Woman accuses Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago

[homersapien 11,440]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You wouldn’t demand such a “quantitative construction” if you read their opinions. 

You sound goofy.

I am not "demanding" anything.   

I am criticizing the idea of quantifying their relative positions without a methodology.  It's the same as presenting a written graph that's not based on data. It's opinion dressed up in the guise of data.

You either have a really hard time interpreting actual content, or you are (again) deliberately miss-characterizing other's statements. 

Not good for a wanna-be lawyer.

 

 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

On 9/28/2018 at 11:40 AM, bigbird said:

Yes, opposition for opposition sake is wrong.   If you oppose, do so on the merits not because of the letter in front of their name.  In BK's case, no matter what 10 Dems would have voted no before and after the accusation. It's not like 3 or 4 of them were going to recommend and all of a sudden had a change of heart after the accusation.

At least BK got a hearing. MCConnell didn’t even give Garland that and has openly bragged that that was his finest moment. Republicans getting in a tizzy over opposition to BK is utter hypocrisy. And at least that opposition is deserved. BK has lied under oath, has been accused of sexual assault and has demonstrated an unwavering partisanship. 

[jw 4 au 526]

2 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

At least BK got a hearing. MCConnell didn’t even give Garland that and has openly bragged that that was his finest moment. Republicans getting in a tizzy over opposition to BK is utter hypocrisy. And at least that opposition is deserved. BK has lied under oath, has been accused of sexual assault and has demonstrated an unwavering partisanship. 

Opposition is one thing. Playing the system is another thing. Attacking a person with completely uncorroborated accusations against their morale character as if they are facts is in a completely different universe. That is exactly what Lindsey Grahm was talking about, and I am not even a big fan of his.  It doesn’t matter if you believe her or believe him, there are no facts to these accusations.  Period.

What I have learned through this whole thing is both sides whole heartedly believe different sets of opinions as fact.  For example, you said BK has lied under oath, that is an obvious opinion.  You have no proof. At least be honest with yourself when you spew this crap. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

11 hours ago, jw 4 au said:

Opposition is one thing. Playing the system is another thing. Attacking a person with completely uncorroborated accusations against their morale character as if they are facts is in a completely different universe. That is exactly what Lindsey Grahm was talking about, and I am not even a big fan of his.  It doesn’t matter if you believe her or believe him, there are no facts to these accusations.  Period.

What I have learned through this whole thing is both sides whole heartedly believe different sets of opinions as fact.  For example, you said BK has lied under oath, that is an obvious opinion.  You have no proof. At least be honest with yourself when you spew this crap. 

Of course I don’t have “proof”. I don’t have the documents that contradict the things he said under oath. But congress does. And I suppose that could be why thousands of documents were withheld. And if you want to talk about honesty, anytime a woman comes forward with claims of sexual assault or rape she is automatically doubted and her motives are questioned. But you go right ahead believing boofing is farting and Devil’s Triangle is a drinking game. 

[homersapien 11,440]

22 hours ago, jw 4 au said:

Opposition is one thing. Playing the system is another thing. Attacking a person with completely uncorroborated accusations against their morale character as if they are facts is in a completely different universe. That is exactly what Lindsey Grahm was talking about, and I am not even a big fan of his.  It doesn’t matter if you believe her or believe him, there are no facts to these accusations.  Period.

What I have learned through this whole thing is both sides whole heartedly believe different sets of opinions as fact.  For example, you said BK has lied under oath, that is an obvious opinion.  You have no proof. At least be honest with yourself when you spew this crap. 

Well to state the obvious, regardless of what you think about the testimony, not everyone has committed to the idea that Kavanaugh didn't do it. 

Speaking personally, my first concern with Kavanaugh was his beliefs on executive privilege. And I figure that's why he was Trump's first choice.

Secondly, I had concerns about his beliefs regarding issues that are tipping the balance toward a more oligarchial country than we already have, such as campaign finance reform (Citizen's united), worker rights, financial regulation, gerrymandering, etc.

And it was Kavanaug's Fox interview and the extreme, unprecedented rant about Democrats and Clinton conspiracies convinced me he would be partisan in his thinking.  He exhibited a very unsuitable temperament during this part of his testimony - which he either could not control, or he was using in a cynical way.  (My wife said it sounded like someone who grew up privileged and had always gotten what he wanted, and now, someone was threatening to jerk it away from him.)

And then he was purposefully deceptive and scornful during his testimony to Senators Whitehouse and Klobucher, illustrating more evasion and ill temperament.  He evaded or was deceptive on several questions many times regarding his high school years.

Do I know he did it?  Of course not.  Do I think he did it? Yes I do. 

But I also think he may actually believe he didn't do it, and if so, he's not lying when he says he didn't.  IMO, it's quite feasible he has no memory of it.  It's very easy to believe you didn't do it if you start with no memory of it and you don't want to believe it.  That's just human nature.  

Maybe some of the Democrats did tried to orchestrate the process to their advantage, but in my mind, even if they did so, it has little effect on the facts,  which is the primary issue.  (And if you want to focus on partisanship, consider how the Republicans treated Obama's nominee.  What goes around comes around - for both sides.) 

His confirmation will leave an open wound in the country.  He won't fade into the background like Clarence Thomas.  The resulting political division will be lasting and may fester.  It's a constitutional issue the country really doesn't need at this point.  Titan was the first to touch on this earlier - and after thinking about it - I think he's right on.

Bottom line, I think Kavanaugh should be voted down.  That may - or may not - be "fair" to him, but he's not guaranteed the job and it would be better for the country.

JMHO

[DKW 86 7,440]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Bottom line, I think Kavanaugh should be voted down.  That may - or may not - be "fair" to him, but he's not guaranteed the job and it would be better for the country.

JMHO

 

Buddy, I think so too and have for a while. But all those things that werent being said were said over the weekend by one of his posse members in HS.

In article after article, it is more than obvious that BK is far worse than a privileged a**hole. He is a blatant liar etc. This douche shouldnt be near any courtroom, let alone Scotus. I vote he is impeached from his job now...

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

18 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Buddy, I think so too and have for a while. But all those things that werent being said were said over the weekend by one of his posse members in HS.

In article after article, it is more than obvious that BK is far worse than a privileged a**hole. He is a blatant liar etc. This douche shouldnt be near any courtroom, let alone Scotus. I vote he is impeached from his job now...

 

DKW....don't be bashful my friend. Tell us what you really think.

Maybe if Kavanaugh is voted down Trump can nominate Hillary and we can finally get an FBI investigation of her.

[DKW 86 7,440]

6 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

DKW....don't be bashful my friend. Tell us what you really think.

Maybe if Kavanaugh is voted down Trump can nominate Hillary and we can finally get an FBI investigation of her.

PT, BK is an ass. He lied his rear end off in front of the senate. 

Boofing: Taking recreational drugs like a suppository, not flatulence...
Devil's Triangle: Menage-a-Trois with 2 Males and an aggressive slant. ala Dr Ford.
BK is a lying, Privileged, Pompous, POS. He committed at least perjury and contempt of court if it wasnt for it being the Senate. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 9/29/2018 at 10:42 AM, homersapien said:

I am criticizing the idea of quantifying their relative positions without a methodology.  It's the same as presenting a written graph that's not based on data. It's opinion dressed up in the guise of data.

Ok so you mainstream legal thought is incorrect on this? That's essentially what you are saying. Now that's comedic. 

 

On 9/29/2018 at 10:42 AM, homersapien said:

You either have a really hard time interpreting actual content, or you are (again) deliberately miss-characterizing other's statements. 

Not good for a wanna-be lawyer.

Once again, the old fart refers to me as a "wanna-be lawyer." Lol. It never gets old. Bring it, son. 

[homersapien 11,440]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Ok so you mainstream legal thought is incorrect on this? That's essentially what you are saying. Now that's comedic. 

That doesn't even make sense.

I am saying creating charts and graphs presenting quantitative relationships without basing them on actual data is deceptive.

[homersapien 11,440]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Once again, the old fart refers to me as a "wanna-be lawyer." Lol. It never gets old. Bring it, son. 

Was that inaccurate?  

Are you going to law school for another reason?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

13 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

PT, BK is an ass. He lied his rear end off in front of the senate. 

Boofing: Taking recreational drugs like a suppository, not flatulence...
Devil's Triangle: Menage-a-Trois with 2 Males and an aggressive slant. ala Dr Ford.
BK is a lying, Privileged, Pompous, POS. He committed at least perjury and contempt of court if it wasnt for it being the Senate. 

David.....what perjury did he commit? What has he lied about. I think Ford has told a few also.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

David.....what perjury did he commit? What has he lied about. 

He just gave you at least two examples.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

He just gave you at least two examples.

No he made some accusations but no examples of lies. Tell me what they are. Rachael Mitchell says she found inconsistences in Ford's testimony and would never bring charges against Kavanaugh.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

18 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

No he made some accusations but no examples of lies. Tell me what they are. Rachael Mitchell says she found inconsistences in Ford's testimony and would never bring charges against Kavanaugh.

We've listed them numerous times.  To believe he's telling the truth on these things should get your picture automatically placed next to the word "gullible" in any dictionary.

Beach Week Ralph Club:  Kavanaugh claims this was because he had a "weak stomach."  No one with a half ounce of sense believes that.  "Ralph" by his own admission means "throw up/vomit."  It's pretty clear this is a group of guys who went on a beach trip together and were getting wasted to the point of throwing up while there.

boofing:  BK claims this was about 'flatulence.'  There are zero references anywhere you can find outside of his testimony to this meaning "farting."  And it's not a term his group made up.  It actually has a couple of meanings if you look online in Urban Dictionary and places like that for meanings of slang terms.  It's sometimes used to refer to anal sex (sometimes shortened to "bufu" - butt f***), and sometimes to taking drugs via one's anus like a suppository.  

Devil's Triangle:  BK claims this was a drinking game like quarters.  There are no/were no references to that definition for that term anywhere to be found online before his testimony.  Besides an innocuous name for the Bermuda Triangle, it is a crude sexual reference for a threesome.  I said "were" no references because someone with an IP address traced back to a GOP House of Representative's office tried to alter the Wikipedia entry after BK's testimony to add the "drinking game" meaning.  It has since been removed.

That's just three things that he claimed meant innocent or silly things that no one who isn't determined to believe him and disbelieve her for partisan reasons believes.  He flat out lied.  And that doesn't even get into the BS explanation for Renate Alumnus that he claimed was about a group of boys being friends with an actual girl named Renate.  One person in the group has already said it was a bunch of guys who either had sex with the girl or claimed to have had sex with her.  Another yearbook reference to her from one of the guys had this:  “You need a date / and it’s getting late / so don’t hesitate / to call Renate.”  So, at best, it's making fun of her being a last second fallback plan.

So a reasonable, non-partisan person has to ask themselves, "Why would he lie about all these things?"

If you would read the thread you're posting in before asking questions like this, you wouldn't need to ask most of them in the first place.

And Mitchell said things that we've largely already covered here.  We aren't talking about the standard of proof needed to bring criminal charges against him, so it's hardly a shocker and changes nothing.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

We've listed them numerous times.  To believe he's telling the truth on these things should get your picture automatically placed next to the word "gullible" in any dictionary.

Beach Week Ralph Club:  Kavanaugh claims this was because he had a "weak stomach."  No one with a half ounce of sense believes that.  "Ralph" by his own admission means "throw up/vomit."  It's pretty clear this is a group of guys who went on a beach trip together and were getting wasted to the point of throwing up while there.

boofing:  BK claims this was about 'flatulence.'  There are zero references anywhere you can find outside of his testimony to this meaning "farting."  And it's not a term his group made up.  It actually has a couple of meanings if you look online in Urban Dictionary and places like that for meanings of slang terms.  It's sometimes used to refer to anal sex (sometimes shortened to "bufu" - butt f***), and sometimes to taking drugs via one's anus like a suppository.  

Devil's Triangle:  BK claims this was a drinking game like quarters.  There are no/were no references to that definition for that term anywhere to be found online before his testimony.  Besides an innocuous name for the Bermuda Triangle, it is a crude sexual reference for a threesome.  I said "were" no references because someone with an IP address traced back to a GOP House of Representative's office tried to alter the Wikipedia entry after BK's testimony to add the "drinking game" meaning.  It has since been removed.

That's just three things that he claimed meant innocent or silly things that no one who isn't determined to believe him and disbelieve her for partisan reasons believes.  He flat out lied.  And that doesn't even get into the BS explanation for Renate Alumnus that he claimed was about a group of boys being friends with an actual girl named Renate.  One person in the group has already said it was a bunch of guys who either had sex with the girl or claimed to have had sex with her.  Another yearbook reference to her from one of the guys had this:  “You need a date / and it’s getting late / so don’t hesitate / to call Renate.”  So, at best, it's making fun of her being a last second fallback plan.

So a reasonable, non-partisan person has to ask themselves, "Why would he lie about all these things?"

If you would read the thread you're posting in before asking questions like this, you wouldn't need to ask most of them in the first place.

And Mitchell said she wouldn't bring charges, not that she found inconsistencies.  She simply said she wouldn't bring charges based on the evidence.  And that's been already said here before - that we aren't talking about the standard of proof needed to bring criminal charges against him, so it's hardly a shocker and changes nothing.

You have a lot of opinions on his comments but no proof he is lying. You are wrong about Mitchell. She very clearly said she found inconsistencies in Ford's testimony.

I know it's not a court of law but I still choose to believe a person is innocent until proven guilty.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

You have a lot of opinions on his comments but no proof he is lying. You are wrong about Mitchell. She very clearly said she found inconsistencies in Ford's testimony.

These aren't opinions.  They are some common sense, some basic logic, and they are some research on the terms in question.

I corrected my Mitchell comments, but her "inconsistencies" are nothing that many prosecutors have been able to move forward in spite of.  Her memory is remarkably clear given the time since it happened.  The main reason Mitchell wouldn't be able to move forward is that it's so far past the occurrence, and no physical evidence.

Like we said, this wasn't a criminal trial and no one was suggesting she had enough to meet a criminal trial's standard of proof, which is what Mitchell would require to move forward with a prosecution.  In other words, whether she'd move forward with a criminal case is irrelevant.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

29 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

These aren't opinions.  They are some common sense, some basic logic, and they are some research on the terms in question.

I corrected my Mitchell comments, but her "inconsistencies" are nothing that many prosecutors have been able to move forward in spite of.  Her memory is remarkably clear given the time since it happened.  The main reason Mitchell wouldn't be able to move forward is that it's so far past the occurrence, and no physical evidence.

Like we said, this wasn't a criminal trial and no one was suggesting she had enough to meet a criminal trial's standard of proof, which is what Mitchell would require to move forward with a prosecution.  In other words, whether she'd move forward with a criminal case is irrelevant.

Opinions, common sense and terms don't prove anyone is lying. I am aware this is not a court of law but I choose to believe anyone is innocent until proven guilty. You may not agree and that and that's OK I will stand by my choice and wait for some hard evidence.

Truths are hard to come by in this mess but one is certain.....the very moment Kavanaugh was nominated Schumer said the Dems would do EVERYTHING they could to block the confirmation. They have done that is spades and continue to do so on and on.

Maybe the FBI will find something one way or the other. Until then carry on.

[DKW 86 7,440]

PT, you are better than this. Just stop being a partisan hack. 

Whichever term you take for boofing, and i chose the party animal one on purpose, Boofiing is not flatulence. 

I have to admit that the thought of him getting prepped for testimony before the Senate when his BFFs and a bunch pond scum yuppie prep school a**hole congressional aides came up with pseudo definitions for some of these words. Imagine having a job where you go into work one day and conspire with other psypsaca to try and rewrite the urban dictionary in an afternoon. Folks, that is an SNL skit that could be gold, AND it is someone's job in Washing to DC.  

Can you imagine it? Hey, after they quit laughing like a bunch of sophomores at boofing jokes, they then have to reinvent a loosely plausible term to replace it with than log onto wikipedia and begin the gaslighting of a nation. I mean all those deplorables out there and fly over land are so dumb they wont know what Devil' Triangle or Boofing is..

And they get paid for this crap., BY THE TAXPAYERS.

[AuCivilEng1 11,026]

We’re just supposed to all believe that these nicknames for things that he refers to aren’t what the the usual meaning for them are. Even though Devils Triangle and Boofing directly correlates to the accusations being brought on him. Sure it’s easy to just pretend, for his sake. But there comes a point where you have to take the blinders off and use your god given sense. Of course his reference to Devils Triagle means threesomes and not a drinking game that nobody has ever heard of! Come on!!!

[AUFAN78 3,926]

Found this interesting.......language warning.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/466077/origin-meaning-and-derivation-of-boof-as-a-verb-in-u-s-slang

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 10/1/2018 at 9:50 AM, homersapien said:

Was that inaccurate?  

Are you going to law school for another reason?

Oh don’t even give me that BS. No one uses the “wanna-be” qualifier without an intent to devalue. Lol now you’re trying to act like you meant it in a literal sense. You’re funny, man.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 10/1/2018 at 9:48 AM, homersapien said:

That doesn't even make sense.

I am saying creating charts and graphs presenting quantitative relationships without basing them on actual data is deceptive.

Or maybe you’re thinking to deep into all of this ??

[homersapien 11,440]

22 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Oh don’t even give me that BS. No one uses the “wanna-be” qualifier without an intent to devalue. Lol now you’re trying to act like you meant it in a literal sense. You’re funny, man.

For the record, I have no idea of how good of a good student you are and your chances of graduating and then passing the bar.  You might sail right through for all I know. 

The only real faults you have exhibited to me are lack of experience,  arrogance and most disturbingly, a willingness to cheat.  Most - at least the first two - are very common to folks your age.

But back on topic,  you (presumably) "want to be' a lawyer by definition.  If the "wanna be" spelling gives you a problem, that's your problem. 

[DKW 86 7,440]

On 9/29/2018 at 6:33 PM, GiveEmElle said:

At least BK got a hearing.
Republicans getting in a tizzy over opposition to BK is utter hypocrisy.
opposition is deserved.
BK has lied under oath

1

EVERYTHING.SHE.SAID.