Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok, the story is on Fox News and LOL, what spin! Ford never said they were witnesses to the attack, only that they were at the party. They neither confirm or deny the attack.
ON THE OTHER HAND, Ford has four WITNESSES to whom she told of the attack, years before Kavanaugh was nominated.
Furthermore, Kavanaugh LIED at the hearing eight times when he said, "All four witnesses say it didn’t happen.” That is on record and sworn testimony. He's a liar and he's toast.
While I tend to believe Ford (that the attack happened), allegations of who "lied" based on verbal responses or recounting events when under pressure can be unconvincing. There's often no context ... multiple events that the responder or listener may confuse.
Ford clarified information several times - for example she called the one young man (PJ ?) who remained in the living room a "bystander" but then later realizing that term had a negative connotation clarified to make clear that he remained downstairs and was not aware of her situation. He did not stand by and allow the attack to happen.
Likewise, Kavanaugh no doubt meant the term "witnesses" to refer to PJ and the others who were downstairs not to the people to whom Ford spoke in years past.
This is why I so hate much of the blog-like "news" outlets; they take the already confused and deliberately spin to make it worse.
Status:
"81 Years, NOT 91 Felonies"
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,595,380 times
Reputation: 5696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catgirl64
There have been a lot of questions about why a woman would wait so long to speak about a sexual assault, and I would like to offer some possible thoughts about it, in an independent thread.
I was in high school and college in the 80s, and I invite you to take a small walk down memory lane.
So was I, and I was also in college a bit into the 90s
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catgirl64
The concept of date or acquaintance rape was a relatively new one at that point. Rapists were strangers - housebreakers or gangsters or dirty old men in alleys. They were not nice boys from respected families.
Sounds on-target to me, the image/popular wisdom that is. To be sure, there was the occasional exception to the rule (I heard - only 2nd or 3rd hand - to be sure - that some guy from my high school got kicked out of a major state university for rape back in the mid 80s. I did get that hearsay directly from a same-age/graduation class female classmate of mine. So I suppose in this context that does count for at least a little bit.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catgirl64
Or so we were told. Everyone knew that sometimes things "went too far," or "got out of hand," but we didn't call it rape. And it was almost always thought to be the girl's fault: Why was she at that party? Why did she drink? Why did she kiss him? Why was she in his dorm room? What did she expect?
The boys in question almost never lost their reputation as a result of these incidents. Indeed, they were usually admired for their prowess at "scoring." The girls? Not so admired. They became targets. Hell, I even became a target of gossip for a while, and all I did was dance with too many different boys at the bars my first week at college.
1. Probably because other college guys pressured the girl not to press charges because it would ruin his future (I heard something like that - in a separate incident many years later at another school.)
2. As for the rest, chalk it up to the old hypocritical male/female sex-seeking standards (the "****" vs "stud" b.s., which I didn't believe in even as a teen). This was just barely a generation after the women's movement moved into full gear, and entrenched cultural attitudes die very hard. The "scoring" bit is just part of the pressure for males to, well, "score", similar to the pressure on females to not sleep around (or if have sex, keep it inside committed relationships of some significance).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catgirl64
I was never actually assaulted, but I had friends who were. Most of them didn't talk about it, because they knew their reputations would be ruined. They didn't do anything I didn't do myself. We went to the same parties, did the same amount of drinking, visited boys in their rooms.
Did I get hit on? Sure. Did I have boys make moves on me that I didn't want? Yes. The difference? They took no for an answer. I don't have any hard feelings about any of them - indeed, I don't remember all of their names. Had one refused to accept "no," that would be absolutely branded on my consciousness.
My gut reaction is to think that I got lucky, but that makes me mad as hell. Why should not being assaulted be considered "lucky?"
I guess my point is, it was a different time, and a girl or young woman who spoke out about any sexual assault that was not committed by a stranger was subjected to intense scrutiny and disbelief, so many stayed silent.
I hope this has changed, and that women will speak out immediately, but I don't see much today that would encourage that.
Sad but true this part of your post. As for the present and future, I think it is dying out very slowly. Like I said, it takes time as much as effort to purge certain cultural attitudes from the system. Look at all the other groups who had to assert hard for their rights, yet look how much of the old attitudes is still present today.
Yes...and in some cases it because it NEVER happened, or they see someone attain notoriety and see their 15 mins of fame/dollar signs, or they are getting even for being scorned years ago, or.....and on and on.
HA HA HA! "Are you a woman scored Ms. Hill"?
What a classic and generally unhelpful moment for the republican party. I see nothing has changed in 23 years.
And I suspect this investigation is about stalling past the midterms. Hint: I am not the only one who thinks so.
Of course it is. The liberals here demanded an FBI report. Now of course they are saying there should be no time limit as to how long it takes. This is so silly. Everyone can see what's been happening here.
Why these arbitrary time limits? The guy will be on the bench for decades. I suspect this hurried investigation isn't really about finding out the truth, but CYA.
Why not investigate for another five years or ten? What if sometime in the future he does something and we need to know before putting him on the bench?
Stop saying that. There is no rush. There was never a rush. That is a line the Democrats are trying to sell. They had ample time to investigate Kavanaugh. Hell, they had ample time to investigate this claim by Ford but thanks to dirty politics by the Democrats, they sat on it. Let that sink in. They sat on what they're calling very important accusations until the day of the vote. And the Republicans are understandably upset with these horrible and dirty tactics. Aren't you?
They should't have agreed to the one week even because the "evidence" was heard. She made an accusation. She has zero corroborating evidence so that's all it is, an accusation and frankly, I personally don't believe her at all that she knows "100%" it was Kavanaugh. They have sworn statements under penalty of forgery that do not corroborate her story at all and in the case of her very good friend, that she doesn't remember ever meeting Kavanaugh either with or without Ford.
The Democrats are so blatant in their desire to delay this to the midterms. If you do not understand that is their only reason for doing this and using Ford in the way they have, you are incredibly gullible. Don't be gullible. Never a good look.
At some point when people are trying stall tactics after getting ample time, the adults in the room have to say enough is enough. That time is now but thanks to freaking Flake, we have yet another week of drama. I'm sure the Democrats will trot out some other sorry as hell excuse for why they should delay further and bring even more drama and more dirty politics to a process already so thoroughly stained by their bad acts.
She was a heck of a lot more credible than the Kav-ster at the Senate review. She has no power, and no reason to expose herself to this scrutiny. The Kav-ster has every reason to deny things he might have done as a youth.
Oh yes she does, now a relatively obscure professor is now a star! Based upon the last count almost a million dollars has been raised by Go Fund Me accounts.
And there it is. Your true colors. See, I can sniff your type out. I knew it. I am a proud Republican and I am confident in my opinions and back them up. I do not put on this playact of trying to appear like just an independent person with some questions and trying to make unreasonable positions sound reasonable.
Like I said before, I would have more respect for you and your kind if you just admitted your real goal and hope is that the Democrats continue playing dirty politics to further delay the confirmation process until the midterms.
Democrats don't want Kavenaugh on the Court ever.
It is not their fault that Republicans insist on pushing an inferior candidate...for political reasons s...not for the good of the country.
Mitch Mcconnnel did not stand in front of the United States and pledge to provide honorable process es to install the best candidate...No. , he spoke to a handful of people that pay his rent and the news got it on camera.
Pick someone else. Anybody on that list. Republicans picked a closet alcoholic serial sexual predator. He corroborated these womens stories on his own. His calendar put him at the scene of both crimes.
The kidnap and attempted rape of ms ford., and the gang rape of Women at these beach parties.
It is more likely he is lying than telling the truth.
Republicans know he s stain.ed.
They wasted their own time.
They are a lazy bunch of procrastinator s that get their work done Not through integrity , character, and work ethic...but by hook or by crook.
If your proud of your party you are entitled to that.
Ok, the story is on Fox News and LOL, what spin! Ford never said they were witnesses to the attack, only that they were at the party. They neither confirm or deny the attack.
ON THE OTHER HAND, Ford has four WITNESSES to whom she told of the attack, years before Kavanaugh was nominated.
Furthermore, Kavanaugh LIED at the hearing eight times when he said, "All four witnesses say it didn’t happen.” That is on record and sworn testimony. He's a liar and he's toast.
"only that they were at the party" And NONE have said that they WERE AT THE PARTY.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
