Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[Mountain Man]

The implication of Jim's question was whether or not you understood the difference between a confirmation hearing and a criminal trial, by your answer it is perfectly clear that you don't.

The fact that you think Ford's sketchy accusation would have any chance in a courtroom is hilarious. It wouldn't even make to a grand jury.

[Sparko]

The point was not to assert he WAS guilty, but to point out that his adult reputation does not protect him from suspicion because his college activities are consistent with the sort of person that is more likely to have found themselves lacking self control and acting out of character. Do you understand the difference between the two? I ask because the point you are making here would imply you do not.



There is not 'every' possibility. It is a possibility. lying would have a much lower probability than mistaken based on the facts as we know them.




And that is great, but it has no bearing on the point I was making, as noted above.



We agree - unfortunately you don't seem to be able to understand the point I'm actually making. I attribute that to your own preconceived notions of my position or what I might be trying to say that blind you from being able to understand the words I have actually written.



Absolutely, and nothing I've said is contrary to that. Perhaps you should re-read my post with that in mind rather than with whatever other 'glasses' you had on at the time?



No, what we can conclude is that we can't legally prove guilt and there is not enough corroboration of the accusation even to support a trial, which means he must be presumed innocent legally. There is a very important difference there. Legal innocence is not always innocence (remember OJ?). In fact, as regards sexual assault, legal innocence does not even mean the accused is more likely than not to be innocent - statistically.

But the reality is, AFAIK, most of my posts on this issue have focused on those that have made absolute (and typically disparaging or denigrating) assertions about the guilt of Ford in terms of lying or conspiracy to destroy Kavanaugh, or those that have made absolute assertions regarding the innocence of Kavanaugh. I have not made any assertions about their guilt or innocence beyond we can't know and what the probabilities are. Additionally I have also pointed out why it is unfair to judge Ford for not reporting it when it happened. A good deal of the reason for that rests on how we tend to assume the women was mostly to blame when statistically is turns out most of the time it's the man who is to blame (in cases where the accusation is about an actual assault) and the hostility towards the victim that creates. IOW, we (the men typically in charge) allow our personal fears to create an environment that typically makes the victim of sexual assault a victim of open hostility if she tries to report it and doesn't have an iron-clad case.*

Your reply then simply misses the mark. You appear to be rebutting points I did not make, and not understanding the points I did make.


Jim

*To point that fact out does not imply it is an easy problem to solve.

Jim, I am sure the others in this thread can agree that your posts seem to be finding a way to still believe Ford and hold Kavanaugh accountable despite having no evidence. Because you want to believe her. you keep talking of it being possible to be true and bringing up what ifs and might haves. The truth is that we DONT know. We CANT know. And when that is the case, justice demands that we do not condemn someone on mere accusations. That's what they did to Jesus wasn't it? Not to mention other Christians throughout history. As a Christian you should be against mere accusations having the weight of conviction, whether in a court or in the public mind. A presumption of innocence should prevail. Forgiveness and mercy should be the prevailing and driving force here, not condemnation and destruction based on mere say-so.

[Sparko]

That really isn't True Sparko. IF that where true Ford would not have been subjected to the hostility we saw from several of you on this thread, nor would she have been publicly shamed by the President of the US.

However, it is BETTER today than in the 1950's. On that much we can agree. We can also probably agree it is not as bad as many only the left would portray it to be.

But it is not as you say above. And this thread is one very obvious counter example.


Jim

We are discussing her being mistaken or perhaps lying. No one has shamed her as a rape victim, Jim. That doesn't happen. False rape accusations DO happen. That is why we need evidence. And Ford's circle of friends and like minded liberals are all giving her mounds of sympathy, encouragement, validation, and money. She is also getting drama and notoriety. There is plenty of gain to be had for someone who is seeking such attention or has ulterior motives.

[Mountain Man]

In general and as relates to sexual assault, 'obviously false accusations' is not a practical term.

In general, no; in this specific case, yes.

[seer]

There is plenty of gain to be had for someone who is seeking such attention or has ulterior motives.

Not only that but it would be a big win to keep a pro-life jurist off the court. I suspect that she is an ardent feminist.

[Cow Poke]

Only if people are already predisposed to be skeptical of rape accusations, in which case the problem is the prevalence of rape apologists, not false accusations.

I'm skeptical of ANYBODY making ANY claim against another human being - it's called "presumption of innocence", which USED to be a bedrock principle of our republic. It is downright nutty simply to take somebody at their word without reason, especially under suspicious circumstances.

[JimL]

Not only that but it would be a big win to keep a pro-life jurist off the court. I suspect that she is an ardent feminist.

So, is the entire republican party conspiracy theorists now? Get those tin foil hats out girls and boys!

[Sparko]

Not only that but it would be a big win to keep a pro-life jurist off the court. I suspect that she is an ardent feminist.

might be, and I am not saying she is any of those things. My point is that there IS good incentive out there for someone to lie about such a thing and the argument that nobody would do that because of the shame and ridicule is invalid.

[Sparko]

So, is the entire republican party conspiracy theorists now? Get those tin foil hats out girls and boys!

You sexist! How do you know what genders are in the republican party? What about the other 57+ genders? hmm. You binary sexist, you disgust me!

[Mountain Man]

I suspect that she is an ardent feminist.

She is. She's screamed her head off at anti-Trump rallies, and then she shows up to testify like a meek little child. What a con.

There's a reason she spent the weekend "scrubbing" her social media accounts before going public.

[seer]

There's a reason she spent the weekend "scrubbing" her social media accounts before going public.

Yeah, I wondered why she did that...

[Sparko]

Yeah, I wondered why she did that...

her lawyers would have told her to do that regardless. standard operating procedure.

[Cow Poke]

I just saw a news banner (sound was down) that said "Flake plans on voting yes unless something big changes".

"Something bit", apparently, could include a woman yelling at him in an elevator.

[Sparko]

I just saw a news banner (sound was down) that said "Flake plans on voting yes unless something big changes".

"Something bit", apparently, could include a woman yelling at him in an elevator.

well I figure the vote tomorrow will go about the same as the cloture vote today, 51/49. Unless that one GOP senator from Alaska decides to vote for him tomorrow after all. Then it would be 52/48

But even if they lose one vote, he would still be confirmed because Pence gets to break any ties.

[Cow Poke]

well I figure the vote tomorrow will go about the same as the cloture vote today, 51/49. Unless that one GOP senator from Alaska decides to vote for him tomorrow after all. Then it would be 52/48

But even if they lose one vote, he would still be confirmed because Pence gets to break any ties.

Yeah, I think, from what I can tell, the Republicans would really REALLY like it to pass - even by one vote - without Pence having to break the tie. I mean, yeah - that's normal, but in this case it seems particularly important to the Republicans.