Kavanaugh Drama Risks Driving Moderates, Women Away From GOP

  • Thread starter Thread starter robertmidwest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
graciew said:
It was joke…
But there are real answers to those questions without getting into Maths.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but if we in the Church are to judge the world, we had better get cracking on becoming wise and just and holy, no?

Otherwise, our findings and judgements won’t hold up in the eternal courts and we might be held accountable for bad judgements.

Wouldn’t you suppose that justices on the Supreme Court also have such a grave responsibility for dispensing justice properly? And are perhaps “cutting their teeth” for what may be a higher calling?
 
Last edited:
I meant the silly questions I asked!
Forget it!😃
 
Last edited:
Can’t wait for the naysayers to come out and Pooh Pooh any mention of George Soros
 
thefederalist.com

Ford's Ex-Boyfriend Told Senate He Saw Her Do Polygraph Coaching

An ex-boyfriend of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford told Senate investigators he witnessed her coach a friend on how to take a polygraph.
thefederalist.com thefederalist.com

In a sworn statement provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a man who claims to be an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford says that he personally witnessed Ford coach a friend on how to take a polygraph exam. If true, it would mean Ford provided false testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week when she claimed she had never had any discussions with anyone about how to take a polygraph.

The troubling allegations about Ford’s polygraph history and potentially false testimony were revealed Tuesday in a letter from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, to attorneys for Ford. Ford and her attorneys have thus far refused to provide all polygraph-related documents and media to the Senate for review.

“The full details of Dr. Ford’s polygraph are particularly important because the Senate Judiciary Committee has received a sworn statement from a longtime boyfriend of Dr. Ford’s, stating that he personally witnessed Dr. Ford coaching a friend on polygraph examinations,” Grassley wrote. “When asked under oath in the hearing whether she’d ever given any tips or advice to someone who was planning on taking a polygraph, Dr. Ford replied, ‘Never.’”

http://lucianne.com/thread.aspx/?artnum=953842

How to “up speak”.

 
Last edited:
starshiptrooper said:
The difference is that I want her tried in an actual court first. If a rape accusation by a woman with no verifiable details or witnesses to support her is considered credible, it is certainly reasonable to believe that a woman with obvious political motives, financial incentives, wrongdoing of her own to conceal, and no evidence to support her claims is committing slander.
Click to expand...
Again, I see hypocrisy. Assuming the guilt of Kavanaugh based on the oral testimony is indeed rash, but no more so than those that make the judgement that it is false. In a court of law, such conclusions cannot result in a win. There is little evidence that this statement is false, and none that it was a fabrication.
Annie said:
I have to admit, Newton, that is quite a leap, considering a GT assoc. prof called for laughter as they {elite men, as opposed to oppressed GT profs!} die then postmortem castration just this week.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that is one person, who made the news because it was so aberrant. It is irresponsible to call forth a pogrom or crusade on the behalf of white conservative men against all of dissenting views based on a single aberrant statement. That is exactly what happened in Germany in the 1930’s. I am deeply concerned when I read of throwing dissidents in jail and censuring elected officials for their political positions. This is becoming more commonplace. It is essential that supports of the President become as intolerant of this type of rhetoric as those that do not support him.
 
MonteRCMS said:
In a sworn statement provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a man who claims to be an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford says that he personally witnessed Ford coach a friend on how to take a polygraph exam. If true, it would mean Ford provided false testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week when she claimed she had never had any discussions with anyone about how to take a polygraph.
Click to expand...
If this can be substantiated, I would hope that charges would be pursued. However, I would hope that everyone understands how suspicious an accusation from and ex-boyfriend is. Men need to consider that not all women are liars, and some men are. Neither is more likely, or less likely, to be truthful.
 
Last edited:
starshiptrooper said:
I want her tried in an actual court first.
Click to expand...
The threshold for proving uilt i a criminal proceeding is much higher than in other areas of the criminal justice system. Why should that highest standard have to be met before bringing information before the committee considering the approval of a SCOTUS nomination?
 
The difference between the boyfriend and Ford? He gave details that can be checked out.
 
What Ford has revealed does not even rise to the level of the lowest standard.
 
pnewton said:
If this can be substantiated, I would hope that charges would be pursued. However, I would hope that everyone understands how suspicious an accusation from and ex-boyfriend is. Men need to consider that not all women are liars, and some men are. Neither is more likely, or less likely, to be truthful.
Click to expand...
It’s a sworn statement. I expect they also can figure out who was ‘coached’ and verify.

Incidentally, I can’t imagine any PHd in psychology claiming to have never having discussed how polygraphs work and how they are defeated. Seems it would have been covered in some classwork at a minimum. I also think anyone in the field would be curious about it.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
Again, I see hypocrisy. Assuming the guilt of Kavanaugh based on the oral testimony is indeed rash, but no more so than those that make the judgement that it is false. In a court of law, such conclusions cannot result in a win. There is little evidence that this statement is false, and none that it was a fabrication.
Click to expand...
Wrong, as we are helpfully reminded by the American left, this a job interview and so we can throw out notions of fairness and protections for the accused. Why stop there? Due process does not apply to those who would deny it when it is convenient for them.
Yes, but that is one person, who made the news because it was so aberrant. It is irresponsible to call forth a pogrom or crusade on the behalf of white conservative men against all of dissenting views based on a single aberrant statement. That is exactly what happened in Germany in the 1930’s.
Click to expand...
As of yet, has anything happened to her? I suppose Sara Jeong was an anomaly too. So was Azealia Banks. how many “anomalies” will it take for you to see a trend? What about every remark made about white privilege and how whiteness is inherently oppressive? Just for fun, take a few articles from HuffPo, Vice or other mainstream media outlets and replace every instance of ‘white men’ with ‘blacks’. Hatred against whites is the norm. If it is okay to hate us and claim that we are the cause of societal ills, calling for white genocide is the next logical step. Until that is no longer the case, alt-right is all right.
I am deeply concerned when I read of throwing dissidents in jail and censuring elected officials for their political positions. This is becoming more commonplace. It is essential that supports of the President become as intolerant of this type of rhetoric as those that do not support him.
Click to expand...
Ford is not a dissident, she is a liar attacking a good man. That is wrong. That cannot be tolerated in a civilized society. Likewise, the unscrupulous actions by her enablers need to be sanctioned. There is no point in being the party of principle when your principles are used against you by the American left while they apply their own rules to their people. We must realize the truth. Reciprocity of principle is essential to civilized, lawful society.
 
Last edited:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36634/walsh-how-we-know-christine-ford-liar-matt-walsh

Now I think it is time to stop being so gentle. It is just not possible to avoid the plain reality anymore:

Christine Ford is a liar.

She may still have been victimized in some form at some point in the past, but it is no longer possible for a rational person to conclude that this is all an innocent case of mistaken identity. Someone is a liar here. And it seems very clear that the liar is Ford.

There’s a reason why sex crimes prosector Rachel Mitchell doesn’t find Ford’s story credible. There are too many gaps and the gaps are too suspicious. It’s not just that Ford can’t remember — it’s that she specifically can’t remember any of the details that might prove or disprove her claim. She also can’t remember the things she did and said even in the last few months. If her memory really is that terrible, she knows her memory is that terrible, and she knows that she can’t therefore be “100 percent certain” that Kavanaugh was the assailant. At a minimum, her claims of certainty are a lie.

But it’s more than that. Ford’s story has changed to get around Kavanaugh’s defenses. These aren’t random changes in the narrative. These are targeted and calculated changes. If we are going to absolve her of dishonesty at this point, we must believe that her memory lapses are just coincidentally convenient, and that gaps in her story are coincidentally convenient, and the changes in the story are coincidentally convenient. The coincidences are simply too convenient and too numerous to truly be coincidental.
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
Now I think it is time to stop being so gentle. It is just not possible to avoid the plain reality anymore:

Christine Ford is a liar.
Click to expand...
I tried to read it. The author is either obtuse, or a liar himself.
 
That is why I gave a concrete example. We have not learned from history in this country. Will we repeat it?
 
We are repeating it. The targeted group is now whites instead. Hateful rhetoric against us is now being normalized. Just look to South Africa if you want to see where this country is headed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top