Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph; Grassley sounds alarm

[yuna628 9,527]

21 minutes ago, ivyanddan said:

 

I was assaulted in 2010. I can’t remember what he looks like, I don’t know his name, I don’t even know why I was on that crowded bus. All I know is he assaulted me for what felt like an hour but was really just 5 minutes... and I remember that feeling of being violated.

 

Since then, I’ve had a fear of being in crowds, but if you wanna look at my history, you can’t say I’ve avoided crowds entirely. I also don’t ride public transportation if I could, but I still ride them out of necessity.

 

By the logic presented by most people trying to find so-called “holes”, I’m lying about my assault because I don’t panic when I’m in a crowd or when I’m on public transportation.

 

Less than 5% of people that report sexual violence are false claims. That’s been consistent in a lot of national and state surveys.

 

With that statistic, that means there’s a 95% chance that Judge Kavanaugh committed a sexual assault.

 

 

 

The rest of the world that has never experienced being sexually assaulted will never understand what it's victims endure, or will continue to endure in their day to day lives, or how they manage to cope with it in order to survive I'm afraid..

[lierre 224]

Just now, yuna628 said:

The rest of the world that has never experienced being sexually assaulted will never understand what it's victims endure, or will continue to endure in their day to day lives, or how they manage to cope with it in order to survive I'm afraid..

It’s actually (and sadly) not as uncommon as people think.

 

1 in 3 women and 1 in 6 US men have experienced contact sexual violence in their lifetime. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nisvs/infographic.html

 

and people would rather deny that it happens rather than believe survivors.

 

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

3 minutes ago, ivyanddan said:

Oh, I looked it up. How cute.

 

Nope. I know sexual violence statistics, because I’m a highly educated female immigrant.

The statistic that only 5% of people report sexual assault , somehow meaning there is a 95% chance that kavanaugh is guilty is a little bit of a stretch wouldn't you say.

I dont know why people think there should be evidence to support Fords accusations, LOL

[lierre 224]

Just now, Marty Byrde said:

The statistic that only 5% of people report sexual assault , somehow meaning there is a 95% chance that kavanaugh is guilty is a little bit of a stretch wouldn't you say.

I dont know why people think there should be evidence to support Fords accusations, LOL

 

Prevalence is not the statistically the same as odds, but you can’t sufficiently estimate odds in a national scale without asking every single person in the US about experiences of sexual assault.

 

So, I don’t agree with you that 95% is a stretch. 95% is our best estimate in this case. If you don’t believe me, read this NSVRC article on false reporting: https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf 

 

Studies cited here used law enforcement reports so that there’s a degree of substantiation attempted.

 

Conspiracy theories however are safer to hide in because you don’t have to deal with the fact that 1 in 3 women around you have experienced being sexually assaulted.

[yuna628 9,527]

24 minutes ago, ivyanddan said:

It’s actually (and sadly) not as uncommon as people think.

 

1 in 3 women and 1 in 6 US men have experienced contact sexual violence in their lifetime. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nisvs/infographic.html

 

and people would rather deny that it happens rather than believe survivors.

 

 

And I've long struggled with why people do not believe survivors of such assaults... for me it is painfully clear that nothing survivors have to say will ever matter enough to change the status quo. It's too 'comfortable' for people to hang in their partisan corners, but I still defy them to look into the eyes of their mothers, daughters, wives, sisters, and gfs... and ask what they would do if someone they loved wasn't believed.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

3 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

And I've long struggled with why people do not believe survivors of such assaults... for me it is painfully clear that nothing survivors have to say will ever matter enough to change the status quo. It's too 'comfortable' for people to hang in their partisan corners, but I still defy them to look into the eyes of their mothers, daughters, wives, sisters, and gfs... and ask what they would do if someone they loved wasn't believed.

Because, just because someone accuses somebody of something does not make it ture. Its absurd to assert that someone has to be believed with zero evidence, just because of their sex.

[yuna628 9,527]

3 minutes ago, Marty Byrde said:

Because, just because someone accuses somebody of something does not make it ture. Its absurd to assert that someone has to be believed with zero evidence, just because of their sex.

Just because a self-entitled man did badly at a job interview does not make his denials true either. If there is even a tiny question as to the potential truthfulness of his statements and actions he should not be accepted onto the court. There may be doubt yes (is she telling the truth? is he lying? or vice versa). But if that doubt exists in either direction or case, he should not be accepted. There are as I said, many more qualified individuals of which such questions would not arise.

 

If someone you loved had this happen to them, would you believe them? Or would you say just because they accuse somebody doesn't make it true. I'd hope you'd be supportive, and I'd hope you'd be angry when the rest of world laughs at their misfortune.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Just because a self-entitled man did badly at a job interview does not make his denials true either. If there is even a tiny question as to the potential truthfulness of his statements and actions he should not be accepted onto the court. There may be doubt yes (is she telling the truth? is he lying? or vice versa). But if that doubt exists in either direction or case, he should not be accepted. There are as I said, many more qualified individuals of which such questions would not arise.

 

If someone you loved had this happen to them, would you believe them? Or would you say just because they accuse somebody doesn't make it true. I'd hope you'd be supportive, and I'd hope you'd be angry when the rest of world laughs at their misfortune.

What about Cory Booker?

[Dashinka 23,199]

1 hour ago, ivyanddan said:

 

I don’t understand why people keep trying to treat this as if Dr Blasey Ford has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he assaulted her. Arguments being made to discredit her are clearly just to create the story of a conspiracy against Judge Kavanaugh. 

 

Just because a woman aligns herself with women’s rights (which used to be a Republican agenda, FYI) does not prove she’s a political pawn for the other party.

 

 

 

So it is ok to destroy someone for political purposes?  I guess presumed innocence is a thing of the past.  And yes, even though this is not a court of law, he, Kavanaugh, is still entitled to presumed innocence.

[jg121783 3,907]

1 hour ago, ivyanddan said:

I don’t understand why people keep trying to treat this as if Dr Blasey Ford has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he assaulted her. 

Because we have something called due process where you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. At least we used to have due process. I don't know if we have it any more.

[Dashinka 23,199]

5 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Just because a self-entitled man did badly at a job interview does not make his denials true either. If there is even a tiny question as to the potential truthfulness of his statements and actions he should not be accepted onto the court. There may be doubt yes (is she telling the truth? is he lying? or vice versa). But if that doubt exists in either direction or case, he should not be accepted. There are as I said, many more qualified individuals of which such questions would not arise.

 

If someone you loved had this happen to them, would you believe them? Or would you say just because they accuse somebody doesn't make it true. I'd hope you'd be supportive, and I'd hope you'd be angry when the rest of world laughs at their misfortune.

Did bad at a job interview? How would you respond if being falsely accused?  This was a very convenient accusation by Dr. Ford, it brought out the MeToo crowd to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars to support her, and it would be almost impossible to disprove her accusation (I.e. no blowback her way legally).  We always hear that sexual predators do not changes their stripes, so if Kavanaugh was such a sexual deviant in high school, where are all the accusations that are much more current?  Call it conspiracy theory thinking, but I would not put anything past the Democrats that already said they were against Kavanaugh before they even talked to him.

[Sonea 138]

14 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Just because a self-entitled man did badly at a job interview does not make his denials true either. If there is even a tiny question as to the potential truthfulness of his statements and actions he should not be accepted onto the court. There may be doubt yes (is she telling the truth? is he lying? or vice versa). But if that doubt exists in either direction or case, he should not be accepted. There are as I said, many more qualified individuals of which such questions would not arise.

 

If someone you loved had this happen to them, would you believe them? Or would you say just because they accuse somebody doesn't make it true. I'd hope you'd be supportive, and I'd hope you'd be angry when the rest of world laughs at their misfortune.

I think alot of the "unspoken rules" of politics were thrown out during this confirmation and that is why we, all of us, are where we are today.

 

In previous hearings, accusations were released early to  get the candidate to deny accusations but still politely withdraw. In this hearing Feinstein screwed up and introduced it in the 11th hour which has created a game of brinksmanship. At this stage you have one side trying to hold a line that says if there is any shade of doubt about a candidate, they should not be confirmed against another side that sees this as a situation where if any doubt can be acquired in the 11th hour it automatically discredits the nominee which isn't seen as a fair process.

 

Basically....Kavanaugh should have withdrawn, and that was the goal of the democrats. They played their hand wrong though by waiting so long putting the GOP up against the wall, so Kavanaugh can not withdraw under these circumstances.

 

Its a lose / lose scenario now. If he is confirmed, it will look like a slap in the face to women who have been assaulted. If he isn't confirmed, the future playbook will be to find any accusations...hold on to them, and then tank the process in the final day or two before a vote. 

Edited October 3, 2018 by Sonea

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

8 minutes ago, Sonea said:

I think alot of the "unspoken rules" of politics were thrown out during this confirmation and that is why we, all of us, are where we are today.

 

In previous hearings, accusations were released early to  get the candidate to deny accusations but still politely withdraw. In this hearing Feinstein screwed up and introduced it in the 11th hour which has created a game of brinksmanship. At this stage you have one side trying to hold a line that says if there is any shade of doubt about a candidate, they should not be confirmed against another side that sees this as a situation where if any doubt can be acquired in the 11th hour it automatically discredits the nominee which isn't seen as a fair process.

 

Basically....Kavanaugh should have withdrawn, and that was the goal of the democrats. They played their hand wrong though by waiting so long putting the GOP up against the wall, so Kavanaugh can not withdraw under these circumstances.

 

Its a lose / lose scenario now. If he is confirmed, it will look like a slap in the face to women who have been assaulted. If he isn't confirmed, the future playbook will be to find any accusations...hold on to them, and then tank the process in the final day or two before a vote. 

If he isn't appointed, it will be a slap in the face to anyone falsely accused. If the worse thing he has ever done in his life is get drunk at a party as a tenager and push another drunk teneager onto a bed, then he has lead a pretty tame life.

[Sonea 138]

5 minutes ago, Marty Byrde said:

If he isn't appointed, it will be a slap in the face to anyone falsely accused. If the worse thing he has ever done in his life is get drunk at a party as a tenager and push another drunk teneager onto a bed, then he has lead a pretty tame life.

If he is falsely accused. The problem is there are no hard facts presented by either party, so we are left with hearsay.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

8 minutes ago, Sonea said:

If he is falsely accused. The problem is there are no hard facts presented by either party, so we are left with hearsay.

exactly. There is no pattern, nothing else.

 

If one person accused weinstein 37 years ago of something and 50 other women said he was a perfect gentleman ??  Patterns in human behavior emerge. 

Edited October 3, 2018 by Marty Byrde