Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)

[SteveSC]

If it was alleged to have happened yesterday, it would be a lot easier to evidence and recall. As it happened 40 years ago, we know (well, you don't as you're very young) that recalling events from so long ago will be hazy at best.

So you think she should have stayed quiet then because it was an inconvenience to someone?

What does that tell every other woman, girl, man or boy who was raped or assaulted?

Should those touched by priests in the 60's and 70's have stayed quiet many years later? as i bet their recollections were just as "hazy"

The difference with them and anyone else that comes forward decades later is that they got a fair hearing and actual police or federal agents doing a full investigation into the events even though the church tried to quash them

Do you think if she had come out last summer like the Republicans claim she should have done that it would be any different? No hell no they would still call it a democrat conspiracy and still say Kavanaugh is being railroaded.

Its a moot point to say she should have come forward before she saw the 25 man list with his name on it. As she put it its then when she began weighing up her odds but had second thoughts because like all people who suffer sexual assault its not bloody easy to come forward.

I know someone who went through something like this with a person of stature and it nearly drove them to their death as that person went onto live their live and is still well known to this day. Luckily they have an awesome support structure and are coping now.

It's not easy for victims to come forward in a timely manner because in many cases getting someone to believe them is hard and if they are not believed they are the enemy to many.

There is a documentary on netflix called Audrey & Daisy. If you want to see how hard it is for some just watch this and the effect it has on people on both sides.

 

[dholliday]

So you think she should have stayed quiet then because it was an inconvenience to someone?

No, why do you think that? Strange interpretation of my post.

Do you not agree that the accuracy of memory-recall is far better when the thing being remembered happened yesterday as opposed to 40 years ago? That was the very basic point I was making. I'd be flabbergasted if you disagreed.

 

[SteveSC]

No, why do you think that? Strange interpretation of my post.

Do you not agree that the accuracy of memory-recall is far better when the thing being remembered happened yesterday as opposed to 40 years ago? That was the very basic point I was making. I'd be flabbergasted if you disagreed.

I quoted the wrong comment its this comment you made

"Let's not forget the plain facts of the Kavanaugh case: he is being accused of attempted rape from 40 years ago just as he is set to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. In the intervening 40 years there appears to be no hint of wrongdoing. The timing is interesting, at the very least. And the intense media focus also"

 

[dholliday]

I quoted the wrong comment its this comment you made

"Let's not forget the plain facts of the Kavanaugh case: he is being accused of attempted rape from 40 years ago just as he is set to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. In the intervening 40 years there appears to be no hint of wrongdoing. The timing is interesting, at the very least. And the intense media focus also"

So...what was your point again?

 

[SteveSC]

So...what was your point again?

Oh look at the smart arse reply, typical. Wheres the meme or video you normally post?

 

[dholliday]

Oh look at the smart arse reply, typical. Wheres the meme or video you normally post?

honestly steve, i've lost your point.

 

[SteveSC]

honestly steve, i've lost your point.

The post is right above if you can't be bothered to read it, then equally i can't be bothered to repeat myself. It's clear as day what my point was and how it relates to your post.

 

[dholliday]

The post is right above if you can't be bothered to read it, then equally i can't be bothered to repeat myself. It's clear as day what my point was and how it relates to your post.

Wasn't this your point?

So you think she should have stayed quiet then because it was an inconvenience to someone?

To which I replied:

No, why do you think that? Strange interpretation of my post.

Do you not agree that the accuracy of memory-recall is far better when the thing being remembered happened yesterday as opposed to 40 years ago? That was the very basic point I was making. I'd be flabbergasted if you disagreed.

Then you replied saying you quoted the wrong post...by quoting the same post again.


I'm afraid you won't catch your tail that way. Try focussing on the 40-year aspect and the very common human tendency to misremember things from that far back. Then once you're accepted this fact, you can maybe consider why you automatically believe one side of the story.

 

[SteveSC]

Wasn't this your point?



To which I replied:



Then you replied saying you quoted the wrong post...by quoting the same post again.


I'm afraid you won't catch your tail that way. Try focussing on the 40-year aspect and the very common human tendency to misremember things from that far back. Then once you're accepted this fact, you can maybe consider why you automatically believe one side of the story.

Nope you are wrong read it again i did not post the same quote again.

This was the one i replied to originally:

"If it was alleged to have happened yesterday, it would be a lot easier to evidence and recall. As it happened 40 years ago, we know (well, you don't as you're very young) that recalling events from so long ago will be hazy at best."

This is the one i corrected it too from the previous page which i meant to reply too:

"Let's not forget the plain facts of the Kavanaugh case: he is being accused of attempted rape from 40 years ago just as he is set to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. In the intervening 40 years there appears to be no hint of wrongdoing. The timing is interesting, at the very least. And the intense media focus also "

Although similar the first one you talk about memory and recollection and the 40 years off etc....

The second one you talk about 40 years yes but its about the accusation and the timing of it etc...

Now read my post again.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Hang him! Damn that devil-worshipper back to the Hell he came from!

I see character assassination, and I see a flustered defensive conservative who's not handling it in the cool way Obama did when his pot-smoking came out.

Well done for completely - and intentionally - missing the point.
Well done for the whattaboutism.
Well done for picking out the (seemingly) least consequential lie and using that as your argument.

I genuinely couldn’t care less whether he drank in high school, but he lied about it, under oath.

He perjured himself over something that inconsequential.

And then simultaneously is outraged that no everyone is taking him at his word over much more serious, much more incriminating issues.

You don’t get to have it both ways.

 

[dholliday]

Nope you are wrong read it again i did not post the same quote again.

This was the one i replied to originally:

"If it was alleged to have happened yesterday, it would be a lot easier to evidence and recall. As it happened 40 years ago, we know (well, you don't as you're very young) that recalling events from so long ago will be hazy at best."

This is the one i corrected it too from the previous page which i meant to reply too:

"Let's not forget the plain facts of the Kavanaugh case: he is being accused of attempted rape from 40 years ago just as he is set to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. In the intervening 40 years there appears to be no hint of wrongdoing. The timing is interesting, at the very least. And the intense media focus also "

Although similar the first one you talk about memory and recollection and the 40 years off etc....

The second one you talk about 40 years yes but its about the accusation and the timing of it etc...

Now read my post again.

Well done for completely - and intentionally - missing the point.
Well done for the whattaboutism.
Well done for picking out the (seemingly) least consequential lie and using that as your argument.

I genuinely couldn’t care less whether he drank in high school, but he lied about it, under oath.

He perjured himself over something that inconsequential.

And then simultaneously is outraged that no everyone is taking him at his word over much more serious, much more incriminating issues.

You don’t get to have it both ways.

You're both avoiding my point by saying I'm avoiding yours.

We're not gonna get anywhere like this, so let's just call it a day

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

You're both avoiding my point by saying I'm avoiding yours.

We're not gonna get anywhere like this, so let's just call it a day

You had a point?

I must have missed it amongst all your avoidance of the multiple responses I put back to your question.

 

[dholliday]

I must have missed it amongst all your avoidance of the multiple responses I put back to your question.

You're avoiding my point by saying I'm avoiding yours....it's an endless cycle of dull doom. We can only hope non-posting readers got something from it.

 

[SteveSC]

You're both avoiding my point by saying I'm avoiding yours.

We're not gonna get anywhere like this, so let's just call it a day

Ah yes your best trick.

Answer someone crying foul that they didn't answer you.

What is wrong with you? You avoid people all of the time and change tact when they challenge you or reply to you.

I don't have an issue with your statement about memory and recollection etc... I already explained to you i quoted the wrong fecking statement you made. Sure people will remember things from yesterday clearer thats a given and such an obvious statement for you to even mention that sounds stupid. Like i would challenge that.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

You asked me this question:

what did he lie about?

To which I gave what I think is a pretty un-avoiding answer:

His drinking habits during college (as per now multiple people who knew him at the time)
His involvement with “enhanced interrogation policy” during Bush admin
His knowledge of stolen Democratic documents during Bush admin
The meaning of “devil’s Triangle”
The meaning of “boofed”
The meaning of “Renate alumni” - unless you’re genuinely the most credulous person on the planet.

And now as per tweet above, it seems entirely possible that he lied about when he first had knowledge of the Ramirez allegations.


That’s off the top of my head - I’m fairly sure there were others, but it’s late and I’ve just driven 250 miles.

Followed up with:

Couple more for you:

Kavanaugh’s first words as a nominee:

"No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination." I mean come on, surely we can al admit there’s zero chance that’s actually true.

He lied by saying he drank legally as a senior - there was not a single day of his high school time when he could drink legally

He lied about “Dr Ford’s claims have been refuted by her close friends”. They weren’t refuted, the friends said they didn’t remember. You’d think a judge would know the difference.

And your response to that lengthy response was to pick out half of one sentence (leaving out the relevant context, and to come back with:

Hang him! Damn that devil-worshipper back to the Hell he came from!

So tell me again how it’s me that’s avoiding addressing your point?