Previously unreported Kavanaugh accuser comes forward with new allegations

[Badger]

Once again, conservatives and Republicans demonstrate themselves in this thread to be horrible and shameless apologists for sexual assault so long as it increases their political power.

[Badger]

Once again, conservatives and Republicans demonstrate themselves in this thread to be horrible and shameless apologists for sexual assault so long as it increases their political power.

It’s not being an apologist if you believe someone is not guilty .

And the facts in this case take a tremendous amount of projection and willful ignorance to believe innocence.

I called out Jessie Smottett's story as "highly suspicious" from the get go because the facts warranted it. Likewise, I'd wouldn't believe the innocence--or more importantly the sworn testimony--of a liberal Brett Kavanaugh about this incident--or most of the several others for that matter--of sexual battery.

[Badger]

Once again, conservatives and Republicans demonstrate themselves in this thread to be horrible and shameless apologists for sexual assault so long as it increases their political power.

It’s not being an apologist if you believe someone is not guilty .

And the facts in this case take a tremendous amount of projection and willful ignorance to believe innocence.

I called out Jessie Smottett's story as "highly suspicious" from the get go because the facts warranted it. Likewise, I'd wouldn't believe the innocence--or more importantly the sworn testimony--of a liberal Brett Kavanaugh about this incident--or most of the several others for that matter--of sexual battery.

Again the standard shouldn’t be for Kavanaugh to prove his innocence but for him to be proven guilty using a preponderance of evidence which this case didn’t meet .

You didn't get the memo.  If you don't believe every (female) accuser uncritically, you're part of the "Rape Culture" and, by definition a Scumbag. 

The Atlas Left isn't about principled fairness.  It's about Narrative Driving at all costs.

Ignoring Fuzzy per usual, we will ABSOLUTELY disagree that this didn't meet the perponderance of evidence that Kavanaugh was lying.

However, OSR, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as probably being one of the few conservatives or Republicans who likely would've defended Kavenaugh if he were a liberal nominee.

[Badger]

The evidence against a Kavanaugh wasn’t that different from the evidence against Bill on his accusations

Exactly. And you point is.....?

[Badger]

The evidence against a Kavanaugh wasn’t that different from the evidence against Bill on his accusations

It's far weaker, considering:
-The allegations against Clinton were reported in a timely manner, as opposed to 36 years later.
-Clinton's accusers had specific memories of the incidents, while Kavanaugh's did not
-The rules of time and space allow the possibility that Clinton's accusers were telling the truth, while they don't for Blasey Ford's testimony.
-Kavanaugh's accusers have known political biases that counter his, while Clinton's accusers have mixed political biases
-Clinton provably lied to Congress about his sexual misadventures, while in Kavanaugh's case, it's nothing but his word against theirs

Except the allegations weren't reported "36 years later". It is well documented that Ford reported the assault to friends and her counselor years--decades even--before Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court. The other allegatioms likewise were reported to third parties other than (unsurprisingly) the FBI decades before "36 years later".

Clinton's accusers having specific memories about the incidents and Kavanaugh's accusers not is pertinent, but unfortunately untrue. Or at minimum a debatable assertion subject to the eye of the right wing partisan beholder.

"The laws of time and space" dictate Clinton's accusers might believable but not Kavanaugh's? WTF? Get out of here Issac Hackimov!

Even Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee conceeded Ford was sexually assaulted as she described. They just claimed the poor dear was hysterically mistaken over her assailant. And then worked overtime to bury investigation of every other credible accurser showing Kavanaugh had a SERIOUS issue with such behavior all the way up through (at least) law school.

Yeah, that just screams innocence to me too.

[Badger]

The evidence against a Kavanaugh wasn’t that different from the evidence against Bill on his accusations

It's far weaker, considering:
-The allegations against Clinton were reported in a timely manner, as opposed to 36 years later.
-Clinton's accusers had specific memories of the incidents, while Kavanaugh's did not
-The rules of time and space allow the possibility that Clinton's accusers were telling the truth, while they don't for Blasey Ford's testimony.
-Kavanaugh's accusers have known political biases that counter his, while Clinton's accusers have mixed political biases
-Clinton provably lied to Congress about his sexual misadventures, while in Kavanaugh's case, it's nothing but his word against theirs

Except the allegations weren't reported "36 years later". It is well documented that Ford reported the assault to friends and her counselor years--decades even--before Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court. The other allegatioms likewise were reported to third parties other than (unsurprisingly) the FBI decades before "36 years later".

Clinton's accusers having specific memories about the incidents and Kavanaugh's accusers not is pertinent, but unfortunately untrue. Or at minimum a debatable assertion subject to the eye of the right wing partisan beholder.

"The laws of time and space" dictate Clinton's accusers might believable but not Kavanaugh's? WTF? Get out of here Issac Hackimov!

Even Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee conceeded Ford was sexually assaulted as she described. They just claimed the poor dear was hysterically mistaken over her assailant. And then worked overtime to bury investigation of every other credible accurser showing Kavanaugh had a SERIOUS issue with such behavior all the way up through (at least) law school.

Yeah, that just screams innocence to me too.

This reminds of E. Jean Carroll, you'll get all pissy and self-righteous for a day or two but then interestingly shut your mouth mouth as information comes out that undermines the story of the accuser. Stop it with this white-knight crap, it isn't fooling anyone

Good Lord, fellow. WTF are you even yammering about?

Stop one moment being so pissy that I appear diplomatic and try explaining what "undermining information" you're referring to?

I ask because, per usual, your post certainly didn't provide any.

[Badger]

The evidence against a Kavanaugh wasn’t that different from the evidence against Bill on his accusations

It's far weaker, considering:
-The allegations against Clinton were reported in a timely manner, as opposed to 36 years later.
-Clinton's accusers had specific memories of the incidents, while Kavanaugh's did not
-The rules of time and space allow the possibility that Clinton's accusers were telling the truth, while they don't for Blasey Ford's testimony.
-Kavanaugh's accusers have known political biases that counter his, while Clinton's accusers have mixed political biases
-Clinton provably lied to Congress about his sexual misadventures, while in Kavanaugh's case, it's nothing but his word against theirs

Except the allegations weren't reported "36 years later". It is well documented that Ford reported the assault to friends and her counselor years--decades even--before Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court. The other allegatioms likewise were reported to third parties other than (unsurprisingly) the FBI decades before "36 years later".

Clinton's accusers having specific memories about the incidents and Kavanaugh's accusers not is pertinent, but unfortunately untrue. Or at minimum a debatable assertion subject to the eye of the right wing partisan beholder.

"The laws of time and space" dictate Clinton's accusers might believable but not Kavanaugh's? WTF? Get out of here Issac Hackimov!

Even Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee conceeded Ford was sexually assaulted as she described. They just claimed the poor dear was hysterically mistaken over her assailant. And then worked overtime to bury investigation of every other credible accurser showing Kavanaugh had a SERIOUS issue with such behavior all the way up through (at least) law school.

Yeah, that just screams innocence to me too.

This reminds of E. Jean Carroll, you'll get all pissy and self-righteous for a day or two but then interestingly shut your mouth mouth as information comes out that undermines the story of the accuser. Stop it with this white-knight crap, it isn't fooling anyone

Good Lord, fellow. WTF are you even yammering about?

Stop one moment being so pissy that I appear diplomatic and try explaining what "undermining information" you're referring to?

I ask because, per usual, your post certainly didn't provide any.

IDK, maybe the fact that the woman Max steir(who has worked extensively as a Democratic operative btw) named as being victimized by Kavanaugh denies any memory of the event. I know you aren't too bright and much of your response to this thread has been emotional whining, but Jesus Christ man use some goddamn critical thinking

It's ironic that you say this, because Badger was just bashing a new poster for not using "critical thinking". But that is to be expected of him.

Yeah I saw that too. Very out of character for Badger. He's usually so open minded and willing to consider opposing viewpoints.

Oh, very much so. I do that for a living actually. The problem is that the quality of opposing viewpoints offered by conservatives and Republicans on this forum usually range from laughable to retarded chimpanzee level.

[Badger]

The evidence against a Kavanaugh wasn’t that different from the evidence against Bill on his accusations

It's far weaker, considering:
-The allegations against Clinton were reported in a timely manner, as opposed to 36 years later.
-Clinton's accusers had specific memories of the incidents, while Kavanaugh's did not
-The rules of time and space allow the possibility that Clinton's accusers were telling the truth, while they don't for Blasey Ford's testimony.
-Kavanaugh's accusers have known political biases that counter his, while Clinton's accusers have mixed political biases
-Clinton provably lied to Congress about his sexual misadventures, while in Kavanaugh's case, it's nothing but his word against theirs

Except the allegations weren't reported "36 years later". It is well documented that Ford reported the assault to friends and her counselor years--decades even--before Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court. The other allegatioms likewise were reported to third parties other than (unsurprisingly) the FBI decades before "36 years later".

Clinton's accusers having specific memories about the incidents and Kavanaugh's accusers not is pertinent, but unfortunately untrue. Or at minimum a debatable assertion subject to the eye of the right wing partisan beholder.

"The laws of time and space" dictate Clinton's accusers might believable but not Kavanaugh's? WTF? Get out of here Issac Hackimov!

Even Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee conceeded Ford was sexually assaulted as she described. They just claimed the poor dear was hysterically mistaken over her assailant. And then worked overtime to bury investigation of every other credible accurser showing Kavanaugh had a SERIOUS issue with such behavior all the way up through (at least) law school.

Yeah, that just screams innocence to me too.

This reminds of E. Jean Carroll, you'll get all pissy and self-righteous for a day or two but then interestingly shut your mouth mouth as information comes out that undermines the story of the accuser. Stop it with this white-knight crap, it isn't fooling anyone

Good Lord, fellow. WTF are you even yammering about?

Stop one moment being so pissy that I appear diplomatic and try explaining what "undermining information" you're referring to?

I ask because, per usual, your post certainly didn't provide any.

IDK, maybe the fact that the woman Max steir(who has worked extensively as a Democratic operative btw) named as being victimized by Kavanaugh denies any memory of the event. I know you aren't too bright and much of your response to this thread has been emotional whining, but Jesus Christ man use some goddamn critical thinking

I still have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are literally chasing your tail at this point.

FTR, why maybe lose some of my moral High Ground since I just criticize right-wing posts on this form is being anywhere from laughable to retarded chimp level in quality, I still feel justified in pointing out that this is at least the fifth or sixth Post in this thread alone where you've lash out at others as being not too bright, not smart, stupid, Etc. The only reason you haven't been fracked is because I think people are ignoring your personal insults more than reacting to them, as is wise. You need to learn there's a very big difference between attacking people's opinions and their personal intelligence. You've always been a sh**tposter, but you still really need to grow up.

[Badger]

Anyway, Sanchez (of all people) said it best when he said it about Ralph Northam a few months back: Kavanaugh is a bona fide weirdo, regardless of whether he's a rapist or not.

And on Atlas forum we should be supporting our fellow weirdos.

I was compelled to hit the recommend button on both of these posts.