OT: Anyone watching Christine Blasey Ford?

[OrangeRegalia]

It happens a lot more than you realize. If you want to see this issue addressed in our nation, @OrangeRegalia , you'll see to see all the realities at work here.

You can start by reading this piece in The Atlantic. It cuts right down the middle.

https://www.theatlantic.com/educati...rtable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/

On a personal level, I know a man who was accused of sexual assault and he was put in jail, lost his business, lost his friends, put in the paper and on the news as a sexual assaulter and this went on for 2 years. Recently, an investigation and subsequent court case found that he did nothing and the charges were falsely levied against him. So he's a free man now but there's no retraction in the paper. His business has largely been destroyed and people look at him differently now. The damage is done. That isn't right and we need to figure out a better way to handle these things.

I’m not saying that false accusations aren’t a terrible thing. The consequences that happen to a man’s life for being falsely accused are unfathomable. I get that. But when you look at the amount of women sexually assaulted vs the amount of false accusations they don’t even compare. They aren’t even in the same
Ballpark. But people want to make it like one is a way bigger ordeal than the other when in fact it isn’t. It pales in comparison to the amount of times it happens.

 

[orangelvis]

Yeah this is true. For example, it would be really easy for a woman to come on a message board and claim she’d been sexually assaulted.

Not much different than writing a letter.

 

[OrangeRegalia]

I would imagine you are correct in this statement. But don't we talk about the need for prison reform because many believe (myself among them) that there are black men in jail who shouldn't be there? Don't we say that one person in jail who shouldn't be is too much? Shouldn't this also apply to BOTH sides of the sexual assault issue? Right now, it's coming across as more of a revenge play than anything else. Is that what we want?

Oh I agree. And I agree false accusations should be punished. These aren’t things that I’m denying. I’m not disagreeing with you in a sense. I’m more disagreeing in the complete outrage of these false accusations vs the jokes and the oh wells of when women are actually raped and sexually assaulted.

The response for one to the other isn’t relative to what actually goes on and happens day to day.

 

[JSpears5]

I find it amazing that some many people look at all the facts of this situation and come to their own unbiased opinion with an assessment of merit that also completely lines up with their biased political believes and wants

 

[BarnwellTiger]

No they haven’t. A shit ton more women have been raped/sexually assaulted without the man facing any consequences vs the amount of false accusations.

"All you guys should be aware that at any time any woman can fabricate any story, with no proof, and ruin your life."

I don't disagree with your point at all.

However, the point that @amynhop was making had to do with the destructive nature of false accusations. That was the reason for my response.

 

[amynhop]

damn, this is pretty rough to hear from a woman. Absolutely no regard for what women who have been raped go through. You should be embarassed

Look here.... that woman wasn't raped. I have been sexually assaulted( not raped).
So don't you dare try to tell me anything!!!!!!

 

[orangelvis]

I find it amazing that some many people look at all the facts of this situation and come to their own unbiased opinion with an assessment of merit that also completely lines up with their biased political believes and wants

I also find it amazing that ALL of dems in the senate believe this woman without having any facts; seeing that ALL of her corroborating witnesses have all debunked her claim.

 

[other1]

Well whoever runs against Trump in 2020 assaulted me 15 years ago.

So Amy. if you were sexually assaulted is it fair to say you'd keep silent about it because it might ruin someone's life, other than yours. I mean, if it was only your word against his.

 

[rcmc2017]

All you guys should be aware that at any time any woman can fabricate any story, with no proof, and ruin your life.

You are correct...it is very sad. I volunteer at a local ministry at times, several months ago when this me too movement caught fire I made the mistake of putting in my two cents about this subject. I said, "not all men sexually harass woman like they're falsely accused at times." Then a woman said, " she thinks all men are guilty of SH at some point in their life", my neighbor said the same thing. We live in a time frame where men are considered guilty based on a false accusation...very sad.

 

[Willence]

Oh I agree. And I agree false accusations should be punished. These aren’t things that I’m denying. I’m not disagreeing with you in a sense. I’m more disagreeing in the complete outrage of these false accusations vs the jokes and the oh wells of when women are actually raped and sexually assaulted.

The response for one to the other isn’t relative to what actually goes on and happens day to day.

This is definitely not a matter for jokes or laughing. This is one of the most serious issues facing our country today. My frustration is that like so many problems, we have such an un-serious landscape for discussing these kinds of things that it is impossible to see how we get to a solution.

I also don't understand how the Dems want this investigated by the FBI. There's no crime that has been charged. As Sen. Whitehouse said, he had to tell people they couldn't prosecute an accusation due to a lack of evidence. What does he think should be done and what the result will be?

 

[orangelvis]

Unbelievable the people on here who don't even know what this woman is even alleging to have happened. She is not claiming to have been raped.

 

[amynhop]

So Amy. if you were sexually assaulted is it fair to say you'd keep silent about it because it might ruin someone's life, other than yours. I mean, if it was only your word against his.

I didn’t keep silent. It was in broad daylight. In a parking lot. But I called the police RIGHT AWAY. (not years later) He was apprehended and convicted and made to write me an apology letter.

 

[orangelvis]

Holy shit. Sexual assault is horrible and wrong. Falsely accusing someone of sexual assault is horrible and wrong. Because one happens, it doesn't make the other okay. Neither are ever okay. Why is that complicated?

You're right and it shouldn't be complicated. What is complicated is the fact that the dems sat on the information since july and instead of turning it over to the FBI, instead gave the info to the New Yorker magazine. Nothing nefarious there!

 

[C-TeamHOF]

I didn’t keep silent. It was in broad daylight. In a parking lot. But I called the police RIGHT AWAY. (not years later) He was apprehended and convicted and made to write me an apology letter.

you mean you didn't wait 37 years?

this whole thing is stupid to me personally. The 15 year old girl may have had an advance from a 17 year old boy but she wasn't raped and this was 37 years ago. I am not down with this stupidity.

 

[orangelvis]

See, here we go. She admits under oath she's a world traveler. The whole reason her democrat handlers gave for delaying the hearing until today was that she was afraid of flying. No lying going on! Nothing to see here, right?

 

[orangelvis]

No one would politicize this , would they? I mean, especially not a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, right?
Then why would Kamala Harris run 3600 FaceBook ads leading up to the hearing. All she is interested in is getting to the truth, right?
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/campaign-wire-2018-midterms/card/1537991168

 

[TooterTownTiger]

When I heard she went to UNC, I couldn’t help to think that somehow Clemson will end up on Probation when this is over.

 

[TooterTownTiger]

Well whoever runs against Trump in 2020 assaulted me 15 years ago.

If it’s Michelle Obama, then I would believe you.

 

[hopefultiger13]

Are you that naive?

Depends on what you call rarely. The FBI estimates that between 2% and 10% per cent of sexual assault claims are false. Which means that somewhere between 90% and 98% are true. While I agree with you that a false accusation can ruin lives, let's not kid yourself about Kavanaugh. There's no chance he goes to jail. There's no chance he loses his lifetime appointment/job/salary as a federal judge. He makes $220,600/year. That's not ruined. It just means you missed out on a better job.

As I've said before. I don't think it's the Senate's place to labor over whether a judge is too conservative/liberal. The President gets to pick the political leanings. The Senate makes sure he's qualified and morally/mentally suitable. If Ford is credible, find another conservative judge. You won't hear a word out of me.

BTW, I can't help but notice that there weren't any accusations of unwanted sexual advances from a SINGLE nomination for the SCOTUS since Thomas. Not one... whether they were conservative or liberal. Not until now. That probably means something too.

 

[dbjork6317]

Look here.... that woman wasn't raped. I have been sexually assaulted( not raped).
So don't you dare try to tell me anything!!!!!!

“All you guys should be aware that at any time any woman can fabricate any story.”

 

[CUAngler]

Predictably sad thread from the same usual suspects.

 

[MBRO]

Yet it still occurs all too frequently. Why is that?

It even happened on campus at Clemson. IIRC, it was the beginning of fall 2000. A freshman girl claimed to have been raped in the horseshoe by a "guy wearing fraternity letters". Even though the shirt was allegedly in her face, she couldn't remember the letters.

The police locked down the quad. They did hourly room checks for a week. They would wake us up to check our rooms in the middle of the night. They treated us like we were all guilty. It was miserable.

After about a week, the girl admitted she was homesick and missed getting attention. So she made it up. Clemson sent her home for good. She made hundreds - if not more - Clemson fraternity guys' lives hell for a week. Sur wasn't welcome anymore. And good riddance.

Once is too frequently. But out of 100 accusations, how many do you think are false?

 

[C-TeamHOF]

Depends on what you call rarely. The FBI estimates that between 2% and 10% per cent of sexual assault claims are false. Which means that somewhere between 90% and 98% are true. While I agree with you that a false accusation can ruin lives, let's not kid yourself about Kavanaugh. There's no chance he goes to jail. There's no chance he loses his lifetime appointment/job/salary as a federal judge. He makes $220,600/year. That's not ruined. It just means you missed out on a better job.

As I've said before. I don't think it's the Senate's place to labor over whether a judge is too conservative/liberal. The President gets to pick the political leanings. The Senate makes sure he's qualified and morally/mentally suitable. If Ford is credible, find another conservative judge. You won't hear a word out of me.

BTW, I can't help but notice that there weren't any accusations of unwanted sexual advances from a SINGLE nomination for the SCOTUS since Thomas. Not one... whether they were conservative or liberal. Not until now. That probably means something too.

it does mean something.. It means Donald Trump was elected POTUS and democrats hate despise him..

It means the world is changing. This is ridiculous. 37 years ago?

 

[amynhop]

Predictably sad thread from the same usual suspects.

Take a freaking hike

 

[FLaw47]

it does mean something.. It means Donald Trump was elected POTUS and democrats hate despise him..

It means the world is changing. This is ridiculous. 37 years ago?

So why didn't Democrats have a political hit job on Neil Gorsuch as well? Do you think the party that has been secretly plotting to destroy America and unfairly keep white men down for decades only now learned how to levy false accusations?

 

[amynhop]

“All you guys should be aware that at any time any woman can fabricate any story.”

Big difference between me and Christine Blasey Ford. I can produce police records corroborating my allegations.

 

[orangelvis]

Depends on what you call rarely. The FBI estimates that between 2% and 10% per cent of sexual assault claims are false. Which means that somewhere between 90% and 98% are true. While I agree with you that a false accusation can ruin lives, let's not kid yourself about Kavanaugh. There's no chance he goes to jail. There's no chance he loses his lifetime appointment/job/salary as a federal judge. He makes $220,600/year. That's not ruined. It just means you missed out on a better job.

As I've said before. I don't think it's the Senate's place to labor over whether a judge is too conservative/liberal. The President gets to pick the political leanings. The Senate makes sure he's qualified and morally/mentally suitable. If Ford is credible, find another conservative judge. You won't hear a word out of me.

BTW, I can't help but notice that there weren't any accusations of unwanted sexual advances from a SINGLE nomination for the SCOTUS since Thomas. Not one... whether they were conservative or liberal. Not until now. That probably means something too.

So, if Kav is deemed not eligible for the SCOTUS job, he's still eligible to go back to his Federal Judgeship? Why would he not be impeached? He'll be basically seen as a sexual predator without a trial, right? I don't know and neither do you.
If these unproven allegations are allowed to keep this man, who has been through 6 FBI background checks, and has held the highest of security clearances, are enough to keep him from being confirmed, then Trump will never get anyone confirmed. Like you said, this would never stand muster in a court of law. So,one has to question the motives and methods of the accusers; which in reality is the democrats. After all, Ford never intended for this go this far. She was coerced and taken advantage of by the dems; any way you look at this.

 

[CUAngler]

Big difference between me and Christine Blasey Ford. I can produce police records corroborating my allegations.

No records, no abuse.

Open and shut case.

 

[orangelvis]

So why didn't Democrats have a political hit job on Neil Gorsuch as well? Do you think the party that has been secretly plotting to destroy America and unfairly keep white men down for decades only now learned how to levy false accusations?

Because he was not the tie breaking vote. Kennedy was and Kav is replacing Kennedy.

 

[FLaw47]

Because he was not the tie breaking vote. Kennedy was and Kav is replacing Kennedy.

But Dems were irrationally angry about that commie Garland not getting his hearings after he was nominated by that commie Barry Obama. Sure seems like lefty snowflakes would have forced some poor woman to lie under oath about him, too. It's so easy!

 

[Willence]

There just has to be a way we can find better people for public office. These people are clowns of epic proportions.

 

[orangelvis]

But Dems were irrationally angry about that commie Garland not getting his hearings after he was nominated by that commie Barry Obama. Sure seems like lefty snowflakes would have forced some poor woman to lie under oath about him, too. It's so easy!

Now you're not making any sense. Garland didn't get a hearing because of a longstanding practice of the Senate; (and one first initiated by democrats), that judicial appointees don't happen in a Presidential election year. Their original argument for this is that appointments should wait until after the President is elected to reflect the "will of the people". FACT.

 

[FLaw47]

Now you're not making any sense. Garland didn't get a hearing because of a longstanding practice of the Senate; (and one first initiated by democrats), that judicial appointees don't happen in a Presidential election year. Their original argument for this is that appointments should wait until after the President is elected to reflect the "will of the people". FACT.

It's neither here nor there. Democrats have proven time and time again that they are two faced and hypocritical so long standing precedent wouldn't matter to them. Why wouldn't they smear Gorusch just because they could?

 

[hopefultiger13]

So, if Kav is deemed not eligible for the SCOTUS job, he's still eligible to go back to his Federal Judgeship? Why would he not be impeached? He'll be basically seen as a sexual predator without a trial, right? I don't know and neither do you.
If these unproven allegations are allowed to keep this man, who has been through 6 FBI background checks, and has held the highest of security clearances, are enough to keep him from being confirmed, then Trump will never get anyone confirmed. Like you said, this would never stand muster in a court of law. So,one has to question the motives and methods of the accusers; which in reality is the democrats. After all, Ford never intended for this go this far. She was coerced and taken advantage of by the dems; any way you look at this.

Negative Ghostrider the pattern is full. This is NOT a court of law. This guy is interviewing for a job. He and the President are telling everyone that this guy is the BEST man for the job. He's certainly qualified for it. Now some people are saying he's a sexual predator. I think that both them and him should be heard out and everything taken into consideration. If Ford's lie detector test is legit and there's a pretty good chance that she's telling the truth. I'd pass on him if I were in the Senate.

And you are full of crap on the part about Trump not getting anyone else confirmed. I'm sure that you picked that up as a talking point on Fox, b/c you are way too smart to come up with that on your own. Tell Hannity to google Neil Gorsuch. He's pretty conservative. And if I recall correctly, Trump nominated him. Dems practically peed on themselves trying to block the nomination. But no sexual assault accusers right? In fact no nominee has been accused of this sort of thing since Thomas back in the early 90s.

There's no chance he gets impeached for this. Not enough proof to stand up in court. But again, this isn't court, it's a job interview. Again, if Ford passes a lie detector test, pick someone better.

 

[MBRO]

I don't know. No one does. And it really doesn't matter. One single false accusation makes it that much more difficult for a woman (or man, or child) who was actually sexually assaulted to be believed. And that is a damned tragedy.

I do know that sexual assault happens, and false accusations about sexual assault happen as well. They're both beyond awful, but they aren't tied to one another. Each case has to be treated individually.

And it's a shame that the punishment for a false accusation is nowhere near as harsh as the punishment for being wrongly convicted. I'm not saying it should be the same, but it should be much more harsh than it is. As it is today, it's too easy for a woman (or whoever) to accuse someone and then later recant and get off without much in the way of legal ramifications.

I agree with all of that. I find it unfortunate that the first impulse of many people is to dismiss allegations as false, especially when it fits a tribal narrative.

Had these same allegations been made against Merrick Garland, perhaps those on both sides of the aisle would be reacting in an opposite manner.

 

[C-TeamHOF]

So why didn't Democrats have a political hit job on Neil Gorsuch as well? Do you think the party that has been secretly plotting to destroy America and unfairly keep white men down for decades only now learned how to levy false accusations?

I never said anyone has been secretly plotting to destroy america or take white men down?? not sure about that comment unless you are just assuming because someone disagrees with you they are alt-right or something.

I just personally think this whole thing is a crock of shit..37 years ago and he didn't even commit a crime? its just stupid imo

 

[C-TeamHOF]

I agree with all of that. I find it unfortunate that the first impulse of many people is to dismiss allegations as false, especially when it fits a tribal narrative.

Had these same allegations been made against Merrick Garland, perhaps those on both sides of the aisle would be reacting in an opposite manner.

I find it unfortunate that the first impulse of many people is to assume guilt, especially in a case that is 37 years old and conveniently just now coming to light.

 

[orangelvis]

Negative Ghostrider the pattern is full. This is NOT a court of law. This guy is interviewing for a job. He and the President are telling everyone that this guy is the BEST man for the job. He's certainly qualified for it. Now some people are saying he's a sexual predator. I think that both them and him should be heard out and everything taken into consideration. If Ford's lie detector test is legit and there's a pretty good chance that she's telling the truth. I'd pass on him if I were in the Senate.

And you are full of crap on the part about Trump not getting anyone else confirmed. I'm sure that you picked that up as a talking point on Fox, b/c you are way too smart to come up with that on your own. Tell Hannity to google Neil Gorsuch. He's pretty conservative. And if I recall correctly, Trump nominated him. Dems practically peed on themselves trying to block the nomination. But no sexual assault accusers right? In fact no nominee has been accused of this sort of thing since Thomas back in the early 90s.

There's no chance he gets impeached for this. Not enough proof to stand up in court. But again, this isn't court, it's a job interview. Again, if Ford passes a lie detector test, pick someone better.

uch
Well, there have already been issues pointed out regarding her polygraph, or "lie detector" as you like to say. I've already answered your Gorsuch in another response. Gorsuch was replacing a conservative. Kav is replacing the swing vote, Kennedy. The dems have a lot to lose here and are willing to do anything to avoid this vote before the mid=terms. You're way too smart not to realize this.
So, I guess you're making a case that qualifications for the SC are different than those for the Federal Circuit Court. If he's not voted on, he will forever be branded a sexual predator. If he is deemed a predator, why shouldn't he be impeached? Is because there's not enough evidence? Your point about this not happening since Thomas is meaningless. Shouldn't have happened then either.
Your infatuation with Hannity is interesting. What does he have to do with this? You must tune in to him more than I do.

 

[FLaw47]

I never said anyone has been secretly plotting to destroy america or take white men down?? not sure about that comment unless you are just assuming because someone disagrees with you they are alt-right or something.

I just personally think this whole thing is a crock of shit..37 years ago and he didn't even commit a crime? its just stupid imo

So, again, why haven't there been false allegations against any other Trump nominees? And for the record, if these alleged events happened they certainly would constitute crimes.

 

[FLaw47]

uch
Well, there have already been issues pointed out regarding her polygraph, or "lie detector" as you like to say. I've already answered your Gorsuch in another response. Gorsuch was replacing a conservative. Kav is replacing the swing vote, Kennedy. The dems have a lot to lose here and are willing to do anything to avoid this vote before the mid=terms. You're way too smart not to realize this.
So, I guess you're making a case that qualifications for the SC are different than those for the Federal Circuit Court. If he's not voted on, he will forever be branded a sexual predator. If he is deemed a predator, why shouldn't he be impeached? Is because there's not enough evidence? Your point about this not happening since Thomas is meaningless. Shouldn't have happened then either.
Your infatuation with Hannity is interesting. What does he have to do with this? You must tune in to him more than I do.

If the dems are only willing to levy false allegations now, I guess no future nominees actually need to be worried! There are two ideas here.

1) Letting this go anywhere sets a dangerous precedent where Democrats will be able to torpedo future nominations without cause.
2) This has never happened before because it's never been important enough.

They can't both be true.