Yep. But most Americans are ignorant on the FBI and investigations. Heck, they don't even understand DNA either.
They watch TV and understand TV'isms.
Kavanaugh Vote Now in Jeopardy
- Thread starter DaShuckster
- Start date
- Status
They watch TV and understand TV'isms.
"Oh, it's simple. And you're part of the problem here. Learn. And, BTW, I'm a Libertarian." -UCFBS
FIFY
You're saying things that are textbook that most people would say."Oh, it's simple. And you're part of the problem here. Learn.
1) The assault took place 35 years ago, no one was told at all, until the last 5 years (30 years later)
Yes, people remember events of 35 years ago incorrectly, because they've only 'woken up' to it in the past 5 or so years. First-hand here, and mine was 15 years earlier.
2) Of the 4 (now 6) people she named, all deny the entire party and event altogether
This is crucial, and why the US media is complicit in the smear campaign. They have misrepresented the people she told in 2013-2017, after 'remembering', with the people who were allegedly there in 1982, none of whom says she's even remotely correct!
3) Failing to recognize the following differences ...
A) Rape: Violent, assault by another party, that has nothing to do with sex, and is when sober
B) Date Rape: A sexual assault that has to do with expectations by another party, regardless of inebriation
C) Yes Means Yes: A sexual taking by one party, of a helpless other party that cannot give consent, because they are inebriated
She is 3C, and she cannot remember the date, place, etc... She was inebriated, and has difficulty remembering ... plus it was 35 years ago, even 30 years before she 'talked through it' with a professional.
So yes, she literally did not remember that she was even allegedly 'assaulted' for 30 years in 2012, or allegedly even 20 years in 2002 (of which she now says she told her husband), and yes, that happens. Again, first-hand!
And yes, people like that often do not remember the correct person! Let me say that again, they do not remember the correct person! They often have to be discredited by witnesses, before they stop and think and realize they re-associated someone from their past -- of which all of them have!
Let me say that again ...
100% of Ford's own, named witnesses have discredited her 'event.'
So, yes, latent rape memories can be easily discredited when the people say there wasn't even a party! Doesn't mean she wasn't raped, it literally does mean she cannot remember the people involved, and other people absolutely discredited her named person.
That's why she's far from believable, and this is very, very common.
Don’t forget the most important ones should be in red
Democrats have become the majority illiberal party, and civics shall never apply in these cases.
If you asked me back in the 20th century whether I'd see the day where Republicans became more Liberal than the Democrats, especially after I scoffed at my fellow peers that were "Reagan/Teenage Republicans," and the "Family Values" BS by 1994 really made my roll my eyes, I would have laughed.
But by 2006 ... it happened.
And by 2016 ... it's so unreal how bad it is now.
Republicans can be just as illiberal too, and have the history to prove it.
But the Republicans have nothing on the Democrats these days.
Most are even arrogant on how illiberal they've become.
Just watched almost all the testimony. Ford submitted to polygraph. Kavanaugh declined. She's very believable.
Sorry, this guy needs to drop out. Normally, I would give the guy a pass for something done in high school, but given what's at stake, no pass.
Sorry, this guy needs to drop out. Normally, I would give the guy a pass for something done in high school, but given what's at stake, no pass.
Victims of Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly over at Conservative Fox News say you're an asshat.
What did I miss? Oh nothing new?
Confirm this man and defeat this disgusting Democratic smear campaign once and for all
Confirm this man and defeat this disgusting Democratic smear campaign once and for all
They will. But I think the republicans will lose the house and the senate in doing so.
Absolute nonsense. The House sure- that was flipping either way. But not the Senate. And if three red state Dems vote against him? They’re probably done.
You seem to discount how people are viewing the absolute shameful way Feinstein and her crew handled this. Totally disgrace.
Cause that’s the news you look at. And most of my twitter feed says the complete opposite. We each looks at the opinion of who we follow most.
But that’s not what matters. No ones changing my mind or yours. It’s the ones who truly don’t have a “side” that matter.
I totally believe she believes what she says. That's not in doubt. Over 5 years of self-reflection and 'piecing it together' will result in that.
The question is ... how can it be Kavanaugh, when all of 4 of the original witnesses she named in 1982 state she has no idea what she's talking about? This is what happens with latent memories that are re-discovered 30 years later.
I have one that is 15 years old, and went through countless people before I finally admitted I cannot remember the name or face of the person. I can only remember his voice.
Exactly what the Democrats want. They keep asking for an FBI investigation could never happen as well. No one cares about the truth.
If it was even him. That's the problem. Everyone she has named circa 1982 that has given a written, sworn statement, says they have no idea what the heck she is talking about.
What's at stake? This?
Again, most of my colleagues on Facebook are Democrats. I'm a die-hard, freedom loving, classic Liberal. And several females unfriended me when I posted this.
No one cares of the truth, and there are a lot of women that believe whatever take Kavanaugh down is justified -- before this even started.
What happens next time? Same thing? No one cares about the truth, even when everyone she named is saying she is remembering -- including them -- that didn't happen.
Will one, single, Democratic voter please explain why not only did none of Ford's named 'witnesses' from 1982 support her claim, but they signed written statements that said she didn't know what she was talking about? Of everyone she named, no one remembers any party in 1982, or any year, where Kavanaugh was at with her?
The only people supporting her in written statements all admit they didn't hear about it until 2013-2017, and none of their written statements said she named Kavanaugh. This is the problem with latent memories. They are fed by other memories when they are not solidified at the time of the event.
Even I have been through this personally, and to this day, I cannot name the person or remember his face, and mine resurfaced after 15 years. I named a dozen people, and locked in on 1, until I recognized he was someone completely different, and how wrong I was about my certainty until I looked him up. I can only remember his voice.
Everyone she's named from the time of the even counters her. The US media keeps mis-representing people she told 2013-2017 as her 'collaborators,' not the people from 1982 the US media doesn't want to talk about. The ones who also signed written statements that absolutely counter her.
I've never seen it this bad. It's like we're avoiding the obviousness of the truth.
She took a lie detector test; he wouldn’t take one. She said Mark Judge was in the room; Kavnaugh and company didn’t want him the court room to testify. Dem Senators wanted those involved to answer questions from the FBI; Republican Senators didn’t want them interviewed. She seems to be telling the truth; he doesn’t seem to be telling the truth.
Maybe...follow me on this....just MAYBE the memory of abuse is seared into the victims mind, while for everyone else, it was just another party?
If this were a case of a man confronting a priest that molested him 35 years ago, no one would ask why it took him so long to come forward, or question his memory. But because this guy is on your team, or you have some perceived gain coming from his nomination, you back him and victim shame.
Only one person came across as a credible source today, and she did so with grace and kindness.
Hi, Democrat here ready to explain.
You see, she was forced into a bedroom and was attacked. Only Kavanaugh Her and Judge were in that bedroom. To everyone else it was just another evening gathering. Nothing special about it. Why would they remember being at a friend's house 40 years later.
The people who would remember are Judge, Kavanaugh and Ford.
Unless you are trying to tell me you remember every time you went to a friend's house and nothing significant happened then it would be totally normal.
I believe Ford believes everything she has 'pieced together' over the last 5 years.
I also believe all of the collaborating statements are 100% truthful, as they are from 2013-2017 as well.
No argument.
Now, since I 100% agree with Ms. Ford, and the sworn statements from people who she disclosed things do over 2013-2017, are you now going to listen to the counter, sworn statements? Are are you, like the US media, going to keep ignoring them?
You keep dodging this fact, just like the media, while I do not dodge Ms. Ford's statements!
How can Ms. Ford be correct, when the three (3) people (removing Kavanaugh himself) that she named in the actual 1982 event itself came out and said they have no idea what party she's talking about, and even her own, closest friend, of the group said she didn't even know Kavanaugh during that period?!
Answer it for once! At least give an explanation, like I did for Ms. Ford's statements. This is objectivity 101 -- you must address both sets of statements, not just the one you want to believe.
It wouldn't surprise me if Mark Judge was part of the culture, based on his book. It wouldn't surprise me at all.
Do you know how many associates I had that did this crap too in the '80s?
Men that only got to have sex because the women were inebriated?
Even women who got guys they normally wouldn't have because they were inebriated?
I can name a lot ... but since I was there, I'm now a rapist too, right?
Even though I tried to stop some of them?
That is not only 100% theatrical BS, but even the Republicans were 100% ready to let the FBI come in. You know why? Because the FBI can't do crap about a 35+ year old accusation where there wasn't even penetration.
And this is 100% latent memory, from 30 years earlier from her sessions in 2012. I honestly believe she's 'pieced it together.' I honestly do. I honestly believe she's done her best. I honestly do. And that, on its own, wouldn't be an issue.
Except for the three (3) non-collaborating statements from her own, named witnesses in the actual, alleged, 1982 (or so) event! That's what screws it all up! Now you have three (3) people saying she doesn't know what she's talking about!
Can you explain that? Can you give any 'guess' or other 'explanation' for it?! Anything?!
Are you enjoying the theater?
Now, again, why are there three (3) people that Ms. Ford named not just backing Kavanaugh, but saying no party occurred during the period where she and Kavanaugh? Explain that! You cannot keep ignoring it, you must explain that!
Failure to even address it means you cannot even be objective and give a basic explanation. It means you are refusing to look at all the facts. You must look at all the facts.
BTW, do you know the details of Anita Hill's polygraph as well?
Did you know all of her questions were "No"?
Polygraph 101 ... you must mix up No and Yes so someone cannot blank their mind.
That is easily coached.
But still, I honestly believe Ms. Ford believes everything she has 'pieced together' the last 5+ years.
I honestly believe all of her collaborating witness statements ... from 2013-2017.
But I cannot ignore the non-collaborating witness statements ... from 1982!!!
People Ms. Ford herself named! To ignore them is to be completely biased.
Like the US media is repeatedly doing.
Don’t even dignify their blueshit.
Fords Polygraph report had TOTALLY different facts than what she wrote to Feinstein just 8 days later. It is utterly irrelevant and useless and used only by desperate nuts and partisans to smear BK.
Judge has denied it. No one else at the “party” corroborated. Just more mindless disgusting smear from a Democrat like you. Disgusting.
Among three (3) people, they said they never, ever saw Ms. Ford at any party with Mr. Kavanaugh ... and one even verified they didn't know Kavanaugh until much later.
Not 1 person. Not 2 people. 3 people. And in one case, Ms. Ford said her good friend could name Kavanaugh, the same one that came out and said she didn't even know Kavanaugh until later.
But it was not, for Ms. Ford. She forgot it for 30 years ... 20 if she told her husband in 2002, before the 2012 therapy sessions, and then sharing with the first person in 2013, and she still didn't name Kavanaugh.
That's the problem with latent memories. People draw from people they know. I did. I thought it could be a dozen different people. And when I got it down to 1 person, I eventually -- years later -- realized that person was someone else, from years later, that wrong me.
I was so sure it was "Colin." But it wasn't. He was just an a-hole that beat me up.
Yes, but numerous people would confirm that priest. And then he had access, motive, so many other things.
The question for Ms. Ford started with her four (4) attendees, including Kavanaugh. The remaining three (3) completely said there were no parties. The one woman she said knew her, and could collaborate, even said she didn't know Mr. Kavanaugh until years later.
I really feel for Ms. Ford. I do believe she was attacked in her youth. I do believe she finally pieced it together starting in 2012+. I've been there. It's painful to think of being innocent, and someone taking that away, and the pleasure and pain and all that. It's startling.
I also feel for Ms. Ford in how she was "used." This was political timing, no matter who you "blame" for it, it was. She was pushed into this. She was brave for coming out.
But for me to ignore the other 'witnesses' would be wrong, logically. I cannot.
Please look at my voter registration card. What does it say? No Party Affiliation. That has been the case since 1991!!! I have not voted Republican ... but once (Bob Dole).
So stop assuming people who question are Republicans. It's called be a Classic Liberal! We use logic, objectivity, not emotion and illiberal BS.
I'm pro-abortion, pro-contraception, pro Roe v. Wade!!! So stop assuming!
Both were credible. To say one is and the other isn't is not being objective.
If you think she's lying, or "misremembering" the incident, you're the reason why sexual abuse goes unreported the majority of the time.
You're the asshole that comes to mind when people consider coming forward, then they determine it's not worth it. To deal with the disbelief and hate.
You are the problem.
You're the asshole that comes to mind when people consider coming forward, then they determine it's not worth it. To deal with the disbelief and hate.
You are the problem.
Disgusting! Disgusting! Disgusting! I'm outraged and disgusted!
I honestly think Feinstein changed her claim, multiple times. And that's what forced Ms. Ford to come forward, and Feinstein purposely did that.
Ms. Ford was a huge victim in all this. She couldn't back out. At least she looked good in her presentation. But she also looked well coached too. Over 5 years of therapy will do that.
One of the things I've always credited myself in doing is not going to therapy. I've pieced together my latent memory, what happened, not all of it, but enough. And I know the few people I originally accused -- thankfully only in my mind -- were not them. I cannot remember the name or face of that person, only their voice.
Just how I've lived my life since my mid 20s when it all came back to me. I'd talk about it more, but it will give you'all some major fodder. These things aren't things you use for fodder.
I think Kavanaugh is an elite, frat party boy that doesn't represent most of us. But that's also most of the same with all of the politicians up there, especially Feinstein, among others.
The biggest loss in all of this is that so many here cannot be objective. We've lost our Liberal roots. We've refused to accept all facts, even when they conflict. And that's how Liberty dies.
Including my own. Keep that in mind.
Just like judges and health care professionals. People have have to be neutral. We don't want to automatically condemn someone.
The irony here is that I have far more in common with Ms. Ford than you do, and you're saying that. Why?
I'll quote you why ...
"But because this guy is on your team, or you have some perceived gain coming from his nomination, you back him and victim shame." -- Trel MK
Instead of recognizing I'm not only a logical, critically thinking Liberal, who is pro-choice, pro-contraception, pro-woman's rights, but also a victim of sexual assault myself, you see me as a pro-Kavanaugh Republican. Great job!
Honestly, you are the type of person that caused Ms. Ford to be used by the politicians. You honestly don't care about victims. You only care about blaming others. Just like you blame me.
Do you believe Kavanaugh, who's best friend was a teenage alcoholic, who said he like to party, who claimed in his year book that he threw up the most during beach week who would drink during the week and on weekends, who had a reputation for getting drunk, who has been described as a "sloppy drunk" in sworn statements, never at anytime in is whole life had memory loss or blacked out from drinking too much.
That's what his testimony was if you find that believable then good luck to you in life and you're incredibly gullible.
That's what his testimony was if you find that believable then good luck to you in life and you're incredibly gullible.
Does anyone believe devil's triangle is a drinking game?
Just Google it. Find me one reference on the entire internet of this being a drinking game that predates today.
It was sandwiched in between many many sexual references. His testimony today was that it was a drinking game.
If you find that to be believable then you are incredibly gullible.
Just Google it. Find me one reference on the entire internet of this being a drinking game that predates today.
It was sandwiched in between many many sexual references. His testimony today was that it was a drinking game.
If you find that to be believable then you are incredibly gullible.
I believe we cannot ignore the three (3) sworn testimonies from the people Ms. Ford named that were there in circa 1982. That's what objectivity means ... looking at everything.
But you're right, I cannot condemn a man for his associates like I cannot condemn most people who want to associate everything with rape, if it remotely fits. Every time a woman says something is 'rapey' means we most stop and immediately see someone as a predator too (sigh). If so, so many people are guilty ... possibly even me if you ask some of my ex-girlfriends from high school.
That's where we are now. We only want to look at one set of sworn testimonies, the ones that fit the argument, and ignore the others. We want to literally associate everything with rape, "black'n white."
We deserve the world we are getting.
The only nice thing is that we men are now holding all men accountable for actions today, and going forwards. I wish we had that in the '80s. But that aside, I wish we had women who did that too. But we don't.
And that's why the doubt continues to exist. Because it does happen in 2-7% cases, and a good number of the high profile accusations. But even that's not what this is about.
This is about a 30 year latent memory that didn't come out until 2012, and had to be 'pieced together' over years. I had one that was 15 years, and I'll never know. I could see someone on TV that reminds me tomorrow, and I wouldn't know, unless I had session after session to draw it out, and then I would be certain.
I'm not sure that would be good though.
Devils Triangle
A threesome with 1 woman and 2 men. It is important to remember that straight men do not make eye contact while in the act. Doing so will question their sexuality.
Larry: Did you hear that Eric and Brian were in a Devils Triangle with Sarah last night?
Brad: Yeah man, I did, what homo's.
Larry: No man, its cool, they didn't make eye contact.
A threesome with 1 woman and 2 men. It is important to remember that straight men do not make eye contact while in the act. Doing so will question their sexuality.
Larry: Did you hear that Eric and Brian were in a Devils Triangle with Sarah last night?
Brad: Yeah man, I did, what homo's.
Larry: No man, its cool, they didn't make eye contact.
3 sworn testimonies that say they didn't remember. All of the situational evidence points to Kavanaugh being an incredibly wild drunk in high school.
Ford's accusations are serious but what's more serious to me is that he's lying about little details. He's making stuff up to help his case. The devil's triangle, the not ever passing out.
Ford didn't fill in her gaps and the weak spots in her story, which she could have easily done if she were really making this up. Why state that she can't remember how she got to the party when she could have made up a story? She would appear more believable of she remembered these details but she doesn't and she's not filling these gaps with lies.
If her whole story was a lie I believe that she would fill those gaps.
Do we want a supreme court justice that is willing to lie about such trivial things to gain or maintain power? I don't think Kavanaugh is a rapist as an adult and he might be a really nice guy probably is. But he's lying to the Senate about really little things that are inconsequential. There are other candidates out there that can get seated before the election.
You are compromised. You're projecting your own fuzzy memory of your experience onto her. After all, if you can't remember clearly, how could somebody else?
And did you hear this man's ludicrous and unhinged rantings about the public being upset with Trump and taking it out on him, then blaming the Clintons and Democrats? We're now expected to trust that this guy can judge impartially? Give me a break. Next!
Because Ms. Ford admits the same. That's the thing.
Had she remembered Kavanaugh in the 20th century, and had her closest friend she named actually remembered Kavanaugh and any parties with him after Ford said she could back her, I would definitely realize it's not a latent memory that was 'worked out' in the last 5+ years.
Don't shoot the messenger. This is how it works.
But don't believe me ... Google latent memories, and now we draw from our other memories -- especially both pre-21 and, even worse, pre-12.
I'm actually in the pre-12 (10), she was 15.
Again, as an objective individual, I cannot discard what her own, named witnesses swore in writing too, especially her closest friend who she thought would collaborate her story. That's the problem, latent memories draw upon other memories.
You guys keep wanting to ignore those sworn statements, and refuse to address them at all.
And when did he do this? Only after this started. They broke him, whether justified or not, they did.
Remember, you have Democratic Senators up there saying these things about him ...
He had been professional ... until this point. If you literally go after a man's entire career, at some point, some are going to call everyone out on their total hypocrisy. Yes, he was a spoiled elitist ... and he was in a room of spoiled elitists, including all he named too.
Kavanaugh doesn't represent me. None of the Republicans do either. But none of the Democrats do as well. About the only person I can half-way associate in that room with is Ms. Ford. But Feinstein really f'd her over, forced her to come out in how she did it too. That alone got my sympathy.
You guys just want to make your point. Me? I just like to point to all the facts of the situation.
**NOTE: Although I refuse to name anyone, because I cannot, for certain. In fact, if I saw him on TV, I'd be really hesitant, because I cannot ever be certain. Ms. Ford claims she can now, after her 2012 therapy sessions, although even her collaborators didn't name Kavanaugh. I know how this goes. And it's why I cannot ignore all of the sworn statements, in the same regard.
- Status
Similar threads
