Franklin Graham: Attempted rape not a crime. Kavanaugh "respected" his victim by not finishing.

[older 1,925]

There are about a million words in the English language, and it fails to contain the right words for this. To call Graham names or compare him with something despicable would be an insult to the thing he's being compared to. Dog shit, cockroaches and pond scum all rate higher than this person/thing. Don't read this just after you've eaten.

 

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/19/1797143/-Graham-Attempted-rape-not-a-crime-Kavanaugh-respected-his-victim-by-not-finishing

[LogicalFallacy 3,750]

Looks like Evangelicals are trying to catch up with Catholics. A true arsehole of a person.

 

But this is not just relegated to big evangelicals. Just about every Christian person I've spoken to is defending Kavanaugh - no denying he did anything, but saying why wait 35 years. and why come out now?

 

Well just maybe realizing that this type of person could get on the supreme court and stay there for years is enough motivation to make the women come forward.

 

Like they say, where there is smoke there is fire.

[disillusioned 1,750]

What a piece of shi

 

See how respectful I just was?

[Geezer 3,749]

I agree that Graham statement is stupid. Setting that aside, the threshold of reasonable doubt exist for a reason. Nothing in this ladies story, IMO, comes even remotely close to superseding reasonable doubt. 

 

If the day has come where a mere acquzation is sufficient to establish guilt then no one is safe. A person with a chip on their shoulder can destroy your life by merely accusing you of an act punishable by law. 

 

Legally she has no case, but she can, and apparently already has,  destroyed him politically and I wonder if that wasn't her intent from the beginning. This is a very, very,  dangerous road to go down. 

 

If she is ultimately successful do you think the Republicans are going to forget this incident?  At some point the Dems will have a Supreme Court nominee and the Republicans will want revenge. How long will people be willing to risk everything to serve in government? We have already reached the point where public figures can't even go to a restaurant without fear of harassment or being asked to leave. 

 

Free speech has already been nullified. Say the wrong thing and your life can be instantly destroyed. IMO, these are scary times. 

[TruthSeeker0 1,123]

3 hours ago, Geezer said:

Legally she has no case, but she can, and apparently already has,  destroyed him politically and I wonder if that wasn't her intent from the beginning. This is a very, very,  dangerous road to go down. 

 

Honestly, some education is required in society on why women in many cases do not come forward to claim sexual harrassment. One reason is PTSD. Who wants to relive what they're trying to recover from, particularly when the onus is put on the victim to prove that the crime occurred, not the person blamed for the crime. If the person blamed has any power in any way, I can bet you most women aren't going to want to revisit it. What does it say that power pays? That Trump himself was able to silence a woman by paying her off before he became President? Nobody sees an issue with this? With the fact that women can be silenced with money? Now I can start to throw out some stats on rape, cases of reported rape etc, but maybe it would be more enlightening here if I tried to connect the dots using words such as religion and patriarchy. Religion, which all of us are familiar with, has supported and enabled a system of patriarchy that has deemed women to simply be the chattel and belongings of men for thousands of years on end. Why do you think in the bible you see the lineage of Jesus described as a patrilineal system? Women exist nowhere in such a system, they are simply vessels to bear children and the belongings of men. And what you're seeing today are the remnants of that attitude, towards women. Hence, domestic violence, rape, harassment etc. "If you don't give to me what I want, I have the right to bully or abuse you. Hell, I have the right to harass you even if I don't know you, in a public space, if you're a stranger on the street, walking by." Women weren't declared persons under the law in Canada until 1929. Married women didn't obtain rights to any of their property or money until the late 1800s in places such as Britain, which many consider to be the more "civilized" of nations. We aren't far removed from such history. Is it small wonder that a great portion of men walk around as if they have a right to grope, molest and rape us, when you put this history into perspective?

Every single time it involves some political candidate, it starts right away, ie "her only motive was to bring him down" etc. Let's ignore the fact the woman moved to the other side of the country and has devoted her life as a psychologist to researching things such as trauma and memory.

Geezer, you sound like Trump himself, ie "these people are very very dangerous."

Hell yes, women are dangerous, and when we start to bring to light what has for a long time been wrong with society, the patriarchy, and the attitude it instills towards women, people are going to whine and protest. It's inevitable. But it's been a long time in coming.

 

As a side note, I'd like to say one more thing: men who have grown up in a very patriarchal structure are often blind to the way it operates. I've seen this in my own family. People can leave religion, but patriarchy, and ignorance towards their privilege, in that system, remains.

[Geezer 3,749]

TruthSeeker where do you see the words "These people" in my post? These proceedings are about politics, not truth. I hope most people understand that.

[TruthSeeker0 1,123]

10 minutes ago, Geezer said:

TruthSeeker the term " These People" was referencing politicians not women. These hearing are about politics not truth,  and I would hope most of the country understands that. 

No, these aren't only hearings about politics. When 11 men are put in charge of determining the value of a women's words, it is not only about politics, and it's a bit sad that you fail to see that. There isn't an area in life where gender dynamics do not play into the equation in some way, you can't separate it, particularly in this sort of situation.

 

 

[Geezer 3,749]

1 minute ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

No, these aren't only hearings about politics and truth. When 11 men are put in charge of determining the value of a women's words, it is not about politics and truth, and it's a bit sad that you fail to see that. There isn't an area in life where gender dynamics do not play into the equation in some way, you can't separate it, particularly in this sort of situation.

 

If you think men are incapable of discerning truth, if a woman is involved, then I think your bias is blinding your objectivity.  In this case it's about the evidence and she doesn't have any. That is the crux of the problem. Even her best girl friend says she has no memory of this alleged event. 

 

If she had even a shread of evidence that could be validated this guy would be toast already. You seem to be making my case that the mere accusation of sexual misconduct is sufficient to establish guilt. It seems you are in favor of doing away with the presumption of innocence for the accused, if the accused is a man and is accused of a sexual crime. That is pretty scary stuff but it seems like that kind of thinking is starting to become a reality.

 

 

[TruthSeeker0 1,123]

13 minutes ago, Geezer said:

 

If you think men are incapable of discerning truth, if a woman is involved, then I think your bias is blinding your objectivity.  In this case it's about the evidence and she doesn't have any. That is the crux of the problem. Even her best girl friend says she has no memory of this alleged event. 

 

If she had even a shread of evidence that could be validated this guy would be toast already. You seem to be making my case that the mere accusation of sexual misconduct is sufficient to establish guilt. It seems you are in favor of doing away with the presumption of innocence for the accused, if the accused is a man and is accused of a sexual crime. That is pretty scary stuff but it seems like that kind of thinking is starting to become a reality.

 

 

Oh yes, show me the sperm, 30 years later. /end sarcasm.

 

Regardless of what you may think, women don't go talking about everything to each other. She's also not the only one that has provided sworn statements in regards to his behaviour. But, I suppose those mean nothing, cus they're just a bunch of opportunists who have come out of the woodwork. Anyway, I'm not continuing this conversation anymore, not interested, as the first thing that gets yanked out is "you're biased", when in fact I'm discussing a more general problem with society as I see it, and putting it in that context.

 

If he's innocent, he'll have no issue at all with facing an FBI probe.

 

 

[disillusioned 1,750]

11 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

 

If he's innocent, he'll have no issue at all with facing an FBI probe.

 

 

 

This is the crux, IMO. Guilty? Innocent? Yet to be determined.  But there should be an investigation.

 

This isn't a criminal proceeding,  for what it's worth, so "reasonable doubt" is not really the question at hand.  The question is,  "is this guy the best option for a lifetime appointment to the US supreme court?". The only way to properly answer this question at this point is to look into this issue seriously, via an investigation. And this cannot occur over the next 24-72 hours. I don't see how this can be reasonably disputed.

[LogicalFallacy 3,750]

4 hours ago, Geezer said:

I agree that Graham statement is stupid. Setting that aside, the threshold of reasonable doubt exist for a reason. Nothing in this ladies story, IMO, comes even remotely close to superseding reasonable doubt. 

 

If the day has come where a mere acquzation is sufficient to establish guilt then no one is safe. A person with a chip on their shoulder can destroy your life by merely accusing you of an act punishable by law. 

 

This is not guilt under law though, this is guilt by public trial. Eerily similar to the way things would work centuries ago.

 

4 hours ago, Geezer said:

Legally she has no case, but she can, and apparently already has,  destroyed him politically and I wonder if that wasn't her intent from the beginning. This is a very, very,  dangerous road to go down. 

 

Is her intent even important? I touch on this more below, but this should be about if she has sufficient cause to bring a case. A sad fact I think is that I think there are many situations in which the justice system won't work because a person who was assaulted cannot produce the evidence that the system requires. He says, she says kinda thing. What do we say to these people? Sorry, we cannot get justice for you. It possible that something happened, she knows she can't prove it, so is doing trial by public opinion for justice. Right? Not really. Understandable? Certainly.

 

43 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Honestly, some education is required in society on why women in many cases do not come forward to claim sexual harrassment. One reason is PTSD. Who wants to relive what they're trying to recover from, particularly when the onus is put on the victim to prove that the crime occurred, not the person blamed for the crime. If the person blamed has any power in any way, I can bet you most women aren't going to want to revisit it. What does it say that power pays?

 

So the two quotes above are related to the same question. The question being why wait 35 years, why now.

 

Another question might be what motive, and should this have any bearing anyway? Lets assume the assault did happen, and lets say the motive is not just justice but to ruin a conservatives chances of being a Supreme Judge. Should that even come into it?

 

 

4 hours ago, Geezer said:

If she is ultimately successful do you think the Republicans are going to forget this incident?  At some point the Dems will have a Supreme Court nominee and the Republicans will want revenge. How long will people be willing to risk everything to serve in government? We have already reached the point where public figures can't even go to a restaurant without fear of harassment or being asked to leave. 

 

Probably not - we've seen tit for tats for ages. A lot of Democrat actions are probably in revenge for what Republicans did during the Obama years as well as misguided paybacks for Hillary's loss. In a game of politics no party is innocent.

 

4 hours ago, Geezer said:

 

Free speech has already been nullified. Say the wrong thing and your life can be instantly destroyed. IMO, these are scary times. 

 

I think this statement is extreme. There is plenty of free speech and all parties are using it right now, including the maggot Graham. What is disturbingly being nullified is proper due process in the name of social justice. People are not considering what happens when you throw to far to one side.

 

43 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

That Trump himself was able to silence a woman by paying her off before he became President? Nobody sees an issue with this? With the fact that women can be silenced with money? Now I can start to throw out some stats on rape, cases of reported rape etc, but maybe it would be more enlightening here if I tried to connect the dots using words such as religion and patriarchy. Religion, which all of us are familiar with, has supported and enabled a system of patriarchy that has deemed women to simply be the chattel and belongings of men for thousands of years on end. Why do you think in the bible you see the lineage of Jesus described as a patrilineal system? Women exist nowhere in such a system, they are simply vessels to bear children and the belongings of men. And what you're seeing today are the remnants of that attitude, towards women. Hence, domestic violence, rape, harassment etc. "If you don't give to me what I want, I have the right to bully or abuse you. Hell, I have the right to harass you even if I don't know you, in a public space, if you're a stranger on the street, walking by." Women weren't declared persons under the law in Canada until 1929. Married women didn't obtain rights to any of their property or money until the late 1800s in places such as Britain, which many consider to be the more "civilized" of nations. We aren't far removed from such history. Is it small wonder that a great portion of men walk around as if they have a right to grope, molest and rape us, when you put this history into perspective?

Every single time it involves some political candidate, it starts right away, ie "her only motive was to bring him down" etc. Let's ignore the fact the woman moved to the other side of the country and has devoted her life as a psychologist to researching things such as trauma and memory.

 

The concern here is not with history, right or wrong, its whether someone should be destroyed by accusations before due process. That's all that's being asked here.

 

43 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Geezer, you sound like Trump himself, ie "these people are very very dangerous."

 

TS, I get very angsty when people try and make other people say something that they didn't say. Geezer did not even suggest people are dangerous, he said the situation in which the mere accusation is enough to derail someone's life without evidence and process is dangerous.

 

43 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Hell yes, women are dangerous, and when we start to bring to light what has for a long time been wrong with society, the patriarchy, and the attitude it instills towards women, people are going to whine and protest. It's inevitable. But it's been a long time in coming.

 

Again, no one said women are dangerous. This is essentially a strawman in response to Geezers point, despite being correct in the points that society has needed to correct its treatment and attitude towards women. However we may well be facing an age where people look back in years and find that they have to do a reversal and make right the wrongs done to men. I'd prefer socity doesn't reach a tipping point of attitude and power where men end up how women were treated. That's not progress, that's regression regardless of wrongs in past millennia.

 

[TruthSeeker0 1,123]

30 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

However we may well be facing an age where people look back in years and find that they have to do a reversal and make right the wrongs done to men. I'd prefer socity doesn't reach a tipping point of attitude and power where men end up how women were treated. That's not progress, that's regression regardless of wrongs in past millennia.

 

Now that would just be stupid, and surely you know me better than to conclude tit for tat will get anybody anywhere (and yes, I know you weren't speaking personally here, I'm just saying). Just look at politics and how great that is working out there. Makes you wonder who actually has the country's best interest at heart when they're all too busy trying to pull punches at each other in the ring and seek petty revenge than to actually get on with business.

 

Here's my problem: for too long men have known the system is rigged in their favour when it comes to accusations of abuse. If people want to argue with me that it hasn't been rigged in their favour, just go reread the historical context I discussed above. And like I said, the onus for proof unfairly falls on the person making the accusation in assault cases to prove guilt. The onus should just as much fall on the accused to prove their innocence. Anybody who is aware of history will know what has historically gone down when it turns into a case of he says she says.

 

Also, why are people so skeptical about the fact that maybe Ford did in fact think it her civic duty to come forward, as she says, and shed some light on history, if he's up for a long stint in the Supreme Court? Maybe she had some valid concerns about his suitability for the job? Maybe she is in fact telling her experience? But no, first we must jump to the conclusion that it's politics as usual. I'm sure, she wanted to destroy her family's privacy and peace, and likely feel extremely threatened into the bargain, just for her few moments in the limelight.

[LogicalFallacy 3,750]

An update: http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/fox-news-host-chris-wallace-on-christine-blasey-fords-testimony-this-is-a-disaster-for-the-republicans/ar-BBNDDey?ocid=ientp

[disillusioned 1,750]

I will say it again: strip all the bullshit away, and this is simple. A person has been nominated for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. There are allegations to the effect that this person is not worthy of such appointment. What to do?

 

Slow it down and reconsider. Investigate. Remove any arbitrary,  politically based deadlines,  and take this seriously. 

 

Who stands to lose under this scenario?

[TruthSeeker0 1,123]

13 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

I will say it again: strip all the bullshit away, and this is simple. A person has been nominated for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. There are allegations to the effect that this person is not worthy of such appointment. What to do?

 

Slow it down and reconsider. Investigate. Remove any arbitrary,  politically based deadlines,  and take this seriously. 

 

Who stands to lose under this scenario?

Some people do stand to gain by just hastily pushing through with it. At least, it appears so. Why else the deadlines?

[TruthSeeker0 1,123]

 

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

What is disturbingly being nullified is proper due process in the name of social justice.

 

I think that's your assumption. Ford made it rather clear why she was coming forward. I can take her at her word: that she thought it her civic duty, and that seeing as he's being considered for the highest court in the land, that she had something of relevance to say regarding the decision, to the people who are making that decision. What was there in it for her? Drag her and her family through the mud, get death threats, have to separate her family and live with security guards.

 

[Jedah 358]

I don't know if Kavanaugh is guilty of being a perv in the 80's or not. Neither does anyone else except himself and those potentially involved. The evidence is shakey and overwhelmingly unverifiable in nature, meaning any FBI investigation would likely find no reason for any indictment as the feds generally cannot manifest evidence out of thin air for a he-said she-said case decades old that doesn't even have a specific location.

 

So instead of any real discussion on the evidence against him ( Which again, the evidence is completely non-verifiable so no real discussion COULD take place ) I am seeing people on the left screaming that he must be guilty because blah blah blah #MeToo #BelieveAllWomen #SocJus #HealthyAtEverySize #LiterallyKillAllMen. Likewise we can go to /r/The_Donald and see photoshopped memes of Ford with the caption "Lying Whore" Plastered on her picture. Ahhh, the far right and their memes. What would they be without them? Not much.

 

But there is one thing I can say for sure, which is that the timing and motivations of these accusations is very obviously politicized -regardless of whether he did the dirty deed or not. And for that reason I find myself leaning to the right on this one. If she wanted a fair investigation she would have come out months before when Kavanaugh was first being slated as a Supreme court nominee. Not wait till the 11th hour.

 

This is a timed and calculated political character assassination. Only a total fool cannot see this.

 

</2cents>

[♦ nivek ♦ 805]

Futtawukkup.

 

kFL

[Geezer 3,749]

Before these hearings started everyone knew the Dems were going to vote no and the Repiblicans were going to vote yes, but they seem compelled to put on a spectacle for the TV audience & news media. Politics is definitely not for the weak or squeamish. 

 

 

 

[Geezer 3,749]

If the quality of any person is going to be determined by what they may or may not have done as teenagers,  then I think a lot of people would not be able to pass muster. 

[TruthSeeker0 1,123]

1 hour ago, Geezer said:

Politics is definitely not for the weak or squeamish. 

 

 

 

Yeah that's a common approach to take when people disagree over issues, imply that some are weak or squeamish. People are entitled to different opinions and labels don't have to come into it. 

[Blood 1,068]

Kavanaugh's high school yearbook, dripping with extremely crude sexual innuendo and alcohol references ("100 Keg club"), sure doesn't jibe with the choirboy persona he desperately wants us to believe. If he would just admit that yeah, I got drunk a lot in high school and was pretty loose sexually, then he would have more credibility. But he cannot do that, because he thinks owning up to past bad behavior would be tantamount to an admission of guilt with Ford. So he has to put on a fake choirboy routine and hope the Fox News zombies are gullible enough to believe his charade. 

 

Call me naive, but I didn't know that Catholic High schools were non-stop parties and drunken orgies. That sure wasn't my high school experience, but then again I went to an underfunded public school, not an "elite" prep school run by and for oligarchs. No surprise that our "leaders" are educated in such a place. 

 

Kavanaugh baldly lied about what the sexual references meant. He lied about what the other people in the house have said. He lied about what "Renate Alumnius" meant. He lied about a lot of small things. That leads me to believe he would lie about bigger things. He wouldn't agree to a FBI investigation. That's very suspicious. 

 

And what a transparently lame defense strategy by the GOP. Don't criticize the woman -- that would look bad -- instead attack the Democrats for bringing in the woman to testify. 

[TruthSeeker0 1,123]

51 minutes ago, Blood said:

 

Kavanaugh baldly lied about what the sexual references meant. He lied about what the other people in the house have said. He lied about what "Renate Alumnius" meant. He lied about a lot of small things. That leads me to believe he would lie about bigger things. He wouldn't agree to a FBI investigation. That's very suspicious. 

 

 

Clearly the best candidate for the job. 

[disillusioned 1,750]

Who thinks Bill Clinton or Anthony Weiner is ok? Seriously BO, you can do better than that. 

[disillusioned 1,750]

16 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

Back then, the Democrats were dismissive about it. So it does apply.  There was proof of their shit.  Today, there is no proof, just phony accusations of Kavanaugh. 

 

Well, Clinton was impeached (granted: acquitted, but still... he's hardly held up by any serious person as a paragon of ethical behaviour), and Weiner resigned, so I'm afraid you're full of shit.