Sex as a political weapon?

Rachel Mitchell Demolishes Christine Blasey Ford’s Claim She Fears Flying

Investigative counsel Rachel Mitchell, cross-examining Christine Blasey Ford at the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, demolished her claim that she could not testify on Monday because she was afraid of flying.

Ford and her attorneys refused a Monday hearing, arguing that she was afraid to fly. One of her friends even claimed that her fear of flying was a result of the alleged assault by Judge Brett Kavanaugh over 35 years ago.

As Politico reported:

The GOP has been told that Ford does not want to fly from her California home to Washington, according to the Republican senator, which means she may need to drive across the country. Ford has reportedly told friends she is uncomfortable in confined spaces, indicating a physical difficulty in making the trip by plane.​

Committee chair Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) then offered to travel to California to interview Ford, relieving her of the need to fly. She declined. There was talk of having Ford drive across the country to make the hearing.

Yet under questioning by Mitchell, Ford admitted that she had, in fact, flown across the country to make the hearing. She had also flown to the east coast for a vacation with family in August. She also admitted flying frequently for her work and for her hobbies, including surfing vacations in Hawaii, Costa Rica, and French Polynesia. Ford, laughing nervously, said that it was easier to fly for vacations.

Critics had speculated that the sole reason Democrats, and Ford, were refusing a Monday hearing — or even a compromise Wednesday hearing — was because a Thursday hearing would make it almost impossible for the Senate to hold a confirmation vote on Judge Kavanaugh before the Supreme Court begins its new session on October 1.
 
Rape hoaxers not only should be sent to prison, they should also be forced to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives. Remember this one?

Fake ‘Rape Victim’ Gets Jailed for 10 Years

10YearsFakeRape.jpg


This story proves otherwise. The woman pictured above claimed she was sexually assaulted not once, not twice, but FIFTEEN times. Uh huh. Rather than laugh her out the door, British police officers took all her claims seriously and spent valuable time and resources investigating her accusations.

Jemma Beale claimed she had been seriously sexually assaulted by six men and raped by nine, all strangers, in four different incidents over three years.

Police spent 6,400 hours investigating Beale’s claims at a cost of at least £250,000, and the trial cost as least £109,000.​

It's not just the costs either.

Even more interesting — police discovered this lass is of lesbian persuasion. Here’s my shocked face.

stanley-hudson-unimpressed.gif


There’s some confusion as to the motive behind all the fakery. Apparently, police think she made up these nasty accusations to get her partner jealous. My guess? The troglodyke clearly hates men. Hence her quest to ruin their lives.

The Metropolitan police said one of the rape allegations made to police by Beale in 2010 led to the conviction of a man … who was jailed for seven years.

Beale had also falsely claimed she was groped by a stranger in a pub in July 2012. She said she was then gang-raped by him and a group of other men, and even injured herself to back up her claims she had been assaulted with barbed wire. Beale then fabricated similar allegations against six other men in 2013.

The current mockery going on by the Democrat Party against the Kavanaugh nomination should be sending chills down the back of honest women everywhere. Sexuality being so obviously used as a political weapon is doing harm to real victims everywhere. Shame on "liberals"!!
 
Lindsey Graham rages in Kavanaugh hearing: “This is the most unethical sham”

The senator angrily defended Kavanaugh and criticized his Democratic colleagues.

“To my Republican colleagues, if you vote no, you’re legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) boomed during Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate Judiciary hearing Thursday.
 
Democrat allies are fleeing the sinking ship that is the Kavanaugh scam hearings.

Wall Street Journal Editorial Board: ‘Confirm Brett Kavanaugh'

The board then transited to Kavanaugh’s defense of himself and noted that he was righteously indignant because he had been publicly accused, and pre-judged in some quarters, for something he adamantly denied doing. They noted, “As for Judge Kavanaugh, his self-defense was as powerful and emotional as the moment demanded. If he was angry at times, imagine how you would feel if you were so accused and were innocent as he says he is.”

The Wall Street Journal headline says simply, “Confirm Brett Kavanaugh.”
 
"Dr. Ford" is not even a doctor!

RECORDS SHOW DR. FORD IS NOT A LICENSED PSYCHOLOGIST, MAY HAVE COMMITTED PERJURY

Ford also does not appear to have been licensed in any other states outside California. Since graduating from the University of Southern California in 1996 it does not appear Ford has spent any significant amount of time outside the state. She married her husband in California in 2002, and completed a master’s degree in California in 2009. She reportedly completed an internship in Hawaii, but a search of Hawaii’s Board of Psychology licensing databased also did not turn up any results for Ford.

What makes Ford’s claim even more suspicious is someone affiliated with Stanford University appears to have also been aware of the potentially damning use of the word “psychologist” and rushed to cover for Ford. DANGEROUS exclusively uncovered an archived version of Christine’s Blasey’s page on the school’s faculty directory. On September 10, 2015, the only archived date available, Ford’s faculty page was saved to the Wayback Machine and showed Ford listed as a “research psychologist” along with her email address and office phone number.
 
Keeping the kind of meandering subject here on Kavanaugh, himself...… I don't really understand what he is supposed to be accused of. From what I've heard, (and I'll gladly be corrected if I'm wrong -- I haven't paid that much attention!) he basically attended a college party. Heaven forbid, there was some drinking and hooking up going on. He and this girl partook in drinking. She went off with him. He made an awkward advance that included kissing, and possibly some groping. She rebuffed him. He stopped. The end.

Sorry, for the 80's, that WAS the gold standard of consent. She said no, he didn't do anything more.

Times have changed, and norms have changed since then. But to retro-actively hold him to newer standards makes no sense.

I mean, when you drop the speed limit on a road from 70 to 55 mph, you can't send speeding tickets to all the people who admit to driving 70 on it back when that was the speed limit.
 
ilwrath said:
Times have changed, and norms have changed since then. But to retro-actively hold him to newer standards makes no sense.
Click to expand...

See Pretty in Pink, Porkies, etc. Different time, different norms. I thought social justice warriors were cultural relativists that held that you can't judge other cultures by the standards of your own, yet they violate this when they don't recognise that cultures change over time. You can't judge the actions of a person in the 1980s by the standards of today.
 
ilwrath said:
Keeping the kind of meandering subject here on Kavanaugh, himself...…
Click to expand...

While Kavanaugh is the main topic at the moment, there is a general theme of sex as a political weapon right now and it needs to stop.

Also, the first post has the somewhat bizarre statement from Cosby's spokesperson. That might be worth discussing at some point. Pretty much everyone was taken the Cosby accusations as fact due to the sheer number of women coming forward. Pretty much everyone (including me) did the same thing with Michael Jackson, but in hindsight I'm less likely to believe the MJ accusations.
 
redrumloa said:
While Kavanaugh is the main topic at the moment, there is a general theme of sex as a political weapon right now and it needs to stop.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a general strategy of just throwing out a bunch of toxic accusations that can't really be defended against. You can't prove you're not a molester any more than you can prove you're not racist. It's backwards. In general, trying to prove you're NOT something doesn't work. That is why the criminal system must prove you are guilty, not you having to prove your innocence.

Also, the first post has the somewhat bizarre statement from Cosby's spokesperson. That might be worth discussing at some point.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was a bizarre quote.

Pretty much everyone was taken the Cosby accusations as fact due to the sheer number of women coming forward. Pretty much everyone (including me) did the same thing with Michael Jackson, but in hindsight I'm less likely to believe the MJ accusations.
Click to expand...

Well, to me, the difference was there were concrete illegal things those two were accused of. Drugging women to have sex with them is illegal, and was illegal at the times Mr. Cosby was accused of doing it. Carrying on relations with children was illegal when MJ had random kids staying at the ranch.

As far as I can tell, while Kavanaugh may have made an awkward advance... That wasn't illegal. It was awkward, sure. So is college dating, in general. I mean, really, I don't envy the late teens and early 20's guys today. Outside of a situation that is well outside this topic (and could fit in a couple other threads on this board that I've refrained from posting in for that very reason), I'd have gotten with exactly 0 women, if I couldn't make the first advance. I'm not really a bad looking guy, but I'm certainly no Hollywood star. At best, probably average on looks and money. So for guys like me, you have to be willing to put yourself out there. And when you're learning, some of those are going to be awkward. That shouldn't be illegal.
 
ilwrath said:
I'd have gotten with exactly 0 women, if I couldn't make the first advance. I'm not really a bad looking guy, but I'm certainly no Hollywood star. At best, probably average on looks and money. So for guys like me, you have to be willing to put yourself out there. And when you're learning, some of those are going to be awkward. That shouldn't be illegal.
Click to expand...

While I've been married to one woman literally my entire adult life, I do remember well dating as a teen and you are correct. Unless you are wealthy (or a drug dealer), you will have to work hard to land a woman. Looks only helps slightly (unless you are a ground sloth ;) ). Making advances on girls/women is extremely awkward. It's even more so awkward because women usually like to play the hard to get cat & mouse game. There is no way in hell I'd ever want to attempt dating nowadays if I were single. If you aren't aggressive women will think you are weak or unromantic. If you are aggressive, you are an attempted rapist. (obviously aggressive in dating terms, not violence terms).

Believe it or not, my advice to young men is to determine right away the political persuasion of anyone they are interested in. If the woman is a Democrat, don't even bother. Chances are nothing good will come out of that relationship.
 
ilwrath said:
Keeping the kind of meandering subject here on Kavanaugh, himself...… I don't really understand what he is supposed to be accused of. From what I've heard, (and I'll gladly be corrected if I'm wrong -- I haven't paid that much attention!) he basically attended a college party. Heaven forbid, there was some drinking and hooking up going on. He and this girl partook in drinking. She went off with him. He made an awkward advance that included kissing, and possibly some groping. She rebuffed him. He stopped. The end.

Sorry, for the 80's, that WAS the gold standard of consent. She said no, he didn't do anything more.
Click to expand...
I am afraid this is not an accurate summary of the accusations against Kavanaugh.

Here is a quote from Ford's testimony: "I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from screaming"

He allegedly did not stop but put his hand over her mouth to stop her from screaming. Even during the 80s, this would not have been acceptable (or legal for that matter) behaviour.

Times have changed, and norms have changed since then. But to retro-actively hold him to newer standards makes no sense.
Click to expand...
I get your overall point but this is not what is happening right now...

As for Trump's argument that she would have filed a police report if the incident had happened, it is worth knowing that she was a 15 years old girl at the time. She likely attended the college party without permission and knowledge of her parents and may have feared disappointing them. Also, at thsi age, she may have been too immature to know how to properly handle a serious event such as this.
 
redrumloa said:
While Kavanaugh is the main topic at the moment, there is a general theme of sex as a political weapon right now and it needs to stop.
Click to expand...
I have to ask: Do you have any sense of self-awareness whatsoever?

First you spend years dilligently filling this forum with hundreds of posts accusing the Democratic Party of being filled with child molestors and sexual deviants, then you come here and - without any sense of irony - complain that people really need to stop using accuations related to sex as a political weapon.

Maybe some people would find this funny. To me, it is just painful to see how indoctrinated and removed from any desire to seek objectivity some people can be.
 
JoBBo said:
I have to ask: Do you have any sense of self-awareness whatsoever?

First you spend years dilligently filling this forum with hundreds of posts accusing the Democratic Party of being filled with child molestors and sexual deviants, then you come here and - without any sense of irony - complain that people really need to stop using accuations related to sex as a political weapon.

Maybe some people would find this funny. To me, it is just painful to see how indoctrinated and removed from any desire to seek objectivity some people can be.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously defending the Democrat Party here? They sit on ~40 year old allegations for weeks during his hearings, and only when the hearings are over and about to go for a vote do they bring them forward. Then after brought forward they stall, stall and stall as long as possible, stalling as a tactic to miss the October 1st deadline for a vote. When the woman finally comes forward, she can't remember 90% of the event. Every single witness she has disputes her. There is zero evidence backing up her claim, zero. The woman is a politically connected anti-Trump resistance member.

You want to compare this to people who are kiddy diddlers, RIGHT NOW? With actual evidence against them?
 
JoBBo said:
Maybe some people would find this funny.
Click to expand...

I'll sheepishly raise my hand and confess to being one of those. Much in the same way I find the Trump presidency funny, insofar as it's beyond my influence so I might as well laugh at the absurdity of it. :p
 
JoBBo said:
I am afraid this is not an accurate summary of the accusations against Kavanaugh.

Here is a quote from Ford's testimony: "I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from screaming"

He allegedly did not stop but put his hand over her mouth to stop her from screaming. Even during the 80s, this would not have been acceptable (or legal for that matter) behaviour.
Click to expand...

Christine Blasey Ford remembers some details of the alleged assault, but very little in the time before and after the alleged assault.

she can't remember the date of party
she can't remember the address of party
she can't remember who brought her to party
she can't remember who took her home

Every person Ford identified as being at the party has signed sworn statements that it didn’t happen, including Ford’s female friend who supposedly was there that night.

Ford basically accused her best friend Leland Keyser of submitting a false statement about the party not happening.

Ford was careful not to offer any facts (place, date, time, etc.) that might be proved or disproved.
 
metalman said:
Christine Blasey Ford remembers some details of the alleged assault, but very little in the time before and after the alleged assault.

she can't remember the date of party
she can't remember the address of party
she can't remember who brought her to party
she can't remember who took her home
Click to expand...
None of those are particularly relevant.
Every person Ford identified as being at the party has signed sworn statements that it didn’t happen, including Ford’s female friend who supposedly was there that night.
Click to expand...
More relevant but you can't prove a negative. However, you also can't prove a person's recollections to be correct. If a person claims to have vivid recollections of their previous lives or vivid recollections of being kidnapped and probed by aliens, it doesn't mean those things happened. Memory is not a video recorder. There are key themes, sensations, points of attention, but the act of recollecting is synthetic, creation of narrative and the narrative that develops over repetition need not be something that is like what happened or may be something that never happened as in the cases above and the scandals of the false memories created by therapists in the 80s. If alcohol was involved the situation is even more muddled as the experience of what was going on is probably not even consistent with what happened. Alcohol can change your perception of other people's intentions and the meaning of events.

What we have is a big stink over something that, if remembered correctly by the accuser would be something distasteful that happened when people were incapacitated by alcohol while their brains had not developed adult impulse control, hormones are new and none of the career planning and responsibility of adulthood had even been considered. If the judge had egregious decisions on the bench and terrible opinions in the court record then they should be attacking him with those - but they aren't. The Democrats have invested everything in a last minute attack - because nobody thought to destroy his career years ago when he had less power.

As to the question of what Ford could gain - not much except to be a crucified martyr for the resistance which may fit her temperament, but the question of whether or not she believes herself to be right and is acting on that is, as I already said, not an indication of whether she IS right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top