• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Kavanaugh sworn in

this is a complex issue.

i'm not super familiar with the specifics of this case but more generally speaking, there are many reasons incidents are not reported and also many reasons why people are quick to not believe victims when they do come forward, especially after time has passed.

some frequently stated reasons for doubt (e.g. the victim waited a long time to go public or they can't really remember exactly what happened) are quite typical of actual assaults.

kimberly a. lonsway (research director of End Violence Against Women International) is a psychologist who conducts law enforcement training on sexual assault says: "There’s something really unique about sexual assault in the way we think about it, which is pretty upside down from the way it actually operates...In so many instances when there’s something that is characteristic of assault, it causes us to doubt it."

the public in general has some serious misconceptions about the level of incidence of false reports of sexual assault (the number of false reports is far lower than most people imagine) and about what sexual assault and rape look like in practice. most sexual assaults are not a hooded figure stalking somebody in a parking lot. the vast majority of assaults occur between people who already know one another.

of course there are false accusations but the public in general is not psychologically conditioned to accept just how common harassment and assault are. For example, and this is utterly tragic, many sexual offenders specifically target women who have been assaulted in the past because they know women who report multiple assaults are less likely to be believed :(

further, a lot of people have preconceived notions of how a victim should act during and after an assault and, if the case doesn't line up with their notions, they just assume the victim is lying. there are many reasons that victims don't act like a stereotypical victim, don't fight back and, in some cases, even stay friendly with their attackers after the incident.

the response, often, says as much about the viewer's ignorance of the subject as it does about the incident in question.

alasdair
 
Why did the Kavanaugh accuser:
1. Wait 35 years to go public

Wanted to forget about it and move on with her life, but
Because he's maybe becoming a Supreme Court Justice now, people need to know the truth about what this man did.

2. Go public on the eve of confirmation

Who knows, but maybe to maximize the media coverage? To effectively accomplish her goal

3. Not file a police report at the time

Fear and intimidation. Fear of reprisal.

4. Scrub her social media & cover-up leftwing activism

Because that seems to be the standard practice in these situations now. Lawyer might have advised it? Idk
 
JGrimez said:
Rule of thumb:

Any Republican nominee or candidate in a high profile race or confirmation will be accused of sexual assault without physical evidence decades earlier within weeks of the election/confirmation.

After the election/confirmation accuser will just disappear.
Click to expand...

Again, delusional.

Democrats have been accused of sexual misconduct.
 
the response, often, says as much about the viewer's ignorance of the subject as it does about the incident in question.
Click to expand...
Stories like this are very complex, unfortunately happen far too often and the only real ignorance here is automatically assuming the discussion coming from it is from misogynistic, ignorant, delusional people.

Fact is, we were not there. If you were accused in public of sexual assault or rape, and everyone just believed that as sexual assault victims find it hard to seek justice, would you be cool with that?

Yes it is hard, yes people might not believe, but that's because they were not there.



This happens to all sides of govt all over the world, so believing these accusers automatically, well, that IS ignorant. Taking it with a pinch of salt is the way to go
 
Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a public hearing on the Kavanaugh sexual assault accusation
A committee vote on his nomination has also been delayed.
By Li [email protected] Sep 17, 2018, 7:00pm
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination process is on hold, at least until next week: The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a public hearing on Monday of testimony from both Kavanaugh and Palo Alto University professor Christine Blasey Ford. The hearing will center on sexual assault allegations that Ford has brought against Kavanaugh, according to a statement from Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley.

This hearing means that the committee vote on Kavanaugh, which was originally scheduled for this Thursday, September 20, is also now delayed.

Democrats have aggressively pushed for this delay and argued that the vote should not take place until a full FBI investigation is conducted into Ford’s sexual assault allegations.

In a Washington Post report on Sunday, Ford accused Kavanaugh of forcing himself on her when the two were both teenagers. She says that he pushed her into a bedroom, got on top of her, and attempted to remove her clothing. When she screamed, he allegedly put a hand over her mouth. Ford said she was ultimately able to free herself after Mark Judge, a classmate of Kavanaugh’s, jumped onto the bed and toppled them over.

Kavanaugh and Judge have denied the accusations.

Democratic lawmakers, including Judiciary Committee ranking member Dianne Feinstein (CA), were among the most vocal in urging for a delay to Kavanaugh’s committee vote. Some Republicans, including Judiciary Committee member Sen. Jeff Flake (AZ) and Sen. Bob Corker (TN), said they were uncomfortable moving forward with Kavanaugh’s nomination if they didn’t have a chance to fully hear from Ford. And Sen. Susan Collins, the Maine Republican considered a key swing vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation, said she wanted to hear from both parties under oath.

Democrats have also argued that the FBI needed to probe these allegations first and have implied that the committee’s partisan handling of the Kavanaugh confirmation overall suggest that it’s not qualified to conduct an objective review. The FBI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Republicans, in turn, have accused Democrats of partisanship and waiting to bring up the allegations until it would delay the confirmation process. (Ford said in the Post that she originally did not want to come forward.)

For now, it is delayed. But it looks like Democrats may just have to settle for an internal investigation by the Senate Judiciary Committee — and a public hearing
Click to expand...


Ahhh.. you know this could well have been manipulated by the Govt for maximum damage to the guy, the accuser might not be politically motivated and could well be genuine, she could just be a tool used for political purposes now since it's weird now her "civic duty" comes before her personal health.

I think she was railroaded into making it public and not for the right reasons.

At least there will be a hearing
under oath.

That's the right thing to do at this point.
 
Personally, I wouldn't like to see Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court either. But when do we draw the line between holding someone responsible for something stupid (and yes, I acknowledge that it's criminal) they did as a teenager and reason? The justice systems acknowledges that immaturity by separating out juvenile justice from the system that deals with adults. I was a pretty prolific vandal when I was in my mid to late teens (one even resulted in the destruction of an abandoned structure), but does it make sense to label me an arsonist for something I did 30 plus years ago when it was borne out of stupidity (not thinking through consequences), not genuine malice (knowing the consequences and doing it anyway), especially given that I haven't set a building on fire (accidental or otherwise) or vandalized property for my entire adult life? I agree with those who may say that he should have been punished appropriately at the time, but as he doesn't appear to be a serial harasser or rapist, what's the point in dredging this up now, other than just to create a political sideshow? There are other things about Judge Kavanaugh that are far more disturbing to me than this.
 
treezy z said:
I think it should be a criminal (or at least civil, with massive damages) matter to say someone raped you if you don't report the incident to police. This makes is impossible for the individual to defend themselves, as the matter is never investigated properly.

It's a sickening political tactic, and this type of behavior (baseless accusations to demonize people) are reminiscent of the Chinese Cultural Revolution and other forms of mass-snitching/informing in totalitarian regimes.

To be perfectly clear, whether or not Kavanaugh is guilty, there is not a shred of evidence he did anything, there is no REAL way for him to prove he didn't since it was 35 years ago, there's zero documented evidence it happened, and it's her word against is. This attack comes right before the vote, is clearly politically motivated, and is a complete abomination. Everyone approved of this tactic should be ashamed, and try to stop being in a rage for a second and look at where this type of thing will lead the country (it's not towards more freedom, I will leave it at that.)

I feel like a moron for even having to say this, because it's obvious.

What she stands to gain, as a hardcore liberal (she tried to hide her online past before dropping the accusation but some of it is out there) is preventing Brett Kavanaugh from being appointed to the supreme court, and gain massive amounts of fawning praise on damn near every mainstream TV channel and magazine in America.

Kavanaugh will probably get the votes needed and this story will fade away remarkably quickly.

Hey if this claim was remotely credible I wouldn't call it for the utter bullshit it is. If not believing bullshit makes me a misogynist, damn right i'm a misogynist. What proof is there this happened? Mark Judge, a man the lady claims was present, said nothing of the sort happened, ever.

It's strange in our society that most accusations require proof, but anything sexual can be dug out of the woodwork decades later, the only evidence some words, and we MUST BELIEVE WOMEN.

I'll let you have your echo chamber about this, I know it's gonna be page after page of THIS MAN IS EVIL, but hopefully my posts in this thread reach someone who still thinks rationally.

That's a really fucked up thing you believe tathra.

Ok I don't want to get in a flame war. For the record "none of them are ever credible. it's always just some stupid bitch after her 15 minutes of fame." is not a quote of mine, it is Tathra putting words in my mouth to attack me.

Here's a more eloquent write up of basically my opinion by a guy named cageysee at http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4...n-into-turmoil comments

"Here's all one really needs to know about Kavanaugh accuser, Christine Ford-Blasey...

The timing is transparent: the week prior to Brett Kavanaugh committee vote; the outlet is transparent: the intelligence ?resistance? apparatus, The Washington Post; the accuser is transparent: a far-left California liberal professor, Christine Ford Blasey, anti-Trump ?resistance activist? with an anti-policy background, including recently. The accusation is transparent: 35-year-old harassment claim/accusation, from high school intended to activate the ?Me Too? activists. The motive is transparent: block the Supreme Court nomination of Justice Kavanaugh.

Pretty much sums up the weaponization of an impotent movement (i.e., the Democratic Party) driven into fighting a guerrilla ideology war because their ideas can't prevail on the battlefield of ideas. If they did, if their ideology wasn't entirely bankrupt, this wouldn't be happening. They would be advancing their ideology, and proudly so. But they are vacant intellectually and morally, so they are reduced to lobbing 'grievance bombs' at decent people they hate. 'Virtue Signaling' at its finest."

It's more about the left recently (sometime this decade) deciding that in cases of sexual misconduct, there is no due process, it is automatic, permanent guilt as soon as the words leave someones mouth, and the person they are accusing must be utterly destroyed.

And when I say "utterly destroyed" I mean having your name ran through all kinds of buzzfeeds and gawkers, as the "Vile Rapist" and being made unemployable the rest of your life with no chance to defend yourself or even face your accuser in many cases.

Read a little about Star Chambers in 15-17th century Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber

The founding father's started a revolution over shit like this.
Click to expand...

where in all this tangle of words do you say anything to the character of this woman (without being political) that can be used in a court of law or have any evidence to support that she is making this all up (without any politics included)?

why? cause your talking about a woman accusing some one of rape. if she really is trying to get attention and trying to use this as a means to sway something politically then the evidence will prove whether he is innocent or guilty. if he is guilty then i doubt they would let him hold the position he seeks.

and have a lil self respect. brainfarts aren't ideas, they are the product of holding in flatulence. so enough with over using the word "idea", ya sound as bad as the one your accusing of sounding bad.
 
Last edited:
invegauser said:
where in all this tangle of words do you say anything to the character of this woman (without being political) that can be used in a court of law or have any evidence to support that she is making this all up (without any politics included)?

why? cause your talking about a woman accusing some one of rape. if she really is trying to get attention and trying to use this as a means to sway something politically then the evidence will prove whether he is innocent or guilty. if he is guilty then i doubt they would let him hold the position he seeks.

and have a lil self respect. brainfarts aren't ideas, they are the product of holding in flatulence. so enough with over using the word "idea", ya sound as bad as the one your accusing of sounding bad.
Click to expand...

Listen, I don't care what he is being accused of. The burden is on the accuser. She has provided zero evidence to back her accusation.

We've come to a point in our society where the word rape is used to bypass due process. Say the word "rape" and everyone goes crazy, slanders the individual in the media 24 hours a day.

The correct way to deal with a crime is the court system. Go to the police. Writing a senator during a confirmation hearing over something you say happened 35 years ago, but can't remember any details, and the other witness, Mark Judge, utterly denies, is what Clarence Thomas called

A High Tech Lynching
 
invegauser said:
why? cause your talking about a woman accusing some one of rape. if she really is trying to get attention and trying to use this as a means to sway something politically then the evidence will prove whether he is innocent or guilty. if he is guilty then i doubt they would let him hold the position he seeks.
Click to expand...


She did not want to go public, it seems her was cajoled into it, was that in her best interest really to get justice for her?
 
Literally anyone in this thread could be accused in the exact way Kavanaugh is. As in, there is zero evidence, just someone saying some shit happened decades ago.

Also, the other man she said was a witness, Mark Judge, denies that this event happened. If she goes in front of congress she will perjure herself when he is called to the stand.

Do you want to live in a country where some random man or women from decades ago can say the word "rape" and BOOM you are a rapist in the press, your name is ruined?
 
@treezy z: damn, i was ready to support you. but you didn't answer the question. you deflected. at least JGrimez comes up with reasonable support to his ideas sometimes, even if they fall apart at the end. btw it's listed in one of your links.

@zephyr: ya sug, you bring up two good points in this thread. to answer your question no. it's in her best interests to bring it up when the crime occurs. if for whatever reason she couldn't back then, then there could be a more appropriate time later on with some steps taken. i'm having a hard time understanding why she brought it up being anonymous at first and then stepped up once it became apparent that it was close to him gaining office and what your asking makes a lot of sense (i was removing the political side from only treezy z, not everyone else). i read all the posts, articles linked here and some others on the net and i understand she felt under pressure as well as trying to do her civic duty at the last minute but i'm not her so i can't begin to understand what she is going through and wont pretend to.

what i can say is i think she set a bad example for those women who are not in the spotlight and are taken advantage of. if she did call him out sooner it wouldn't have gotten to this point. if she did call him out sooner she might have inspired others to do so with their attackers. even if it's only a few cause maybe those few following suit might have inspired a few more, and a few more, etc.. (possibly more wishful thinking on that one).
 
Last edited:
This is obviously a Hail Mary desperation move.
It will go nowhere and Kavanaugh will be confirmed.
 
opposed civil rights how exactly?
and you can oppose baby-murder without repealing Roe v Wade
 
A supreme Court Justice is supposed to uphold the Constitution, I see no evidence Kavanaugh is an activist judge (he will not be writing new law.)

Much of the leftist agenda has been achieved by activist judges, which is why there is so much fear of a court that respects the Constitution.
 
@Shadowmeister: why yes, this is how it starts.

trump in office and people he backs in the supreme court, add all the loophole abuse from last 100 years or so and what do you get?

not very pretty :(

writing on the wall is illegible to those who are use to being desensitized, sensationalized and polarized.

is all lost? "No, there is another." - lil green guy that speaks softly and carries a big light saber.
 
@RepStevenSmith:
Now they care..

The voted for Hillary after she called Bill's rape victims "trailer trash".
They begged Al Franken to stay in the Senate after he grabbed a sleeping woman's breasts.
They ignored Menendez paying underaged prostituted for sex.

But Kavanaugh......in HIGH SCHOOL?


@DineshD'Souza
You cannot accuse someone decades later of doing something to nyou without CORROBORATING evidence. Absent such evidence there is no reason to believe the accusation.
 
Last edited:
in my experience, an 'activist judge' is one who legislates from the bench on issues and with whom you disagree. if they legislate from the bench but you agree with them, they're not an activist judge. is that correct? :)

but seriously, the fact that we talk about conservative and liberal justices is sad because we're not referring to their approach to law but to their politics...

the founding fathers absolutely intended that the rule of law was a fundamental 'first principle' (another example of a first principle would be that 'all men are created equal'). thjey also mandated that the the law governs everyone. think about that for a moment.

john adams said:
...good government and the very definition of a republic...“is an empire of laws".
Click to expand...

when a judge prioritises policy over the law, it's a problem whether they're a 'conservative' or 'liberal' judge.

treezy z said:
Much of the leftist agenda has been achieved by activist judges...
Click to expand...
would you post a couple or three examples? thanks.

alasdair
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top