Jump to content
Voice of Reason

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

 Share

125 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

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. 

Its going to backfire on them . I did not vote in the Primaries. I  am stoked to go vote now

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kavanaugh-slugfest-could-boost-gop-in-midterms-as-polls-show-voter-interest-rising

Kavanaugh slugfest could boost GOP in midterms, as polls show voter interest rising

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah the left jumped the shark on this one. The republicans will win the mid terms and get someone nominated to the Supreme Court and the left will lose their mind and riot in the streets.

morfunphil1_zpsoja67jml.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Sonea said:

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....

 

 

 

16 hours ago, Sonea said:

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

 

 

 

 

"Naive" and "nitpicking" hardly constitute "snarky". Unless there are "meanings" behind it that only come up when you're looking for holes (AKA nitpicking).

 

And as for your additional comment, please refer to the response I actually made and please refrain from twisting its meaning:

 

 

17 hours 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”.

 

 

 

Also, are you implying that only men can be sexist?

 

“The fact that we are here and that I speak these words is an attempt to break that silence and bridge some
of those differences between us, for it is not difference which immobilizes us, but silence.
And there are so many silences to be broken.”

Audre Lorde

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Satisfied said:

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.

 

15 hours ago, Satisfied said:

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!

 

I reckon the Terms of Conditions don't include banning someone only because I choose to use facts and I don't agree with the implications of the posts on this thread.

 

Would my credibility to stating facts be increased by including my academic credentials on my signature? Or does my credibility only rely on whether or not the facts I present align with yours and the some of the other commenters on this thread.

 

Unfortunately, belittling my experience of "some guy touched you unwelcomedly in the past" is HIGHLY insulting. But, it does NOT erase the many statistics that REFUTE the claims and myths that some of the commenters in this thread adhere to.

 

And, you're spreading a falsity. I have provided links. You just need to do a little bit more scrolling.

 

“The fact that we are here and that I speak these words is an attempt to break that silence and bridge some
of those differences between us, for it is not difference which immobilizes us, but silence.
And there are so many silences to be broken.”

Audre Lorde

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

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

 

I've reviewed the ToS in the past and I see 2 violations in this thread alone:

 

last_post.png

Post Content intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a broad demographic or group of people identified by a unifying trait or characteristic (discrimination). For instance, racist or sexist content may be considered hate speech.

 

last_post.png Make comments in a Post either direct or implied toward another member that are purposely designed to upset, antagonize, make fun of, belittle, harass, insult, or otherwise instigate an argument that takes away from the personal enjoyment of the Service by other users.

 

I understand "Hot Social Topics" include politics and politics will always be a heated debate. If the view of the forum moderators is that this series of threads should not contain dissenting opinions, it should be specified in the ToS.

 

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

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. 

 

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with the above text (blue color). I've watched Fox News and I don't agree with the implication that the Republican Party has never done a smear campaign like what you're implying the Democratic Party is doing.

 

I'm not against the theory that some/all of the Democratic Party could be exploiting this allegation for a positive political outcome. But, to ignore this allegation (which the Republican Party has not been doing) would be political suicide on their part. I think Judge Kavanaugh's "job interview" should not be reduced to just a battle between two political powers. And we should accord respect to the institution that he is being nominated to join.

 

And I disagree that he will suffer from "complete personal and professional destruction." History has told us that does not truly happen to men in his position. If it actually does, it will happen in 10 or so years --- example, Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein.

 

 

Edited by ivyanddan

“The fact that we are here and that I speak these words is an attempt to break that silence and bridge some
of those differences between us, for it is not difference which immobilizes us, but silence.
And there are so many silences to be broken.”

Audre Lorde

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: AOS (apr) Country: Norway
Timeline
27 minutes ago, ivyanddan said:

 

 

 

 

 

"Naive" and "nitpicking" hardly constitute "snarky". Unless there are "meanings" behind it that only come up when you're looking for holes (AKA nitpicking).

 

And as for your additional comment, please refer to the response I actually made and please refrain from twisting its meaning:

 

 

 

 

Also, are you implying that only men can be sexist?

 

I've reread your post and I can only assume there was snark behind it. You make many implications about things I haven't said repeatedly and then claim those views are naive . As to your comment about implying only men can be sexist, I don't know where this is even coming from - you are the one saying "pretend I am a man". Quite frankly, you haven't directly addressed anything I have posted in this thread and seem to be either arguing with yourself or a false impression of my views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sonea said:

I've reread your post and I can only assume there was snark behind it. You make many implications about things I haven't said repeatedly and then claim those views are naive . As to your comment about implying only men can be sexist, I don't know where this is even coming from - you are the one saying "pretend I am a man". Quite frankly, you haven't directly addressed anything I have posted in this thread and seem to be either arguing with yourself or a false impression of my views.

 

Re-posting my previous posts for your information:

 

21 hours ago, ivyanddan said:

 

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.

 

21 hours 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.

 

 

 

20 hours ago, ivyanddan said:

 

Pushing a “drunk teenager” onto a bed without consent is sexual violence. FYI.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/definitions.html

 

 

 

And in direct response to the criminal justice statistics you have been quoting, as I already said and what you've also found yourself, RAINN is a valuable resource:

 

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence

 

I understand you may not have the background that I have with regards to statistics and the criminal justice system. It's unfortunate you have construed my directness and my nearly obsessive habit of sticking to facts as "snarky." If you have any questions at all about interpreting these, I'm happy to oblige.

“The fact that we are here and that I speak these words is an attempt to break that silence and bridge some
of those differences between us, for it is not difference which immobilizes us, but silence.
And there are so many silences to be broken.”

Audre Lorde

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: AOS (apr) Country: Norway
Timeline
3 minutes ago, ivyanddan said:

 

 

I understand you may not have the background that I have with regards to statistics and the criminal justice system. It's unfortunate you have construed my directness and my nearly obsessive habit of sticking to facts as "snarky." If you have any questions at all about interpreting these, I'm happy to oblige.

See you continue to make an assumption that is wrong. Which is unfortunate.

 

You will notice, I've never made negative assumptions about your background, I'm only dealing with facts and opinions posted here.

Edited by Sonea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sonea said:

At any rate, over the course of my posts my only point was that from a accusation, you can't really say that the suspect is 95% likely to have committed the act.

 

Statistics are tricky. What's ideal is for us to ask everyone who exists in the US at that time to get a really true measure. But, we can't -- financially & logistically.

 

So, I wrote this response to another commenter addressing that concern about estimates:

 

 

21 hours ago, ivyanddan said:

 

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.

 

“The fact that we are here and that I speak these words is an attempt to break that silence and bridge some
of those differences between us, for it is not difference which immobilizes us, but silence.
And there are so many silences to be broken.”

Audre Lorde

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sonea said:

See you continue to make an assumption that is wrong. Which is unfortunate.

 

You will notice, I've never made negative assumptions about your background.

 

I never stated that not having a background similar to mine is negative at all. Please refrain from making false assumptions.

 

“The fact that we are here and that I speak these words is an attempt to break that silence and bridge some
of those differences between us, for it is not difference which immobilizes us, but silence.
And there are so many silences to be broken.”

Audre Lorde

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: AOS (apr) Country: Norway
Timeline
Just now, ivyanddan said:

 

I never stated that not having a background similar to mine is negative at all. Please refrain from making false assumptions.

 

You are the one making false assumptions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline
23 hours 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.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, ivyanddan said:

 

 

I reckon the Terms of Conditions don't include banning someone only because I choose to use facts and I don't agree with the implications of the posts on this thread.

 

Would my credibility to stating facts be increased by including my academic credentials on my signature? Or does my credibility only rely on whether or not the facts I present align with yours and the some of the other commenters on this thread.

 

Unfortunately, belittling my experience of "some guy touched you unwelcomedly in the past" is HIGHLY insulting. But, it does NOT erase the many statistics that REFUTE the claims and myths that some of the commenters in this thread adhere to.

 

And, you're spreading a falsity. I have provided links. You just need to do a little bit more scrolling.

 

Can you explain how you can misconstrue what I said about your experience as belittling?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline
41 minutes ago, Sonea said:

At any rate, over the course of my posts my only point was that from a accusation, you can't really say that the suspect is 95% likely to have committed the act.

Plus 1000!!   I think most everyone in this forum feels the same way.

 

That’s like saying because 87% of crimes are done with guns, and I own a gun, therefore I am 87% guilty of killing someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline
46 minutes ago, Sonea said:

See you continue to make an assumption that is wrong. Which is unfortunate.

 

You will notice, I've never made negative assumptions about your background, I'm only dealing with facts and opinions posted here.

 

42 minutes ago, ivyanddan said:

 

I never stated that not having a background similar to mine is negative at all. Please refrain from making false assumptions.

 

Nor did Sonea. In fact, Sonea made ZERO comments about your background.  You are the only one who brought it up. You are twisting up words and meanings. 

 

But do carry on.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...