Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Itssoeasy

The GOP press aide for the Kavanagh nomination has resigned. They were accused of harassment in the past according to NBC news.

Calina

Infini wrote: »

dudara wrote: »

I really dislike this argument as it demonstrates a failure to understand why sexual crimes aren’t reported. Its not unusual for sexual crimes to take decades to come to light.

The most likely explanation is that she had buried it all away, but seeing his face all over the media bought it all back for her. I don’t know who is speaking the truth here, none of us do as we were not there that night, but she is a credible person and this needs to be looked into.

It could likely be this. She gets on with life trying to forget about it but seeing him in the media for the supreme court along with her own political views could be enough to push her to take action. She's gonna get alot of flak from both critics and the miserable shytes who'll give her grief over it so it could have been this that made her hesitate till now to come out on this.

I do have some reservations myself of course of the risk of "false" sexual assault claim or ones used for political gain however if theres credible evidence to back it up then there should be no doubting it.

The risk of a false claim is significantly lower than the risk of a true claim. However evidence in sexual assault cases is often thin on the ground so the question will tend to be whose story is believed. Usually men get the benefit of the doubt here. Women/victims mostly don't. Comments about credible evidence are not mega helpful here.

jjep - I have seen figures of up to 9% of reported cases for the UK. That makes 91% of reported cases not false plus it is worth bearing in mind that it is estimated that a huge majority of cases are not reported. Those figures are not going to improve any time soon.

jjpep

Calina wrote: »

The risk of a false claim is significantly lower than the risk of a true claim. However evidence in sexual assault cases is often thin on the ground so the question will tend to be whose story is believed. Usually men get the benefit of the doubt here. Women/victims mostly don't. Comments about credible evidence are not mega helpful here.

jjep - I have seen figures of up to 9% of reported cases for the UK. That makes 91% of reported cases not false plus it is worth bearing in mind that it is estimated that a huge majority of cases are not reported. Those figures are not going to improve any time soon.

So I went and did a bit of googling after I posted. I didn't find the exact article but read a few others and a white paper published by an Australian university. Exact figures are not agreed on but 9% would be on the high side of what most research indicated. There is also the problem of what constitutes a false accusation. Again, no real consensus except that an accused being found innocent does not necessarily equation to a false accusation.

So when you combine that with the fact that most rapes or sexual assaults are never reported (figures vary again, a rough median would seem be only 20% in the first world), then the chances of an accuser telling what they believe to be true, to be true, is very high.

Jolly Red Giant

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I don't understand what Trump is doing(no one does) and the GOP are doing either. But my biggest surprise is the attitude of the nominee Bret kavanagh. He has said it never happened so why not let the FBI investigate it like they did with Clarence Thomas, but he seems to believe that his word is enough. I've found him to be a poor candidate imo. Senator Cory Booker gave him a slam dunk question about not sacking someone because of race. He should have said no he wouldn't straight away but faffed about when it was an easy question.

Kavanaugh supports racial profiling - so it's hardly a surprise that he fluffed the question.

Jolly Red Giant

jjpep wrote: »

I did read recently (don't have the link to hand) that up to 5% of rape accusations are false, with about half of these being situations where the family made the girl make an accusation because of becoming pregnant. These accusations tended not to be for historic rapes but recent.

The percentage of false rape claims is tiny - and are easily exposed - in the US estimates are between 2%-6%. This is based on reported cases of rape - yet it is estimated that up to half the rape cases in the US are never reported to the police.

Since records began in 1989, in the US there are only 52 cases where men convicted of sexual assault were exonerated because it turned out they were falsely accused. By way of comparison, in the same period, there are 790 cases in which people were exonerated for murder. Four times as many men are convicted of rape than of murder.

A study of sexual assault reports to police, undertaken for the British Home Office in the early 2000s, - out of 216 complaints that were classified as false, only 126 had even gotten to the stage where the accuser lodged a formal complaint. Only 39 complainants named a suspect. Only six cases led to an arrest, and only two led to charges being brought before they were ultimately deemed false. And this does not take into account the cases where the complaint is genuine but was classified as a false claim (which also happens).

Of course ignored in all of this is the estimate that 21%-25% of all women have been victims of some form of sexual violence during their lives.

Stallingrad

She's going to testify next week. Strap yourselves in.

Captain Obvious

So a PR firm pushed a theory that it was a case of mistaken identiy, pushed it hard. They then named a classmate of Kavanaugh.

Yesterday we saw GOP operative Ed Whelan make the bizarre and grotesque move of suggesting that a specific classmate of Brett Kavanaugh may have been the one who attempted to rape Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Whelan then tried to walk the whole thing back and apologized, but not before it was revealed that Whelan was playing for Team Kavanaugh when he did it.

https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/ford-identity-kavanaugh-public/12920/

What was that about false accusations?

This long Twitter post is worth a read through to see all the connections.

https://twitter.com/WarfareNavel/status/1043257382015524864

dr.fuzzenstein

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So a PR firm pushed a theory that it was a case of mistaken identiy, pushed it hard. They then named a classmate of Kavanaugh.



https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/ford-identity-kavanaugh-public/12920/

What was that about false accusations?

This long Twitter post is worth a read through to see all the connections.

https://twitter.com/WarfareNavel/status/1043257382015524864

On an unrelated note, I would like to know what it's like to do something so utterly despicable and be able to sleep at night/look at yourself in the mirror.
Do people like that have idea whatsoever that they are moral garbage?
Do they lose any sleep over stuff like that, or do they simply not get it?

mcmoustache

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

On an unrelated note, I would like to know what it's like to do something so utterly despicable and be able to sleep at night/look at yourself in the mirror.
Do people like that have idea whatsoever that they are moral garbage?
Do they lose any sleep over stuff like that, or do they simply not get it?

I'm starting to thing that...


*adjusts tinfoil hat*


...that a lot of people at the tops of hierarchies, whether in politics or business are sociopaths. I'm not even joking, outside of the tinfoil hat thing.

pixelburp

I also think there's a strong resting culture within US politics, that resignation of "that's just how the game is played", and its players simply parking their moral compass because everyone else does the same to get ahead. It's the ultimate toxic working environment really; all those modern articles and think pieces about bullying, harrassment, scheming & aggressive competition in the private sector - it feels like the default for a lot of the poltical class and not something people are willing to address.

Barnavave

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'm starting to thing that...


*adjusts tinfoil hat*


...that a lot of people at the tops of hierarchies, whether in politics or business are sociopaths. I'm not even joking, outside of the tinfoil hat thing.

Would they be at the top if they weren’t?

Leroy42

Barnavave wrote: »

Would they be at the top if they weren’t?

"To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

2 Scoops

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So a PR firm pushed a theory that it was a case of mistaken identiy, pushed it hard. They then named a classmate of Kavanaugh.

https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/ford-identity-kavanaugh-public/12920/

What was that about false accusations?

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

"The Atlantic's McKay Coppins called the Palmer Report "the publication of record for anti-Trump conspiracy nuts who don’t care about the credibility of the record."

Latest supposed witness with knowledge of the accusation has denied knowing anything about it. That's strike four.

https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1043692138276573184?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1043692138276573184%7Ctwgr%5E373939313b73706563696669635f73706f7274735f616374696f6e&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fbig-government%2F2018%2F09%2F22%2Fanother-witness-denies-knowledge-of-allegation-against-brett-kavanaugh%2F

Christy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So a PR firm pushed a theory that it was a case of mistaken identiy, pushed it hard. They then named a classmate of Kavanaugh.

https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/ford-identity-kavanaugh-public/12920/

What was that about false accusations?

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

"The Atlantic's McKay Coppins called the Palmer Report "the publication of record for anti-Trump conspiracy nuts who don’t care about the credibility of the record."

Latest supposed witness with knowledge of the accusation has denied knowing anything about it. That's strike four.

https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1043692138276573184?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1043692138276573184%7Ctwgr%5E373939313b73706563696669635f73706f7274735f616374696f6e&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fbig-government%2F2018%2F09%2F22%2Fanother-witness-denies-knowledge-of-allegation-against-brett-kavanaugh%2F

I have no idea how that is meant to be a strike. It isn't exactly evidence in Kavanagh's favour either.

Just have the investigation by impartial people instead of this trial by social media. Then vote on Kavanagh.

2 Scoops

Christy42 wrote: »

I have no idea how that is meant to be a strike. It isn't exactly evidence in Kavanagh's favour either.

Do you want him to prove a negative? That's not how it works. Burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

She hasn't specified the date or location, and all four people named have said this party never happened.

jjpep

2 Scoops wrote: »

She hasn't specified the date or location, and all four people named have said this party never happened.

So how do they know if the party never happened if she never said when or where???

Leroy42

None of us know what happened, it probably comes down to the two of them really. Whether someone agrees they remember it or not, that person will simply be accused of being anti GOP/DNC depending on the line.

2Scoops, you have no idea what happened, but what we do have is a professor that has come forward and put her life in serious turmoil. Now, it could all be a ruse by the DNC to try to stall the GOP and hope they win the mid-terms, or it could have some validity.

The sad part of that supporters of Trump/GOP, the GOP and even the POTUS have all called into question this woman, her story, her reasons, why she didn't report it earlier. And that a number of GOP senators have already said that no matter what their votes will not chance.

You should be more concerned about getting to the truth rather than trying to win soe sort of PR war. personally, I don't care if he gets in or not, but I do care if he gets in and it turns out that this is true and people like you were too partisan to care for the truth.

2 Scoops

jjpep wrote: »

So how do they know if the party never happened if she never said when or where???

They've said they were never at a party where Ford and Kavanaugh were both present. Mark Judge, Patrick J. Smyth and now Leland Keyser, a lifelong friend of Ford. Let her have her hearing, the way this accusation has been handled reeks of dirty politics.

2 Scoops

Leroy42 wrote: »

You should be more concerned about getting to the truth rather than trying to win soe sort of PR war.

You're right, Dianne Feinstein and the Democrats have handled this whole thing admirably. Those evil GOP senators on the other hand..

Captain Obvious

2 Scoops wrote: »

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

"The Atlantic's McKay Coppins called the Palmer Report "the publication of record for anti-Trump conspiracy nuts who don’t care about the credibility of the record."

OK so.

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/20/17885050/ed-whelan-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-accusation


https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-ed-whelan-started-researching-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-ford-before-her-name-had-been-published


https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/21/politics/ed-whelan-kavanaugh-claim-apology/index.html


http://uk.businessinsider.com/ed-whelan-apologizes-suggesting-kavanaugh-classmate-assaulted-ford-2018-9?r=US&IR=T

2 Scoops wrote: »

Latest supposed witness with knowledge of the accusation has denied knowing anything about it. That's strike four.

https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1043692138276573184?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1043692138276573184%7Ctwgr%5E373939313b73706563696669635f73706f7274735f616374696f6e&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fbig-government%2F2018%2F09%2F22%2Fanother-witness-denies-knowledge-of-allegation-against-brett-kavanaugh%2F

When these witnesses start giving evidence under oath they might be more compelling. As it stands, stating you weren't at a party when you don't know when or where it was is pretty suspicious.

Leroy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

You're right, Dianne Feinstein and the Democrats have handled this whole thing admirably. Those evil GOP senators on the other hand..

Where did I mention the DNC? How about answer the point thaat was raised instead of playing the victim.

Regardless of how the allegation came to light, it is a serious allegation. Your point only highlights the way that it is trying to be dismissed as some sort of vast conspiracy by the DNC and this woman to try to stop this person from getting this job.

Yet nobody has been able to explain what motivation she could possibly have to undertake such a situation, she would be well aware that there are plenty of people willing to forego any deceny in order that their 'team' would win.

What she might no have expected, although she should have, is that both the GOP and POTUS would instead of looking to get to the bottom of this and ensure the integrity of the SCOTUS was maintained, have instead tried to smear the woman and ram through the appointment so that could get what they wanted regardless of the actual facts.

You are doing exactly the same.

I hope for your sake that nobody you know ever has to be treated in the same manner simply because the people in power don't want to listen in case they don't like what they hear.

To hell with justice and integrity.

2 Scoops

Captain Obvious wrote: »

When these witnesses start giving evidence under oath they might be more compelling. As it stands, stating you weren't at a party when you don't know when or where it was is pretty suspicious.

They've publicly stated they have no recollection of being at a party where Kavanaugh was present, there is nothing suspicious about that in the least.

Assuming they'll testify differently under oath is grasping at straws.

weisses

2 Scoops wrote: »

They've publicly stated they have no recollection of being at a party where Kavanaugh was present, there is nothing suspicious about that in the least.

Assuming they'll testify differently under oath is grasping at straws.

That was also stated about suggesting Manafort an Cohen flipping

2 Scoops

Leroy42 wrote: »

To hell with justice and integrity.

This comes across as hilarious to me, given many senior Democrats have already assumed Kavanaugh to be guilty.

Leroy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

This comes across as hilarious to me, given many senior Democrats have already assumed Kavanaugh to be guilty.

And, what is your point? They have listened to her and feel, believe, that she is telling the truth.

The GOP, and yourself and POTUS have not listened to her, yet have decided that she is lying.

No which one do you think is more reasonable? They are coming to a conclusion, and it might well be incorrect, based on what they know. GOP et al are sticking to their position regardless and looking to discredit the story they haven't even heard yet.

Are you suggesting that the only cases that are ever looked into are those where the guilt has already been established?

Can you point me in the direction of your posts where you stood up for HC when many in the GOP, and POTUS, were making all sorts of claims about her without any proof? Surely at the time you were asking the same questions about the reasoning behind the GOP stance and HC?

Of course not, because this is blatant bi-partisan ship. And the fact that the only defence you can come up with is that the DNC are bad too? Well, if that all the GOP and POTUS has to offer then how can you support them?

2 Scoops

Leroy42 wrote: »

And, what is your point? They have listened to her and feel, believe, that she is telling the truth.

The GOP, and yourself and POTUS have not listened to her, yet have decided that she is lying.

I didn't say she's lying, I've said she's provided multiple witnesses who've all said they have no knowledge of the alleged incident and do not recollect being at a party where Kavanaugh was present. That damages her credibility.

Bolded part, grow up. Politicians will say anything.

Igotadose

2 Scoops wrote: »

This comes across as hilarious to me, given many senior Democrats have already assumed Kavanaugh to be guilty.

To be clear, do you believe Professor Ford is lying? Because *every* person in the video you linked tosays they believe her. That's all they're saying. Not one uses the word 'guilty,' though I suppose you can read their minds and know what they assume.

But, just to confirm, you believe she's lying? Because that's the crux of what'll be discussed at the Senate hearing next week - whether Kavanaugh assaulted her or not.

Christy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

Do you want him to prove a negative? That's not how it works. Burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

She hasn't specified the date or location, and all four people named have said this party never happened.

I don't expect them to prove a negative. However since we have yet to have the investigation yet a lack of proof is hardly surprising. Hence not a strike. Have the investigation and we can talk.

Of course we won't get an investigation. What we will get is a hearing by people who have already stated that Kavanagh will end up on the SCOTUS before hearing her out. Does that sound like a fair hearing to you?

She has already had death threats and now she will get a hearing from those who want to prove her a liar and are not interested in the accusation.

Trump asked why this had not come out before. Well this is all a fairly compelling reason for any woman to not come forward about any attack. That is the message I got from this.

Leroy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

I didn't say she's lying, I've said she's provided multiple witnesses who've all said they have no knowledge of the alleged incident and do not recollect being at a party where Kavanaugh was present. That damages her credibility.

Bolded part, grow up. Politicians will say anything.

Grow up? I am not the one that has made a decision based on no information? SHe has told a story, they believe her. What other witnesses say isn't really important as at the end it is always going to come down to she said/he said.

And the GOP and POTUS have already decided that it doesn't matter what she says as he is a nice man and she is probably lying and its all sort some of conspiracy. Why are the GOP and POTUS against holding a full investigation?

And you are feeding into that. You, or I, have no idea if either, or indeed any, of them is telling the truth. The difference is that I am withholding my view until I hear more.

Do you not think that such a serious allegation, about a such a serious position, should be investigated? Or do you think the GOP and POTUS are correct to simply try to ignore, try to demean the woman, try to call into question her motives? Don't you think the GOP should be looking to make the SCOTUS the best it can be, not simply the people they want?

BabyCheeses

2 Scoops wrote: »

This comes across as hilarious to me, given many senior Democrats have already assumed Kavanaugh to be guilty.

But lock her up was completely different of course.