Kavanaugh Has Got to Go

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Unless P.A. personally knows Kavanaugh, I don't think P.A. can suggest any hidden characteristics like you propose.

And I was suggesting that he not suggest it. I do undersstand the difference between "knowing" and "speculation" by the way. Using the word "if" twice in a sentence implies speculation.

As for knowing or not knowing Kavanaugh, going with your "personally knows" remark ......since nobody here DOES personally know Kavanaugh, then most every opinion here, for or against him, is just an exercise in speculation anyway.

Nobody here, including PA or myself or you, can suggest any hidden characteristics of the man, yet there's an entire topic where at least 3/4 of the posts are indeed, suggesting characteristics of both Kavanagh and Ford.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by clicknow

Nobody here, including PA or myself or you, can suggest any hidden characteristics of the man, yet there's an entire topic where at least 3/4 of the posts are indeed, suggesting characteristics of both Kavanagh and Ford.

Through facts that have been presented by us, through the statements of people that personally know them and throuhg their own statements and not by pure speculation as you propose.

The deeper reason for my post, to you, is to highlight the reason why P.A. said what he said. I believe his statement is based in a visceral reaction to the abuse of the fundamental principles of justice and mercy.

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Through facts that have been presented by us, through the statements of people that personally know them and throuhg their own statements and not by pure speculation as you propose.

If there were THAT MANY facts, and they were corroborated beyond a reasonable doubt (not by a partisan committee) then there would be no reason for this topic at all. He would already be confirmed or not confirmed.

FACTS would be DNA evidence like we have today, and eye-witnesses who were IN the room where the alleged event took place, which in our modern world would now include smartphone videos and audios of the people involved.

All the statements of people that personally know them is speculation if they were not eye witnesses to the event.

Regardless of how this turns out, it will not ever entirely pass any true FACTS tests.

I keep an open mind about all this right now because I have female grandaughters, neices and such. If one of them came to me 10 or even 20 years from now and shared something that happened to her, I certainly would not say to them "oh shut up...if this actually happened to you, you would have told me about it years ago!"

I am not *sure* how i would advise them to proceed though. These are always very tricky incidences as we all know. I am not sure how I would advise them even before this Kavanaugh debacle happened.

If it were your daughter, how would you advise her? Esp. if she had no DNA proof, etc. like we have today?

I see on this and other forums, mostly politically-motivated responses. I like to discuss things from a "I'm in your shoes" POV.

So for me, regardless of how this turns out, I will never have a slam-dunk certainty about it, what really happened, or if it happened. Good for you if you can.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by clicknow

If there were THAT MANY facts, and they were corroborated beyond a reasonable doubt (not by a partisan committee) then there would be no reason for this topic at all. He would already be confirmed or not confirmed.

FACTS would be DNA evidence like we have today, and eye-witnesses who were IN the room where the alleged event took place, which in our modern world would now include smartphone videos and audios of the people involved.

All the statements of people that personally know them is speculation if they were not eye witnesses to the event.

Regardless of how this turns out, it will not ever entirely pass any true FACTS tests.

I keep an open mind about all this right now because I have female grandaughters, neices and such. If one of them came to me 10 or even 20 years from now and shared something that happened to her, I certainly would not say to them "oh shut up...if this actually happened to you, you would have told me about it years ago!"

I am not *sure* how i would advise them to proceed though. These are always very tricky incidences as we all know. I am not sure how I would advise them even before this Kavanaugh debacle happened.

If it were your daughter, how would you advise her? Esp. if she had no DNA proof, etc. like we have today?

I see on this and other forums, mostly politically-motivated responses. I like to discuss things from a "I'm in your shoes" POV.

So for me, regardless of how this turns out, I will never have a slam-dunk certainty about it, what really happened, or if it happened. Good for you if you can.

So if you have reasonable doubt justice demands you don't continue to be accuse the accused of criminal behavior.

BTW my statements about personally knowing them goes to knowing the character of Ford and Kavanaugh, not the facts of the alleged incident.

Facts are established by eyewitnesses, as you stated. The facts as you state is they, the eyewitness said they were not an eyewitness to the party or event happening or that the eyewitness never personally met Kavanough with or without Ford. So you have corroborated fact established by eyewitnesses that this party or gathering never occurred. In other words this party or gathering never took place. You don't have to go into the facts of what took place at a non-existent event.

Without such a party or gathering occurring there is no possibility of Ford being assaulted at a non-existent event.

Justice for all demands Kavanaugh be believed and at the very least he should be shown mercy by the dem members like Ford had been by the repub members.

[zico20]

Originally Posted by clicknow

If there were THAT MANY facts, and they were corroborated beyond a reasonable doubt (not by a partisan committee) then there would be no reason for this topic at all. He would already be confirmed or not confirmed.

FACTS would be DNA evidence like we have today, and eye-witnesses who were IN the room where the alleged event took place, which in our modern world would now include smartphone videos and audios of the people involved.

All the statements of people that personally know them is speculation if they were not eye witnesses to the event.

Regardless of how this turns out, it will not ever entirely pass any true FACTS tests.

I keep an open mind about all this right now because I have female grandaughters, neices and such. If one of them came to me 10 or even 20 years from now and shared something that happened to her, I certainly would not say to them "oh shut up...if this actually happened to you, you would have told me about it years ago!"

I am not *sure* how i would advise them to proceed though. These are always very tricky incidences as we all know. I am not sure how I would advise them even before this Kavanaugh debacle happened.

If it were your daughter, how would you advise her? Esp. if she had no DNA proof, etc. like we have today?

I see on this and other forums, mostly politically-motivated responses. I like to discuss things from a "I'm in your shoes" POV.

So for me, regardless of how this turns out, I will never have a slam-dunk certainty about it, what really happened, or if it happened. Good for you if you can.

If you were a good father you would teach your daughters to stand up instantly and report it either to you or the police.

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by zico20

If you were a good father you would teach your daughters to stand up instantly and report it either to you or the police.

I don't know how old you are, Zico, but things 20-30 years ago were quite different (I was in college as well as in the workplace both before and at the time). Anyone who says it wasn't is in denial or hasn't done their research. One only has to read the history of human resources, campus policies, and actual cases to know this.

DNA evidence wasn't even in use or available until 1986, and the first time it was used was in a court trial in Leicestershire, England.

How many years and how many accusations and depositions to get Bill Cosby? Has anyone counted? Answer: a LOT.

The term "sexual harassment" wasn't even coined until somewhere around 1976. I know. I was in the workplace before that, and have read carefully thru my human resources packettes. Look up all the court cases and workplace cases. It was considered an interpersonal problem to be worked out. (EEOC) issued guidelines in 1980 and it wasn't until after Anita Hill that the Supreme Court, in 1993 ruled that sexual harassment doesn't have to even seriously affect an employee’s psychological well-being in order to be unlawful.

So I will amend my statement to saying I don't know how I would have advised my daughter "back then". If my daughter had been Ford, for instance.




Today, with the many protections both women and men have in the workplace and in campus settings, things are quite different.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by clicknow

Today, with the many protections both women and men have in the workplace and in campus settings, things are quite different.

Which is a good development. What has not changed is the concept of fairness under justice for all. Fairness dictates both parties must be treated the same under the same circumstances.

One party cannot be shown deference, while the other party is defiled when both parties are holding equal positions, under the circumstances.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Fairness dictates both parties must be treated the same under the same circumstances.

Justice dictates that the parties be treated differently. The accused has the presumption of innocence, the accuser has the burden of proof.

Too many people who tried to insert themselves into this issue tried to shift the burden of proof to the accused.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Justice dictates that the parties be treated differently. The accused has the presumption of innocence, the accuser has the burden of proof.

Too many people who tried to insert themselves into this issue tried to shift the burden of proof to the accused.

I am referring to proceedings outside of the judicial system.

In fairness to Ford she made these allegations outside of the judicial system, asking Feinstein for an investigation. Ford, on her own volition, did not publicly accuse Kavanaugh of a crime.

There is no judicial burden of proof in everyday life or outside of the judicial proceedings. In every day life we have the concept of justice for all and fairness in its application.

And yes the dems by trying to shift a non-existent burden of proof to Kavanaugh is a grave abuse of justice for all.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

In every day life we have the concept of justice for all and fairness in its application.

Horse hockey!

In everyday life people are biased and opinionated, often contrary to reality.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Horse hockey!

In everyday life people are biased and opinionated, often contrary to reality.

Of course they are. However, the standard is justice for all. Everyone wants justice. What is revenge and why do people desire to have revenge.

When we don't meet the standard of justice for all, because of bias, we have problems.

[cordoba]

YouTube

[letswastemoney]

Originally Posted by cordoba

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5BvL5uLrXU

Multiple women are trying to destroy his life and reputation. Of course he's emotional.

At this point, I hope he's confirmed to stop the ugly precedent that a man can lose his job just by being accused alone. If the Republicans don't follow through and put Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, the Democrats will keep using this strategy to stop whoever they want from taking government positions.

Not every politician can be as strong as Trump in these situations.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

All I can say is, I like beer. Do you like beer?

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

All I can say is, I like beer. Do you like beer?

I like beer and I like kav...do you like beer and kav..?