It is more and more likely this was a left wing set up

Thing1 said:
That characterization itself is a lie. You make it sound like every witness backs up his version - in fact, they really corroborate neither, because most people simply can't remember what happened over 35 years ago.

One of the most amazing things about this entire story is the woeful understanding that people have of trauma memories. When someone goes through this kind of experience, their brain is taken over by fear & panic - and those things inform the memories, as opposed to analytical, normal thinking. The latter doesn't last for 35 years for the most part - the things we remember from that long ago are based more on emotion in general.

And it's why she may remember it, but no one else does. Fear/panic memories leave a much bigger imprint - but they also tend to be more fragmented and incomplete. Some of the memories can be incredibly random - she may forget everything she said she forgot, and remember the color of someone's shirt, or a song that played afterwards. People who question why she didn't remember the date, time, people at the party, house, etc. are really shooting from the hip - they're assuming that trauma memories are exactly like normal memories.
Click to expand...

That why we have the police. She never reported it. Why should I believe that it happened with no evidence? No police report? Never told he parents, friends, teachers? LOL you have to be an idiot to find that credible
 
Thing1 said:
What a total lie & misunderstanding this post is. No, it wasn't a "bust" - no one else could remember, which isn't surprising given the length of time.

And you're smarter than that last part. Many alleged victims never tell anyone - parents, friends, spouses, etc. Many do, but there are a significant number who work hard to suppress the memory and tell no one.
Click to expand...

Well then, they make a choice! Why the fuck should I feel bad for someone who refuses to use the protections our taxes pay for?
 
tinfoil said:
Well then, they make a choice! Why the fuck should I feel bad for someone who refuses to use the protections our taxes pay for?
Click to expand...

Who is asking you to feel bad for her?

Just don't call her a liar. Sorry to break it to you, but you have no idea. No one does. Anyone calling her a liar - definitively - is on the same level of those who say Kav is guilty regardless..
 
Thing1 said:
If I had 'em?

I don't save or keep track of posts. In case you haven't noticed, I post here a lot.

I don't feel like I have to prove anything. Like I said, I've called for Kav to be confirmed repeatedly, and criticized the idea that this is now a partisan process. You'd never post like that, against the talking points that the right endorses on a given day.
Click to expand...

I don't know or care if Kav is qualified. I only care about the democrats trying to sabotage the process.
 
Thing1 said:
Who is asking you to feel bad for her?

Just don't call her a liar. Sorry to break it to you, but you have no idea. No one does. Anyone calling her a liar - definitively - is on the same level of those who say Kav is guilty regardless..
Click to expand...

When someone makes a claim that can't be backed up, I'll call them a liar. I do not have to presume an accusation is true. You can do that if you want, but don't try to claim it's the standard .
 
tinfoil said:
When someone makes a claim that can't be backed up, I'll call them a liar. I do not have to presume an accusation is true. You can do that if you want, but don't try to claim it's the standard .
Click to expand...

I mean, doesn't any alleged victim of assault basically have their word against the alleged perp....at least in most of the circumstances?

I think that's a strange standard to have. Both sides deserve a presumption of innocence...no? I don't see a difference between you & wild-eyed lefties who still claim Kav is definitely guilty.
 
Thing1 said:
I mean, doesn't any alleged victim of assault basically have their word against the alleged perp....at least in most of the circumstances?

I think that's a strange standard to have. Both sides deserve a presumption of innocence...no? I don't see a difference between you & wild-eyed lefties who still claim Kav is definitely guilty.
Click to expand...

How is believing the accusation without evidence a presumption of innocence. Accusers don't get the presumption of innocence, only the accused
 
Thing1 said:
No. Credible here just means that she believes what she's saying - she's not intentionally lying for some conspiratorial reason, as the OP suggests.

I thought Kav was credible as well, in that he believed what he was saying. I still don't know what happened, though - and neither do you. Could have been mistaken identity for her, could have been a black out thing for him.
Click to expand...

Kavanaugh, like Trump, doesn't think anything is wrong with what they do...
 
Thing1 said:
She was credible - I genuinely think she believed what she was saying. Even watching Fox, it seems like there were plenty on the right who felt the same way, and just thought it was faulty memory/mistaken identity.

It's really conspiracy buff stuff to think something like this could be set up without anything ever coming to light. More than 2 or 3 people would have to be involved.

But really, from exactly 1 second into this, you thought she was lying & being paid by the DNC or one of their wealthy donors.
Click to expand...

Ford may have *seemed* credible but her account wasn’t credible. That distinction matters just a bit.

And it’s entirely plausible something sketchy was going on with it because her friend, Monica McLean, retained David Laufman as her attorney. And Laufman recently left his position at the FBI where he worked...wait for it lol...on the Clinton email/Russian investigation. It’s a safe bet he and Strzok are good buddies.

That’s either a really weird coincidence or something fishy was going on.
 
Darth Omar said:
Ford may have *seemed* credible but her account wasn’t credible. That distinction matters just a bit.

And it’s entirely plausible something sketchy was going on with it because her friend, Monica McLean, retained David Laufman as her attorney. And Laufman recently left his position at the FBI where he worked...wait for it lol...on the Clinton email/Russian investigation. It’s a safe bet he and Strzok are good buddies.

That’s either a really weird coincidence or something fishy was going on.
Click to expand...

Why wasn't her account credible?
 
Thing1, your arguments are very weak. First you think the accuser gets a presumption of innocence, then you think absence of evidence is as likely to show something happened as not happened. What wouyld be the point of evidence if makes no difference?
 
Thing1 said:
Not uncommon in rape & sexual assault cases - especially cold cases where a lot of time has passed.

Doesn't mean it didn't happen, even if that's what you really want to believe.
Click to expand...

If Kavanaugh was on his third wife it would be easier to believe, how’s that lol?

We can’t start assuming people are guilty based on uncooberrated and evidence-less accusations. Let’s just not go there.
 
Darth Omar said:
If Kavanaugh was on his third wife it would be easier to believe, how’s that lol?

We can’t start assuming people are guilty based on uncooberrated and evidence-less accusations. Let’s just not go there.
Click to expand...

Who is assuming he's guilty?

I haven't said anything about that. I don't assume he's guilty. You're moving the goalposts again.
 
tinfoil said:
Thing1, your arguments are very weak. First you think the accuser gets a presumption of innocence, then you think absence of evidence is as likely to show something happened as not happened. What wouyld be the point of evidence if makes no difference?
Click to expand...

My arguments aren't weak at all - they're objective, and they take into account actual information regarding trauma memories & the passage of time.

Weak arguments are those that are more along the lines of "why didn't she report it right away" and "why doesn't she remember everything?"
 
Thing1 said:
My arguments aren't weak at all - they're objective, and they take into account actual information regarding trauma memories & the passage of time.

Weak arguments are those that are more along the lines of "why didn't she report it right away" and "why doesn't she remember everything?"
Click to expand...

LOL, OK if you say so. No need to report a crime to police, just make a claim and every woman in america will believe you because all men are rapists
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top