You said she refused, she has not. This post is what's called a red herring fallacy, it has nothing to do with the topic and is meant only to distract. Youre using the fallacy to avoid admitting that you were wrong, or at least mispoke. Mulligan. Edit: could also be considered moving the goalposts, depending on how you interpret. On second thought, goalposts is probably more accurate, lol.
I mean, she hasn’t refused in the same sense that, if you told me to go to the FSU game tomorrow and I told you I only will if you give me $30,000,000.00, I guess I haven’t technically refused to go to the FSU game. But if I were you I wouldn’t be real worried about any rational folks blaming you for me not being in Doak tomorrow.
She was invited to testify, she has not done so. She has put forth unrealistic demands in the name of "negotiations". We could split hairs here all night, but you better hurry, I get off of Too Hot by 2:00 AM Eastern on game days and don't return until after the game is over.
Looks to me like they accepted some of her conditions and countered the ones they didn't like. Sounds like a negotiation to me.
I could be convinced to go to Doak tomorrow if i had just a little less confidence that they would win. I would love to be there if they were to lose tomorrow.
Hell, I'd go for $20M. We aren't on a national championship run this year and there would be a certain comedic entertainment watching Francois get dumped on his ass every other play.
Imo, her requests were totally reasonable; senators accepted some and countered... Sounds like your reps agree with me on this one. Her requests were not viewed by the reps as outlandish enough to be a veiled refusal. Otherwise they wouldn't be playing ball.
Don't worry, i got this one; Ill respond on your behalf. Well, I still feel like her demands were unreasonable and meant as a veiled refusal. However, I can't argue with you on this one. Your assessment is spot on.
That’s cute, you’re naive enough to think either side is actually seriously trying to make her testifying happen and not just posturing over who will get blamed when it doesn’t.
Unusual for me as you know, I have not posted in this thread. The Senate Majority Leader announces yesterday that Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed. That is before the hearing. Making credibility determinations based on political viewpoints is shameful no matter what side someone is on. This is a done deal. His opinion and the Law Review Article reflect his activist right wing extremism and he should be rejected for that and his lying anyway. He is exactly what the right complains about on so called liberal judges. He makes every effort to circumvent precedent based on personal beliefs with distinctions that essentially make the precedent meaningless. Like his dissent and questioning in the teenager abortion case. He is an activist right wing judge. If a Democrat was President and the subject of an ongoing investigation, the right would be killing the nomination of a liberal judge who believed in broad, unfettered executive power. That view was rejected even by the Federalists. As I see it, Trump can pick a justice whose views he shares, but this guy was the wrong pick. Shame on all for prejudging this.
Or if Kavanaugh was a left leaning SC nominee, all the Dems & media would be using the same arguments as the Pubs are now. It's not as if the Dems have a stellar record when it comes to far, far more credible sexual allegations against their top dog.
I agree that in terms of character references, Kavanaugh has a lot of people supporting him. There is little question he's led an exemplary life and treated people right. In terms of this particular incident, as far as I can tell it is completely a he said / she said thing right now. They're both on their own with no witnesses to specifically confirm or refute any portion of her story, and her story lacks specificity other than referencing Kavanaugh and Judge. As I've noted before, I think this will swing on whether there are any witnesses from the party willing to come forward and testify. If there are not, Kavanaugh will be confirmed. While I agree Feinstein was engaging in politics, I would not put that on Ford. This came up years ago in therapy sessions. She didn't make it up for political theater.
Why didn’t the FBI investigate the allegation at the beginning of August 2018, when Feinstein gave them the Ford letter?
Given Fords compensated activities in the abortion Pharos industry she has a significant motivation to see Kavanaugh’s nomination derailed. For all we know, this matter is a contrivance for which she’s being compensated in some fashion. None of us will ever know the veracity of the allegation and the benefits derived by parties involved.
" being fair " would be to not rush to judgement....take one week to subpoena Mark Judge ( the other guy in the room ), and any others with some corroborating evidence...have them testify under oath....question the accuser and the accused, under oath...and then make a more qualified judgement.....there is precedent for this procedure....
This all feels like a well orchestrated sheeple herding exercise. Got a well meaning rube who isn't liking the way her side is losing and decides to, analogy speaking, be a coach who tackles the runner heading down the sideline in front of him. But at the end of the day, both sides only care about shoring up their own side and remain in power. Nothing tells me anyone is truly interested in moving the ball forward. Both sides need to be kicked out.
Only two percent of sexual assault reports are false and most assaults never even get reported, because of the brutal process victims are put through both in the criminal justice system and by many people in society blaming and shaming the victims. Her assault coming up in marriage therapy years later is completely consistent with an assault victim not having dealt with the assault. And the fact it came up years before this event pretty much rules out the political conspiracy angle. Almost certainly, she was assaulted.
Kavanaugh had a lifetime appointment with senate confirmation to the dc circuit in 2006. I guess that doesn't warrant a 40 year old rape accusation.
Her therapy session happened years ago. Your theory is a big stretch. Aside from that, the likelihood the morning after pill would ever be impacted has to be just short of zero. Nobody would put themselves through all of this over something that almost certainly would never happen. Just as she needs support to get her story believed, so do you with claiming she is being compensated to do this. I agree we will never know the objective truth in what happened here, certainly as long as there are no witnesses willing to testify. But if we want to go down the conspiracy angle as you seem intent on doing, Judge's letter that "he has no knowledge" and his refusal to testify would be entirely consistent with being a witness to the assault and not wanting to perjure himself. These conspiracy theories are cool, huh?
