Kavanaugh endorsement rescinded

  • Thread starter Thread starter on_the_hill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
. She insisted on two front doors because she didn’t want to feel closed in. And so on.
No, she was actually seeing patients or something similar in part of her house and that’s when she got the separate entrance. And also she has rented out the space that the second door led to so she didn’t even use it most of the time. You have to realize that there has been an agenda with what has been said an about many things. A long term ex boyfriend of hers has said that she has never had a problem with claustrophobia. Her apartment when they were together was tiny with one front door and she loved it.
 
And no, I don’t think it’s “Christian” to appoint drunks and sexual predators to the Supreme Court.
I repeat my previous questions because I am honestly curious of your reasoning

Also a few thoughts:
how I can live a life of total debauchery and still become a Supreme Court judge
Besides the time at high school and early college, what other kinds of debauchery are you referring to? His time as a professional Judge?
Second, the girl was kissing him.
Does that make inappropriately touching a girl when she was clearly denying being touched okay?
It sounds like you’re justifying it.
Maybe–depends on what I know about the two people.
You talking about all these reasons makes it sound like it’s something that should’ve been done with the Kavanaugh case, if these things were done and it meets all your criteria of being “innocent” would it satisfy you?

And it brings me back to my original questions again
 
I like beer too! Most of the people I know do! But you know what, my friends and I are all adults and can and do control ourselves when we enjoy having a beer.
 
Also Hillary Clinton’s husband actually raped and beat a woman and there Is evidence and corroboration so we all, especially Erikaspirit, should be very thankful that Hillary didn’t win the election. We would have had the nations first “first rapist” or FROTUS in the White House. All sarcasm aside, that really was a bullet we dodged there. And hopefully he does end up being investigated as irregardless of political party or status, one should pay for their crimes if they are proven guilty of them.
 
A long term ex boyfriend of hers has said that she has never had a problem with claustrophobia. Her apartment when they were together was tiny with one front door and she loved it.
I really have to go to sleep, but you’re saying simply ridiculous things. She NEVER said she had a problem with claustrophobia since 1982. And no one asked her. She simply said she has a problem NOW and implied she has had a problem with it for a few years. Which makes perfect sense for a person suffering from trauma. Phobias don’t appear immediately. They appear later. So in 1998 or whatever, she lived in an apartment. So what? That’s meaningless. That’s 20 years ago.

Same with the “fear of flying.” Just because you’re afraid to fly doesn’t mean you DON’T fly. Millions of people who are afraid of flying fly all the time. So did she.

And she didn’t have to “use” the door–it just had to be available. That’s like saying people who carry a gun because they’re afraid of being robbed aren’t really serious because they’ve never used the gun. She doesn’t need to USE the door to have it make her feel safer. I would feel safer with a fire escape in an apartment building. That doesn’t mean I use it all the time.

And of course you believe every word the ex-boyfriend from 20+ years ago says, right? He has no agenda whatsoever, right? No one has bothered to check his veracity. We don’t know anything about him. And the business about him remembering Christine “coaching” her friend on a polygraph test? Listen to that question several times in context. I have. First she’s asked if anyone coached her. “Never,” she says. Then immediately it switches to “Have you ever coached anyone else?” She immediately says “Never.” She didn’t think about it. Maybe she just forgot–it was 20 years ago, and relatively meaningless to her. Or, maybe the boyfriend is lying. Or, more likely, the boyfriend was watching football while Christine talked to her friend. He wasn’t paying attention. Maybe (most likely) Christine was just explaining how a polygraph worked. After all, she had no specialized knowledge about how to “beat” such a test. She wasn’t a CIA agent, just a psychology professor.
 
Compare that to the Kavanaugh situation: First, he denies it.
If he didn’t do it, we would expect him to deny it. If you assume he did, and without evidence and against a whole lot of mounting evidence that Ford concocted the entire event with her FBI and Dem operative friend, Monica McLean – the same friend she coached on passing polygraph tests when they were younger, contrary to her testimony that she never did such a thing, then you might be justified. I suspect before the week is out, it will be shown what Ford & Co. were up to.

Doesn’t it seem strange to you that Rachel Mitchell asked Ford specifically about coaching someone on a polygraph when it only came out in the press much later that Ford’s boyfriend claimed she had coached McLean? I am guessing the committee has a whole lot of evidence that hasn’t been shared with the public, yet.

You may want to restrain your exuberance to condemn Kavanaugh for another week or so, there will be much more information forthcoming.
Second, Christine was not making any amorous advances towards him whatsoever–she was on her way to the bathroom, and…
There may be a lot more on this, as well. Ford and her high school friends were in the habit – according to the yearbooks from her high school – of getting drunk until they passed out, but we don’t hear too much about that.
…third, he condemns sexual abuse–when he’s 52 years old and his dream job is on the line. Not while he’s still in college. See any differences?
Kavanaugh may be completely innocent and therefore he may have condemned abuse all along and, in fact, never abused anyone in the past. If Kavanaugh is innocent, then that leaves Booker alone to condemn abuse after having groped a woman.

Judging people’s motives before all the facts are in may come back to bite you.
 
Regarding Dr. Ford’s testimony, Lifesitenews points out most of the following:
  • Ford is an active Far-Leftist
  • she lied about her fear to fly
  • she said she wanted anonymity but continually reached out to the far-left Washington Post
  • her old boyfriend said she taught others how to pass polygraph tests
  • EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HER WITNESSES REFUTES HER STORY
  • her team refused the opportunity to testify in private
  • Ford’s therapists notes contradict themselves
  • Kavanaugh’s name was not mentioned in the 2012 notes
    Breitbart’s John Nolte has some great articles refuting Dr. Ford and Swetnick with lists.
    Just some weaponry for those of you who run into low-information-voters who are otherwise intelligent, but whose minds are poisoned by the Fake News.
    These are tragic times if mere accusations are enough to prevent Conservatives from obtaining important positions.
 
“boofing” and “Devil’s Triangle” --they’re nothing like what Brett said they were under oath!). And his parents were cool with that?
The urban dictionary is hardly authoritative for what affluent kids at Catholic prep schools in Washington DC meant back in the early 1980’s.
 
Also Hillary Clinton’s husband actually raped and beat a woman and there Is evidence and corroboration so we all, especially Erikaspirit, should be very thankful that Hillary didn’t win the election. We would have had the nations first “first rapist” or FROTUS in the White House. All sarcasm aside, that really was a bullet we dodged there. And hopefully he does end up being investigated as irregardless of political party or status, one should pay for their crimes if they are proven guilty of them.
We agree on that one! Clinton was a 1st class sleeze, and Hillary aided and abetted. I did not vote for Hillary, and would have voted for the Devil himself rather than her. Oh wait, I did–I voted for Trump!
 
So your saying that the boyfriend has an agenda, but Ford doesn’t?
Not at all. I’m saying half the country is attributing a political agenda to Christine, but at the same time thinks the boyfriend has a 100% good memory and is telling the truth. Nonsense.
 
Why would Ford be telling the truth? Why not? What’s her motive?
I wouldn’t know- but maybe because she’s a known political operative, wore the pink hat after inauguration day and appears to be well connected politically? There is a way for investigators to find out however. If they looked at Ms. Ford’s computer and phone, if the event was planned in advance with Sen. Feinstein or others there would be a record.
 
The urban dictionary is hardly authoritative for what affluent kids at Catholic prep schools in Washington DC meant back in the early 1980’s.
So you really think those thing meant what Kavanaugh said they meant? Want to buy a bridge? I have a very nice one for sale up in Brooklyn.
 
He was just someone very close in her life that said she even enjoyed flying in prop planes. Not bore it, but enjoyed it. I think it’s possible she was assaulted at some point in her life, I just doubt it was Kav or at a gathering like she described. I know it was a LONG time ago, but a person would remember being ditched by their best friend at a small party/get together. Just poof, gone. She would remember that even if she didn’t remember Kav. The friend would have called her to ask what happened, why the heck did you leave me there alone with a several guys? And where in the world did you go from there running away on foot, how did you even get home?? There just would have been some follow up of some kind in an orderly universe and it wouldn’t have been forgotten. The friend may have even been able to tell the FBI how dr Ford got home that night, had she been at such a gathering where she was ditched. None of it makes any sense at all.
 
And of course you believe every word the ex-boyfriend from 20+ years ago says, right? He has no agenda whatsoever, right? No one has bothered to check his veracity. We don’t know anything about him.
As opposed to believing every word that Ford says about what happened 30+ years ago, when she has no agenda whatsoever, right? Did you bother to check Ford’s veracity? We didn’t know anything about Ford before last week.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top