What's new
By:

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zombie said:
Credible doesn't mean proven, it just means it's believable or plausible.
Click to expand...
so credible is relative.

so if i say ford and all other witnesses are not credible. becuase i dont believe it and doesnt seem plausible to me!

nothing you can do about that!


or is theie a left wing minsitry of truth that gets to decide
 
After I had a chance to watch more of the hearing, I think just Kavanaugh's demeanor alone during the hearing is enough to turn me off from him as a viable candidate. Yes, I get he was under a lot of pressure, but the job he wants is a high-pressure job. Is that how we want our SCOTUS justices to behave when the going gets tough? **** no. To me he was basically going full ad hominem at the senators running the hearing, and usually people descend to that level when they don't have any other arguments.

And the veiled and not-so-veiled threats he made should be enough to get him sanctioned in his current job, imo. He may not have done what Ford said he did, but just the way he acted there was enough for me. Time to move on.
 
Zombie said:
The Ramirez allegation certainly is credible. This excerpt from the original New Yorker article gives a good example of why. That someone was able to independantly recall details such as the time period and location of the alleged event lends credibility to her story.

A classmate of Ramirez’s, who declined to be identified because of the partisan battle over Kavanaugh’s nomination, said that another student told him about the incident either on the night of the party or in the next day or two. The classmate said that he is “one-hundred-per-cent sure” that he was told at the time that Kavanaugh was the student who exposed himself to Ramirez. He independently recalled many of the same details offered by Ramirez, including that a male student had encouraged Kavanaugh as he exposed himself.

For an allegation to be credible no physical evidence needs to be present. Credible doesn't mean proven, it just means it's believable or plausible.
Click to expand...

First. Hand. Corroboration. None. Nada. Zilch.

With the amount of people involved, named by the accusers, to not have any of it is absurd.
 
LogGrad98 said:
After I had a chance to watch more of the hearing, I think just Kavanaugh's demeanor alone during the hearing is enough to turn me off from him as a viable candidate. Yes, I get he was under a lot of pressure, but the job he wants is a high-pressure job. Is that how we want our SCOTUS justices to behave when the going gets tough? **** no. To me he was basically going full ad hominem at the senators running the hearing, and usually people descend to that level when they don't have any other arguments.

And the veiled and not-so-veiled threats he made should be enough to get him sanctioned in his current job, imo. He may not have done what Ford said he did, but just the way he acted there was enough for me. Time to move on.
Click to expand...

I imagine having our nations leaders accuse you of gang rape and sexual assault might make a person rather testy.
 
LogGrad98 said:
After I had a chance to watch more of the hearing, I think just Kavanaugh's demeanor alone during the hearing is enough to turn me off from him as a viable candidate. Yes, I get he was under a lot of pressure, but the job he wants is a high-pressure job. Is that how we want our SCOTUS justices to behave when the going gets tough? **** no. And the veiled and not-so-veiled threats he made should be enough to get him sanctioned in his current job, imo. He may not have done what Ford said he did, but just the way he acted there was enough for me. Time to move on.
Click to expand...
This. We'll likely never know whether or not he is guilty of the various allegations against him, but we're fractured enough as a nation as it is, and the SC is one of the few institutions left that hasn't been consumed with tribal partisanship. Kavanaugh showed obvious animus towards Democrats both in his opening statement and in his sneering contempt for the Democrats on the committee.
 
JustTheTip said:
First. Hand. Corroboration. None. Nada. Zilch.

With the amount of people involved, named by the accusers, to not have any of it is absurd.
Click to expand...
Considering everyone at the party is implicated in the assault (given that he was being egged on by those present) it really isn't absurd at all.

Not to mention the investigation into these claims is literally like two days old.
 
Im glad that stuff i did from the time i was around 16 years old until my later 20’s doesnt get dug up and blasted all over the media.

I did some pretty horrible **** in my day. Though i never raped anyone. At least there is that.

My list of regretful things i did would be very long.
 
fishonjazz said:
Im glad that stuff i did from the time i was around 16 years old until my later 20’s doesnt get dug up and blasted all over the media.

I did some pretty horrible **** in my day. Though i never raped anyone. At least there is that.

My list of regretful things i did would be very long.
Click to expand...

As well I’m glad I’m not in politics because the things I didn’t do would be brought front and center. Lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
JustTheTip said:
Credible accusations?

Of all three, only Ford is remotely credible.

Ramirez, and Swetnick are obviously not.

Again, it’s hard for me to find anything credible with the absence of even one first hand corroboration (outside of the accusers) from 3 separate accusations and multiple witnesses given by the accusers. Since when did accusations become credible without evidence?
Click to expand...
I thought Swetnick's was credible when I first read it, especially because she claimed she had corroboration, but none of that has materialized as far as I know. Swetnick's charge does not age well once you think about what kind of a woman would be going to multiple parties where boys are supposedly waiting in line to rape girls. And then eventually she claims that she got gang raped herself under similar circumstances. She ought to have reported such parties to the authorities, not continued attending them. And it seems very odd that based on her graduation date she would have been in college at the time she was attending these high school parties. The more info I learn about her story the more I think she might have an overactive imagination or an ulterior motive.

I know a woman who I recently learned graduated from the same high school as Dr. Ford, two years behind her (I think). I'm looking forward to hearing her take on all of this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page
Back
Top