Dear Judge Kavanaugh

[zinfamous]

It's based on the assumption that he's guilty of sexual assault and possibly rape. I don't see him ruining his marriage, his career, his entire life, by admitting to a crime that he can't be prosecuted for.
What if he's actually innocent? Would you admit to a crime that you didn't commit and can't be charged with?

Why can't he be prosecuted for these crimes if he admits to them? Maryland has no SoL on violent sexual offenses. Obviously, that should be the law of the land but hey--some people get it right.

 

[zinfamous]

LMAO.

You know this guy was hand picked to strip women of their reproductive freedoms, right?

Think about it, tho--if he did rape all of those women, wouldn't he want to keep abortion legal?

 

[IronWing]

Think about it, tho--if he did rape all of those women, wouldn't he want to keep abortion legal?

Nope, because fetuses grow up to become children and Republicans like to date children.

 

[zinfamous]

This is an assumption of guilt. If he didn't do it, there is nothing to "come clean" about.
"Your choice to come clean and become an advocate for victims could erase that shame and instantly validate the lives of millions of people. Perhaps it would be worth it if you could give that gift to only one."

I'm very up in the air about the entire thing. I gut tells me that Mrs.Ford honestly believes the events transpired as she claims, but that doesn't mean it's accurate. The second woman seems to be very foggy on her entire story. The new accuser I haven't heard much about.
I honestly don't know how I want this to end up. I don't want a sexual predator on the supreme court, but if we decide that an accusation is all it takes to halt a presidential appointment, there will never be another one.

It's like you guys honestly believe that women are lining up to accuse anyone and everyone of assaulting them for no reason other than to....be famous?

I know it is impossible for you to empathize or even understand on the basest level the very real risk that these women are taking by making such accusations, against such people, but I would encourage you to take a step back and reconsider these very strange positions you are taking that essentially preclude the existence of a shadowy world of evil witches that want nothing more than to destroy the entirety of male life, or white life, or whatever blameless privileged class you associate yourself with...just for shits.

Occam's Razor, which essentially never fails, basically states here that most of the people you personally admire really just happen to be vile sexual predators and outright horrible people. I mean, it's the simplest explanation because it doesn't involve the counter argument, which requires vast, impossible conspiracies lined up perfectly to attack anything and everything that you personally believe.

 

[zinfamous]

Your insistence that every single sentence be qualified with if and projection that my words assume guilt make me believe that you are not at all up in the air about the whole thing.

I see that you are encountering Greenman for possibly the first time.

 

[zinfamous]

Nope, because fetuses grow up to become children and Republicans like to date children.

Humbert Humbert? ick

 

[bbhaag]

I say we throw him in the closest river. If he sinks he is innocent if he floats he is indeed guilty of these crimes of which he has been accused. This is surely the better way of determining innocence or guilt than the court of public opinion which now so freely reigns.

Who is with me in this new approach of determining who is innocent or guilty? Join me all of you both red and blue!! We will all see when his body hits the water whether he is truly who he says he is or a rapist in disguise!!

 

[Greenman]

I say we throw him in the closest river. If he sinks he is innocent if he floats he is indeed guilty of these crimes of which he has been accused. This is surely the better way of determining innocence or guilt than the court of public opinion which now so freely reigns.

Who is with me in this new approach of determining who is innocent or guilty? Join me all of you both red and blue!! We will all see when his body hits the water whether he is truly who he says he is or a rapist in disguise!!

Why not trial by combat?

 

[bbhaag]

Why not trial by combat?

Indeed that is something to consider but not as fool proof as the method I have already stated which has been proven to work. It has been tested and 99.9% of the time the guilty always float.
And just in case anyone was wondering about this new method I have developed it does not just apply to the current supreme court nominee. It can be used on any person accused of a crime.

 

[bbhaag]

Also I think some people might miss the real underlying beauty of this new system I have developed. It's that you don't need any evidence all you need is an accusation.
Once a person has been accused you throw them in the water and that determines their quilt. It's very similar to the court of public opinion that we have now but the underlying differences are there if you look for them.

 

[zinfamous]

I say we throw him in the closest river. If he sinks he is innocent if he floats he is indeed guilty of these crimes of which he has been accused. This is surely the better way of determining innocence or guilt than the court of public opinion which now so freely reigns.

Who is with me in this new approach of determining who is innocent or guilty? Join me all of you both red and blue!! We will all see when his body hits the water whether he is truly who he says he is or a rapist in disguise!!

To be fair: this process is a court of public opinion. That is exactly what it is supposed to be.

This isn't a trial.

Why are people still confused by this?

 

[zinfamous]

Also I think some people might miss the real underlying beauty of this new system I have developed. It's that you don't need any evidence all you need is an accusation.
Once a person has been accused you throw them in the water and that determines their quilt. It's very similar to the court of public opinion that we have now but the underlying differences are there if you look for them.

OK, how many accusers are we talking about before it becomes real or at the very least "legitimate" for you and "the conspiracy" just doesn't make sense anymore? Remember, no real conspiracy actually survives more than ~3 people.

Are we talking Cosby numbers? What's the number?

 

[bbhaag]

To be fair: this process is a court of public opinion. That is exactly what it is supposed to be.

This isn't a trial.

Why are people still confused by this?

Did I mention anything about a trial? I don't believe I did so perhaps it is you who is confused?

 

[bbhaag]

OK, how many accusers are we talking about before it becomes real or at the very least "legitimate" for you and "the conspiracy" just doesn't make sense anymore? Remember, no real conspiracy actually survives more than ~3 people.

Are we talking Cosby numbers? What's the number?

Exactly my point! This is the beauty of the method I have developed. You don't need numbers or even evidence all you need is the accusation. Let the water decide if the accused is innocent or guilty. Like I mentioned above this method can even be used in non high profile cases. That's the beauty of it!

EDIT: Imma have to put this on hold guys. POE just finished dl'ing and I've been wanting to try this game out for awhile and since I have tomorrow off this will be the last chance I get for at least a week. PM me some pointers if any of you have played it or if you want to join and help me out.

 

[zinfamous]

Did I mention anything about a trial? I don't believe I did so perhaps it is you who is confused?

You expressed dismay that this court of public opinion, as set in the constitution when confirming SCOTUS appointees, is dependent on....a court of public opinion. Rhetorically, the only possible inference for dismay over public opinion is a legal trial.

This is how discussions work. These are the rules. When you engage in adult topics, where adults have been communicating in the world for years, understanding the common laws of language and human interaction and policy, there is an implied command of topics that is generally assumed. IF you weren't aware that this is what you were saying, then you are now aware. The generations of common rules and such that govern adult human interaction don't really care if some participants don't get it, but it's considered rather gauche to pretend that generally-accepted phrasing or common rules either don't exist or don't apply to you simply because you were ignorant of them.

But I understand. No offense. Also, "who me?" is considered poor form when you specifically imply something that 98% of humans understand you to have implied, but then you claim to have never been aware that you implied it. See: well, some of our famous people around here. It's more common here than in the real world.

 

[zinfamous]

Exactly my point! This is the beauty of the method I have developed. You don't need numbers or even evidence all you need is the accusation. Let the water decide if the accused is innocent or guilty. Like I mentioned above this method can even be used in non high profile cases.
Say a guy gets busted with a kilo of cocaine and gets arrested. There's no need for a trial or jury just throw him in the river. If he floats he is guilty if he sinks he is innocent. It doesn't matter if that kilo was just baby powder the point is he was accused of possessing cocaine and that is enough anyone should need to pass judgment if he floats in the water.

Ah, I see that you aren't aware that your callous indifference to the fact that even one accuser pretty much risks everything about herself and her career when making such damning accusations against a suddenly high profile person. Clearly, there is no weight to that in your mind, therefore you hand-wave it away with some "hilarious!" bit you stole from a culturally popular British comedy movie.

The more you folks try to belittle women going in to public to face their abusers, the more you become the very witches and hags that you seek to drown. Just consider that.

 

[UglyCasanova]

It's like you guys honestly believe that women are lining up to accuse anyone and everyone of assaulting them for no reason other than to....be famous?

Nah of course not, if the allegations are false there’s always

1. Money
2. Feeling it’s for the greater good to protect abortion rights
3. Or the more likely scenario that they do believe it but their memory is hazed by 30+ years and alcohol so what they "remember" might not jive with reality

Or it could be true. Neither I nor you will ever know.

 

[zinfamous]

Nah of course not, if the allegations are false there’s always

1. Money
2. Feeling it’s for the greater good to protect abortion rights
3. Or the more likely scenario that they do believe it but their memory is hazed by 30+ years and alcohol so what they "remember" might not jive with reality

Or it could be true. Neither I nor you will ever know.

first of all, it's "jibe." It is not now and never was "jive," god damnit.

Second, 1 and 2 are exactly the nonsense that is destroyed by the simple fact that these people risk their professional and personal lives by doing this. There is simply too much at stake. I know that as a conservative, you and your peers simply don't understand anything other than "money," but there is more to life and a person's well-being. There simply is. YOu can't just handwave away the simplest of explanations by accusing someone of being a money-grubbing asshole.

Obviously horrible people exist in life, but it simply has no bearing on this platform, with these stakes. There is no logical reason that Ford would be doing this for money, and you goddamn know it. She has a solid, professional, respected life. She has plenty of money (hey! recall how you fools love people like Trump because you just think they will be great for the US because they are already filthy rich and so, of course, they don't need to steal my money! Well, guess what they always do--fucking steal 1.5 trillion of your dollars in less than a year. ...but of course they didn't because he said he never would. ....but this upper middle class, professional woman with absolutely no history of being a money-grubbing thieving asshole that wrecks lives for fun--just like Trump actually is--is suddenly a money-grubbing whore?)

No, it doesn't jibe. Not at all.

Your 2nd point is just loony toons nonsense. You've been gaslighted into believing a culture war exists that doesn't exist. I don't understand why you guys are always fighting some battle and only one side of those lines is ever populated. Did you ever stop to ask why you are always yelling at the clouds across from and above you?

 

[UglyCasanova]

I’ll say jive if I want

Money - everyone has a price tag. Hit that and your career doesn’t matter

Saving women - career doesn’t matter here either, falling on the sword for greater good

You never addressed point three which I said was the more likely scenario.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

If he's innocent and people have, under oath, committed perjury they should be in jail.

Now if I was being accused of such things, I'd want an independent investigation (fbi) to investigate the matter and clear my name. A lot of people aren't given such an opportunity. Don't you wonder why the president hasn't called for such an investigation if it would clear his pick?

Why the FBI ? The crimes were committed in Maryland or DC, both run by Democrats who knew about the alleged assault for 6 weeks before the Republicans did and if the allegations can be believed they are not subject to the Statute of Limitations. They can and should have been investigating all the allegations for over a month.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Your insistence that every single sentence be qualified with if and projection that my words assume guilt make me believe that you are not at all up in the air about the whole thing.

It's a legal thing.

 

[Maxima1]

Nah of course not, if the allegations are false there’s always

1. Money
2. Feeling it’s for the greater good to protect abortion rights
3. Or the more likely scenario that they do believe it but their memory is hazed by 30+ years and alcohol so what they "remember" might not jive with reality

Or it could be true. Neither I nor you will ever know.

It's more likely to be true for obvious reasons.

 

[ivwshane]

You never do

Oh damn! Super burn!

Be honest, you have your kids, who are in middle school, helping you write your posts, right?

Lol, now respond with something stupid!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Why can't he be prosecuted for these crimes if he admits to them? Maryland has no SoL on violent sexual offenses. Obviously, that should be the law of the land but hey--some people get it right.

This would be an ex-post facto change in law and I don't know how it would apply. Let's say you rob a bank but got away with it and the statue of limitations means you can't be prosecuted. Someone says. "Hey, let's get him anyway and make it as if there was never a statute of limitations to begin with".

I don't like that at all. Now from the point the change was enacted? Yep, absolutely but otherwise, no.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

This would be an ex-post facto change in law and I don't know how it would apply. Let's say you rob a bank but got away with it and the statue of limitations means you can't be prosecuted. Someone says. "Hey, let's get him anyway and make it as if there was never a statute of limitations to begin with".

I don't like that at all. Now from the point the change was enacted? Yep, absolutely but otherwise, no.

I thought that because Dr. Ford was a minor that it negated the SoL ?