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

[lierre 224]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

The real question is will we allow the Democrats to ruin this for women that are truly victims of sexual attack.

 

I don’t agree with generalizing a party. Most Americans tend to do that these days to increase divisiveness. You seem like you’re one of those Americans.

 

Democrats or whoever will not “ruin this for women that are truly victims.” THAT has been happening for a very long time.

 

And CLEARLY, it’s at play here when people victim-blame and “poke holes” and claim “false memories” for sexual violence survivors that come forward.

 

Again, whatever the outcome will be will NOT “ruin” anything for survivors. It’s something survivors, which 95% of the time will include Dr Blasey Ford, have been dealing with for a VERY long time.

[lierre 224]

56 minutes ago, Sonea said:

Perhaps you misunderstood my question. I'll try again. You have an accusation that is made public. How is it determined if its false with regards to that statistic? I assume its determined through criminal proceedings correct?

 

By the way, I checked the conviction rate and it appears to be about 3%. So that means a total of 92% of all women that come forward are in limbo between false and true in the criminal court system. 

 

I didn’t misunderstand your question.

 

However, you seem to be under the impression that every act of sexual violence is reported to law enforcement and that every act reported to law enforcement undergo criminal proceedings. And you seem to be under the impression that all accusations have their day in court. And that anyone who was “truly assaulted” would stop at nothing to apprehend their attackers. 

 

How cute. I wish I could be as naive. Look up “backlog of rape kits” and “underreporting of sexual assault”.

 

[Sonea 138]

18 minutes ago, ivyanddan said:

 

I didn’t misunderstand your question.

 

However, you seem to be under the impression that every act of sexual violence is reported to law enforcement and that every act reported to law enforcement undergo criminal proceedings. And you seem to be under the impression that all accusations have their day in court. And that anyone who was “truly assaulted” would stop at nothing to apprehend their attackers. 

 

How cute. I wish I could be as naive. Look up “backlog of rape kits” and “underreporting of sexual assault”.

 

Actually no. I was basing it on RAIIN statistics. Rape Abuse & Incest National Network. Out of 1000 assaults 310 are reported to the police. The 310 represent the quantity of accusations. Only 7 of those result in a conviction. That is where I get 3% (of the 310). 

[lierre 224]

12 minutes ago, Sonea said:

Actually no. I was basing it on RAIIN statistics. Rape Abuse & Incest National Network. Out of 1000 assaults 310 are reported to the police. The 310 represent the quantity of accusations. Only 7 of those result in a conviction. That is where I get 3% (of the 310). 

 

That’s great. Avoid nitpicking stats and I’m sure the rest of what RAINN has to offer in data can help you contextualize false reporting & convictions further.

[Sonea 138]

5 minutes ago, ivyanddan said:

 

That’s great. Avoid nitpicking stats and I’m sure the rest of what RAINN has to offer in data can help you contextualize false reporting & convictions further.

I'm not entirely sure why you are being so snarky with me to be honest, nor do I see how I am nitpicking. 

Edited October 3, 2018 by Sonea

[lierre 224]

1 minute ago, Sonea said:

I'm not entirely sure why you are being so snarky with me to be honest. 

 

Is being a direct, factual & critical thinker considered “snarky” because I’m a woman?

 

Just imagine I’m a man, if it helps.

[Sonea 138]

7 minutes ago, ivyanddan said:

 

Is being a direct, factual & critical thinker considered “snarky” because I’m a woman?

 

Just imagine I’m a man, if it helps.

Well lets see. You claimed I'm "under the impression" of alot of things which isn't true. You called me naive. You said I am nitpicking. I could go on....

 

 

Edited October 3, 2018 by Sonea

[Sonea 138]

9 minutes ago, ivyanddan said:

 

Is being a direct, factual & critical thinker considered “snarky” because I’m a woman?

 

Just imagine I’m a man, if it helps.

Also I don't get the man comment. Are you saying I'm naive because I'm a woman?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

 

 

Duke lacrosse case

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Whatabout whatabout? I'm all for cleaning house of those who don't belong there.

I've talked about it again and again... there is something about this guy that simply does not sit right with me. How he carries himself, his tone, his deflection. IF there is any doubt in any direction he simply should have had the decency to withdraw. I'm sorry that he's butthurt and feels entitled to the position, but he is not entitled to the position. My husband asked me what would I do if he was falsely accused, I said I would be supportive of him, but I also know that he would be honorable enough to withdraw and not put his family and the country through the BS. He agreed. He watched how Kavanaugh behaved very closely and found it downright odd. He agreed that it did not matter if the accusation was provably true or not - he simply does not have the temperament. Beyond that, he grew concerned about his behavior at his current post. I remember quite clearly the Thomas-Hill hearings; Thomas was pretty angry but I never recall his temperament behaving like that, nor do I recall him behaving entitled as such.

I did not hear anything in Ms Ford's testimony that implied she did anything last minute, but certainly the accusations could have been handled better. We need to investigate what wrangling went on there. Kavanaugh should have withdrawn, but even still, the WH should have pulled the nomination, saved face and picked someone better. There's a couple women in the mix, perhaps even more staunchly conservative that would have made everyone happy on the R side. Mitch did not even want Kavanaugh to begin with.

 

Now that we've reached this ridiculous point he will either be confirmed and then eventually impeached (you know that's going to come eventually). Or all the blustering and posturing by Mitch and co is simply political theater. They don't really like the guy in the first place but they need to save face, so they'll act like toddlers, and when the nomination fails they'll blame the D's, the few R holdouts that never liked him to begin with, and end up looking completely dysfunctional.

You don't like him.  He should have the decency to withdraw.  And if he's guilty,  I would agree with you.  But let's say he did nothing he has been accused of.  Why should he withdraw, just because you don't like his demeanor??

 

If it were me, and the allegations were false, not only would I not have the decency to withdraw, I'd fight back like crazy.  And I would probably pursue slander and libel charges afterwards.   

 

You say HE "put the country thru this BS"... even though there is no evidence against him, yet you are blaming him, not the dems who started this party. 

 

Unbelievable.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Dr. Ford is the accuser, the burden of proof is on her.  If she truly wanted justice, she should have contacted the authorities in Maryland even now, but instead we get a political circus orchestrated by the Democrats.  You don’t think the Democrats are able to sink to the level of false accusations?

I wonder why Ford did not come forward in 2006 when he was appointed as judge on the US Court of Appeals?  She had a chance then to expose this terrible man, did she not remember the incident 12 years ago?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, ivyanddan said:

 

That’s great. Avoid nitpicking stats and I’m sure the rest of what RAINN has to offer in data can help you contextualize false reporting & convictions further.

You might want to check your attitude at the door.  Feel free to debate away, and post your links to facts all day.  I'm sure many of us could learn from it.  But you happen to  e copping an attitude with one of the most level-headed women in this forum, whose posts are usually very well articulated.

 

It's a mixed bag here, you'll find all kind of opinions, and sometimes fact thrown in for good measure.  But overall, a good group of folks.  Emotions get involved, and the types word is often misunderstood,  but stick around, and I'm sure you'll have some fun.

 

Welcome to CEHST.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, ivyanddan said:

 

Is being a direct, factual & critical thinker considered “snarky” because I’m a woman?

 

Just imagine I’m a man, if it helps.

Wow.  Again.  (Sorry, I am just now catching up)

 

You jump into a forum where you know no one, and start calling names.  You also state several numerical stats as "facts", without a single link to back up your claims,  and act like everyone should just believe you because some guy touched you unwelcomedly in the past. 

 

Take a chill pill.  Slow down. Get to know folks.   Have a virtual beer (or coffee) and share your wisdom with us.  Not everyone here is a nasty man towards whom you can spew vitriol.  And I can assure you... Sones may be many things, but native is NOT one of them!

[TBoneTX 43,058]

Yes, and the Terms of Service apply and have been applied to participants in this forum.

[Dashinka 23,242]

14 hours ago, ivyanddan said:

 

I don’t agree with generalizing a party. Most Americans tend to do that these days to increase divisiveness. You seem like you’re one of those Americans.

 

Democrats or whoever will not “ruin this for women that are truly victims.” THAT has been happening for a very long time.

 

And CLEARLY, it’s at play here when people victim-blame and “poke holes” and claim “false memories” for sexual violence survivors that come forward.

 

Again, whatever the outcome will be will NOT “ruin” anything for survivors. It’s something survivors, which 95% of the time will include Dr Blasey Ford, have been dealing with for a VERY long time.

I don't disagree with the fact that we should not be stereotyping, but in this case it is warranted.  When is the last time the GOP put out a campaign to completely destroy a person personally and professionally that was nominated by a Democratic president for purely political purposes?  I often say that all politicians are liars (and generally they are), but in this case, the Dems are deep in the gutter and have been from day 1 of the Kavanaugh nomination as evidenced by Schumer's remarks minutes after the nomination.  This entire campaign was purely for the fence sitting Republican senators and those traitors from the Democrat side that may vote for Kavanaugh.  Senator Feinstein completely ignored senate rules and did not disclose (in confidence) this allegation so that it could have been vetted without needing to out Dr. Ford (which she said was her desire, to remain anonymous).  Instead we get this circus orchestrated by the Dems, and their lawyers, Dr. Ford was thrust into the limelight, and her allegations were taken very seriously by the party in power.  Of course as everyone knew it all came down to a he said she said, but the he said side had a lot more corroboration to prove his innocence.  I realize that in many eyes he is absolutely guilty (the Sixth Amendment be damned), but to simply plead "no contest" to these charges was also not an option considering the seriousness of the allegations, besides most people treat "no contest" pleas as admissions of guilt, so he most likely would have lost his current position, lost any respect from his wife and daughters as well as anyone else, I know, he deserves complete personal and professional destruction because the Dems don't like him politically.