- Feb 14, 2005
- 6,789
- 1,044
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
she was at an anti trump rally. call it what you want.
Upvote
0
She was at the March for Science, just as I stated. If Trump and his supporters want to see the March for Science as anti-Trump, well, that's up to them.
Again, that's up to you guys if you want to see being in favor of science as anti-Trump.she was at an anti trump rally. call it what you want.
nope. There's is plenty of examples outside of kavanaughs case too.Oh, and then cause her to magically forget every possible detail, expect who the guy was and how many beers she had. LOL!
the March of Science is not science. Hive-Mind Worship of “Science” at the March for Science Undermined the Point and Hurt the CauseAgain, that's up to you guys if you want to see being in favor of science as anti-Trump.
Did you read the article or did you just like the title? Do you think it supports the March as being anti-Trump stance (hint it doesn't). If not I'm curious why you posted it in response to the post you did.the March of Science is not science. Hive-Mind Worship of “Science” at the March for Science Undermined the Point and Hurt the Cause
So you disagree that "March for science" is not science?Did you read the article or did you just like the title? Do you think it supports the March as being anti-Trump stance (hint it doesn't). If not I'm curious why you posted it in response to the post you did.
Why do you think Dr Ford may have found this a cause worthy to march for?
You didn't answer my questions.So you disagree that "March for science" is not science?
This isn't ancient Judaic dialectics. Someone asked some very pertinent questions (ie. did you read the very article you quoted).So you disagree that "March for science" is not science?
No, it doesn't work that way. All are innocent until proven guilty.What I am starting to sense in discussions of this sort is that when a male is accused of a sexual indiscretion, he is innocent until proven guilty. On the other hand, it would seem that the female accuser is guilty (of a lie) until proven innocent.
Yes, of course....six years in advance, Ford knew that Donny would be elected president and nominate Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. So she concocted a story to her therapist so that years down the road, she could expose herself to death threats and an FBI investigation all to lie about Kavanaugh when in fact his eeevil twin (goatee and all) actually perpetrated the assault.
The excuses here are getting really desperate. I've heard more plausible theories on fanfiction.net.
Ringo
While the FBI will examine the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez, the bureau has not been permitted to investigate the claims of Julie Swetnick, who has accused Kavanaugh of engaging in sexual misconduct at parties while he was a student at Georgetown Preparatory School in the 1980s, those people familiar with the investigation told NBC News. A White House official confirmed that Swetnick's claims will not be pursued as part of the reopened background investigation into Kavanaugh.
<snip>
Instead of investigating Swetnick's claims, the White House counsel’s office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview, according to several people who discussed the parameters on the condition of anonymity. They characterized the White House instructions as a significant constraint on the FBI investigation and caution that such a limited scope, while not unusual in normal circumstances, may make it difficult to pursue additional leads in a case in which a Supreme Court nominee has been accused of sexual assault.
Not at all proof of anything. The relevant facts in THIS charge need to be uncovered and substantiated. That is what is relevant now.Which it looks like the White House is trying to whitewash already:
White House limits scope of the FBI’s Kavanaugh investigation
So despite your protestations that "all are innocent until proven guilty", it sure looks like there's an attempt at a whitewash in progress. Definitely proof that they're not at all concerned with Kavanaugh's denials and Ford's evidence.
Ringo
Not at all proof of anything. The relevant facts in THIS charge need to be uncovered and substantiated. That is what is relevant now.
Your article does not even support your contention:
"The FBI has received no new instructions from the White House about how to proceed with its weeklong investigation of sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a senior U.S. official and another source familiar with the matter tell NBC News."
"I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion," Trump tweeted in response to an NBC News report citing multiple people familiar with the process who said the White House was limiting the scope of the reopened background investigation of Kavanaugh."
ALL relevant facts need to be addressed, not just the ones the White House finds convenient for them and their nominee. If they can't do that, then Kavanaugh needs to withdraw.
Ringo
If you want to frame an innocent man in public opinion, this is how you do it.
No Possible Alibi
Make a general allegation, but give no specifics. In this case, there's specifics on what happened but nothing that could give the accused a chance to alibi himself. There is no time or place of the crime. Kavanaugh can't research to show that he wasn't in the general vicinity at the general time because there is no general vicinity or time. It's totally open to a million possibilities. She doesn't even know the year or the town. It just happened sometime, somewhere.
Generally when innocent people are suspected or accused, they look to alibi themselves. They simply let their whereabouts at a specific time be known. And Most of the time this works well.
Therefore, if you want to frame an innocent person, you simply take this away. You do exactly as Ford and the Dems have done. Make it a long time ago, somewhere totally unknown. She doesn't know the year, city, details about who was there or how she got there.
No Possible Scrutiny
But this won't work, unless you also eliminate scrutiny. You refuse to testify and claim that an opportunity to testify is actually a form of abuse! You should never have to clarify an accusation. It's anti-woman! Any woman should be able to level a public accusation and never be subject to any kind of official cross-examination.
No Possible Doubt
And, finally, level the axiom that all women should be believed—no matter what! That is the final nail in the coffin for the accused innocent. With these three pillars in place, no innocent man can escape judgement.
It really is the perfect plan. They did some other brilliant things also. Instead of reporting details that do the talking they asked the accuser to speculate on Kavanaugh's motives and intentions. The incident as it stands wasn't actually a crime. He didn't commit rape, but she's pretty sure he was going to in a room with many witnesses. This also was accepted as gospel truth. Do not question. If you do, you're sexist!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?