new kavanaugh sexual assault allegations

[Anonymous]

Don’t get blackout drunk or stoned at parties and expect men to respect you

Also: Don’t get blackout drunk or stoned at parties and expect men not to rape you if they have the chance. MAGA!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am disappointed with the level of misogyny shown on this thread. It is ridiculous.

Questioning the veracity of someone's accusations, as well as the political motivations behind them, is not misogyny.

+1 PP--I think there may be just one--refuses to understand this. If a woman accuses a man one dislikes she must be believed.

This kind of incorrect simplifying is misogynistic. Take an allegation of assault and attempted rape down to that is misogynistic.

Women are done with this. DONE. We need more representation in congress so that this kind of crap is voted out.

No its not. Misogyny is prejudice/contempt/ towards ALL women.

It is contempt of women that is causing people to ignore that her statement IS evidence. In old English and American laws, the victim of any crimes of muggings, assault, robbery could have their testimony alone lead to a conviction. It was MISOGYNY that rape was the exception. In the 1970s the law was changed in the US so that rape could be considered like the other crimes - there no longer HAD to be a direct witness to the crime. And you know who spoke out against that law change? Misogynists who claimed that women were untrustworthy.

It is misogynistic to say "If a woman accuses a man one dislikes she must be believed." It is minimizing sexual assault, and it is implying once again that women cannot be trusted.

It is okay to not believe the evidence against Kavanaugh - it is MISOGYNISTIC to claim there was no evidence.

And because of the way that Old English courts were run, is precisely why the Fifth Amendment was passed. It's a good thing, too. Look at the other accusers that ended up saying that they lied (one was a man). Look at the Duke lacrosse case. That accuser was "believed" at first and it ended up to be a lie. Ruined those families' lives.

And what about Bill Cosby, Roy Moore, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Kevin Spacey, Adam Venit?

DP, but in those cases, there were multiple women who came forward with detailed accounts of similar assaults - in other words, PLENTY OF CORROBORATED EVIDENCE. With Kavanaugh, there was nothing except false accountant we’re RECANTED. What part of this do you not understand?

[Anonymous]

*false accounts which were recanted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, you would be a terrible juror. You believe testimony is sufficient to convict in the absence of any corroborating evidence even though the testimony itself is riddled with gaps with regard to large details and inconsistencies with regard to small details.

When the testimony is that poor, you need some kind of corroborating evidence. CF had none--her best friend said she recalled no such party even though there is a lot of evidence she was pressured to say otherwise. There was not one person who stepped forward to say she told them about it at the time. In addition to which, it is not difficult to infer CF had political motives for reporting this to Feinstein. This is a weak, weak case.

I certainly hope to never have you on my jury. And having been on several I can say pretty certainly you'd be that one that all the other jurors complain about.

This, exactly. There is no way PP could *ever* be an impartial juror. She’d rely only on how she “feels” about the accused and not on facts or evidence. Or even, apparently, common sense.

[Anonymous]

You two can't quit each other, BK fan girl and Chrissy Ford defender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am disappointed with the level of misogyny shown on this thread. It is ridiculous.

It’s horrifying. And they dress it up as “common sense.”

What’s actually horrifying is that there are people who would find others guilty simply because they FEEL the accused must be guilty. Now THAT’S horrifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, you would be a terrible juror. You believe testimony is sufficient to convict in the absence of any corroborating evidence even though the testimony itself is riddled with gaps with regard to large details and inconsistencies with regard to small details.

When the testimony is that poor, you need some kind of corroborating evidence. CF had none--her best friend said she recalled no such party even though there is a lot of evidence she was pressured to say otherwise. There was not one person who stepped forward to say she told them about it at the time. In addition to which, it is not difficult to infer CF had political motives for reporting this to Feinstein. This is a weak, weak case.

I certainly hope to never have you on my jury. And having been on several I can say pretty certainly you'd be that one that all the other jurors complain about.

No, really just stop.

It’s really painful for you to be faced with facts, isn’t it? Especially when you *so badly* wanted to see Kavanaugh be taken down. For something, anything at all. Wow.
-DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You two can't quit each other, BK fan girl and Chrissy Ford defender.

Seems to be only one nutty Ford defender, and multiple other people with actual common sense.

[Anonymous]

He'll be impeached under President Biden

[Anonymous]

Obviously, PP, many people are still outraged by Kav's purchased seat.

What don't you get?

[Anonymous]

Susan Collins says thanks for all your support

[Anonymous]

FYI: To review someone for a public service position such as Supreme Court Justice, one doesn't put them on criminal trial. Court case, presumption of innocence, the standard for guilt just do not apply. It is quite a bit about "feels" as well as evidence and general judgements about fitness for the job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obviously, PP, many people are still outraged by Kav's purchased seat.

What don't you get?

“Many people”? You mean a few nutters on DCUM who can’t accept reality? Oh, ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obviously, PP, many people are still outraged by Kav's purchased seat.

What don't you get?

They thought we’d fall in line.

We saw what he was like. We saw what the GOP finds acceptable. And we see that regressive women are perfectly okay with sexual violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You two can't quit each other, BK fan girl and Chrissy Ford defender.

Seems to be only one nutty Ford defender, and multiple other people with actual common sense.

That's not common sense. That's BKFF hysteria.