Another Credible Rape Claim Against Trump....

[Mountain Man]

And as we discussed, many of those 'holes' were manufactured holes...

"Manufactured holes"? Are you serious?

She didn't know when it happened or where it happened; she didn't know how she got to the party, or how she got home; the number of boys who supposedly assaulted her changed over time; none of the named witnesses corroborated her accusation...

Sorry, but these are not "manufactured holes".

[rogue06]

Interesting. In my office it was talked about as soon as it happened, and like I said, her claim sounded shaky at best. My office is pretty evenly split between liberal and conservative, and everyone was sorta "eh" about it. I don't remember Trump tweeting about it till some time into the whole ordeal, and it didn't overturn anyone's opinion that I knew. But like I said, maybe just the circles I'm in or something.

The fact that you work in an environment "pretty evenly split between liberal and conservative" likely meant that at least a couple people were aware of some of the problems with Ford's story. In contrast, a friend of mine's wife, who works at Emory University and is surrounded by liberals was shocked to hear how weak the case was and went online to check it out because she couldn't believe that if there were problems like that it wasn't being discussed by the network evening news shows she watched or mentioned by her friends at work.

[Adrift]

The fact that you work in an environment "pretty evenly split between liberal and conservative" likely meant that at least a couple people were aware of some of the problems with Ford's story. In contrast, a friend of mine's wife, who works at Emory University and is surrounded by liberals was shocked to hear how weak the case was and went online to check it out because she couldn't believe that if there were problems like that it wasn't being discussed by the network evening news shows she watched or mentioned by her friends at work.

She shoulda been visiting Reddit. A bastion for radical left thinking, but even they seemed to think her testimony was iffy at best. I don't watch much mainstream TV news, so maybe that explains it.

[oxmixmudd]

Offering up lame excuses and wishful thinking hardly constitutes showing that they were manufactured holes. To briefly recap:

• She could not remember when the assault supposedly happened. And I don't mean she was a bit fuzzy, she could not remember the year, or what time of year (month season or something like it was near the start/end of a semester, or anything like it), what time of week or anything at all.
• She could not remember where the party where she was supposedly assaulted was, giving only the most vague and unhelpful details.
• She couldn't remember how she got home from wherever it was she was supposedly assaulted.
• Her lifelong friend who Ford says was there said that she doesn't remember it.
• None of the other people at the party (there were like only a half dozen or less) remembered such a party
• Her account of the attack kept changing very important details like how many were involved (that changed at least 4 times) and whether Kavanaugh followed her upstairs or was waiting in ambush when she got upstairs.
• Her latest version (the one offered up to Feinstein and co.) contradicted the account that she previously told her psychiatrist in many ways but most importantly she originally didn't appear to know who her assaulters were.
• She claims that she recognized Kavanaugh as her assailant immediately after Trump was elected and mentioned potential SCOTUS nominees but Trump did not add Kavanaugh to his list until much later.

And this is the short list. There were numerous other problems with her story.

We went through all this before. Most of that list is drivel manufactured to destroy this woman, and I explained why in the thread. And right now I'm wishing I'd not put it in the list simply because you guys just can't resist the opportunity to attack her again. So just because I dont want to watch your cruelty again, i'm taking it of the list. The rest is fair game.

Jim

[Cow Poke]

We went through all this before. Most of that list is drivel manufactured to destroy this woman, and I explained why in the thread. And right now I'm wishing I'd not put it in the list simply because you guys just can't resist the opportunity to attack her again. So just because I dont want to watch your cruelty again, i'm taking it of the list. The rest is fair game.

Jim

Jim, not believing somebody is not the same as attacking somebody.


Clevis

[Cow Poke]

As someone who actually investigates sexual assaults for a living (I did nothing but these cases for several years), I thought I'd give some of my initial impressions based on an interview with E. Jean Carroll on The Daily (transcript here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/p...owTranscript=1

Excellent narrative.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, not believing somebody is not the same as attacking somebody.


Clevis

No it's not. But not with you guys on this topic. I can see you all reving up to the fury of the original and I just dont want to watch it again.

Jim

[Cow Poke]

No it's not. But not with you guys on this topic.

And, there ya go again, with the broad brush / lumping everybody together. You don't like it when that works the other way, Jim. You want to be treated with respect. How bout showing some the other way?

I can see you all reving up to the fury of the original and I just dont want to watch it again.

Jim

So stop the wild imagination!

I happen to think that Ford was an emotionally disturbed person who was exploited by the Democrats against Kavanaugh.

Yeah, I know, you'll see that as a vicious attack.


Hubert

[oxmixmudd]

No it's not. But not with you guys on this topic. I can see you all reving up to the fury of the original and I just dont want to watch it again.

Jim

See, mamy of you dont just not believe her. The belief is that she is a sinister figure, plotting to destroy this man and every ounce of the hatred such a figure might earn is sent her way. And the fact that belief could be completely and totally wrong causes not a moments pause nor does it lesson by even a litlle the force and vileness of the verbal attacks on her.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

I happen to think that Ford was an emotionally disturbed person who was exploited by the Democrats against Kavanaugh.

I believe she knew exactly what she was doing, and her "confused victim" persona was pure theater.

[oxmixmudd]

And, there ya go again, with the broad brush / lumping everybody together. You don't like it when that works the other way, Jim. You want to be treated with respect. How bout showing some the other way?



So stop the wild imagination!

I happen to think that Ford was an emotionally disturbed person who was exploited by the Democrats against Kavanaugh.

Yeah, I know, you'll see that as a vicious attack.


Hubert

Your sarcasm does not change the fact that the attacks on her in that thread were viscious and hateful. In that thread. It was assumed she was on purpose decieving so as to destroy. Some, like you, acknowledged she might just have misremebered, or have some sort of mental instability. But none of that changes the fact that she was skewered royally and that the fact she could be telling the truth had the effect of tempering the responses that a 1/4" piece of balsa wood has on cannon ball.

Jim

[MaxVel]

Your sarcasm does not change the fact that the attacks on her in that thread were viscious and hateful. In that thread. It was assumed she was on purpose decieving so as to destroy. Some, like you, acknowledged she might just have misremebered, or have some sort of mental instability. But none of that changes the fact that she was skewered royally and that the fact she could be telling the truth had the effect of tempering the responses that a 1/4" piece of balsa wood has on cannon ball.

Jim

(1) I think you'd need to go back and look in detail at the individual responses to see if everyone (anyone?) who thought that she could be telling the truth ALSO attacked her character etc. If someone did do that, I wouldn't approve.



(2) If someone thought that she was lying or being less than completely truthful - IOW bringing a false accusation against Kavanaugh in an attempt to derail his nomination (I.e. for political reasons) then I see no real problems with them attacking her character, given that she is falsely and publicly attacking his character.



Your problem is that you assume a premise (here it is 'she could be telling the truth') that others don't accept, and then judge their actions based on that premise. That's just wrong. You're not making a fair or reasonable judgment. You need to grant their premise for argument's sake, and then discuss on the basis of that - like I did in (1) above. I granted your premise (she could be telling the truth) and agreed with you that if that is true, then it would be wrong to attack her character.


Imagine that Ford was lying about the whole thing - would it be OK to then comment on her character?

[Cow Poke]

Your sarcasm

My sarcasm was only in regards to the way you see everything as a viscious [sic] attack, and lump everybody into the same "attack mode". It is quite disingenuous.

does not change the fact that the attacks on her in that thread were viscious and hateful. In that thread. It was assumed she was on purpose decieving so as to destroy.

If that's somebody's honest opinion, it's not a viscious [sic] attack - it's there assessment of the situation.

Some, like you, acknowledged she might just have misremebered, or have some sort of mental instability.

I allow those as possibilities, because I didn't find her testimony convincing. That's not a viscious [sic] attack - it's my perception.

But none of that changes the fact that she was skewered royally and that the fact she could be telling the truth had the effect of tempering the responses that a 1/4" piece of balsa wood has on cannon ball.

Jim

The only thing that is being "skewered royally" here is the truth.


Curtis

[rogue06]

Your sarcasm does not change the fact that the attacks on her in that thread were viscious and hateful. In that thread. It was assumed she was on purpose decieving so as to destroy. Some, like you, acknowledged she might just have misremebered, or have some sort of mental instability. But none of that changes the fact that she was skewered royally and that the fact she could be telling the truth had the effect of tempering the responses that a 1/4" piece of balsa wood has on cannon ball.

Jim

It seemed that the majority of posters assumed something might of happened at a party she attended sometime during college but there was scant evidence to show that Kavanaugh was in any way involved.

[Mountain Man]

The problem with Trump, as demonstrated in the quotes above, is that he's absolutely horrendous at getting his point across. He can't seem to talk without interrupting his train of thought with another thought, and it waters down whatever point he's trying to make. It's a wonder to me how he was ever successful in business. He's just lousy at expressing his point, and so, it's often missed. That's not a defense of Trump, by the way. I think it's bad that the leader of the free world has a problem communicating what he needs to communicate. He needs to fire his speech writer, and then stick to the script.

That may be true in some instances, but Trump's remarks about Charlottesville were clear: He explicitly and unambiguously condemned neo-Nazis and white supremacists. To claim otherwise, as ox has repeatedly done, is at best Ignorant, and at worst willfully dishonest.