(10-03-2018 04:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (10-03-2018 03:54 PM)illiniowl Wrote: (10-03-2018 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (10-03-2018 02:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (10-03-2018 01:32 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote: Your argument only carries weight if you don't think Kavanaugh actually did anything wrong. If Ford is telling the truth, calling him out on it is hardly "smearing" him.
Perhaps is there is any way to answer any of the following it would rise from an uncorroborated allegation.
How did you get home? 'I don't remember.'
How did you get there? 'I don't remember.'
Where is the place? 'I don't remember.'
How many years ago was it? 'I don't know'
Further when the numbers of people change continuously, and when the specific people all named either say : 'Nothing like that I can remember' or 'It didnt happen' it tends to shade it to one way for me.
You would be correct 'if Ford is reciting events that actually happened'. I cant name a single objective piece of evidence that tends to show that predicate. Do you?
Given that review of the 'evidence' (actually the utter lack thereof, mind you) the question posed still stands: Are you proud of the Dems?
I mean you get utterly pissy when this is characterized as the 'politics of personal destruction', and get jazzed when asked that question, stated there. But again, given the review of corroborative evidence: Are you proud of the Dems?
I distinctly remember who was in the car with me when I got in my first car accident. I don't remember exactly what building it was in front of, but the general part of town.
I remember what I was doing at the time of the accident, but I don't remember the make and model of the car I hit.
Since I don't remember other details about that event, should I not be believed when I say I rear ended another car because I was looking at a gas-powered scooter that was for sale?
That's not a very good analogy because the law (reflecting human nature in general) views admissions against one's own interests as having greater inherent reliability than other types of statements. I mean, simply change your analogy from one of confessing to having hit a car to specifically accusing John Doe (or Brett Kavanaugh, if you like) of having hit you and tell me if you still unquestionably should be believed despite the memory gaps.
It's actually not that bad of an bad analogy because we aren't discussing a court case, and therefore, how the law handles memories and admissions isn't completely relevant.
We're somewhere below a even a civil court, where not even the preponderance of evidence is necessary (and certainly not a criminal court where a defendant must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).
So claims the liberal knee jerk trope.
Legally speaking you may or may not be correct. Practically speaking it is kind of an atrocious position to take. Especially when the allegation is literally life-changing ---
When I am speaking in terms of 'balance', I havent even brought up a standard from which to judge against.
I am literally speaking that there is 'NO' (zero, zilch, nada, completely lacking) corroboration to her story. And, has been noted before, the people that she claims are 'witnesses' or their stories are 'pertinent' to a fing tee either fail to corroborate a shred of the allegation, or refute portions that she alleges.
And the retort is 'well..... this isnt a court of law...' Yep, I understand that. I also understand the crap that is the 'this is a job interview'. I also am familiar with the concept of absolutely ZERO corroborative evidence *and* the concept of complete lack of detail as to the vast majority of who, what, when, where, *and* the (now issue) of 'changing details in retrospect'.
Take for example 'where' it happened. It used to be 'near a landmark'. Now that has changed to 'somewhere between my house and the landmark'.
So please keep defending a standard of proof that says 'with ZERO fing corroboration, near ZERO details as to when, where, and who, and changing details on on those scant details proffered' we will excoriate someone completely.
And yes, if you offered up those 'non-facts' when trying to blame someone else for your accident, you are damn fing straight I will doubt your version. If it is a solo accident and a story you are telling, I dont give a rat's ass over the lack of details. Ballgame completely changes when you accuse someone of something. In that situation, facts matter Lad.
So given what the Dems have plopped on our collective national debate with that level of facts, the question is absolutely and fundamentally fair. It should be rhetorical when you think about it, but I guess for some with certain viewpoints it isnt, oddly enough.