Christine Blasey Ford

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
32,000
Reaction score
147
Points
63
The NYT sinks deeper into the FakeNews abyss. tOTB democratic socialists love the FakeNews. Truth and honesty mean nothing to any of them.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,695
Reaction score
1,706
Points
113
Frankly, him losing his $%^ and ranting during his confirmation hearing alone was enough that it would have derailed his nomination in previous eras. If that was his job interview, he failed.
Surely you can provide an example of someone falsely being accused of being the leader of gang rape parties getting upset about it, and in previous eras having that reaction disqualify them.

It would be disqualifying for me to NOT become irate at this $hitshow you pulled because Trump hurt your feelings talking about crowd size and his hands.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,315
Reaction score
1,146
Points
113
Who is this Lawfare? I asked you for some information about them, back in post #2657.

And I address the misconception about "innocent until proven guilty" in post #2746.
Lawfare, the 'Lawfare Alliance' as they're often called, are a group of Obama aligned lawyers who use the law to wage war against anyone who opposes progressive politics. They invented the "insurance policy" against the Trump presidency for their FBI members. It was founded by Benjamin Wittes, James Comey's close friend that he leaked to, in order to launch the Mueller probe. Wittes of Lawfare was also granted special access to the FBI/NSA databases by Comey. The same databases where 85% of all search inquiries were found to be illegal. They're the ones Nadler/Pelosi/Schiff contracted to craft the impeachment angle on both Trump & Kavanaugh. They appear to have concocted the Christine Blasey-Ford narrative (Monica McLean). They represent her pro-bono of course. They also represent Andrew McCabe. They're the ones who showed Nadler/Pelosi/Schiff how to change the congressional rules this time around, so that they (Lawfare) will be interrogating Corey Lewandowski today, instead of actual Congressmen.

Read this for a primer on who they are and what their goals are...

https://www.lawfareblog.com/coalition-all-democratic-forces-part-iii-what-if-trump-wins
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
32,000
Reaction score
147
Points
63
Google is either beyond MnplsGman's knowledge or ambition. Maybe both. He proved he can't figure out NC CD9 on his own or with Wiki.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,695
Reaction score
1,706
Points
113

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,695
Reaction score
1,706
Points
113
Well, that kind of talk is going to curb their interview invites on the MSM.
She perfectly articulated my thoughts on Kavanaugh. He's not a "RWNJ", he's a moderate conservative. His record is exemplary. His conduct is exemplary. He has helped to promote women. He would be a model for the kind of judge the left would hope Republicans would nominate. Except that he replaced a hard core lefty, and he may vote to overturn Roe. That's it. And they want to send a message to any Republican hoping for a SCOTUS nomination: we will personally destroy you.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,906
Reaction score
2,462
Points
113
She perfectly articulated my thoughts on Kavanaugh. He's not a "RWNJ", he's a moderate conservative. His record is exemplary. His conduct is exemplary. He has helped to promote women. He would be a model for the kind of judge the left would hope Republicans would nominate. Except that he replaced a hard core lefty, and he may vote to overturn Roe. That's it. And they want to send a message to any Republican hoping for a SCOTUS nomination: we will personally destroy you.
Exactly. That is the message to all Trump appointees. They are willing to destroy everything and anyone to get back in power.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,695
Reaction score
1,706
Points
113
Exactly. That is the message to all Trump appointees. They are willing to destroy everything and anyone to get back in power.
I mean, when I read the Obama birther thread you posted, I saw nothing but reasonable takes. It is no comparison to the vile attacks on Kavanaugh.
 

rowdaboat

Active member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
970
Reaction score
111
Points
43
Conspiracy theory- old Ruthie is getting closer to dying so the dems are throwing everything they can making Kavanaugh look bad again to try to make it easier to discredit Amy Barrett or whoever her replacement will be
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,695
Reaction score
1,706
Points
113
Conspiracy theory- old Ruthie is getting closer to dying so the dems are throwing everything they can making Kavanaugh look bad again to try to make it easier to discredit Amy Barrett or whoever her replacement will be
Yes, I said the same thing earlier. Everything the media does is coordinated. There's a strategic reason this kavanaugh news is being dredged up again.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
44,358
Reaction score
2,844
Points
113
Conspiracy theory- old Ruthie is getting closer to dying so the dems are throwing everything they can making Kavanaugh look bad again to try to make it easier to discredit Amy Barrett or whoever her replacement will be
How does that make it easier to discredit her, exactly? I'd say the opposite. Presumably whatever warts she has will be far less than his and the outrage would ring hollow by comparison.

This is coming back around because of the book that came out and because it's the one year anniversary. The Dems need to let it go and move on.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,695
Reaction score
1,706
Points
113
How does that make it easier to discredit her, exactly? I'd say the opposite. Presumably whatever warts she has will be far less than his and the outrage would ring hollow by comparison.

This is coming back around because of the book that came out and because it's the one year anniversary. The Dems need to let it go and move on.
He has no warts. She's a loony religious nut job. She's a cult member. She's a handsmaid tale character. Kavanaugh was an extreme nut job and this woman is even worse!

It won't take long to get you on board. It will be fun to watch your 180.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,315
Reaction score
1,146
Points
113
The NYT sinks deeper into the FakeNews abyss. tOTB democratic socialists love the FakeNews. Truth and honesty mean nothing to any of them.
The number of anti-Trump stories they've had to retract this month alone, is amazing. I stopped counting at seven. They have abandoned any premise of journalism, in favor of activism.

https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
32,000
Reaction score
147
Points
63

Minnesota

Active member
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Messages
843
Reaction score
154
Points
43
What would Trump do without you brainless dorks to shield his balls from even the slightest breeze?
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,906
Reaction score
2,462
Points
113
What would Trump do without you brainless dorks to shield his balls from even the slightest breeze?
You certainly qualify as the "slightest breeze" so you have that part right.
 

jamiche

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
21,039
Reaction score
707
Points
113
Just like our education system has gone from education to indoctrination. Our mind numbed democratic socialists on tOTB are living proof.
Speaking of goofy attempts to skim funds and indoctrinate kids, how is your charter school going, charter school?

Oops...sorry.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
This is a very important point, that needs to be stressed.

Kav has not and will not be charged with a crime. He has not and will not be named in a civil lawsuit. He won't lose his freedom, he won't pay a fine, he won't have a judgement/verdict ruled against him, and he won't have to pay a settlement.

We're talking about a process of nominating and vetting someone for an official position. Therefore, the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", does not apply. And the higher the position is, the stronger that concept must discarded.

Anything about a person's past can be dis-qualifying, regardless how relevant it is to their ability to perform the position or their likely biases in doing it.
You said this yesterday, and I don’t know that anybody pushed back on this. But you are absolutely wrong.

We have a presumption of innocence b/c you usually can’t prove that you are innocent. In this case, there is virtually no way that Kavanaugh can prove his innocence.

You act like having your reputation destroyed is no big deal. Screw the job. Kavanaugh is being dragged through the mud with no proven evidence, and in the B-F case, no witnesses other than the accuser who can’t remember much of anything but who, and the other whos, including her BFF says she doesn’t believe B-F’s story.

If you, in your job, were fired b/c someone said you did something a couple years ago, and no one else witness it, and you claimed that you didn’t, I’m sure you’d be okay with it...b/c you’re not going to jail or having to pay a settlement. But that’s you.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,303
Reaction score
2,024
Points
113
You said this yesterday, and I don’t know that anybody pushed back on this. But you are absolutely wrong.

We have a presumption of innocence b/c you usually can’t prove that you are innocent. In this case, there is virtually no way that Kavanaugh can prove his innocence.

You act like having your reputation destroyed is no big deal. Screw the job. Kavanaugh is being dragged through the mud with no proven evidence, and in the B-F case, no witnesses other than the accuser who can’t remember much of anything but who, and the other whos, including her BFF says she doesn’t believe B-F’s story.

If you, in your job, were fired b/c someone said you did something a couple years ago, and no one else witness it, and you claimed that you didn’t, I’m sure you’d be okay with it...b/c you’re not going to jail or having to pay a settlement. But that’s you.
Kav does not need to prove he is innocent, because he isn't being charged with a crime or named in a lawsuit. So then "innocence" doesn't have context here.

You seem to be arguing something like "if someone is innocent, we should not allow any allegations against them to come out in public". That is not an unreasonable position. In fact, I bet a good number of people would agree with that idea, in general. And if it were some other, lower public office, or a position in a private organization, then no allegations would indeed make it to public light.

However, this is a special case. One of the highest public positions in the country. That means, and it has been the tradition, that the vetting is public.

When vetting someone, anything that the approving panel deems as "questionable" or "concerning", can (and perhaps should) disqualify you, even if you are very qualified on the technical side to perform the role. That's always how that works. It's arbitrary, and it's subjective, and it ultimately depends on who makes up the approving panel.


Your last sentence is not a valid comparison. Being fired is a much more protected situation. If I, you, or probably anyone were fired for the reason you state, a wrongful termination lawsuit could be brought.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
Kav does not need to prove he is innocent, because he isn't being charged with a crime or named in a lawsuit. So then "innocence" doesn't have context here.

You seem to be arguing something like "if someone is innocent, we should not allow any allegations against them to come out in public". That is not an unreasonable position. In fact, I bet a good number of people would agree with that idea, in general. And if it were some other, lower public office, or a position in a private organization, then no allegations would indeed make it to public light.

However, this is a special case. One of the highest public positions in the country. That means, and it has been the tradition, that the vetting is public.

When vetting someone, anything that the approving panel deems as "questionable" or "concerning", can (and perhaps should) disqualify you, even if you are very qualified on the technical side to perform the role. That's always how that works. It's arbitrary, and it's subjective, and it ultimately depends on who makes up the approving panel.


Your last sentence is not a valid comparison. Being fired is a much more protected situation. If I, you, or probably anyone were fired for the reason you state, a wrongful termination lawsuit could be brought.
You spent a lot of words putting words in my mouth. No, I don’t think allegations shouldn’t be made public.

I do believe that everyone deserves the presumption of innocence until an accusation can be proven. Anything other than that is unAmerican and unjust.

You can’t have it both ways without being inconsistent. You can’t say guilty until proven innocent and wrongful termination. You applying two different standards.

This is pretty simple stuff.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,906
Reaction score
2,462
Points
113
Kav does not need to prove he is innocent, because he isn't being charged with a crime or named in a lawsuit. So then "innocence" doesn't have context here.

You seem to be arguing something like "if someone is innocent, we should not allow any allegations against them to come out in public". That is not an unreasonable position. In fact, I bet a good number of people would agree with that idea, in general. And if it were some other, lower public office, or a position in a private organization, then no allegations would indeed make it to public light.

However, this is a special case. One of the highest public positions in the country. That means, and it has been the tradition, that the vetting is public.

When vetting someone, anything that the approving panel deems as "questionable" or "concerning", can (and perhaps should) disqualify you, even if you are very qualified on the technical side to perform the role. That's always how that works. It's arbitrary, and it's subjective, and it ultimately depends on who makes up the approving panel.


Your last sentence is not a valid comparison. Being fired is a much more protected situation. If I, you, or probably anyone were fired for the reason you state, a wrongful termination lawsuit could be brought.
This isn't vetting. This is smearing. There's a big difference. Honesty is the key. The left doesn't have that ingredient.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,859
Reaction score
440
Points
83
You can’t have it both ways without being inconsistent. You can’t say guilty until proven innocent and wrongful termination. You applying two different standards.
You are exactly correct. There are two different standards - one before you are hired and one after. You cannot force someone to hire you if there are questions swirling around your character. This is simple stuff.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,303
Reaction score
2,024
Points
113
You spent a lot of words putting words in my mouth. No, I don’t think allegations shouldn’t be made public.

I do believe that everyone deserves the presumption of innocence until an accusation can be proven. Anything other than that is unAmerican and unjust.

You can’t have it both ways without being inconsistent. You can’t say guilty until proven innocent and wrongful termination. You applying two different standards.

This is pretty simple stuff.
I said "you seem to be arguing something like". I think that is well set apart from "you put words into my mouth". I said it like that specifically so as not to be putting words in your mouth.

The point I was trying to make is, when you are vetting someone, it is allowed to say that "allegations were brought up, and while they haven't been proven and we presume you are innocent of breaking any laws, they are concerning enough that we do not want to take the risk on you". That is not uncommon.


And GopherJake put it perfectly: the reason your comparison isn't valid is that there two separate standards. Hiring someone is a completely different standard than firing them. The vetting process, and the allegations, were not about removing Kav from the SCOTUS.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,695
Reaction score
1,706
Points
113
You are exactly correct. There are two different standards - one before you are hired and one after. You cannot force someone to hire you if there are questions swirling around your character. This is simple stuff.
No one is being forced to be hired. Democrats could certainly vote no for any reason they like. But messing with innocent until proven guilty, even in the court of public opinion, seems like a dangerous idea. If Kavanaugh has character concerns, everyone does. Which is sort of the point. We are all SJW sinners, but salvation only comes from the left/Democrats.
 
Top Bottom