She said the incident occurred in the mid 1980s to the WaPO, but then when it was obviously pointed out that Kavanaugh would have been in college a couple weeks later she changed it to the early 1980s, then during her polygraph they crossed out early from the question and just asked her 1980s because presumably she didn't pass early 1980s. Then she told her therapist that it happened in her late teens (which would have been the mid 1980s), but then years later she changed her age to 15.
She doesn't know where the party happened
She doesn't know when it happened
She doesn't know how she got home. She could describe getting to the party, locking herself in a bathroom, screaming but can't remember how she got home or when it happened or where it happened???
All three eyewitnesses, even a close personal friend to Ford (to this day), specifically say they don't recall this event. Her friend not only said she doesn't remember the event, but she went further and said that she has never met Kavanaugh and was never at a party with him.
She has changed her story about what happened after the alleged assault. That she heard the guys talking and laughing downstairs to she couldn't hear anything in the bathroom.
She refused to show her Therapy Notes to the Senate presumably because they won't back her ever changing story.
I mean at least I can respect this take instead of the fake Kavanaugh outrage.
You are totally wrong, on just about every count. Yes Trump won with fewer votes, but did all those House of Reps and Senators win with fewer votes? Did the Republicans gain control of all parts of government with fewer votes?
Republicans blocked Democrats nominee because they controlled 1/3rd of the government and they were within their rights. Honestly, the Dems created this problem by changing it from 60 votes to 50. If that never happened then Kavanaugh never gets through. So really, 100% of the blame lands on the Dems for fucking up the old process that worked.
Susan Collins won the day and owned the illiberal leftist progressives' lying faces.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/susan-...ding-kavanaugh
Quotes from Lindsey Graham in the WP.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-...=.23dd4d764590
It truly is tragic that a gang of religious, bigoted, scorched-earthers are running the show in America.
Allowing these lunatics to run the asylum is your greatest ever shame.
limitles, are you really bringing out that tired, popular vote thing from 2 years ago?
I realize you're in Canada, but please understand that the US is not one government, but rather a co-op of 50 different state governments. That's why the electoral college exists, and should still exist.
If we kill the electoral college, small population states will cease to matter, and Presidential candidates will simply focus their time, money, and energy on the big population centers.
Also, even if you want to say the electoral college is unfair, those were the rules in place at the time of the 2016 election, and both candidates campaigned based upon that set of rules.
If it were about popular vote only, Trump might have campaigned differently, and might have won that vote anyway. Instead, he smartly focused on the states with more vulnerable blue-collar swing voters, and it worked.
Count me as a right winger who believes Ford, though.
It's doubtful that she would have made all of this up many years before Kavanaugh was considered for Supreme Court. When bad things happen to you, you tend to remember those things a lot more than the person who did it to you.
Want a good example? Think of poker. When you take a bad beat in a critical spot in a tournament, it often sticks with you for life. The person putting the beat on you is unlikely to remember it for very long. I've had guys come up to me and say, "Oh, remember when you hit that backdoor 2-pair on me and knocked me out in 39th? Man, that hurt!", and I honestly have no clue what the fuck they're talking about. Yet if I was the one taking the beat, I remember everything about it.
Anyway, I think Kavanaugh was a somewhat aggressive horndog in 1982 when he was 18, and he probably did some inappropriate things to Ford at that party. He was probably drunk and barely would have remembered it a week later, let alone 36 years later. I 100% believe the guy when he says he has no recollection of the incident.
I think Ford is mostly telling the truth, though perhaps the 36 years (and the fact that she only started talking about it in the 2010s) have warped some of the details. It is possible that she remembers it being worse than it actually was, but I'm just about sure that something inappropriate happened with her, and that it involved Kavanaugh.
You do need to consider the year it occurred and the age of the people involved, though. He was 18. She was 15. They were at an '80s high school party where just about everyone drinks. There was some degree of tolerance in the '80s of sexual aggressiveness, which would be considered sexual harassment today. So if a teenage boy is used to being moderately sexually aggressive with girls and society basically doesn't frown too much on it (at the time), then it's hard to leap to the point of saying that the guy is unfit to hold an important job in his 50s.
At the same time, we live in a different age, and "society was okay with it" isn't really a valid excuse to act like an asshole. So given the high profile position Kavanaugh will hold, and given the recent societal focus upon preventing sexual harassment (which I think is good), I don't really have a problem with him being denied the position.
I don't agree with conservatives who call Ford "a liar", nor do I think that Kavanaugh is being unfairly attacked.
I do think we are spending far too much time and energy focusing on an alleged event from 1982 between two teenagers, which is unlikely to ever be fully understood.
I do think that there's too much bullshit surrounding this whole thing, including that whole stupid yearbook thing, which was pretty much standard for teen boys in 1982 to do. The yearbook by no means indicates that Kavanaugh was a rapist or sexual harasser.
I do laugh at liberals who are screaming loudly that Kavanaugh and all his supporters are pure evil, yet these same people will have positive things to say about Bill Clinton when asked. Clinton almost definitely raped a woman when he was in his 30s. Kavanaugh is accused of aggressive sexual behavior (but not rape) when he was 18. If any outrage is justified here, it should be more aimed at Clinton, or at least at both men.
Druff it's interesting that we use the same exact logic and came to different conclusions.
I used September 11th as an example to a friend that is all in on Ford. Where were you when you found out about the planes hitting World Trade Center? My friend explained in detail where he was, what he was doing, how he felt that day, every little detail about the day. I asked him, "how do you remember that much?" It was a defining moment in my life and I guess strong memories last longer. "Oh so how do you feel about Ford now?" .... silence.
I don't see how something so traumatic for her, has so many flaws and lack of details in her story.
Also there's that funny coincidence of she only named him after he was short listed for possible Republican Supreme Court nominees in 2011/2012.
Also Mumbles get fucked, "Republicans were going to change it anyways."
You mean when Obama, and the Senate Democrats controlled everything and changed the rules?
Republicans weren't in power, they didn't change the rules.
“I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you’ll regret this,” McConnell, then the minority leader, told them. “And you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.”
lol limitless is mad again.
BTW, just as an FYI, the map you posted isn't necessarily "accurate", although it kind of is and kind of isn't. The map reflects what the electoral college should have voted, if there were no faithless electors. However, there were at least 7 faithless electors, I believe.
The map shows Trump should have gotten 306, but he actually got 304.
It shows Clinton should have gotten 232, but she actually got 227.
So there were at least 7 faithless electors. The difference adds up to 7, but there could have been more (EG: One who was supposed to vote for Clinton could have voted for Trump while one who was supposed to vote for Trump voted for Clinton, not sure if this happened [doubt it], though.)
I believe (not going to read through bunch'a stuff, TBH) that there were only 2 faithless electors that should have voted for Trump, but didn't. And Hillary had 5 faithless electors who should have voted for her, but also didn't. Colin Powell got 3 votes, Sanders 1, John Kasich 1, Ron Paul 1, and Faith Spotted Eagle 1. As mentioned earlier, Trump got 304 and Hillary got 227.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...,_2016#Results - Scroll a bit down to "candidates table".
NOTE: I say "should" have voted for that person, not because they morally or whatever should have, but because that's the way their constituents have voted. Not sure if I used constituent properly, but you get the gist.
The electoral college should have been abolished over 100 years ago.
I don't give a shit about New Hampshire, Idaho, Iowa, Utah, Montana, Maine, North & South Dakota.
Should these states have the same political influence as California? Fuck No!!!
Republicans have rigged the U.S. political system so they will always have the advantage now, plus they fucking CHEAT.
TWICE, in the past 20 years. The person with the LEAST amount of votes has become President. What does that mean? Your vote doesn't mean shit. And it will happen again. It is the only way Republicans can win.
Yeah, Donald Trump would have campaigned differently if it was only about the popular vote. I'm sure he would've fucked more pornstars and playboy playmates. He would have also LOST the election by a landslide.
The GOP was abusing the fillibuster in an unprecedented way for years during Obama’s admin, doing anything they could to block his judicial appointments. This had never happened before, *ever*. It was a sign that the GOP would do anything within the rules to achieve its agenda, employing to an unprecedented level a kind of smashmouth politics that Newt Gingrich had pioneered in the 90s, but had backfired on the GOP when Clinton came out of being impeached by the GOP-controlled House being more popular than ever.
And the GOP in the Senate immediately after Obama was elected adopted a no-holds-barred unprecedented partisan strategy to oppose an opposition president even when it meant outright reversing itself on particular policies. So, they were essentially taunting the Dems to change the Senate rules in advance of them losing the Senate.
And the GOP’s disregard for Senate traditions was confirmed by not even holding a hearing for Merrick Garland, also utterly unprecendented. And they did so knowing that most of the voters didn’t really care. And they figured this out long before the Dems in the Senate. That’s why the GOP essentially didn’t suffer any consequences for all those years of purely obstructionist fillibustering. And knew that they wouldn’t suffer any consequences of watering it down themselves even if the Dems didn’t do so before them. Only political geeks care about such matters, not the vast majority of voters.
Pretending like the popular vote matters is like............boasting that you have an 80% win percentage in sports, but you're still losing because you're betting favorites and laying a bunch. "Oh ma guhh, it isn't fair! I win 80% of my bets and I'm still down!!! Wtf!!!"
The name of the game in sports betting is to WIN MONEY. I don't give a shit what my win percentage is, I want to profit.
Similarly, the way a winner is decided for the presidential election is NOT who gets more popular votes, but who wins more electoral college votes. Unless Wikipedia is incorrect in their stats, or I'm just terrible at math, Trump won by 77 votes.
This is demonstrably false, unless you're talking about president of something else that's not the USA, whether you're using electoral college votes or popular votes as the metric.
Actually, I don't think this has EVER happened, with the possible exception of George Washington.
If you don't conceptually understand how the Electoral College has a built in bias for Democrats, there's never going to be chance for you.
What blows my mind is you think the President actually matters.
What you should really be asking yourself is what does it say about the Democratic party that at every level of government they have lost over a 1,000 seats (roughly 20%) to Republicans since 2009? In a single decade the biggest thing that happened under Obama wasn't that he was elected, but how the Democrats power grab was so unanimously rejected that it will take multiple decades to recover.
All 2016 to now has shown is that the Democrat party loves to complain about old white men running the Republican Party but who is actually in charge and the face of the Dems?
Sanders -77
Pelosi - 78
Feinstein - 85
Hillary Clinton - 70
Elizabeth Warren - 69
Biden - 75
Schumer - 67
Durbin - 73
That's a lot of old white people.
Their desire to grab and keep power tied with the total demise of the Democrat party has prevented the next generation from coming and taking power and control. Only now in the last 6 to 12 months are you starting to really see some new faces get press time.
Here's the honest truth about the Presidency.
All the Democrats had to do was not rig their nomination for Hillary because it was "her turn". Put forth actual challenges to her that weren't socialists and guess what probably would have happened? She wouldn't have gotten the nomination and the Democrats would have the Presidency right now.
If you really want to do something about this, you should literally start spending every waking moment figuring out how to get Kirsten Gillibrand to run for President. She's exactly the type of person who could win for the Dems. Clinton, Sanders, Biden, Warren they all literally have zero chance of beating Trump.
There are currently 17 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 17 guests)