Supreme court nominees

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kmcicco2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ender said:
What is abundantly clear is that every detail she “remembers” that can be refuted has in fact been refuted.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you mean by refuted? Denial or lack of recollection is not refutation.
What do you think are the details, and how do you think that they have been refuted?
 
How about every detail she remembers that should have collaborating evidence does not have collaborating evidence.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The only one of these that has any importance is Hirono…
Click to expand...
Right, because none of us would care one way or another if unsubstantiated allegations of attempted rape were made against us and were supported by the major media. Their opinions aren’t of any importance… except to people living in the real world.
 
Ender said:
40.png
dvdjs:
I am not sure what you mean by refuted?
Click to expand...
I mean what Merriam-Webster means: to deny the truth or accuracy of
Denial or lack of recollection is not refutation.
Click to expand...
No, not in our brave new world where only the accusation matters.
Click to expand...
Not all accusers. Ask Karen Monahan

 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
The only one of these that has any importance is Hirono…
Click to expand...
Right, because none of us would care one way or another if unsubstantiated allegations of attempted rape were made against us and were supported by the major media. Their opinions aren’t of any importance… except to people living in the real world.
Click to expand...
You asked what happened to the presumption of innocence. I assumed you were referring to the current hearings. If you want to open up the discussion to all sorts of people and organizations, I can readily assure you that the presumption of innocence is violated every day. I can cite people representing well-known organizations that quite openly proclaim that the Clintons are personally responsible for the death of Vince Foster. There are even people proclaiming that the pope is the anti-Christ. So it does not surprise me that certain talking heads are sure that Judge Kavanaugh is guilty.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
How does this connect to the meaning of “refute”?
Click to expand...
Ender said:
What is abundantly clear is that every detail she “remembers” that can be refuted has in fact been refuted. It is only the “facts” she cannot remember that, unsurprisingly, cannot also be disputed.
Click to expand...
humbleseeker said:
How about every detail she remembers that should have collaborating evidence does not have collaborating evidence.
Click to expand...
Since the meaning of refute is in question, I was trying to make the point that her allegations have no other witnesses without using the word refute. But I know, since it was just a “job interview” you are allowed to level serious criminal accusations at someone and not have to prove what you said happened, actually happened. And if the accused denies it, they are guilty.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
40.png
JonNC:
Not all accusers. Ask Karen Monahan
Click to expand...
Yor favorite Senator form Hawaii has called for an investigation, as you know.
Click to expand...
About time.as a follow up, it seems I was wrong. There has already been an investigation by Hirono’s own Democrat Party in Minnesota, sonit must be accurate.
**.An allegation standing alone is not necessarily sufficient to conclude that conduct occurred, particularly where the accusing party declines to produce supporting evidence that she herself asserts exists,” Ellingstad wrote. **
Click to expand...
Wait. What? “An allegation standing alone is not necessarily sufficient to conclude that conduct occurred”.

In place, in print, by progressive Democrats. The double standard.
The question regarding Hirono is, which is stronger, her partisanship or her sexism.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.time...ocratic-investigation-keith-ellison-minnesota
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
In place, in print, by progressive Democrats. The double standard.
Click to expand...
To accuse the left of having a double standard misses the point: their actions are not determined by abstract standards but by specific objectives. Actions that advance the objectives are valid; whatever threatens the objectives is to be opposed by whatever means are effective. Thus the determination of what to do is based on two calculations: is it beneficial, and can we get away with it? Their actions are much more comprehensible when understood this way.
 
humbleseeker said:
Since the meaning of refute is in question
Click to expand...
The meaning of refute is not in question. If Merriam-Webster is not an adequate source we can refer to the English Oxford dictionary:

1.2 Deny or contradict (a statement or accusation)

What dvdjs means is not that Ford’s claims haven’t been refuted, but that they haven’t been definitively proven to be false, which is the new apparent standard for baseless allegations: I don’t have to prove them true, it is your job to prove them false. Which would mean that the claims there are little green men on Mars, and Jesus had blue eyes are irrefutable. Not that they are irrefutably true, mind you, merely that they are irrefutable.

Keep in mind that direct contradiction of a claim (by this standard) does not constitute refutation either. Given that all of the people named by Ford have rejected her claim - and this still does not rise to the level of “refutation” - it is clear that the charge is intended to stand as “irrefutable.”
 
“Refute, deny, contradict” - None of these words are what is happening with the “other” individuals mentioned. The only thing they have said is that they don’t remember or didn’t see what Dr. Ford claims is the case. (The notion of “proof” is not a necessary component of “refute”. So it is incorrect that dvdjs is requiring “proof” before allowing “refute” to be applied correctly.)
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
The meaning of refute is not in question. If Merriam-Webster is not an adequate source we can refer to the English Oxford dictionary:
1.2 Deny or contradict (a statement or accusation)
Click to expand...
You neglected to cite definition 1.1 Prove that (someone) is wrong.

The meaning is not in question. Kavanaugh also said: "But the core of why we’re here is an allegation for which the four witnesses present have all said it didn’t happen.: His claim is that the evidence shows that Ford is wrong, not just that they are being denied.

The clever equivocation that “refute” allows might have been handy to create doubt on a perjury charge but his testimony is riddled with false and misleading statements, including: “… the four witnesses present have all said it didn’t happen”.

He knows what they actually said. He knows it isn’t this. And as a judge, he certainly knows the difference.
Ender said:
the new apparent standard for baseless allegations: I don’t have to prove them true, it is your job to prove them false.
Click to expand...
Nope. The new standard is the same as the old. Don’t lie under oath.
 
Last edited:
What a new standard, accusing is just as good as a full lawful trial in America. I can accuse and that’s enough.

And no, such uncorroborated accusations should not now, be subject of further investigations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top