some kind of evidence that she should be believed. So far, the have produced nothing.