Kavanaugh Accuser reveals her Identity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Shes a psychologist with the ability to evade a lie detector

Even if this was true it is inadmissible because they were minors.

You're reaching, big time. Link to where psychologists have a special ability to evade lie detectors? And "inadmissible", I do not think that word means what you think it means

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d actually be happy if the Kavanaugh nomination were pulled and Trump nominated the conservative judge who went to Notte Dame and then worked his way though law school. What this latest episode reinforces isn’t whether Kavanaugh was a predator, but that he’s lived a life of extreme comfort where the consequences for being an over-privileged bro have been nil. He’s lived in a bubble and worked the system his entire life. Even if this woman had gone public as a teenager, his parents and the Georgetown Prep administration would have “fixed” things for him. Why do we need another Supreme Court Justice who has so little relatable experience deciding cases.

The same could be said for Kagan, who came from a wealthy UWS family. But let’s finally start looking for some real diversity on the Court that looks a little further than to judges who grew up wealthy and sailed their way through Harvard or Yale Law.

Above is a thoughtful approach. My issue with Judge K is not only his hard right idealogy, but the fact that the Supremes already include too many privileged types. Judge K is no doubt a very smart person, who has worked hard and is a good father and husband. I have no reason to question that.

But we need far more diversity, in all ways, on the Court. We need folks with backgrounds and perspectives that represent the entire US, not the wealthy suburban communities in this country. If you have every heard Justice G or S speak, they are simply inspirational in their life stories. Judge K, who worked up his way thru the DC right wing lawyer community, is clueless about this country. Justice O was asked once what she uniquely brought to the Court; she answered that being a Westerner and understanding land/water issues in a real sense was unique.
[/quote

It's interesting to see that folks here are open to some conservative justices, not just this one. The senators need to listen to their constituency and not decide to stonewall any candidate before they're even named.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Shes a psychologist with the ability to evade a lie detector

Even if this was true it is inadmissible because they were minors.

I'm a clinical psychologist by training, and a licensed psychologist in CA. Being a psychologist doesn't automatically mean one knows how to "beat" a lie detector.

Also, her Ph.D. is in educational psychology--I'm not sure she's the type of psychologist that can be licensed to do clinical work. Many psychology Ph.D.s are in academic areas--developmental, experimental, and social psychology come to mind. Those that see patients usually have degrees in clinical, counseling, school psychology, or something closely related. I know some psychologists who've had Ph.D.s in other areas who then have to take additional coursework and gain supervised clinical experience if they would actually like to become licensed and see patients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What next Trumpsters? Defending bad men makes you despicable, more and more each day. Are you going to say it was her fault next?

Woopsie daisy. You just admitted Democrats are despicable. Have you forgotten Juanita Broderick already?

No sorry I don’t, I must not be that old. And anyone who defends these types of men and tries to smear the victims belongs in hell.

[Anonymous]

People saying that Kavanaugh is being "convicted" are overstating things -- and doing it in a way that blurs the standard of proof. Convictions come from criminal proceedings that require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

What we're dealing with now doesn't even require the Senate to use the "preponderance of evidence" level necessary to get a civil money judgment against someone.

We're talking about giving someone a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. What standard of proof should an employer use when he or she is considering hiring someone for a job? Take that level of proof and make it even more rigorous because you can't fire this guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What next Trumpsters? Defending bad men makes you despicable, more and more each day. Are you going to say it was her fault next?

Woopsie daisy. You just admitted Democrats are despicable. Have you forgotten Juanita Broderick already?

No sorry I don’t, I must not be that old. And anyone who defends these types of men and tries to smear the victims belongs in hell.

DP. Surely you're old enough to remember how Hillary smeared her husband's victims, yet I bet you were willing to vote for her.

Actually I wasn’t of voting age during the Clinton admin, so no. It’s 2018, stop living in the past, women need to stand together. Stop making excuses!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What next Trumpsters? Defending bad men makes you despicable, more and more each day. Are you going to say it was her fault next?

Woopsie daisy. You just admitted Democrats are despicable. Have you forgotten Juanita Broderick already?

No sorry I don’t, I must not be that old. And anyone who defends these types of men and tries to smear the victims belongs in hell.

DP. Surely you're old enough to remember how Hillary smeared her husband's victims, yet I bet you were willing to vote for her.

Actually I wasn’t of voting age during the Clinton admin, so no. It’s 2018, stop living in the past, women need to stand together. Stop making excuses!

Nobody is making excuses. We're saying that you need to be informed when you make statements like "defending bad men makes you despicable" as if it's one sided.

[Anonymous]

The clintons are not the issue here, it’s 2018, we should be better than this! We should be making progress as women of the 21st century.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What next Trumpsters? Defending bad men makes you despicable, more and more each day. Are you going to say it was her fault next?

Woopsie daisy. You just admitted Democrats are despicable. Have you forgotten Juanita Broderick already?

No sorry I don’t, I must not be that old. And anyone who defends these types of men and tries to smear the victims belongs in hell.

DP. Surely you're old enough to remember how Hillary smeared her husband's victims, yet I bet you were willing to vote for her.

Actually I wasn’t of voting age during the Clinton admin, so no. It’s 2018, stop living in the past, women need to stand together. Stop making excuses!

Nobody is making excuses. We're saying that you need to be informed when you make statements like "defending bad men makes you despicable" as if it's one sided.

Stick to the issue at hand. Yes there are bad men on both sides. We should be fighting them not each other!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What next Trumpsters? Defending bad men makes you despicable, more and more each day. Are you going to say it was her fault next?

Woopsie daisy. You just admitted Democrats are despicable. Have you forgotten Juanita Broderick already?

No sorry I don’t, I must not be that old. And anyone who defends these types of men and tries to smear the victims belongs in hell.

DP. Surely you're old enough to remember how Hillary smeared her husband's victims, yet I bet you were willing to vote for her.

Actually I wasn’t of voting age during the Clinton admin, so no. It’s 2018, stop living in the past, women need to stand together. Stop making excuses!

Nobody is making excuses. We're saying that you need to be informed when you make statements like "defending bad men makes you despicable" as if it's one sided.

DP. So you should be leading the charge against Kavanugh, then, right?

[Anonymous]

Breaking news : Kavanaugh has hired an attorney .

[Anonymous]

Soooo do the people bringing up Bill Clinton (and, as always, Hillary), think that Kavanaugh should be withdrawn, or he shouldn't?

Do you think he should be investigated, or he shouldn't? "Whatabout" can sometimes be a valid point, but it's also a convenient distraction from a principled stand on the current matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Breaking news : Kavanaugh has hired an attorney .

Posted a dozen pages ago. Read the thread, people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Breaking news : Kavanaugh has hired an attorney .

That's so 20 pages ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Breaking news : Kavanaugh has hired an attorney .

Posted a dozen pages ago. Read the thread, people.

in all fairness, this thread is now 80+ page long and full of nonsensical rants.