She Actually Appeared

[TLK Valentine]

She got that. It's the presumption of guilt that was questionable.

Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!

Doesn't seem all that questionable these days...

 

[Allandavid]

What you're leaving out of the equation is that Ford didn't have enough evidence after 36 years to prove anything convincingly.

Because it was made darned sure that no evidence of that nature was allowed to be investigated! Why weren’t Ford, Ramirez or Swetnick allowed to be interviewed under oath by the FBI, for example...? Why were none of the other people who claim they have evidence given the opportunity...?

Yes, you certainly won’t have “enough” evidence if you make sure that you don’t look for it...

 

[Belk]

She got that. It's the presumption of guilt that was questionable.

What presumption of guilt by whom?

 

[Aldebaran]

Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!

Doesn't seem all that questionable these days...

Hmmmm....I don't see anything in my post that suggests locking up Dr. Ford.

 

[Aldebaran]

What presumption of guilt by whom?

Presumption of the idea by the democrats that Kavanaugh must be guilty based on the accusation of Ford. The slogans of the Left made it plain as to what passes as proof: "I believe survivors" and "I believe women". First, to be a survivor, you would have to actually survive something. And being a woman doesn't give a person more credibility than a man.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Presumption of the idea by the democrats that Kavanaugh must be guilty based on the accusation of Ford. The slogans of the Left made it plain as to what passes as proof: "I believe survivors" and "I believe women". First, to be a survivor, you would have to actually survive something. And being a woman doesn't give a person more credibility than a man.

Democrats aren't allowed to have opinions in this country?

 

[Aldebaran]

Because it was made darned sure that no evidence of that nature was allowed to be investigated! Why weren’t Ford, Ramirez or Swetnick allowed to be interviewed under oath by the FBI, for example...? Why were none of the other people who claim they have evidence given the opportunity...?

Yes, you certainly won’t have “enough” evidence if you make sure that you don’t look for it...

First, Swetnick had credibility issues far worse than Ford: 3rd Brett Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick has history of legal disputes

Second, Ramirez did get interviewed by the FBI. She also was less than credible: "Ramirez has admitted that she doesn't remember all the details from the night in question and reportedly said she can't be absolutely sure it was Kavanaugh who exposed himself to her."
Brett Kavanaugh accuser Deborah Ramirez interviewed by FBI as part of assault probe

 

[Aldebaran]

Democrats aren't allowed to have opinions in this country?

They already voiced their opinions. What they weren't allowed to do is let those opinions keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court.

 

[TLK Valentine]

They already voiced their opinions. What they weren't allowed to do is let those opinions keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court.

Democrats aren't allowed to act on their opinions in this country?

 

[Aldebaran]

Democrats aren't allowed to act on their opinions in this country?

If they "act" within the confines of the law, then they can act however they want. Actions come with consequences though. The "blue wave" in November is starting to look more like a blue ripple.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If they "act" within the confines of the law, then they can act however they want.

I'm sure they will be relieved to have approval.

To recap: the Democrats had opinions, those in the Senate acted on them, and, parliamentary procedures being what they are, were outvoted.

I believe that there was allegedly something "questionable" about this?


Actions come with consequences though. The "blue wave" in November is starting to look more like a blue ripple.[/QUOTE]

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm sure they will be relieved to have approval.

To recap: the Democrats had opinions, those in the Senate acted on them, and, parliamentary procedures being what they are, were outvoted.

I believe that there was allegedly something "questionable" about this?

Are you talking about the right of the opinions of Senators, or the protesters?
Senators did their job, even though they were clearly more interested in politicizing Ford.
Protesters simply believed who they wanted to believe. Good for them. Even better that they aren't the ones who determine our system of justice.

 

[Belk]

Presumption of the idea by the democrats that Kavanaugh must be guilty based on the accusation of Ford. The slogans of the Left made it plain as to what passes as proof: "I believe survivors" and "I believe women".

That you do not understand the slogans is not proof anyone believed Kavanaugh guilty by default.

First, to be a survivor, you would have to actually survive something.

And this is why the slogans exist. Not because Kavanaugh is guilty by default but because so many are willing to dismiss the claims out of hand. Even though sexual assault is a common experience among women.

And being a woman doesn't give a person more credibility than a man.

Do women get sexually assaulted at over 3 times the frequency of men?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Are you talking about the right of the opinions of Senators, or the protesters?

Does either group have questionable rights?

Senators did their job, even though they were clearly more interested in politicizing Ford.

Indeed, they all did.

Protesters simply believed who they wanted to believe. Good for them.

Indeed, everybody did. Good for us.

 

[Aldebaran]

And this is why the slogans exist. Not because Kavanaugh is guilty by default but because so many are willing to dismiss the claims out of hand. Even though sexual assault is a common experience among women.

"Out of hand"? She sat there and told her story, with holes in it. She got her time on TV in front of the US Senate. She wasn't "dismissed". She just ended up not being believed after she made her allegations.

Do women get sexually assaulted at over 3 times the frequency of men?

Not sure how that relates to what I said. Simply "believing women" because they're women is sexist.

 

[Aldebaran]

Does either group have questionable rights?

Non Sequitur. Follow along with what is being discussed.

Indeed, everybody did. Good for us.

Good indeed! I wouldn't mind even seeing a couple more conservatives on the court who know how to actually abide by the Constitution.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Non Sequitur. Follow along with what is being discussed.

Rudimentary knowledge of Latin aside, what is being discussed is the "questionable" rights of Democrats.

Good indeed! I wouldn't mind even seeing a couple more conservatives on the court who know how to actually abide by the Constitution.

That's only going to happen if some liberal justices retire or die before Jan. 1, 2020... after all, we simply can't elect a new justice in an election year, now can we?

 

[Belk]

"Out of hand"? She sat there and told her story, with holes in it. She got her time on TV in front of the US Senate. She wasn't "dismissed". She just ended up not being believed after she made her allegations.

She was dismissed for not having come forward sooner prior to giving any testimony.
She was dismissed for being "On the left" prior to giving any testimony.
She was dismissed for being an "elitist" because she worked at a left leaning college prior to giving any testimony.
She was dismissed for being "too ugly to rape" prior to giving any testimony.
She was dismissed for being a "Party girl" prior to giving any testimony.
She was dismissed because the timing was "Too convenient" prior to giving any testimony.
She was dismissed because she must be being "Paid off by the democrats" prior to giving any testimony.
She was dismissed because she was "Just looking for her 15 minutes of fame" prior to giving any testimony.

I saw you personally use some of these excuses to dismiss her so kindly spare me the song and dance about how women are not dismissed out of hand. This single example shows women who are sexually assaulted can expect to be blown off.

Not sure how that relates to what I said. Simply "believing women" because they're women is sexist.

How about believing women because 1 in 6 is sexually assaulted? Is that a good reason to believe women?

 

[Aldebaran]

She was dismissed for not having come forward sooner prior to giving any testimony.
She was dismissed for being "On the left" prior to giving any testimony.
She was dismissed for being an "elitist" because she worked at a left leaning college prior to giving any testimony.
She was dismissed for being "too ugly to rape" prior to giving any testimony.
She was dismissed for being a "Party girl" prior to giving any testimony.
She was dismissed because the timing was "Too convenient" prior to giving any testimony.
She was dismissed because she must be being "Paid off by the democrats" prior to giving any testimony.
She was dismissed because she was "Just looking for her 15 minutes of fame" prior to giving any testimony.

I saw you personally use some of these excuses to dismiss her so kindly spare me the song and dance about how women are not dismissed out of hand. This single example shows women who are sexually assaulted can expect to be blown off.

I'm not a Senator who listened to her testimony and weighed out the facts. Those are the people who we're talking about.

How about believing women because 1 in 6 is sexually assaulted? Is that a good reason to believe women?

Then believe those 1 in 6 women if they actually have a credible case. But believing them all simply "because they're women" doesn't work.

 

[Belk]

I'm not a Senator who listened to her testimony and weighed out the facts. Those are the people who we're talking about.

Those may be the people you are talking about and even among them there was plenty of dismissal. The people I am talking about are the people the slogan is aimed at. The cop who takes the rape complaint. The prosecutor who has to decide if he is pressing charges. The people who discount what women go through in so many areas.

Then believe those 1 in 6 women if they actually have a credible case. But believing them all simply "because they're women" doesn't work.

What on earth makes you think people are saying to simply believe women because they are women?