Kavanaugh hearing

[pErvinalia]

the reference to being raped was to Sean Hayden's post, not yours. You interrupted, and diverted the exchange to something else.

I know pErvinalia. You won't get any serious answers, but he will flee direct questions by calling you a troll.

Do you need a safe space, darling? You really are a triggered little snowflake.

[Brian Peacock]

Jesus, you brought up Clinton dude.

Bringing up Clinton is the new Godwin's Law: Godwin's Law two-point-o-m-g.

[Svartalf]

Two male teens force girl into room, lock the door, and fail at rape only because they are too drunk.

He is toast.

I wish I were so sure, unless frump actually withdraws his name, senate is apt to confirm him, just because he's a corporate god botherer shill and the GOP has been waiting to get a court that would overthrow Roe Vs Wade for 35 years and he's their man to do it.

[Svartalf]

Jesus, you brought up Clinton dude.

Bringing up Clinton is the new Godwin's Law: Godwin's Law two-point-o-m-g.

which clinton, the former president or the failed one?

[Tero]

Dozens of men come forward and state: I tried to rape her, It was not my buddy Kavanaugh!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09 ... naugh.html

[Forty Two]

If you are referring to Sean's post, then why the fuck are you responding to him through me? I was explicitly referring to your explicit referral to sexual assault. And again, getting groped by the cock unexpectedly by someone you aren't engaging with in a sexual fashion is by definition sexual assault. That you don't feel too bothered about it doesn't change that it is sexual assault and you could bring charges if you wanted.

Sean said something about her "being raped." I said that she wasn't "being raped." You chimed in that it "clearly was sexual assault." I clarified in response that that's different than "being raped," which shows that your statement that it "clearly was sexual assault" was irrelevant to the conversation you cut in on mid-stream. I did not go "through you." You entered an exchange that wasn't with you.

[Forty Two]

the reference to being raped was to Sean Hayden's post, not yours. You interrupted, and diverted the exchange to something else.

I know pErvinalia. You won't get any serious answers, but he will flee direct questions by calling you a troll.

Do you need a safe space, darling? You really are a triggered little snowflake.

Oh, you're back on this nonsense, again. Lame.

[Forty Two]

Two male teens force girl into room, lock the door, and fail at rape only because they are too drunk.

He is toast.

Critical thinking, logic and reason are toast, apparently.

[Brian Peacock]

If you are referring to Sean's post, then why the fuck are you responding to him through me? I was explicitly referring to your explicit referral to sexual assault. And again, getting groped by the cock unexpectedly by someone you aren't engaging with in a sexual fashion is by definition sexual assault. That you don't feel too bothered about it doesn't change that it is sexual assault and you could bring charges if you wanted.

Sean said something about her "being raped." I said that she wasn't "being raped." You chimed in that it "clearly was sexual assault." I clarified in response that that's different than "being raped," which shows that your statement that it "clearly was sexual assault" was irrelevant to the conversation you cut in on mid-stream. I did not go "through you." You entered an exchange that wasn't with you.

The technical distinction is irrelevant. A rape is a sexual assault. An attempted rape is a sexual assault. Holding somebody down with a hand over their mouth and grinding on them while they resist is an attempted rape, and from the victim's perspective they don't know where it's going, how it's going to end. Proceeding to penetration and/or ejaculation doesn't necessarily make that worse for the victim, nor not going that far make the actions of the assaulter any better. "At least he didn't stick it in her," is not a reasonable defence imo.

[Forty Two]

How can we expect him to rule on complex cases if he can't even pull off a simple 2-on-1?

Two on one was no big deal for Kavanaugh. As a 15 to 17 year old in the early 1980s, he was front-and-center in the middle of regular gang rape parties. If he wasn't on rape train, it was too small time for him.

[Tero]

Kavanaugh sort of kind of thinks he may have met Ford. Never closer than 3 feet away!

[Brian Peacock]

Is this a trial, and if so who's the defendant, Ford or Kavanaugh? The Republicans have hired a prosecutor, so I guess it's Ford.

[Forty Two]

If you are referring to Sean's post, then why the fuck are you responding to him through me? I was explicitly referring to your explicit referral to sexual assault. And again, getting groped by the cock unexpectedly by someone you aren't engaging with in a sexual fashion is by definition sexual assault. That you don't feel too bothered about it doesn't change that it is sexual assault and you could bring charges if you wanted.

Sean said something about her "being raped." I said that she wasn't "being raped." You chimed in that it "clearly was sexual assault." I clarified in response that that's different than "being raped," which shows that your statement that it "clearly was sexual assault" was irrelevant to the conversation you cut in on mid-stream. I did not go "through you." You entered an exchange that wasn't with you.

The technical distinction is irrelevant. A rape is a sexual assault. An attempted rape is a sexual assault. Holding somebody down with a hand over their mouth and grinding on them while they resist is an attempted rape, and from the victim's perspective they don't know where it's going, how it's going to end. Proceeding to penetration and/or ejaculation doesn't necessarily make that worse for the victim, nor not going that far make the actions of the assaulter any better. "At least he didn't stick it in her," is not a reasonable defence imo.

This was addressed in the exchange above, and the reason for the distinction is clear in my exchange with Sean.

As for your comment, I disagree that the distinction is irrelevant or merely "technical." I agree that a rape is a form of sexual assault; however, most kinds of sexual assaults are not rapes. Rape is a more severe crime than sexual assault, usually. And, for example, a drunken party where a drunken girl grabs a guy's cock and balls without permission may well be a sexual assault, but it's sure as heck not the same thing as a rape.

[Forty Two]

Is this a trial, and if so who's the defendant, Ford or Kavanaugh? The Republicans have hired a prosecutor, so I guess it's Ford.

It's a confirmation hearing. Nobody is under subpoena.

The way hearings work, is that if information is going to be adduced about a candidate, someone has to tell the committee about it. This can be done by letter, but unsworn letters are not as worthwhile as sworn testimony. In any rational system, testimony does not just mean someone coming up to a table or podium and reading a statement or telling a story, then getting up and leaving. The fact finder (in this case, the Senate) may have some follow-up questions.

If you analogize this to a trial, as you did, then Ford is the complaining witness. As such, she would be the primary witness for the prosecution, with Kavanaugh, the Defendant, cross examining her (and later having the opportunity to respond with his own evidence).

Only, it's not really a criminal trial - so, I wouldn't grant Kavanaugh the "right to remain silent" in the criminal trial sense. If an allegation is made, I think that the Senate could even compel him to answer questions, and his only recourse to not answer would be the fifth amendment right not to incriminate himself (and if he did that, he'd be sunk). So, he has to answer questions, I think.

I also agree that the criminal law "presumption of innocence" doesn't apply, but I don't agree with what some people have said that should mean. That doesn't mean that allegations aren't tested or proof is not required. What it means is that the Senate committee can move forward simply looking at the allegations and determining if they are satisfied that the facts show Kavanaugh is not a good fit for the Supreme Court. It doesn't mean they must or should "believe" this accuser at face value.

Logic and reason are that an allegation made is not merely believed on the word of the person making the accusation. That's because of the basic understanding that any individual can make an allegation, or a denial, and that conflicting allegations generally do not defeat each other. There has to be "reason" to accept one over the other. One way to get one statement to defeat another statement is because one statement is corroborated - like Kavanaugh could show that on the day of the party in question, he was on vacation in Bora Bora. Or, a corroborating witness could come forward and say that they saw some of what Kavanaugh is alleged to have done. Something like that. The weight of the evidence then comes into play, etc.

If this is not appropriate, then how else should the process go? Is a candidate disqualified if accused like this? Every time? Some of the time? What in your mind tips the scales?

[Tero]

So what? Get some dude that likes Trump and was a virgin before marriage and a Christian and left no record or legend of dick waggling at parties.

Otherwise you have to find a woman conservative.