The irony, Kavanagh, rape and Roe v Wade

[USincognito]

His reputation is totally ruined among about half of the population. Every time his name is mentioned people will first think of the accusations against him.

For many it was ruined by the knowledge that he's a political hack. For others, it was the way he conducted himself during questioning and then perjuring himself.

The assault accusations were the least of the problems for his reputation.

 

[Allandavid]

Because none of the witnesses that Dr. Ford chose substantiated ANY of her story. In addition the inconsistencies in her testimony her best witnesses and life long friend had no memory of such a small gathering and had never met Brett Kavanagh. In the course of treating Dr. Fords mental illness's perhaps she underwent the controversial "regression therapy" wherein she dreamt up an attempted assault.

It was another attempted "drive-by" character assassination by the Left. It failed.

Not substantiating =/= false.

Remember, there are are a number of people who say they had evidence to bring, but were not interviewed by the FBI ...

 

[Belk]

I have a clue, her own witnesses didn't substantiate ONE element of her claim. Unable to disqualify Judge Kavanagh on the merits of his life's work or having the votes to stop him, the sleaze bags on the left tried to smear him. It didn't work and has backfired on them politically, showing their true colors to the world.

No, you do not. You have no more knowledge then any other person who was not there. Your position is not based on knowledge but upon opinion. Not only do you bear false witness but you attempt to justify it by smearing the other side.

 

[super animator]

For many it was ruined by the knowledge that he's a political hack. For others, it was the way he conducted himself during questioning and then perjuring himself.

The assault accusations were the least of the problems for his reputation.

Debatable.

 

[SolomonVII]

Not only did Ford's best witnesses deny knowledge of the incident, but her best friend even refuted it by denying ever knowing Brett Kavanaugh.
That is the opposite of corroboration. That makes the evidence negative for her case.
Moreover, Ford chose not to make herself veritably credible by releasing information germane to the case, such as the details of her polygraph, and release of her medical information about her psychological therapy sessions.

People who go down the innocence must be proven route, thereby throwing out eight hundred years of jurisprudence in which innocence is presumed and guilt must be proven have about as much credibility as people in the Middle Ages who put cows on trial.

Actually less even. They are not honest in their case and don't even merit being listened to.

 

[Belk]

Not only did Ford's best witnesses deny knowledge of the incident, but her best friend even refuted it by denying ever knowing Brett Kavanaugh.
That is the opposite of corroboration. That makes the evidence negative for her case.
Moreover, Ford chose not to make herself veritably credible by releasing information germane to the case, such as the details of her polygraph, and release of her medical information about her psychological therapy sessions.

People who go down the innocence must be proven route, thereby throwing out eight hundred years of jurisprudence in which innocence is presumed and guilt must be proven have about as much credibility as people in the Middle Ages who put cows on trial.

Actually less even. They are not honest in their case and don't even merit being listened to.

That is not correct.

But Keyser also personally told the Washington Post that, while she cannot remember the gathering taking place or having met Kavanaugh, she believes Blasey’s testimony.

Brett Kavanaugh Said Blasey’s Friend 'Refuted' Her Testimony. She Didn't.

 

[Veritas]

I don't think women have much confidence in Kavanaugh. The FBI investigation was not anywhere near serious nor thorough enough to make those who were concerned have confidence in his judgment (and that, of course, was exacerbated by his overly defensive and catastrophically partisan andunjudicial speech on the last day of testimony).

I feel sure that Roe v. Wade will be overturned. I only hope it makes pro-lifers happy enough that they will start seriously looking at the high, high, high price immigrants, the poor, the disabled, senior citizens, and most Americans are paying for their single-issue voting. What price did they pay in their personal lives? Their families may lose healthcare. Their college students' loans will be much more expensive. They are seeing unemployment and workmen's comp programs evaporate. Are they fed up? Do they ever wonder whether the price they paid by voting for Republicans was worth it? After all, many women will just travel to the states that will keep abortion legal. What did they gain?

When Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will be time for pro-lifers to begin thinking of all those who suffered serious loss due to their votes and to support a stronger social safety net for all....otherwise, how can they really call themselves 'pro-life?'

As a Catholic, why wouldn't you be happy that according to your feelings, Roe will be overturned? Don't unborn lives matter?

 

[LoAmmi]

People who go down the innocence must be proven route, thereby throwing out eight hundred years of jurisprudence in which innocence is presumed and guilt must be proven have about as much credibility as people in the Middle Ages who put cows on trial.

I don't even understand this line of thinking. It wasn't a trial. Innocent until proven guilty is the standard for criminal trials, not for what amounts to a job interview.

Now, I don't think all accusations need to be believed. I don't know if the guy did anything or not. But when people bring up this nonsense, they are just showing themselves ignorant of what innocent until proven guilty is a concept for.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I don't even understand this line of thinking. It wasn't a trial. Innocent until proven guilty is the standard for criminal trials, not for what amounts to a job interview.

Now, I don't think all accusations need to be believed. I don't know if the guy did anything or not. But when people bring up this nonsense, they are just showing themselves ignorant of what innocent until proven guilty is a concept for.

Lynch mobs don't involve a criminal trial. But that doesn't excuse them.

 

[Veritas]

I don't even understand this line of thinking. It wasn't a trial. Innocent until proven guilty is the standard for criminal trials, not for what amounts to a job interview.

Now, I don't think all accusations need to be believed. I don't know if the guy did anything or not. But when people bring up this nonsense, they are just showing themselves ignorant of what innocent until proven guilty is a concept for.

Excellent talking points! The whole "job interview" myth just keeps getting perpetuated by the ignorant left. No, this was not a criminal trial either. This was a Senate Hearing in which the individuals giving testimony take an oath to tell the truth under penalty of perjury. It carries the same weight as a trial. In addition, the individual making an accusation still must meet the burden of proof. The presumption of innocence still applies. Otherwise, according to your faulty understanding, anyone can make an claim against a nominee and it must be treated as factual with no proof. Obviously, this is absurd.

What Are the Penalties for Lying to Congress?

The Presumption of Innocence Has Not Been Overcome | National Review

As I noted in my last post, it is important to give the accused the presumption of innocence, which applies both in courtroom and non-courtroom settings of all kinds.

I suggest reading the entire article written by a lawyer who thoroughly explains this concept to those obviously unfamiliar with the law.

Furthermore, how many "job interviews" take place in front of a government body and televised on TV with questions being asked by those opposed to you even being a candidate for a position? Have you ever applied for a "job" and gone through this process?

 

[durangodawood]

I see an oblique and non-meaningful coincidence. Not seeing "irony" tho.

 

[SolomonVII]

As a Catholic, why wouldn't you be happy that according to your feelings, Roe will be overturned? Don't unborn lives matter?

Being a Catholic is not really a point of unity among Catholics. The only way that it could be so in fact was if the moral and faith teachings of Catholicism were accepted by all Catholics.

 

[SolomonVII]

I see an oblique and non-meaningful coincidence. Not seeing "irony" tho.

To see irony, first one must have some kind of sense of humor.
It also depends on who is laughing and who is being laughed at, of course.

 

[Belk]

To see irony, first one must have some kind of sense of humor.
It also depends on who is laughing and who is being laughed at, of course.

No, to see irony it would have to actually be ironic. Coincidence is not irony.

What Is Irony? (With Examples)

 

[durangodawood]

To see irony, first one must have some kind of sense of humor.
It also depends on who is laughing and who is being laughed at, of course.

People around here know me well for my dour and earnest demeanor.

 

[USincognito]

Excellent talking points! The whole "job interview" myth just keeps getting perpetuated by the ignorant left.

This meme the right is trying to Jedi mind trick people with is quite hilarious. 'It's not a job interview. It's just 12 people asking someone questions to determine if they deserve a job or not!".

Furthermore, how many "job interviews" take place in front of a government body and televised on TV with questions being asked by those opposed to you even being a candidate for a position? Have you ever applied for a "job" and gone through this process?

While they aren't televised, Army promotion boards, Thesis and dissertation defenses, etc. To pretend that this isn't a glorified job interview to determine whether one if qualified to set on the SCOTUS is simply to deny reality.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

No, to see irony it would have to actually be ironic. Coincidence is not irony.

What Is Irony? (With Examples)

Speaking of Roe vs Wade and irony, science has discovered that the cells of a fetus live on in a mother's brain after her pregnancy. So when a woman aborts her baby she's not actually getting rid of it, at least not entirely. How's that for irony?

See: Scientists Discover Children’s Cells Living in Mothers’ Brains

 

[Belk]

Speaking of Roe vs Wade and irony, science has discovered that the cells of a fetus live on in a mother's brain after her pregnancy. So when a woman aborts her baby she's not actually getting rid of it, at least not entirely. How's that for irony?

See: Scientists Discover Children’s Cells Living in Mothers’ Brains

Not ironic at all. Perhaps you should read the link I provided on irony?

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Not ironic at all. Perhaps you should read the link I provided on irony?

Does it explain why example isn't ironic?

 

[Belk]

Does it explain why my example is wrong?

It explains why it is not ironic, yes.