Kavanaugh is Innocent

Author: SupaDudz ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 102
  • SupaDudz
    SupaDudz avatar
    Debates: 28
    Forum posts: 10,210
    5
    8
    11
    SupaDudz avatar
    SupaDudz
    This is a liberal power play to get themselves elected in the Midterms. Let's see why

    1. It takes 39 years to come after him...
    2. 60 women say that she is the sweetest person and approve of him getting into an ivy league school
    3. Evidence by eyewitnesses prove that he did not do anything
    4. Dems don't like Kavanaugh in the first place

    THE MAN JUST LIKES BEER

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,963
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @SupaDudz
    If you have white skin, a weenie, and you drink beer, you are a rapist.
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,323
    2
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @Greyparrot

  • Tejretics
    Tejretics avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 322
    1
    3
    8
    Tejretics avatar
    Tejretics
    --> @SupaDudz
    I really can't tell if your post is satirical...

    Because if you're serious, you're really not helping your side, lol.
  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    2
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @Greyparrot
    Ford passed  polygraph test, welcomes FBI investigation, composure and calm even in reliving childhood trauma from Kavengaugh.

    Kavenaugh, not taken polygraph test, did encourage FBI investigate, belligerent { aggressive } presentation at the hearing, other males  he knew him says he was beligerent and aggressive when he drank.

    That Mark Judge supports him is not surprise as he was part of the crime against Ford.

    That Trumpanzee males support Kavenaugh in light of all the above and more, speaks to males of any color who are insensitive to Ford and all women who have valid claims.

    Now idio-ump places restrictions on FBI investigation as he repeated lies that he has not.

    Lock Trumpanzees Away Today!
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,963
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    body language analysis is right up there with polygraphs...inconclusive... The mere fact that she contradicted her earlier statements is enough to know she is not 100% sure of anything as she claimed.
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,323
    2
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @Greyparrot
    it is opinion, but seems more accurate than 2 questions in a polygraph especially when you consider how many people she said were at the party during prior to the polygraph and then the number she changed it to after.  I found it interesting the explanation of her voice changes and movements.  As I watched it I noticed them, thought they were extremely odd and she has some mental instability, but I accept the video analysis of her, it makes as much sense as anything.
  • Plisken
    Plisken avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 709
    2
    1
    4
    Plisken avatar
    Plisken
    --> @mustardness
    Is post #5 against your religion for letting your ego separate yourself from a rational oneness we all need move towards?

  • spacetime
    spacetime avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 189
    0
    1
    2
    spacetime avatar
    spacetime
    There isn't enough evidence on either side to determine who's correct. Not with any significant degree of epistemic confidence. 
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,239
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @mustardness
    I'm pretty sure that sobbing during a lie detector test throws off the accuracy.

    Just sayin'.

    Besides, I'm not sure if you can call yourself a doctor of psychology if you can't bs your way through a lie detector test.

  • Swagnarok
    Swagnarok avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 687
    2
    2
    5
    Swagnarok avatar
    Swagnarok
    Here Ruth Bader Ginsburg, perhaps the most progressive justice on the Court, criticizes the hyperpartisan nature of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings:

  • Imabench
    Imabench avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 898
    3
    4
    9
    Imabench avatar
    Imabench
    The Dems were fucking stupid to come out of the gate saying they will do anything within their power to oppose the nomination, so now it looks like theyre using the whole scenario as a political ploy for their own development.... That being said though, Kavanaugh is far from demonstrably innocent.

    A ton of his old classmates have come out of the woodwork to claim that Kavanaugh was indeed a notorious drunk, his overall demeanor during his testimony indicates he is more angry at being found out than he is regretful at what probably happened, and his accuser provided pretty straightforward testimony in a way that even Fox News pundits were calling her credible and her testimony 'disastrous to the Republicans'....
  • Vaarka
    Vaarka avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 695
    2
    1
    5
    Vaarka avatar
    Vaarka
    lol my friend send me a snap last night stating stuff like this.

    I had no idea what he was talking about
  • Vortex86
    Vortex86 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 32
    0
    0
    3
    Vortex86 avatar
    Vortex86
    --> @Imabench
    None of her claims were substantiated. People drink in college. His opinion of his drinking differs from others, he denied blacking out, not to drinking heavily. None of them can definitively say whether or not he did. 

    Recent revelations show that:
    1. The whole excuse for her attending therapy in the first place was not true. A second door was installed on the property for a rented out additional bedroom with it's own door.
    2. That she lied about her experience with polygraph testing (she denied assisting anyone 3 times. She is said to have assisted Monica McLean).
    3. None of the individuals she said were at the party corroborated her claims her best friend specifically said otherwise. 

    Couple all of this with the timing of coming forward and when the Democrats made the information known and their repeated statements beforehand that they will oppose anyone no matter what. Then you have Cory Booker pushing to move to another candidate anyways, stating it's not whether he's innocent or guilty. 


    his overall demeanor during his testimony indicates he is more angry at being found out than he is regretful at what probably happened
    Or, the other alternative you might not have considered. A man's livelihood and reputation were impugned by false allegations and he was pissed that his family was run through the mud (he specifically said as much). Objective political analysts said that both appeared credible, however facts support him whereas they don't support her. This was all before the polygraph information was presented to the senate judiciary committee. A litany of false statements made by a woman who only came forward with these allegations 30 years later with no evidence or supporting testimony, I'm going to go with calling a spade a spade.

  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    From the looks of it poor old Kav isn't fit to sit on a kangaroo court.
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,323
    2
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @Vortex86
    didn't blumenthal say something to the effect if someone says one thing that's not true you can't believe them?  For someone who's scared of flying she sure does fly a lot.  No need to rehash the gross inconsistencies and stuff she said.  She's a disturbed individual.  Did you notice how she opens and closes her mouth like a fish breathing?  I think that's either medicine induced, neurological or psychological.  Then the voice, the little cutey girl voice, the tilting of her head etc etc

    Normally parties (drinking kind) are a night which then begs the question, why was she wearing a bathing suit?  What pool was she going to go to?  Did she go to a pool before going to the party w/o a change of clothes?  Where was she prior to the party, she doesn't remember how she got there, but she must have remembered why she had a bathing suit on wouldn't you think?  Was this covered by her testimony or questioning?
  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    2
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    ..."No need to rehash the gross inconsistencies and stuff she said."...
    "Inconsistenencs" no, gaps in memory yes.  Lets see how  any sexually assualted persons memory is doing 40 years later.

    It is well documented by those in the field what is remmebered. The assault by the victim  and that assault might tend to ove-rrirde other memories.

    Lying to congress, as Kavenaugh did, is minimal for not being on supreme court.

    Now I hear Mark Judges ex is confirming one of the other victim's claims.

    Kavenaugh needed a calender because of how much beer he drank he was lucky to remmber his name after a night of binge drinking.

    Recording a sexual assault on calendar might no  be smart idea, even if he recorded the gathering, --where the incident took place---  before or afterword.

    FBI investigation directed by idio-ump and Trumpanzees is a sham.

    Hopefully Collins, Flake and other Trumpanzees will have moral integrity and spinal courage speak truth. Not likely.

    A tie? Ok  then we have that religous _____________ Pence putting in his .000001 cents worth.  Sick attack on Roe vs Wade and assault on truth and women is what we have being done by Trumpanzees . Sad :--(





  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,323
    2
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @mustardness
    if I tell you I'm afraid to fly, yet fly all the time, what would you call that?  If I add on a door and the building permit I put in is for an entrance entrance for renters, but I tell you it's for some other unrelated reason, what would you call that?  What do  you think of what her boyfriend has sworn to under oath, compared to what she has testified, including the polygraph.
    Didn't she say the polygraph took a long time and she was asked a bunch of questions, then the guy who administered it, came on tv and said he asked her 2 questions, what would you call that?
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,177
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    --> @Imabench
     his overall demeanor during his testimony indicates he is more angry at being found out than he is regretful at what probably happened

    First off, your standard events evidence is atrocious regarding criminal allegations.

    Secondly, what about the allegations makes it likely to have happened? 

    Her inconsistent accounts? 

    The lies she's being caught in? 

    The fact that nobody who she's named can corroborate the story and her best friend downright refutes it? 

    Like I said, the standard of evidence you have is atrocious AF 😂😂😂
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,177
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    what would you call that?

    I'd call those lies and that person a liar my dude 👏👏

  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,323
    2
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @Buddamoose
    I didn't really think he would make an honest reply if one at all, but yeah, certainly does fit the definition doesn't it lol
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,177
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    but yeah, certainly does fit the definition doesn't it lol

    Fits it exactly actually 😂
  • Imabench
    Imabench avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 898
    3
    4
    9
    Imabench avatar
    Imabench
    --> @Buddamoose
    The fact that nobody who she's named can corroborate the story and her best friend downright refutes it? 
  • Imabench
    Imabench avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 898
    3
    4
    9
    Imabench avatar
    Imabench
    --> @SupaDudz
    1. It takes 39 years to come after him..

    Its not surprising at all that she would keep info about the incident to herself, it must be incredibly painful for her to deal with and she more than likely just wanted to try to move on with her life and bury it in the past. Then when news that he got nominated to the Supreme Court came up, she felt she had to speak out about what happened since people should know about it


    2. 60 women say that she is the sweetest person and approve of him getting into an ivy league school
    Big deal. You can find 60 friends of Brock Turner that would never believe he did what he did, or 60 friends of O.J. Simpson that would deny he would kill 2 people in cold blood, let alone 60 people who can believe their friend from 40 years ago wasn't a possible rapist.... If you want to be convincing, find 60 people who know Christine Ford and remember her as a compulsive liar, because multiple witnesses willing to testify that an accuser is of questionable honesty is worth far more than 60 random people willing to say they remember a defendant as not an asshat. 


    3. Evidence by eyewitnesses prove that he did not do anything
    Only thing eyewitness accounts have done is fail to corroborate either side of the story, not outright disprove anything. For a party that happened nearly 40 years ago where most people would be just relaxing and minding their own business rather then keeping tabs on everyone else at a party, especially at a prep school in the 80's, its not surprising that nobody has been able to outright prove/disprove either side of the story. 


    4. Dems don't like Kavanaugh in the first place
    Turns out there was good reason to considering the recent and growing allegations.... The problem is that Pelosi and Schumer were dumb enough to dislike him for no reason right from the outset, rather than give his nomination a fair shot and see if there was any red-flags or potential problems to his candidacy like they should have, and now their understandable reasons for opposing his nomination are cloaked under a stink of partisanship agenda goals.  
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,177
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    --> @Imabench
    The previous statement, which Walsh released to CNN and the committee last week, said, "Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford

    The allegation is that Kavanaugh did it. She hasn't deviated from denying knowing Kavanaugh and stills is not corroborating her story. 

    However, the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question."

    - "I don't know that person"
    - "I don't recall that incident"

    Again, the allegation is that Kavanaugh did it. Zero of the people corroborate anything with her account and it's riddled with inconsistencies. This is that same standard of evidence issue where you are presuming guilt off of nothing, preventing you from realizing the lack of evidence that ties Kavanaugh to a crime that hasn't been proven as being committed in the first place, let alone proving a specific perpetrator.

    Ford could have been assaulted at some place, at some time, by some person, and it not have anything do with Kavanaugh. Imagine that 😂😂

    And, so her best friend walked back her statement without actually walking it back. You act like her best friend going, "I believe her despite not knowing Kavanaugh and not remembering this party" is some sort of damning evidence when it's not evidence of anything. 

    Plenty of people who directly know and have worked with Kavanaugh are stating they believe him. Guess that makes him innocent by your own logic.